Topic: The Best Player of 2012: Rafael Nadal

[phoneix]

asterisk records are not valued much in the longer run........everybody knows what the story would have been like had nadal been around and nadal is not some random top 10er or something........

When Nadal retires, every tournament will have an asterisk next to it.

[Start da Game]

90% of the competition lies at the top these days.........we know the gap between the top 3 and the rest of the players and often hear from experts how big a gap it is.........

so if one of the top 3 players is out and injured and that too somebody like nadal who's been dominant over the other two for more than one year, then asterisk definitely comes into play.........

[jesse james]

90% of the competition lies at the top these days.........we know the gap between the top 3 and the rest of the players and often hear from experts how big a gap it is.........

so if one of the top 3 players is out and injured and that too somebody like nadal who's been dominant over the other two for more than one year, then asterisk definitely comes into play.........

you're incorrect, Nadal hasn't been dominant over Djoko for over a year, he was dominant on clay, but that was for a period of a few months, it wasn't more than one year. fact Nadal is no longer one of the top three players.
So what's the asterisk indicate?

[phoneix]

90% of the competition lies at the top these days.........we know the gap between the top 3 and the rest of the players and often hear from experts how big a gap it is.........

so if one of the top 3 players is out and injured and that too somebody like nadal who's been dominant over the other two for more than one year, then asterisk definitely comes into play.........

The top 3 are almost never dominant at the same time. Djokovic has been a much much better player since 2011 (yes, including 2012), and hasn't lost to Nadal on HC once in that period. Do we stick an asterisk next to Nadal's USO win because Djokovic was struggling with fitness? Though in 2011, Federer and Nadal were far from their best, so maybe we should stick asterisks next to his titles too. As for Federer, he just proved how consistent he can be (and was, in his prime), by failing to make the semis once, over a one year period. Where was that guy before, when he was losing to Benneteau or Montanes or Melzer or Blake?

[monstertruck]

Record breaking 7th Roland Garros (surpassing Borg) + 8th consecutive Monte Carlo + 6th Rome = BEST PLAYER OF 2012

Nadal solidified his status as greatest clay courter of all time and set records that will stand the test of time. No other player can say the same for 2012.

Disagree with your assertion. Federer's 300 weeks as #1 will be one of his various records that will stand the test of time, and is yet another reason why most people will consider him the GOAT. Equalling Sampras [the greatest grasscourt player of all time]'s record haul of 7 Wimbledons is another - unless the Swiss Maestro can conjure one more magic trick at SW19 in the next few years.

asterisk records are not valued much in the longer run........everybody knows what the story would have been like had nadal been around and nadal is not some random top 10er or something........

nadal stopped djokovic's slam winning run and protected rod laver's legacy from falling victim to surface homogenization........nadal smashed the record of french titles, which had borg spilling tea all over his pants and gnashing his teeth........

all that in under 5 months........
 

Well, I'll go the other way and say that Rafa's record is the one that actually deserves an asterisk. If Borg hadn't retired so early, he would have won many more RGs. 

the funny part is you are right. Borg was, and still is, God in my books. Forget about Fed and Nadal, they are nobodies compared to Borg. The guy was the most talented, skilful player who ever played the game. Borg didn't play the AO (yeah, played it once, lol), he hated the USO night matches. he could have ended up his GS count at over 20 if he cared, and he simply did not. yeah, he was that good ... but some people forget ...

Borg is the only true tennis Star ... everyone else don't even come close ...

Nominated for POTY.

[Start da Game]

90% of the competition lies at the top these days.........we know the gap between the top 3 and the rest of the players and often hear from experts how big a gap it is.........

so if one of the top 3 players is out and injured and that too somebody like nadal who's been dominant over the other two for more than one year, then asterisk definitely comes into play.........

