View Single Post
Old 10-07-2012, 08:47 AM   #239
Cup8489
Legend
 
Cup8489's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Silvis, IL
Posts: 8,906
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Knight View Post
No.....but some yes. For example he won two wimbys in a row. He was then to injured and/or personal issues with his parents and couldn't play the third year to defend his title .
looks like you've just made an excuse here..

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Knight View Post
Not being in a slam is not an excuse. He didn't play. That's a fact.





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 .





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.
And that's Federer's fault that Nadal didnt reach him every time? You can only beat who is in front of you; Nadal didn't make it that far, so he didn't play Federer. Who's to say that he'd have won all of those matches?

You're just making crap up, tryign to make your hero sound like GOAT. He's not. he only has 11 majors, and less than 150 weeks at number one. Zero WTF's. Not GOAT material, not yet.

Don't punish Federer because your guy isn't good enough to make it to him during his prime.
__________________
"And what if there IS a difference? The fact is I heard a difference, regardless if there actually is a difference or not."
Cup8489 is offline   Reply With Quote