Prisoner of Birth
Banned
Pretty much everyone agrees that Nadal is the greatest claycourt player of all time. Those who don't will atleast have to agree that he is by far the most successful on that surface; and he's not even done yet. But I often see his remarkable achievements on the surface being held against him. Like it somehow proves he is not as great as his achievements would suggest. For instance, there's the thread that seems to suggest Djokovic is better because he has more hardcourt and grasscourt slams than Nadal does (while, of course, people are entitled to their opinions, regardless of stats and achievements). My question is, why? Why would you have to disregard Nadal's claycourt wins? While it's true that over 60% of his slams being on clay make it look like he's not very versatile, his 2 Wimbledon titles, 1 US Open title, and 1 Australian Open title prove otherwise. True, he's not as versatile as Federer is. But then, who is? A single loss in 8 FO tournaments is insane. Wins against Federer in the Wimbledon final and Djokovic in the US Open final are huge. If you're discussing GOAT claims, by all means, deride him for his claycourt exploits skewing his otherwise not-THAT-great numbers. But trying to take away from his remarkable achievements on clay in every single argument is just not right.