I really can't understand this crap of Federer's wins are tainted because he didn't play nadal that fumus is going about.
Roger can only play who is on the other side of the net.... And he says this only regarding nadal... Why?! Because nadal is the guy that gives Roger more trouble?
That means that if murray, for example, won Wimbledon against Roger his victory would be tainted because he didn't play nadal?
Surely beating Roger doens't matter since he had at the time 8-7 H2H against Roger.
The falw with H2H's is simple. The people who hang on to this, and the weak era crap theory, are desperate to bring down Roger's legacy and achievements. Since they don't have a lot of arguments to start with (Roger's resume is near flawless) they pick up his H2H against nadal.
So according to this people if Roger had missed the 4 finals at RG, for example, his resume would be better given that the H2H would be less bad against nadal. So reaching only 1 final at RG would be better than reaching 5 finals....
The kind of stupidities some haters write is just
. Never cease to amaze me. Guess when you have as much sucess as Roger has had it is invitable that some trolls will appear.
I as a fan and I guess Roger as well take all the slam "tainted" victories with no problem.
Just a question, what is the value of a tainted slam? 2 tainted slams = 1 regular slam!?
So Roger has 2 legitimate slams + 15 tainted (even though, for example, he just beat the world #1 and defending champion to win wimbledon but I guess #3 is more important) so that equals 9,5 normal slams. nadal is goat no question about it.