FEDAL-Try to be Objective

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
If posters could try and put their tribal loyalty to one side and just try and discuss this just as tennis fans it would be great. What do we think is the more impressive record in slam finals, and why?

FEDERER
Philippoussis
Safin
Roddick
Hewitt
Roddick
Agassi (age 35)
Baghdatis
Nadal (age 20)
Roddick
Gonzalez
Nadal (age 21)
Djokovic (age 20)
Murray
Soderling
Roddick
Murray
Murray
Nadal (age30)
Cilic

NADAL
Puerta
Federer (age 25)
Federer (age 26)
Federer (age 27)
Federer (age27)
Federer (age 28)
Soderling
Berdych
Djokovic (age 23)
Federer (age 29)
Djokovic (age 25)
Ferrer
Djokovic (age 26)
Djokovic (age 26)
Wawrinka
Anderson
 
Last edited:

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
That's not the point you're trying to make with this thread. You're saying Fed had it easier with his grand slam wins.
I've simply posted the facts about both player's slam finals. And I'm asking people to be objective. So, objectively, how would you rate the difficulty of the finals both have played?
 

jimjam

Professional
No offence Spencer, but you're one of the least objective posters on this board, so it's hard to take you seriously when you write "try to be objective". I've seen you post maybe a dozen threads trying to discredit Federer, in favor of Nadal in the last few days.

Just relax and enjoy your favorite's victory dude!
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
No offence Spencer, but you're one of the least objective posters on this board, so it's hard to take you seriously when you write "try to be objective". I've seen you post maybe a dozen threads trying to discredit Federer, in favor of Nadal in the last few days.

Just relax and enjoy your favorite's victory dude!
Murray wasn't playing.
 

TennisATP

Professional
If posters could try and put their tribal loyalty to one side and just try and discuss this just as tennis fans it would be great. What do we think is the more impressive record in slam finals, and why?

FEDERER
Philippoussis
Safin
Roddick
Hewitt
Roddick
Agassi (age 35)
Baghdatis
Nadal (age 20)
Roddick
Gonzalez
Nadal (age 21)
Djokovic (age 20)
Murray
Soderling
Roddick
Murray
Murray
Nadal (age30)
Cilic

NADAL
Puerta
Federer (age 25)
Federer (age 26)
Federer (age 27)
Federer (age27)
Federer (age 28)
Soderling
Berdych
Djokovic (age 23)
Federer (age 29)
Djokovic (age 25)
Ferrer
Djokovic (age 26)
Djokovic (age 26)
Wawrinka
Anderson
This clearly shows that Nadal won most of his slams against prime Federer and prime Djokovic. Federer just accumulated a lot of slams before his 2 main rivals were in their prime and against weaker opposition. Federer may be more successful in terms of quantity but Nadal is clearly the goat in terms of quality and quantity combined.
 

irishnadalfan1983

Hall of Fame
If posters could try and put their tribal loyalty to one side and just try and discuss this just as tennis fans it would be great. What do we think is the more impressive record in slam finals, and why?

FEDERER
Philippoussis
Safin
Roddick
Hewitt
Roddick
Agassi (age 35)
Baghdatis
Nadal (age 20)
Roddick
Gonzalez
Nadal (age 21)
Djokovic (age 20)
Murray
Soderling
Roddick
Murray
Murray
Nadal (age30)
Cilic

NADAL
Puerta
Federer (age 25)
Federer (age 26)
Federer (age 27)
Federer (age27)
Federer (age 28)
Soderling
Berdych
Djokovic (age 23)
Federer (age 29)
Djokovic (age 25)
Ferrer
Djokovic (age 26)
Djokovic (age 26)
Wawrinka
Anderson

Clearly Nadal has had tougher finals but so what.....They are both the greatest and I think it is crazy to be discrediting Fed....Also silly to be discrediting Rafa's recent US Open....I'll throw Nole in also and any of his wins.....19,16 and 12 are simply awesome....
 

Rago

Hall of Fame
Here's a comprehensive breakdown for for the first 16 slams.

Regarding Slam finals:

- Philippousis and Puerta about the same. Baghdatis and Ferrer about the same. Both played Soderling at the French.

- Murray in US'08 and Novak in 2010 were about the same. But Murray was coming off a MS win while Novak's win over Roger was his first top 10 win of the year but then again Murray was also gassed after the SF so call it even. Ditto with Safin and Berdych.

