Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
Please. Nadal didnt even make the semis of any hard court slam until 2008. He has still never won a set vs Federer indoors. Agassi in one of his worst years ever took Sampras to 5 sets at Wimbledon in 1993, and he had numerous top showings at all the Australian, Wimbledon, U.S Open, and WTFs Sampras was winning from 1993-1998, unlike Nadal who had none at the Australian, U.S Open, or WTF until atleast 2008 when Federer's dominance was already over forever.
That's funny cause in a 3,5-year span Federer faced Nadal as many times as Sampras met Agassi in majors in 12 years. A gazillion times at the French Open, 3 times at Wimbledon and once at the Australian Open. Federer and Nadal haven't met a lot since then but Murray and Djokovic have already been established since then so it didn't matter. Sampras, besides Agassi, didn't have any other real threats (at least on non-clay surfaces - he sucked there anyway), it's only his problem that guys like Yzaga, Krajicek, Philippoussis, Kodra, Kucera etc. could take him out.
Who cares Agassi was "mature" enough to win all the majors and be a contender everywhere if he didn't face Sampras at all? They met exactly 9 times in majors in a 13-year span which isn't even an average of 1 match per year. This is quite hilarious if you take into consideration that
-Sampras was roughly the same age as Agassi - so they could play each other often compared to Federer being 5 years older than Nadal (and despite that they still played each other very often)
-both Sampras and Agassi specialized on faster surfaces - whereas Nadal loves clay courts/slow courts en general while Federer prefers more pace (but is still excellent on clay courts)