Agassi questions Fed GOATness

This is just how they fill the air time while roddick is beating on phau. Sure Nadal could be the GOAT eventually but he is a long way off right now. The other GOATS never had to play anyone as good as Rafa and they wouldnt even be able to sniff a clay court win off him. Fed is the Goat by a mile right now
 
sureshs said:
It is clear now:

1. If Nadal wins the USO without facing Fed, he will have the career slam + Oly gold + the same dominating H2H against Fed. Fed's claim to GOATness is gone. Only thing tying Fed to GOATness now is that Nadal does not have a career slam yet.

2. If Nadal wins the USO by defeating Fed, Nadal is the GOAT. He would have a 14-7 record, and wins in all Slam finals. Fed will not be in the reckoning again till he defeats Nadal in, say, at least 2 different Slam finals again.

That is why I think it is better if Fed retires now before these hypothetical events happen. It is still not too late. He can tank early in the Open, and announce his retirement.
Click to expand...


NO.

Today's semifinals feature the top 4 players. Unlike the last 2 "Slams". I contend that whoever wins here is the real #1 and the GOAT. I have a feeling it won't be the guy with the elegant strokes.
:)
 
Lots of "what ifs" here but nobody has said the obvious thing.

Nadal isn't getting past the quarters. It may be a lack of match fitness, it may be his knees, it may be an arrangement with regard to the "ban" but he ain't getting past the quarters. Just my opinion.
 
There's no question that if Nadal beats Fed at this USO then it's very hard to call Fed the GOAT bc he would have lost at EVERY SINGLE GS to Nadal, in the finals. I don't think that it makes Fed accomplishments pale at all in comparison to the other GOAT candidates however. I don't think Olympic Gold really means anything. It's the Slams that matter. I'd like to see Roger trounce Nadal or Murray in the finals. And the same at next year's AO.
 
wangs78 said:
There's no question that if Nadal beats Fed at this USO then it's very hard to call Fed the GOAT bc he would have lost at EVERY SINGLE GS to Nadal, in the finals. I don't think that it makes Fed accomplishments pale at all in comparison to the other GOAT candidates however. I don't think Olympic Gold really means anything. It's the Slams that matter. I'd like to see Roger trounce Nadal or Murray in the finals. And the same at next year's AO.
Click to expand...

Is that really any worse than not consistently making the finals, such as what Sampras did, and what Nadal does? They just spread their losses out amongst random players in the earlier rounds moreso than Federer does.
 
cknobman said:
Agassi didnt question Feds GOAT status in fact he said as of right now Fed IS THE GOAT. Agassi only stated that IF Nadal wins the USO then there will be ONE person who can questions status as GOAT (that person being Nadal).
Click to expand...

No, he said the discussion is open again. Nadal is the ONE person who can challenge him in person. Does not mean others cannot challenge the idea. Agassi was himself doing just that!
 
PimpMyGame said:
Lots of "what ifs" here but nobody has said the obvious thing.

Nadal isn't getting past the quarters. It may be a lack of match fitness, it may be his knees, it may be an arrangement with regard to the "ban" but he ain't getting past the quarters. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Agassi implied that when he said Murray will be the winner.
 
1. If Nadal wins the USO, it will throw the GOAT discussion wide open again. The reasons he gave were Nadal would have career slam, an Olympic simgles gold which Fed does not have (and Agassi has, which is significant), and the lopsided head to head of 13-7 and counting.
Click to expand...

I didn't actually hear Agassi talk about this, but from what I read here Agassi didn't say Federer wouldn't be GOAT if Nadal would win the USopen, only that the discussion would return. To be fair Agassi is kind of right. If and that is a big if Nadal would win approx. the same amount of slams as Federer or at most 2 or 3 less and wins the USopen he has a real GOAT claim. But I don't see him win the US open, not ever. As of yet he has only 6 slams, so no reasen to mention him at all. He first has to reach the semi's of this US open. And this will be tough enough if Nadal has to play Ferrer in the 4th round. In the semi's he most likely has to win against Murray or Del Potro. And Finaly he has to beat Federer in the final, this is not going to be easy.
About the 14-7 h2h, people talk about it like it cannot change, don't forget that Nadal lost his last match ON CLAY!. Federer also seems to have regained his confidence and is playing a lot better. When he has to face Nadal again I wonder what would happen. All matches were pretty close, thus this time it could go the other way.
 
drakulie said:
The OP is taking Agassi's comments out of context, and is "lying by ommission".

