Can Nadal even be considered the GOAT?

[Magnus]

Not that I give a crap about who is the GOAT, but since anti-Federer threads are a trend now, I figured maybe I'll raise a point here.

Nadal has never defended a slam off clay.

Nadal has only won 4 slams off clay. Fed has 16, Djokovic has 6, Murray now has 2 and will likely catch Nadal off clay as well.

A player that lost in the 2nd and 1st rounds of the most important tennis event of the year twice in a row at the peak of his career.

As far as HC goes, I wouldn't even rank Nadal in the top 10 of all time. Heck, not even the top 20. He's slightly better on grass but again, he's not top 10.

True, nobody touches his results on clay, and only a few players over the years have given him any problem on the surface. But clay is just 1/4 slams. In the other 3, Nadal is very ORDINARY. He won them all, sure, but was he dominant? How many finals did he reach? How many consecutive semis or even QFs at slams? Nadal has got very little to sell as a GOAT.

I don't believe anyone is the GOAT, as everyone has advantages and disadvantages, but Nadal isn't even a player worth considering, imo.

Can people actually consider him the GOAT? Seriously?

If so, Agassi comes right into the discussion as well.

 

[mike danny]

well imo he is an all-time great on all surfaces. there aren't many players who have 4 slams off-clay. but yeah it is true. his resume can be considered an all-time great now but lacks the goat calibre.

and it is not mainly the competition. the competition did not stop nadal from reaching more hardcourt final for ex. between 2008-2013(6 years) he reached only 4 hardcourt finals in 11 hardcourt slams played while djokovic for ex. reached 7. murray as well reached 4. djokovic is not responsible for his failures. he lost only 2 finals against djokovic. what stopped him from reaching more finals and giving himself more opportunities?

like i said in another thread. he dominated one surface which makes him the clay goat. but on his second favourtie surface in his prime he lost in the 2nd and 1st round respectively and has only 2 slams. sampras and federer have dominated 2 surfaces and convincingly at number of titles and number of finals reached.

even the h2h agaist his main rivals is clay related. he trails both djokovic and federer(yes even federer)outside of it. the h2h simply implies that his rivlas were very consistent on rafa's favorite surface while rafa was not as consistent on theirs. rafa is simply the king of clay and this rwsult in better h2h's. i doubt he would have the same numbers had those 2 not reached so many clay finals.

he is an all-time great but he still is far from goat. and i have not mentioned the weeks at no.1 and always being behind his main rivals at no.2. one cannot be no.2 on 2 different occassions and still preted to be goat when there are others who have stood more at the top.(i think djokovic will have more weeks at no.1 when all is said and done. he already had more years end no.1 than rafa)

 

[mike danny]

sorry my mistake. i meant consecutive years. they both have 2 years end no.1 but nole has 2 in a row which shows he is more consistent than rafa

 

[tennisMVP]

The greatest commentator of all-time has already made Nadal the GOAT-

http://rafaelnadalfans.com/2013/06/...-ever-even-with-a-first-round-wimbledon-loss/

“This guy is to me, I think you can make an argument right here and now, the greatest player that ever lived. If you look at his record against [Andy] Murray, [Roger] Federer, and [Novak] Djokovic, it’s way better than that. He won the Olympics. He’s got Davis Cups, which Roger doesn’t have. I have always said Roger Federer to me was the greatest player that ever lived, certainly the most beautiful player. But I’m going to tell you right here and now there’s a definite argument, I’m starting to lean toward Rafa.”
--John McEnroe

Nobody in any forum stands above McEnroe.

 

[Magnus]

The greatest commentator of all-time has already made Nadal the GOAT-

http://rafaelnadalfans.com/2013/06/...-ever-even-with-a-first-round-wimbledon-loss/



Nobody in any forum stands above McEnroe.

JMac is a bandwagoner, always was. He will jump again and then what will Rafita fans say? That's right, they will call JMac a bandwagoner. Right now he's saying Murray can win 10 slams cause Murray is the fotm.

 

[6-3 6-0]

RNadal is certainly the CGOAT, but he is nowhere near overall GOAT.

 

[Jeffrey573639]

I think it's actually a good question. The rather fanatic Nad fans also use his H2H against Rog as an excuse against GOAThood but let's hear the reasons why he's the GOAT.

 

[NatF]

He could be the GOAT if he won a few more hardcourt/grass slams. Don't think it will happen though.

