I have to agree with Zit here. I don't see how you could be the best ever if you constantly lose to another player in your generation. I know people usually have that one foe but it isn't like Nadal is some average player & he just happens to have Roger's #. He is a great player in his own right & owns Roger.
Come on. Your argument is no argument. I'm not saying that Federer hasn't done more so far in his career, I'm saying that the fact that he has been dominated by Nadal head-to-head
many times in MAJOR matches is a big factor against him being labeled the best player of all time. Your reply is to just dismiss their head-to-head record because of Federer's record against other people.
You can't fault Fed for making a ton of finals on clay and losing to Nadal (the greatest clay court player ever IMO). Why does Fed almost always face other opponents in the finals of hard court tourneys? Nadal has never even made the finals of the US Open. The gap between Nadal and the rest of the field on hard courts is slim. The gap between Fed and the rest of the field on clay is still fairly significant. On a scale of 1-10, let's say Federer is a 10 on grass, a 9.5 on hard courts, and a 9 on clay. Let's say Nadal is a 10 on clay, 8.5 on grass, and 8 on hard courts. I'm not saying those numbers are accurate, I just pulled that out of my ass, but in theory you get the idea. Fed is a much more well rounded player on all surfaces. Yea he gets his ass kicked by Nadal on clay... but that's because he's constantly making the finals of clay tourneys even though it is his worst surface. Obviously their overall record is close on non-clay surfaces, but I agree with the sentiment that over a larger sample size Fed would prove more dominant. Let's see Nadal make the finals of a couple US Opens and I bet you Fed is waiting there on the other side of the bracket to kick his ass. Fed is definitely better overall, their head to head record means shit because Fed usually faces Nadal on clay. It's like if the Suns played the Lakers 21 times in a row in Phoenix. The Suns could easily go 13-8... something like that. Does that make the Suns the better team? No, just means that more often than not the Suns were playing with more favorable factors going their way.
But for the record, I do consider Nadal the 2nd best player of all time and I'm in love with his whiplash follow through on his forehand.
But for the record, I do consider Nadal the 2nd best player of all time and I'm in love with his whiplash follow through on his forehand.
to be honest when NAdal beat Fed on grass in the match of the century that hurt Feds claims as best ever..he lost on his best surface to a guy that beats his ass off that surface as well..
love Fed but not best player in his era...until he does what Nadal did and beat him on nadals best surface Clay in a final at least once..then lets talk again....
love Fed but not best player in his era...until he does what Nadal did and beat him on nadals best surface Clay in a final at least once..then lets talk again....
Um, get your facts straight. Nadal has played Wimbledon 5 times, made the finals 3 times, and won it once. His win % there is 85%. Getting to the finals 60% of the time one plays is
hardly "rare" as you said.
He's played the Aussie 6 times and made the qtrs 4 times, and won it once. Winning the Australian is hardly "can't get into the finals" as you said.
one guy has 6 majors with 4 of them being 1 event. the other has 16 , won the grand slam , played in 23 straight semi finals. not hard to figure out who's had a greater career.. i still rank borg and laver and sampras ahead of nadal...
come see me when he wins a couple more majors other than the french.... like most of your ejaculations i reckon , you're premature in calling nadal the best ever..
like i said , i'm a huge nadal fan and think he has the potential to be the best ever.. i dont think his body can take the pounding of the hard courts..
