# Agassi says Nadal has a strong case for being the GOAT

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by octogon, Sep 23, 2013.

1. ### dooknookemRookie

Joined:
Aug 10, 2013
Messages:
162
It's not happening slowly, it's already happened. Look at the ages of the players in the top 25 right now; 1 player in the top 10 under 26 which is Del Po at 25. Only 3 other players in the top 25 are under 26. Forgive my juvenile math but you're telling me that 21 out of 25 players on the tour right now are already in or entering old age within 12 months? I can't figure out the percentage which that is but I'm sure a more mathematically astute forum member can figure it out.

I personally don't see one player under the age of 26 winning a slam for at least a few years. The only player who has a chance is Del Po right now and he has exactly 364 days to win a slam and after that I don't see it happening with anyone else.

Old age 20 years ago is now the prime age.

2. ### BartelbyG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Nov 14, 2005
Messages:
17,112
Yes, well, we have three major players around 26 and 27 so is it a question of age no longer being a factor or is is the case that tennis failed to produce a generation of major new players?

There is a huge difference between these two hypothesis: one states that old age has been pushed back and the other states that tennis is failing to produce a new generation of talent.

3. ### BartelbyG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Nov 14, 2005
Messages:
17,112
Nadal spent the best of a year out of tennis, Murray is now out for the year and people say Djoko is burnt out and Federer crapped out.

And yet there is no new generation to challenge them, so they are lucky to be in that situation.

4. ### bullfanLegend

Joined:
Sep 19, 2011
Messages:
7,889
Well, he also did it part of last year, both he and Nadal each beat each other in a GS final. Nadal also seemed to rise to the challenge of Novak prior to 2011. I'm a little sick of folks acting like Novak only started to exist in 2011.

5. ### CrissttiLegend

Joined:
Jul 8, 2011
Messages:
7,347
Location:
Chile
Why wouldn't it be telling about Federer?, Rafa didn't get the advantage because Fed declined, and as many have pointed out, it was Rafa who was at an age disadvantage there for a while.

And last year as well.

6. ### Death MasterBanned

Joined:
Jul 17, 2013
Messages:
2,602
Location:
Camelot Elite Tennis Society

that is just how it goes in most sports.

for the most part these players make their own luck.

nadal has also been very unlucky: he has spent at least 2 years of his prime years on the sidelines due to injuries.

he could have taken everything in 2009 but his greed got the best of him.

he could not help himself with all that appearance money in Rotterdam so that is where he went right after winning the Australian open.

nole and roger went somewhere and rested while nadal tore his knee apart on the indoor hard courts in Rotterdam.

7. ### BartelbyG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Nov 14, 2005
Messages:
17,112
I don't think there is much doubt that Nadal is a better player than Djoko, but there is not that much in it so what will happen next year is not something that is as clear to me ...

as it is for some who run the Nadal has finally and definitvely worked out Djoko thesis.

8. ### dooknookemRookie

Joined:
Aug 10, 2013
Messages:
162
I'd go with the former hypothesis. The major players you speak of right now will go down as some of the best players in history, with Nadal and Djokovic (and I still count Federer obviously been an all time great after the age of 26) possibly all finishing as top 5 players ever.

However I do see your point. Both hypothesis could be true, what I am saying is that in this day and age of training, medicine, and technology, age is no longer as much of a concern as it has been in the past. In fact, it may be a benefit as it allows players to mature as human beings, become wiser players, and still able to utilize their physical abilities. That sweet spot is really where athletes are in their prime, as their mental, emotional, cognitive abilities are paired with equally developed physical skills. One without the other is not as strong. Synergy.

9. ### redpurushaRookie

Joined:
May 20, 2004
Messages:
289
Two clowns in fact OWN Nadal on hard courts. The first "clown" is world #1 Novak Djokovic with a H2H 9-6 record. The second clown Davydenko is undefeated against Nadal with a perfect record of 6-0 on hard courts (he lost once on carpet in 06).

There is no luck involved here. Statistically these "clowns" are better than Nadal on surfaces other than his beloved slow clay courts.

http://tennis.matchstat.com/Compare/677/568/6421

http://tennis.matchstat.com/index.p...7&Name_Player2=Novak+Djokovic&Id_Player2=5992

10. ### BartelbyG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Nov 14, 2005
Messages:
17,112
That argument was not deployed to lessen Nadal's record.

