Federer losing 4 times in a row to Nadal at the French Open:
Isn't losing 4 times in a row in the same grandslam to the same player enough to discredit someone from being called the greatest of all-time? Personally I think YES. Even though Nadal is arguably one of the best clay court player ever, I'd say that if you are the "greatest player of all-time" you should be able to at least stand up for yourself and beat that person once! The surface thing is NOT an excuse! Personally if someone beats me 4 times in a row in the same grandslam, I would never call my self the greatest of all-time. If I was "the greatest", I would have made a statement to that other player and managed to find a way to beat him.
2008 Final - Federer lost 1-6, 3-6, 0-6
2007 Final - Federer lost 3-6, 6-4, 3-6, 4-6
2006 Final - Federer lost 6-1, 1-6, 4-6, 6-7
2005 Semif - Federer lost 3-6, 6-4, 4-6, 3-6
In comparasion, things could have ended up the same way at Wimbledon, it was Federer's best surface and he's arguably one of the greatest players on grass, yet Nadal FOUND A WAY to beat him after losing 2 times in a row (the 2nd time because Nadal was injured). Nadal found a way to improve his grass court game to compete with the absolute best on that surface. If he had lost 4 times in a row at Wimbledon to Roger, it would be hard to call him "the greatest" but he managed to stop it and WIN and make it a pretty even interesting battle for years to come in that grandslam.
But Federer losing 4 times in a row mostly in finals to me means that he can't be the greatest. It's a VERY big deal that he can't compete with someone and FIND A WAY to beat him. Nadal did find a way to beat Roger in his own KINGDOM so surface is irrelevant! The greatest of all-time SHOULD FIND A WAY.
Btw, this isn't a "repetitive thread", it's a FAIR QUESTION and it would be nice to hear real opinions...
Are you by chance related to Rafa=Fed Killer.