Originally Posted by The Dark Knight
1- maybe to you the Olympics mean nothing . But they mean a lot to a lot of other people.
2- Federer says he is playing the best tennis of his life . Your argument is with him not me.
3- davydenko and Rosol are on paper head to head . Again you take the simplistic view . For example Davydenko has never played Nadal on anything but a hardcourt . Furthermore all the matches are a best of the three. And there's a difference of a ba match up like Rosol. Thy happens once in a blue moon .....but Nadal was beating everyone including Federer. It's not some weird thing that happens once in a blue moon.
4- 17 slams....yup that's all you got. An on paper and a robotic view your right. But a deeper more intellectual approach show that he got a majority of those slams by avoiding Nadal in some way.
1. You agree it isn't worth the same as a Slam, right?
2. Federer said he was playing "some" of his best Tennis, which means just that. Some. In bursts. Not consistently.
3. Nadal still lost to Rosol. And bringing up the HC argument is ironic coming from you, when you keep bringing up the Nadal-Federer head-to-head who've played half their matches on Clay.
4. And 24 Slam finals (including 5 at every Slam). And 6 YE championships, 2 of them in Djokovic's and Nadal's primes. And 23 consecutive SFs. And over 300 weeks at #1
Since Nadal's first Slam, Federer has won 13 Slams. And a 4-0 record against Nadal on indoor Hards. A triple-surface Bagel on Nadal. A 2-1 lead at Wimbledon. And he never lost to the Rosol. Seriously, what are you on about?