Agassi is Wrong... Federer/Nadal Perspective

[prefab]

Agassi is entitled to his own opinions... but not to his own facts. Agassi is one of my favorite players of all time, and in my opinion under-rated. But on this... HE IS WRONG.
In one of his reasons for giving Nadal the nod as #1 all-time... Agassi says that Nadal "has done it all during Federer's prime." In sports, our memories are very short, including mine.
But let's examine "prime".

When Federer and Nadal met for the third straight time in the 2008 Wimbledon Final, Federer was the approx age of Nadal now. At this time, Federer had already won 5 STRAIGHT WIMBLEDONS (including 2 straight over Nadal), 4 STRAIGHT USOPENS (the 5th straight coming 2 months later), and had Won 3 AUSTRALIAN OPENS. That's 13 Majors. At this same time Nadal had not yet won a SINGLE MAJOR off of CLAY. We all know what he went on to do. I understand that Federer and Nadal provide a little bit of a conundrum because of how well Nadal played at an early age, and how well Federer has played as he's gotten older... But I don't believe that anyone can objectively say that Federer was in his "prime" post 2008. A full 6 years ago.

Agassi also highlights the "Big 4". But he misses the mark here too. I think Federer's greatness is highlighted by his ability to hold his own with this group in his late twenties and even now at 32. It also highlights how good he must have been during his "real prime". Will Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray have Federer like results from 28-32 when the Dimitrovs and Nishikoris of the tennis world start to make their move?

Once again... Nadal won his first major off Clay at the approx time that Federer had won 13. One other note during Federer's "real prime" is that he won 5 Straight USOpens... and has yet to face Nadal at the USOpen even once. It's not a knock on Nadal... it simply helps to highlight and designate Federer's actual "prime".

 

[helloworld]

Agassi also highlights the "Big 4". But he misses the mark here too. I think Federer's greatness is highlighted by his ability to hold his own with this group in his late twenties and even now at 32. It also highlights how good he must have been during his "real prime". Will Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray have Federer like results from 28-32 when the Dimitrovs and Nishikoris of the tennis world start to make their move?

The problem is even a 16 year old fetus Nadal can beat Federer in his absolute peak. Age is not an excuse since Federer has been losing to Nadal since the beginning of time.

 

[checkmilu]

Forget the age argument, the following is an argument that some silly fans of Nadal can't deal with:

Let's say Nadal & Fed are same age, Agassi say Nadal thrives in Fed's prime and he still got 13 G.slams. OK, say Nadal is the the GOAT because of that. How about Fed who thrives in Goat-Nadal's prime and still manage 17 Slams. How can a GOAT won less Slams than the second best player-Fed, how can the GOAT-Nadal has been No1 for just 1/3 weeks of the second best Fed?

Maybe Agassi thinks that his GOAT doesn't need to beat the field, the GOAT can lose to journey men many times as long as he beat the Second Best player more often (Fed did manage to beat his WORST match-up half of the matches in his prime). It's a very poor argument, Mr. Agassi.

 

[NadalDramaQueen]

The simplest explanation is that Agassi is back on the good stuff. He should pass it around to some of the members here, maybe they'll lighten up.

 

[mike danny]

The problem is even a 16 year old fetus Nadal can beat Federer in his absolute peak. Age is not an excuse since Federer has been losing to Nadal since the beginning of time.

He was not 16, he was 17.

You seem to use this match a lot in Nadal's favor. But this match does not tell us anything. Federer at 30 beat prime Nadal at IW in 2012. Does that tell us anything?

 

[prostaff_fan]

I think too much emphasis is given to Agassi's comment. He has his way of implying things that suit him. By his logic, winning a career slam is a greater achievement than winning 14 majors. Suits him right?

 

[dman72]

I think too much emphasis is given to Agassi's comment. He has his way of implying things that suit him. By his logic, winning a career slam is a greater achievement than winning 14 majors. Suits him right?

Exactly..his real goal is most likely to try to elevate himself past Sampras and has nothing to do with Fed and Nadal.

 

[prostaff_fan]

Exactly..his real goal is most likely to try to elevate himself past Sampras and has nothing to do with Fed and Nadal.

