That's the worst analogy of all-time. If I get an A on a pure MCQ without the essay part that I suck at, I still get an A. The only thing that the asterisk next to my grade would symbolise is that I totally kicked ass at the test (hence getting an A* - A Star).
Again, your analogy is flawed. Nadal entered the 2012 Wimbledon Championships. He lost in the second round. That's not the same as a player winning a 250 tournament that the top players did not enter.
He did beat Nadal in a couple of slam finals, so stop trying to rewrite history. It's not his problem that Nadal couldn't get past the second round of Wimbledon this year, or that he lost to Ferrer in Melbourne 2010. Nadal losing before the final to meet Roger in no way taints his achievements. Only a Nadaltard/Fedhater would think that. Did he get lucky when Nadal lost early? Of course he did. But Nadal losing was not the only reason for Roger's victories. He had to show up, take the court, and, gasp, play tennis to win matches - and that was exactly what he did.
Anyway, you can discount his victories all you want; sadly for you, a win is a win, and there's nothing that anyone can say that'd diminish his success and achievements.
My analogies are spot on. These wins when Nadal has dropped out early(or couldn't play due to injury) are opportunistic and benefiting from fortunate circumstance. Federer didn't have to play against his greatest challenger and thus it made it easier for him to win....just like a 250 event with the weak competition and a test without the essay portion.
When was the last time he beat Nadal in a grand slam final? Oh yea, that's right Fed hasn't beaten him since Nadal took the upper hand on him at Wimbledon in 2008. (Crushing blow to your argument there.)
There's is plenty one can say to scrutinize another's success and achievements. The biggest of which, for me is that Federer wouldn't have achieved many of them if he had to play Nadal in the final.
Nadal OWNS Fed.
The point is to win tournaments, not to "beat that specific guy". Pete Sampras would only have five majors if we only count the ones with Agassi and the rest meaningless by your logic. Nadal would also only have six (vs rival Federer)
Sure yea, I am not saying Federer didn't win those tournaments...just like I am not saying that the 1987 NFL football season didn't count. I am making the point that the win is tainted, it's lucky for him because he didn't have to play Rafa in the final. I don't see what's so complicated or wrong about that statement.
And that is a retarded statement because his rival was not good enough to reach the finals. I'm sure lots of connaisseurs are saying "this wimbledon title means less because thew winner did not beat the guy who lost in round 2 to an unknown ranked 100 in the world."
Actually connaisseurs is not the proper expression to describe people who would say that. I believe pathetic nadal fangirl fits better.
Retarded statement? Pathetic fangirl?
I don't get your argument at all, you aren't making any points. I see that you disagree with me, that's it. Perhaps you could elaborate on this a bit?
You are like the 99% of the other posters on this board who don't read and just post whatever nonsense they like. Let's not call people names though, that's just silly. We're talking about tennis here.
Yes - losing in the 2nd round is bad luck for Rafa and good luck for Federer. Would you agree with that statement?
If you agree with that then, you can also agree that Federer was a benefactor of luck and circumstance. That luck really being that he didn't have to face his main rival because he would have lost to him. Any win overshadowed by such a thing has to be tainted.
Originally Posted by evilmindbulgaria
Oh, really? RG'06,07,08,11 AO'09 WI'08 were not all Nadal - Federer finals? How many more chances does the supposed "Goat" need?
Not to mention all the other non slam meetings they've had when Nadal whooped up on the supposed greatest of all time. LOL.