It was used to counter the thesis that tennis players are staying at the top until their late twenties.

This is a thesis I don't discount but the fact is that the upcoming generation failed to come up.

11. ### HughJarsBanned

Joined:
Jan 7, 2013
Messages:
1,074
Yay another Fedal GOAT wa*k thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!

12. ### THUNDERVOLLEYG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Feb 1, 2007
Messages:
11,754
Well said...and notice the usual Laver hating:

Pathetic. Federer was behind Laver right out of the gates of his career. He was not going to win the Grand Slam--even if there was no Nadal to stop him at will.

As we see, with so many pros/ex-pros and writers making careful assessments, Federer will always come up short--even in his own generation (nevermind the impossible task of GOAT level).

13. ### Death MasterBanned

Joined:
Jul 17, 2013
Messages:
2,602
Location:
Camelot Elite Tennis Society

you make some excellent points general Bartelby.

the game has changed. now the average age of a player in the top 100 is close to 27.

now it takes a few years of experience on the tour before you can start winning some titles. of course some will never win any titles which just goes to show how difficult it is on the tour in these modern times.

there is no such thing as tennis prodigies anymore. there are way too many sharks on the tour that eat any and all tennis prodigies alive.

we have had at least 13 players age 30 or over win titles this year so far.

we had a 40 year old win the doubles championship at the u.s. open. roger took home a slam in 2012.

so roger really had nadal at a great deal of disadvantage. he got here 5 years earlier/sooner and picked up his game and his experience and then got on a roll.

it was no easy feat what nadal was up against. slowly and surely he would develop his game and collect his own valuable experiences so he could overthrow somebody as mighty as roger and he did.

Last edited: Sep 23, 2013
14. ### CrissttiLegend

Joined:
Jul 8, 2011
Messages:
7,347
Location:
Chile
Exactly. Novak was a top player since 2007/2008. He had won a slam, had a winning h2h against Nadal on hc. He could very well have taken over the number 2 ranking and Rafa stopped him in some very hard fought matches and kept it and then went on to be number 1.

Isn't that rising to the challenge?.

15. ### THUNDERVOLLEYG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Feb 1, 2007
Messages:
11,754
Yes--its been observed time and again: a true champion will find a way to raise the level of his or her game to overcome an opponent or surface. A failure to do so is a loud and clear indication of the player's inferiority--as in Federer at the French Open, where he never beat Nadal in a final. He needed Nadal to not be in a final in order for Federer to get a fluke title.

16. ### CrissttiLegend

Joined:
Jul 8, 2011
Messages:
7,347
Location:
Chile
Though I agree "old age" in tennis is later now, no tennis prodigies winning slams in their teens has nothing to do with the physicality of the game imo, there just hasn't been anyone quite as talented recently. We'll see it again I'm sure.

Last edited: Sep 23, 2013
17. ### THUNDERVOLLEYG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Feb 1, 2007
Messages:
11,754
...that's the price when one prays on their knees to a self-created "god," instead of sitting in objective observation like the whole of normal humanity.

18. ### Death MasterBanned

Joined:
Jul 17, 2013
Messages:
2,602
Location:
Camelot Elite Tennis Society

well said and articulated.

nadal must send at least a million federereeeeeesian missionaries into a state of chronic depression each year.

19. ### abmkTalk Tennis Guru

Joined:
Dec 9, 2008
Messages:
20,436
Location:
U.S
oh yeah, because the beginning of a career really determines the greatness

oh yeah, who was going to stop him ? ljubicic 2006 ? djokovic in 2007 ? LOL, ha ha ha ha

face it, your boy laver would also have been stopped by nadal of RG 2006, RG 2007

20. ### abmkTalk Tennis Guru

Joined:
Dec 9, 2008
Messages:
20,436
Location:
U.S
and Laver needed Rosewall to be off his game and no other strong opponents on his weakest slam , RG to get his fluke GS ..

Let us also know how Laver raised his level to reach the semi of a major after 69 .......... oops, wait, he didn't .......

21. ### TMFTalk Tennis Guru

Joined:
Jul 15, 2009
Messages:
22,346
What I'm trying to say is the great players of the past have unique stats that Nadal doesn't have. Nadal has his own unique stats himself. Every players has holes, but certain players has fewer than others.