The top 3 are almost never dominant at the same time. Djokovic has been a much much better player since 2011 (yes, including 2012), and hasn't lost to Nadal on HC once in that period. Do we stick an asterisk next to Nadal's USO win because Djokovic was struggling with fitness? Though in 2011, Federer and Nadal were far from their best, so maybe we should stick asterisks next to his titles too. As for Federer, he just proved how consistent he can be (and was, in his prime), by failing to make the semis once, over a one year period. Where was that guy before, when he was losing to Benneteau or Montanes or Melzer or Blake?

djokovic wasn't struggling with fitness in 2010.........that was in 2009.........asterisks cannot be stuck as we like.........there is certain criterion for it........when a title favourite gets injured and that player has a dominant record over his peers, then that is a strong case for asterisks.........

 

[Start da Game]

90% of the competition lies at the top these days.........we know the gap between the top 3 and the rest of the players and often hear from experts how big a gap it is.........

so if one of the top 3 players is out and injured and that too somebody like nadal who's been dominant over the other two for more than one year, then asterisk definitely comes into play.........

you're incorrect, Nadal hasn't been dominant over Djoko for over a year, he was dominant on clay, but that was for a period of a few months, it wasn't more than one year. fact Nadal is no longer one of the top three players.
So what's the asterisk indicate?

nadal stretched djokovic to the very limit and finally donated that AO title on djokovic's best surface.........djokovic could not do anything against nadal on nadal's surface.........

[jesse james]

90% of the competition lies at the top these days.........we know the gap between the top 3 and the rest of the players and often hear from experts how big a gap it is.........

so if one of the top 3 players is out and injured and that too somebody like nadal who's been dominant over the other two for more than one year, then asterisk definitely comes into play.........

you're incorrect, Nadal hasn't been dominant over Djoko for over a year, he was dominant on clay, but that was for a period of a few months, it wasn't more than one year. fact Nadal is no longer one of the top three players.
So what's the asterisk indicate?

nadal stretched djokovic to the very limit and finally donated that AO title on djokovic's best surface.........djokovic could not do anything against nadal on nadal's surface.........

Nadal lost to Djokovic at the Aussie open, that's losing, that's not being dominant. You claimed Nadal had  'been dominant over the other two for more than one year', that's what you said. So you still haven't explained how Nadal was dominant over Djokovic for over a year. Losing a match, however closely fought, doesn't count as dominance over the winning player to claim or imply it does is simply tendentious and absurd.

[phoneix]

djokovic wasn't struggling with fitness in 2010.........that was in 2009.........asterisks cannot be stuck as we like.........there is certain criterion for it........when a title favourite gets injured and that player has a dominant record over his peers, then that is a strong case for asterisks.........

I mean in that match in particular. Djokovic was struggling with his serve and form throughout 2010, though.

But if an asterisk only applies whenever the title favourite is injured, then several of Nadal's 'donations' fall into that category. Eg. Nadal was not injured at AO 2012.

[Start da Game]

90% of the competition lies at the top these days.........we know the gap between the top 3 and the rest of the players and often hear from experts how big a gap it is.........

so if one of the top 3 players is out and injured and that too somebody like nadal who's been dominant over the other two for more than one year, then asterisk definitely comes into play.........

you're incorrect, Nadal hasn't been dominant over Djoko for over a year, he was dominant on clay, but that was for a period of a few months, it wasn't more than one year. fact Nadal is no longer one of the top three players.
So what's the asterisk indicate?

nadal stretched djokovic to the very limit and finally donated that AO title on djokovic's best surface.........djokovic could not do anything against nadal on nadal's surface.........

Nadal lost to Djokovic at the Aussie open, that's losing, that's not being dominant. You claimed Nadal had  'been dominant over the other two for more than one year', that's what you said. So you still haven't explained how Nadal was dominant over Djokovic for over a year. Losing a match, however closely fought, doesn't count as dominance over the winning player to claim or imply it does is simply tendentious and absurd.

nadal has been dominant over novak until 2011.........one year (2011) does not wash away four to five years of dominance over the other player.........how did the three consecutive hammerings feel this year? the streak is 3-0!

nadal has always been dominant over your god anyway, so wimbledon 2012 bears an asterisk as well........the moment fediva realizes that nadal is out of the competition, he gains a strength of 100 lions and destroys the youngsters.........he also got a little help from wimbledon fedlovers........nadal's ownage of fed is so bad and terrifying that it actually has a positive affect over fed's game in his (nadal's) absence......... 

