PDA

View Full Version : Will Nadal surpass Agassi?


President
10-23-2009, 07:39 AM
As rivals to the dominant player of their era, both of these players have much in common. Do you think Nadal can surpass Agassi's achievements?

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-23-2009, 07:54 AM
As rivals to the dominant player of their era, both of these players have much in common. Do you think Nadal can surpass Agassi's achievements?
Absolutely- Not.
Imo Agassi will always be a better player, Agassis was competing (and won) against 3 different eras/generation on top-players, Nadal will never be able to do that.
They both have Olympic Gold Medals, Agassi 8 GS vs Nadals 6, Agassi 17 MS-titles vs Nadals 15, Agassi spent longer time as no 1, but Agassi is the 2nd player of ll time who has the most QF (or better) in GS, Nadal will never come close to that and Agassi won 60 titles, Nadal has 36 and will never ever reach 60.

Ledigs
10-23-2009, 07:56 AM
Already has. Much better player. Much better rival. Dominant on his own surface. He is only 23 and has just a couple more tournaments to win to surpass Agassi. I love Agassi but he never dominated. Nadal may be 2 but I'd say he was dominant too

stoutman11
10-23-2009, 08:03 AM
this is a good question/topic. I would say at the end of Nadals career he will fall slightly short of Agassi. The main reason i would say is not because of lack of skill or talent but because Andre will have/had the much longer career he was consistently good for a long time. I do think Rafa will match him in Grand slams though.

Cesc Fabregas
10-23-2009, 08:03 AM
Nadal beat Federer to win all his majors, Agassi was more the right guy in the place. Nadal is better than Agassi.

President
10-23-2009, 08:06 AM
Personally, I think it would be a certainty but Nadal's injuries can cause his career to be worse than it could be.

Nadal is definitely much more focused, just as talented, and is already close in accomplishments despite being more than 10 years younger than Agassi was at the end of his career.

tuk
10-23-2009, 08:06 AM
For sure he will, he is only 23 and is only two GS and two MS-titles away...
IMO Nadal is a better player anyways...

NamRanger
10-23-2009, 08:06 AM
Nadal beat Federer to win all his majors, Agassi was more the right guy in the place. Nadal is better than Agassi.



Didn't I say this yet you disagreed with me?

President
10-23-2009, 08:09 AM
Absolutely- Not.
Imo Agassi will always be a better player, Agassis was competing (and won) against 3 different eras/generation on top-players, Nadal will never be able to do that.
They both have Olympic Gold Medals, Agassi 8 GS vs Nadals 6, Agassi 17 MS-titles vs Nadals 15, Agassi spent longer time as no 1, but Agassi is the 2nd player of ll time who has the most QF (or better) in GS, Nadal will never come close to that and Agassi won 60 titles, Nadal has 36 and will never ever reach 60.

You really think Nadal can't win 2 more GS and MS?

Cesc Fabregas
10-23-2009, 08:09 AM
Didn't I say this yet you disagreed with me?

No. I disagreed with you on Agassi's Wimbledon win, I said Agassi's Wimbledon win was fully deserved because he beat excellent grass courters like Goran and Becker, I never said Agassi didn't get lucky elsewhere.

Ledigs
10-23-2009, 08:11 AM
Nadal beat Federer to win all his majors, Agassi was more the right guy in the place. Nadal is better than Agassi.

Agree. Nadal has never had a gimme slam like fed agassi and others. He's had to beat fed for every one! If you think about that he could easily have zero

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-23-2009, 08:22 AM
You really think Nadal can't win 2 more GS and MS?
2 more ms-titles? Sure. 2 more slams? No.
But Agassi had so many other achievments as i wrote in my 1st post in this thread. Agassi is a legend.

President
10-23-2009, 08:30 AM
2 more ms-titles? Sure. 2 more slams? No.
But Agassi had so many other achievments as i wrote in my 1st post in this thread. Agassi is a legend.

Nadal is already a legend at the age of 23. He has a dominant H2H against the player many consider to be the GOAT. He is already in the running for best Clay Courter of all time, and will almost certainly be so by the end of his career. He was the first man since Borg to win the French-Wimbledon double, and the first man to hold GS titles simultaneously on all three surfaces.

Don't discount the guy just because you don't like him.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-23-2009, 08:34 AM
Nadal is already a legend at the age of 23. He has a dominant H2H against the player many consider to be the GOAT. He is already in the running for best Clay Courter of all time, and will almost certainly be so by the end of his career. He was the first man since Borg to win the French-Wimbledon double, and the first man to hold GS titles simultaneously on all three surfaces.

Don't discount the guy just because you don't like him.
You are right, i dont like him. And i dont discount him either, this my opinion. He will never be considered as good as Agassi imo. Right now, far from it! And i think we have seen the best of him already.

namelessone
10-23-2009, 09:02 AM
Nadal will surpass Agassi if he stays healthy and keeps playing for another 4-5 years. Nadal followed Federer across 3 surfaces at a young age,Agassi had success against Sampras only on slower surfaces. Nadal didn't just go away for a period like Agassi did,he actually stayed behind Federer for about 4 years,being the player with the most weeks at nr.2. And you have to remember that Federer is the probable GOAT. While Rafa can certainly reach and even surpass Agassi's nr. of GS and MS,he will have a much harder time beating his Calendar Slam and weeks at nr.1.

Nadal had to go through Federer in every GS of his career and took the nr.1 away from him for almost a year(before injury did him in).That's a huge achivement in itself. Many agree that Nadal motivated Federer to better himself and let's face it,Federer's story would have been less glorious without an arch-rival by his side. When so many great former players say so many great things about Rafa you know he is the real deal.

Steffi Graf's statement is my favourite:"If you watch Rafael Nadal play tennis, you can only respond with amazement and great admiration. He is an incredible athlete with so much discipline, so much concentration and someone who likes to put a lot of passion into every point.
Words fail to come out of me to describe his game appropriately. I’ve rarely seen anyone who approaches a ball with so much attention. With such passion and joy that it makes it great fun to watch him. With him, you can associate everything that makes tennis so beautiful.”

If Nadal retires tomorrow he is already a living legend and has accomplished way more than anyone in his generation. You could make a point for Rafa being the Federer of his generation,his peers being quite a ways behind him,with djoker having 1 GS and 4 MS + 1 TMC, murray with 0 GS and 4 MS while Rafa has 6 GS and 15 MS.

I don't care if people like him or not,but he is the only reason that tennis wasn't totally boring during Fed's domination. He was the one that showed the young guns that Fed is not invincible and that carried through to this peers,like djoker and murray. He was the one that started the rivalry which has defined our sport in the last 4-5 years or so and he has always had kind words for his rival,Roger Federer,even being there for him in Fed's worst moment(the crying in AO ceremony).

sunny_cali
10-23-2009, 09:22 AM
Nadal beat Federer to win all his majors, Agassi was more the right guy in the place. Nadal is better than Agassi.

fully agree. IMHO, Nadal is better even if he does not win 2 more slams (which I think he will).

8pNADAL
10-23-2009, 09:33 AM
nadal has much bigger fish to fry than agassi

coloskier
10-23-2009, 10:08 AM
Nadal beat Federer to win all his majors, Agassi was more the right guy in the place. Nadal is better than Agassi.

I guess you forgot about a guy named Sampras who kept Agassi from winning quite a few more majors. On HC and grass Agassi's record against Sampras was abysmal. But for the length of career expected from both Nadal and Agassi, Agassi is the winner by a mile.

GasquetGOAT
10-23-2009, 10:35 AM
Yeah if he manages to win 3 more slams including a USO...

drakulie
10-23-2009, 10:45 AM
Unfortunately, all of Nadal's victories have come by way of injured opponents.

mandy01
10-23-2009, 10:52 AM
Unfortunately, all of Nadal's victories have come by way of injured opponents.
Agreed.It is exactly that.They all have asterisks next to them.:lol:

drakulie
10-23-2009, 10:54 AM
Agreed.It is exactly that.They all have asterisks next to them.:lol:


Yup, and I'm not talking about just ATP victories. I'm talking about juniors, challengers, furtures, etc.

