Agassi says Nadal has a strong case for being the GOAT

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

  1. dooknookem

    dooknookem Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages:
    165
    So true! How bout consecutive 3rd rounds made, or better yet 2nd!!!
     
  2. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    15,073
    Consecutive semis means those as well, dont you know ? Nadal was busy losing to Ferrer , Giles Muller , Darcis , Rosol.. How would you know ?
     
  3. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,112
    This is too funny. Wasn't it you who not long ago said that if you take Nadal out then you HAVE to put another top clay courter in the mix?

    You're trolling ways are being caught out, seems like Nadal winning the US Open this year has really caused you some serious butt pain. Get over it.

    LOL no one is saying it's an easy achievement. But it is "easier" for a player like Nadal than a guy like Safin or Hewitt.

    Looks like you're really losing the plot.

    Federer has 5 RG finals.

    Nadal has 5 WIM finals, 2 AO finals and 3 US Open finals.

    I know maths isn't your strong point, but 10 is DOUBLE of 5.

    [​IMG]
     
  4. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,700
    ...and refers to a trivia list as "criteria" not recognized by history.

    Delusion is interesting to observe.
     
  5. Death Master

    Death Master Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,607
    Location:
    Camelot Elite Tennis Society



    so let me see if I understands this snake oil sales pitch:


    now just trying to get to the slam is more important than the slam itself.


    brilliant.

    what will you think of next?

    you must be going broke trying to sell that snake oil.
     
  6. Death Master

    Death Master Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,607
    Location:
    Camelot Elite Tennis Society



    he is selling snake oil to his fellow federereeesian missionaries because there is no market for it elsewhere.
     
  7. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    15,073
    And yet we fail to hear a counter argument as to why WTF shouldnt be regarded highly.

    ATP gives 1500 points for WTF and gives masters and olympics half of this, so there is an established basis.

    Weeks at number 1 shows how you have dominated the field, yet you are blindsided and do not want to look beyond H2H.
     
  8. spinovic

    spinovic Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2013
    Messages:
    4,667
    His math is fine. What he was saying is Fed's 5 RG finals are equal to Nadal at Wimbledon (5) and his combined finals on the HC majors (5).

    At least that is how it reads to me. Anyway, I digress, back to your regular scheduled GOAT debate.
     
  9. Readers

    Readers Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Messages:
    675
    You sound like ******** Microsoft executive.
     
  10. dooknookem

    dooknookem Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages:
    165
    damn dude you didn't take me seriously did you?
     
  11. I beat fed

    I beat fed New User

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    6
    Nadal is a moon balling grinder who tool advantage of the slower surfaces. If this era is so good why has the career grand slam been achieved by 2 players within a few years of each other and Almost completed by joker as well
     
  12. Death Master

    Death Master Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,607
    Location:
    Camelot Elite Tennis Society


    we are all having a good time here.

    no need to be too damn serious. it is just sports.

    it is just a hobby to follow such an awesome sport.
     
  13. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,269
    Location:
    Chile
    Yeah, basically "Fed hasn't won them so they don't count".

    You ignore my points about the masters.

    And you know I wrote CAREER winning percentage. No reason to include the highest season winning % and not the career highest winning %. Except of course that Rafa would be above Roger.

    That doesn't seem like good English... but anyway, no one is saying it's the determining factor, but it is a factor, particularly when comparing players of similar achievements.
    I guess you don't think winning % against top ten opponents is relevant either (oh wait, Rafa leads Fed there as well).

    And again, you cannot include stuff like slam quarters and consecutive slams played and not include consecutive years winning a slam. It takes away all credibility from your list.

    I don't see why not.

    I don't have a problem actually with the consecutive semis, it's the quarters and consecutive slams played that's more debatable, especially when glaringly more important criteria are being left out.

    So?, masters are one of the most important tournaments still. Put them below the WTF, I don't care, but there's no reason to exclude them from such a list, other than bias.

    That isn't the case with Nadal though, is it?, in fact, you only have goats up there in that stat. It does reflect dominance over the field, I don't see how you can say it doesn't.
    And how long you stay at the top is also reflected, btw, by consecutive years winning a slam.

    H2h tells you a lot about the quality of a player. It shows dominance against the best of the field in this case.

    You know what has no one achieved (other than Nadal in this case)?, winning at least a slam for 9 years in a row.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2013
  14. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    yeah, that's what I was saying. its pretty obvious to anyone who's not dull ....
     