- Federer beat Nadal 2x in Wimbledon. Nadal beat Djokovic 2x in French. Both Rafa and Djokovic weren't slam champions on those surfaces at the time.

- Surely Gonzalez was a better opponent than Anderson given the fact that he steamrolled Nadal in AO'07 QF. Agassi at the USO and Wawrinka at RG about the same.

- How is Nadal playing Federer 3 times in RG finals (2006/07/08) any different from Roger playing Roddick 3 times in Wimbledon finals (2004/05/09)? The people who finished Runners-up would have multiple slams on the surface if not for one guy.

- Nadal beat Federer a 1-time RG champion in 2011 as Roger did to Roddick in New York in 2006. Same thing with Hewitt and Djokovic (who was gassed in 2013 after the SF) at the US Open.

- That leaves us with Nadal beating Federer at Wimbledon 2008/AO 2009 and Roger beating Djokovic at US'2007 and Murray at AO'2010.

- Federer's only blemish if want to call it that is losing the Wimbledon 2008 final. So a small edge for Nadal but that's understandable given the fact that he is the better big match player.

- And Nadal wasn't going to beat Federer in slam finals in 2004-07 (edited: *off clay), USO'08 with virtually zero days of rest and AO'10 where he got rolled in straight sets in the QF. So there you have it.

- Federer was 16/23 in slam finals at one point. Nadal right now is 16/23. But Rog had more SFs in this timeframe and that's the tie breaker.

Enough of this weak era garbage.

Other notable wins over top players:

Federer: Roddick - WIM03, Hewitt - WIM04, Agassi - USO04, Hewitt - WIM05, Hewitt - USO05, Davydenko - USO06, Djokovic - AUS07, Roddick - AUS07, Davydenko - FRE07, Roddick - USO07, Davydenko - USO07, Djokovic - USO08, Roddick - AUS09, Del Potro - FRE09, Djokovic - USO09, Djokovic - FRE11

Nadal: Federer - FRE05, Djokovic - FRE06, Murray - AUS07, Djokovic - FRE07, Djokovic - WIM07, Djokovic - FRE08, Murray - WIM08, Verdasco - AUS09, Murray - WIM10, Murray - FRE11, Murray - WIM11, Murray - USO11, Federer - AUS12, Djokovic - FRE13, Federer - AUS14, Murray - FRE14

@abmk @metsman @NatF @tennis_pro @zagor @falstaff78 @Kalin @Gary Duane @The_18th_Slam @Mr Feeny @moonballs @FedFosterWallace @VaporDude95 @Nadalgaenger @BeatlesFan @Dilexson @mike danny

Thoughts?



Cliffs/TL;DR:

Yes, Edited: After reading 200+ posts.

- Nadal had it harder at Wimbledon 2008. This whole "lack of competition for Fed" comes down to this match and this one is massive.

- Yes, the above is a blemish for Federer and a plus for Nadal. Besides that, there isn't much that separates both the competition, draws and slam final opponents IMO.

-
Nadal beat Federer at RG'05 but Roger also beat Novak at US'08. Federer played Del Po in RG'09 and Nadal played a difficult match against Verdasco in AO'09.

- Both have some equally impressive wins against top players. Going to call it about even here.


- Nadal the better big match player; Federer more consistent.
 
Last edited:

TheAssassin

Legend
Here's a comprehensive breakdown for for the first 16 slams.

- Philippousis and Puerta about the same. Baghdatis and Ferrer about the same. Both played Soderling at the French.

- Murray in US'08 and Novak in 2010 were about the same. But Murray was coming off a MS win while Novak's win over Roger was his first top 10 win of the year but then again Murray was also gassed after the SF so call it even. Ditto with Safin and Berdych.

- Federer beat Nadal 2x in Wimbledon. Nadal beat Djokovic 2x in French. Both Rafa and Djokovic weren't slam champions on those surfaces at the time.

- Surely Gonzalez was a better opponent than Anderson given the fact that he steamrolled Nadal in AO'07 QF. Agassi at the USO and Wawrinka at RG about the same.

- How is Nadal playing Federer 3 times in RG finals (2006/07/08) any different from Roger playing Roddick 3 times in Wimbledon finals (2004/05/09)? The people who finished Runners-up would have multiple slams on the surface if not for one guy.