 

[zagor]

He can't be even considered a CC GOAT, according to his own fans his main rival on that surface for years was an utterly crappy player like Fed, who isn't even as good as Murray on clay.

Not to mention, him getting overtaken by Novak and Murray at such an early stage in his (Nadal's career), can't be considered the best when you're playing the 2nd fiddle most of the time.

 

[terribleIVAN]

I love Rafa as much as anyone else, but i believe he shouldn't be considered GOAT because he never made the technical improvements that would make his game an all around game.

Sampras, Federer, Mc Enroe, (and even Borg on some occasions) could beat you from the back or at the net, and could modify their tactics according to the difficulties they were facing.

Rafa, Novak, Lendl, Agassi, Becker were all specialists of one style of play, not both. When they were bested in it, they usually lost because they couldn't modify and adapt to overcome.

 

[smash hit]

I love Rafa as much as anyone else, but i believe he shouldn't be considered GOAT because he never made the technical improvements that would make his game an all around game.

He is the only player to have won a Slam on three different surfaces in the same year. He is one of only two men to have won a career golden slam. The olympic gold being won on the same type of surface as the USO. He holds the record for the number of masters tournaments won. Hard courts are no more or less important than clay. Maybe those players who have a majority of wins on hard courts are lacking in tennis skills. I have seen it suggested that American players should learn on clay, so that they can improve their skills. Tennis isn't or shouldn't be IMO just about hitting a big serve and whacking a winner.

 

[Magnus]

I wonder, if Nadal wins 20 slams, but 16 of them are the FO, does that make him GOAT? A player who won 1 USO, 1 AO, and 2 Wimbledon titles? Its a very tough question as well, because as much as I don't consider Nadal a one dimensional player unlike some dellusional Fed fans, his results would surely look one-dimensional, and even if he will hold the slam count, I have to ask what's better of the two:

1) Being great on all surfaces winning multiple slams of each surface bar the FO where the CGOAT stoppes you from winning the final.

2) Being insanely good at 1 slam event but just good at the other slams, not dominating any of them, and never ever being close to winning the 5th most important event - WTF.

 

[Magnus]

He is the only player to have won a Slam on three different surfaces in the same year. He is one of only two men to have won a career golden slam. The olympic gold being won on the same type of surface as the USO. He holds the record for the number of masters tournaments won. Hard courts are no more or less important than clay. Maybe those players who have a majority of wins on hard courts are lacking in tennis skills. I have seen it suggested that American players should learn on clay, so that they can improve their skills. Tennis isn't or shouldn't be IMO just about hitting a big serve and whacking a winner.

Nor should it be about moonballing in rallies and running side to side for hours grinding it out and waiting for the opponent to make an error.

The truth is, there is no "real" definition of tennis. Every type of game is viable and legit, so your argument is silly. Dr. Ivo's tennis is just as legit as Nad's tennis.

As for the achivements you wrote, yes, they are remarkable, especially the MS titles. But again, off clay Nadal's MS count suddenly looks really unimpressive. And please don't mention olympic gold medal, its not an important tennis title, not as important as WTF anyway, and we all know how many of those Nadal won.

 

[Candide]

The greatest commentator of all-time has already made Nadal the GOAT-

http://rafaelnadalfans.com/2013/06/...-ever-even-with-a-first-round-wimbledon-loss/

Nobody in any forum stands above McEnroe.

Whoa, anonymous internet guy has anointed McEnroe the CGOAT. Bold move. I prefer Robbie Koenig myself and hey before you discount my credentials to make this powerful pronouncement remember - I am also an anonymous internet guy. So I like to think I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Magnus]

Whoa, anonymous internet guy has anointed McEnroe the CGOAT. Bold move. I prefer Robbie Koenig myself and hey before you discount my credentials to make this powerful pronouncement remember - I am also an anonymous internet guy. So I like to think I know what I'm talking about.

Jason Goodall seems the most neutral to me. Koenig is good but he's a Rafita fan and is often biased.

 

[Gandalf]

Can people actually consider him the GOAT? Seriously?

Ahhmmm, yes?
Are you new here?

 

[terribleIVAN]

He is the only player to have won a Slam on three different surfaces in the same year. He is one of only two men to have won a career golden slam. The olympic gold being won on the same type of surface as the USO. He holds the record for the number of masters tournaments won. Hard courts are no more or less important than clay. Maybe those players who have a majority of wins on hard courts are lacking in tennis skills. I have seen it suggested that American players should learn on clay, so that they can improve their skills. Tennis isn't or shouldn't be IMO just about hitting a big serve and whacking a winner.