[jesse james]

90% of the competition lies at the top these days.........we know the gap between the top 3 and the rest of the players and often hear from experts how big a gap it is.........

so if one of the top 3 players is out and injured and that too somebody like nadal who's been dominant over the other two for more than one year, then asterisk definitely comes into play.........

you're incorrect, Nadal hasn't been dominant over Djoko for over a year, he was dominant on clay, but that was for a period of a few months, it wasn't more than one year. fact Nadal is no longer one of the top three players.
So what's the asterisk indicate?

nadal stretched djokovic to the very limit and finally donated that AO title on djokovic's best surface.........djokovic could not do anything against nadal on nadal's surface.........

Nadal lost to Djokovic at the Aussie open, that's losing, that's not being dominant. You claimed Nadal had  'been dominant over the other two for more than one year', that's what you said. So you still haven't explained how Nadal was dominant over Djokovic for over a year. Losing a match, however closely fought, doesn't count as dominance over the winning player to claim or imply it does is simply tendentious and absurd.

nadal has been dominant over novak until 2011.........one year (2011) does not wash away four to five years of dominance over the other player.........how did the three consecutive hammerings feel this year? the streak is 3-0!

nadal has always been dominant over your god anyway, so wimbledon 2012 bears an asterisk as well........the moment fediva realizes that nadal is out of the competition, he gains a strength of 100 lions and destroys the youngsters.........he also got a little help from wimbledon fedlovers........nadal's ownage of fed is so bad and terrifying that it actually has a positive affect over fed's game in his (nadal's) absence.........

You're still not answering the question, you've slithered off subject, so let me drag you back to it.
this is what you said....
 '90% of the competition lies at the top these days.........we know the gap between the top 3 and the rest of the players and often hear from experts how big a gap it is.........

so if one of the top 3 players is out and injured and that too somebody like nadal who's been dominant over the other two for more than one year, then asterisk definitely comes into play.........'

in simple terms explain clearly what the asterisk means, there's still no explanation of what it means.   
 Nadal hasn't been dominant over Djoko for a 12 month period for some time, whereas you cant trace a period of dominance that lasted over a 12 months in which Djoko was dominant over nadal from early 2010 to the Aussie open this year.

Explain exactly what you mean by 'my god', and what this has to do with and asterisk at Wimbledon being required, what are you on about?

[Start da Game]

90% of the competition lies at the top these days.........we know the gap between the top 3 and the rest of the players and often hear from experts how big a gap it is.........

so if one of the top 3 players is out and injured and that too somebody like nadal who's been dominant over the other two for more than one year, then asterisk definitely comes into play.........

you're incorrect, Nadal hasn't been dominant over Djoko for over a year, he was dominant on clay, but that was for a period of a few months, it wasn't more than one year. fact Nadal is no longer one of the top three players.
So what's the asterisk indicate?

nadal stretched djokovic to the very limit and finally donated that AO title on djokovic's best surface.........djokovic could not do anything against nadal on nadal's surface.........

Nadal lost to Djokovic at the Aussie open, that's losing, that's not being dominant. You claimed Nadal had  'been dominant over the other two for more than one year', that's what you said. So you still haven't explained how Nadal was dominant over Djokovic for over a year. Losing a match, however closely fought, doesn't count as dominance over the winning player to claim or imply it does is simply tendentious and absurd.

nadal has been dominant over novak until 2011.........one year (2011) does not wash away four to five years of dominance over the other player.........how did the three consecutive hammerings feel this year? the streak is 3-0!

nadal has always been dominant over your god anyway, so wimbledon 2012 bears an asterisk as well........the moment fediva realizes that nadal is out of the competition, he gains a strength of 100 lions and destroys the youngsters.........he also got a little help from wimbledon fedlovers........nadal's ownage of fed is so bad and terrifying that it actually has a positive affect over fed's game in his (nadal's) absence.........

