Has a winning record against Federer (11-9) and a crap record against Nadal (5-11)
Djokovic also is pretty even with Federer (13-15) but even despite the infamous 7-match win streak trails Rafa 14-19 in the H2H.
Basically Rafa will retire with all of his chief rivals having losing records against him.
Fed, by contrast, will retire with losing records to Nadal, Murray, and likely to Djokovic. And yet Fed is the GOAT???
Taking the h2h argument, Davydenko is a better player than Nadal, and Murray is more of an all-time GOAT then Federer.
Nope. 1 extra win doesn't prove anything at all.
If Davydenko was leading Nadal 18-10 then he (most likely) would have many majors.
The argument is Nadal owns a decent lead over every one of his top 4 rivals. It's not just 1 win, Federer is 2 losses from becoming his goose.
The "matchup" argument might've worked if Nadal was only owning Fed but not any of the other top 4 players. But Nadal has a decent lead over all of them both in terms of meetings overall and meetings at majors.
Furthermore, Davydenko does not own a single slam victory against Nadal either. Whilst Nadal owns 8 over Federer and this is in finals and semi's, not the early rounds.
No one said anything about him not being an all time great. And it is not hate to think that Federer is the goat. Stop misrepresenting.Why is it so hard for people to recognize him as an all-time great.
Basically Rafa will retire with all of his chief rivals having losing records against him.
Fed, by contrast, will retire with losing records to Nadal, Murray, and likely to Djokovic. And yet Fed is the GOAT???
Throw out hard court matches. That's not a proper tennis surface. Clay and grass are.
Nadal is better than his rivals. 11 is better than 17 isn't it?
Haha quality over quantity my friend. Nadal's had to beat top 4 opponents in all his slam wins, this isn't the case with Federer who's won 6 majors without facing the top 4 seeds.
Could you imagine if Nadal played in 6 majors these days and didn't have to face anyone from the top 4? He'd take them no problem.
Not to mention he's been forced to beat Federer to win 7 of his 11 majors whilst Fed has only had to beat Nadal for 2 of his 17 majors.
Nadal's had to deal with peak Federer right from the start and now peak Djokovic and despite this still has 11 majors. Fed didn't have to deal with a peak Nadal from the start which is why he racked up so many majors from 04-07.
If Rafa didn't have to face peak Fed AND peak Djokovic he would have WIM06, WIM07, WIM11, USO11 and AO12. That's 5 more majors at the age of 26! Now you could make the same argument for Fed and say if he didn't have to face Nadal he'd have 22 majors, but you must remember, Fed was in his peak and Nadal wasn't until 2008, Fed wasn't dealing with peak Rafa at RG from 04-07, but Rafa WAS dealing with peak Fed in those WIM finals he lost and he also actually won against peak Fed up there as well (which is something Fed couldn't do to Rafa at RG) and Rafa WAS dealing with peak Novak in 2011-2012.
To any unbiased fan, Rafa has had it MUCH tougher than Fed.
Haha quality over quantity my friend. Nadal's had to beat top 4 opponents in all his slam wins, this isn't the case with Federer who's won 6 majors without facing the top 4 seeds.
Could you imagine if Nadal played in 6 majors these days and didn't have to face anyone from the top 4? He'd take them no problem.
Not to mention he's been forced to beat Federer to win 7 of his 11 majors whilst Fed has only had to beat Nadal for 2 of his 17 majors.
Nadal's had to deal with peak Federer right from the start and now peak Djokovic and despite this still has 11 majors. Fed didn't have to deal with a peak Nadal from the start which is why he racked up so many majors from 04-07.
If Rafa didn't have to face peak Fed AND peak Djokovic he would have WIM06, WIM07, WIM11, USO11 and AO12. That's 5 more majors at the age of 26! Now you could make the same argument for Fed and say if he didn't have to face Nadal he'd have 22 majors, but you must remember, Fed was in his peak and Nadal wasn't until 2008, Fed wasn't dealing with peak Rafa at RG from 04-07, but Rafa WAS dealing with peak Fed in those WIM finals he lost and he also actually won against peak Fed up there as well (which is something Fed couldn't do to Rafa at RG) and Rafa WAS dealing with peak Novak in 2011-2012.