Shaolin
10-23-2009, 10:56 AM
Nadal will not win the US Open so that has to be taken into consideration. Agassi's career slam is impressive.

Cesc Fabregas
10-23-2009, 10:57 AM
Yeah if he manages to win 3 more slams including a USO...

Nadal doesn't need the "career slam" to pass Agassi he just needs 1 more good year where he win 1-2 slams.

edmondsm
10-23-2009, 11:10 AM
Agree. Nadal has never had a gimme slam like fed agassi and others. He's had to beat fed for every one! If you think about that he could easily have zero

Agassi played in a time where greatness wasn't determined by who was better from the baseline, period. That's how it is these days. Agassi was a returner/baseliner back when S&V was still dominating the USO and Wimbledon. Yet he won each of those titles, the USO twice. Nadal would have been your typical dirtballer back in the 90's. Probably would have won a few FO's but never even would have made the 2nd week at the USO or Wimbledon. The racquet and string technology have made much of Nadal's (and Federer's for that matter) career possible IMO.

edmondsm
10-23-2009, 11:14 AM
Nadal doesn't need the "career slam" to pass Agassi he just needs 1 more good year where he win 1-2 slams.

So if he equalls Agassi's slam total, but doesn't win the career slam like Agassi, he has somehow surpassed him? I don't think you quite understand the importance of the career slam. Only 3 men have done it. How many guys have more then 6 major wins in the open era? More then 3.

Cesc Fabregas
10-23-2009, 11:14 AM
Agassi played in a time where greatness wasn't determined by who was better from the baseline, period. That's how it is these days. Agassi was a returner/baseliner back when S&V was still dominating the USO and Wimbledon. Yet he won each of those titles, the USO twice. Nadal would have been your typical dirtballer back in the 90's. Probably would have won a few FO's but never even would have made the 2nd week at the USO or Wimbledon. The racquet and string technology have made much of Nadal's (and Federer's for that matter) career possible IMO.

Agassi won most of his slams 99-02 when all the best S&V were gone, Sampras was past him prime, Becker gone, Edberg gone and guys like Courier (who owned him) gone. I don't see the huge difference between Agassi and Courier infact Courier won his slams in a far tougher period 91-93 than Agassi 99-02.

Cesc Fabregas
10-23-2009, 11:20 AM
So if he equalls Agassi's slam total, but doesn't win the career slam like Agassi, he has somehow surpassed him? I don't think you quite understand the importance of the career slam. Only 3 men have done it. How many guys have more then 6 major wins in the open era? More then 3.

McEnroe, Connors and Lendl don't have the "career slam" but all had better career's than Agassi, Nadal doesn't need it to pass Agass either.

Ledigs
10-23-2009, 11:37 AM
I guess you forgot about a guy named Sampras who kept Agassi from winning quite a few more majors. On HC and grass Agassi's record against Sampras was abysmal. But for the length of career expected from both Nadal and Agassi, Agassi is the winner by a mile.

Sampras kept Agassi from winning majors but Federer did not keep Nadal from winning majors. Advantage NAdal!

edmondsm
10-23-2009, 11:38 AM
Agassi won most of his slams 99-02 when all the best S&V were gone, Sampras was past him prime, Becker gone, Edberg gone and guys like Courier (who owned him) gone. I don't see the huge difference between Agassi and Courier infact Courier won his slams in a far tougher period 91-93 than Agassi 99-02.

S&V might have been on it's way out, but those guys were still winning majors. Rafter had won the USO twice around that time. The 2001 Wimbledon final was contested between two serve and volleyers. Even old man Sampras was making the USO final.

This is besides the point. Look at the guys who were making the semis of Wimbledon in the 90's. Goran, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Rafter, Agassi. Doesn't Agassi kind of stand out there? That should tell you that Agassi had a different field to compete against. He was a baseliner in a S&V world. Guys like Nadal, topspin heavy Spaniards, they weren't making the Wimbledon semis in the 90's, let alone making two finals and winning another.

Ledigs
10-23-2009, 11:40 AM
It doesn't matter what the style was back then. What matters is who is across the net. Even Agassi says that.

Joe Pike
10-23-2009, 11:40 AM
As rivals to the dominant player of their era, both of these players have much in common. Do you think Nadal can surpass Agassi's achievements?


Marry someone like Steffi?

Doubtful ...

edmondsm
10-23-2009, 11:42 AM
McEnroe, Connors and Lendl don't have the "career slam" but all had better career's than Agassi, Nadal doesn't need it to pass Agass either.

According to you. To some people like myself, accomplishments trump all. I don't know what accolades you could point too to show that Connors and McEnroe had better careers then Agassi. That's just mind boggling to me.

edmondsm
10-23-2009, 11:44 AM
It doesn't matter what the style was back then. What matters is who is across the net. Even Agassi says that.

If you could clarify what your point is. I don't get it.

mandy01
10-23-2009, 11:46 AM
Agree. Nadal has never had a gimme slam like fed agassi and others. He's had to beat fed for every one! If you think about that he could easily have zero Gimme slam? Why dont you try winning one and then talk? Besides,if Fed had 'gimme' slams then he isnt that great a player in the first place which means beating him wasnt a great deal at all..so that indirectly makes Nadal's slams of about as much worth as you claim Agassi's and Fed's are.

Ledigs
10-23-2009, 11:52 AM
If you could clarify what your point is. I don't get it.

You were talking about what Nadal's results would be if he played in the 90s. It has no relevance to this discussion. His competition and success in the 200s is all that matters.

Ledigs
10-23-2009, 11:53 AM
Gimme slam? Why dont you try winning one and then talk? Besides,if Fed had 'gimme' slams then he isnt that great a player in the first place which means beating him wasnt a great deal at all..so that indirectly makes Nadal's slams of about as much worth as you claim Agassi's and Fed's are.

uh no. Most of Fed's slams were not gimmes. None of Nadal's were gimmes. A few of Fed's were. Sorry but it's true.

Your logic only holds if I say that all of Fed's slams were gimmes, which is clearly not the case.

grafselesfan
10-23-2009, 11:56 AM
Agassi won most of his slams 99-02 when all the best S&V were gone, Sampras was past him prime, Becker gone, Edberg gone and guys like Courier (who owned him) gone. I don't see the huge difference between Agassi and Courier infact Courier won his slams in a far tougher period 91-93 than Agassi 99-02.

Agreed. Agassi is a great player of course but he peaked and won most of his slams during that weaker interim period between the Sampras/Edberg/Becker/Courier era and the Federer/Nadal era. In fairness he completely owned Becker so Becker would not have been too much problem anyway (it was a matchup thing I guess), but you also have to add surfaces specialists like Bruguera, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Muster, who Agassi most times would have a very tough time beating on their preferred surfaces (Ivanisevic at Wimbledon 92 is the only time I think he ever did this for any of those). Against the tougher field of players he struggled to make a real impact other than late 94-95 and to a lesser degree 90-92 where he was in 4 slam finals but lost 3 of the 4. I feel for a guy like Courier who had it much tougher, during his prime years always seemingly running into a top Sampras, peak Edberg, or Bruguera or Muster on clay in slams. Yet despite that he still won 4 slams and was the dominant player briefly. I doubt Agassi wins anymore than Courier was the same competition. Plus that when Agassi was pretty good he was being mauled by Courier, and Courier's win streak stretched to 1995 when Agassi probably played his peak year of tennis ever, and Courier was already slightly past his prime. Again could be a matchup thing but still.

grafselesfan
10-23-2009, 12:04 PM
McEnroe, Connors and Lendl don't have the "career slam" but all had better career's than Agassi, Nadal doesn't need it to pass Agass either.

The main reasons those three guys rank higher than Agassi is they far surpass him as far as dominance, consistency (Agassi is horrible in this category compared to other greats), quality of competition they won their slams against, and success vs main rivals. Nadal himself clearly surpasses Agassi in all those areas as well. His 2008 easily trumps Agassi's 1999, his huge run of time consecutively ranked atleast #2 in the World speaks for itself, his dominance at the French Open and clay in general trumps anything Agassi has had anywhere or on any surface. Consistency I dont even have to bother with. Nadal won 5 of his 6 slams vs Federer in the final, the other in the semis, and also beat Djokovic (four times but three if we exclude pre prime Djokovic at 06 FO), Murray (once), to win his slams. Nadal doesnt have a losing record vs any top player. Agassi at various points in his unusual career was owned by Sampras, Federer, Courier, and Lendl.