You're still not answering the question, you've slithered off subject, so let me drag you back to it.
this is what you said....
 '90% of the competition lies at the top these days.........we know the gap between the top 3 and the rest of the players and often hear from experts how big a gap it is.........

so if one of the top 3 players is out and injured and that too somebody like nadal who's been dominant over the other two for more than one year, then asterisk definitely comes into play.........'

in simple terms explain clearly what the asterisk means, there's still no explanation of what it means.   
 Nadal hasn't been dominant over Djoko for a 12 month period for some time, whereas you cant trace a period of dominance that lasted over a 12 months in which Djoko was dominant over nadal from early 2010 to the Aussie open this year.

Explain exactly what you mean by 'my god', and what this has to do with and asterisk at Wimbledon being required, what are you on about?

i answered........just that you seem to be establishing your own new theories like "12 months domination over the other player" in order for a player to be certified as dominant over the other........it's laughable.........

nadal has been dominant over djokovic this year with a smashing 3-0 beating in the clay season and almost got it done at the AO as well on djokovic's best surface.........where as djokovic failed to challenge nadal on clay and almost lost his own ground in AO.........all that clearly suggests who's had the upper hand this year.........

everybody knows that federer wouldn't have won wimbledon had he faced or seen nadal looming in the other side of the draw.........he threw away french open 2012 semifinal just to avoid another hammering at the hands of nadal.........so wimbledon 2012 deserves an asterisk.........

[phoneix]

everybody knows that federer wouldn't have won wimbledon had he faced or seen nadal looming in the other side of the draw.........he threw away french open 2012 semifinal just to avoid another hammering at the hands of nadal

Federer played terribly that whole tournament. He lost sets to Mahut and Ungur on clay! Djokovic was simply the better player in the semi, as Federer was far from his 2011 form.

[mav140]

asterisks cannot be stuck as we like.........there is certain criterion for it........

THIS IS JUST HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT WORKS FOR YOU!!!! you put on that criteria and stuck with that... just ridiculous!!

Asteriks cannot be stuck as we like.. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!!

It's just amazing how you feel ONLY other top players deserve an asterisk in his titles... BUT NOOO... NOT NADAL.. he deserves all the credit for every title he holds..

BREAKING NEWS:
"Nadal is the only player in tennis history not to deserve an asterisk in all his titles"
by Shankar

Others were donated, gifted away or other lame excuse Shankar can come up with...

It is simply amazing how Nadal  has been a dominant player yet he hasn't been able to WIN a single HC title in almost 3 years now!!!! Nobody in their right mind can state something about dominance with this FACT... not made up crap, but fact!!! what?? he went into I don't know how many finals?? Did he win? NOOOOOO!!! Let me see if I can get into that thick skull of yours... IF the tennis season is 60% played on HCs and Nadal hasn't won a single title in 3 years how can you say he has been dominant??? I would believe just a handful can really believe this crap.. Djokovic has been the dominant player for over 2 years having titles in every surface.. EVERY SURFACE!!! When was the last time Nadal won a title outside of clay?? Please enlighten me.. and I look for a SINGLE answer.. WHEN was the last time Nadal won a title outside of clay?? And I am not looking for excuses... just the name of the tournament!! I am waiting.............. Don't even worry.. I will let you know: USO 2010 was the last title outside of Clay for Nadal.... 2010!!!!! that's almost 2 years and a half... he hasn't won a title OUTSIDE of clay for over 2 years and a half... there's your dominance!!! LMFAO!!

There is a criteria??? LOOOOOOOOOOL!!!

REALLY.. are you listening to yourself??????????????? I can't believe a grown man can come up with this BS... seriously I just can't... I am having a hard time to believe you believe this crap... or that you are even older than 12... take your pick...