I believe the GOAT should play TOTAL TENNIS, ie be able to win from the back or at the net, and be able to adapt and use whichever strategy is better against a given oponnent on a given day.

Rafa just doesn't do that; i'm not saying he couldn't, but more that he chose to remain in a given style of play as he's happy with the rewards it's giving him and doesn't want to chance them by modifying his game.

A guy like Becker could have reached GOAT status if he had made the sacrifices to maintain himself at no 1; health reasons prevented it.

Edberg deserves mention too, but he played a high risk game that often brought many unforced errors.

 

[Bender]

He's definitely one of the greatest, behind Federer and Sampras.

GOAT though? Probably a bit premature.

Only way to bring him into a GOAT discussion is about peak level of play, but that's so subjective it's not worthwhile.

 

[rafafan20]

I agree the Fed bashing has gotten out of control, Nadal is certainly not Ordinary off clay, he has accomplished a ton on other surfaces. I think there are many players that could be considered the greatest, but there is no ONE true greatest. Federer, however, would be the closest, but Sampras and Nadal have claims as well.

 

[clayqueen]

People always write Nadal off until they see his 'A' game then they think he is the greatest competitor ever. Every slip Nadal has is a reason for writing him off for ever. He's fallen at Wimbledon early 2 years in a row, but there are extenuating circumstances......all relating to his knee.

Rafa's only opponent is his knee.

 

[namelessone]

Not that I give a crap about who is the GOAT, but since anti-Federer threads are a trend now, I figured maybe I'll raise a point here.

Nadal has never defended a slam off clay.

Nadal has only won 4 slams off clay. Fed has 16, Djokovic has 6, Murray now has 2 and will likely catch Nadal off clay as well.

A player that lost in the 2nd and 1st rounds of the most important tennis event of the year twice in a row at the peak of his career.

As far as HC goes, I wouldn't even rank Nadal in the top 10 of all time. Heck, not even the top 20. He's slightly better on grass but again, he's not top 10.

True, nobody touches his results on clay, and only a few players over the years have given him any problem on the surface. But clay is just 1/4 slams. In the other 3, Nadal is very ORDINARY. He won them all, sure, but was he dominant? How many finals did he reach? How many consecutive semis or even QFs at slams? Nadal has got very little to sell as a GOAT.

I don't believe anyone is the GOAT, as everyone has advantages and disadvantages, but Nadal isn't even a player worth considering, imo.

Can people actually consider him the GOAT? Seriously?

If so, Agassi comes right into the discussion as well.

Nadal started his GS winning ways(and entered the top 2) at 19. He turned 27 this year, he is closer to retirement that to his peak. You're telling me that he is at his peak in his 9th GS winning year? Federer, who is more versatile and with a non-grinding game, was considered way past his peak in his 8th slam winning year(2010) yet Nadal, with a very physical style and subsequent problems, is at his peakiest. LAWL

Rafa will probably retire from the tour in 2-3 years max and some people think he is at his peak. Jesus.

 

[Omega_7000]

People always write Nadal off until they see his 'A' game then they think he is the greatest competitor ever. Every slip Nadal has is a reason for writing him off for ever. He's fallen at Wimbledon early 2 years in a row, but there are extenuating circumstances......all relating to his knee.

Rafa's only opponent is his knee.

Then shouldn't his knee be the GOAT because it has a positive H2H against him?

 

[6-3 6-0]

Only fools write RNadal off anywhere EVEN outside of clay. What he has achieved a LOT more than people expected him to do when he first came into the picture. He is certainly the CGOAT though as he has RIDICULOUS numbers on clay. 98% at RG? It's not a joke, this man has made it a reality.
I like RNadal (only behind RFederer) but there are certain trolls that forces me to post facts against him, unfortunately.

 

[Omega_7000]

Nadal started his GS winning ways(and entered the top 2) at 19. He turned 27 this year, he is closer to retirement that to his peak. You're telling me that he is at his peak in his 9th GS winning year? Federer, who is more versatile and with a non-grinding game, was considered way past his peak in his 8th slam winning year(2010) yet Nadal, with a very physical style and subsequent problems, is at his peakiest. LAWL

Rafa will probably retire from the tour in 2-3 years max and some people think he is at his peak. Jesus.

