Fedalovic Wars

[Moxie]

Hands down the set of all masters is a FAR more impressive record. It's beyond silly to claim otherwise. Djokovic has won all the masters twice, no other player has even done that ONCE!

"He is the only male player to have won all nine of the ATP Tour Masters 1000 tournaments, not only once but twice (no other male player has won all nine ATP 1000 events even once)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novak_Djokovic_career_statistics

Re the 2012 Olympics, maybe this might refresh people's memory around here:

"Federer clinched the first singles medal of his career Friday, rallying past Juan Martin del Potro of Argentina 3-6, 7-6 (5), 19-17. At 4 hours, 26 minutes, it was the longest three-set men's match of the Open era" <---- Longest 3 set match of the open era and you don't think that affected the outcome. Please. It doesn't bother me one bit that Federer lost that match, he has plenty of far more important records, I merely replied to yet another dense post by Nadalfan2013 that the Olympics are apparently more important the the Tennis Masters Cup/WTF.

Also, the WTF/Tennis masters cup have been referred to as the 5th slam along with Indian Wells. Federer holds the record with 6 there, Djokovic 5. If Federer happened to win another 1 to make that 7 then that record may last a long time time. While he may prefer a gold medal, I can undoubtedly say winning another WTF against the top 8 players on tour would be a FAR better career title/achievement. Nadalfan2013 made yet another silly comment that apparently the players compared to the Olympics to a slam. Which would be better for Federer or Djokovic to win I wonder....another slam or the freakin' Olympics, LOL. That settles that then

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Finals

Oh, it's impressive, but I think you've lost sight of what is more important. You've spent so much time trying to convince certain posters that the Olympics means nothing that you've tipped over into the ridiculous. The MS is only 30 years old. They Olympics go back to ancient Greece. Everyone grows up dreaming of an Olympic medal. I will give you that tennis hasn't always been in the Olympics, (just off and on,) and it's not the biggest prize in tennis, as it is in other sports, but to dismiss it is patently ridiculous. Even the ATP lists it on the "Big Titles" race. No, no one in tennis would choose an Olympic medal over a Major, but did Djokovic state as his goal early in 2012 as "RG and Cincy?" No, he declared his two goals, after he'd won the AO as "RG and the Olympic Gold medal." Would he trade his Cincy titles for OG gold? I'm betting he would. When he lost first round in Rio to del Potro, he walked off the court in tears, and declared he was out of Cincy before he'd even finished blowing his nose, though Cincy was two weeks off, and he'd had yet to win it at that point. Does anyone think that, if it were so important to him that he'd have begged off so quickly before deciding if he were really fit enough to compete for it? If he even was hurt, he wasn't so hurt that he didn't make the final of the USO a few weeks later. It's not just a shiny bauble. It's a freaking Olympic Gold medal.

And yes, I remember that that SF in 2012 was the longest 3-setter ever. But if Federer, at just shy of 31 couldn't make a match of it on grass due to being worn out, I'm not sure how he won 2 5-setters to win the AO in 2017, at 35, and don't give me that he had a day of rest in between. You can lay some of it down to fatigue, but he also got outplayed.

 

[Front242]

Oh, it's impressive, but I think you've lost sight of what is more important. You've spent so much time trying to convince certain posters that the Olympics means nothing that you've tipped over into the ridiculous. The MS is only 30 years old. They Olympics go back to ancient Greece. Everyone grows up dreaming of an Olympic medal. I will give you that tennis hasn't always been in the Olympics, (just off and on,) and it's not the biggest prize in tennis, as it is in other sports, but to dismiss it is patently ridiculous. Even the ATP lists it on the "Big Titles" race. No, no one in tennis would choose an Olympic medal over a Major, but did Djokovic state as his goal early in 2012 as "RG and Cincy?" No, he declared his two goals, after he'd won the AO as "RG and the Olympic Gold medal." Would he trade his Cincy titles for OG gold? I'm betting he would. When he lost first round in Rio to del Potro, he walked off the court in tears, and declared he was out of Cincy before he'd even finished blowing his nose, though Cincy was two weeks off, and he'd had yet to win it at that point. Does anyone think that, if it were so important to him that he'd have begged off so quickly before deciding if he were really fit enough to compete for it? If he even was hurt, he wasn't so hurt that he didn't make the final of the USO a few weeks later. It's not just a shiny bauble. It's a freaking Olympic Gold medal.