[jesse james]

90% of the competition lies at the top these days.........we know the gap between the top 3 and the rest of the players and often hear from experts how big a gap it is.........

so if one of the top 3 players is out and injured and that too somebody like nadal who's been dominant over the other two for more than one year, then asterisk definitely comes into play.........

you're incorrect, Nadal hasn't been dominant over Djoko for over a year, he was dominant on clay, but that was for a period of a few months, it wasn't more than one year. fact Nadal is no longer one of the top three players.
So what's the asterisk indicate?

nadal stretched djokovic to the very limit and finally donated that AO title on djokovic's best surface.........djokovic could not do anything against nadal on nadal's surface.........

Nadal lost to Djokovic at the Aussie open, that's losing, that's not being dominant. You claimed Nadal had  'been dominant over the other two for more than one year', that's what you said. So you still haven't explained how Nadal was dominant over Djokovic for over a year. Losing a match, however closely fought, doesn't count as dominance over the winning player to claim or imply it does is simply tendentious and absurd.

nadal has been dominant over novak until 2011.........one year (2011) does not wash away four to five years of dominance over the other player.........how did the three consecutive hammerings feel this year? the streak is 3-0!

nadal has always been dominant over your god anyway, so wimbledon 2012 bears an asterisk as well........the moment fediva realizes that nadal is out of the competition, he gains a strength of 100 lions and destroys the youngsters.........he also got a little help from wimbledon fedlovers........nadal's ownage of fed is so bad and terrifying that it actually has a positive affect over fed's game in his (nadal's) absence.........

You're still not answering the question, you've slithered off subject, so let me drag you back to it.
this is what you said....
 '90% of the competition lies at the top these days.........we know the gap between the top 3 and the rest of the players and often hear from experts how big a gap it is.........

so if one of the top 3 players is out and injured and that too somebody like nadal who's been dominant over the other two for more than one year, then asterisk definitely comes into play.........'

in simple terms explain clearly what the asterisk means, there's still no explanation of what it means.   
 Nadal hasn't been dominant over Djoko for a 12 month period for some time, whereas you cant trace a period of dominance that lasted over a 12 months in which Djoko was dominant over nadal from early 2010 to the Aussie open this year.

Explain exactly what you mean by 'my god', and what this has to do with and asterisk at Wimbledon being required, what are you on about?

i answered........just that you seem to be establishing your own new theories like "12 months domination over the other player" in order for a player to be certified as dominant over the other........it's laughable.........

nadal has been dominant over djokovic this year with a smashing 3-0 beating in the clay season and almost got it done at the AO as well on djokovic's best surface.........where as djokovic failed to challenge nadal on clay and almost lost his own ground in AO.........all that clearly suggests who's had the upper hand this year.........

everybody knows that federer wouldn't have won wimbledon had he faced or seen nadal looming in the other side of the draw.........he threw away french open 2012 semifinal just to avoid another hammering at the hands of nadal.........so wimbledon 2012 deserves an asterisk.........

First you havn't answered the question i asked you about 'my god' in tennis terms, so start by answering that question.
You said, and i quote 'nadal who's been dominant over the other two for more than one year', more than a year is more than 12 months, not 3 matches, you still havn't explained when Nadal was dominant over Djoko for more than 12 months recently, explain. You said dominant for more than one year.
You havn't explained what the asterisk is for, what it denotes, what are you saying by putting it there. Gather your limited mental powers focus and explain.

[Clay Death]

 

[Start da Game]

90% of the competition lies at the top these days.........we know the gap between the top 3 and the rest of the players and often hear from experts how big a gap it is.........

so if one of the top 3 players is out and injured and that too somebody like nadal who's been dominant over the other two for more than one year, then asterisk definitely comes into play.........

you're incorrect, Nadal hasn't been dominant over Djoko for over a year, he was dominant on clay, but that was for a period of a few months, it wasn't more than one year. fact Nadal is no longer one of the top three players.
So what's the asterisk indicate?

nadal stretched djokovic to the very limit and finally donated that AO title on djokovic's best surface.........djokovic could not do anything against nadal on nadal's surface.........

