Originally Posted by ne znam ali mozda
Nadal: 12 Grand Slam titles; 43 wins, 95% win percentage, seven titles in 2013; five Wimbledon finals appearances, two Wimbledon titles.
Ferrer: 0 Grand Slam titles; 37 wins, 78% win percentage, two titles in 2013; one Wimbledon quarterfinal appearance.
Why is one set of numbers more important than the other? When did common sense get replaced with slavish devotion to meaningless point values?
Originally Posted by Mountaindewslave
5 Wimbledon finals, 2 Titles, has won queens?
Nadal is one of the best grass court players in the world you are just a hater who is either obsessed with bringing rain down on Nadal or taking some strange drug
Why not? Let's start basing seeding on career achievements. Federer to be seeded #1 at Wimbledon for as long as he plays
If you want to ignore the 6 months (injury) break that Nadal took, what stops you from ignoring a 1 year break or a even longer one? Where is the line drawn? Why not seed Sampras as #1 if he chooses to come back?
Nadal took a injury break and his rankings reflect it. Seeding is based on a non-subjective formula. No special treatment. Get over it and stop whining.