Ledigs
10-23-2009, 12:06 PM
The main reasons those three guys rank higher than Agassi is they far surpass him as far as dominance, consistency (Agassi is horrible in this category compared to other greats), quality of competition they won their slams against, and success vs main rivals. Nadal himself clearly surpasses Agassi in all those areas as well. His 2008 easily trumps Agassi's 1999, his huge run of time consecutively ranked atleast #2 in the World speaks for itself, his dominance at the French Open and clay in general trumps anything Agassi has had anywhere or on any surface. Consistency I dont even have to bother with. Nadal won 5 of his 6 slams vs Federer in the final, the other in the semis, and also beat Djokovic (four times but three if we exclude pre prime Djokovic at 06 FO), Murray (once), to win his slams. Nadal doesnt have a losing record vs any top player. Agassi at various points in his unusual career was owned by Sampras, Federer, Courier, and Lendl.

great post!!!

RyanRF
10-23-2009, 12:06 PM
Absolutely- Not.
Imo Agassi will always be a better player, Agassis was competing (and won) against 3 different eras/generation on top-players, Nadal will never be able to do that.
They both have Olympic Gold Medals, Agassi 8 GS vs Nadals 6, Agassi 17 MS-titles vs Nadals 15, Agassi spent longer time as no 1, but Agassi is the 2nd player of ll time who has the most QF (or better) in GS, Nadal will never come close to that and Agassi won 60 titles, Nadal has 36 and will never ever reach 60.

So basically, at 23 Nadal (8 years pro) has almost accomplished everything Agassi had at 36 (20 years pro). You've just proven the opposite of your argument.

Blinkism
10-23-2009, 12:06 PM
Gimme slam? Why dont you try winning one and then talk? Besides,if Fed had 'gimme' slams then he isnt that great a player in the first place which means beating him wasnt a great deal at all..so that indirectly makes Nadal's slams of about as much worth as you claim Agassi's and Fed's are.

Exactly... Nadal's success is a derivative of Federer's because most of Nadal's success has been against Federer

Ledigs
10-23-2009, 12:08 PM
Exactly... Nadal's success is a derivative of Federer's because most of Nadal's success has been against Federer

So he beat no one to get to those finals and beat no one at all the Masters he won?

mandy01
10-23-2009, 12:09 PM
I didn't use the word "gimme" first in this thread. I'm really tired of your language and the way you demean other posters in defense of your lover Federer. You, my friend, are going on IGNORE. :) Yeah..I suppose you didnt read the posts of people you call 'enligtened' ,you dont read your own posts and you have the nerve to accuse others. . But then you are fangirl or a fanboy so I'm not surprised.

Ledigs
10-23-2009, 12:09 PM
Exactly... Nadal's success is a derivative of Federer's because most of Nadal's success has been against Federer

My point was that Nadal had no gimme slams while Fed had one or two and Agassi had several.

anointedone
10-23-2009, 12:18 PM
Absolutely- Not.
Imo Agassi will always be a better player, Agassis was competing (and won) against 3 different eras/generation on top-players, Nadal will never be able to do that.
They both have Olympic Gold Medals, Agassi 8 GS vs Nadals 6, Agassi 17 MS-titles vs Nadals 15, Agassi spent longer time as no 1, but Agassi is the 2nd player of ll time who has the most QF (or better) in GS, Nadal will never come close to that and Agassi won 60 titles, Nadal has 36 and will never ever reach 60.

You seem to overrate Agassi's place in history. Only the most biased of Agassi fanboys have him even in the top 10, and many have him outside the top 15. In the Open Era alone he is not only far behind the obvious Laver, Rosewall, Sampras, Federer, Borg, but also clearly behind Connors, Lendl, McEnroe. To say Nadal would never surpass Agassi is basically saying he would never catch Lendl or McEnroe, as doing so would already put him over Agassi.

Matt H.
10-23-2009, 12:34 PM
Agassi has one of the most complete career resumes you can have:

Career Grand Slam
Gold Medal
Davis Cup title
Year End #1
Record Holder for Masters Series (which, imo, are tougher tournaments than slams if you break down the competition round by round)
Of the Master's titles, he won 7 of the 9 slots.

He was Paris and Hamburg away from winning everything of any kind of importance on the tour.

He also made 4 consecutive finals and won 3 out of the 4 (lost 99 Wimbledon)


With that said, it's still a bit sad when you think of all the years he wasted and the potential.

People are biased because of Agassi's personality and all he's done for the game. The reality is that Nadal is pretty close to Agassi's stats, and he's only 23. If he can make it to the age of 30, he will have surpassed him.

DRII
10-23-2009, 12:39 PM
this is a good question/topic. I would say at the end of Nadals career he will fall slightly short of Agassi. The main reason i would say is not because of lack of skill or talent but because Andre will have/had the much longer career he was consistently good for a long time. I do think Rafa will match him in Grand slams though.

Agassi will most likely have a much longer carreer than Rafa. But Agassi was not consistently good. What was amazing about Agassi is his almost super-natural rebounds - from out of the top 100 in the world to #1.

Talent wise, i think they are both very close to one another, and i love Agassi. But Rafa might have the edge because he managed his success competing with, and close to dominating, Roger Federer who many consider GOAT. Agassi dealt with some impressive opponents as well (Sampras, McEnroe, Becker, etc) but many of his slam finals were against much lesser opponents (not Agassi's fault but nevertheless is the case).

mandy01
10-23-2009, 12:41 PM
Agassi has one of the most complete career resumes you can have:

Career Grand Slam
Gold Medal
Davis Cup title
Year End #1
Record Holder for Masters Series (which, imo, are tougher tournaments than slams if you break down the competition round by round)
Of the Master's titles, he won 7 of the 9 slots.

He was Paris and Hamburg away from winning everything of any kind of importance on the tour.

He also made 4 consecutive finals and won 3 out of the 4 (lost 99 Wimbledon)


With that said, it's still a bit sad when you think of all the years he wasted and the potential.

This.I'd say Andre was one of those guys who certainly had it in him to get atleast upto 10 slams.Its just sad he wasted himself ,the way he did.

Cesc Fabregas
10-23-2009, 12:45 PM
This.I'd say Andre was one of those guys who certainly had it in him to get atleast upto 10 slams.Its just sad he wasted himself ,the way he did.

Disagree. If he didn't take a holiday in his career 96-98 he wouldn't have had the longetivity he did 99-03, so his slam count is about right.

Ledigs
10-23-2009, 12:45 PM
Disagree. If he didn't take a holiday in his career 96-98 he wouldn't have had the longetivity he did 99-03, so his slam count is about right.

Agree with this. He had some rest for awhile :)

ace0001a
10-23-2009, 12:47 PM
There is no such thing as a "gimme" in my book. Sure you can argue that many of Agassi grandslam wins didn't come against the top player in the final, but you can't discount the matches it took to get there. Andre Agassi has nothing to be ashamed about with his career standings and in my opinion he does stand in the top 10 of all time. While I'm sure Nadal has a good chance to pass Agassi statiscally speaking, to me and many of the guys I play tennis with, he just doesn't have as much of a intangible aura and some of my tennis buddies don't like his topspin heavy game as they think it's kind of cheap. But with all due respect, I do think Nadal will wind up as one of tennis' greats. But the way he plays may dictate how much longer he can physically last in his career...

mandy01
10-23-2009, 12:47 PM
Disagree. If he didn't take a holiday in his career 96-98 he wouldn't have had the longetivity he did 99-03, so his slam count is about right. I dont know about that.I'd say he'd win upto 10 slams atleast.IMO he had the potential to do so.

mandy01
10-23-2009, 12:51 PM
There is no such thing as a "gimme" in my book. Sure you can argue that many of Agassi grandslam wins didn't come against the top player in the final, but you can't discount the matches it took to get there. Andre Agassi has nothing to be ashamed about with his career standings and in my opinion he does stand in the top 10 of all time. While I'm sure Nadal has a good chance to pass Agassi statiscally speaking, to me and many of the guys I play tennis with, he just doesn't have as much of a intangible aura and some of my tennis buddies don't like his topspin heavy game as they think it's kind of cheap. But with all due respect, I do think Nadal will wind up as one of tennis' greats. But the way he plays may dictate how much longer he can physically last in his career...Couldnt have said it better myself.These all-time lists are anyway subjective and to me,there's no one like Andre.Not even Roger :D
Nadal is far off.

