To be fair all of the "lucky Nadal" threads and the "Nadal in Federer's shadow" nonsense should be put in the ruins, they are merely bait and quite pathetic.
However I really implore you to drop the Roxitova-esque "reliable news" source and read post #5 (my own). The Economist is not there to make judgements but to apply economic theory to real-life examples to educate economic-minded students etc. May of these theories, particularly game theory, are controversial and disputed (indeed the Nash Equilibrium used in this article was not even verified as a hard theory for nearly 15 years). Plus, at some point a human mind has had to assign a judgement value, this is open to debate. This article does use stats to its credit but you can never truly gauge the context i.e the age gap and Fed playing the Big 4 past his prime whilst there were in his peak
My point is that it's a ridiculous debate and articles like this fail to improve its credibility, despite the desperate attempts of Roxitova, a poster who will bait and then fail to back it up with debate...
See the above, consider the context. I get it that Rafa is your fave and that's fine, you may even think he is the GOAT, that's fine as well. Tennis is a game of opinions and I respect that but I would like to think you can at least appreciate that stats are nothing with context.
Yes, that was the real stat that jumped off the page, Elo ratings can have fanboy bias, but cold hard numbers like that tell the story
Fedtards in ruins
Do they really tell the story though when context is removed?
I have to admit I am disappointed with this thread. We all often disagree on this forum but I at least have always credited the majority of posters from all quarters to be intelligent. The first thing I was taught at high school was that you cannot believe everything you read in the written press and take it for granted