Of course, second place counts. It just doesn't count as much as first and that's where Djokovic and Federer have outshone Nadal.
Itrium and Pheasant are right on this point. Here is where we know Genious is trolling. What does this 3-6 record at the U.S. Open actually represent? Whatever it is, it is not something “really bad.” This is just 1 slam and Djokovic’s 3-6 record there of 9 finals at one major is already more major finals than any Open Era player has reached across all majors except for 12 players excluding Djokovic himself. Genious, you see the 6 losses as a negative but it’s just part of a big positive.
It's not detrimental to Nadal. 7 non-clay majors are amazing. But in a GOAT discussion, Djokovic and Federer's 18 and 19 non-clay majors, respectively, are even more amazing.
Nadal is actually 1-4 in AO finals. Funny that you stuck that "unlucky" in there showing your bias. In any case, Nadal doesn't suck at the Australian Open. 5 finals are very admirable, but again, they aren't nearly as great as what Djokovic and Federer achieved there. As for the USO, you're stuck on cherry-picking some stats without seeing the big picture and that is how they have performed overall there. Djokovic's 81-13 is a slightly higher winning percentage than Nadal's 64-11. So while Nadal has one more USO title than Djokovic, Djokovic has won 17 more matches there and has a better win rate than Nadal.
Djokovic has done the same but unlike Nadal, Djokovic has a winning head-to-head against both GOAT candidates.
Yes.
Which is fine but far, far exceeded by Djokovic and Federer on these surfaces so they counterbalance his clay GOATness.
Another fine achievement, but dwarfed by Djokovic holding all 4 major titles simultaneously, Djokovic winning every major at least twice, and Djokovic winning every Masters title at least twice. And Djokovic has spent more than 2 1/2 years at #1 than Nadal has.
One peak match here and one peak match there does not make a great argument. Sustained peaks are better and Nadal never had a season as good as Federer's 2005 and 2006 or Djokovic's 2011 and 2015 or even 2021.
Injuries are not an excuse. We don't rate del Potro higher just because his career has been plagued with injuries, far worse than Nadal has, and he could easily have achieved what Murray or Wawrinka did had he been healthy.
Good lord, do I have to reply to this inline?
1. Nadal and Djokovic are the opposite sides of the same coin. Nadal has been unfortunate in that, as he entered his peak outside clay, Djokovic came along. Djokovic's peak on HC and grass coincide with Nadal's short peak period ending, and Federer becoming just too old to defend his old turfs.
2. Yes, I see that 6 2nd Places are a good thing for Novak, but not as good as Nadal's 4 championships, on a surface which is not his best, and with a positive H2H against Djokovic there.
3. Yes, of course. In the same way, Nadal's 13 RG titles are far more impressive than Fed's 1 title and Djokovic's 2 titles, and even more so because they obtained those titles without contending Nadal at any reasonable level of play, wheras Nadal got his 2008 Wimbledon and 2013 USO beating prime versions of Fed and Djokovic.
4. Djokovic's higher number of matches won doesn't compensate for the fact he is behind Nadal in H2H and titles at the USO, it is a failure. Refer to your previous comment about "second place" counting.
5. Yes, Djokovic has a positive H2H against both Fed and Nadal, but a negative H2H against Nadal in slams, which is far more important. Also, his H2H against Fed has turned around only due to Fed's age being a huge liability.
6. Yes, I agree the NCYGS is a huge achievement, I tip my hat off to Djokovic for that, no complaints there.
7. Peaks are important because they show that Nadal has the raw talent and capability, and it explains his underperforming due to his schedule being so clay-centered.
Finally, to point out that to me Nadal's greatest demerit is the lack of a WTF. But the fact this is not a slam makes that issue a little less serious.