Cesc Fabregas
10-23-2009, 12:55 PM
Couldnt have said it better myself.These all-time lists are anyway subjective and to me,there's no one like Andre.Not even Roger :D
Nadal is far off.

Agassi's "personality" is overrated, never liked the guy always annoyed me he get more praises and popularity than Pete, I prefer guys who stay true to themselves like Sampras and Nadal.

mandy01
10-23-2009, 01:01 PM
Agassi's "personality" is overrated, never liked the guy always annoyed me he get more praises and popularity than Pete, I prefer guys who stay true to themselves like Sampras and Nadal.
I didnt like Andre just for his personality.I loved watching him,he made tennis enjoyable for me.I know he was an image-freak and there HAVE been times when he was slightly..uhm..over the top.But I LOVED him.
Its kind if funny because I started liking Sampras when he won his last slam :lol:.I watched him intently and had a lot of respect for him..but somehow I just couldnt root for him then.
You gotta hand it to Andre for making to sport so popular though.It needed all the publicity it could get and Andre's contribution is huge IMO.

ace0001a
10-23-2009, 01:04 PM
Agassi's "personality" is overrated, never liked the guy always annoyed me he get more praises and popularity than Pete, I prefer guys who stay true to themselves like Sampras and Nadal.

I guess we can agree to disagree. While I respect quiet guys like Sampras and Nadal, they just don't have the personality that I prefer to watch. And there's no way Agassi's personality was more annoying on the court than say Mcenroe's or Connor's. Like any other sports, tennis needs athletes with personality in my opinion. Agassi may have started his career as a young punk, but he finished it a distinguished gentleman and you can't knock that. He was always true to himself so that's a lousy arguement there...I don't see how someone who is more outgoing is less true to themselves as someone who is reserved. Also like mandy01, I liked Agassi game as well and they way he plays. To me, the mechanics of his strokes are a work of tennis artistry which is why he's been called one of the cleanest or purest ball strikers of all time. Nadal's game is awesome, but some of his strokes (especially his forehand) is just mechanically pure ugly in my opinion.

mandy01
10-23-2009, 01:09 PM
I guess we can agree to disagree. While I respect quiet guys like Sampras and Nadal, they just don't have the personality that I prefer to watch. And there's no way Agassi's personality was more annoying on the court than say Mcenroe's or Connor's. Like any other sports, tennis needs athletes with personality in my opinion. Agassi may have started his career as a young punk, but he finished it a distinguished gentleman and you can't knock that. He was always true to himself so that's a lousy arguement there...I don't see how someone who is more outgoing is less true to themselves as someone who is reserved.
Couldnt agree more..if anything Andre was probably more the 'true to himself' type than most of these guys.There was no political correctness and all that for him.He would just be himself and people loved that .

Cesc Fabregas
10-23-2009, 01:15 PM
Couldnt agree more..if anything Andre was probably more the 'true to himself' type than most of these guys.There was no political correctness and all that for him.He would just be himself and people loved that .

Agassi played to the media all the time made tons of money out of it, changed his personality etc the guy did everything for the camera, Sampras and Nadal have always stayed the same.

mandy01
10-23-2009, 01:22 PM
Agassi played to the media all the time made tons of money out of it, changed his personality etc the guy did everything for the camera, Sampras and Nadal have always stayed the same.
I dont agree about Nadal.He does all he can to promote himself.He is nothing like Sampras even if made out to be.
Anyway,media work is important.Sure Andre made money out of it but he made tennis more popular than it ever was .
Even then Andre wasnt the politically correct types.

ace0001a
10-23-2009, 01:25 PM
Agassi played to the media all the time made tons of money out of it, changed his personality etc the guy did everything for the camera, Sampras and Nadal have always stayed the same.

Well saying that, you can say the same thing about McEnroe and Connors did the same as well (granted in an era where tennis made far less money). Would you say they're not part of the greats of tennis history because of that. Just because you don't like the personality of a great athlete of any given sport, doesn't mean they weren't any less great than others. I think I've been very fair in my statements that I respect the other greats without bashing them. So it's clear you never liked Agassi bottom line and that's fine, that's your perogative...but to me not liking him for his behavior should have nothing to do with what he represented to the game as a whole. I don't think anything about him was ever overrated and it's very fair to say the game benefitted very much from having brash guys like Agassi, McEnroe and Connors.

Cesc Fabregas
10-23-2009, 01:34 PM
I dont agree about Nadal.He does all he can to promote himself.He is nothing like Sampras even if made out to be.
Anyway,media work is important.Sure Andre made money out of it but he made tennis more popular than it ever was .
Even then Andre wasnt the politically correct types.

Nadal is a great person.
A). He is shy
B). Never talks about his private life
C). Still lives in the same place he was brought up
D). Never talks about how great he is
E). His behaviour on court is perfect, never breaks racquets, shouts, screams, swears
F). Has manners, always says please and thank you
G). Always respectful to others, doesn't think anybody owes him anything etc

I could go on but theres no point, Nadal is a much nicer guy than Agassi.

mandy01
10-23-2009, 01:42 PM
Nadal is a great person.
A). He is shy
B). Never talks about his private life
C). Still lives in the same place he was brought up
D). Never talks about how great he is
E). His behaviour on court is perfect, never breaks racquets, shouts, screams, swears
F). Has manners, always says please and thank you
G). Always respectful to others, doesn't think anybody owes him anything etc

I could go on but theres no point, Nadal is a much nicer guy than Agassi.

To be honest ,I'm not sure I want to hear your version of Nadal's personality.
He dosent come close to Andre for me ,which I made clear before.Andre was fun to watch,Nadal dosent appeal to me no matter how much of a hero he's made out to be.
Tales of his supposed humility do not interest me.That said I respect him and I think thats enough.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-23-2009, 01:42 PM
Agassi's "personality" is overrated, never liked the guy always annoyed me he get more praises and popularity than Pete, I prefer guys who stay true to themselves like Sampras and Nadal.
Are you nuts?!
Agassi was a gentleman and an awesome ambassador and carries himself A LOT better than both Nadal and Pete, he gives the best press-conferences there has ever been. He matured late and had a flamboyant lifestyle for a long time but after he matured he was simply adorable, a fantastic rolemodel, never picked his butt, never delayed time.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-23-2009, 01:46 PM
Nadal is a great person.
A). He is shy
B). Never talks about his private life
C). Still lives in the same place he was brought up
D). Never talks about how great he is
E). His behaviour on court is perfect, never breaks racquets, shouts, screams, swears
F). Has manners, always says please and thank you
G). Always respectful to others, doesn't think anybody owes him anything etc

I could go on but theres no point, Nadal is a much nicer guy than Agassi.

A) When he wins, because he thinks that will increase his popularity.
B) Because he has no idea how to express himself, and i find it boring.
C) Because Spanish is the only language he is capable of
D) See, B
E) Are you kidding me??? He pushes the rules way ahead OVER the limits, takes way to long time, stares across the net like some kind of geek, and of course the buttpicking, its disrespectful to shake hand with his opponents with the buttpicker hand.
F) Those are the only English words he know
G) Respectful to Berdych? To Soderling?

Cesc Fabregas
10-23-2009, 01:52 PM
A) When he wins, because he thinks that will increase his popularity.
B) Because he has no idea how to express himself, and i find it boring.
C) Because Spanish is the only language he is capable of
D) See, B
E) Are you kidding me??? He pushes the rules way ahead OVER the limits, takes way to long time, stares across the net like some kind of geek, and of course the buttpicking, its disrespectful to shake hand with his opponents with the buttpicker hand.
F) Those are the only English words he know
G) Respectful to Berdych? To Soderling?

