Originally Posted by Mountaindewslave
all of your commentary is based on assumptions: you really have no clue if Nadal would have won many more slams if he had not been injured, for all we know he could have won LESS. it's irregardless, he becomes injured because of his battling style that is really rough and tears him up physically... if he didn't play like that he wouldn't have success but he might be more healthy. it's illogical to pull that out as an excuse. he must work much harder than Federer and although it certainly does take talent to play the way Nadal does, he just is not nearly naturally as talented as Federer.
Federer >>>> Nadal in every single department except maybe speed/flexibility/strength, physcial departments. his game is prettier, his strokes cleaner, his form better, much better serve etc. 'what ifs' are irrelevant.
Nadal>>Federer in mental toughness.. Nadal has a better BH as well..
Game is Prettier? Who cares?
And I highly doubt its a "what if" based on the evidence and history thats been given. Its more like "more then likely". Fed could barely handled Roddick at wimbledon that year.. How was he gonna handle Nadal?
Rafa has injuries derailing his 2009 season after the AO when he was peaking... That a few slams right there.. The way he was playing, I would like to know who would have beaten him if he was healthy other then maybe at the USO. Injuries are derailing his career once again from gaining more slams and with the lack of depth in the field (and considering Nole's level has plummeted and how Rafa has owned Murray) there is no one to stop him. Again.. A shame.