And yes, I remember that that SF in 2012 was the longest 3-setter ever. But if Federer, at just shy of 31 couldn't make a match of it on grass due to being worn out, I'm not sure how he won 2 5-setters to win the AO in 2017, at 35, and don't give me that he had a day of rest in between. You can lay some of it down to fatigue, but he also got outplayed.

You can indeed bet that and you're welcome to it. I for one do not think for one second he'd prefer to have an Olympic gold medal over a record that may not be broken for a LONG, LONG TIME. No one else has ever won them all once and Djokovic has won them all twice. Would any tennis player in their right mind prefer to give up an incredible record like that over an Olympic gold medal?! I still say that's a resounding NO. The problem here is Nadal fans are reduced to clutching at straws to "big up" their man, knowing full well he hasn't won the WTF and this has for years been the counter "argument". It's a weak one, sorry. Federer's matches at the AO 2017 were nowhere near as taxing as that match. He won some of those sets very easily (6 -1 or 6-2) in those 5 set matches. No set was easy at the Olympic SF 2012. Huge difference. Re Djokovic being upset, yes, because you have to wait 4 years to get another chance, it's not played every year and losing in the first round would make anyone pissed off having prepared a long time for it obviously enough. It's nowhere near the big deal Nadal fans make out having a gold medal sorry.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Please don't mention the AO 2017 title because Federer cheated in both the SF and Final.

After Wawrinka won the 4th set in the AO 2017 SF and had the momentum, Federer took an MTO leaving the court and even admitted to the press that it was not because he really needed to but that it was mostly strategic:

Q. You said on the court you never take the timeouts. That’s kind of a new turn for you. Did it help to give you a chance to clear your head before the fifth set?

ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, I mean, I think these injury timeouts, I think they’re more mental than anything else. Okay, normally you would have to do it on court. If you do groin or something like that, or a tape way up there, you have to go off court.

For the first time maybe during a match you can actually talk to someone, even if it’s just a physio. We know him well. It maybe relaxed Stan, you know, just to be able to talk about I don’t know what. The same thing for me, as well. You start chatting about it, how good or bad the leg is, how you hope it’s going to turn around. That can leave a positive effect on you when you come back.

I only really did take the timeout because I thought, He took one already, maybe I can take one for a change, because I’m not a believer in any way that we should be allowed to take a lot of timeouts. But I took it after the set break.

Yeah, people know I don’t abuse the system. I hope it’s going to stay that way in the future for me, too.

He did the same exact thing in the Final after Nadal had the momentum and won the 4th set, he again took an MTO not because he absolutely had to but rather because it was a convenient time to break Nadal's rhythm.

Q. The medical timeout, there were some quite adverse comments about that.

ROGER FEDERER: What is 'adverse comments'?

Q. Critical comments. I think Pat Cash said it was legalized cheating. Can you tell us what was going on there, what the reason was.

ROGER FEDERER: Look, I mean, I explained myself a couple of days ago after the Stan match. Yeah, my leg has been hurting me since the Rubin match. I was happy that I was able to navigate through the pain. For some reason against Stan I had it from the start on both sides of the groin.

After he took a medical timeout, I thought I could also take one for a change and see if actually something like a massage during the match is actually going to help me. It did a little bit potentially. I'm not sure.

And then today after probably -- well, I felt my quad midway through the second set already, and the groin started to hurt midway through the third set. I just told myself, The rules are there that you can use them. I also think we shouldn't be using these rules or abusing the system. I think I've led the way for 20 years.

So I think to be critical there is exaggerating. I'm the last guy to call a medical timeout. So I don't know what he's talking about.

