Nadal has had his fair share of easy draws. He won his first French Open beating someone I've barely heard of (Puerta?). He's also won slam finals against minor leaguers like Soderling, Berdych, and Ferrer. He's also won semi final matches against the likes of Youzhny, Schuttler, Verdasco, and Melzer. I could go on. .
That's funny how people summirize 7-match grand slam by one match! He beat puerta right? who was Nadal in the first place? a player who participated in RG for the first time, yet he beat world no.1 on semi final, he beat also 2003 RG champion, not too bad for first debut!
Going to Ferrer, I'm really sorry, as much as you try you best to cancel Djokovic Nadal Epic that won't work. Djokovic has always been the toughest
clay rival, the one he beat him most of the times on clay, what's a tougher opponent than Djokovic that made him 2-4 in the fifth? since July 2011Djokovic has wanted RG so badly, and if someone will beat Nadal in RG, that would probably be Djokovic
Just because Nadal exists in the same generation as Murray and Djokovic, it doesn't mean he's had to face them all the time. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single occasion Nadal has beaten Murray and Djokovic in the same major (help me out here?).
Exactly, that what I was talking about, 2012 he beat Federer in semis but he had a rival waiting in final, Djokovic, that never happened in Federer's time, you have no rival in semi only for another waiting in the final
Nadal, btw, has won 75% of his majors on a surface where pretty much none of the other top players call their 'favourite'. By contract, Federer, Murray, and Djokovic are all fundamentally grass and hard court players having to scrap it out between themselves for the other three majors. This is especially true in the case of Djokovic and Murray; practically like-for-like players whose only real interest in clay is to grab one RG win (if they can) and be done with it. I'm not sure Murray cares about even getting the one, tbh. His efforts on clay smack of half-heartedness to me.
Yet Nadal won Wimbledon beating the best player ever on Grass, winning US and AUS beating Djokovic and Federer, and I don't agree with you about Djokovic-clay, he has been playing so well on clay, he plays way better on hard courts of course, but only since he won his first slam in AUS 08.
Back to RG, yes only real interest in clay is to grab one RG win, it didn't come yet so they try their best to do it, Djokovic has been the toughest oppoent for Nadal on clay, he was about to send him out. by the way, we are talking here about Grand slams I never mentioned other championships
Nadal first beat Federer in the 2004 Miami Masters, which was almost right of the start of Fed's golden run through 04-07. Since that defeat, Fed has won 15 major titles. So Nadal has pretty much been there his entire career, thus rendering the 'weak era' debate absolute nonsense. Yes Nadal was 17 in 2004, but different players reach the top at different ages; it doesn't mean their defeats can't be counted. If you're good enough to be No 2 in the world, you're good enough to judged in these debates. And frankly, although Nadal was arguably a little inexperienced in 2004, he was playing like a world beater in 2005. By 2006 he was undeniably world class. Baby Nadal my a$s
Federer raised the bar through 2004-07. He made the rest look weak because he was so good. Those who actually saw the best of Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Roddick etc, will know that, in their primes, they could easily beat today's top guys in majors. Maybe not all the time. Maybe not even half the time. But they certainly weren't weak. They just don't have the silverware to show for it. Because of Fed.
(admittedly Hewitt and Safin won two each, which ties them with Murray).
Believe me guys, you say Federer's peak was till 2007 only because he lost to Djokovic and Nadal in AUS-Wim 2008, if he didn't face them and won you would say 04-08, or 04-09. Nadal was about even to beat him in Wim 2007, if so you'd said 04-06. Federer was fine till 2010 when he lost in quarter final for the first time in FO, that was the beginning of decline
Ok, you may say, Federer raise the bar, but before 2007 Nadal was only clay court player, I said it when I started here, he had only one rival and that was on clay
Nadal and Djokovic have admitted in the past that they wouldn't be as good as they are now if it wasn't for Federer's influence. He took tennis to a new level, and the guys following on from him had to raise the bar in other ways just to have any chance.
Never said Federer is nothing, never said his influence is 0, I know what Federer did to men's game, and I know what Williams sisters did to women's game, (Ironcally Williams sisters have been mostly bashed for it) all I said that had better circumanstance to show his greatness than any one followed then, he had less rivalry grabbing extra slams than the followers; Djokovic will probably win FO beating Nadal, as much as he won AUS beating Federer, that what I meant, plus, I was talking about the top players (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic), joined them last summer Murray, I said Nadal had to face more rivalry, Djokovic for him was even tougher than Nadal's and Federer's, Murray is on the way, and if a new comer will come out it'll be even tougher, put look at you, you concentrate your answer on Nadal's because I'm his fan and I but a photo for him, I don't think that way at all
LOLOLOLOL