My list of stats(See post #85) has all the important records that carry a lot of weight for goat debate. All the great players - Connors, Jmac, Borg, Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, Nole, Wilander, Federer, Laver, Lendl and many more are on that list. If you're a great player and continue to win, you're name will be on those list. Nole is continuing to add his name to the list(and moving up), and Murray has managed to get his name on the list too.

22. ### The_OrderLegend

Joined:
Jun 12, 2012
Messages:
7,695
Bull ****.

Since when does consecutive slams played carry more weight than consecutive years winning a major?

There's also a **** load of other records which you fail to list such as Masters events won, Olympic gold singles, Davis Cup titles etc.

It's no shock to anyone that these stats are left out because you are a biased fedturd.

Why don't you list the h2h against main rivals? Are you too ashamed of your God's weak as p*ss record against Nadal especially in majors :lol:

23. ### clayqueenLegend

Joined:
Nov 25, 2010
Messages:
5,391
I think it's the other way round. Nadal is more an all round player than Federer. Fed still has to prove himself on clay. Nadal has a more even spread of slam achievement - 2 grass, 3 h/c and 8 clay. Fed only has 1 clay slam. Nadal has 13 slams at 27 yrs old and Fed only has 17 at 32 yrs old. If Rafa only wins an average of 1 title a year for the next 5 years he will pass Fed on slams. Nadal also leads in M1000s and 500 titles plus OG and 4 DC.

Last edited: Sep 24, 2013
24. ### clayqueenLegend

Joined:
Nov 25, 2010
Messages:
5,391
Has Laver got any h/c slam?

25. ### Cup8489Legend

Joined:
Jun 26, 2007
Messages:
9,762
Location:
Silvis, IL
Lol what. Federer is undoubtedly second best clay courter of this generation. 5 FO finals, several MS titles, etc etc. His situation is similar to rafa on grass. Rafa simply has one more grass major. The main difference being rafas Mental edge over federer helping him to that first one.

26. ### The_OrderLegend

Joined:
Jun 12, 2012
Messages:
7,695
Rafa played Fed to the limit in 2 of those WIM finals. Fed won one, Nadal won the other. Fed has never pushed Nadal to the limit at RG.

Nadal has done better on grass than Fed on clay. He overcame the grass king to take the WIM title. Fed as I said has never even come close to taking out the clay king at RG.

27. ### CrissttiLegend

Joined:
Jul 8, 2011
Messages:
7,347
Location:
Chile
Not any stat a great has which another doesn't is a hole.

No, your list does NOT include all the important records, not even close. Anyone can see that.

He's second FAR behind though (and you could make a case for Djokovic).
Rafa has multiple slams on every surface, beating an all time great on each surface as well (in fact, in all his off clay slams but 1).

28. ### THUNDERVOLLEYG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Feb 1, 2007
Messages:
11,754
Only when it benefits the false "god." That is why members of his ilk actually believe winning majors across random years is significant, but the supreme achievement of the Grand Slam is not. Aside from a comedic failure to understand history, they reveal how desperate they are to make the average turn into above average.

The heart of it: he cannot list H2H as Federer has the worst of all, along with his failure to win Olympic Gold in singles. When one lifts a player as his "god," he cannot post anything that shatters such a childlike fantasy.

A true GOAT does not need a trivia list regurgitated from the spin machine.

Last edited: Sep 24, 2013
29. ### THUNDERVOLLEYG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Feb 1, 2007
Messages:
11,754
He won the Grand Slam.

Your false "god" Federer was not talented enough to do the same.

You're done.

30. ### RF20LennonLegend

Joined:
May 2, 2011
Messages:
8,414
Location:
Houston, TX
oh you mean when 3 of the 4 surfaces were the same?? LOL please. Laver was great no doubt but in today's game he wouldnt last. Federer, if not for Nadal wouldve won the grand slam twice.

31. ### THUNDERVOLLEYG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Feb 1, 2007
Messages:
11,754
Thanks for admitting he's no GOAT by saying he could not overcome any challenge.

Yet another of the many reasons he could not win the Grand Slam.

Next...

32. ### Finesse4sumSemi-Pro

Joined:
Aug 19, 2013
Messages:
422
Honestly if Djokovic never manages to beat Nadal in 1-3 more tries at RG he could actually be perceived as "worse" than any of Fed's performances bar 2008.

In 2012 Djoker needed "wet" clay to get a set from Nadal to make his first 4 set performance at RG against KC.

In 2013 Djoker had a even more hobbled clay version of Rafa that is clearly losing some clutchness due to his inability to serve it out. How often here has anyone seen Rafa lose a game to close out the match without a 5 setter in tow.

