Agassi: Federer the best of All Time, Now

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by OddJack, Dec 7, 2011.

  1. OddJack

    OddJack Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2009
    Messages:
    9,652
    Location:
    South
    Since you guys love the goat talk so much, here it is, again. This time by one of the American greats, Agassi.

    ..."(Federer has) changed the game of tennis, he’s raised the standard. To me he’s the best of all time now - maybe Nadal has a chance in his career to prove differently, but right now I think Roger’s the all-time best..."


    "Mybe Nadal"...he means if he wins 6-7 more majors, he can prove differently.

    A pleasant change in tt is that many Nadal fans have come forward and admit the goatness of the goat. I predict in few more months and maybe a year this will be an easy admittance.

    Enoy :^)

    http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/9239/federer-forever/
     
    #1
  2. DoubleDeuce

    DoubleDeuce Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,288
    Location:
    South
    Agassi basically says the same thing Borg said before him, and they are both right, of course.

    Nadal has no chance of catching him though, Agassi knows that.
     
    #2
  3. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    31,190
    Location:
    Somewhere under the weather ;)
    Great article, even our TMF could not have put it better.

    Even if Rafa catches or surpasses Fred's slam tally, Rafa still hasn't "raised the standard of tennis" , more so brought it down (imho).
     
    #3
  4. tusharlovesrafa

    tusharlovesrafa Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,399
    Location:
    Lucknow to kolkata
    Basically he's repeating the same thing as I said before..:)
     
    #4
  5. GasquetGOAT

    GasquetGOAT Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    3,372
    also Laver said before Borg, and all of them are right, obviously!
     
    #5
  6. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Agassi just hates Sampras. It's pathetic. in 2002 he was saying Roddick had a way better second serve.

    If Federer is so much better than Sampras, how come Agassi, with a bad back, was taking him to 5 sets at 34 years of age at the USO? He was nowhere near the player he was in 1995.

    Laver says that Sampras was better:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LezAgHKSNM#t=02m20s
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2011
    #6
  7. GasquetGOAT

    GasquetGOAT Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    3,372
    Agassi had two careers, he won more slams in his second career, you can't prove he was better in 1995 than his later career.
     
    #7
  8. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    He dominated in 1995 like he never did before or after, so that was his peak. Went 73-9.
     
    #8
  9. ViscaB

    ViscaB Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,203
    Location:
    Singapore
    How can Nadal have brought down the level. Without Nadal Federer himself would not have had to raise his level and we would probably not have Djokovic as great as he is now motivated by all those losses versus Rafa to improve.
     
    #9
  10. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,362
    What Andre said is nothing new. He believes Fed is the best player since 2005, and we will continue to hear from him again in the future. Andre had a chance to play Sampras, Becker, Courier, Edberg, Lendl, Mac, Connors, Wilander, so he knows exactly what he's talking about.
     
    #10
  11. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    #11
  12. fed_is_GOD

    fed_is_GOD Professional

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Berlin
    see what was the question...

    Laver didnt say Sampras was better.. he replied to the question 'who would win: sampras or federer at wimbledon'

    even in the end he said it would be tough.. so on sampras' best surface he is marginally ahead.. soo it is fed all the way..
     
    #12
  13. fed_is_GOD

    fed_is_GOD Professional

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Berlin
    the question was : who would win at wimbledon: federer or sampras? laver replied sampras has an edge.. doesnt mean laver is saying sampras is better than federer.. laver knows how bad sampras was on clay.. he would never say sampras is better.. he is not that stupid..
     
    #13
  14. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,563
    Location:
    Weak era
    And Sampras said Hewitt had better ROS than Agassi in 2001, why does he hate Andre so much ?

    Regardless of whether Agassi hates Sampras or not(and vice versa) the fact remains that before Fed arrived( entered his peak and started dominating) Agassi answered a question on who are the top 5 players of all time with Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras so while he may not have liked the guy he acknowledged his ability. He just happens to think Fed is even better, it's just an opinion, no harm done.

    Tennis is about match-ups, I could just as easily say if Sampras is so much better than Federer how come he lost to Yzaga at USO(at his peak) or something. Drawing conclusions on a sample of few matches(and a single match-up) is simply flawed.

