re: Nadal is no doubt the best ever.

quote:

---

i hate it when people use the fact that rafa is the best on clay against him. they are all well he is only winning the series against federer because of clay or some bullshite.

uhhh, if you can be dominant on a surface that the game is played on, isnt that more reason that you are better, not less?

---

That's not the argument. The argument is Rafa wasn't good enough to make it to the finals on grass or hard so they only played on Rafa's best surface where he had the advantage as opposed to playing on grass/hard where Fed had the advantage. It's true to an extent.

It just sucks that these guys are about half a decade apart. It would have been epic to watch them play when both were in their primes at the same time. I think the Wimbledon 5 setter is as close to that as we came and we all saw how epic it was.

quote:

---

i hate it when people use the fact that rafa is the best on clay against him. they are all well he is only winning the series against federer because of clay or some bull shite.

---

It's not necessarily "using it against him". It's simply a fact about their head to head record. Their peaks didn't entirely overlap, so for a period of time Federer was good enough to make the finals on clay yet Rafa wasn't good enough to make the finals on hard courts. It is what it is. Rafa may still have a winning head to head record if they had played an even amount of matches on all surfaces, but it wouldn't be as lopsided as it currently is.

eta: And in fairness to Nadal, now Roger is the one who isn't good enough to consistently make the finals to even out the H2H surface record