How many slams will Rafa win if he were playing in the 90s?

Agassifan

Hall of Fame
How many slams would Rafa have won if he played in the 90s?

Faster surfaces at 3 slams and a stronger clay field:

Rafa:
AO: 0
RG: 6
W: 1
US: 0

Fed:
AO: 4
RG: 1
W: 5
US: 5
 
Last edited:
Rafa:

AO: 0
FO: 7
WI: 0
USO: 0

With the three fast courts I think Rafa would focus more on RG, and still get to the mythical 7. But, the other courts would be too fast for him!

Fed:

AO: 3-5 (Fed loved the fast AO court, and won 3 titles on it in the 2000s IIRC)
FO: 1-2 (I think he'd get some when Rafa doesn't, just like the 2000's)
WI: 5-7 (Fed was/is just as deadly on fast grass as he is/was on slow)
USO: 5-7 (Fed loves the Open in any form)

I just want to clarify that these are Sans-Sampras stats for Fed, because it's too tough to guess what would happen if they played often at the AO, USO, and Wimby.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Nadal.
AO: 1.
FO: 8.
W: 2.
USO: 1.

Nadal finishes up with 12 slams.

Federer.
AO: 5.
FO: 2.
W: 5.
UO: 5.

Federer ends with 17 slams.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
Hard to say. Nadal would have grown up playing with different equipment.

I'd say he'd win an AO, 4-5 FO's perhaps. Can't see him winning USO or Wimbledon considering circumstances.
 

kishnabe

Talk Tennis Guru
Rafa:
AO: 2
RG: 5
W: 0
US: 0

Fed:
AO: 3
RG: 2
W: 3
US: 3

Sampras would deny many Wimbledon and US Open from Roger. Nadal would still be a legend in the strongest clay field of all time. Federer can rely on others to take out Nadal at RG like a peak Kuerten. AO would be easy with no Agassi and crappy performances by top players.
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal.
AO: 1.
FO: 8.
W: 2.
USO: 1.

Nadal finishes up with 12 slams.

Federer.
AO: 5.
FO: 2.
W: 5.
UO: 5.

Federer ends with 17 slams.

With a total of 29 slams combined between both of them, how many slams are left for Sampras? Is Agassi going to be slamless?
 

90's Clay

Banned
If he was playing in the 90s, he wouldn't have access to the same racket technology so a lot of the spin would be taken off his shots and he would have had to deal with way more depth of a clay field of the 90s as opposed to 2005-present.

Considering that:

AO- Maybe 1
RG-4 or 5
Wimbledon-0
USO-0

So he would probably win a good 5 or 6 slams in the 90s


Federer:

AO-4
RG- 1 or 2
Wimbledon: 2 or 3 (Not nearly as many with Pete hanging around)
USO: 3-4


Fed would manage 8 or 9 slams in the 90s


Both Nadal and Fed's slam count would have dropped dramatically in the 90s. About half of what they have now
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
I think that Nadal would still dominate clay, he'd be a great champion in any era. He'd be served off the court at Wimbledon though.
 

ManFed

Rookie
If he was playing in the 90s, he wouldn't have access to the same racket technology so a lot of the spin would be taken off his shots and he would have had to deal with way more depth of a clay field of the 90s as opposed to 2005-present.

Considering that:

AO- Maybe 1
RG-4 or 5
Wimbledon-0
USO-0

So he would probably win a good 5 or 6 slams in the 90s


Federer:

AO-4
RG- 1 or 2
Wimbledon: 2 or 3 (Not nearly as many with Pete hanging around)
USO: 3-4


Fed would manage 8 or 9 slams in the 90s


Both Nadal and Fed's slam count would have dropped dramatically in the 90s. About half of what they have now

Fed vs Sampras at USO would have been very interesting.

Neither Fed would have won 17 slams at 90's nor Sampras would have won 14 slams with Fed around. They would split titles especially at USO and Wimbledon. At RG Fed would have it easier with less racket technology. At AO, Fed would dominate, that surface suits very well to his game.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Fed vs Sampras at USO would have been very interesting.

