Woz has been ranked 1st for the women most of the last year and gets dismissed routinely in GS before the final.

LOL rankings. Especially for one month, which happens to be NOVEMBER, 3 months after the Slam season.

C-Vig,

You do realise Nadal has been beaten by the likes of Soderling, Murray, JMDP, Tsonga and Ferrer in recent years at slams?

I mean Tsonga and JMDP dismantled him.

co****ingsign

If Federer is so ****ty on clay that he never makes any final except the 2009 one, he'd still have 16 majors and a winning head to head record against Nadal.

But he's pretty damn good on clay, not just good enough to beat the GOAT clay player, that his head to head looks bad.

i don't think this is true fwiw. nadal is obv a huge fav on clay but i seriously doubt fed in his prime is a dog to anyone on grass or hard.

Federer was the favourite for Wimbledon this year.

how about

if nadal wasnt way better than federer on clay, federer would have a winning h2h record

Murray and JMDP are much better than anyone from the Roddick #2 days.

At prime Fed favourite on grass and hard for sure.

STILL they are ignoring the clay question. Beyond comical, onto ignore close thread territory.

I think Nadal should be favored on all three surfaces, and even if he's not it would be very close. Close enough that Nadal's edge on clay makes him the overall favorite without a doubt.

I won't shift the goalposts though as I feel Nadal is better on every surface.

No, the argument is simply that Federer has won 16 titles, period, end of story. Nadal has won 9, period, end of story. There is no subtlety to the Federer side of the story like you are making it seem, it is pure black and white.

Nadal has a great chance to match him, no denying it, and then heads-up might count (if he passes him their is no doubt), heck if he wins 15, we might give him GOAT title. Very few are taking the stance that Federer will end up the GOAT with any degree of confidence. They are simply saying he is until he is not. It is the Nadal side that is trying to make it seem like wins count double and bringing wankers like Andy Murray and Andy Roddick into the debate to some how come up with the gorrilla math that 9 is already > 16.

Del Potro pre injury and focused was scary good, way better than like a prime Lleyton Hewitt

If we don't count play on grass, Nadal becomes so much better than Fed, so I'm gonna have to start asking all the pro-Nadal posters to start doing that from now on. Seems fair enough based on how they discount clay.

Are you even reading this thread? You still don't know how many majors Nadal has?!

btw, it's 11*

lol come on

Nadal was the #2 player for much of Federer's prime. That is from 2005-2007. Roddick has a better career than Murray. Former #1, US open champion and multiple wimbledon finalist. Had it not been for Federer, he would've won multiple wimbledon championships. His game is well suited for grass. You have to thank Federer for making him look bad in these arguments. He made a lot of them look silly in his prime.

10 though.

11 lol and you're ragging on him for not knowing...

well it will be in a few days
hence the star

"you can't really be this thick..."

Nadal's clay court competition was just as bad if not significantly worse than Federers overall competition. Where he has won 60% of his slams. How do the Nadal crowd respond to this? Still waiting.

Where do you 'get' this feeling from?

Federer has 9 hard court slam titles. 6 grass court slam titles. Making it 15 on both. Nadal has 4 on both combined. Even if you look at their winning % on both surfaces during their respective peaks, it's not even close.

Federer was on a 41 match winning streak on grass! He won 5 straight US opens. 3 Aus opens in 4 years.

The pro-Nadal crowd trotted out H2H like it disposed of the argument, then retreated and said "H2H doesn't matter" when it was dismissed.

Murray has 5* grandslams then?

Do you realise just how much better Federer was than everyone else around that time? It's like you seem to think Roddick and co gave him trouble on court. He was the best tennis player on the planet by a distance that we will likely never see again. Not because everyone else was terrible (like you seem to think) but because he was simply playing out of this world tennis.