>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.