Why Rafael Nadal is better than Roger Federer when it comes to clay courts?
442692
the clay surface slows down the hard-hit balls and makes them easier to get to.  Clay matches take forever because there are few easy points.  Thus, a player like Federer, who relies on power, finds that he has less of an advantage because players have more time to get to his shots.  He cannot adapt because he does not know how to play a consist ant game where winners are not necessary.  The clay takes the sting out of his shots.  Nadal, on the other hand, does not have a power game.  He knows how to grind out matches by consistency and not go for winners.  So, he can beat Federer because he can outlast him.
506285
For the men, Rafael Nadal has just tied the winning streak on clay set by Guillermo Vilas in 1977.  That year, Vilas won the French Open and U.S. Open.  When Tomas Muster won the French Open, he had been on a huge win streak.  Nadal also beat Federer in an incredibly close match to tie the record, and Federer is number 1.  It's tougher to say who the favorite for the women is.
442505
I'd love to see Federer win but Nadal still seems the safest bet. That said, with all the hype surrounding the clay-court winning streak, it almost seems like he could be riding for a fall. It often happens that way in sports. When someone is seen as so much of an invincible favorite going into a championship, that's when an upset or an injury or some other kind of misfortune occurs. Look at the New York Yankees. In 2000 they won the World Series over the Mets (the famous "Subway Series"). The next year they go out as HEAVY favorites over the Diamondbacks and...LOSE! So yes, stranger things have happened.\nAs far as my favorite of the two. Federer, hands down. Such all-round dominance over the past 3 years, 7 Slams without losing in a final, the best game to watch by a long way. He mixes offense and defense, and can hit every coceivable shot.\nFavorite of all-time. I guess, Sampras. When you look at what he did for most of a decade against a particularly strong top ten. The amount of classic matches. He's a natural pick. \nFederer looks like he could reach that level, but he's still got a lot of winning to do first
1002977
Absolutely Roger Federer. First of all, he's one it 3 consecutive times before. Second of all, his ethic for playing on grass is better than anyone else in the world...he has unbelievable control, his determination has proved great, and not to mention, his strokes are long and powerful. He is the winner, hands down. On the women's side...I think it's Maria Sharapova's time again...though she'll have difficult opponents and lost in the third round of the French, she is best on grass, and she can really get her play to where it belongs this year.
1186896
The Perfect Tennis Player would play in and win every tournament they entered. They would have to be good on clay, hardcourt, and grass. Oh yeah, there is no such thing as a perfect tennis player.\n\nTechnically two surfaces can make a great player. Sampras was great on grass and hardcourt, but was horrific on clay. The best type of tennis player is an all around tennis player like Roger Federer. That is why he is so superior to guys like Andy Roddick, who can only contend on hardcourt and grass.
1042575
only n only n only rolland garros coz nadal defeat federer there everytime
755231
On the indoor court of shanghai, Nadal has very little chance over Federer. Nadal needs the clay court to defeat Federer, he is extremely inconsistent on the hard. In truth, no player has a realistic chance of beating Federer given no unfortunate injuries or sicknesses. Robredo and Blake are dark horses but you couldn't consider them. Roddick and Lubricic have shown in the past to be extremely ineffective against the Federer game, and Davydenko is Mr. Consistent, defeating all the opponents you expect him to beat and losing to all the opponents you expect him to lose to (this means Federer). This leaves Nalbandian, the only player I rate this year to have any chance at lifting the trophy. We saw what happened last year, I admit it was extremely close and Federer wasn't feeling 100%, but Nalbandian deserves to be highly considered as the defending champion.\n\nGiving that Nadal and Nalbandian need special requirements to beat Federer, I believe there is only one man who has a game that is as good as Federers', and unfortunately we only see it for 2 or 3 weeks every year. I'm talking about Safin, who in my opinion, is extremely disappointing and I expected him to be one of tennis' great champions when I saw the damage he could dish out earlier in his career when he seemed to have a greater drive to win (albeit with colourful "passion").\n\nIn the end, it's Nalbandian with the greatest, if prehaps still slim, chance of defeating Federer.
301088
Chalk another one up for Nadal. There are some other decent players left in the tournament, but noone who's likely to threaten Nadal.
596271
MEN:\nIt is most likely that Nadal will make it into the final, but if Federer makes it to the final too, Federer might beat Nadal. Federer has been adjusting to Nadal's play on clay, and i think Federer will put an end to Nadal's winning streak on clay, because what goes up must come down. But, if Federer does not make it to the Final (maybe gets beaten by Nalbandian if on the same side of the draw), then Nadal has the best chance. So my point is: Federer has the best chance then the rest at beating Nadal on clay.\n\nWOMEN:\nThis one is mostly a wild guess since dominance in women's tennis is very distributed. In fact, there has not been a women in tennis in the past 10(?) grand slams that has won at least 2 out of those 10(?) grand slams. But here are my predictions of who has a chance: WINNERS: Hardenne, Petrova, or Kuznetsova. RUNNER UPS: Hingis, Clijsters, or Mauresmo.
20598
Depends on the surface: \n\nOn Grass Pete Sampras in his prime is the best has an edge over Federer, Sampras had the best serve in the game.\n\nOn Hard court, Sampras and Federer would be evenly matched. \n\nClay court: Many players. \n\nOverall: Sampras is the greatest for now, unless Federer beats his grand slams record.
1163109
Rafael Nadal  is THE BEST
629778
No way. Certainly not yet. He would need to make a lot of changes to his game before that happens. For example, his serve needs to improve and he needs a better volley. The low bounce on grass would hurt his timing too. It would also take the kick off of his shots. Recent history doesn't bode well for him either. You've got to go way back to Bjorn Borg in the 70s to find a player who truly mastered both clay and grass.
1084029
Justine Henin-Hardenne won the French Open on the women's side against Svetlana Kuznetsova by a score of 6-4, 6-4.\n\nI was actually surprised that Nadal won.  Federer is such a dominating player against everyone else, and it's surprising that he could get beaten 4 times in a row by Nadal.  I guess it shows Nadal's competence on clay and against Federer.  That's one thing Federer needs to work on.
508723
Highly unlikely. \nYes, he has achieved an amazing amount of success for such a young player. He won the French Open last year, he's closing in on the all-time record for consecutive clay-court wins, he's already risen to #2 in the world. But it is going to be next to impossible to take over the #1 ranking as a one-surface player.\nI know a lot has been made of Nadal's progress on hardcourts, but many recent clay-courters have achieved some success on hardcourts. There is a big difference between winning a tournament or two on a surface and becoming a real threat for the Majors on that suface. Lets not forget that Federer has had much more success on clay than Nadal has had on hardcourts (let alone grass).\nUntil or unless Nadal picks up his game away from the red stuff, he's unlikely to seriously threaten Federer's reign at the top of the mens game.
485576
I think Federer is a great tennis player, but it must take a long time before he can be  as good and as famous as Agassi and Pete Sampras!
403337
For now, I would say Sampras because he did it for longer.  They both can play various styles but within that variety,  I'd say Sampras was more of a classic power player and Federer the more "artistic", touch player.\n\nWhen it's all said and done, and if Federer has a few more dominant years, I think that most people will answer your question with "Federer".  I'm definitely pulling for him to break Sampras' record for most majors won in a career.
449426
One thing is that hes in incredible shape. Next time you watch him play, notice he isnt sweating much halfway into the match. Meanwhile, his opponent is visibly getting worn and cant keep up with Federer's pace. Another thing is he has great athletic ability. Meaning, he makes great saves/shots left and right, so he almost never gets beat by a great shot. Most of all though...he's extremely FOCUSED!!!