Berdych he apogolised to and they're cool now, Soderling is one who needs to apogolise to Nadal, it was a disgrace how he disrespected him.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-23-2009, 01:56 PM
Berdych he apogolised to and they're cool now, Soderling is one who needs to apogolise to Nadal, it was a disgrace how he disrespected him.
At Wimbledon??:shock:

mandy01
10-23-2009, 01:56 PM
Berdych he apogolised to and they're cool now, Soderling is one who needs to apogolise to Nadal, it was a disgrace how he disrespected him.
Actually no.He was just pulling Nadal's leg and I dont blame him because Nadal's time-wasting has been a source of irritation.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-23-2009, 01:57 PM
Nadal's time-wasting has been a source of irritation.
Yes, absolutely !!

flying24
10-23-2009, 01:57 PM
Disagree. If he didn't take a holiday in his career 96-98 he wouldn't have had the longetivity he did 99-03, so his slam count is about right.

Actually he was probably better off how it turned out. Had Agassi been more serious about the balance of his career he would not have had this amazing late career surge you refer to. As the field was actually alot tougher during his sabaticals than the 99-2003 period he would probably have won less slams in this case. Rather than face Sampras, Courier, Edberg, and clay court greats at the French in slam finals he got to face Kafelnikov, Medvedev, Martin, Schuettler, Clement, in slam finals.

ace0001a
10-23-2009, 02:03 PM
There's no point in argueing with Cesc Fabregas as he's obviously got his mind made up. To me Agassi is generally a more appealing player from a tennis fan's point of view. I think in general, alot of these perceptions of how a player is will be subjective. I think as a fan of sport, you must respect all of the athletes, even if you don't like some of them. And with regard to the actual topic, I think it's very possible that Nadal will surpass Agassi statistcally...the question is how much longer can he physically last to allow him to do so. And if he doesn't will anyone really remember much about him in the future for anything other than statistics. I was too little to remember anything about guys like Connors and McEnroe statistically, but their presence of personality I think still resonates in the game today and I genuinely believe Agassi's will too.

namelessone
10-23-2009, 02:14 PM
There is no such thing as a "gimme" in my book. Sure you can argue that many of Agassi grandslam wins didn't come against the top player in the final, but you can't discount the matches it took to get there. Andre Agassi has nothing to be ashamed about with his career standings and in my opinion he does stand in the top 10 of all time. While I'm sure Nadal has a good chance to pass Agassi statiscally speaking, to me and many of the guys I play tennis with, he just doesn't have as much of a intangible aura and some of my tennis buddies don't like his topspin heavy game as they think it's kind of cheap. But with all due respect, I do think Nadal will wind up as one of tennis' greats. But the way he plays may dictate how much longer he can physically last in his career...

Define "intangible aura". And why is having a topspin heavy game cheap? Nadal plays almost only topspin but topspin is played by many top players nowadays.With this type of game Nadal has managed to win 6 GS,15 MS and Olympic Medal by age 23. I'm guessing he made the right choice though it is true that this type of game works against him on HC.

flying24
10-23-2009, 02:17 PM
There's no point in argueing with Cesc Fabregas as he's obviously got his mind made up. To me Agassi is generally a more appealing player from a tennis fan's point of view. I think in general, alot of these perceptions of how a player is will be subjective. I think as a fan of sport, you must respect all of the athletes, even if you don't like some of them. And with regard to the actual topic, I think it's very possible that Nadal will surpass Agassi statistcally...the question is how much longer can he physically last to allow him to do so. And if he doesn't will anyone really remember much about him in the future for anything other than statistics. I was too little to remember anything about guys like Connors and McEnroe statistically, but their presence of personality I think still resonates in the game today and I genuinely believe Agassi's will too.

Overall impact to the game is a seperate category from just specific tennis greatness alone though. Billie Jean King arguably had more overall impact on womens tennis than anyone, but it doesnt change that she still ranks 8th greatest tennis player all time among women.

mandy01
10-23-2009, 02:20 PM
Define "intangible aura". And why is having a topspin heavy game cheap? Nadal plays almost only topspin but topspin is played by many top players nowadays.With this type of game Nadal has managed to win 6 GS,15 MS and Olympic Medal by age 23. I'm guessing he made the right choice though it is true that this type of game works against him on HC. I think the poster made it clear that all of this was only his opinion.Esepcially the aura part.Many here dont like Nadal's game,nothing he has achieved however is of less worth or anything.

ace0001a
10-23-2009, 02:34 PM
Define "intangible aura". And why is having a topspin heavy game cheap? Nadal plays almost only topspin but topspin is played by many top players nowadays.With this type of game Nadal has managed to win 6 GS,15 MS and Olympic Medal by age 23. I'm guessing he made the right choice though it is true that this type of game works against him on HC.

Well from my standpoint (and I think many will agree), in my opinion Nadal just doesn't generate the same kind of excitement Agassi in general. Agassi just had this thing about him that drew crowds of tennis fans. I remember even sitting in a classroom once where my teacher asked me what my favorite sport and who was my favorite athelete. When I said Tennis and Agassi, even the football and basketball guys in the room knew who I was talking about and even knodded at me. I just don't see Nadal having such a reaction...at least here in the US. It maybe different internationally for Nadal, but I believe Agassi had his fair share of fans internationally.

I myself said I think Nadal's game is awesome in it's own right, albeit it mechanically ugly. I said it was my buddies who think his game of heavy topspin is cheap. One of my buddies who loves Federer says that why Nadal was able "to get some finals by Federer" because of his "cheap loopy shots". And that's to quote my friend, not me. Of course the topspin heavy/loopy hame is pretty much neutralized by really tall guys. Del Potro proved that this past US Open...and I even read about Del Protro haters here who say that's there's nothing special about a tall guy who hits with effortless power. I guess there's a hater for everybody.



Overall impact to the game is a seperate category from just specific tennis greatness alone though. Billie Jean King arguably had more overall impact on womens tennis than anyone, but it doesnt change that she still ranks 8th greatest tennis player all time among women.

Well like I said, I still believe all of Agassi's accomplishments still put him in the Top 10 of all time in my opinion. I've been a player and a fan of the game for 21+ years, so it's not like I've come to that conclusion on a whim.

Ledigs
10-23-2009, 02:36 PM
Well, I'm sure Nadal has some "intangible aura" in Spain.

rk_sports
10-23-2009, 02:39 PM
Hmm.. I guess it depends on what you mean by achievements!

If it means winning the career GS.. since Nadal is only 23.. then he has a shot..

Looks like winning the US Open is his kryptonite .. but again most of us thought the same for Wiimbly before he won it (though you gotta say.. not all grass's are the same ;) )

If he can stay healthy, he can beat Agassi's number of GS .. just 3 needed for that..

maddogz32
10-23-2009, 02:41 PM
if you think of achievments as grand slams then yes

ace0001a
10-23-2009, 02:42 PM
Well, I'm sure Nadal has some "intangible aura" in Spain.

Yeah I would think so...if a great sports athelete doesn't have that in their own country, there must be something really wrong with him/her.

drakulie
10-23-2009, 02:48 PM
Nadal would be a much better player if he hadn't played in an era where everyone is injured all the time.

Cesc Fabregas
10-23-2009, 02:51 PM
Nadal would be a much better player if he hadn't played in an era where everyone is injured all the time.

You'd be a much better troll if you came up with something original for once.

drakulie
10-23-2009, 02:56 PM
You'd be a much better troll if you came up with something original for once.

nah, what I'm saying is good enough to upset weak-minded folks like you.

DownTheLine
10-23-2009, 03:00 PM
nadal has much bigger fish to fry than agassi

Agassi is a pretty big fish. Alot bigger then Nadal.

namelessone
10-23-2009, 03:15 PM
Well from my standpoint (and I think many will agree), in my opinion Nadal just doesn't generate the same kind of excitement Agassi in general. Agassi just had this thing about him that drew crowds of tennis fans. I remember even sitting in a classroom once where my teacher asked me what my favorite sport and who was my favorite athelete. When I said Tennis and Agassi, even the football and basketball guys in the room knew who I was talking about and even knodded at me. I just don't see Nadal having such a reaction...at least here in the US. It maybe different internationally for Nadal, but I believe Agassi had his fair share of fans internationally.

I myself said I think Nadal's game is awesome in it's own right, albeit it mechanically ugly. I said it was my buddies who think his game of heavy topspin is cheap. One of my buddies who loves Federer says that why Nadal was able "to get some finals by Federer" because of his "cheap loopy shots". And that's to quote my friend, not me. Of course the topspin heavy/loopy hame is pretty much neutralized by really tall guys. Del Potro proved that this past US Open...and I even read about Del Protro haters here who say that's there's nothing special about a tall guy who hits with effortless power. I guess there's a hater for everybody.

Well like I said, I still believe all of Agassi's accomplishments still put him in the Top 10 of all time in my opinion. I've been a player and a fan of the game for 21+ years, so it's not like I've come to that conclusion on a whim.

Well this thing is subjective and I am not one to say what people should like but trust me,Nadal draws crowds big time.That was very clear even in this year's USO where he was among the crowd favourites.Even in Shanghai as many as 1000 people would turn up just to watch him practice. This is even more impressive considering the fact that he is European,doesn't speak great English and isn't as outgoing as Americans usually like their sports stars to be. It's obvious Agassi appealed more to a certain public because he had more rock star qualities than Nadal. He had that period when he had funky hair,funky clothes,he dated and married brooke shields,had a lot of up and downs in his career and so on. Nadal on the other hand is a simple guy who dresses casually and doesn't wear extreme things on court,his girlfriend is a normal girl from mallorca,he is a shy guy off-court but fiery on-court and he said countless times that being famous isn't a plus for him. In short I think Agassi knew how to play on-court and how to play to the camera,if you know what I mean. Nadal on the other hand,knows how to play on court but doesn't seem to give a crap about playing to the camera.

Your friend is probably still suffering from the defeats Federer suffered at the hands of Nadal. His "loopy shots" helped him win many titles and if I am not mistaken Nadal leads Federer 6-2 in GS finals and 11-5 in finals in general so your friend is very wrong about Nadal "getting some finals by Federer". Looking at their results in final,one could say it is the other way around.

BTW,Agassi was my favourite player before Nadal's rise to prominence and I really hated that they had to meet at 2006 wimbledon.

flyinghippos101
10-23-2009, 03:36 PM
Slam count? Potentially, it looks good. He seems locked for atleast one more french open win. I have the utmost confidence that Nadal WILL shatter Agassi's MS count record. Considering there's like three MS on clay, I don't see how its possible that Nadal wouldn't beat the record

zagor
10-24-2009, 01:15 AM
It's hard to say,Nadal may equal or surprass Agassi's results but Andre faced some tough competition in his day while Nadal's main rival(the guy he played most in the finals on clay which is his most dominant surface)is a mentally weak crying girl who can only win big titles with cakewalk draws,choking from her opponents and rigged schedules.

mandy01
10-24-2009, 01:23 AM
It's hard to say,Nadal may equal or surprass Agassi's results but Andre faced some tough competition in his day while Nadal's main rival(the guy he played most in the finals on clay which is his most dominant surface)is a mentally weak crying girl who can only win big titles with cakewalk draws,choking from her opponents and rigged schedules.
You nailed it.Nadal's slams would be of far more worth had he played against
real men.

zagor
10-24-2009, 01:30 AM
You nailed it.Nadal's slams would be of far more worth had he played against
real men.

Agree,his only slam title worth a damn is RG in which he beat Puerta in the final.Those others won against mentaly weak crying girl from Basel don't count for much really,they're all hollow slams.

Turning Pro
10-24-2009, 06:02 AM
Well on slams alone, he beat the statistically goat, Federer to win all 6 on every surface, has a 5-2 h2h against statistically the GOAT, and 13-7 overall. Agassi didn't beat pete everytime to win all his slams right? Nadal is almost on par with agassi imo, He needs 2 more slams on whatever surface to be on par. If he just wins the US Open as his only slam from now, he'll be on par. Agassi may have longevity, every slam and 17 ms on his side although nadal is very close to a couple of those already.

jackson vile
10-24-2009, 01:11 PM
Nadal needs more overal titles, more MS titels, more grand slams, and he needs to win the USO.

The things that Nadal has going for him that AA does not ie davis cup, winning H2H against the Roger, beating Roger at those slams, etc.

Time will tell, Nadal will have the MS title by next year and will have more than AA, the USO may not happen at all, and Nadal will end up with more slam titles as well.

So IMO the only thing that will hold Nadal back is the USO title, timing will be everything for Nadal.

I think that all together Nadal will end up with 12+ slams and will go down one of the GOATS.

Ripster
10-24-2009, 01:22 PM
Nadal most likely will win more Grand Slams and Masters than Agassi but he might never win the US Open. I always said it was more likely that Federer would win the French than Nadal winning in Flushing Meadows. Given the up and coming tall power players like Del Potro, Cilic, Tsonga coupled with his current rivals Federer, Murray and Djokovic, it's easy to make a case that Rafa will never win the US Open.

edmondsm
10-24-2009, 02:48 PM
The main reasons those three guys rank higher than Agassi is they far surpass him as far as dominance, consistency (Agassi is horrible in this category compared to other greats), quality of competition they won their slams against, and success vs main rivals. Nadal himself clearly surpasses Agassi in all those areas as well. His 2008 easily trumps Agassi's 1999, his huge run of time consecutively ranked atleast #2 in the World speaks for itself, his dominance at the French Open and clay in general trumps anything Agassi has had anywhere or on any surface. Consistency I dont even have to bother with. Nadal won 5 of his 6 slams vs Federer in the final, the other in the semis, and also beat Djokovic (four times but three if we exclude pre prime Djokovic at 06 FO), Murray (once), to win his slams. Nadal doesnt have a losing record vs any top player. Agassi at various points in his unusual career was owned by Sampras, Federer, Courier, and Lendl.


You are saying that Connors was:

a) More dominant then Agassi?
b) Had tougher competition?

That is funny.

TheTruth
10-25-2009, 10:33 PM
Nadal will surpass Agassi if he stays healthy and keeps playing for another 4-5 years. Nadal followed Federer across 3 surfaces at a young age,Agassi had success against Sampras only on slower surfaces. Nadal didn't just go away for a period like Agassi did,he actually stayed behind Federer for about 4 years,being the player with the most weeks at nr.2. And you have to remember that Federer is the probable GOAT. While Rafa can certainly reach and even surpass Agassi's nr. of GS and MS,he will have a much harder time beating his Calendar Slam and weeks at nr.1.

Nadal had to go through Federer in every GS of his career and took the nr.1 away from him for almost a year(before injury did him in).That's a huge achivement in itself. Many agree that Nadal motivated Federer to better himself and let's face it,Federer's story would have been less glorious without an arch-rival by his side. When so many great former players say so many great things about Rafa you know he is the real deal.

Steffi Graf's statement is my favourite:"If you watch Rafael Nadal play tennis, you can only respond with amazement and great admiration. He is an incredible athlete with so much discipline, so much concentration and someone who likes to put a lot of passion into every point.
Words fail to come out of me to describe his game appropriately. Ive rarely seen anyone who approaches a ball with so much attention. With such passion and joy that it makes it great fun to watch him. With him, you can associate everything that makes tennis so beautiful.

If Nadal retires tomorrow he is already a living legend and has accomplished way more than anyone in his generation. You could make a point for Rafa being the Federer of his generation,his peers being quite a ways behind him,with djoker having 1 GS and 4 MS + 1 TMC, murray with 0 GS and 4 MS while Rafa has 6 GS and 15 MS.

I don't care if people like him or not,but he is the only reason that tennis wasn't totally boring during Fed's domination. He was the one that showed the young guns that Fed is not invincible and that carried through to this peers,like djoker and murray. He was the one that started the rivalry which has defined our sport in the last 4-5 years or so and he has always had kind words for his rival,Roger Federer,even being there for him in Fed's worst moment(the crying in AO ceremony).

