Some months ago I posited the question in reverse asking at what point would Federer fanatics concede GOAT status to Nadal. The thread was taken down as people struggled to maintain their dignity, but the general consensus was that 18 would do it.
Do the diehards have the grace to acknowledge that the h2h is an accrued statistic rather than anything else if Nadal always remain two slams or more behind Federer?
Federer has nearly 1,000 match wins and 302 at world number 1. On most other statistics Federer holds a comfortable margin of safety. He is peerless.
You may think he is arrogant, you may not like him, but at what point do you don your cap and accept that he is the better player?
Nadochists and the Nadaliban are going ape[something] over their false god's bad losses and tournament absences since June. This time he may be injured for real, with none of his past cures / "energy drinks" to avail him.
But remember that for the vast majority of them, it's their seething, all-consuming hatred of the GOAT that precedes any admiration for any other player. If Nads' h2h of Fred was the inverse of what it is, even if he'd won the same number of slams, it's virtually certain their professions of admiration would be directed elsewhere.
That's why they blindly cling to myopic stats, over-value and over-state tendentious trivia, and readily employ double standards for comparing He-Who-They-Despise to their false god.
The geyser of tears that accompanied that devastating loss to Wawrinka in Melbourne spoke volumes about Nads' mindset. Those waterworks were far more voluminous, encompassing, and significant than the tears they've endlessly basked in since 2009. Deep down they've also seen almost unbelievably good fortune smile upon their beloved in the past 4 FOs thanks to bad health in Djokovic and their beloved's unprecedented imperviousness to fatigue. Though they will invariably insist otherwise, they fear that this time they're truly staring into the abyss.
This about it . . . someone who's
never repeated a year as YE #1 as the GOAT? Someone who's
never defended a non-clay title? Someone who, uniquely among all great players, has
never won the WTF? Someone who, off his specialty surface, has
only won another slam 2x? Someone who's finished
more years as #2 than #1?
Really?
But if you're driven by seething hatred of Federer, the answer is going to be "yes" to all.
It would
have to be.
Just like their ultimate claim for their false god's supremacy. They keep on insisting that Fred's slams came from a "weak era" and that he's just an average chump in the right place at the right time,so his slams and stats are almost meaningless. But as for Nads, well he's the greatest because he's the guy who could consistently beat Federer.
Maybe in past eras they'd be Krajicek worshippers too. But what's telling is how, even for them, the guy they claim is a "chump" is still the yardstick. How convenient. :lol:
So since no player is ever going to be perfect, the simple question is: which tennis player holds the greatest number of records in history (by a mile)?
Google it, and
whoever that person is, they're the GOAT.
Pure and simple.
:lol:
