Rafa Nadal is the best tennis player to ever live

clayqueen

clayqueen

Bionic Poster


Warning: This first one feels VERY hot coming off the fingertips. I don't consider myself a world-class take merchant, but I have been nurturing this one for a while, and I want to come out guns blazing. You might say that this is the hottest take of my life, because I fervently believe in its absolute truth. It's time for the Monday Superlatives, baby.

The Best Tennis Player to Ever Live: Rafael Nadal

Rafa Nadal (disclaimer: my favorite athlete) is the best tennis player to ever play the game. He is better than Roger Federer, the only other player with an argument now that Nadal has passed Pete Sampras on the all-time grand slam list with 15 major championships. I won't waste time comparing Rafa with someone like Sampras, who never even won the career slam. As far as I'm concerned, my only duty is to prove that he's better than Roger Federer.

First, because I'm a generous person, here are the arguments for Federer:

  1. He has 18 grand slam titles to Rafa's 15.

  2. There is no second argument. And by the time it's all over, Nadal, who is 31, will have more slams than Federer, who is 35.
Now, here are the arguments for the King of Clay, the greatest of all-time, Rafael Nadal Perera:

  1. His overall record against Federer is 23-14. The record on hard courts and grass is essentially even, with Federer holding a 12-10 lead, but Nadal's record on clay is 13-2.

  2. His overall career winning percentage is .825, which is higher than Federer's .817.

  3. As of yesterday, with his victory over Stan Wawrinka in the French Open, he is the only player to ever win 10 grand slam titles—a feat known as La Decima—in one tournament. (He has also accomplished La Decima at Monte Carlo and Barcelona.)

  4. Nadal is indisputably the greatest clay-court player in history, but outside of his favorite surface, he has won five grand slams. He has beaten Federer in grand slam finals on both grass and hard courts, and the trajectory of his career has been one of improvement as he overtakes Federer first on each successive surface. Meanwhile, Federer has exactly one grand slam title on clay, winning his only French in a year when Rafa was knocked out early. In their head-to-head showdowns, Fed is 0-5 against Rafa at Roland Garros.

  5. Nadal has two Olympic gold medals, one in singles and one in doubles. Federer has never won a gold in singles, settling for one silver. (He did win a gold medal with Stan Wawrinka in doubles.)
To be totally fair, there other arguments for Federer, such as the fact that he currently has more ATP titles. But does anyone consider Sam Snead better than Tiger or Jack because he won more often on the PGA Tour?

No way. And unlike Federer, Nadal has also had to fight his way back from injuries, which have resulted in fallow periods, and he's had to win all of his grand slam titles in the era of the Big Four, while Federer took a good chunk of his before Rafa, Djokovic, and Murray entered their primes. And ultimately, it is impossible to argue that Federer is the better player when his winning rate against Nadal is a paltry 38%. We could debate for hours, but that stat will always be the argument-ender.

If you're a Fed fanatic, I know you're not convinced. My argument has been, and will be, ridiculed by many tennis fans. But just wait—it's going to age beautifully, and when Rafa finally surpasses Roger's mark of 18 grand slams, there will no longer be any doubt. History shall vindicate this, the hottest of all tennis takes.

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/rafa-nadal-is-the-best-tennis-player-to-ever-live
 
I agree, he will for sure be on 18 Slams after the Australian Open 2018.

I reckon Nadal will end up with 22/23 slams, and about 15 French Opens ..
 
jimmy0slams said:
I agree, he will for sure be on 18 Slams after the Australian Open 2018.

I reckon Nadal will end up with 22/23 slams, and about 15 French Opens ..
Click to expand...
I won't go as far as predicting how many slams he'd end up with but if he stays healthy and plays for a few more years, he can certainly win more slam titles. I have no doubt he would have won some more had he not missed so many since 2012.
 
clayqueen said:


Warning: This first one feels VERY hot coming off the fingertips. I don't consider myself a world-class take merchant, but I have been nurturing this one for a while, and I want to come out guns blazing. You might say that this is the hottest take of my life, because I fervently believe in its absolute truth. It's time for the Monday Superlatives, baby.

The Best Tennis Player to Ever Live: Rafael Nadal

Rafa Nadal (disclaimer: my favorite athlete) is the best tennis player to ever play the game. He is better than Roger Federer, the only other player with an argument now that Nadal has passed Pete Sampras on the all-time grand slam list with 15 major championships. I won't waste time comparing Rafa with someone like Sampras, who never even won the career slam. As far as I'm concerned, my only duty is to prove that he's better than Roger Federer.