Yet you don't have a problem with all the Nadal fans claiming that Fed is now as good as he was at his peak... :roll:

 

[smash hit]

Nor should it be about moonballing in rallies and running side to side for hours grinding it out and waiting for the opponent to make an error.

The truth is, there is no "real" definition of tennis. Every type of game is viable and legit, so your argument is silly. Dr. Ivo's tennis is just as legit as Nad's tennis.

As for the achivements you wrote, yes, they are remarkable, especially the MS titles. But again, off clay Nadal's MS count suddenly looks really unimpressive. And please don't mention olympic gold medal, its not an important tennis title, not as important as WTF anyway, and we all know how many of those Nadal won.

The first part of your reply is just your biased opinion , which you are perfectly entitled to, but it doesn't make it true or correct.

In the second part of your reply you say my argument is silly. If you notice I did qualify ithat statement by saying in my opinion. I prefer to see more than a big serve and a whacked winner.

It really doesn't matter whether they are on clay or hard. Does the fact that only six of Federer's 23 masters titles were won on clay and the rest on hard court, make his achievements appear unimpressive?

As for the olympic gold medal. I would dare to suggest that Federer considers it an important tennis title as do many others.

 

[zagor]

If I'm completely honest, while not a fan of the guy (& can't stand a number of his ignoramus fans), he's more than proven himself off clay (2 HC slams, 2 Wimbledon titles along with 5 finals, 6 HC masters, SOG etc.) and is more dominant on his favourite surface than any player I've ever seen.

All in all, while there are shortcomings in resumee (as there are for every player) I believe he's reached the point where he can be considered one of the greatest, I'd say greatest but I don't believe in anointing one player above everyone else.

Yet you don't have a problem with all the Nadal fans claiming that Fed is now as good as he was at his peak... :roll:

Actually, they're claiming he's even better because of how much more experienced he is, LOL!

 

[zagor]

It really doesn't matter whether they are on clay or hard. Does the fact that only six of Federer's 23 masters titles were won on clay and the rest on hard court, make his achievements appear unimpressive?

Yes, but there are 6 HC masters a year compared to 3 on clay.

But regardless, I agree Nadal has done enough on clay overall and he's still in the middle of his career (heck he just won a HC masters this year) so we'll have to compare when they're done.

 

[zagor]

Nadal started his GS winning ways(and entered the top 2) at 19. He turned 27 this year, he is closer to retirement that to his peak. You're telling me that he is at his peak in his 9th GS winning year? Federer, who is more versatile and with a non-grinding game, was considered way past his peak in his 8th slam winning year(2010) yet Nadal, with a very physical style and subsequent problems, is at his peakiest. LAWL

Rafa will probably retire from the tour in 2-3 years max and some people think he is at his peak. Jesus.

Now, now, it doesn't matter whether Nadal started winning slams in 2005, according to his fans he was still a baby until 2008 regardless.

Given that Fed is considered (by Nadal fans) to be still playing his best tennis, I reckon Nadal will be playing his best until 2018.

 

[namelessone]

Yet you don't have a problem with all the Nadal fans claiming that Fed is now as good as he was at his peak... :roll:

Do I need to have a problem with them?

Those fans know that they write BS to get a rise out of people, I don't have to call out every zilla double account like all the "serious" Fed fans.

I do the normal and healthy thing, I ignore them.

 

[6-3 6-0]

I wished there were atleast 1 grass masters. RFederer would probably have atleast 5+ more masters to his count

It's true that RFederer mastered 2 surfaces (and decent on the other) while RNadal mastered only 1 and decent on the other two.
So, no sane person will put RNadal ahead of RFederer in all time great list.

 

[tennis_pro]

Yeah Nadal is so bad he's not even the GOAT.

 

[namelessone]

Now, now, it doesn't matter whether Nadal started winning slams in 2005, according to his fans he was still a baby until 2008 regardless.

Given that Fed is considered (by Nadal fans) to be still playing his best tennis, I reckon Nadal will be playing his best until 2018.

And beyond.

 

[zagor]

Do I need to have a problem with them?

Those fans know that they write BS to get a rise out of people, I don't have to call out every zilla double account like all the "serious" Fed fans.

I do the normal and healthy thing, I ignore them.

No, it's easy to ignore, Dork Knight, LOLville, Bullzie etc. when they aren't talking utter crap about your favourite player.

