View Single Post
Old 10-07-2012, 07:47 AM   #235
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 6,340

Originally Posted by Cup8489 View Post
No he didn't. He won 2008 Wimbledon 9-7 in the fifth, did not play 2009, won 2010. Get your facts straight. And that's a huge excuse for him to not defend his title.. Why do you make so many excuses for Nadal? You make more excuses than he does.. and in fact undermine his legendary determination by suggesting that something like personal issues with his parents would force him to SKIP a MAJOR.
Not being in a slam is not an excuse. He didn't play. That's a fact.

And Roddick was a worthy opponent. Don't act like the guy can't play tennis. I guess Rafa was lucky that he didn't have to play peak Djokovic for his whole career... he'd be a few majors short of what he is now.
Roddick is the weak era #1 and #2. He is not weak but he is no Nadal. I think everyone would agree.

Federer was the direct beneficiary of Nadal not being able to play in that Wimbledon .

Ok so you're suggesting that everytime that someone DOESN'T beat the defending champion it shouldn't count? That would strip Nadal of nearly all his majors, bub. All his FO's, his AO, his USO, one Wimbledon. So he'd be sitting with one major.

No not every time. But in the Nadal Federer rivalry it's a glaring fault In Feds career . Fed seems to win slams by basically not having to play Nadal.
"Federer has to beat Nadal(if he wants) to be considered the greatest ever, certainly in my book." Pete Sampras

Last edited by The Dark Knight; 10-07-2012 at 07:51 AM.
The Dark Knight is offline   Reply With Quote