Neither Fed would have won 17 slams at 90's nor Sampras would have won 14 slams with Fed around. They would split titles especially at USO and Wimbledon. At RG Fed would have it easier with less racket technology. At AO, Fed would dominate, that surface suits very well to his game.

Yea Fed's best results would probably come at the Australian (maybe outside the years Agassi was having a down year or didn't play it). Andre was damn tough to beat in Australia when he was on his game.. Arguably a GOAT candidate on that surface himself especially Rebound Ace.

I give Pete the edge in the h2h at the USO (Homecourt advantage) and Wimbledon, and possibly YEC ( if we count it since it was a much bigger deal back then IMO), while I give Fed the edge in Australia and RG
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
If Fed and Pete overlapped we'd have some awesome battles but quite possibly neither would be recognised as the greats they are/were.
 

90's Clay

Banned
If Fed and Pete overlapped we'd have some awesome battles but quite possibly neither would be recognised as the greats they are/were.

It would be a lot like the 80s. Tons of talented champions but no one overly dominating because they would all be taking slams away from each other.. Especially if the era contained Agassi, Nadal, Fed and Pete
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
It would be a lot like the 80s. Tons of talented champions but no one overly dominating because they would all be taking slams away from each other.. Especially if the era contained Agassi, Nadal, Fed and Pete

By greats I meant top 5 all time. Obviously Borg, Connors and Mcenroe are all times greats but Pete and Federer are widely considered to be a tier above them.
 

kishnabe

Talk Tennis Guru
8 wimbledon and 8 USO titles? STOP!!:shock: He can't even manage that now.(in an era with no Sampras)

The guy is from Swiss so he biased....can't see past Federer gloriness.

8 Wimbledon on fast grass is impossible with Sampras, Ivansevic, Kracijek and Becker to contend with.

8 US Open....maybe most of them on the years Sampras did not win....and Federer continued till his late 30's. Defintly steals 2000 and 2001 US Open from Sampras.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
8 wimbledon and 8 USO titles? STOP!!:shock: He can't even manage that now.(in an era with no Sampras)

Well, who would ever thought Federer was going to win 17 slams back in 2000?

I don't agree with him but crazy things have happened.
 
With the differences in how players hit groundstrokes then and now, I'd imagine Rafa winning 8-10 FO through that decade. Probably several Australian and US opens as well.

Sure Pete would still dominate grass but it's likely he'd be playing a lot more baseline against Rafa.

Yes the clay courters were strong. Would they keep someone like Nadal at bay even with the spin he generates, I don't know but it's not likely because just about everyone hits with heavy topspin now and it doesn't seem to phase Rafa much on clay.

Hardcourts were of course hard for anyone to dominate back then and again, I think Nadal's fh would be as serious a concern to opponents in the 90s as it has been to the current generation of pros.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Well, who would ever thought Federer was going to win 17 slams back in 2000?

I don't agree with him but crazy things have happened.

He thinks Federer would win more FO's in the 90's than Nadal would. It's beyond crazy...
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Federer:

Australian Opens: 2
French Opens: 0
Wimbledons: 3
U.S Open: 3


Nadal:

Australian Opens: 2
French Opens: 8
Wimbledons: 0
U.S Opens: 1
 

rogfedex

New User
guys wait, look .. if sampras played matches against federer (federer with today's serve and better shaped volleys), i think federer possibly wins 13-14 from propably 20 matches .. so rafa can't take GS on hard or grass, maybe 3-4 rg titles .. next .. fed can take hmm .. ok .. 6-7 wimby titles (only fighting against sampras) and 5-6 us titles (maybe finals vs. 2x agassi, 3-4x sampras) .. now rg .. i think it's difficult to make some predictions for rg, just try it .. if rog has 4 finals here 1 title, i think he can surely make 4-5 trophies here.
 
With a total of 29 slams combined between both of them, how many slams are left for Sampras? Is Agassi going to be slamless?

If you read, I assumed no Sampras (Cuz he and Fed would split too many slams to be sure what each would win)

There are 40 slams available, and I have rafa with 7 and Fed with 14-21 depending on circumstance.

So 21-28 are taken, that still leaves 12-19 slams for Sampras/Agassi.

I think if these 4 were all in the 90s, we would have a very similar scenario to what we currently have.