Until Rafa gets whatever 16-18 slams to shush the "GS is the only thing that matters stuff" his overall greatness solely depends on having Djoker and Fed as his adversaries when he won his slams.

33. ### VPhuc tennis fanProfessional

Joined:
Jun 9, 2012
Messages:
936
That's right. Thanks for saying that someone such as Fed being ranked as #1 for many years, won many tourneys, "could not overcome any challenge" (your own words). If that's the recipe for being the top player, why didn't many players just copy it?
Now you're going to revert to that h2h vs Rafa. And tennis is just not about h2h against a specific player. You know that, right? Rafa and Fed did NOT ALWAYS MEET IN THE finals. Let's just assume that was the case, then your h2h would be more meaningful. Here, it was NOT the case. So who cares? Fed played the guy across of him in a final. If that was Rafa, then fine. If not, that was fine too. NOt gonna wait for Rafa to make out of his half to play the final, you know.
I don't need to fan-boost Fed's achievements. They speak for themselves. Let me ask you a question. If Rafa is TRULY superior to Fed, why DID HE NOT show better record than Fed? GS titles, weeks as #1, consecutive # of weeks as #1, etc. That's right, he lost to more lower players, and was less consistent than Fed. Is he the one who could NOT overcome these challenges?

34. ### TMFTalk Tennis Guru

Joined:
Jul 15, 2009
Messages:
22,346
You can't reason with that person who's one-track minded.

There's a lot to tennis when evaluating a player, H2H isn't the barometer and experts use the appropriate criteria for evaluating a player.

35. ### abmkTalk Tennis Guru

Joined:
Dec 9, 2008
Messages:
20,436
Location:
U.S
Laver couldn't even make the semi of a major after 69 :lol

federer would've won the Grand Slam if he didn't have to face the clay GOAT in nadal and your boy wouldn't have if he had to face him ... Deal with it ..

36. ### PresidentLegend

Joined:
May 18, 2009
Messages:
7,859
Location:
This..

It's not like Federer was Sampras and couldn't achieve on clay. From 2005-2011 he was basically in the finals of the French Open EVERY single time, he was just stopped by Nadal on nearly every occasion. In 2006 or 2007 Federer easily could have won the Grand Slam if you took Nadal out of the picture, the guy is a great clay court player and I have no doubt he could take on any claycourter in history (bar maybe Borg, and Nadal obviously) if he was playing for the Grand Slam.

37. ### abmkTalk Tennis Guru

Joined:
Dec 9, 2008
Messages:
20,436
Location:
U.S
yeah, only 5 majors, such an easy achievement .

federer is the 2nd best CCer of his generation , he has as many finals at RG as rafa does at wimbledon and at AO/USO combined ... at his peak, he's a bit worse on clay than rafa on grass, but that's about it ....

38. ### TheNaturalLegend

Joined:
Jan 27, 2005
Messages:
8,579
Agassi annoints Rafa as the new goat.

Agassi succinctly sums it up:

“Until Nadal, you would say Fed was probably the best of all time.”

39. ### TMFTalk Tennis Guru

Joined:
Jul 15, 2009
Messages:
22,346
The major criteria are slam count, results/performance at the slams, important event(eg WTF),ranking status, level of dominant against the field, records/streaks. I'm not making this up, the experts have came up with these criteria to rank the players(eg Tennis Channel). I don't go by stats made by the Nadal fans like H2H against individual. No one care about Nadal has the H2H over Federer, Davy over Nadal, or Roddick over Nole. Another pathetic rule made by one poster who said the CYGS is a must to be a goat. Again I don't go by rules made by haters who wants to denigrate other players. The bottom line is career achievements will be use to judge a player, and that includes in every sports. Notice all the great one - Greztky, Jordan, Rice all have the most impressive resume.

40. ### CrissttiLegend

Joined:
Jul 8, 2011
Messages:
7,347
Location:
Chile
Because when Rafa started winning majors, there was Federer on his prime, while Fed didn't have to face that when he started winning slams. If the Rafa of 2008 or even the one from now was around in 2005, Fed's weeks at number 1 and slams wouldn't be the same.
Fed lost when young to a lot more lower ranked player than Rafa did.
That and injuries.

True, yet isn't that just saying he would have won the grans slam if the competition was weaker?.

