At most, he would be a 3 time RG champion.
In BO5 it as lopsided as against anyone else
They don't call him an all-time-great for no reason.
But he's better on clay than grass, he's consistently won Rome every 2 or 3 years for a while now, he is much closer to Nadal on clay than basically anyone else, etc.
Yeah, good choice picking a match in which Fed was done as a contender in BO5 on clay. The only way Stan would beat Roger in a slam.
9-4 in grand slams. yes, we know. and yes, we don't like to think about itIn BO5 it as lopsided as against anyone else
Was talking mostly about RG, not overall, since that's how Nadal built his H2H leads against everyone.9-4 in grand slams. yes, we know. and yes, we don't like to think about it
Maybe, but Stan in that form is scary. Nobody is safe from Stan when he goes super saiyan, and I'm not 100% sure Federer is an exception. After all, Wawrinka beat him in Monte-Carlo twice. Clay is his favorite surface and Federer's worst, so if there is one Slam where Stan could have usurped Federer in his prime, it's RG.
Stan wouldn't have been "GOATing" had either of the other two been in the final instead.
But seriously, Wawrinka was brilliant in that match.
Yes, he always has a way of repelling big hitters. He can place shots perfectly so big guys like Berdych, Tsonga, DelPo, Stan, the guys who usually go "on fire" in a tournament once in a while, can't get them. But when he faces someone who does get every shot back, he starts to fall apart. I mentioned no names and you know who I'm talking about.
But if you're just a counterpuncher like a Murray, a Chang or a Hewitt you're not going to beat Fed with that game in majors when he's firing.
That's what Nadal and Djokovic have. And that's why one has utterly dominated him and the other has always given him trouble
Posters everywhere are shocked by your opinion. Shocked I say!