    You do realize Laver was very likely talking about grass here considering the question was posed before a Wimbledon final? Most people would take Sampras on grass over anyone else(same with Fed on HC, Nadal on clay etc.)

    Besides why does his(Laver's) opinion hold more weight than Andre's? I mean you could argue that given that Agassi played both Fed and Sampras he's more qualified to judge.
     
    #14
  15. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    The day Federer win a Gran Slam, then we can talk.Not before.
     
    #15
  16. Emet74

    Emet74 Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    873
    Wouldn't say he's "so much better" than Sampras; it's a question of accomplishment and versatility, Fed is more balanced among the surfaces.

    As far as Agassi's matchup against them, from 2003 on Fed's record against Agassi was 8-0.

    Even against Sampras Agassi got some wins at masters events tho' he struggled in USO and Wimby. He had 8 chances against Fed and couldn't win a single match. Nice that he won some sets, but that's as far as it went.
     
    #16
  17. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,713
    Laver (and others) flip-flopped on the matter; that much has been discussed on this board several times.

    Until Federer wins the Grand Slam, he's no so-called GOAT, and since we know he could not accomplish that--even at his alleged peak--his GOAT status does not exist.

    Side note: BeHappy is right about:

    Agassi knows he sh*t the first half of his career away, so he still attacks the master of his generation in any way possible. He should have concentrated on taking his career seriously, rather than taking drugs/expressing his horrid fashion taste...not that it would have changed his status when compared to Sampras.
     
    #17
  18. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    You dramatically understate what a big deal taking Federer to 5 sets at the 2004 USO and 4 at the 2005 USO, at 34 and 36 with a crippled back is.

    He does, and that's why their statements on each others games should be ignored.


    Doesn't really make sense to compare a random loss to Agassi consistently pushing Federer just as hard at the USO as Sampras did. Think about this for a minute, Agassi was losing in 4 to Sampras at the USO in 2001 and 2002, then in 2004 he loses in 5 to Federer, then in 2005 he loses in 4 in the final.
     
    #18
  19. Sentinel

    Sentinel Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    31,190
    Location:
    Somewhere under the weather ;)
    That's puzzling, isn't it ? How he can raise Fred's game while making tennis more of a moon-ball fest at the same time.

    It's like playing pushers at lower levels.
     
    #19
  20. Legend of Borg

    Legend of Borg Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    8,029
    Location:
    Pazardjik, Bulgaria
    I think you're on to something.

    Rafa has made tennis into a 4.5 pusher moonballer fest.

    I think a solid 5.0 club level player could handle Rafa's moonballs, but they keep sending this Feeder chap out against him who feeds him short balls on the backhand side.
     
    #20
  21. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,392
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    The problem is that 1995 Agassi lasted for 9 months. Never in his life has he produced the same tennis so it's pretty fair to say a 33-year old Agassi who hit harder, was fit and consistent in results as ever, would have a shot against his younger self.

    I remember the Fed-Agassi 2004 US QF and it was a very high quality match in the first 3 sets before the wind tore it apart. Andre could still play extremely well at 34. Also, he didn't have a bad back at the time (as in 2005) but I see some people can deliberately lie to support their argument.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2011
    #21
  22. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Do you think a 33 year old Federer would have a chance against a 2006 Federer? What about the same with Nadal?
     
    #22
  23. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,392
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Unlike Agassi, Federer's peak lasted longer than 9 months. Btw Federer hasn't wasted any of his seasons because of injuries or mental lapses like Agassi did so obviously Fed won't have much in the tank left at 33. Look at Fed - he has played around 1000 matches and he's 30 years old. Agassi retired aged 36 having played 1150 matches so it's a 150 match swing but a 6 year difference.

    As for Nadal - how many matches has he played in his career? 650? All of that aged 25, Agassi played his 650th match when he was in his late 20's, 28 or 29 I think. It's not the age - it's the mileage.