It's obvious that he just "used the system" to finally win his 1st slam in 5 years and he admitted it. That's why he is going to lose both the Slam record (to Nadal) and the weeks at no.1 record (to Djokovic). Karma at its finest.

 

[Front242]

^ What the actual fuck ? Where does it say he admited he cheated you illiterate imbecile ? He had a groin injury since the 2nd round.

ROGER FEDERER: Look, I mean, I explained myself a couple of days ago after the Stan match. Yeah, my leg has been hurting me since the Rubin match. I was happy that I was able to navigate through the pain. For some reason against Stan I had it from the start on both sides of the groin.

Funniest fucking shit ever btw hearing a NADAL fan complaining about MTOs seeing as he has the most dubious history of all time for MTOs

 

[Nadalfan2013]

ROGER FEDERER: Look, I mean, I explained myself a couple of days ago after the Stan match. Yeah, my leg has been hurting me since the Rubin match. I was happy that I was able to navigate through the pain. For some reason against Stan I had it from the start on both sides of the groin.

Funniest fucking shit ever btw hearing a NADAL fan about MTOs seeing as he has the most dubious history of all time for MTOs

Sorry, but the timing was too obvious. If you had watched the matches instead of being online trolling he was actually completely fine running and moving like a gazelle and both MTOs were at the perfect timing because Wawrinka and Nadal gained the momentum in the 4th sets with incredible play. He left the court and disappeared.

It's obvious from his comments that it wasn't because he really needed to. You just took one sentence out of the whole context. It even created a controversy on social media with tons of fans disappointed in his cheating. Sorry but you worship a cheater. It sucks but I guess you will just have to suck it up and live with it.

After cheating his way through his 1st slam in 5 years, he had the luxury of meeting a choker like Cilic in the final for his next 2 slams . Talk about the weak era all over again, he is simply too lucky and definitely overrated compared to Nadal (and even Djokovic). That's why Federer will end up at #3 in his own era.

 

[Front242]

Sorry, but the timing was too obvious. If you had watched the matches instead of being online trolling he was actually completely fine running and moving like a gazelle and both MTOs were at the perfect timing because Wawrinka and Nadal gained the momentum in the 4th sets with incredible play. He left the court and disappeared.

It's obvious from his comments that it wasn't because he really needed to. You just took one sentence out of the whole context. It even created a controversy on social media with tons of fans disappointed in his cheating. Sorry but you worship a cheater. It sucks but I guess you will just have to suck it up and live with it.

After cheating his way through his 1st slam in 5 years, he had the luxury of meeting a choker like Cilic in the final for his next 2 slams . Talk about the weak era all over again, he is simply too lucky and definitely overrated compared to Nadal (and even Djokovic).

Go back and watch Wimbledon 2010. Robin Haase and Philip Petzschner were both destroying your smelly fingered hero and he used his get out of jail free card. He would've likely lost to Petzschner especially otherwise as his forehand was absolutely on fire and he was bombing aces all over the shop and Nadal had no answer except to stop play. Now THOSE are prime examples of bending of the rules. A 35 year old who had a groin injury since the second round needed a rub down after a long near fortnight of tough matches and had been out of action for over 6 months after a knee surgery. Gee, what a surprise. He had groin pain on both sides against Stan and LOL at both Wawrinka and Nadal "both won the 4th sets with amazing play." Federer lost the 3rd set 6-1 so maybe you should've said the 3rd set or maybe Federer was actually ailing. Anyway, since you said the 4th set, he lost it 6-4. Must've been such amazing play by Stan to win by a single break. Nadal's play in set 4 was nothing special either. You want amazing play, watch set 3 that Federer won 6-1 blasting winner after winner and it should never have gone to a 5th. The only controversy was started by that sad tosser Pat Cash and I watched the whole match from start to finish so lose the sad "if I wasn't online trolling" I would've seen it shite.

If Federer is so overrated how come Nadal has won 65% of his slams at one single slam. Guess who has the better distribution of titles, genius. He's unreal on 1 surface and noticeably inferior to Federer everywhere else and there's no disputing that as you can just look at slams won outside of clay.

