Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BigDongedHoe
What you wrote right there proves little to no knowledge of the sport again, you testing me on tennis stuff would be like me trying to tell you I know more about MMA than you. Clay is a completely different animal than grass/hardcourt you have to understand those 4 wins are near meaningless in the scheme of things. Not to mention that Federer went 4 sets at the french this year in the final, the simple fact that he even made the final on clay is astonishing to me. Lets look at what they've done in majors besides an absolute miracle run at Wimbledon to the final Nadal has only had French Open titles and runs. His game is taylor made for clay and while he has translated to some success even against Federer on a hardcourt to even say they are comparable is a complete joke.
I could personally give a shit less what there head to head record is, you want to know why they play much less on hardcourt and grass? Because Nadal consistently loses on those surfaces to other players before he even gets a chance to get to Federer in the final. The reason they have so many clay matches is they are all finals, yeah Federer is even good enough he wins on clay as well!
Tennis is the same as golf in that you can win some small tourneys here and there but the big ones is what counts and simply put Federer is in a complete league of his own, even moreso than Tiger Woods.
|
I'm not saying I know more about tennis than you, I am not saying that Nadal is in Federer's leauge, in fact that is part of the problem. Federer consistently loses to a player he shouldn't, that puts at least a small dent in his armor, no matter how small of a dent in how thick an armor.
Yes I know how different clay and hardcourt are, I've played on both and am friends with most of the UIndy tennis team, but tennis played on clay is still tennis. you aren't saying that Federer is the most dominant hardcourt player ever, you are saying he is the most dominant tennis player ever, which he is....but clay still counts.
All I am saying is that Federer has somebody that beats him when they go head to head, Woods does not. It's not like there is one particular guy that gives Tiger hell on links type courses while sucking on more modern type courses.
Overall record, tournament, and greatness-wise I would still give it to Woods, but I can see the argument for Federer too.\
It's possible to say Federer would be more dominant if not for Nadal without saying Federer is not dominant, so stop getting all butt-hurt.
I don't know if you're pissed cus you think I am saying Nadal is better, but I am not saying that.