Top 10 isn’t shit in tennis, people only care about number 1 just like every other sport.

your pathetic attempt at word play doesn’t change that fact. Weeks at number 1 is the most important metric when determining dominance because it means you were consistently the best player in the world for the longest time.

nobody cares if you were top 10, why couldn’t you get number 1?

if you care about longevity, total titles is a better stat to represent that but even then it pales in comparison to weeks at number 1 because not all tennis tournaments are equal, some are far easier than others.

it seems you don’t understand the true objective goal of professional tennis which is why you can’t comprehend my argument

the sole goal of professional tennis is to earn as many ATP points as possible, the number 1 player does this making them the best.

Beacuse nobody cares about top 10, they care about top 1.

Who is the best player? Who was the highest ranked for the longest? This is what people debate.

Do we praise or care about a Nascar driver for finishing top 10 in bunch of races, do we praise or care about golfers for finishing top 10 in tournaments, do we praise an NBA team for finishing top 10 at the end of the season?

You're actually delusional if you think this accomplishment means anything significant.

>My dog, you're not being objective or non-biased at all.

You clearly lack basic comprehension skills, because everything in my original statement was objective.

>it’s clear rafa had smaller (in severity) but more (in quantity) nagging injures but fed and djokovic had fewer but more significant injuries where they had to miss much more time.

Name one thing here that is objectively wrong?

>tennis ranking points drop off if you don’t play for a period of time, but nadal never missed enough in a consecutive manner to where it was ever enough to drop him out of the top 10.

Name one thing here that is objectively wrong?

>with that being said, federer and djokovic both have more weeks at number 1 than nadal so it’s not irrational to assume they would have not accomplished the same thing if not better.

Name one thing here that is objectively wrong?

Obviously injuries are a part of sports, I never said they weren't I simply compared the types of injuries nadal had to djokovic and federer's and made a very obvious conclusion that any logical person would come to.

Nothing about my original comment is biased, I congratulated Nadal on his achievement and then I made a statement based on objective evidence and statistics.

If you interpret that as bias then so be it, you're just delusional lmfao

I mean who cares if they didn’t, it’s a meaningless record while fed and djoker are still more accomplished and have peaked higher than nadal

not taking anything away from nadal but no two injuries are the same.

it’s clear rafa had smaller (in severity) but more (in quantity) nagging injures but fed and djokovic had fewer but more significant injuries where they had to miss much more time.

tennis ranking points drop off if you don’t play for a period of time, but nadal never missed enough in a consecutive manner to where it was ever enough to drop him out of the top 10.

with that being said, federer and djokovic both have more weeks at number 1 than nadal so it’s not irrational to assume they would have not accomplished the same thing if not better.

about the same

imagine even considering buying androids in 2022 😹😹

ikr lmao