So, "results/performance at the slams" somehow includes consecutive quarters and slams played, and doesn't include consecutive years winning a slam?.

And "important events" includes the WTF but not the masters nor the OG nor DC?.

And "level of dominance against the field" somehow excludes career winning %?.

Sure.

PS: a lot of people care about the h2h (not only Nadal fans), whether you like it or not.

Last edited: Sep 24, 2013
41. ### Death MasterBanned

Joined:
Jul 17, 2013
Messages:
2,602
Location:
Camelot Elite Tennis Society
it is an individual sport. the ultimate modern day gladiatorial combat.

42. ### THUNDERVOLLEYG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Feb 1, 2007
Messages:
11,754
If Nadal--by your line of thought--is not superior to Federer, how can the fanboy-created GOAT have such a terrible H2H against some so-called dirtballer? What prevented this would-be GOAT from overcoming the challenge--AKA Nadal--at the FO if Federer's skills are GOAT-worthy?

43. ### THUNDERVOLLEYG.O.A.T.

Joined:
Feb 1, 2007
Messages:
11,754
Rational point.

This is the doomed-to-fail, delusional nature of the worst of Federer's fans: they pad trivia lists--only when it suits their false premise, but when achievements far out of Federer's abilities (the Grand Slam, Olympic Gold in singles, etc.), they are ignored in favor of grabbing any sort of "stat" that seemingly leans in Federer's direction.

Such desperation on only shines a light on Federer's shortcomings.

44. ### Death MasterBanned

Joined:
Jul 17, 2013
Messages:
2,602
Location:
Camelot Elite Tennis Society
federereeeeeesian missionaries have even started to cling to his record semifinal appearances.

so according to them getting to the slam is more important than the slam itself.

of course you knew they were going to cling to this since the slam record is being chased down now.

Joined:
Mar 10, 2010
Messages:
5,612
46. ### TMFTalk Tennis Guru

Joined:
Jul 15, 2009
Messages:
22,346
I've already explained it to you about DC and Olympics. There's no point in repeating myself.

I do have the list of winning percentage.

Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5

5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6

Again, H2H against the individual doesn't equate achievement. Is Roddick more achievement than Nole?
Santoro>Safin?
Hewitt>Sampras?
No they are not.

PLAYER CRITERIA

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Win loss record at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribution to tennis)

47. ### Death MasterBanned

Joined:
Jul 17, 2013
Messages:
2,602
Location:
Camelot Elite Tennis Society
TMF continues to talk in circles.

who gives a damn about the resume? roger got here 5 years earlier. nadal needs 5 more years in order to complete his body of work.

you lean on the resume because you cannot lean on the ultimate gold standard for who the hell is better.

and the ultimate gold standard for who the hell is better is as follows:

1. total head to head. it is an individual sport. they fight each other. the sample size needs to be large enough. don't bring up clowns like darcis or davydenko.

2. their head to head at slams on all surfaces. this is the most critical one. this one really spells it out.

3. total number of slams. all eyes are on this number so to the world and to the tennis historians this number means the most.

4. and if all else fails, you can see how they fare against their greatest rivals.

it turns out that roger cant even get past pete Sampras on this measure.

guys like borg, Sampras, and the clay warrior score very high on this measure.

and guess who fails on this measure?

Last edited: Sep 24, 2013

Joined:
Jun 30, 2009
Messages:
21,877
Consecutive years winning a slam is not as important when you already have most wins at each major.

Consecutive semis means you are consistent not just at one major, but throughout the years and career, which several greats have opined is a marvellous record. Infact this is one record Fed is super proud of as are several Nadal bandwagoners.

While masters are important, they are definitely below WTF. There is a reason WTF is awarded 1500 points. It is at least 50% better than masters.

Career winning % is a good stat, but again you could play a lot of small tournaments and up your %. The dominance over field is reflected by how long you are at the top and not by H2H or career winning %.

If you will look at this objectively, you will see the point.

H2H shows one on one Nadal is a better player when facing Fed. I think at 21-10 that is a given and no dispute there. But that should not be used to judge career accomplishments.

49. ### dooknookemRookie

Joined:
Aug 10, 2013
Messages:
162
I thought most consecutive quarterfinals reached was the most important criterion for being the GOAT outside of of total slams and WTFs and that h2h means nothing in a h2h sport. I keep seeing it posted here. It goes like this:

Total slams
Total WTFs
Most consecutive QFs

Lol.