Great post. Nothing to add!

TheTruth
10-25-2009, 10:42 PM
Agassi's "personality" is overrated, never liked the guy always annoyed me he get more praises and popularity than Pete, I prefer guys who stay true to themselves like Sampras and Nadal.

OMG! I am sooo with you. What personality? The personality and charisma the commentators (his friends) kept telling us he had? I've never seen it. He was extremely boring to me, but a good speaker. Other than that he was a brat, talked bad about his opponents and seems to be a pretty insecure individual.

I prefer Sampras and Nadal any day to the ones touted by commentators.

TheTruth
10-25-2009, 10:48 PM
Are you nuts?!
Agassi was a gentleman and an awesome ambassador and carries himself A LOT better than both Nadal and Pete, he gives the best press-conferences there has ever been. He matured late and had a flamboyant lifestyle for a long time but after he matured he was simply adorable, a fantastic rolemodel, never picked his butt, never delayed time.

You should replace this with this:

Blew massive snot rockets on the court. Sometimes they lingered on his face. Ewww!

Gentleman! Did you ever read some of the things Agassi said about other players during his time?

He was the commentators' friend. They liked him. Fawned over him, and created the persona that he was.

He pimped the media.

He does give good press conferences though. However, you should also read his print articles.

grafselesfan
10-25-2009, 10:54 PM
You are saying that Connors was:

a) More dominant then Agassi?
b) Had tougher competition?

That is funny.

Hell yeah to both.

a. I cant believe anyone finds this funny. I find it funny that anyone would find that funny. Connors in 1974 absolutely crushed the field, won all 3 slams he played, and many believe would have won the true Grand Slam had he not been barred from the French Open. Despite playing a horde of tournaments he won 15 tournaments and lost only 6 matches. His 1974 far trumps Agassi's 1999. Even his 1982 at age 30 was probably superior to Agassi's best year ever considering he won both Wimbledon and the U.S Open, won 7 titles, usurpred his younger archrivals McEnroe and Lendl, and that Agassi's 1999 has the asterix of being dominated completely by Sampras and Sampras's WD from the U.S Open he was the overwhelming favorite to win that year. While some of it is supect Connors also held #1 for over 150 consecutive weeks and over 200 total weeks. Even logically speaking Connors was also clearly the #1 player in the World for 1976, 1974, and 1982, and could be argued for both 1975 and 1977. Connors was clearly 1 of the top 2 or 3 players in the World every year from 1974 to 1984. Connors owned his greatest rival Bjorn Borg until midway through 1977 when Borg began to challenge him more closely. The great Borg considered beating Connors in the 77 Wimbledon final in 5 sets a huge breakthrough for him mentally, and Borg was already a 2 time French Open Champion, Wimbledon Champion, and U.S Open finalist at this point. Agassi was never a dominant player considering in his only year winning 2 slams and as year end #1 he was still Sampras's lapdog when the two played. Connors didnt exactly have a long period of total dominance either but Connors>>>>> Agassi in dominance.

b. Connors faced Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, and Vilas for many years each near their best. Agassi won 5 of his 8 slams from 1999 onwards when Becker and Edberg had been retired for years, a washed up Courier was about to retire, Chang had been completely burnt out for a couple years, Stich had retired, other than the miracle of Wimbledon 01 Ivanisevic was completely done. Sampras in 99 and 2000 was still an excellent player, clearly better than Agassi when healthy, however of Agassi's 3 slam wins of 99 and 2000 one was a French Open (where Sampras as often by then went out early), one was that U.S Open that Sampras was overwhelmingly favored to win and missed with injury paving the way for Agassi's triumph, and the only one he met Sampras head on was the semis of the 2000 AO where Agassi eked out a win vs an injured Sampras who would have to miss the next 5 weeks with his hip flexor pull. So other than AO 2000 to some degree it was as if Sampras wasnt even there to begin with, and Sampras overall still owned Agassi when they did play those 2 years. After 2000 Sampras was so far past his prime he wasnt even to stay in the top 10. So that left Agassi's main competition from 99-2000 when he won 3 of his slams as Kafelnikov, Todd Martin in the twlight of his career, Kuerten the clay courter only in slams, Magnus Norman, and teenaged pre pubescant Safin and Hewitt. Then when he won his last 2 slams in Australian in 2001 and 2003 his final 3 round opponent were Todd Martin, Rafter in his first time past the 4th round on rebound ace ever, and Clement (2001) and Grosjean, Ferreira, and Schuettler in 2003. Connors tougher competition?! This is almost as much a no brainer as the dominance comparision.

edmondsm
10-25-2009, 11:09 PM
Hell yeah to both.

a. I cant believe anyone finds this funny. I find it funny that anyone would find that funny. Connors in 1974 absolutely crushed the field, won all 3 slams he played, and many believe would have won the true Grand Slam had he not been barred from the French Open. Despite playing a horde of tournaments he won 15 tournaments and lost only 6 matches. His 1974 far trumps Agassi's 1999. Even his 1982 at age 30 was probably superior to Agassi's best year ever considering he won both Wimbledon and the U.S Open, won 7 titles, usurpred his younger archrivals McEnroe and Lendl, and that Agassi's 1999 has the asterix of being dominated completely by Sampras and Sampras's WD from the U.S Open he was the overwhelming favorite to win that year. While some of it is supect Connors also held #1 for over 150 consecutive weeks and over 200 total weeks. Even logically speaking Connors was also clearly the #1 player in the World for 1976, 1974, and 1982, and could be argued for both 1975 and 1977. Connors was clearly 1 of the top 2 or 3 players in the World every year from 1974 to 1984. Connors owned his greatest rival Bjorn Borg until midway through 1977 when Borg began to challenge him more closely. The great Borg considered beating Connors in the 77 Wimbledon final in 5 sets a huge breakthrough for him mentally, and Borg was already a 2 time French Open Champion, Wimbledon Champion, and U.S Open finalist at this point. Agassi was never a dominant player considering in his only year winning 2 slams and as year end #1 he was still Sampras's lapdog when the two played. Connors didnt exactly have a long period of total dominance either but Connors>>>>> Agassi in dominance.

b. Connors faced Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, and Vilas for many years each near their best. Agassi won 5 of his 8 slams from 1999 onwards when Becker and Edberg had been retired for years, a washed up Courier was about to retire, Chang had been completely burnt out for a couple years, Stich had retired, other than the miracle of Wimbledon 01 Ivanisevic was completely done. Sampras in 99 and 2000 was still an excellent player, clearly better than Agassi when healthy, however of Agassi's 3 slam wins of 99 and 2000 one was a French Open (where Sampras as often by then went out early), one was that U.S Open that Sampras was overwhelmingly favored to win and missed with injury paving the way for Agassi's triumph, and the only one he met Sampras head on was the semis of the 2000 AO where Agassi eked out a win vs an injured Sampras who would have to miss the next 5 weeks with his hip flexor pull. So other than AO 2000 to some degree it was as if Sampras wasnt even there to begin with, and Sampras overall still owned Agassi when they did play those 2 years. After 2000 Sampras was so far past his prime he wasnt even to stay in the top 10. So that left Agassi's main competition from 99-2000 when he won 3 of his slams as Kafelnikov, Todd Martin in the twlight of his career, Kuerten the clay courter only in slams, Magnus Norman, and teenaged pre pubescant Safin and Hewitt. Then when he won his last 2 slams in Australian in 2001 and 2003 his final 3 round opponent were Todd Martin, Rafter in his first time past the 4th round on rebound ace ever, and Clement (2001) and Grosjean, Ferreira, and Schuettler in 2003. Connors tougher competition?! This is almost as much a no brainer as the dominance comparision.

I've seen you do this so many times on this site. Why do you think that some opinionated narrative that you come up with serves as a logical argument.

