Simply The Best

Steve agrees with our own MMT:

I thought the reason Nadal succeeded against Federer was that, from the first time they played and Nadal won in Key Biscayne in 2004, the Spaniard didn’t treat a match against the world No. 1 any differently from a match against anyone else. He would never entertain the idea that playing close against Federer and losing was acceptable. But I never really believed that Nadal was a better tennis player than Federer. Can I continue to think that now that he’s beaten him on grass and hard courts, in major finals on three continents? The Aussie final upended some of my impressions of their dynamic. Federer has always been thought to be tennis’ renaissance man, his creativity unrivaled; but it was Nadal, with his superior drop shot, invincible overhead, tricky serve, fearsome crosscourt backhand, skidding backhand slice, and reliable volleys, who showed off more variety, a more complete game, and more ways to win in Melbourne.