-Fed would have 13-20 slams (Like Fed now)
-Sampras would have 10-15 slams (Like what Rafa should have)
-Rafa would have 7 slams (Like Nole now)
-And Agassi would be like Murray, good but stuck in an extremely difficult era (1-3 slams)
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
guys wait, look .. if sampras played matches against federer (federer with today's serve and better shaped volleys), i think federer possibly wins 13-14 from propably 20 matches .. so rafa can't take GS on hard or grass, maybe 3-4 rg titles .. next .. fed can take hmm .. ok .. 6-7 wimby titles (only fighting against sampras) and 5-6 us titles (maybe finals vs. 2x agassi, 3-4x sampras) .. now rg .. i think it's difficult to make some predictions for rg, just try it .. if rog has 4 finals here 1 title, i think he can surely make 4-5 trophies here.

and Federer wins more RG titles than Nadal how exactly? Hiring Tonya Harding. Nadal alone being there is already enough to guarantee Federer only 0-1 RG titles, and add the deeper clay field of the 90s, meaning he has to be lucky to hit his peak form that rare time Rafa loses (since we all know and seen proven emphatically over and over no way in hell Federer is beating Nadal at RG ever, at any age, anytime, anyhow, anyway) most likely he wins 0.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

90's Clay

Banned
The guy is from Swiss so he biased....can't see past Federer gloriness.

8 Wimbledon on fast grass is impossible with Sampras, Ivansevic, Kracijek and Becker to contend with.

8 US Open....maybe most of them on the years Sampras did not win....and Federer continued till his late 30's. Defintly steals 2000 and 2001 US Open from Sampras.

I would give Fed the advantage over Pete in 2000 at the USO. I wouldn't give him the advantage over Sampras in 2001 though. Sampras was playing AWESOME that year (better then Fed has played at the USO the last two years IMO). It would depend on the draws of course.. The only reason Sampras didn't win the USO in 2001 I think was because of the brutal back to back to backs he had to play before Hewitt which would be a tough hurdle for anyone to get through:

Safin( the defending champ at the time)
Rafter( 2 time USO winner who was playing well)
Andre (Andre who had straight stetted Roger that year and was playing AWESOME)

Personally, I think Sampras played better overall at the USO his last two years, then Fed has played at the USO the last 2-3.
 
Last edited:
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
I would give Fed the advantage over Pete in 2000 at the USO. I wouldn't give him the advantage over Sampras in 2001 though. Sampras was playing AWESOME that year (better then Fed has played at the USO the last two years IMO). It would depend on the draws of course.. The only reason Sampras didn't win the USO in 2001 I think was because of the brutal back to back to backs he had to play before Hewitt which would be a tough hurdle for anyone to get through:

Safin( the defending champ at the time)
Rafter( 2 time USO winner who was playing well)
Andre (Andre who had straight stetted Roger that year and was playing AWESOME)

Personally, I think Sampras played better overall at the USO the last two years, then Fed has played at the USO the last 2-3.


The U.S Open format of playing semis and finals on back to back days is ridiculous.

Why on earth is anyone giving Federer 8 US Opens. He only won 5 in this era with literally nobody challenging him from 2003-2010, and he would have had much more competition back then with Sampras and Agassi especialy than anyone he had this era. Nadal is rarely a factor to win the U.S Open, and hasnt even ever played Federer at a U.S Open, and Djokovic has only become one in the latter part of Federer's career. Meanwhile other years like 2003, 2010, 2012, Federer wasnt playing well enough to win a U.S Open vs any competition. 8 U.S Open titles in the Sampras era is pure **** fantasy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

90's Clay

Banned
The U.S Open format of playing semis and finals on back to back days is ridiculous.

Why on earth is anyone giving Federer 8 US Opens. He only won 5 in this era, and he would have had much more competition back then with Sampras and Agassi especialy than anyone he had this era. Nadal is rarely a factor to win the U.S Open, and Djokovic has only become one in the latter part of Federer's career.