    Agassi from 2003 could well beat Agassi from 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, first part of 1994, some of 1990-1992.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2011
    #23
  24. Sliding Winner

    Sliding Winner New User

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    11
    Obviously not.
    Amongst other things, Federer/Nadal rely on their speed way more than Agassi ever did. Agassi often was inside the court and let his opponents do all the running.
    That's why he could compensate aging pretty well by improving his serve, overall consistency, strategies und fitness.
     
    #24
  25. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    No he couldn't. Not with his bad back or his shattered ankle. He was half the player.
     
    #25
  26. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,392
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Aha, so Agassi had a bad back in 2003 as well? Were there any years where he could play without a cane?
     
    #26
  27. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Not from his mid thirties onwards.
     
    #27
  28. prosealster

    prosealster Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    968
    quoting one match to support your claims is laughable, player A might be having a bad day whereas player B might be having a good one, conditions such as wind can be a good equaliser etc.... you simply choose the match that suits you... why dont we talk about AO a few months later, on AA's best surface, he was schooled...did you see the match, it was brutal, AA never had a chance...it was more one sided than the score line even suggested. Further more, even if it was a valid argument, just because player A beats player B easily but player C beats player B with more difficulty, it doesnt mean player A is better than play C...just as this yr, joker was beating up nads easier than he was beating Fed, doesnt mean that Fed is a better player than nads this year..
     
    #28
  29. BeHappy

    BeHappy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2007
    Messages:
    4,789
    Then in 2005 Agassi took a set off Federer in the USO final.
     
    #29
  30. CDestroyer

    CDestroyer Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,354
    Sampras absolutely owned Agassi their whole career and Agassi is just butt hurt about it.

    Sampras has thick skin and always handled Agassis lame verbal assaults and shenanigans then and now with total class.

    He was one of the coolest tennis players to play the game.
     
    #30
  31. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,392
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Wow. He took a set off Federer having the support of the entire stadion and playing 150 % for as long as he could before Federer destroyed him.

    Lendl BEAT Sampras in STRAIGHT SETS on a hard court in 1993 when Sampras was in his very prime while Lendl (33 at the time) retired a year later.
    If taking sets off is a such a major feat, Connors in 1992 being 40 years old at the time almost took a set off Sampras (21) on clay.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2011
    #31
  32. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Agassi's best tennis ever was summer 1994-1995, spring 1999-early 2000, and 2001. Granted it was erratic but in no way was it ever even close to when Federer played him. Agassi of 1990-1992, 2002-early 2003, was also better than the version Federer played which was a good as could be imagined at 34-35 years old with a bad back, but was still a 34 and 35 year old with a bad back. BeHappy is right that Agassi has a huge grudge against Sampras, if you read his book it is clear how much he despises Sampras, Becker, and a few of his former rivals, so it would be silly to not take his word with a huge grain of salt in this case.
     
    #32
  33. ManFed

    ManFed Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    178
    We can add, that 30 years old Federer past his prime, took 1 set of RG final 2011, to the Rafito, The greatest clay courter ever.

    The rafito couldn’t take one set of very old past his prime Federer in WTF 2011. Federer took to 2 sets from superman 24 years old Djokovic in US Open.

    So, if taking one set means so much when you are old, then Federer is the GOAT all the way. He managed to take sets of the Top Players at their prime, while he is old and has lost 2 steps.
     
    #33
  34. nikdom

    nikdom Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,725
    Location:
    Tennisville
    How trustworthy is this Pakistani newspaper blog? I mean how come if Agassi said this recently, no other newspaper in the western world has reported on it?

    A simple google news search brings up nothing like this from the recent past.

    Just curious that's all.
     
    #34
  35. ImAGrinch

    ImAGrinch New User

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2011
    Messages:
    70
    You don't seem to get it. Agassi at 34 years old made it to the FINAL of the USO. That means he beat 6 other players to get there, so obviously his level of play was pretty high the entire tournament. The difference between a 34 year old and a 25 year old is not really peak performance, but the ability to play consistently at a high level of play day in and day out.

    So your reasoning that you keep using that a player outside their prime should never be competitive with a player still in their prime is deeply flawed.

    How else do you explain that 30 year old Federer defeated 24 year old Djokovic at RG when Djokovic was having one of the best season's in history? Federer's results the last couple years shows he's clearly not in his prime anymore but still on occasion and quite often can compete at a very high level.
     