 

[Moxie]

You can indeed bet that and you're welcome to it. I for one do not think for one second he'd prefer to have an Olympic gold medal over a record that may not be broken for a LONG, LONG TIME. No one else has ever won them all once and Djokovic has won them all twice. Would any tennis player in their right mind prefer to give up an incredible record like that over an Olympic gold medal?! I still say that's a resounding NO. The problem here is Nadal fans are reduced to clutching at straws to "big up" their man, knowing full well he hasn't won the WTF and this has for years been the counter "argument". It's a weak one, sorry. Federer's matches at the AO 2017 were nowhere near as taxing as that match. He won some of those sets very easily (6 -1 or 6-2) in those 5 set matches. No set was easy at the Olympic SF 2012. Huge difference. Re Djokovic being upset, yes, because you have to wait 4 years to get another chance, it's not played every year and losing in the first round would make anyone pissed off having prepared a long time for it obviously enough. It's nowhere near the big deal Nadal fans make out having a gold medal sorry.

I'm sure he consoles himself with that record, and it's a good one. But there is a reason that he and Roger have both gone on record for many years stating the Olympic Gold was a big goal. Djokovic wasn't just "pissed" when he lost in Rio, he was heartbroken. That was evident. I do agree that certain Nadal fans make too much of it. But you even said yourself that part of the uniqueness is that you only get a chance every four years. You can make little of the field, but neither Roger nor Novak has won the Gold, and not for lack of wanting or trying. I agree that Roger spent a lot of physical and emotional capital on the SF. TBH, del Potro was the better player in that match, and Roger simply refused to lose it, which I give him huge credit for. You, on the other hand, never give Murray one ounce of credit for that final. All about Roger being tired. Sour grapes. Roger never would have invested that much in winning that SF if he didn't want it badly. He knew that, at 30, with the OG being played on Wimbledon grass, he might have his last best chance.

I'm saying that you go too far in minimizing the value of the Olympic Gold, because you spend so much time arguing with people who over-value it. And maybe just a little bit because Roger failed to ever capture it. As to the AO in 2017, the match v. Stan was about 3 1/2 hours long, and the final was about 4 1/2...yes, both shorter than that 3-setter v. del Potro, but Roger was 4 1/2 years younger, so it's surprising that he could muster that much stamina as an older man, when he didn't have it as a younger one. You can't say that 5-setters aren't mentally and physically taxing, too.

As to the WTF, no, Nadal has never won, but look how many have been split between the 2 best players on indoor HC. He's lost to both in the finals. He's also been dumped out early, or missed due to injury. But he's got two greats to keep him from HC, grass and indoor HCs. He has only himself, mainly, to keep them from winning more on clay, and he's nearly single-handedly held them to one each. Yet he has 2 on grass, including, notably over a prime Roger, (you can say he wasn't peak that year, but, at 26, he was in the prime of his career,) he has 2, and he has 5 on HCs. And counting. Not bad when pitched against the other all-time greats on their best surfaces.

 

[Front242]

I'm sure he consoles himself with that record, and it's a good one. But there is a reason that he and Roger have both gone on record for many years stating the Olympic Gold was a big goal. Djokovic wasn't just "pissed" when he lost in Rio, he was heartbroken. That was evident. I do agree that certain Nadal fans make too much of it. But you even said yourself that part of the uniqueness is that you only get a chance every four years. You can make little of the field, but neither Roger nor Novak has won the Gold, and not for lack of wanting or trying. I agree that Roger spent a lot of physical and emotional capital on the SF. TBH, del Potro was the better player in that match, and Roger simply refused to lose it, which I give him huge credit for. You, on the other hand, never give Murray one ounce of credit for that final. All about Roger being tired. Sour grapes. Roger never would have invested that much in winning that SF if he didn't want it badly. He knew that, at 30, with the OG being played on Wimbledon grass, he might have his last best chance.