ROFL.. I have no clue. He struggled with an OLD Agassi during Andre's last hurrah run in 2004-2005 when he was close to his peak. In the 90s and early 00s he would have to deal with a younger Agassi who was much better, and Sampras (5 time USO winner himself) and Rafter among others (Who I believe was 3-0 vs. Roger in the h2h). And Safin peaking in 2000 he possibly would have had to deal with. How about Edberg in the early 90s? He was playing AWESOME.

Roger aint managing 8 USO titles with that field.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
ROFL.. I have no clue. He struggled with an OLD Agassi during Andre's last hurrah run in 2004-2005 when he was close to his peak. In the 90s and early 00s he would have to deal with a younger Agassi who was much better, and Sampras (5 time USO winner himself) and Rafter among others (Who I believe was 3-0 vs. Roger in the h2h). And Safin peaking in 2000 he possibly would have had to deal with. How about Edberg in the early 90s? He was playing AWESOME.

Roger aint managing 8 USO titles with that field.

Exactly. Even if one is so delusional (and it truly is delusional) to think Federer wins everyone of his U.S Open titles he won facing both prime Sampras and prime Agassi, and other challengers like Courier, Rafter, young Safin, Becker, and others, people to reach 8 must be also giving him titles in years like 2003 when he lost round of 16 to Nalbandian, 2012 when he was beaten up by Berdych, and 2010 when he lost to a majorly slumping Djokovic in a really bad match. What a joke.
 

Mick3391

Professional
Faster surfaces at 3 slams and a stronger clay field:

Rafa:
AO: 0
RG: 6
W: 1
US: 0

Fed:
AO: 4
RG: 1
W: 5
US: 5

Great question! No one knows, but with faster courts, almost assuradely less. That being said, Nadal is exceptional, he's not just a clay phenom, I think he'd be just fine, but not as successful as today.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
Federer:

Australian Opens: 2
French Opens: 0
Wimbledons: 3
U.S Open: 3


Nadal:

Australian Opens: 2
French Opens: 8
Wimbledons: 0
U.S Opens: 1

LOLWUT

You give Nadal 2 AOs and a USO, but no FO for fed? How biased can you be? Federer plays a game more similar to 90's players than nadal, and doesn't benefit from the modern tech NEARLY as much as Nadal!

And you say he'd win MORE FO's with the likes of Bruguera and Guga around? While having to contend with NOT having Copoly's and tweener babolats to begin his career with? WTF?!
 

SoBad

G.O.A.T.
Federer:

Australian Opens: 1
French Opens: 0
Wimbledons: 0
U.S Open: 0


Nadal:

Australian Opens: 1
French Opens: 8
Wimbledons: 5
U.S Opens: 1
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
LOLWUT

You give Nadal 2 AOs and a USO, but no FO for fed? How biased can you be? Federer plays a game more similar to 90's players than nadal, and doesn't benefit from the modern tech NEARLY as much as Nadal!

And you say he'd win MORE FO's with the likes of Bruguera and Guga around? While having to contend with NOT having Copoly's and tweener babolats to begin his career with? WTF?!

Prime Kuerten would be competition for Nadal on clay but that didnt arrive until 2000/2001 so has nothing to do with the 90s. Players like Bruguera and Muster would be huge problems for Federer on clay, but not for Nadal. They are basically lesser versions of Nadal's own clay game. What is funny is some of the same ****s who insist those guys wouldnt even be problems for Federer on clay, will now argue they would cut into Nadal's FO count, lol! I am presuming as it is Nadal ends up with roughly 9 FOs anyway, so 8 is still less than that, so technically I do have him winning less in the 90s I guess, barely.

Federer winning 0 French Opens is perfectly reasonable, in fact if we are putting BOTH Federer and Nadal back into that era, it is in fact very likely. Federer because of Nadal won only 1 French Open, and he was lucky to even win that one, not only having Nadal go out, but not even playing one of his better French Opens, but having Haas choke, Del Potro run out of gas, Djokovic go out, and a rookie slam finalist who couldnt cope with the occasion. Federer of the 2009 French doesnt win if he comes up against any good experienced clay courter who doesnt choke, even someone like Correjta probably would be enough, and every other year Nadal beats him if he even gets that far just like every other year of the 2000s Nadal beat him, and the years before Nadal emerged Federer was performing poorly at RG, why would that change either. If Nadal alone is enough to almost make Federer have 0 French Opens, why on earth would Nadal there plus these other so called super great clay courters you are building up when refering to Nadal's chances, lead to multiple or probably any French Opens?!

