Grand Slam achievements >>> Olympics achievements, even for Nadal fans.
And Nadal has greater Grand Slam achievements on grass than Murray. Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon and has 2 extra Wimbledon finals.
@Sport This is what I'm talking about with your double standards. According to you now, slam finals matter more than winning the olympics. Yet on another thread a while back, someone asked who was better, Cilic or Del Potro? Noting that Cilic had more slam finals in his favour. Your response was this -
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/cilic-or-del-potro.633245/#post-12963141
Del Potro's fantastic resume at the Olympics solves this dispute.
He defeated Djokovic at the 2012 Olympics on grass to win the Bronze Medal. He defeated both Djokovic and Nadal at the 2016 Olympics to win the Silver Medal.
Cilic has no Olympic Medals.
Note - Del Potro didn't even win
gold !Apparently a while back you thought a runner up and a losing semi finalist place was better than a slam final, now winning the whole thing isn't as good. Seriously man, you change opinions like the wind to suit the players that you like. Apparently Runner up at Olympics >>> runner up at slam lol
No doubt you won't answer this or just try and come up with some other reason why the two opposing views can coexist - I get that we all probably get a bit biased at times but admitting it would be classy.
Aside from that there's also this
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-the-2018-edition.605044/page-2#post-11821392
Federer is 1-3 against Nadal in the AO
Federer is also 1-3 against Djokovic in the AO
With Djokovic having won 1 more AO title there is no way in hell Federer is the AO GOAT. With those horrible H2H stats against his two main career rivals, Roger needs 2 more AO titles to surpass Djokovic as the AO GOAT.
Maintaining that Fed wouldn't be AO GOAT if he just tied Djokovic - even though he'd have more finals, which you say is important . You also bring in his H2H with Nadal where in arguing with me you've said only H2H between the 2 players in question matter (because i brought up the grass H2H with Djokovic) so which is it? Is head to head with other rivals important or not? If olympic semifinalist and finalist is better than slam finals, why isn't an olympic win and an extra few queens titles?
Here's an even bigger example
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-is-lack-of-competition.623381/#post-12576860
No. Del Potro >>>> Roddick. Stop with the propaganda. Roddick has 0 Olympic Medals, 0 victories in a final against Federer, 0 victories against Nadal or Djokovic in the Olympics. He is nothing compared to Del Potro.
Del Potro is also more complete than Roddick. Roddick was nothing on clay, while Del Potro is a GS semifinalist on clay, hard courts and grass.
So Roddick is inferior to Delpo because Delpo has some losers medals (I can quote you calling them that too) even though Roddick has 4 extra slam finals, but an olympic WIN doesn't overcome 2 extra finals... hmm that doesn't add up. So were you right before or were you just trying to tear down Federer's competition?