Okay, now you are just repeating something that I already explained why is wrong, so I will quote myself from the previous posts that you are actively ignoring yet again:
“Percentages don't lie, they don't tell the truth either. Why? Because they don't have not only the ability to talk, but ability to think. They are just numbers. We, humans, on the other hand have that ability(although we don't use it always, obviously). We are able to understand the context of those numbers, something you are actively ignoring in this discussion.”
“No it doesn't, it means he's usually up there when it is safe and easier, and then he wins it more often than not. So, it's a wrong logic, Nadal told the exact thing to Petchey in the very interview.”
“In that case, a poor volleyer(which Nadal isn't) could play all of their shots from the baseline, approach the net only once in a match to put away a 5km/h ball, and they will have a better % at the net than McEnroe, Edberg, Navratilova, Laver.”
You don’t have to repeat your quasi argument that was already exposed as wrong. Many times here.
When saying a good/bad/average/whatever volleyer, it means that a player is good/bad/average/whatever when volleying, not that his style of play is predominately volleying, in case you really misunderstood.
And how has he “adapted volley technique”? Are you now changing you argument and saying that Nadal has some special volley technique adapted for modern rackets and surfaces, but other don’t?