As for the Australian Open, Nadal is 2-0 vs Federer there, but unfortunately for Nadal he has guys like Djokovic and Murray who often beat him there. The Australian Open would be fairly wide open most of the 90s as Agassi's dominance there didnt begin until the 2000s, with a number of guys who played well there, Sampras at times, Courier at times, Agassi once or twice, Becker at times, and now Federer and Nadal too. I dont think either Federer or Nadal would dominate there, but both would have cracks at it, hence I came up with a guess of 2 for both. Federer would still have more competition than what he had with his 04, 06, 07 draws to the title which were all super easy, while Nadal wouldnt have to deal with Djokovic and Murray taking him out of the event anymore, nor most years would he have to deal with Agassi who apart from 95 did virtually nothing there until 2000.

If I were as biased as you claim I would have given Nadal more than the 0 Wimbledons I gave him. Also funny you have problems with my post but say nothing about the ridiculous **** who has Federer winning more FOs than Nadal in the 90s, ROTFL!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
With a total of 29 slams combined between both of them, how many slams are left for Sampras? Is Agassi going to be slamless?
I thought they were talking about an era without Sampras or Agassi.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Prime Kuerten would be competition for Nadal on clay but that didnt arrive until 2000/2001 so has nothing to do with the 90s. Players like Bruguera and Muster would be huge problems for Federer on clay, but not for Nadal. They are basically lesser versions of Nadal's own clay game. What is funny is some of the same ****s who insist those guys wouldnt even be problems for Federer on clay, will now argue they would cut into Nadal's FO count, lol! I am presuming as it is Nadal ends up with roughly 9 FOs anyway, so 8 is still less than that, so technically I do have him winning less in the 90s I guess, barely.

Federer winning 0 French Opens is perfectly reasonable, in fact if we are putting BOTH Federer and Nadal back into that era, it is in fact very likely. Federer because of Nadal won only 1 French Open, and he was lucky to even win that one, not only having Nadal go out, but not even playing one of his better French Opens, but having Haas choke, Del Potro run out of gas, Djokovic go out, and a rookie slam finalist who couldnt cope with the occasion. Federer of the 2009 French doesnt win if he comes up against any good experienced clay courter who doesnt choke, even someone like Correjta probably would be enough, and every other year Nadal beats him if he even gets that far just like every other year of the 2000s Nadal beat him, and the years before Nadal emerged Federer was performing poorly at RG, why would that change either. If Nadal alone is enough to almost make Federer have 0 French Opens, why on earth would Nadal there plus these other so called super great clay courters you are building up when refering to Nadal's chances, lead to multiple or probably any French Opens?!

As for the Australian Open, Nadal is 2-0 vs Federer there, but unfortunately for Nadal he has guys like Djokovic and Murray who often beat him there. The Australian Open would be fairly wide open most of the 90s as Agassi's dominance there didnt begin until the 2000s, with a number of guys who played well there, Sampras at times, Courier at times, Agassi once or twice, Becker at times, and now Federer and Nadal too. I dont think either Federer or Nadal would dominate there, but both would have cracks at it, hence I came up with a guess of 2 for both. Federer would still have more competition than what he had with his 04, 06, 07 draws to the title which were all super easy, while Nadal wouldnt have to deal with Djokovic and Murray taking him out of the event anymore, nor most years would he have to deal with Agassi who apart from 95 did virtually nothing there until 2000.

If I were as biased as you claim I would have given Nadal more than the 0 Wimbledons I gave him. Also funny you have problems with my post but say nothing about the ridiculous **** who has Federer winning more FOs than Nadal in the 90s, ROTFL!

Just thought I'd quote this for it's brilliance!
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Rafa:

AO: 1-2
RG: 8
WIM 0
US: 0-1

That puts him on 9 - 11

Fed:

AO: 2-3
RG: 0
WIM: 3-4
US: 3-4

Putting him on 8 - 11

Sampras would definitely take away a couple of WIM and USO titles from Fed at least. Not to mention Rafter was playing well at USO in the 90's and Agassi as well.

