Only 3 players in history have won more Slams off-clay than the "Clay-Courter" Rafael Nadal.

[blablavla]

AO: Djokovic 90.4 > Federer 87.2 > Sampras 83.3 > Nadal 82.3
WI: Sampras 90.0 > Federer 88.6 > Djokovic 87.8 > Nadal 81.5
UO: Sampras 87.5 > Federer 86.4 > Djokovic 86.2 > Nadal 85.3
YEC: Federer 77.6 > Djokovic 72.0 > Sampras 71.4 > Nadal 56.2

@Lew II posting stats that pose a shadow on Novak?
wow

@Lew II did you see that there is someone better than Novak at 3 of these 4 tournaments?
and I assume there is as well someone better at RG, which means that your goat is losing at 4 out of 5 major tournaments.

amazing.

 

[StrongRule]

PETE leads him at 3 of 4 slams
Fed leads him at 3 of 4 slams

it’s time to accept the clay skew

One needs to be absolutely crazy to compare a 5-4 lead with a 13-1 or 13-0 lead.

 

[RS]

Lew boosting up Fed to bring down Nadal when he dislikes Fed is always a winner

 

[Adman]

If they both stay at 20, 13 WI+US sounds more convincing than 13 RG.

That's a big "if" of course.

 

[MichaelNadal]

If they both stay at 20, 13 WI+US sounds more convincing than 13 RG.

That's a big "if" of course.

Of course, 100-2 at a slam is def not as impressive as winning at 2 other slams and losing a bunch more
I honestly see both points of view, but people saying either is more convincing than the other is ridiculous, what Nadal has done at the FO is the biggest accomplishment in tennis history. Whatever "distribution" people prefer is an afterthought. It's why it's not talked about by the tennis media, and only discussed by fanboys on forums, (myself included). Nadal only has one less USO than Fed anyway lol

 

[Xavier G]

Indeed, all this while not playing all four slams for a lot of their careers.

Yes, that's relevant as far as evaluating careers of players from the past. Connors and McEnroe, and also Borg too, didn't play all four Slams for a lot of their careers The total Slams count and the "GOAT" thing wasn't a factor the same back then. It's quite difficult to truly compare eras in tennis.

 

[NatF]

Of course, 100-2 at a slam is def not as impressive as winning at 2 other slams and losing a bunch more
I honestly see both points of view, but people saying either is more convincing than the other is ridiculous, what Nadal has done at the FO is the biggest accomplishment in tennis history. Whatever "distribution" people prefer is an afterthought. It's why it's not talked about by the tennis media, and only discussed by fanboys on forums, (myself included). Nadal only has one less USO than Fed anyway lol

Berritini.

 

[NatF]

Yes, that's relevant as far as evaluating careers of players from the past. Connors and McEnroe, and also Borg too, didn't play all four Slams for a lot of their careers The total Slams count and the "GOAT" thing wasn't a factor the same back then. It's quite difficult to truly compare eras in tennis.

Big 3 have had much greater longevity as well, this is both a product of their greatness and the times.