First, because I'm a generous person, here are the arguments for Federer:

  1. He has 18 grand slam titles to Rafa's 15.

  2. There is no second argument. And by the time it's all over, Nadal, who is 31, will have more slams than Federer, who is 35.
Now, here are the arguments for the King of Clay, the greatest of all-time, Rafael Nadal Perera:

  1. His overall record against Federer is 23-14. The record on hard courts and grass is essentially even, with Federer holding a 12-10 lead, but Nadal's record on clay is 13-2.

  2. His overall career winning percentage is .825, which is higher than Federer's .817.

  3. As of yesterday, with his victory over Stan Wawrinka in the French Open, he is the only player to ever win 10 grand slam titles—a feat known as La Decima—in one tournament. (He has also accomplished La Decima at Monte Carlo and Barcelona.)

  4. Nadal is indisputably the greatest clay-court player in history, but outside of his favorite surface, he has won five grand slams. He has beaten Federer in grand slam finals on both grass and hard courts, and the trajectory of his career has been one of improvement as he overtakes Federer first on each successive surface. Meanwhile, Federer has exactly one grand slam title on clay, winning his only French in a year when Rafa was knocked out early. In their head-to-head showdowns, Fed is 0-5 against Rafa at Roland Garros.

  5. Nadal has two Olympic gold medals, one in singles and one in doubles. Federer has never won a gold in singles, settling for one silver. (He did win a gold medal with Stan Wawrinka in doubles.)
To be totally fair, there other arguments for Federer, such as the fact that he currently has more ATP titles. But does anyone consider Sam Snead better than Tiger or Jack because he won more often on the PGA Tour?

No way. And unlike Federer, Nadal has also had to fight his way back from injuries, which have resulted in fallow periods, and he's had to win all of his grand slam titles in the era of the Big Four, while Federer took a good chunk of his before Rafa, Djokovic, and Murray entered their primes. And ultimately, it is impossible to argue that Federer is the better player when his winning rate against Nadal is a paltry 38%. We could debate for hours, but that stat will always be the argument-ender.

If you're a Fed fanatic, I know you're not convinced. My argument has been, and will be, ridiculed by many tennis fans. But just wait—it's going to age beautifully, and when Rafa finally surpasses Roger's mark of 18 grand slams, there will no longer be any doubt. History shall vindicate this, the hottest of all tennis takes.

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/rafa-nadal-is-the-best-tennis-player-to-ever-live
Click to expand...
Anything helps you sleep at nights, mom.
 
"There is no second argument"


LMAOOO. There are so, so many. This place needs the laughing-crying emoji asap.

Yeah, Nadal's overall winning % being .008 higher (and much lower since they both hit their stride and won their first major) is an argument in his favour but Federer's 161 extra weeks at number 1 and 6 WTF's don't register with this dilettante.
 
Fed is the best tennis player in the history of the sport and Nadal is the second best in my opinion.

Compared to each other "mano a mano", Nadal is the better player because he has the winning record.
 
ADuck said:
Who would win?
Click to expand...
Back in the days of Super Smash Bros. Brawl I always killed Mario with Sonic :cool:

But in every other regard...

images

f35df81b1192ba223cdee6cbc2bb6b38.gif


.......


tumblr_mqq7lcZZDv1scjl3lo1_500.gif
 
Let me play too (I'm not quoting you clayqueen):
clayqueen said:
Rafa Nadal (disclaimer: my favorite athlete) is the best tennis player to ever play the game.
Click to expand...
No way...
clayqueen said:
First, because I'm a generous person, here are the arguments for Federer:
1. He has 18 grand slam titles to Rafa's 15.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty big argument against Nadal, I'd say.

clayqueen said:
There is no second argument.
Click to expand...
6 more WTF's, like 20 more titles, 3+ more years at no 1, all the consecutive streaks etc. Basically anything not related to clay or MS tournaments.

clayqueen said:
And by the time it's all over, Nadal, who is 31, will have more slams than Federer, who is 35.
Click to expand...
Let's see how many Nadal wins until the 2018 FO.

clayqueen said:
His overall record against Federer is 23-14. The record on hard courts and grass is essentially even, with Federer holding a 12-10 lead, but Nadal's record on clay is 13-2.
Click to expand...
Not that h2h matters but if you wanna play it's 2 surfaces to 1 for Federer (in just about every single way, not only h2h).

clayqueen said:
His overall career winning percentage is .825, which is higher than Federer's .817.
Click to expand...
Djokovic's is even higher.