Can't see anyone taking any RG from Nadal only injury and perhaps an upset or 2.

When AO was rebound ace in 04-07 Nadal's game wasn't developed yet but he still put in some decent performances over there so I'd imagine in his prime he'd win 1 perhaps 2 on rebound ace AO especially considering Agassi wasn't there for a while and Nadal almost always beats Fed at majors.

WIM Nadal would not have much chance at all with Sampras and Fed most likely in the way along with Ivanisevic, Rafter, Krajicek etc.

USO I think Rafa would win 1 if he hit top form like in 2010.
 
I dont think rafa would rack as many roland garros in the 90's, the reason being he cant even adjust to different type of clay blue clay and started complaining then how can he adjust to 90s conditions is beyond me.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I dont think rafa would rack as many roland garros in the 90's, the reason being he cant even adjust to different type of clay blue clay and started complaining then how can he adjust to 90s conditions is beyond me.
Because he wouldn't have to adjust, he would be born in that time and would be growing up in those conditions.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
If these two played in the 90s, both will see a drop in their slam count.

Federer will be hurt at Wimbledon and USO.
Nadal will be hurt at RG.

I think 5 slams for Nadal max. 9-10 slams for Federer max.

Difficult to know how they distribute them, but I think Federer would be shut out in Paris, and Nadal won't be winning anything at W and USO.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Rafa:

AO: 1-2
RG: 8
WIM 0
US: 0-1

That puts him on 9 - 11

Fed:

AO: 2-3
RG: 0
WIM: 3-4
US: 3-4

Putting him on 8 - 11

Sampras would definitely take away a couple of WIM and USO titles from Fed at least. Not to mention Rafter was playing well at USO in the 90's and Agassi as well.

Can't see anyone taking any RG from Nadal only injury and perhaps an upset or 2.

When AO was rebound ace in 04-07 Nadal's game wasn't developed yet but he still put in some decent performances over there so I'd imagine in his prime he'd win 1 perhaps 2 on rebound ace AO especially considering Agassi wasn't there for a while and Nadal almost always beats Fed at majors.

WIM Nadal would not have much chance at all with Sampras and Fed most likely in the way along with Ivanisevic, Rafter, Krajicek etc.

USO I think Rafa would win 1 if he hit top form like in 2010.

A reasonable and fair breakdown. Well done.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Presuming that only Fed and Nadal are transported back in the 90s and being roughly the same age as Sampras/Agassi with late 90s-early 2000s competition being relatively lackluster (so not changing anything there) I'd say:

Fed:

AO-4 (1994, 1997, 1999 and 2002)

FO-1 (1999)

Wimbledon-3 (1996, 1998, 2002)

USO-4 (1996, 1997, 1998 and 2001)

Overall 12 slams.

Nadal:

AO-1 (1996)

FO-7 *

Wimbledon-0

USO-0

8 slams overall.

Sampras:

AO-0

FO-0

Wimbledon-6 (1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2000)

USO-4 (1990, 1993, 1995 and 2002)

10 slams overall

Agassi:

AO-4 (1995, 2000, 2001 and 2003)

FO-0

Wimbledon-1 (1992)

USO-2 (1994, 1999)

7 slams overall.


* Not going by years but due to there being far more CC specialists in the 90s I think Nadal would have had more injury issues as a consequence of being forced to grind out a lot more matches.



Of course all of this is complete guesswork, heck we've yet to see how well will Nadal play in his late 20s for example.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Federer:

AO-4
RG- 1 or 2
Wimbledon: 2 or 3 (Not nearly as many with Pete hanging around)
USO: 3-4


Fed would manage 8 or 9 slams in the 90s

Strangely inconsistent, because your projections have him winning at least 10 majors, and at most 13. So where do you get 8 or 9 from?
 
Last edited:

zagor

Bionic Poster
Strangely inconsistent, because your projections have him winning at least 10 majors, and it most 13. So where do you get 8 or 9 from?

LOL :)

It's GS, don't be too hard on him, this just might still be the after effect of the shock he suffered back in 2009 when Nadal failed to do his sacred duty and stop the evil emperor Fed.
 
Top