What we are debating is that someone merely being in your service games doesn't mean you're getting owned in the match overall. If you're talking about the 2008 Wimbledon final, Federer had far more opportunities to break in the first two sets. Nadal didn't get his until later.
Nadal didn't get his until later? I'm confused as to how he actually won those first two sets 6-4 6-4 then. Or are we valuing unconverted break points over converted ones? Nadal broke Federer 3 times in the opening two sets (Fed was actually up a break in the second before Nadal broke back and broke again).
How do you know Berretini wouldn't have gotten into some of Nadal's service games had he won the first set and had more momentum?
I wouldn't know. But I sure as hell know that he had 3 sets to get into Nadal's service games and didn't, and that was my whole point. If he was as dominant in the rallies as you claim he was, and that his forehand wasn't largely set up by his serve, then how come we hardly saw any of that in Nadal's service games? Creating a hypothetical where he wins the first set and gets into Nadal's service games after that doesn't answer the question and is irrelevant. We're talking about what actually transpired.
Also, you completely dodged the point about the 2007 French Open final. Federer had 10 breakpoints in the first set and numerous more in the second set. But I don't recall you saying that he was the better rally player on clay (which I do believe he was at the time). Why the inconsistency?
I wasn't even on the boards when that final happened, and neither were you, so yeah, you don't recall anything I said about the match because I didn't. I didn't dodge shit, as it is common knowledge that Federer missed a ton of break points.
In any event, this is where your bias gets in the way of logic. I never claimed that being in your opponent's service games automatically means you're dominating rallies. It's a case by case basis and there could be so many reasons. For instance, nobody is in Karlovic's service games, yet they're definitely dominating the rallies. It's just that he serves so well, there aren't any on his service games. With Nadal, that's clearly not the case.
In the Berrettini match, there was a very specific point I made: his forehand is largely set up by his serve, and he was unable to give himself the opportunity to dominate with it in neutral rallies due to the lack of penetrating rally ground strokes. In that case, yes, his inability to create ANYTHING on Nadal's serve is significant, because it highlights how little he was able to initiate without his big serve?
Nobody has ever claimed that about Roger fucking Federer, who clearly can rally with Nadal, dominate, and then some. So what the fuck are you even talking about?
For the record, regarding the 2007 FO final, Fed had 17 total BP opportunities (and converted only on 1, which is awful and inexcusable). Nadal had 10 and converted on 6 (which is amazing). However, clearly, if Nadal didn't convert on so many of them, he would have actually had more BP opportunities because then the games would be extended, the score would be deuce (or whatever), and they'd go back and forth in long service games. When you convert, the game is over, that's it.
The idea, once again, to spoon feed it to you, is that none of that is relevant to the Berrettini match at all since he didn't get a single break point. And if you claim Medvedev should have won the fifth set because he had a break point or two early, then surely Nadal should have won the first set vs. Berrettini even earlier since he had about a thousand of them without facing a single one?
Why is Nadal better than Berretini for being in his service games more but 2007 Federer on clay isn't better than Nadal even though he constantly and repeatedly had more breakpoints in Nadal's games than vice versa?
Because once again, this isn't a set in stone criterion, but a case by case basis. In the case of Berrettini, having zero break points implies he wasn't able to do anything without his serve (which is a fact). With Fedal, Nadal was also in Fed's service games, as evidenced by breaking him SIX FUCKING TIMES. You're just putting more emphasis on break point opportunities missed over break point opportunities converted, which is typically stupid.
Also, I'm not buying your cute little rationalization about the 2008 Wimbledon final.....Nadal got breakpoints later in the match as it wore on but early on Federer was the one who had a bunch of them.
Again, how did he get those break points later in the match when he broke him 3 times in the first two sets? Are you seriously looking at the times players blew break points and ignoring the times they actually converted?
And if you are going to say that Nadal was flat out better than Berretini in rallies for having more breakpoints, then you should say the same about Federer in his matches with Nadal when he had numerous stretches where he was the one troubling the other's service games far more.
I think I've addressed this like a dozen times now (and yes, it shows how little you're able to grasp nuances when you're so emotional). The point was simply about Berrettini's forehand being reliant on his serve. It's not about who was better in the rallies.