No it doesn't. If Federer had won more slams after Nadal's reign it wouldn't even be called Nadal's reign, it would be a continuation of Federer. Two players rarely reign at once.
Either way, Nadal already started winning slams in 2005. When Nadal won RG Federer only won 5 slams.
The fact Federer won 12 grand slams out of 17 before Nadal's reign says a lot.
I don't think he could win that many if he was playing against mature and experienced Nadal, Novak and Murray.
It certainly does. Somehow Roddick and Nalbandian are > Murray and Wawrinka though.
It certainly does. Somehow Roddick and Nalbandian are > Murray and Wawrinka though.
Sis I like you as a fellow Serena fan but you need to up that ATP knowledge. Nadal started winning slams ONE YEAR after Roger first slam. Plus, put that Nalbandian argument to rest cause he never met him in a slam final
Tsonga, and now Murray today 
Plus several masters on hard before 2007 
