CAMELOT FANTASIES

Here's how the H2H looks between Nadal and Federer:

33 meetings:

Clay: 13-2
Hard: 9-6 Nadal
Grass: 2-1 Federer

So Nadal leads a whopping 23-10 vs Federer and he's clearly dominating Federer on two surfaces and on clay, by a very big margin. Nadal is sitting with 13 Slams already so he's already one of the greatest players of all time. No question asked.

Now if Federer was so good on clay then surely he should have been able to beat Nadal back in those days when Nadal was still a baby and Federer was in his absolute best? The reality and fact is, he didn't. Not even one time at RG and he had plenty chances. How many do you need?

So based on what are we overlooking the H2H here? Because it's on clay? And since when clay is a surface outside the Slams and the ATP tour? Clearly Nadal is a great player of all time and has the upper hand of another champion named Federer, and so this is a prime example how Federer would have fared against other Champions. Perhaps not identically but there's your big loophole in your argument. You can not possibly sweep the floor with your biased opinion and say that Federer would have dominated that player here, here and here, when we clearly see he wasn't even able to handle a baby Rafa in his peak days --- forget anything after.

And of course, just like the great flood or the great depression, there's this great excuse by Fedtards, Nadal is a lefty and that's a problem for Federer. Doink? On what planet does that fly and based on what ground? If Federer is 'all that' then he should have been able to figure Nadal out a long time ago and Nadal is not changing his game against Federer every week. It's the same old game he plays against him. And how do you even conclude that Federer wouldn't have any problems against other Champions? Not similar but some other problems? Surely you have no reason to believe he wouldn't have? Because the fact that we have in hand suggests otherwise so stay quiet.

So no matter how you slice it or dice it, the fact remains - a champion like Nadal owns another champion like Federer in the same era. You don't need to go back to another era; you don't need to change the surface and you certainly don't need to adjust your arguments because it's not going to fly. The prime example is right here, right before your very biased eyes. Accept it like a good fan and move on.

Yes, Federer dominated from 2004-2007 but he had no great consistent player to oppose him other than a baby Nadal but when Nadal peaked, Federer became a no show. One can't eve imagine how things would have panned out had Nadal peaked at the same time as Federer.

So even though Nadal has 13 Slams - 4 less than Federer - Nadal is by all accounts the greater player of the two. He doesn't even need to win 5 more Slams to officially surpass Federer. The slam equality is just a camouflage to make Federer look better. We all know what the truth is. And had Federer peaked in Pete's time and from that era, he wasn't going to win 17 Slams, rest assured. Either way he got lucky.

So even though Federer dominated from 2004 to 2007 and was clearly the best player of that time, he wasn't the best player of his era. That goes to Nadal. And Federer is certainly not the GOAT even though there's no such thing to begin with.

You can sit there and only argue whether he was the best player of his era and take Nadal into complete consideration and that's all you can argue -- though you aren't going to get away with it no matter how much you want it.