Originally Posted by jacobhiggins
Well even at 20 Federer had a more complete game and more shots then Nadal does. That's the big difference between the two. Federer ALWAYS had a complete all court all surface game, it was only his consistency that was suspect when he was younger!
That's why the whole age debate doesn't make any sense to me. Federer was very unsual and got good late unlike Nadal who got good very early in his career. That doesn't mean Nadal will improve like Federer did though. He never had the game Federer did or does.
i didnt say federer had a less complete game than nadal when he was 20
but base on all the results, he really wasnt as good as nadal....
nevermind, my comparison is not appropraite... we cannot compare a 20 years old nadal and a 20 years old federer, maybe a 20 years old federer can beat nadal but not a 25 years old federer, who knows?
(and I am not being sarcastic..... )