  15. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    yes, and I think federer would've taken out any one not named nadal or borg at in atleast one of RG 06,07 ... thus being able to complete the CYGS.

    LOL, ha ha. federer is well and above nadal at 3 of the 4 majors, weeks and years at #1 and nadal isn't catching up to any one of them. Try again .....


    the person whom I quoted certainly made it look that it was ...

    well, duh !
     
  16. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,355
    ^
    Alright. Since you and Nadal fans keep crying about the stats here's two things I'll will make a change from my stat list.

    1. Remove the consecutive grand slam played. But before I really have to let it go, I want to let you that Cal Ripkin Jr is famous for playing 2,632 consecutive games. One of all time greatest baseball record and will never be broken again.

    2. Add the list of players with most Master Series win. I will use timnz list since he's already had them updated.



    Below is what it will look like in my overall list. Happy now!

    Most Master Series or equivalent win
    1. Rafael Nadal 26
    2. Ivan Lendl 22
    3. Roger Federer 21
    4. John McEnroe 19
    5. Andre Agassi 17
    = Jimmny Connors 17
    7. Bjorn Borg 15
    8. Novak Djokovic 14
    9. Boris Becker 13
    10. Pete Sampras 11
     
  17. Death Master

    Death Master Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,607
    Location:
    Camelot Elite Tennis Society
    that masters series shields count will grow to 38-40 for nadal.

    give the man a chance to finish his body of work.

    that and his slam count will be his greatest stats. watch what happens in the next 3 years.

    the whole world knows that nadal is better. all they have to do is look at the head to head.

    and also the head to head at slams makes it a slam dunk case already.

    nadal fans had to live with the fact that nadal was ranked below roger for a while. roger was the best in the game at one time but times change as they usually do.

    why is it so difficult for the federereeesian missionaries now? somebody came along and overthrew roger.

    this type of thing can and does happen in all sports.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2013
  18. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,269
    Location:
    Chile
    Well, good :)
    Now you just have to add consecutive years winning a slam.

    There are still other things missing, but somewhat more debatable... and it's a progress anyway.

    You actually worded it in a confusing way.
     
  19. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,355
    I'm not going to add countless of stats that has little or no significant to a player's legacy. I only want to show the list that stands out of the crowd.
     
  20. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    maybe confusing if someone is reading too fast or is dull , but as someone who has seen me write many detailed posts about this era, The_Order should know there is no way I could get a detail like that wrong.
     
  21. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,355
    For a newbie they could have gotten it wrong. But for fans like us of course it's obvious that Nadal has more than 5 finals at Wimbledon/USO/AO.

    The_order is not a newbie, but maybe he's got too much to drink that night. Who knows.
     
  22. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,112
    No, you said:

    he has as many finals at RG as rafa does at wimbledon and at AO/USO combined.

    That's 5 at WIM AND 2 at AO AND 3 at USO. You clown.

    Sorry your English is so dull and **** that you don't even know how to word things properly. Then you jump on anyone's back who words things the wrong way. Hypocrite.
     
  23. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,112
    The only one with too much to drink is abmk. He clearly said WIM AND AO/USO combined. That's 10 finals. Run along now...
     
  24. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    the combined was for AO/USO part.

    that sentence reads as :

    he has as many finals at RG as rafa does at wimbledon
    and
    he has as many finals at RG as rafa does at AO/USO combined.

    Otherwise I'd have written it as wimbledon , AO and USO combined ..... not as wimbledon and AO/USO combined.

    Not my fault if you are thick . :)
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2013
  25. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,112
    LOL at the back tracking yet again.

    You should have said OR not AND.

    You're welcome for your free English lesson.
     
  26. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    What backtracking ? Lulz ? You really think I'd get something like that wrong ? :)

    ha ha ha ! You're trying so desperately hard at trolling that you are failing miserably. :lol:

    'And' , 'Or' - both would work in this case. Both are correct.

    ---

    he has as many finals at RG as rafa does at wimbledon
    and
    he has as many finals at RG as rafa does at AO/USO combined.


    ---

    he has as many finals at RG as rafa does at wimbledon
    or
    he has as many finals at RG as rafa does at AO/USO combined.

    ---
     
  27. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,112
    No they are not both correct in terms of how you worded it. Had you written it the way you have above, then yes it would be correct, but need I remind you that this is how you worded it:

    In this context, the word and CLEARLY implies the combined total of his WIM, AO and USO finals.