I'm saying that you go too far in minimizing the value of the Olympic Gold, because you spend so much time arguing with people who over-value it. And maybe just a little bit because Roger failed to ever capture it. As to the AO in 2017, the match v. Stan was about 3 1/2 hours long, and the final was about 4 1/2...yes, both shorter than that 3-setter v. del Potro, but Roger was 4 1/2 years younger, so it's surprising that he could muster that much stamina as an older man, when he didn't have it as a younger one. You can't say that 5-setters aren't mentally and physically taxing, too.

As to the WTF, no, Nadal has never won, but look how many have been split between the 2 best players on indoor HC. He's lost to both in the finals. He's also been dumped out early, or missed due to injury. But he's got two greats to keep him from HC, grass and indoor HCs. He has only himself, mainly, to keep them from winning more on clay, and he's nearly single-handedly held them to one each. Yet he has 2 on grass, including, notably over a prime Roger, (you can say he wasn't peak that year, but, at 26, he was in the prime of his career,) he has 2, and he has 5 on HCs. And counting. Not bad when pitched against the other all-time greats on their best surfaces.

Look, it's nice to have an Olympic gold and I've no doubt everyone would like to have one but there are many more important titles out there. Murray obviously played well but there's no way Federer doesn't win a single set and wins only 3 games in 2 sets and 7 total to Murray on grass. None. Zero. Nada. If 5 setters are mentally and physically taxing then how about a 3 set 4 hour 26 minute match. That's worse than any of those AO 5 setters. Full credit to Nadal for Wimbledon 2008. Federer made a ton of errors though and he still lost by only a single break in the 5th. Nadal has definitely had it hard on indoor hards (WTF) v Federer and Djokovic just as they have against him on clay so it's pretty well balanced in terms of top opposition so, in that respect, it's much the same as Federer and Djokovic losing to eventual champion in the FO umpteen times.

 

[Sabratha]

I bet if some of you Nadal haters are walking on the street and see a pile of clay you would run away screaming and terrified.

You guys keep bringing up clay but the bottom line is Nadal has the slam record of 20 slams and he ALSO has a slam h2h record of 10-4 and 10-6 against Fedovic.

The next best thing is Federer also having 20 slams but being down an embarrassing 4-10 and 6-11 in slam h2h against his big rivals. Wow he is so great.

Nadal has 13 RG with a 100-2 record and this makes Djokovic on hardcourt or Federer on grass look AVERAGE. Repeat after me, Fedovic are AVERAGE on any surface when they are compared to Nadal on clay.

Add this to having at least 2 slams on each surface and the conclusion is that on his best surface Nadal > Fedovic and on his worst surface Nadal > Fedovic.

Now take your silver and bronze medals and go cry somewhere.

Doesn't change the fact that you hype an event where the guy who won was actively smoking meth, lol.

 

[Sabratha]

I'm sure he consoles himself with that record, and it's a good one. But there is a reason that he and Roger have both gone on record for many years stating the Olympic Gold was a big goal. Djokovic wasn't just "pissed" when he lost in Rio, he was heartbroken. That was evident. I do agree that certain Nadal fans make too much of it. But you even said yourself that part of the uniqueness is that you only get a chance every four years. You can make little of the field, but neither Roger nor Novak has won the Gold, and not for lack of wanting or trying. I agree that Roger spent a lot of physical and emotional capital on the SF. TBH, del Potro was the better player in that match, and Roger simply refused to lose it, which I give him huge credit for. You, on the other hand, never give Murray one ounce of credit for that final. All about Roger being tired. Sour grapes. Roger never would have invested that much in winning that SF if he didn't want it badly. He knew that, at 30, with the OG being played on Wimbledon grass, he might have his last best chance.

I'm saying that you go too far in minimizing the value of the Olympic Gold, because you spend so much time arguing with people who over-value it. And maybe just a little bit because Roger failed to ever capture it. As to the AO in 2017, the match v. Stan was about 3 1/2 hours long, and the final was about 4 1/2...yes, both shorter than that 3-setter v. del Potro, but Roger was 4 1/2 years younger, so it's surprising that he could muster that much stamina as an older man, when he didn't have it as a younger one. You can't say that 5-setters aren't mentally and physically taxing, too.

