Certainly, I don't care about that to be honest, but reading this, it must also be said that Nadal quickly withdraws when he does not feel too confident or physically ready to defend his chances outside RG.Nadal is almost guaranteed 1 slam a year, so that takes him to ~25% just like that.
Silly argument. You make it sounds as if they are just giving him the title without playing. The reason he is "almost guaranteed 1 slam a year" is his greatness. And greatness is what we are talking about here right.In the context of the Big 3, on the surface that sounds amazing, but is it?
Nadal is almost guaranteed 1 slam a year, so that takes him to ~25% just like that. Djokovic and Federer therefore only realistically have the opportunity to win the other 3 each year while also having to contend with Nadal and greater competition relative to the surface.
This doesn't necessarily belittle the stat and it's not Nadal's problem that he's a clay court god, but it's another angle to look at it.
Nadal has won 20 of 60 GS he has played= 33% ratio
Djokovic has won 17 of 62 GS= 27% ratio
Federer has won 20 of 79= 25% ratio
I think this can be an interesenting stat to measure greatness.
If it's the slams that matter most in determining greatness--and this has been the measure when "they" called Fed GOAT prematurely over a decade ago--then the lead is the GS is more significant. Djok has won more BO3.But who has a better H2H between Nadal and Djokovic?
Djokovic leads 29-27 yet Nadal leads 10-6 in GS. Not sure If its a stat that favours Djokovic much!
Because he dominated before Djok and Rafa really came of age 2004-2007. There is no greater example of Fed's weak era "acheivements" than this.That's something i don't get It. Why fed have been so bad at the USO for the last 10 years? Just one final. Rafa, a clay courter, acording to some, won 4 times there since fed last title. That stat i don't understand.