    The correct word you should have used is OR.

    You have NFI what you're on about. Now you are trying to re-word things in different posts to try and make yourself look correct when in reality you aren't.

    TBH, IDGAF about your English use, or how you worded it, but this is just giving you a taste of your own medicine when you jump on people (mainly Rafa fans) everytime they word things the wrong way but we know what they mean. You correct them to annoy them and also to make yourself feel intellectually superior. Now you look like a clown, especially when you have trolls like TMF having to defend you lol.
     
  28. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    Like I said, I'd have written wimbledon, USO and AO combined if I wanted to say like that.

    The only thing you've managed to show here is how desperate you are to troll.
     
  29. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,112
    I don't care what you say, I'm 100% correct and you know it. Suck it up.

    Maybe next time you want to jump in and correct someone when it is obvious what they're trying to say, think about this little incident and remember how annoying it was :twisted:
     
  30. dooknookem

    dooknookem Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages:
    165
    lol 10char
     
  31. chandu612

    chandu612 Guest

    so what have we decided?
    Does Agassi know his stuff?
     
  32. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    Here's the full Agassi quote:

    “Nadal has an argument to make for the best of all time,” Agassi said. “If Nadal is sitting at a table with Federer and Federer says, ‘I’m the best ever,’ my first question would be, ‘Well, then how come you didn’t beat me, because I beat you twice as many times? And, hey, by the way, you know I won everything, including a gold medal [in singles at the Olympics] and Davis Cup [with Spain].’

    “But at the same token, Federer has separated himself during a few years like nobody else. And he’s done it more consistently. To be able to make the argument for both guys playing in the same generation is pretty remarkable.”

    Agassi, who won all four Grand Slam tournaments, finished with 60 titles and spent 101 weeks at No. 1, doesn’t put himself in the greatest-of-all-time conversation.

    “It’s not even close,” Agassi said. “I’m way down the list from guys like that. I did manage to win all of [the Slams], but that’s just the first criterion in my mind. … For me, those two [Federer and Nadal] and [Rod] Laver are in a whole other tier.”
     
  33. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,700

    Quoted for truth.
     
  34. tennisaddict

    tennisaddict G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Messages:
    15,073
    Consecutive slams at major - not important. when you talk of career accomplishments, it does not matter if someone won 16 majors in 4 years or 16 majors in 12 years. today everyone treats Borg as 11, even thiugh he retired at 25.

    Masters- the list of masters have changed over the years and it will not do justice to all eras. Moreover we have the 2 most important tournaments- majors and WTF. If we add masters, then some one may ask why not 500's and 250's.
    Already the list is a page long.

    Career dominance is reflected best by weeks at top and not by winning percentage alone. You could have a great winning % , winning lower tournaments like Almagro or Ferrer, yet we know that does not say much.
     
  35. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,355
    I had to add Master Series wins to my stat sheet just to make her happy.

    The career winning percentage can be misleading. A player like Borg has a very high percentage because he quit when he was at the top of his game. Had he played well into his 30s(like Federer), his numbers would drop. Nadal's numbers will certainly drop too when he play well in his 30s.

    I think the best way to determine a player's level of dominant and consistency is to use their prime years. For Federer that would be from 2004-2007. We can do for Sampras, Borg, Nadal, Lendl and many other players at their prime years. I don't believe none of these players have a greater run than Federer during their 4 years of domination.
     
  36. Death Master

    Death Master Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2013
    Messages:
    2,607
    Location:
    Camelot Elite Tennis Society
    total nonsense. if they are out there competing and winning slams like roger did just a year ago at Wimbledon then you cant play the age card when they get beat.

    roger is still a top player.

    roger simply does not fare well against his greatest rivals because he is good enough.

    guys like borg, Sampras, and nadal have a far better batting averages against their greatest rivals.

    it is what it is. we cant make excuses for these athletes forever.
     
  37. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,112
    Umm, how about this, 500 events usually don't include all the top players whereas Masters events usually do.

    If you are consistently winning tournaments across all surfaces (apart from grass) against fields that include all the top players from your era then that must count for something, you can't ignore it.

    Weeks at the top is rubbish too, we all know that Novak isn't the true #1 player in the world right now, but he still holds the ranking.

    Same is true for Nadal in 2011 when Novak was owning Rafa and Rafa didn't lose the ranking till Wimbledon.

    Same is true for when Rafa beat Fed at WIM in 08 and wasn't #1 until a month or 2 afterwards.