Agassi made it clear he believes Fed is the greatest player of all time. he later added, a "what if" argument to the Mcenroes,,,, he said (I'm paraphrasing), "What if Nadal were to win this years US Open, and how would that effect this argument? Nadal would have won on all 4 surfaces, have the gold and davis cup (two things fed has yet to accomplish), and have the overall better head-to-head."

He never stated this would make Nadal the GOAT, or not make Fed the GOAT. he was throwing out a hypothetical to "stir the pot".
Click to expand...

other than the finals did nadal play any davis cup the rest of that year????
 
sureshs said:
He was in the booth for the Roddick match and said two things:

1. If Nadal wins the USO, it will throw the GOAT discussion wide open again. The reasons he gave were Nadal would have career slam, an Olympic simgles gold which Fed does not have (and Agassi has, which is significant), and the lopsided head to head of 13-7 and counting.

2. He said very softly towards the end that Murray would win the USO.

The first sentiment is being echoed by several commentators. If Nadal wins this one, claims of Fed GOATness fade away. I believe it was Cahill who said that Fed needs to beat Nadal in a Slam final to settle this. Losing repatedly in the FO final was OK as Nadal was a "clay court specialist" but then losing in both W and AO finals to him showed a troubling pattern of inferiority.

Looking at how Fed played against Devin yesterday, I don't think he has a chance against Murray, let alone Nadal.
Click to expand...

your interntionally leaving out half the things he said, plus your trying to troll up some heat. get over youself. Fed or Laver are the only 2 possibles to be considered, it sure as all hell isnt nadal. actually hes NOWHERE close. needing double digit more slams to pave the way.
 
Mungo73 said:
you gotta give it to agassi, he wasnt a great fighter but he is such a great commentator!!!

as for federer, i say it again: he is the MOAT, Most Overrated player of All Time. i will start a brilliant thread to elaborate later.
Click to expand...

ummm, Federer has a reason to be overrated. You know...15 grand slams. You want fine definition of overrated? Donald Young.
 
sureshs said:
He was in the booth for the Roddick match and said two things:

1. If Nadal wins the USO, it will throw the GOAT discussion wide open again. The reasons he gave were Nadal would have career slam, an Olympic simgles gold which Fed does not have (and Agassi has, which is significant), and the lopsided head to head of 13-7 and counting.

2. He said very softly towards the end that Murray would win the USO.

The first sentiment is being echoed by several commentators. If Nadal wins this one, claims of Fed GOATness fade away. I believe it was Cahill who said that Fed needs to beat Nadal in a Slam final to settle this. Losing repatedly in the FO final was OK as Nadal was a "clay court specialist" but then losing in both W and AO finals to him showed a troubling pattern of inferiority.

Looking at how Fed played against Devin yesterday, I don't think he has a chance against Murray, let alone Nadal.
Click to expand...

found it, here ya go buddy, try to troll again later.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/01092009/3/agassi-hails-federer-game-greatest.html
 
u must be smoking some really horrible crack Suresh to come up with that
please do yourself a favor and ask for a refund:rolleyes:
 
Ok, so if I understand you guys correctly, to be considered GOAT, (and match Nadal's accomplishments) Federer has to:

  • Win an Olympic Gold medal in singles
  • Improve his H2H with Nadal by beating Nadal if and when they meet at more GS finals.
  • Win the Davis Cup (presumably single-handedly since he has no control over the quality of his fellow country players, and which no other player has ever done anyway.)