- Nadal beat Federer a 1-time RG champion in 2011 as Roger did to Roddick in New York in 2006. Same thing with Hewitt and Djokovic (who was gassed in 2013 after the SF) at the US Open.

- That leaves us with Nadal beating Federer at Wimbledon 2008/AO 2009 and Roger beating Djokovic at US'2007 and Murray at AO'2010.

- Federer's only blemish if want to call it that is losing the Wimbledon 2008 final. So a small edge for Nadal but that's understandable given the fact that he is the better big match player.

- And Nadal wasn't going to beat Federer in slam finals in 2004-07, USO'08 with virtually zero days of rest and AO'10 where he got rolled in straight sets in the QF. So there you have it.

- Federer was 16/23 in slam finals at one point. Nadal right now is 16/23. But Rog had more SFs in this timeframe and that's the tie breaker.

Enough of this weak era garbage.
Excellent stuff. But ************* doesn't give a damn about how players actually performed in matches. You're wasting your time.
 

Surion

Hall of Fame
It's pretty simple.
I think if both Fed and Nadal play their absolute very best, Federer wins on grass and very fast hard court/indoor and loses on slow HC and clay.

So their GS victories depend on the surface and I rank Fed's overall higher, because he won on more diverse surfaces.
Nadal needs another WImbledon and AO to be comparable in my humble opinion.

But still two incredible athletes, which will be missed in a few years, because I don't see anybody with enough charisma to help tennis stay popular.
Maybe Shapovalov, let's hope he continues to improve.
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
Del Potro is a legend, his ranking is irrelevant. He has beaten Djokovic, Federer and Nadal in the past year. That alone makes it harder than some of Federer's draws.
Hewitt and even Andy Virus are bigger legends than Del Potro. And massive LOL at bringing Del Potro's past year results to make it sound like he was tough for Nadal in the semifinal. He wasn't. He was garbage.
 

TennisATP

Professional
It's pretty simple.
I think if both Fed and Nadal play their absolute very best, Federer wins on grass and very fast hard court/indoor and loses on slow HC and clay.

So their GS victories depend on the surface and I rank Fed's overall higher, because he won on more diverse surfaces.
Nadal needs another WImbledon and AO to be comparable in my humble opinion.

But still two incredible athletes, which will be missed in a few years, because I don't see anybody with enough charisma to help tennis stay popular.
Maybe Shapovalov, let's hope he continues to improve.
What are you talking about... The weakest link in their careers is Federer's 1 clay slam out of 19 total. Rafa has won 4 on hardcourt and 2 grass.
 

TennisATP

Professional
Hewitt and even Andy Virus are bigger legends than Del Potro. And massive LOL at bringing Del Potro's past year results to make it sound like he was tough for Nadal in the semifinal. He wasn't. He was garbage.
Everyone and their mamma, including Federer himself, thought Del Potro had a good chance of taking out Nadal. :rolleyes:
 

Surion

Hall of Fame
What are you talking about... The weakest link in their careers is Federer's 1 clay slam out of 19 total. Rafa has won 4 on hardcourt and 2 grass.
And against who did he lose five times?
Ah yes, the best clay courter of all time. Let him play against any other guy and he has 5 RGs.
That statistic is biased.
Not Fed's fault that Rafa didn't make the Wimbledon final or USO final more often.
 

TennisATP

Professional
And against who did he lose five times?
Ah yes, the best clay courter of all time. Let him play against any other guy and he has 5 RGs.
That statistic is biased.
Not Fed's fault that Rafa didn't make the Wimbledon final or USO final more often.
But Nadal beat Djokovic 2 times in USO finals, Federer 1 time in AO final and Federer 1 time in Wimbledon final. So he did beat the hardcourt GOATs and grass GOAT to win on these surfaces. Federer just wasn't good enough to beat Nadal on clay/RG in 5 tries, he has only himself to blame. Nadal beat all the best on each surface for his slams.
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
Everyone and their mamma, including Federer himself, thought Del Potro had a good chance of taking out Nadal. :rolleyes:
So? Some people thought Cilic had a chance in the Wimbledon final but still it doesn't prevent you guys from complaining about that final and Fed's draw altogether, does it? Del Potro played poorly. It doesn't take a title away from Nadal, it's just a rating of his opponent, and it was poor, deal with that.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
But Nadal beat Djokovic 2 times in USO finals, Federer 1 time in AO final and Federer 1 time in Wimbledon final. So he did beat the hardcourt GOATs and grass GOAT to win on these surfaces. Federer just wasn't good enough to beat Nadal on clay/RG in 5 tries, he has only himself to blame. Nadal beat all the best on each surface for his slams.
Djokovic wasn't great in either of those 2 USO finals. No better than the guys Federer had. The AO and Wimbledon wins over Federer were huge though.
 