    #35
  36. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,567
    Some of you Federer fanatics need to stop while you're slightly ahead!

    G.O.A.T. encompasses many things, including level of competition, record against greatest rivals, winning the true grand slam, longevity, slam record, transcending tennis (or at least bringing it) into pop-culture, etc, etc...

    On several counts Federer falls short!

    Of course he's in the running, but lets not get ahead of ourselves.
     
    #36
  37. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,362
    Fed also deprived Agassi from winning at the big stage, and demoralized him by beating him 8 straight times. Agassi think he doesn’t have an answer against Fed but against Sampras, there’s a place to go.

    I noticed everyone ignored zagor's post....

    Agassi believed Sampras was the best BEFORE the arrival of Federer. He changes his mind simply b/c he played against a better player(Federer). According to the OP’s article, Agassi said Fed right now is the best until someone in the future prove otherwise. If he changes his mind about Sampras 6 years ago, he will changes his mind about Fed in the future when another player surpassed Federer. Right now Fed is by himself at the top.
     
    #37
  38. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,362
    Sure, throw in EVERY criteria you can find. When you compare to all the great players, Fed's achievements are more complete/balance, and fewer holes than the rest.
     
    #38
  39. Pwned

    Pwned Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    2,418
    I think the greatest of all time talk is a waste of time. Comparing between eras is impossible. I think you have a handful or two of players throughout tennis history who are all in a similar category and who would be overall competitive with one another. Being in the conversation and debate for the greatest of all time is the best that you can do. Because every player throughout history has positive and negative attributes when looking at their careers as a whole.
     
    #39
  40. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    All of those things are objective except level of competition which of course you will conjure up with those ever so objective feelings of yours. LOL.
     
    #40
  41. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,567
    No dunce!

    they are not objective criteria, that is why there are so many GOAT debates. There are many differences between eras that were not in the players' control i.e. surfaces, equipment, professional politics, etc...

    This is why the GOAT debate can never be settled, theres too many what ifs.

    I don't expect you to understand this, you've proven yourself to be oblivious to subjective factors and discussions which has resulted in your opinion being nearly moot and laughable at best!
     
    #41
  42. sunof tennis

    sunof tennis Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,118
    bingo!!!!!
     
    #42
  43. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,567
    Not neccesarily.

    Especially considering that some of those greats competed before the Open Era, and therefore their results are scewed.
     
    #43
  44. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,264
    pretty much. Tennis constantly changes in terms of rules, rankings, tournament prestige, surfaces, competition, equipment etc. It's not like say Baseball where you can reasonable compare modern players to those from 100 years ago using statistics.
     
    #44
  45. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    Slam record is not an objective stat? Hmmmm
     
    #45
  46. corners

    corners Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,441
    #46
  47. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,264
    Until the early 90s you can't even factor in total slam wins as a big percentage of players didn't even play the Australian Open. Some clay courters wouldn't even go to Wimbledon. Surfaces change etc. So unless you want to factor all those into a computer model I don’t think “total slam count” is really all that meaningful. It’s just one factor among many.
     
    #47
  48. TennisLovaLova

    TennisLovaLova Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Messages:
    3,075
    We dont need agassi or anyone tell ussay Federer is the goat.
    We already know he is.
     
    #48
  49. DjokovicForTheWin

    DjokovicForTheWin Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    5,811
    It's the lesser of many evils. In this matter it's the closest thing we have to objectivity. You can't blame guys of today if guys of yesteryear didn't play AO. IT's better than saying weak era this strong era that. Completely meaningless.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2011
    #49
  50. Warriorroger

    Warriorroger Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,603
    Agassi and Borg are champions who are secure with their own acclomplishments and honest in their opinions, that's why players like Wilander/Mcenroe/Becker/Cash alwyas put down the player who destroys their legacies (IMO), just like Navratilova will never acknowlegde Graf as the greates female single player. Federer already has proven what he's made off, so what if his record with Nadal is lopsided, Nadal is just a bad matchup for Federer, in terms of accomplishments Roger is the greatest, and comes across as nice and genuine person too!
     
    #50

Share This Page