And if Nadal plays a full schedule for a couple more years it will drop (even lower than Fed's 81,7), bet your house on it.

clayqueen said:
As of yesterday, with his victory over Stan Wawrinka in the French Open, he is the only player to ever win 10 grand slam titles—a feat known as La Decima—in one tournament. (He has also accomplished La Decima at Monte Carlo and Barcelona.)
Click to expand...
It confirmed that he was the clay GOAT but didn't add a lot to his overall resume.

clayqueen said:
Nadal is indisputably the greatest clay-court player in history, but outside of his favorite surface, he has won five grand slams.
Click to expand...
Federer has won 11 Slams outside of Wimbledon.
clayqueen said:
He has beaten Federer in grand slam finals on both grass and hard courts, and the trajectory of his career has been one of improvement as he overtakes Federer first on each successive surface.
Click to expand...
While Nadal's wins against Federer at 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO were impressive they already were included in the "number of Slams" argument. You can't just take one accomplishment and multiply it as often as you like from a thousand different angles.
clayqueen said:
Meanwhile, Federer has exactly one grand slam title on clay, winning his only French in a year when Rafa was knocked out early. In their head-to-head showdowns, Fed is 0-5 against Rafa at Roland Garros.
Click to expand...
Once again, this proves that he's the clay GOAT.
clayqueen said:
Nadal has two Olympic gold medals, one in singles and one in doubles. Federer has never won a gold in singles, settling for one silver. (He did win a gold medal with Stan Wawrinka in doubles.)
Click to expand...
Ok and Federer has 6 WTF titles compared to Nadal's 0. That considering the fact that Nadal had multiple chances to win it while a player usually gets 2-3 shots at the Olympics. Federer was unfortunate to play crap in 2004, be in the middle of a slump in 2008 and have a very tough SF match before the final in 2012.
clayqueen said:
To be totally fair, there other arguments for Federer, such as the fact that he currently has more ATP titles. But does anyone consider Sam Snead better than Tiger or Jack because he won more often on the PGA Tour?
Click to expand...
Federer has more big titles than Nadal and the difference is only going to increase until Monte Carlo.
clayqueen said:
And unlike Federer, Nadal has also had to fight his way back from injuries, which have resulted in fallow periods,
Click to expand...
You live by the sword, you die by it. If you put so much effort into your matches you're going to get injured sooner or later, you don't have to be a criminal mastermind to figure this out.
clayqueen said:
and he's had to win all of his grand slam titles in the era of the Big Four, while Federer took a good chunk of his before Rafa, Djokovic, and Murray entered their primes.
Click to expand...
Murray is 1-5 against Federer in the Slams despite Federer not being at his peak in any of the matches. The only win being a 5-setter at the slow AO in Federer's worst (and one of Murray's best) season since 2002. 2004-2007 Federer would never lose more than 1 set in any match in a Slam.

Didn't Djokovic win a good chunk of his Slams when Federer was past his prime? It goes both ways. Federer was 4-1 against him in the Slams (the only mono-ridden loss at the 2008 AO) until his 29th birthday. You saw what happened to Djokovic/Nadal at that age.

Nadal was a factor in the Slams since 2005 and Federer still kept dominating until he started to decline in 2008.

clayqueen said:
And ultimately, it is impossible to argue that Federer is the better player when his winning rate against Nadal is a paltry 38%. We could debate for hours, but that stat will always be the argument-ender.
Click to expand...
Didn't we talk about this before?

clayqueen said:
If you're a Fed fanatic, I know you're not convinced. My argument has been, and will be, ridiculed by many tennis fans. But just wait—it's going to age beautifully, and when Rafa finally surpasses Roger's mark of 18 grand slams, there will no longer be any doubt. History shall vindicate this, the hottest of all tennis takes.
Click to expand...
LMAO so maybe we're start discussing the matter when Nadal wins at least 3 more Slams (and Federer wins none at the same time)?
 
Last edited:
Lets get back to this if Rafa gets to 18, which i very much doubt he will.

Funny how Djoker suddenly is out of this topic. After his 2016 ride from AO to FO, many people, players and specialists claimed it was the highest level of tennis ever played. Now it's all about Fedal.
 
