why does nadal have to "dominate the board" as you say when he dominated the greatest player ever lived?
is that not enough? he not only dominated him but he derailed him from his throne. that is the greatest feat of courage and relentless will i have ever seen in tennis other than what muster did after being run over by a drunk driver.
nadal could have given up any of those years he was #2 behind fed.
who else on the planet can ever boast such an accomplishment?
take out nadal`s imbecility and pathetic scheduling and he stays healthy in 2009.
14 slams would have been a done deal already. still he is going to get 14-15. even injured all the time and with fucked knees and serving with the wrong hand this man is going to get his 14-15 slams.
and now he is having to deal with nole who is the greatest mover the world has ever known.
By dominating the board I meant weeks at number one and having 3 slam seasons, being the best player over the year. He only managed that once, just like Agassi did in 1999.
Sure, Nadal's accomplishments are unarguable, but despite his excellent head to head record against his rival, he was still locked in behind him for the majority of his career at the top of the game.
I still have Sampras ahead of Nadal unless he goes past his slam count with another hard court GS at least. Borg's a much closer one, but Nadal's definitely surpassed him as clay GOAT. It's impossible to use the Aussie Opens to compare them either as it was a Mickey Mouse slam back then (I mean an average player like Kriek won it twice, says it all)
Being objective towards the Mallorcan, logically it makes no sense to make a huge effort to win another hardcourt major anyway, he's got them both and if he wants longevity, focus on RG and Wimbledon.
He'll definitely get to 13 at least though, he'll win at least two more RGs.