If you are going to start making sound arguments then you need to learn to organize concise thoughts. Like this:

Agassi: 8 majors
Connors: 7 majors

Agassi: Career Slam
Connors: Nope

pame
10-25-2009, 11:39 PM
Nadal is a great person.
A). He is shy
B). Never talks about his private life
C). Still lives in the same place he was brought up
D). Never talks about how great he is
E). His behaviour on court is perfect, never breaks racquets, shouts, screams, swears
F). Has manners, always says please and thank you
G). Always respectful to others, doesn't think anybody owes him anything etc

I could go on but theres no point, Nadal is a much nicer guy than Agassi.

Lord -you make him sound totally and absolutely BORING and colourless! Guess in your mind, he's tennis' equivalent of Miss Goody-Two-Shoes! lol

grafselesfan
10-26-2009, 12:06 AM
I've seen you do this so many times on this site. Why do you think that some opinionated narrative that you come up with serves as a logical argument.

If you are going to start making sound arguments then you need to learn to organize concise thoughts. Like this:

Agassi: 8 majors
Connors: 7 majors

Agassi: Career Slam
Connors: Nope

LOL Connors has 8 slams, not 7. Atleast get simple facts straight. Agassi's one and only edge over Connors is the career slam, he is atleast matched and mostly outdone by Connors in every other way including even longevity. That is hardly enough of an edge to overcome everything else, particularly when Connors was barred from playing the French Open in his most dominant year of 1974 and missed it during his prime clay court years from 1974-1978.

Here are some other "facts" when comparing Agassi to Connors:

Year end #1s- Connors- 5, Agassi- 1
Years winning more than 1 slam- Connors- 2, Agassi- 1
Years winning 3 slams- Connors- 1, Agassi- 0
Weeks ranked #1- Connors- 268, Agassi- 101
Consecutive weeks ranked #1- Connors 160, Agassi- 52
Total tournament titles- Connors- 109 (a record), Agassi- 60
Career winning %- Connors- 81.75%, Agassi- 76.05%
Grand Slam finals- Connors- 15, Agassi- 15
Grand Slam semifinals- Connors- 31, Agassi- 26

The bottom line is you questioned Connors being more dominant than Agassi. It would be foolish to think the career slam achieved in a spread over a 7 year span is a sign of superior "dominance". Connors winning all 3 slams he played in his best year, also achieving the Wimbledon-U.S Open double again at age 30, with a long time ranked #1, and with pretty good records vs all his rivals during his prime (unlike Agassi he had a real prime so this means years he wasnt 30 or older) easily trumps Agassi as far as dominance goes. This isnt even arguable. The time period at #1 for Connors I and most everyone believe is inflated but you are the one who insisted on all opinionated based logic, even rational sort, going out the window, so there you have it.

This isnt even mentioning that back then hardly any of the top players played Australia so Connors opportunity for slams was limited further. It isnt even mentioning that Connors as I mentioned missed out on playing the French from 74-78, 74-76 being his best chance years to maybe win. It isnt even mentioning that during his reign atop the game lost 2 U.S Open finals to 2 clay court specialists on the only years ever the event was played on green clay rather than hard courts or grass. It isnt even mentioning that Wimbledon and the U.S Open are seen as the two most important slams still, and Connors won 7 of those vs only 3 for Agassi. It isnt even mentioning Connors did win the U.S Open over Borg and reach 3 straight finals there on green clay during the aforementioned only 3 years it was held on that surface, which while not the same as red clay is extremely impressive nonetheless. Even not considering any of those things Connors still trumps Agassi in dominance and virtually every other conceivable way.

I notice you didnt even bother going into specifics on the competition argument between Agassi and Connors, even though you voiced disagreement with it so emphatically. I wonder why that is. :lol:

Ultra2HolyGrail
10-26-2009, 12:20 AM
Agassi was better than connors.

dropshot winner
10-26-2009, 12:40 AM
Connors had the better career, he played major finals against Roswall, Newcombe, Ashe, Orantes, Borg, Villas, McEnroe and Lendl.

Agassi won all his slams except his 95 AO against lower tier players like Ivanisevic, Gomez, Stich, Medvedev, Martin, Kafelnikov, Clement and Schuettler.

But Connors 100+ titles are bit of a joke, though. A lot of them had like a 8-16 player draw with very weak players. Those were gloriefied exhibitions.

grafselesfan
10-26-2009, 12:43 AM
Connors had the better career, he played major finals against Roswall, Newcombe, Ashe, Orantes, Borg, Villas, McEnroe and Lendl.

Agassi won all his slams except his 95 AO against lower tier players like Ivanisevic, Gomez, Stich, Medvedev, Martin, Kafelnikov, Clement and Schuettler.

But Connors 100+ titles are bit of a joke, though. A lot of them had like a 8-16 player draw with very weak players. Those were gloriefied exhibitions.

I agree entirely that Connor's 109 titles and weeks at #1 as well are inflated and some of them are a bit of a joke. However I was going along with edmondsm's insistence on only considering actual facts, and those are facts. From a more reasoned perspective that would take into account what you said, Connor's 8 slam titles are very deceiving to be tied with Agassi's to 8 given the situations with the Australian Open, the French Open for him, and with the interim period the U.S Open was played on clay for the only 3 years in history during the heart of his dominance.

You broke down the competition between the two perfectly. Granted beating Ivanisevic in a Wimbledon final and Sampras (even an emotionally broken one) in an Australian Open final are very impressive wins, but those are really the only ones competition wise to win his slams.

dropshot winner
10-26-2009, 12:54 AM
I agree entirely that Connor's 109 titles and weeks at #1 as well are inflated and some of them are a bit of a joke. However I was going along with edmondsm's insistence on only considering actual facts, and those are facts. From a more reasoned perspective that would take into account what you said, Connor's 8 slam titles are very deceiving to be tied with Agassi's to 8 given the situations with the Australian Open, the French Open for him, and with the interim period the U.S Open was played on clay for the only 3 years in history during the heart of his dominance.

You broke down the competition between the two perfectly. Granted beating Ivanisevic in a Wimbledon final and Sampras (even an emotionally broken one) in an Australian Open final are very impressive wins, but those are really the only ones competition wise to win his slams.
Absolutely, it was impressive how Agassi won Wimbledon as a baseliner (when it was still real grass), but it must be said that Goran did "help" him win that final.

I'm convinced that Agassi could've done better in most of the finals he lost, but somehow he just couldn't play well enough against proven champions in slam finals.

flying24
10-26-2009, 01:50 AM
Absolutely, it was impressive how Agassi won Wimbledon as a baseliner (when it was still real grass), but it must be said that Goran did "help" him win that final.

I'm convinced that Agassi could've done better in most of the finals he lost, but somehow he just couldn't play well enough against proven champions in slam finals.

Agassi's slam final record at 8-7 seems decent, but considering who his final opponents were and how he did against each it isnt really.

Amongst chief rivals he played in slam finals he is 1-6. He is 1-4 vs Sampras and 0-1 vs Courier. He had alot of other losses in slams to Courier before the final, and few wins, and none vs prime Courier in slams. The U.S Open final loss to Federer can be overlooked given that he was 35 years old.

Then against some seemingly weakish slam final standard opposition he struggled. He lost a slam final to a 30 year old Gomez in the twilight of a solid but unexceptional career. He had to go 5 sets to beat a past his prime 100th ranked Medvedev, but Medvedev completely dominated Agassi for 2 and a half sets and he was very fortunate Medvedev choked somewhat to let him comeback. He also had to go 5 sets and come back from 2 sets to 1 down vs Todd Martin who was also in the twlight of his career, and who of course was in only his 2nd and last ever slam final.

The most decisive wins were against truly the weakest of weak competition- Clement in the 01 AO final and Schuettler in the 03 AO final.

I guess most impressive in that he fared poorly vs his biggest competition, and was unconvincing vs much of the further down caliber competition, is that against the quality final opponents just below the level of his main rivals he went 3-0, beating Ivanisevic on grass (an upset to many), Kafelnikov on hard courts, and Stich on hard courts. That is probably the most positive thing I can find about his performances in slam finals.

Actually come to think of it the Kafelnikov 00 AO final, Stich 94 U.S Open final, and Sampras in the 95 AO final are by far his 3 most impressive slam final performances given the competition. Overall though not that impressive given how ineffective he was mostly vs his very toughest rivals, and how much he struggled vs some of the rather weakish ones.