Rod Laver said:
The author confuses things. I think he could make an argument about Nadal being a better player if he wanted to - talk about his winning record, his record in finals - but in terms of achievements, it is clear that Federer has achieved more as of now.
Click to expand...
I think the author was saying Rafa is a better player; he also covered the fact that Federer has achieved more because he had a head start in the weak era. Federer is also 5 years older than Rafa, a fact that FedFans tend to forget - conveniently.
 
Jonas78 said:
Lets get back to this if Rafa gets to 18, which i very much doubt he will.

Funny how Djoker suddenly is out of this topic. After his 2016 ride from AO to FO, many people, players and specialists claimed it was the highest level of tennis ever played. Now it's all about Fedal.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't take any notice of the hyberbole uttered by tennis commentators. These utterances by the tennis intelligentsia are not meant to be taken seriously. They were beginning to call Murray a titan of the highest order when he got to #1, but that was quickly shelved and he hasn't lived up to his ranking, so far.
 
The GOAT argument is stupid, because people have already decided who they want it to be based on opinions so they just find a set of statistics or facts which support their argument and then repeat them until the end of time. Like someone said in this thread if Nadal won more slams they still wouldn't consider him the GOAT, which is fair, because of x,y,z I like fedr he's pretty etc etc. Same goes with Nadal, because clay,h2h, blah blah blah.

The truth is there is no GOAT unless one player stands head and shoulders above the rest. In this case, Federer, whilst he is the best candidate DOES NOT stand head and shoulders above the rest. Let's face it, he was owned by Nadal near the peak of his powers many, many times. You can't be the GOAT if someone can beat you so convincingly in your own era. Surely if you are the best tennis player EVER, you should beat everyone no? Well, feel free to disagree. Federer is simply the MSOAT - The Most Succesful Player Of All Time.
 
ADuck said:
The GOAT argument is stupid, because people have already decided who they want it to be based on opinions so they just find a set of statistics or facts which support their argument and then repeat them until the end of time. Like someone said in this thread if Nadal won more slams they still wouldn't consider him the GOAT, which is fair, because of x,y,z I like fedr he's pretty etc etc. Same goes with Nadal, because clay,h2h, blah blah blah.

The truth is there is no GOAT unless one player stands head and shoulders above the rest. In this case, Federer, whilst he is the best candidate DOES NOT stand head and shoulders above the rest. Let's face it, he was owned by Nadal near the peak of his powers many, many times. You can't be the GOAT if someone can beat you so convincingly in your own era. Surely if you are the best tennis player EVER, you should beat everyone no? Well, feel free to disagree. Federer is simply the MSOAT - The Most Successful Player Of All Time.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree with you more except for your final statement which you can put down to having been on tour longer. Not only should you be able to beat everyone as the best player of all time, no one else should be so dominant on one surface that you are so unsuccessful on especially in your era.
 
"There is no second argument"

LOL

I should have stopped reading right there.

This article was written by a Rafa fanatic without a shadow of a doubt. There is more than just a second argument in Roger's favor. Saying otherwise already proves the stupidity of the article.
 
clayqueen said:
I think the author was saying Rafa is a better player; he also covered the fact that Federer has achieved more because he had a head start in the weak era. Federer is also 5 years older than Rafa, a fact that FedFans tend to forget - conveniently.
Click to expand...

Oh is that a fact now? Seems that the standards required for an opinion to pass off as a fact are quite lax these days.

OK then, Nadal had a weak CC era which is why Borg's still better on clay. He also only won Wimbledon because the grass slowed down and won his 2 USOs due too easy draws. He can't win YEC because there are no easy draws for Tio toni to fix as only the best can participate in the tourney.

These are facts now because I say they are. Now I can proceed to use them to prove my biased assertion. See how that works?


Furthemore, it doesn't speak well for Nadal that he let Fed clean up during said weak era, why didn't he get the piece of the pie himself?
 
tennis_pro said:
Let me play too (I'm not quoting you clayqueen):

No way...

That's a pretty big argument against Nadal, I'd say.


6 more WTF's, like 20 more titles, 3+ more years at no 1, all the consecutive streaks etc. Basically anything not related to clay or MS tournaments.


Let's see how many Nadal wins until the 2018 FO.


Not that h2h matters but if you wanna play it's 2 surfaces to 1 for Federer (in just about every single way, not only h2h).