Rago

Hall of Fame
Excellent stuff. But ************* doesn't give a damn about how players actually performed in matches. You're wasting your time.
Lmao, I tried my best. Of course I am wasting my time; my usual response is to just click on the thread and read the posts to check for opportunities to troll since 99 % of the time, a discussion started by VB culminates in garbage.
 

killerboi2

Hall of Fame
Djokovic wasn't great in either of those 2 USO finals. No better than the guys Federer had. The AO and Wimbledon wins over Federer were huge though.
When a player is constantly getting to finals, sometimes blitzing everyone to get there, he simply can't use the excuse of "oh I wasn't really playing that great" when another multi slam winner sits him down in the final. That is something that Federer and Djokovic fans in particular find it hard to understand.
 

Rago

Hall of Fame
When a player is constantly getting to finals, sometimes blitzing everyone to get there, he simply can't use the excuse of "oh I wasn't really playing that great" when another multi slam winner sits him down in the final. That is something that Federer and Djokovic fans in particular find it hard to understand.
Because Federer was a multi-slam winner at RG and so was Djokovic at the time at USO lmao.

And here comes the tripe from VB lmao.
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
Oh please... lol
When a player is constantly getting to finals, sometimes blitzing everyone to get there, he simply can't use the excuse of "oh I wasn't really playing that great" when another multi slam winner sits him down in the final. That is something that Federer and Djokovic fans in particular find it hard to understand.
4 winners and 13 UE's in the first set, a 6-1 4th set capitulation - yeah Djokovic was playing great :D

And blitzing everyone to get to the final? You mean having trouble with Youzhny and going down 2 sets to 1 against Wawrinka?

Djokovic wasn't a multi slam winner in 2010 BTW. He hadn't recorded a top win all year until the 5 set SF :D
 

Rago

Hall of Fame
They are all time greats of the game. Nadal isn't multi slam winner at AO. You think he was considered easy opponent for Djokovic in 2012 AO final?
Of course not but Djokovic losing that final would be a blemish. Of course it would.

And yes, Nadal losing a Wimbledon final to Novak at the time is a blemish as is Djokovic losing the third USO Open meeting between them.

And unfortunately for Federer, he had to deal with rivals 5/6 years younger than him. He's won most of his matches against Nadal when the conditions suit his game and his H2H with Novak is almost dead even which is insane; Rog was the only guy troubling Djokovic the last two years when Novak reeled off 15 straight sets including one at a slam against Nadal lmao.

What else?
 
Last edited:

ForumMember

Hall of Fame
If posters could try and put their tribal loyalty to one side and just try and discuss this just as tennis fans it would be great. What do we think is the more impressive record in slam finals, and why?

FEDERER
Philippoussis
Safin
Roddick
Hewitt
Roddick
Agassi (age 35)
Baghdatis
Nadal (age 20)
Roddick
Gonzalez
Nadal (age 21)
Djokovic (age 20)
Murray
Soderling
Roddick
Murray
Murray
Nadal (age30)
Cilic

NADAL
Puerta (Defeted Federer in SF)
Federer (age 25)
Federer (age 26)
Federer (age 27)
Federer (age27)
Federer (age 28)
Soderling
Berdych
Djokovic (age 23)
Federer (age 29)
Djokovic (age 25)
Ferrer (Defeated Djokovic in SF)
Djokovic (age 26)
Djokovic (age 26)
Wawrinka
Anderson
Made some important comments.
 

ForumMember

Hall of Fame
Number of times Nadal has played Djokovic at AO: 1 / Number of times Nadal played Djokovic at French: 7

And unfortunately for Federer, he had to deal with rivals 5/6 years younger than him. He's won most of his matches against Nadal when the conditions suit his game and his H2H with Novak is almost dead even which is insane; Rog was the only guy troubling Djokovic the last two years when Novak reeled off 15 straight sets including one at a slam against Nadal lmao.
Dealing with 5-6 years younger player not a disadvantage without looking at other things in context. Otherwise it was very very difficult for Nadal to play Rublev in USO17.
 