Nadal lost to Djokovic at the Aussie open, that's losing, that's not being dominant. You claimed Nadal had  'been dominant over the other two for more than one year', that's what you said. So you still haven't explained how Nadal was dominant over Djokovic for over a year. Losing a match, however closely fought, doesn't count as dominance over the winning player to claim or imply it does is simply tendentious and absurd.

nadal has been dominant over novak until 2011.........one year (2011) does not wash away four to five years of dominance over the other player.........how did the three consecutive hammerings feel this year? the streak is 3-0!

nadal has always been dominant over your god anyway, so wimbledon 2012 bears an asterisk as well........the moment fediva realizes that nadal is out of the competition, he gains a strength of 100 lions and destroys the youngsters.........he also got a little help from wimbledon fedlovers........nadal's ownage of fed is so bad and terrifying that it actually has a positive affect over fed's game in his (nadal's) absence.........

You're still not answering the question, you've slithered off subject, so let me drag you back to it.
this is what you said....
 '90% of the competition lies at the top these days.........we know the gap between the top 3 and the rest of the players and often hear from experts how big a gap it is.........

so if one of the top 3 players is out and injured and that too somebody like nadal who's been dominant over the other two for more than one year, then asterisk definitely comes into play.........'

in simple terms explain clearly what the asterisk means, there's still no explanation of what it means.   
 Nadal hasn't been dominant over Djoko for a 12 month period for some time, whereas you cant trace a period of dominance that lasted over a 12 months in which Djoko was dominant over nadal from early 2010 to the Aussie open this year.

Explain exactly what you mean by 'my god', and what this has to do with and asterisk at Wimbledon being required, what are you on about?

i answered........just that you seem to be establishing your own new theories like "12 months domination over the other player" in order for a player to be certified as dominant over the other........it's laughable.........

nadal has been dominant over djokovic this year with a smashing 3-0 beating in the clay season and almost got it done at the AO as well on djokovic's best surface.........where as djokovic failed to challenge nadal on clay and almost lost his own ground in AO.........all that clearly suggests who's had the upper hand this year.........

everybody knows that federer wouldn't have won wimbledon had he faced or seen nadal looming in the other side of the draw.........he threw away french open 2012 semifinal just to avoid another hammering at the hands of nadal.........so wimbledon 2012 deserves an asterisk.........

First you havn't answered the question i asked you about 'my god' in tennis terms, so start by answering that question.
You said, and i quote 'nadal who's been dominant over the other two for more than one year', more than a year is more than 12 months, not 3 matches, you still havn't explained when Nadal was dominant over Djoko for more than 12 months recently, explain. You said dominant for more than one year.
You havn't explained what the asterisk is for, what it denotes, what are you saying by putting it there. Gather your limited mental powers focus and explain.

dumbo, that line just means that nadal has been dominant over novak for more than one year (2007, 2008, 2010 and 2012) unlike djokovic who's been dominant just one year(2011) or even strictly speaking for six months from march to september of 2011.........the recent pattern(3-1) is also in favour of nadal........

[Start da Game]

asterisks cannot be stuck as we like.........there is certain criterion for it........

THIS IS JUST HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT WORKS FOR YOU!!!! you put on that criteria and stuck with that... just ridiculous!!

Asteriks cannot be stuck as we like.. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!!

It's just amazing how you feel ONLY other top players deserve an asterisk in his titles... BUT NOOO... NOT NADAL.. he deserves all the credit for every title he holds..

BREAKING NEWS:
"Nadal is the only player in tennis history not to deserve an asterisk in all his titles"
by Shankar

Others were donated, gifted away or other lame excuse Shankar can come up with...