Plus being a baseliner like Nadal himself, and like Nadal having a rival who had a dominant serve game, he probably identifies himself more with a player like Nadal and hence the bias.

 

[monfed]

It took a mono-ridden confidence lacking Fed for Ralph to FINALLY score a win in a non-clay slam. And even there with all the moonballing it took the hack 5 sets and fading darkness to get the job done. :lol:

 

[TahoeTennis]

Agassi is entitled to his own opinions... but not to his own facts. Agassi is one of my favorite players of all time, and in my opinion under-rated. But on this... HE IS WRONG.
QUOTE]

I think your opinion is wrong also.

VAMOS Rafa!

 

[bullfan]

Agassi is entitled to his own opinions... but not to his own facts. Agassi is one of my favorite players of all time, and in my opinion under-rated. But on this... HE IS WRONG.
In one of his reasons for giving Nadal the nod as #1 all-time... Agassi says that Nadal "has done it all during Federer's prime." In sports, our memories are very short, including mine.
But let's examine "prime".

When Federer and Nadal met for the third straight time in the 2008 Wimbledon Final, Federer was the approx age of Nadal now. At this time, Federer had already won 5 STRAIGHT WIMBLEDONS (including 2 straight over Nadal), 4 STRAIGHT USOPENS (the 5th straight coming 2 months later), and had Won 3 AUSTRALIAN OPENS. That's 13 Majors. At this same time Nadal had not yet won a SINGLE MAJOR off of CLAY. We all know what he went on to do. I understand that Federer and Nadal provide a little bit of a conundrum because of how well Nadal played at an early age, and how well Federer has played as he's gotten older... But I don't believe that anyone can objectively say that Federer was in his "prime" post 2008. A full 6 years ago.

Agassi also highlights the "Big 4". But he misses the mark here too. I think Federer's greatness is highlighted by his ability to hold his own with this group in his late twenties and even now at 32. It also highlights how good he must have been during his "real prime". Will Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray have Federer like results from 28-32 when the Dimitrovs and Nishikoris of the tennis world start to make their move?

Once again... Nadal won his first major off Clay at the approx time that Federer had won 13. One other note during Federer's "real prime" is that he won 5 Straight USOpens... and has yet to face Nadal at the USOpen even once. It's not a knock on Nadal... it simply helps to highlight and designate Federer's actual "prime".

Lol! Until 2011 and Novaks year, Nadal was ahead. Funny, how Nadal came back against the guy he lost GS to to win against him in GS..... I forgot, when did Fed beat Nadal after 2007 in a GS?

 

[bullfan]

It took a mono-ridden confidence lacking Fed for Ralph to FINALLY score a win in a non-clay slam. And even there with all the moonballing it took the hack 5 sets and fading darkness to get the job done. :lol:

Ohhhhhhh, sad to say, that 2008 Fed fans, which were far superior in numbers here didn't use the mono excuse. That's a Johnny come lately fed fanatic excuse!

 

[Newballs]

The simplest explanation is that Agassi is back on the good stuff. He should pass it around to some of the members here, maybe they'll lighten up.

Ockham's razor… Nice.

 

[bullfan]

He was not 16, he was 17.

You seem to use this match a lot in Nadal's favor. But this match does not tell us anything. Federer at 30 beat prime Nadal at IW in 2012. Does that tell us anything?

Nadal has never had a losing h2h against Fed, since Nadal was 17, a full 5 years younger than Nadal. Hence, why Murray believes Nadal is best.

 

[bullfan]

Ockham's razor… Nice.

No, ockham's razor would say Nadal is better than Fed.

 

[monfed]

Ohhhhhhh, sad to say, that 2008 Fed fans, which were far superior in numbers here didn't use the mono excuse. That's a Johnny come lately fed fanatic excuse!

That Fed had mono in 2008 is a fact. But yes cuts across your precious H2H so it becomes an excuse. :lol:

The fact that Nadal needs his H2H to assert his superiority just tells me what a pathetically limited player he is. :lol:

 

[danishtennisfan]

Agassi is entitled to his own opinions... but not to his own facts. Agassi is one of my favorite players of all time, and in my opinion under-rated. But on this... HE IS WRONG.
In one of his reasons for giving Nadal the nod as #1 all-time... Agassi says that Nadal "has done it all during Federer's prime." In sports, our memories are very short, including mine.
But let's examine "prime".