Rago

Hall of Fame
Made some important comments.
LMFAO, in after this clown.

Federer beat Djokovic in the USO 2008 and Wimbledon 2012 SFs so there goes your sh!*ty argument.

Edited original post further after reading through and since we are talking about first 16 slams, Wim'12 has been left out.

So there you have it.
 
Last edited:

joy-z

New User
I'd wager that if Federer used his current 97 sq.in. racquet and his more aggressive style throughout his entire career, he'd have 23+ slams.
 

Rago

Hall of Fame
Dealing with 5-6 years younger player not a disadvantage without looking at other things in context.
Is this a joke? But I've seen worse from you on this site. Go lookup the ATG rivalries in the Open Era; the younger player always comes out on top eventually; it's happened a million times already.

Expected you to be getting into name calling.
lol, what name calling? Way to get defensive when someone exposes your sh#t talk. Not that that's surprising coming from a VB member.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Here's a comprehensive breakdown for for the first 16 slams.

- Philippousis and Puerta about the same. Baghdatis and Ferrer about the same. Both played Soderling at the French.

- Murray in US'08 and Novak in 2010 were about the same. But Murray was coming off a MS win while Novak's win over Roger was his first top 10 win of the year but then again Murray was also gassed after the SF so call it even. Ditto with Safin and Berdych.

- Federer beat Nadal 2x in Wimbledon. Nadal beat Djokovic 2x in French. Both Rafa and Djokovic weren't slam champions on those surfaces at the time.

- Surely Gonzalez was a better opponent than Anderson given the fact that he steamrolled Nadal in AO'07 QF. Agassi at the USO and Wawrinka at RG about the same.

- How is Nadal playing Federer 3 times in RG finals (2006/07/08) any different from Roger playing Roddick 3 times in Wimbledon finals (2004/05/09)? The people who finished Runners-up would have multiple slams on the surface if not for one guy.

- Nadal beat Federer a 1-time RG champion in 2011 as Roger did to Roddick in New York in 2006. Same thing with Hewitt and Djokovic (who was gassed in 2013 after the SF) at the US Open.

- That leaves us with Nadal beating Federer at Wimbledon 2008/AO 2009 and Roger beating Djokovic at US'2007 and Murray at AO'2010.

- Federer's only blemish if want to call it that is losing the Wimbledon 2008 final. So a small edge for Nadal but that's understandable given the fact that he is the better big match player.

- And Nadal wasn't going to beat Federer in slam finals in 2004-07 (edited: *off clay), USO'08 with virtually zero days of rest and AO'10 where he got rolled in straight sets in the QF. So there you have it.

- Federer was 16/23 in slam finals at one point. Nadal right now is 16/23. But Rog had more SFs in this timeframe and that's the tie breaker.

Enough of this weak era garbage.

@abmk @metsman @NatF @tennis_pro @zagor @falstaff78 @Kalin @Gary Duane @The_18th_Slam @Mr Feeny @moonballs @FedFosterWallace @VaporDude95 @Nadalgaenger @BeatlesFan @Dilexson @mike danny

Thoughts?
The reality is that you start with slam wins, and that number is always a tie breaker. So long as Fed has 3 more slams in his pocket, nothing else matters much.

At the moment it is 19-16-14-12.

At the end of Djokovic's slam run last year I expected a different result. If Nadal and Fed had remained slamless this year, they would be 17-14, and I expected Djokovic to have around 14 right now.

We would be arguing about Sampras vs. Djokovic.

Then we could start discussing other factors.

That's why I always say: It is too soon. Wait for the end of their careers. Tennis history is still being written.
 

TennisATP

Professional
The reality is that you start with slam wins, and that number is always a tie breaker. So long as Fed has 3 more slams in his pocket, nothing else matters much.

At the moment it is 19-16-14-12.

At the end of Djokovic's slam run last year I expected a different result. If Nadal and Fed had remained slamless this year, they would be 17-14, and I expected Djokovic to have around 14 right now.

We would be arguing about Sampras vs. Djokovic.

Then we could start discussing other factors.