Otherwise you could also ignore Magnuses of this forum as well, yes? But you don't.

 

[tudwell]

The biggest negative against Nadal is that he dominated in a weak era. Djokovic had a WTA serve in 2010, Murray was still a choker in slams, Federer suddenly started losing to guys he used to own like Soderling and Berdych. Nadal's hard court nemeses Del Potro and Davydenko were taken out of the game due to injury. All the top competition disappeared and let Nadal reap the benefits. Fortunately, Djokovic figured out his serve and started dominating in 2011, making the era somewhat less weak, but it still doesn't compare to 2003-2009.

 

[Magnus]

People always write Nadal off until they see his 'A' game then they think he is the greatest competitor ever. Every slip Nadal has is a reason for writing him off for ever. He's fallen at Wimbledon early 2 years in a row, but there are extenuating circumstances......all relating to his knee.

Rafa's only opponent is his knee.

I lol'd so hard of this post.

First, this isn't about writing Nadal off. I was one of the few who laughed at those writing him off last year, knowing he'd be back to dominate clay once more (though I do think his clay domination days are coming to an end).

He ever had a serious knee injury, just minor problems like all players do. He just whined about it for so long people seem to think he's injured for 99% of the time. Pure BS.

 

[Magnus]

Nadal started his GS winning ways(and entered the top 2) at 19. He turned 27 this year, he is closer to retirement that to his peak. You're telling me that he is at his peak in his 9th GS winning year? Federer, who is more versatile and with a non-grinding game, was considered way past his peak in his 8th slam winning year(2010) yet Nadal, with a very physical style and subsequent problems, is at his peakiest. LAWL

Rafa will probably retire from the tour in 2-3 years max and some people think he is at his peak. Jesus.

Its Nadal fans who keep saying he's at his peak? Check Nadal fans posts during Nad's clay run in 2013.

 

[Magnus]

Only fools write RNadal off anywhere EVEN outside of clay. What he has achieved a LOT more than people expected him to do when he first came into the picture. He is certainly the CGOAT though as he has RIDICULOUS numbers on clay. 98% at RG? It's not a joke, this man has made it a reality.
I like RNadal (only behind RFederer) but there are certain trolls that forces me to post facts against him, unfortunately.

I hate RNadal, but this thread has nothing to do with hating/loving, its about stating the facts. 4 slams outside clay is impressive, but not for a so called GOAT contender.

 

[terribleIVAN]

It's true that RFederer mastered 2 surfaces (and decent on the other) while RNadal mastered only 1 and decent on the other two.

You do realize Rafael has actually a better grass record than Edberg ?

2 Wimbledon titles and 3 finals, vs 2 Wimbledon titles and 1 final .

 

[Magnus]

If I'm completely honest, while not a fan of the guy (& can't stand a number of his ignoramus fans), he's more than proven himself off clay (2 HC slams, 2 Wimbledon titles along with 5 finals, 6 HC masters, SOG etc.) and is more dominant on his favourite surface than any player I've ever seen.

All in all, while there are shortcomings in resumee (as there are for every player) I believe he's reached the point where he can be considered one of the greatest, I'd say greatest but I don't believe in anointing one player above everyone else.



Actually, they're claiming he's even better because of how much more experienced he is, LOL!

Wait, so you consider Nadal the greatest, despite winning 4 slams outside clay (less than Fed, Nole, and a countless other players), never won WTF, has only 6 MS titles off clay, and basically dominated one surface of the 3?

 

[tudwell]

You do realize Rafael has actually a better grass record than Edberg ?

2 Wimbledon titles and 3 finals, vs 2 Wimbledon titles and 1 final .

Edber has two Australians on grass as well, so you're totally wrong.

 

[Magnus]

The first part of your reply is just your biased opinion , which you are perfectly entitled to, but it doesn't make it true or correct.

In the second part of your reply you say my argument is silly. If you notice I did qualify ithat statement by saying in my opinion. I prefer to see more than a big serve and a whacked winner.

It really doesn't matter whether they are on clay or hard. Does the fact that only six of Federer's 23 masters titles were won on clay and the rest on hard court, make his achievements appear unimpressive?

As for the olympic gold medal. I would dare to suggest that Federer considers it an important tennis title as do many others.

Well, there are no grass MS titles. If there were, can you imagine how many Fed would have and how many Nadal? Say Queens and Halle are MS titles on grass, can you get a legit picture of the title holders there?