Djokovic's is even higher.

And if Nadal plays a full schedule for a couple more years it will drop (even lower than Fed's 81,7), bet your house on it.


It confirmed that he was the clay GOAT but didn't add a lot to his overall resume.


Federer has won 11 Slams outside of Wimbledon.

While Nadal's wins against Federer at 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO were impressive they already were included in the "number of Slams" argument. You can't just take one accomplishment and multiply it as often as you like from a thousand different angles.

Once again, this proves that he's the clay GOAT.

Ok and Federer has 6 WTF titles compared to Nadal's 0. That considering the fact that Nadal had multiple chances to win it while a player usually gets 2-3 shots at the Olympics. Federer was unfortunate to play crap in 2004, be in the middle of a slump in 2008 and have a very tough SF match before the final in 2012.

Federer has more big titles than Nadal and the difference is only going to increase until Monte Carlo.

You live by the sword, you die by it. If you put so much effort into your matches you're going to get injured sooner or later, you don't have to be a criminal mastermind to figure this out.

Murray is 1-5 against Federer in the Slams despite Federer not being at his peak in any of the matches. The only win being a 5-setter at the slow AO in Federer's worst (and one of Murray's best) season since 2002. 2004-2007 Federer would never lose more than 1 set in any match in a Slam.

Didn't Djokovic win a good chunk of his Slams when Federer was past his prime? It goes both ways. Federer was 4-1 against him in the Slams (the only mono-ridden loss at the 2008 AO) until his 29th birthday. You saw what happened to Djokovic/Nadal at that age.

Nadal was a factor in the Slams since 2005 and Federer still kept dominating until he started to decline in 2008.


Didn't we talk about this before?


LMAO so maybe we're start discussing the matter when Nadal wins at least 3 more Slams (and Federer wins none at the same time)?
Click to expand...
Agree all the way.
 
zagor said:
Furthemore, it doesn't speak well for Nadal that he let Fed clean up during said weak era, why didn't he get the piece of the pie himself?
Click to expand...
Because he was still at school. See, you have forgotten that Federer is 5 years older than Rafa.
 
zagor said:
Oh is that a fact now? Seems that the standards required for an opinion to pass off as a fact are quite lax these days.

OK then, Nadal had a weak CC era which is why Borg's still better on clay. He also only won Wimbledon because the grass slowed down and won his 2 USOs due too easy draws. He can't win YEC because there are no easy draws for Tio toni to fix as only the best can participate in the tourney.

These are facts now because I say they are. Now I can proceed to use them to prove my biased assertion. See how that works?


Furthemore, it doesn't speak well for Nadal that he let Fed clean up during said weak era, why didn't he get the piece of the pie himself?
Click to expand...
Because Rafa was a baby in diapers. It wasn't a weak era for him....

It's never a weak era for Rafito. Every time he wins, the players were playing in super sayian mode.
 
NatF said:
I refer you to my signature.

clayqueen - "When you are 5 - 6 years younger than your opponents, it's not a weak era for you."
Click to expand...
That is true. Someone claimed that if Roger played in a weak era so did Rafa, but most of those players who were around when Rafa became #2 in the world, were older and more experienced than him, so that can't be seen as a weak era from Rafa's perspective.
 
zagor said:
Then why was his winning % 89 in 2005? Far above his career average and 2nd best in his 13 year long career.

I mean, winning % is one of the arguments author uses, right?
Click to expand...
Because Nadal was born with immense tennis talent. Injury took it's toll over the years, without that, he would have won far more titles.
 
clayqueen said:
Because Nadal was born with immense tennis talent. Injury took it's toll over the years, without that, he would have won far more titles.
Click to expand...

Yes, injuries took so much toll over the years that he just had his most dominant slam run at 31.

The guy's body is really falling apart, isn't it? Guys like Delpo, Guga, Hewitt and Pim-Pim are just drama queens, if only they had 1/10th of Rafa's fighting spirit.
 
1. Who cares about H2H? It proves Nadal is 5 years younger, peaked at a younger age and is clay dominant.

2 & 3. More clay accomplishments... and win % is irrelevant when the margins are so fine and they have as many wins as they do. Fed sucked between 1999-2002 as well where as Nadal was brilliant from the start.