It is simply amazing how Nadal  has been a dominant player yet he hasn't been able to WIN a single HC title in almost 3 years now!!!! Nobody in their right mind can state something about dominance with this FACT... not made up crap, but fact!!! what?? he went into I don't know how many finals?? Did he win? NOOOOOO!!! Let me see if I can get into that thick skull of yours... IF the tennis season is 60% played on HCs and Nadal hasn't won a single title in 3 years how can you say he has been dominant??? I would believe just a handful can really believe this crap.. Djokovic has been the dominant player for over 2 years having titles in every surface.. EVERY SURFACE!!! When was the last time Nadal won a title outside of clay?? Please enlighten me.. and I look for a SINGLE answer.. WHEN was the last time Nadal won a title outside of clay?? And I am not looking for excuses... just the name of the tournament!! I am waiting.............. Don't even worry.. I will let you know: USO 2010 was the last title outside of Clay for Nadal.... 2010!!!!! that's almost 2 years and a half... he hasn't won a title OUTSIDE of clay for over 2 years and a half... there's your dominance!!! LMFAO!!

There is a criteria??? LOOOOOOOOOOL!!!

REALLY.. are you listening to yourself??????????????? I can't believe a grown man can come up with this BS... seriously I just can't... I am having a hard time to believe you believe this crap... or that you are even older than 12... take your pick...

you laugh because you have no case to make for your hero fedull.........fedull is owned by nadal and even djokovic is owned by nadal in their careers........so naturally when nadal is out of the field, who's benefited the most? obviously fed and novak.........

[oracle86]

This thread has become a classic. 

[mav140]

asterisks cannot be stuck as we like.........there is certain criterion for it........

THIS IS JUST HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT WORKS FOR YOU!!!! you put on that criteria and stuck with that... just ridiculous!!

Asteriks cannot be stuck as we like.. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!!

It's just amazing how you feel ONLY other top players deserve an asterisk in his titles... BUT NOOO... NOT NADAL.. he deserves all the credit for every title he holds..

BREAKING NEWS:
"Nadal is the only player in tennis history not to deserve an asterisk in all his titles"
by Shankar

Others were donated, gifted away or other lame excuse Shankar can come up with...

It is simply amazing how Nadal  has been a dominant player yet he hasn't been able to WIN a single HC title in almost 3 years now!!!! Nobody in their right mind can state something about dominance with this FACT... not made up crap, but fact!!! what?? he went into I don't know how many finals?? Did he win? NOOOOOO!!! Let me see if I can get into that thick skull of yours... IF the tennis season is 60% played on HCs and Nadal hasn't won a single title in 3 years how can you say he has been dominant??? I would believe just a handful can really believe this crap.. Djokovic has been the dominant player for over 2 years having titles in every surface.. EVERY SURFACE!!! When was the last time Nadal won a title outside of clay?? Please enlighten me.. and I look for a SINGLE answer.. WHEN was the last time Nadal won a title outside of clay?? And I am not looking for excuses... just the name of the tournament!! I am waiting.............. Don't even worry.. I will let you know: USO 2010 was the last title outside of Clay for Nadal.... 2010!!!!! that's almost 2 years and a half... he hasn't won a title OUTSIDE of clay for over 2 years and a half... there's your dominance!!! LMFAO!!

There is a criteria??? LOOOOOOOOOOL!!!

REALLY.. are you listening to yourself??????????????? I can't believe a grown man can come up with this BS... seriously I just can't... I am having a hard time to believe you believe this crap... or that you are even older than 12... take your pick...

you laugh because you have no case to make for your hero fedull.........fedull is owned by nadal and even djokovic is owned by nadal in their careers........so naturally when nadal is out of the field, who's benefited the most? obviously fed and novak.........

Yes, I am a Fed fan... and I am not going to go into that discussion YET again..

But I didn't even talk about Fed in my post, yet this is the only answer you could come up with???

No case? by your answer, you may go around the bushes all you want, you still haven't made any case AT ALL...

Nice come back btw... LOL