Federer v Nadal. Game, set, match?

The dust has long since settled and Switzerland's Roger Federer has achieved an unprecedented 16 Grand Slam titles, overtaking Pete Sampras' previous best of 14. The Swiss also holds the record for most consecutive weeks as the world's number one, 237. With all this in mind, surely he is the greatest of all time?

Ace: But Nadal has the Indian sign over Federer

Federer can also lay claim to the fact that he has won all four of the Grand Slams, something only six others have done in the history of the game.

While there are several reasons to suggest he is the greatest, there is one over-riding argument against it - Rafael Nadal is better. Until he overcomes Nadal, which now appears unlikely as Federer enters the autumn of his career, doubts will persist as to his true claim to be the best ever.

For a start, the Spaniard is one of the six who has won each of the slams on offer.

And Despite Federer’s record-breaking period as world number one, the rankings can frequently giving a false reading. Much depends on fitness as, when injured, a player accrues no points, whereas even the less talented players can gain points just by playing and winning the occasional match. This contributes towards the quirks regularly on offer in the ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals) rankings. Take note of the Williams sisters’ bizarre rankings of 17 and 29, respectively, in the women's latest list.

It is highly unlikely we would even be talking about Federer's feats had Nadal stayed fit throughout Federer’s period of domination. Mallorca-born Nadal would undoubtedly have won last year’s French Open, something he had done for the previous four years (beating Federer en route to victory on each occasion), but for a knee injury curtailing his progress early on in the tournament. Admittedly, Federer was there to pick up the pieces to win at Roland Garros for the first time, but he has never even come close to defeating Nadal on clay, with the exception of a fortuitous win in Hamburg two years ago.

When we look at the last three years at Wimbledon, a pattern becomes clear. Remember, grass is Federer's strongest surface and therefore the courts of SW19 are ideally suited to the man from Basel.

In 2007 he came through to win the title against Nadal in somewhat fortunate circumstances. Rafa was on top until a knee injury prevented him from performing at his best for the final dozen or so games and Federer managed to take full advantage of his opponent’s disability.

In 2008 Nadal not only outplayed his opponent by putting in the performance of his life, but displayed arguably the greatest tennis performance in the history of the game to beat Federer in that memorable final.

And then to 2009, Federer had been on the wane for the previous 12 months with his record against Nadal deteriorating further still. Their current head to head in Grand Slams stands at 9-6 in the Spaniard's favour, with Nadal winning five of the last six meetings. But those statistics are put into greater perspective when you look at their head to head in Grand Slams, where Nadal leads 5-2, winning the last three in a row.

So it is difficult to imagine Federer winning another grand slam with a fully fit Nadal in opposition.

Even though Federer won Wimbledon in 2009, Nadal’s absence was without doubt the biggest contributing factor.

The competition contained some exciting matches that enthralled the crowd as much any other Wimbledon in previous years but the overall quality was probably at its lowest since 2003. Can you really imagine Andy Roddick pushing Nadal to five sets and to 14 all in the final set? The American has never come close to winning Wimbledon before or since.

Can you really imagine a fully fit Nadal only breaking the American's serve once in nearly 40 games as Federer managed in that final two years ago?

This is not to say that Federer cannot do something about it. Should he dispel the myth that Nadal has the Indian sign over him by actually beating him in a fair contest in the future, and perhaps improve his record against him, then he could definitely be regarded, unequivocally, as the greatest.

It is just that it appears extremely unlikely that he will do that.

Nadal's career, when his knees have been strong enough, has been on an upward curve (at least until the beginning of this year when Djokovic came to the fore) whilst Federer's has been in decline for about three years. And unless he can rediscover that forehand that used to be so deadly, the 16 times grand slam winner will almost certainly never win another major again.

The Guardian’s tennis journalist, Kevin Mitchell, is in no doubt where the big two’s career’s are heading. He said: “At this point in their careers, Nadal (is ahead). He is five years younger, owns
three of the Slams and still getting to finals. Federer has not won a slam since Australia 2010, although he still goes deep into nearly every tournament. I think he will retire after the Olympics.”

Much in the future, of course, depends on Nadal's long-term fitness. When asked if Nadal could eventually overtake Federer’s Grand Slam record of 16, Mitchell said: “He can if his knees hold out.”

The problem for Federer now is that Djokovic has at last found some consistency, squeezing the former world number one down to third in the latest ATP rankings.

Whichever way you look at it, any claims that Federer's is the best of all time will always be overshadowed by Nadal because how can the world's greatest ever player be dominated to such a degree by his ultimate rival?

Could Schumacher be regarded as the best if he was consistently beaten by Mika Hakkinen or Jacques Villeneuve?

Would Mohammed Ali be so revered if George Foreman or Sonny Liston had frequently demonstrated they were better than him?

The answer to all of the above is of course not.