As to the WTF, no, Nadal has never won, but look how many have been split between the 2 best players on indoor HC. He's lost to both in the finals. He's also been dumped out early, or missed due to injury. But he's got two greats to keep him from HC, grass and indoor HCs. He has only himself, mainly, to keep them from winning more on clay, and he's nearly single-handedly held them to one each. Yet he has 2 on grass, including, notably over a prime Roger, (you can say he wasn't peak that year, but, at 26, he was in the prime of his career,) he has 2, and he has 5 on HCs. And counting. Not bad when pitched against the other all-time greats on their best surfaces.

Murray was generally incapable of beating Federer in majors so him getting over the line in 3 easy sets sets off alarm bells. The guy couldn't even beat mid 30s Federer at Wimbledon when he was at his own peak.

 

[Moxie]

Look, it's nice to have an Olympic gold and I've no doubt everyone would like to have one but there are many more important titles out there. Murray obviously played well but there's no way Federer doesn't win a single set and wins only 3 games in 2 sets and 7 total to Murray on grass. None. Zero. Nada. If 5 setters are mentally and physically taxing then how about a 3 set 4 hour 26 minute match. That's worse than any of those AO 5 setters. Full credit to Nadal for Wimbledon 2008. Federer made a ton of errors though and he still lost by only a single break in the 5th. Nadal has definitely had it hard on indoor hards (WTF) v Federer and Djokovic just as they have against him on clay so it's pretty well balanced in terms of top opposition so, in that respect, it's much the same as Federer and Djokovic losing to eventual champion in the FO umpteen times.

There aren't really THAT many more important titles out there. You are such a typical Roger fan that claims in all cases it's down to Roger. I'm sorry, but it is also possible for him to get out-played. As he did in the 2008 Wimbledon final. Appreciate your giving Nadal full-credit, but there are UFE's and there are forced ones. At least Nadal beat him on his turf in his salad days. Sure, you want to say it balances out, that Nadal beat them on his turf, and they beat him on theirs, but they split their turfs, to some extent. It's kind of 2-against-one. And he was sandwiched in between the two. No surprise, including with injuries, that he doesn't have the weeks at #1. Roger also got out-played in the Olympics Final v. Murray. We Nadal fans have been accused of making excuses for years, but honestly, you Fed fans can be the worst. There is barely a Federer loss that you don't put down to him blowing it. I understand that you lot thinks he walks on water, in tennis terms, but he doesn't. Sometimes when he loses, someone else played better. Name me 3 important matches where you think Roger got out-played, and not on clay.

 

[Moxie]

Murray was generally incapable of beating Federer in majors so him getting over the line in 3 easy sets sets off alarm bells. The guy couldn't even beat mid 30s Federer at Wimbledon when he was at his own peak.

You seem to have no memory of the context. 6 weeks prior to the Olympics, Murray was in his first W final, with all of the pressure that he always got from UK press. The crowd was pro-Roger, as usual, and the roof was closed. In Murray's concession speech, he actually cried, winning him some support in GB. Fast forward to the OG final, Murray, with the focus NOT on him, but the contest being GB v. Switzerland, and there also being a huge swing of affection for him, played a great match. You can say Roger was tired, but he was also only just shy of 31. And he's the king of grass. Didn't win a set. That's not just tired. He got out-played. And Roger wasn't "mid-30s" when he beat Andy, he was 30. Yes, he did lose again to Roger a few years later, but that was top-Roger, who unfortunately spent his best before the final. Perhaps he needed to. Different matches, different circumstances, different days, and actually different events. Get over it. Alarm bells for Fed fans, but that's still excuse-making.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Doesn't change the fact that you hype an event where the guy who won was actively smoking meth, lol.