That's why I always say: It is too soon. Wait for the end of their careers. Tennis history is still being written.
Right now you have tons of people still saying that Sampras > Nadal or even that Djokovic > Nadal, I haven't seen you join those conversations to defend Nadal and tell them that 16 > 14 or 16 > 12. Somehow the slam count just matters when it is used to claim that Federer is automatically the GOAT.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Right now you have tons of people still saying that Sampras > Nadal or even that Djokovic > Nadal, I haven't seen you join those conversations to defend Nadal and tell them that 16 > 14 or 16 > 12. Somehow the slam count just matters when it is used to claim that Federer is automatically the GOAT.
DEFEND NADAL?

I don't need to defend Nadal or any other player. :)

I'm just a little guy with power but no cable after Irma...

But you obviously don't read many of my posts.

That Nadal, with 16 slams, is now going to win most debates against Sampras, with only 14 and with zero success on clay, seems too obvious to mention.

And Novak, now with only 12 and not slated to play at all the rest of the year, is now a pretty big underdog 4 slams behind when only a year younger...

I said elsewhere that Pete started this whole obsession with slams. That's probably not fair, as it was his fans and the press, but that's the reality we are living with right now.

The main reason for dissing Nadal is his "weakness" off clay, and that's an argument I simply don't agree with. I say that 6 slams off clay is a record most ATGs would be fairly happy with.
 

killerboi2

Hall of Fame
Right now you have tons of people still saying that Sampras > Nadal or even that Djokovic > Nadal, I haven't seen you join those conversations to defend Nadal and tell them that 16 > 14 or 16 > 12. Somehow the slam count just matters when it is used to claim that Federer is automatically the GOAT.
Yeah, just looking at slam count like some robot isn't a good way to judge things. Gotta look at other factors like head to head, level of competition, homogenized conditions vs polarized conditions, etc.
 
When a player is constantly getting to finals, sometimes blitzing everyone to get there, he simply can't use the excuse of "oh I wasn't really playing that great" when another multi slam winner sits him down in the final. That is something that Federer and Djokovic fans in particular find it hard to understand.
Your lot has no problem saying Hewitt was crap in the USO 04 final (depite straight-setting everyone on his way and generally getting stopped by Federer all the time in 04-05 majors), or that Nadal was very far from his best in 2011 (despite making a ton of finals, but only winning when not facing Djokovic).

The whole weak era concept is concocted to prove that a player who had great results in a certain period of time didn't actually play that well, so arguing otherwise is hypocritical of you as one of the weak era theorists.
 

ADuck

Hall of Fame
Philippousis and Puerta about the same.
Lmao, i'm assuming you didn't watch both
matches. Doping Puerta was by far a harder challenge than mentally feeble philippoussis.
Murray in US'08 and Novak in 2010
Lmao, again. Novak >>>> Murray

How is Nadal playing Federer 3 times in RG finals (2006/07/08) any different from Roger playing Roddick 3 times in Wimbledon finals (2004/05/09)?
Lol, so Federer at FO = Roddick at WIMB ? All 3 times? You sure you wanna stand by that? Either you're extremely harsh on Roger's performances or extremely generous to Roddick's performances.

Nadal beat Federer a 1-time RG champion in 2011 as Roger did to Roddick in New York in 2006.
Lmao, again. Rating a player's performance in the final by using the amount of slams is incorrect, and exactly why you made this reply in the first place remember? so right now your logic is turning upside down on itself xD

Same thing with Hewitt and Djokovic (who was gassed in 2013 after the SF) at the US Open.
The same Djokovic who played 2 5-set matches in a row at the AO in 2012? Tired? And lmao again comparing prime Djokovic to prime Hewitt

That leaves us with Nadal beating Federer at Wimbledon 2008/AO 2009 and Roger beating Djokovic at US'2007 and Murray at AO'2010.
Omg lol, this getting funnier and funnier. You mean to say that Nadal beating Federer, the 5-time defending champion and world number 1, near the peak of his powers is equivalent to Federer beating baby Novak and baby Andy? hahahahaha
 
Last edited:

fedtennisphan

Hall of Fame
Djokovic and Nadal ****s are obsessed with Djokovic and Nadal to put up fancy numbers to viewed as greater than Federer. But much to their ****s chagrin, numbers aren't always the path to greatness. Also Federer has more going for him than slam count.
 
Top