People of varying persusasions supposed Nadal would not last. Different reasons, presumably. No shortage of players who had their top careers cut short abruptly due to debilitating injuries including knee injuries. It wasn't clear then that hypermodern medicine would make playing well into your 30s relatively common, no matter the injuries.
Dude, you're missing the point. People here in this thread are not saying "Oh I didn't predict modern medicine", they're saying, "Well Nadal fooled me, so much for all his injuries" or something along those lines, which insinuates that his injuries were either exaggerated greatly or made up, when that is not the case. His injuries DID exist and they knocked him out of plenty slams, but people make the mistake of assuming just because his injuries are/were high in number/occurence, it meant his body was not capable of playing and sustaining a high level of tennis over many years, so he would have a shorter career. But what happened was the opposite, likely because the root cause of these injuries was not his playing style
but his left foot. But they choose to not believe this, and effectively argue that because his body is lasting this long, the injuries were exaggerated, therefore would not have made a big difference to his results.
So effectively they're arguing because in the long-term they didn't end up being problematic, in the short-term they weren't either.
And when I react to this by pushing back against this narrative, you guys come swarming and cry that we musn't talk about hypotheticals. It's just gaslighting. You guys are the ones starting the argument and invoking the hypotheticals in the first place by saying they didn't affect him. If you despise hypotheticals, then don't start them.
You didn't make quite that exact argument yet, but you could, or another would do it and you would let it slide as perfectly acceptable - which is exactly why this line of reasoning is not. Ultimately this opens a bottomless pit of hypothetical credit to be granted for Nadal "if only he were perfectly healthy and fit", to the point that any argument is pointless. Of course "all you can say" about that is "it's not healthy". Feels comfy to bask in relishing Nadal's utter supremacy while not admitting you do, hmm. All you can say is deny but how can I tell? Superdal and the pesky fraudsters, episode XX.
Again, if the line of reasoning is not acceptable, then just don't start it.
But I think this is just naive of you, or a double standard, because by arguing that Federer has a higher cumulative peak/prime level etc. than Djokodal, it's implicit that you believe Federer would be a more statistically successful player than either of Djokodal given level of competition were hypothetically
even for all 3. If someone were to argue this you would also let it slide as perfectly acceptable.
It's not fair or reasonable to take my argument about one thing and exaggerate it to the millionth power by dreaming up a bunch of other things which are irrelevant just to see what sticks. It doesn't deserve to be touched.
Was obviously just a trigger/pretext to dump it out, I've a good concept of the attitude behind those words.
You've demonstrated that you clearly don't. You're overestimating your ability to infer what I'm thinking or "read minds", but I'm somewhat flattered because even I don't think THAT much about what other people are thinking.