Even an Agassi "smoking meth" and with a broken arm and on crutches would still be better than Thomas Johanson winning the AO. What is your point? Every tournament has been won by some player who was not very impressive and who fluked it. Btw it's funny how Agassi "smoking meth" won the Olympics and your precious Federer and Djokovic couldn't do it despite publicly making it a priority throughout their whole careers. Have several seats.

 

[Sabratha]

You seem to have no memory of the context. 6 weeks prior to the Olympics, Murray was in his first W final, with all of the pressure that he always got from UK press. The crowd was pro-Roger, as usual, and the roof was closed. In Murray's concession speech, he actually cried, winning him some support in GB. Fast forward to the OG final, Murray, with the focus NOT on him, but the contest being GB v. Switzerland, and there also being a huge swing of affection for him, played a great match. You can say Roger was tired, but he was also only just shy of 31. And he's the king of grass. Didn't win a set. That's not just tired. He got out-played. And Roger wasn't "mid-30s" when he beat Andy, he was 30. Yes, he did lose again to Roger a few years later, but that was top-Roger, who unfortunately spent his best before the final. Perhaps he needed to. Different matches, different circumstances, different days, and actually different events. Get over it. Alarm bells for Fed fans, but that's still excuse-making.

Murray was 1-5 in majors against Federer with his only win coming when the latter was wearing a back brace/compression vest, playing on slow HC and he still barely edged him in 5 sets.

Federer hammered Murray at Wimbledon 2015 erasing all doubt he'd ever be a threat or challenge for him when healthy.

 

[Sabratha]

Agassi smoking meth and with a broken arm would still be better than Thomas Johanson winning the AO. What is your point? Every tournament has been won by some player who was not very impressive and who fluked it. Btw it's funny how Agassi "smoking meth" won the Olympics and your precious Federer and Djokovic couldn't do it despite publicly making it a priority throughout their whole careers.

What about Kafelnikov and Massu?

 

[Nadalfan2013]

What about Kafelnikov and Massu?

Read my post. Every tournament has been won at certain points by surprising players. For example Gaudio at RG or Pat Cash at Wimbledon or Pavel winning the Canadian Open, it doesn't mean that slams and masters 1000 are therefore pointless. And btw Kafelnikov is a 2 time slam champion, I don't even know why you are mentioning him as an example. Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Sabratha]

Read my post. Every tournament has been won at certain points by surprising players. For example Gaudio at RG or Pat Cash at Wimbledon or Pavel winning the Canadian Open, it doesn't mean that slams and masters 1000 are therefore pointless. And btw Kafelnikov is a 2 time slam champion, I don't even know why you are mentioning him as an example. Stop embarrassing yourself.

These "surprising" winners were holding the Olympic Gold several times in a row before your boy Nadal picked up the trophy.

Kafelnikov is possibly the worst 2 time slam winner ever.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

These "surprising" winners were holding the Olympic Gold several times in a row before your boy Nadal picked up the trophy.

Kafelnikov is possibly the worst 2 time slam winner ever.

Your stupid argument is just making Djokovic and Federer look even worse for not being able to win it. Like I said, stop embarrassing yourself.

When Federer won the doubles gold he literally jumped on Wawrinka and made love to him right there on the court because of how excited he was. THE DOUBLES! I cannot imagine what he would have done if he had won the singles.

And don't get me started on Djokovic always leaving the tournament in complete tears, he caused floodings each time he lost! Innocent people around him ended up drowning !

 

[Sabratha]

Your stupid argument is just making Djokovic and Federer look even worse for not being able to win it. Like I said, stop embarrassing yourself.

When Federer won the doubles gold he literally jumped on Wawrinka and made love to him right there on the court because of how excited he was. THE DOUBLES! I cannot imagine what he would have done if he had won the singles.

And don't get me started on Djokovic always leaving the tournament in complete tears, he caused floodings each time he lost! Innocent people around him ended up drowning !

It just proves how meaningless it is to your legacy.

Djokovic would probably cry over losing in a 250. Who cares?

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Your arguments are completely false and illogical. The bottom line is Nadal is the GOAT. If you still haven’t accepted it you will very soon when he ends up with the slam record easily.