To any unbiased fan, Rafa has had it MUCH tougher than Fed.
No one's going to remember who Fed beat to win his majors. You can only beat the guys across the net. That is fact.
No one's going to remember who Fed beat to win his majors. But he beat the players who beat the top guys. You can only beat the ones across the net. That is fact.
Don't bother wasting your breath on him. Just a butthurt *******.
Yes, that shows Federer has been around more than Nadal. His 23 SF or better, and ongoing 35 QF or better streaks are a testament to that.Not to mention he's been forced to beat Federer to win 7 of his 11 majors whilst Fed has only had to beat Nadal for 2 of his 17 majors.
Haha quality over quantity my friend. Nadal's had to beat top 4 opponents in all his slam wins, this isn't the case with Federer who's won 6 majors without facing the top 4 seeds.
Could you imagine if Nadal played in 6 majors these days and didn't have to face anyone from the top 4? He'd take them no problem.
Not to mention he's been forced to beat Federer to win 7 of his 11 majors whilst Fed has only had to beat Nadal for 2 of his 17 majors.
Nadal's had to deal with peak Federer right from the start and now peak Djokovic and despite this still has 11 majors. Fed didn't have to deal with a peak Nadal from the start which is why he racked up so many majors from 04-07.
If Rafa didn't have to face peak Fed AND peak Djokovic he would have WIM06, WIM07, WIM11, USO11 and AO12. That's 5 more majors at the age of 26! Now you could make the same argument for Fed and say if he didn't have to face Nadal he'd have 22 majors, but you must remember, Fed was in his peak and Nadal wasn't until 2008, Fed wasn't dealing with peak Rafa at RG from 04-07, but Rafa WAS dealing with peak Fed in those WIM finals he lost and he also actually won against peak Fed up there as well (which is something Fed couldn't do to Rafa at RG) and Rafa WAS dealing with peak Novak in 2011-2012.
To any unbiased fan, Rafa has had it MUCH tougher than Fed.
Nope. 1 extra win doesn't prove anything at all.
If Davydenko was leading Nadal 18-10 then he (most likely) would have many majors.
The argument is Nadal owns a decent lead over every one of his top 4 rivals. It's not just 1 win, Federer is 2 losses from becoming his goose.
The "matchup" argument might've worked if Nadal was only owning Fed but not any of the other top 4 players. But Nadal has a decent lead over all of them both in terms of meetings overall and meetings at majors.
Furthermore, Davydenko does not own a single slam victory against Nadal either. Whilst Nadal owns 8 over Federer and this is in finals and semi's, not the early rounds.
Isn't it bizarre that some of his fans believe the entire field means nothing but one player means everything? You could say Davy is better than his rivals because of his h2h against Nadal(one player). Who cares about 11 > 0.Nadal is better than his rivals. 11 is better than 17 isn't it?
To any unbiased fan, Rafa has had it MUCH tougher than Fed.
Isn't it bizarre that some of his fans believe the entire field means nothing but one player means everything? You could say Davy is better than his rivals because of his h2h against Nadal(one player). Who cares about 11 > 0.
Eh...all of their slams they've won was when both are on the pro tour. Fed 1998 and Nadal 2001 was the time they turned pro, so it's the same field, not like the split fields during the 60s.
You're Sharpshooter, right? What do you think of Rock V Cena II at Wrestlemania this year? CM Punk V Undertaker? Triple H V Lesnar II?
As for your statement above, you are welcome and fully entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. All I know is mathematics is the law of the universe, everything else is subjective, my friend. I think Djokovic has more quality slams than both Federer and Nadal...
Yes, that shows Federer has been around more than Nadal. His 23 SF or better, and ongoing 35 QF or better streaks are a testament to that.
haha. According to sharpshooter, 6 has to be greater than 11 because of more quality. Personally I don't see how quality is difference when all of them are competing against one another. Anyone could argue that if the AO was always played on rebound ace with prime Fed and Safin, who knows if Nole would still have 4 AO titles. Or prime Fed stop Nole in 2011 Wimbledon. It's all subjective like you say.
302 that is.Oh, he could even believe Nadal would have more than 237 weeks at #1 too.
302 that is.