Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
Yes such a buzz of dominance that whenever he played a clay event you expected him to lose, and whenever he played Nadal you expected him to lose. Such a buzz of dominance that such noted individuals as McEnroe, Connors, and Bud Collins picked Federer to lose the 2006 Wimbledon final at the peak of his dominance to baby Nadal who should have lost in 3 sets to Robert Kendrick earlier in the tournament, and had not Nadal not choked serving out the 2nd set is probably what would have happened as well. Never has there been a buzz of dominance like that.
Nobody gives a f*ck what McEnroe or whoever thought. Most intelligent people expected Federer to win and he did. He shoved a bagel up Nadal's ***, a fact that you seemingly ignore.
So what if he lost to Nadal on clay? You are the guy who props Nadal up as the clay god. His matchup problems are well documented. Nadal on the other hand benefitted from a weakened field. Federer did too to a certain extent, but with Federer, he looked unbeatable against any hypothetical opponent. We all know that Nadal would've been pummeled by Djokovic on hardcourts and lose to peak Federer on faster surfaces. Federer on the other hand would only be expected to lose in Paris. The AO was not yet played on plexicushion.
Nadal got outplayed hard by Murray in Melbourne and failed to win the WTF, even though it was played on a slow surface.
Compare Federer's winning percentage in that year with Nadal's and then come back to me.