4. This "argument" is disingenuous. It groups HC / grass as being identical, which is false. If you take HC as Fed's best surface, (10 slams won) then he has 8 NON HC slams. Rafa has 5 NON CLAY slams. 8 > 5. This looks even worse when you use grass, Fed has 11 NON GRASS slams.

5. LOL Olympics singles gold as an argument when it's kinda random what year it falls on. Nadal's 0 WTF is a much bigger gaping hole than OSG.


TL:DR: This looks like something one of our resident ************* trolls would write up. Easily debunked.
 
clayqueen said:


Warning: This first one feels VERY hot coming off the fingertips. I don't consider myself a world-class take merchant, but I have been nurturing this one for a while, and I want to come out guns blazing. You might say that this is the hottest take of my life, because I fervently believe in its absolute truth. It's time for the Monday Superlatives, baby.

The Best Tennis Player to Ever Live: Rafael Nadal

Rafa Nadal (disclaimer: my favorite athlete) is the best tennis player to ever play the game. He is better than Roger Federer, the only other player with an argument now that Nadal has passed Pete Sampras on the all-time grand slam list with 15 major championships. I won't waste time comparing Rafa with someone like Sampras, who never even won the career slam. As far as I'm concerned, my only duty is to prove that he's better than Roger Federer.

First, because I'm a generous person, here are the arguments for Federer:

  1. He has 18 grand slam titles to Rafa's 15.

  2. There is no second argument. And by the time it's all over, Nadal, who is 31, will have more slams than Federer, who is 35.
Now, here are the arguments for the King of Clay, the greatest of all-time, Rafael Nadal Perera:

  1. His overall record against Federer is 23-14. The record on hard courts and grass is essentially even, with Federer holding a 12-10 lead, but Nadal's record on clay is 13-2.

  2. His overall career winning percentage is .825, which is higher than Federer's .817.

  3. As of yesterday, with his victory over Stan Wawrinka in the French Open, he is the only player to ever win 10 grand slam titles—a feat known as La Decima—in one tournament. (He has also accomplished La Decima at Monte Carlo and Barcelona.)

  4. Nadal is indisputably the greatest clay-court player in history, but outside of his favorite surface, he has won five grand slams. He has beaten Federer in grand slam finals on both grass and hard courts, and the trajectory of his career has been one of improvement as he overtakes Federer first on each successive surface. Meanwhile, Federer has exactly one grand slam title on clay, winning his only French in a year when Rafa was knocked out early. In their head-to-head showdowns, Fed is 0-5 against Rafa at Roland Garros.

  5. Nadal has two Olympic gold medals, one in singles and one in doubles. Federer has never won a gold in singles, settling for one silver. (He did win a gold medal with Stan Wawrinka in doubles.)
To be totally fair, there other arguments for Federer, such as the fact that he currently has more ATP titles. But does anyone consider Sam Snead better than Tiger or Jack because he won more often on the PGA Tour?

No way. And unlike Federer, Nadal has also had to fight his way back from injuries, which have resulted in fallow periods, and he's had to win all of his grand slam titles in the era of the Big Four, while Federer took a good chunk of his before Rafa, Djokovic, and Murray entered their primes. And ultimately, it is impossible to argue that Federer is the better player when his winning rate against Nadal is a paltry 38%. We could debate for hours, but that stat will always be the argument-ender.

If you're a Fed fanatic, I know you're not convinced. My argument has been, and will be, ridiculed by many tennis fans. But just wait—it's going to age beautifully, and when Rafa finally surpasses Roger's mark of 18 grand slams, there will no longer be any doubt. History shall vindicate this, the hottest of all tennis takes.

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/rafa-nadal-is-the-best-tennis-player-to-ever-live
Click to expand...

This article seems like a troll.

"First, because I'm a generous person, here are the arguments for Federer"


Proceeds to mention Federer having 18 GS titles to Nadals 15. Like it's an unimportant stat.

Wtf?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Rafa Nadal is the best tennis player to ever live
Replies
22
Views
2K
LETitBE
L
R
US OPEN 2010: Nadal v Federer.. Who really is the best tennis player (article)
Replies
0
Views
688
rogerfederer26
R
Halba
nadal- the most complete player ever?
2
Replies
60
Views
9K
BeatlesFan
BeatlesFan
F
If Federer wasn't around would Nadal be the greatest tennis player around?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Cenc
C
triforce defender
Rafa Nadal Trivia Question
Replies
5
Views
934
triforce defender
triforce defender
Back
Top