Originally Posted by Cup8489
Fallacious argument. If a guy thoroughly dominates all but ONE single person, and that person is not of equal dominance over the field, there's no actual proof that the one who is not of equal dominance is in fact better at tennis than the one with more dominance.
If Fed, for instance, had 500 majors... no sane person would POSSIBLY suggest Nadal was better than he just because of the h2h.
Thus, your illogical thought processes are totally revealed.
if Nadal was at 15 or more majors, this would be a relevant discussion. He is not.
Nadal is of equal dominance.....in fact Nadal is more dominat.
Nadal at 26 years has had less opportunity than Federer . Second Nadal facd tougher competition. Third Nadal missed six slams and still somehow managed to win 11 slams by beating everyone,
I'm sorry.....but Nadal is just better than Fed. It's really simple.....you can try and explain it away but Nadal is just simplybbettervthan fed because he beats fed. Therefore Federer cannot be the goat.