Like many others you have missed my point entirely. Things would have been entirely different if Nadal would have managed to do better at Wimbledon.
I do not care about whatever you call me for calling out the facts, it´s just that Roger managed to take the best of whatever his chances, all the stars indeed alligned for him over there, and once again / whatever other opponents´ failure, one has to grab the opportunity and make the most out of it. Roger did so, and as such, did wonderfully well, reclaiming the CROWN of being the best of all times as far as I´m concerned.
WOW!!...What facts are you calling out? and where exactly did we misunderstand you??? PLEASE EXPLAIN.... so that we don't reply samething again and again.
Please explain how would things be dramatically different has Nadal managed to better at Wimbledon!! Please explain !
Like so many others have explained nothing would be different unless Nadal won Wimbledon. Remember Roger defeated the No.1 player and defending wimbledon champ on his way to title. Why is Nadal even in the picture when he is neither No.1 nor defending wimbledon champ.