Come on, this is not the same and you know it. Nadal is not just another all-time great, like Agassi and Agassi was mentally weak and non existent in Pete's prime. Rafa is a fellow goat contender. It's first time in history two goat contenders are playing. And margins are low. Even 3% in form can make a difference.
I think you have this backwards. Agassi was non-existent for a period during Sampras' prime mainly because of Sampras. Further, Agassi's (and Nadal's) slam count are also influenced by their H2H. If Fed had beaten Nadal in those 2 5-setters, Federer would've had 19 slams while Nadal would've been at 11.
Similarly, if Agassi had beaten Sampras in 3 of their 6 meetings at Wim/USO (say, 1990 USO, 1995 USO, and 2002 USO or 1999 Wim), Agassi would've been at 11 slams and Sampras would've been at 11 slams. And then we would've put Agassi as an all-time great too and on par with Sampras. It is to Sampras' credit that he didn't allow Agassi to beat him in slams which he thought were his favourable grounds. And Sampras certainly didn't choke against Agassi or anybody.
The difference between Sampras and Agassi is also just as small as it is between Fed and Nadal. The difference between top players is always very small. And it usually comes down to who executes better on the key points. Agassi is a great player on Deco Turf II (just see his USO performances against Fed in 2004 and 2005 when Agassi was 34-35 yrs old). It's to Sampras' credit that he kept his cool and executed better.
OTOH, when you lose to a journeyman player, it doesn't indicate a mental weakness or lack of resolve. Most often, it just means that the player was in the zone on that day (see Berdych vs. Fed in the 2004 Olympics) and that he just played out of his mind. It happens.
Like you said champions are special because of their mentality, their mettle. And my overriding point is that Fed is lagging in this regard compared to other all-time greats.
Those guys are probably nr.1 and nr.2 in the open era. Or both nr.1. How can you compare Nadal with other rivals who were just all-time greats.
And Fed didn't choke. You have to lead first to choke. And Rafa is amazing at breaking players when they are ahead.
I just posted you two stats to show that Fed was leading first. Wim 2008: 2nd set, leading 4-1, choked. AO 2009, should've won the 1st set, he choked; and had many opportunities to break serve in the 2nd set and squandered them away.
Rome 2006 is another example.
Are you seriously denying that Fed has mental issues against Nadal ? Comon, I would say you are in denial. It's so easy to see.
Let me add that if Nadal had not reversed his H2H in slams against Djok after the 2011 0-7 slide, I would've had the same complaint against him. Thankfully, Nadal reversed it.
It's tough to say who is better. Fed is greater vs the field, Rafa seems to be able to beat Fed more. For now Fed has greater achievements.
And you know Rafa's h2h vs rivals is misleading cuz of clay. And Rafa doesn't have younger talents of his and Nole's caliber chasing him to beat him. So he has a bit easier.
I'm saying in the end maybe they will be considered equal. But please don't put Rafa on the level of Agassi, cuz it's not even close.
Agassi was the same age as Pete, so no advantage for Agassi. Agassi was mentally weak compared to Rafa. Agassi was not present for a lot of the time. And Rafa is way better than Agassi. And a lefty too. Rafa in a GS final is on a hole different level than any of the rivals. He is not even a rival, he is a goat contender.
And still Fed found a way to win so much. I mean if you just look the h2h and saying Rafa is better, you have some basis. But you have to look this in the context of their entire career. Like, surfaces, matchup, age...
With Rafa's current achievements I still don't see h2h being enough to put him on top of Fed overall. Those guys are just amazing. I believe both can win on other surfaces. Fed a bit more versatile. But peak vs peak I really think Fed has the edge on HC and grass, while Rafa on clay. To bad they didn't play peak vs peak.
It's just me, but I don't think Fed is that bad, just Rafa is that great. Both are from another planet. Very close in peak skills, but Fed can bring his best game a bit more consistently, that's why I give slight edge to him now.
They are a bit unlucky playing together. But Fed is a bit more unlucky because he didn't get a chance to play Rafa in decline and also surfaces slowed down to hurt his game a bit more. Experience doesn't help you vs Rafa, since you are too old to execute. I mean Fed was having problems to Nole and Murray too, not just Rafa. And started to lose to all sorts of people in 2008, not just Rafa. So, age matters. No way peak Fed loses to guys like Delpo, Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling at majors. He even lost to Nole in 2008 in straight sets.
You are just acting like bad h2h with Rafa throws away everything Fed has done. Why are you so against Fed anyway? Why the hate?
I never said that Nadal is, as of now, greater than Fed. The slam difference is too high. I'm just saying why H2H between rivals is important, and why it's certainly more important than the H2H between a top player and a fringe player. A rival brings a challenge that determines the mental strength, the resolve of a champion. It's easy to be cool and calm against someone who you know is not as good as you (either game wise or mentally)
And I'm pointing out that Fed is not mentally as strong as a GOAT player should be.
I certainly don't hate Fed, but I will say that I was disappointed in his response to Nadal's challenge. I can totally see the losses on clay. But on grass and even on HC, Fed should win. His game is better suited to both surfaces.
