I realize that this thread has been done before but this one is a somewhat new take on it.
My argument is that it's unimportant to bring up 18-10 because it counts nadal's victories over Federer twice.
There is that old argument:
"Look at who won more slams, there you have who is superior."
"Of course you would look at achievements, but how can you ignore that Nadal beat Fed so often?"
Here is where it becomes dumb: NOBODY is ignoring that fact. That fact is considered everytime somebody looks at Federer's slam count/career achievements and notices how puny they are.
Let's analyze what Federer would've achieved without those losses to Nadal:
24 major titles.
2 consecutive CYGS.
Winning 10 consecutive GS at one point and 6 consecutive at another.
Absolutely owning the **** out of the Masters 1000 titles (owning every single one but Shanghai and being ahead of Nadal and Agassi by a huge margin)
Having an even more dominant record at the top of the rankings.
If Nadal hadn't beaten Federer as often as he has, Federer would've made an absolute mockery of the sport. People would refer to "GOATs" as "Federers" as in "Fedor Emelianenko is the Federer of MMA".
The fact that Nadal beat him as often as he did is the exact reason why Federer only owns 17 majors. We aren't overlooking anything when we look at majors only.
The same way, ignoring the head to head doesn't take anything away from Nadal either: without all those victories over Federer, would be a 4 times major champion only. It is doubtful that he would've achieved even 50% of what he's achieved in his career.
This is why including the head to head record in Nadal's favour or against Federer's favour is redundant.
My argument is that it's unimportant to bring up 18-10 because it counts nadal's victories over Federer twice.
There is that old argument:
"Look at who won more slams, there you have who is superior."
"Of course you would look at achievements, but how can you ignore that Nadal beat Fed so often?"
Here is where it becomes dumb: NOBODY is ignoring that fact. That fact is considered everytime somebody looks at Federer's slam count/career achievements and notices how puny they are.
Let's analyze what Federer would've achieved without those losses to Nadal:
24 major titles.
2 consecutive CYGS.
Winning 10 consecutive GS at one point and 6 consecutive at another.
Absolutely owning the **** out of the Masters 1000 titles (owning every single one but Shanghai and being ahead of Nadal and Agassi by a huge margin)
Having an even more dominant record at the top of the rankings.
If Nadal hadn't beaten Federer as often as he has, Federer would've made an absolute mockery of the sport. People would refer to "GOATs" as "Federers" as in "Fedor Emelianenko is the Federer of MMA".
The fact that Nadal beat him as often as he did is the exact reason why Federer only owns 17 majors. We aren't overlooking anything when we look at majors only.
The same way, ignoring the head to head doesn't take anything away from Nadal either: without all those victories over Federer, would be a 4 times major champion only. It is doubtful that he would've achieved even 50% of what he's achieved in his career.
This is why including the head to head record in Nadal's favour or against Federer's favour is redundant.