    The weeks at #1 isn't significant imo, I'd rate the YE#1's a lot higher. It shows how many seasons you were the top player. Novak has spent all of 2013 as #1 so far but we all know he isn't the player of the year. Nadal will end up YE#1 and that gives a more accurate reflection of the season as far as I'm concerned.

    Also, winning slams for consecutive years is significant, it indicates longevity of being able to play at a high level and win the most important events. So far Federer's had the consistency over Nadal, but I'd give the longevity to Nadal, winning a major for 9 consecutive years, including 2 in that 9th year will probably never be beat and the scary thing is he could make it 10+ years next year and beyond, we'll just have to wait and see.
     
  38. Graf1stClass

    Graf1stClass Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    403
    agassi choosing nadal over his own wife?

    ffs.
     
  39. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,700
    Remember, any detail must be used to defend Federer, but attack everyone else.

    The cult mentality at work.
     
  40. ripitup

    ripitup Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2013
    Messages:
    273
    Men and Women should be kept seperate and no doubt that is what Agassi was doing. Tennis Channel are the only ones stupid enough to break that obvious rule, but then again you cant expect a group that thinks Emerson ranks 15 or more places higher all time than Gonzales to have any sense of logic to begin with.

    I agree with Agassi. When it comes to the men Nadal and Laver > Federer at this point. You cant be the best ever when you can neither be on top of your main rival in your own era (Nadal) or win the holy grail of the sport- the Grand Slam (Laver).
     
  41. beast of mallorca

    beast of mallorca Legend

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,908
    Hahaha, he left out Sampras in the conversation. Stop hating Andre........:):)
     
  42. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,269
    Location:
    Chile
    Really?, I suspect if someone won 16 majors in 4 years it would matter. A lot.

    Then no. 1 stats don't do justice to all eras either. Yet they're included. Same thing with the slam count, is it fair to all eras to include the AO?.

    Also, what's the criteria according to you?, why include the two most important events and not just THE most important (slams)?.
    The top players for the most part play the masters, not so the 500s and 250s.

    Yet it is also reflected by career winning percentage. Almagro and Ferrer?, look at the list of players with highest career winning %. All time greats all of them.
     
  43. Crisstti

    Crisstti Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,269
    Location:
    Chile
    I believe Federer's numbers haven't dropped, since he's doing better than he was early in his career. Him being lower in this stat is not due to him declining, it's due to his early career results, and there's no reason why those results shouldn't be accounted for as well.
    And look at who's third in that list: Connors, who played until I don't know what age.

    Nothing wrong with having a stat for players' prime years' winning %, but the career winning % is another perspective in this, and a valid one as well.

    PS: I have no problem with you including the consecutive slams played if you believe it to be an important stat, which you clearly do from what you said in another post. It's really just that you also should include the rest of the relevant stats.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2013
  44. bahamasboy32

    bahamasboy32 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    95
    Sampras isnt in the GOAT conversation anymore. Federer dropped all his records so what is there left. Nadal, Laver, and Federer are the main contenders but even Gonzales, Rosewall, Tilden, Borg, could be argued before Sampras. I am not saying they should rank above Sampras all time, but even them you could might a slight case for #1 while for Sampras there isnt any since he is just a weaker Federer (career wise, not game wise neccessarily) at this point.
     
  45. Graf1stClass

    Graf1stClass Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    403
    Be quiet. Graf is the GOAT. You cannot deny this.
     
  46. bahamasboy32

    bahamasboy32 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Messages:
    95
    I dont think Graf should even be the womens GOAT. I guess I understand why many think so as she had the best career, but Navratilova and Serena at their best played at a higher level. Here is something to keep in mind. Navratilova vs Graf has the edge on grass, carpet, and indoors and Graf on Navratilova on clay and rebound ace. So the most neutral place is medium to fast hard courts or decoturf. At the U.S Open, the source of their most netural meeting place, Navratilova is 4-1 vs Graf, despite 4 of the 5 matches occuring during Steffi's prime and when Navratilova was 29 or older.
     
  47. Graf1stClass

    Graf1stClass Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2013
    Messages:
    403
    who cares what you think? she's the GOAT.

    i respect navratilova, though, since she could keep up with Steffi as they played. I believe she's the only one to have tied with her in the h2h.

    besides serena since Steffi retired soon after playing her. however, navratilova sucked at finals against Steffi. Steffi was an entirely different player in finals.
     

Share This Page