Fed more consistent than Nadal?

[BringBackSV]

You speak as if Nadal is an all-surface dominant force :lol:

Nadal racked up most of his Slams beating up on a pathetic Claycourt field, where his biggest competition has been 1-time champion Federer on his worst surface, and 0-time champion Djokovic on his worst surface. You call that strong competition? :lol:

Federer wasn't lucky enough to have a 10-year vacuum on his best surface.

I've stated in various other threads that Fed is clearly a more consistent player and a better all surface player.

You again are attributing things to me that not only did I not say but I didn't even intimate.

Quite frankly, most of this "discussion" was unnecessary. If you consider yourself to be a reasonable person, you shouldn't have found it difficult to acknowledge that your Davydenko analogy was inane and moved on. There is nothing wrong with admitting your mistakes, it's actually an admirable quality because it suggests that you aren't letting your ego get in the way of being rational.

Roger is a 5 time FO finalist, was his game not skilled enough to be great on clay in your view? Novak has had to go through Rafa the past three seasons and I've never heard anybody with any knowledge on the matter question Novak's abilities on clay either. So, are two all time greats who nobody of any credibility questions their prowess on clay, in an era where pretty much only greats win GS titles, considered strong competition? Yeah, that's basically how it works.

Rafa still found a way to beat Roger on his favorite surface, to run him extremely close the year before (better than Fed ever did against him at RG) and to also beat Novak twice in slams on his preferred HC.

Fed has his argument, I've acknowledged that numerous times. Rafa also has his argument and 1-2 more GS titles would make that argument even louder. Since we both agree that one does not necessarily require a greater number of GS to be a better player, that never should have been a point of discussion either.