And Fed has 6 WTFs, beating the top 8 players in the world 6 times where Nadal has never once achived this and only reached one final in all of his tries.

 

[zagor]

Wait, so you consider Nadal the greatest, despite winning 4 slams outside clay (less than Fed, Nole, and a countless other players), never won WTF, has only 6 MS titles off clay, and basically dominated one surface of the 3?

I consider him one of the greatest.

Do I personally still consider guys like Fed and Sampras (for example) to be greater? Yes but I don't think saying Nadal is one of the greatest or the greatest is outrageous at this point, I could see/understand that viewpoint even if I don't share it.

 

[Magnus]

No, it's easy to ignore, Dork Knight, LOLville, Bullzie etc. when they aren't talking utter crap about your favourite player.

Otherwise you could also ignore Magnuses of this forum as well, yes? But you don't.

You can ignore me all you want. I seriously don't care. However, unlike some Nadal fans who just bash Fed I at least acknowledge Nadal's greatness and like I said, I don't believe in the GOAT concept for one second (and if I did, Nadal nor Fed are viable contenders imo, Nadal lacks the numbers and Fed is a paper champ). To me Nadal made the sport filthy, so if that makes me a troll or a basher or whatever, fine. I have never once insulted a poster in this forum despite taking insults from many Nadal fans multiple times.

I think I raise some serious questions in this topic.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

This thread reeks of anti-clay bias.

Put another way, if the "8" were for wimbledons or US opens and he had 2 French Opens, would this be coming up so often?

 

[NatF]

Nadal has been #2 longer than he's been #1, much longer. He's rarely been the best player except for 3-4 months at the beginning of the year. No GOAT.

 

[zagor]

You can ignore me all you want. I seriously don't care. However, unlike some Nadal fans who just bash Fed I at least acknowledge Nadal's greatness and like I said, I don't believe in the GOAT concept for one second (and if I did, Nadal nor Fed are viable contenders imo, Nadal lacks the numbers and Fed is a paper champ). To me Nadal made the sport filthy, so if that makes me a troll or a basher or whatever, fine. I have never once insulted a poster in this forum despite taking insults from many Nadal fans multiple times.

I think I raise some serious questions in this topic.

I didn't say I ignore you, I said Nameless could.

He likes to preach on how Fed fans should ignore Fed haters because that's the healthiest course of action but he himself can't practice what he preaches as he can't ignore who hate Nadal.

That said, I don't consider you to be on the same level as the Nadal fanatics I mentioned in that post, unlike them:

-You're honest about your "hatred" for Nadal, they hate Fed even more but are too hypocritical to admit it, atleast you're a straight shooter.

-You know something about tennis.

 

[Magnus]

I didn't say I ignore you, I said Nameless could.

He likes to preach on how Fed fans should ignore Fed haters because that's the healthiest course of action but he himself can't practice what he preaches as he can't ignore who hate Nadal.

That said, I don't consider you to be on the same level as the Nadal fanatics I mentioned in that post, unlike them:

-You're honest about your "hatred" for Nadal, they hate Fed even more but are too hypocritical to admit it, atleast you're a straight shooter.

-You know something about tennis.

Fair enough.

 

[Magnus]

This thread reeks of anti-clay bias.

Put another way, if the "8" were for wimbledons or US opens and he had 2 French Opens, would this be coming up so often?

It was a tad better, just because Wimbledon is more important than any of the slams, going by tradition, but it would have still been a more one-dimensional result. 2 of the slams are on HC, and Fed has won, apart of 7 Wimbledon titles, 9 slams on HC, where Nadal won 2, less than 25% of Fed's slams.
Now, I think Nadal might win more (very probable in fact), and if he does, I'll re-evaluate my claims, but until then:

Fed has 17 slams: 41% Wimbledon, 29% USO, 25% AO, 5% AO
Nads has 12 slams: 67% FO, 17% Wimbledon, 8% AO and 8% USO

If we ignore the numbers 17 and 12 and just look at the percentages, it is clear Fed's slam count divides far more equally than Nad's, making Fed's slam count seem less "one dimensional".

 

[terribleIVAN]

To me Nadal made the sport filthy, so if that makes me a troll or a basher or whatever, fine.

I havn't been here for a while, so can't understand well: you're saying he's doping, or that his style of play is unappealing ?

 

[smash hit]

Well, there are no grass MS titles.

Exactl,y so why go into the realms of fantasy?