When Federer and Nadal met for the third straight time in the 2008 Wimbledon Final, Federer was the approx age of Nadal now. At this time, Federer had already won 5 STRAIGHT WIMBLEDONS (including 2 straight over Nadal), 4 STRAIGHT USOPENS (the 5th straight coming 2 months later), and had Won 3 AUSTRALIAN OPENS. That's 13 Majors. At this same time Nadal had not yet won a SINGLE MAJOR off of CLAY. We all know what he went on to do. I understand that Federer and Nadal provide a little bit of a conundrum because of how well Nadal played at an early age, and how well Federer has played as he's gotten older... But I don't believe that anyone can objectively say that Federer was in his "prime" post 2008. A full 6 years ago.

Agassi also highlights the "Big 4". But he misses the mark here too. I think Federer's greatness is highlighted by his ability to hold his own with this group in his late twenties and even now at 32. It also highlights how good he must have been during his "real prime". Will Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray have Federer like results from 28-32 when the Dimitrovs and Nishikoris of the tennis world start to make their move?

Once again... Nadal won his first major off Clay at the approx time that Federer had won 13. One other note during Federer's "real prime" is that he won 5 Straight USOpens... and has yet to face Nadal at the USOpen even once. It's not a knock on Nadal... it simply helps to highlight and designate Federer's actual "prime".

My thoughts exactly - I think a lot of analysts and commentators are confused because of Federers greatness even after his prime. And yes, it does highlight how high his level was in his prime- It's quite obvious that he since start 2008 has fallen far off from that level. In my opinion Nadal has never in a slam defeated a peak Federer outside of clay -late prime at Wimbledon 2008 and AO Open 2009 but nok peak. On the contrary we can almost now conclusively say it was Nadals peak since he has only won 1 AO Open and 2 Wimbledons-so Federer was facing him in his best moments of his career. If Nadal never wins another slam he will mostly be known as the Federer slayer+the greatest claycourtplayer of all time.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal has never had a losing h2h against Fed, since Nadal was 17, a full 5 years younger than Nadal. Hence, why Murray believes Nadal is best.

So Nadal is the best because of how well he has done vs Federer? I thought players were measured by their achievements.

He has done so well vs Fed, yet he is still behind in 3 of the 4 slams. And if you want to compare by age, Federer at Nadal's current age was still well ahead in terms of titles at 3/4 slams, compared to present Nadal

 

[BHud]

Just a former career #2 man hyping the accomplishments of the most recent career #2 man. Pete and Roger have won more titles than their rivals and spent many more weeks at #1. Just my opinion though... :twisted:

 

[Steve0904]

Just a former career #2 man hyping the accomplishments of the most recent career #2 man. Pete and Roger have won more titles than their rivals and spent many more weeks at #1. Just my opinion though... :twisted:

Nice and succinct

 

[dominikk1985]

He was not 16, he was 17.

You seem to use this match a lot in Nadal's favor. But this match does not tell us anything. Federer at 30 beat prime Nadal at IW in 2012. Does that tell us anything?

wouldn't that prove the point that nadal did most of the damage during feds prime?

 

[TheMusicLover]

Agassi is entitled to his opinion, though I harbour no doubts that this opinion of his is mostly the result of 1) trying to PR today's tennis, and 2) in the light of his own rivalry with Sampras (where he ended up being clearly the #2).

I cannot understand why people get riled up so much by it. Next week, or next month, or next year, be sure the former greats will hype up the 'next big thing' as 'best ever'. It's PR, you know...

 

[cronus]

The problem is even a 16 year old fetus Nadal can beat Federer in his absolute peak. Age is not an excuse since Federer has been losing to Nadal since the beginning of time.

The problem is even a 16 year old fetus **** did not play 6 year old fetus Roger, if that happened **** would have had the same fate as baghdatis.

**** is the luckiest guy on earth because this greatest threat was 5 years older than him and turned 28 when he started to peak.

Bamos!