your 'facts' mean little.
Federer has had more time to amass his 17 slams than Nadal has had to win his 13!
simple as that!
LOL...ok...your argument is BS, but I'll play along, follow me now..
The last time Fed made all 4 slam finals in a calendar year was 2009. He won 2 and lost 2 finals.
Now, much as I love Fed, Im confident in saying he will probably never do this again in his career. So basically you can say that 2009 was definitely the end of the Fed prime( his peak ended in 2007).
Now, since 2010, Fed has been in decline...and what has Nadal done since then?
Well, in 2010, he certainly made hay, not only taking advantage of a declining Fed( whom he had the matchup advantage over anyway) but also a generally weak top ten. Murray and Djoker were subpar, Delpo was injured, Davydenko hurt, Roddick washed up etc. So in 2010, he took advantage and won 3 slams.
2011 however he screwed the pooch. BeastMode Djoker emerged and spanked Nadal. One can argue that if not for inspired tennis from Fed, Nadal could very well have been slamless in 2011, but thanks to Fed, he was assured another FO victory, even tho he was blanked in the other other 3. So basicall, 2011 was a fail slam year for Nadal.
As for 2012, after getting beaten by Djoker, again, in a slam final, he regrouped and beat Djoker in the FO final ...only to be embarassingly blown out by a journeyman in the first round of Wimbledon.
Yeah I know, injry, injury, but the fact remains, he got beat, and then subsequently missed the rest of the 2012 season. Lost major ground there in terms of tying or besting Fed's slam record.
Then in 2013, Nadal skipped the AO, won the FO and USO...and *still* got blown out at Wimbledon again. So while he stWBill dominated his fave slam and took advantage of a weak HC field to win the USO, he bombed out at WB again.
So, I say all that to say this. You wanna disparage Fed for his 1.4 season's edge on winning slams without nadal? How about Nadal has had 3+ seasons without peak/prime Fed to deal with anymore and *still* couldnt close the slam gap.
From 2010-current, Fed has made 3 slam finals- 2010 AO, 2011 FO, and 2012 WB, and he is 2-1 in those finals.
So, one could argue that from the time Fed won his first slam at WB 2003..Nadal has had *more* time to amass more slam wins.
Again, Fed won 4 slams from WB 2003 to FO 2005. A 2 year span. Meanwhile, Fed has been out of his speak since 2009 and Nadal has had THREE years to tie or surpass Fed's slam count and he still has failed.
Nadal spent half of 2011 and most/all of 2012 ranked number 2 ( again) behind Djoker and regained world number 1 some time after the USO. But in the meantime he did not significantly close the gap between he and Fed even though he had more time during Fed's decline to do so than fed had between WB 2003 and FO 2005.
Now, I know you will say injury, but to this I say, if it can apply, it WB can only apply to post WB 2012. But,"injury" aside how does it explain Nadal's failure?
And before you say 'strong era'..umm...Isnt the same argument you use against Fed?????
You claim Fed isnt GOAT because he failed to dominate one lone opponent.
But yet, without Fed whom he already had a matchup advantage against, Nadal failed to dominate Djoker and couldnt close the slam gap he had with Fed in a significant fashion. So why is Fed castigated for his failure to dominate his one lone exception??? but Im sure the Nadaliban will come up with all manner of excuses to defend the fact that in spite of a diminished Federer, he still spent half the time between 2010 and 2013 ranked number 2 and failed to dominate the field as expected of a so-called GOAt candidate.
:shock:
