Yes, but the Wimbledon was key. Rafa shouldn't have lost that one. He'd have had another Wimbledon, and things might have been different for Djoker. Only 4 losses, but it depends on where you play and when u lose.Only 4 losses this season for Nadal. Unbelievable.
If someone is missing in action, cannot be beaten.Only 4 losses this season for Nadal. Unbelievable.
So your "missing in action" argument is pointless. 
It's not as if he played 10 matches only. 
Yep, but if you're going to do it...ENDLESSLY...I can do it, too. Does my chastising you make you stop? May as well push the propaganda for my side, since you lot won't quit.
And let's face, even you and most everyone else were rather shocked that Rafa lost that match at Wimbledon. It would have changed some things this year. You can't change what is, but that's one to regret, for sure.
Only 4 losses this season for Nadal. Unbelievable.
Actually, he played 14. And he won a Major. And made $8.6 million dollars. 45-4. Rather better than your much lamented Soderling. Sorry. You should also remember that when you go deep in tournaments you tend to play fewer.
Yep, but if you're going to do it...ENDLESSLY...I can do it, too. Does my chastising you make you stop? May as well push the propaganda for my side, since you lot won't quit.
So basically if he won 5 titles and had 4 losses then he won most of the tournaments he entered. Even more amazing.
He would have won the USO again if he didn’t have to pull out. He almost won Wimbledon too. Stop talking about clay.
Federer entered 3 grass tournaments and lost two times. Nadal will be sweeping the clay season even in his 40’s. Nadal on clay cannot be compared with Federer on grass or anything. Stop giving excuses. And Rafa won Canada and last year won the USO and Beijing.
Would've won the USO too ? Quite hilarious reading this tripe. 
Federer entered 3 grass tournaments and lost two times. Nadal will be sweeping the clay season even in his 40’s. Nadal on clay cannot be compared with Federer on grass or anything. Stop giving excuses. And Rafa won Canada and last year won the USO and Beijing.
There are really fewer of those than you like to claim. Let's face it, you think that he should have won all of his close matches because you think that he's superior to every other player out there. But how many has he really lost playing better than the other guy and ended up losing anyway. 2008 Wimbledon is not one of those, and neither is the 2009 USO, though del Potro started very shaky and nervous. Neither does the 2005 Oz SF v. Safin, as they both played well. The Anderson loss this year at W I will give you.
The endless moaning about lack of grass tourneys for Roger, when he's v. good on HC, esp. indoor HC. As for Rafa's year, I don't know why it's important that he won on clay. He did have to skip a lot of HC tournaments. It is, indeed, what it is.
Yes, he's the best ever on clay (male or female, I think, at this point.) But it's not so important to point it out for this year. He missed Acapulco, IW, Miami, and the whole Asia swing. You were making fun of someone's point that you only lose 4 matches if you play less. Well, when he played, he did a lot of winning. That's still a valid point. Now you try to mitigate it by saying it was on clay. Yes, he did win on clay. Roger had a chance to win Halle this year and didn't. Not to mention Wimbledon. Look, either he's the GOAT or he's just the GOAT of grass, but you can't slice it both ways. Nearly 3/4 of the year is played on HCs, and he's got lots of MS to win on those. Stop trying to make it sad for him that there's so little grass for him to hoover up. Also, Nadal has done what he's done by transcending way beyond clay, so don't make it just about being a dirt devil.
