Agassi vs Nadal --Who's the GOAT? 6-Agassi v 11-Nadal

[davey25]

What about January-March 2009.

Not long enough to suffice as a long stretch. Anyway even then he lost to Del Potro in Miami, lost to Murray in Rotterdam, lost to Monfils in straight sets in the warmup to Australia, and had to rely on a major choke from Nalbandian to avoid a lopsided straight sets loss in Indian Wells. So far from unbeatable even then. Nadal can be great on hard courts, or atleast could in the past, but he cant be virtually unbeatable on them, it simply wasnt ever going to happen.

 

[JoshDragon]

yeah, how long, oh my 3 months, that is 90 days !!!!!!! are you serious ??????

verdasco nearly got him in australia

murray bagelled him in the final set in rotterdam to win ( though he was injured, he still had tough 3-setter there )

nalby squandered 5 MPS in IW

and of course nadal lost to delpo in miami just after

that is being invincible for a long period on HC ???

Say, what you will but he was clearly the best hard court player in the world, during that stretch of time.

 

[Semi-Pro]

Say, what you will but he was clearly the best hard court player in the world, during that stretch of time.

Consistency for 90 days means nothing if you are supposed to be regarded as one of the "greats". Especially if you compare this to his years of dominance on the clay. Now that's dominance.

 

[davey25]

I agree. He was the best hard court player in the World for a 90 day stretch. However that isnt very long at all, nothing that would represent how thigns "normally" would be. As well even during this stretch he was never close to Federer, Sampras, or even at times Agassi like dominance on the surface and was definitely beatable and capable of losing to a variety of opponents on a given day.

 

[abmk]

Say, what you will but he was clearly the best hard court player in the world, during that stretch of time.

he surely was, but not that dominant/invincible even that time

 

[JoshDragon]

I agree. He was the best hard court player in the World for a 90 day stretch. However that isnt very long at all, nothing that would represent how thigns "normally" would be. As well even during this stretch he was never close to Federer, Sampras, or even at times Agassi like dominance on the surface and was definitely beatable and capable of losing to a variety of opponents on a given day.

At the time, the group of people who could beat him was really pretty small.

I think Del Potro beat him for the first time, during this stretch.

No, I agree he wasn't as dominant as Federer or Sampras on hard courts but that's to be expected. Hard courts are his worst surface. Nadal, dominates on clay just as much as Pete and Federer did/do on grass.

 

[lessthanjake]

I think it should be thought of more like this:

1 set on clay courts
1 set on grass courts
1 set on slow hard courts (Plexicushion)
1 set on fast hard courts (DecoTurf)
1 set on indoor courts

Best of 5.

Nadal wins the set on clay
Nadal wins the set on grass
Agassi wins the set on slow hard courts
Agassi wins the set on fast hard courts
Agassi wins the set indoors

Agassi wins 3 sets to 2.

The only problem I have with this method of mine is that I think this undervalues clay. Clay is 1/4 of slams and 1/3 of masters 1000 events, but only 1/5 of the sets here. And that happens to be where Nadal has a huge advantage over Agassi.

So with that in mind, I have to say they are about even.

 

[The Edberg]

If Nadal just grabs more masters titles and grabs maybe 9 slams he should overtake Andre on the GOAT list even if he doesnt win the USO. Borg never won the USO, or the AO, yet he is a GOAT candidate since his domination on clay and grass were awesome and he managed 11 slams. Nadal just doesnt have enough slams yet.

Nadal will never have the Andre longevity, but Nadal DID beat Fed to get all of his slams and did so on 3 different surfaces, while Agassi had some crapwalks late to wins some of his slams late in his career. Nadal has been more consistent at the top than Andre who didnt really have a consistent long period stretch of prime

 

[davey25]

At the time, the group of people who could beat him was really pretty small.

Well Monfils, Murray, and Del Potro all did beat him during that short 3 month stretch. Verdasco and Nalbandian were as close as you could be to beating him during this same stretch. Considering there are alot of players better on hard courts than Verdasco, Monfils, or even a past his prime Nalbandian, I wouldnt be so sure on that.

No, I agree he wasn't as dominant as Federer or Sampras on hard courts but that's to be expected. Hard courts are his worst surface. Nadal, dominates on clay just as much as Pete and Federer did/do on grass.

I fully agree with this. The thing is we were questioning your saying Nadal was is in a slump whenever he loses some matches on hard courts, like early 2008. We are pointing out Nadal has always lost matches on hard courts even at his best, so just pointing out him losing some matches on hard courts especialy to guys like Djokovic or even Yhouzny (a bad matchup for Nadal) does make sense. Now saying he has been in a slump since mid 2009 makes total sense, although he could also be past his prime now as well. Time will tell on that.

 

[JoshDragon]

Well Monfils, Murray, and Del Potro all did beat him during that short 3 month stretch. Verdasco and Nalbandian were as close as you could be to beating him during this same stretch. Considering there are alot of players better on hard courts than Verdasco, Monfils, or even a past his prime Nalbandian, I wouldnt be so sure on that.



I fully agree with this. The thing is we were questioning your saying Nadal was is in a slump whenever he loses some matches on hard courts, like early 2008. We are pointing out Nadal has always lost matches on hard courts even at his best, so just pointing out him losing some matches on hard courts especialy to guys like Djokovic or even Yhouzny (a bad matchup for Nadal) does make sense. Now saying he has been in a slump since mid 2009 makes total sense, although he could also be past his prime now as well. Time will tell on that.

Yes but Nadal had some very bad losses in early 08 where he didn't really have any bad losses, on hard courts, in early 09.

 

[abmk]

Yes but Nadal had some very bad losses in early 08 where he didn't really have any bad losses, on hard courts, in early 09.

sheesh, how dense can you get ???? two people explained this already ... NONE of losses in 2008 early season were bad losses - as I already explained in my earlier post !

the youzhny match was immediately after a 4 hour marathon vs moya, hence the lopsidedness ...

tsonga played the match of his life in the AO 2008 SF

nadal losing to djokovic on hard courts is a bad loss, LOL !

and davydenko was playing great in miami and hence was able to take out nadal easily

 

[davey25]

sheesh, how dense can you get ???? two people explained this already ... NONE of losses in 2008 early season were bad losses - as I already explained in my earlier post !

the youzhny match was immediately after a 4 hour marathon vs moya, hence the lopsidedness ...

tsonga played the match of his life in the AO 2008 SF

nadal losing to djokovic on hard courts is a bad loss, LOL !

and davydenko was playing great in miami and hence was able to take out nadal easily

I think what he means is the one sidedness of the losses. That is the only logical explanation for not considering Monfils a bad loss yet considering Davydenko and Djokovic one.

 

[dropshot winner]

I think what he means is the one sidedness of the losses. That is the only logical explanation for not considering Monfils a bad loss yet considering Davydenko and Djokovic one.

Monfils isn't half as good as Djokovic and Davydenko, that's why that match was closer.
Also, Nadal doesn't have a big serve, when he gets outplayed from the baseline the scorelines can easily get one-sided.