To be considered GOAT, on the other hand, (and match Federer's accomplishments) Nadal will have to:
  • Win 15 Grand Slam titles (or whatever number Fed eventually finishes at)
  • Make 21 consecutive semi-finals appearances
  • Hold the record for the most consecutive number of weeks ranked #1
  • Hold five consecutive titles at 2 different GS, or even holds five consecutive titles at one
  • Win the same two Grand Slam tournaments back to back for four consecutive years
  • Win three consecutive Grand Slam titles at least twice.
  • Win three different Grand Slam tournaments at least three times each
  • Win at least two Grand Slam titles for four consecutive years
  • Win three Grand Slam tournaments in a calendar year three different times in his career
  • Win his first eight Grand Slam singles finals on any surface (he still has an opportunity on hard courts since he's won the only one he's made so far)
  • Win 15 GS in 25 attempts or less, or at the very least win 11 GS in 4 years
  • Reach the final of all four Grand Slam tournaments in back to back calendar years
  • Equal or surpass reaching ten consecutive Grand Slam finals
  • Reach at least three Grand Slam finals for four consecutive calendar years
  • Equal or surpass the all-time record of 16 finals out of 17
  • Reach seven consecutive finals at the same GS tournament
  • Reach at least four consecutive finals at three different Grand Slam tournaments.
  • Reach the final of all four Grand Slam singles tournament at least four times.
  • Win an Olympic Gold Medal in doubles

"One man is not asked to measure up to a second one, without the second man in turn" being asked to measure up to the first"

Edit: Oh, and what about all the other goat contenders? They get a free pass on having to, or not having measured up to Fed's achievements?
 
sureshs said:
Their head to head was not as lopsided as Fed-Nadal
Click to expand...

I dont think so. it was 20-14 wasnt it? A SIX MATCH DIFFERENCE.

Shaolin said:
Lol...good catch. Agassi is just caught up in his own achievements. I love it when he's in the booth though, he makes a lot of actually insightful remarks, unlike 99% of the other commentators.
Click to expand...

Very well said, alot of achievements of other players are significantly better than sampras'. Connors 167 titles, Agassi's career slam + gold medal, Connors and Lendl's consecutive weeks at no.1
 
Spain won the Euro in 2008. If they also win the World Cup in 2010, then Fed's GOAT status should be seriously questionned.
 
If Federer were to win the US Open this year he would have 6 USO titles, which would equal Nadal's total number of GS titles. Hmmmmm
 
sureshs said:
No, he said the discussion is open again. Nadal is the ONE person who can challenge him in person. Does not mean others cannot challenge the idea. Agassi was himself doing just that!
Click to expand...

You must have heard something different then I did. Agassi said the discussion would be open again IF Nadal won the USO open.
 
I think what Agassi said was "if Nadal beats Fed at the USO" (this year or some other year) and, therefore has beaten Fed in Slam finals at every Slam, and Fed's only wins over Nadal in Slam finals remain Wimbledon, then the GOAT discussion could be thrown open again.

This assumes:

1. Nadal beats Fed to win the USO, not just that Nadal wins the USO

2. Fed does not beat Nadal in any non-Wimbledon Slam finals in the future.

3. Fed doesn't his improve the H2H with Nadal in the future.

Agassi seems focused on Slam matchups, which I sort of agree with. Basically, if Nadal were to beat Fed at the USO and have wins over Fed in every Slam final, I would pay less attention to the fact that his relatively dominant H2H over Fed is strongly tilted towards clay matchups. That point matters a lot now (at least to a lot fo TWers), but I think it would matter less if Nadal were to actually beat Fed at the USO, and Fed didn't beat Nadal at a Slam other than Wimbledon.

Now people rightly argue that the H2H is so lopsided and misleading because a lot of the matches were on clay and Fed hasn't had that many opportunities to meet Nadal in non-clay (particualrly fast hard court) Slams. Nadal beating Fed at the USO, without Fed reciprocating and beating Nadal somewhere other than Wimbledon, would make the H2H argument much weaker, even if the H2H remained tilted towards clay matchups.

However, I don't see Nadal beating Fed at the USO, which is the foundation of Agassi's argument.
 
sureshs said:
The "report" left out half the things he said. Probably because they weren't favorable to Federer. Poor journalism. That is why I have to set the record straight.
Click to expand...

That's very comendable of you but who cares what Agassi says,it's your opinion that counts and you expressed yourself very clearly:

sureshs said:
Today's semifinals feature the top 4 players. Unlike the last 2 "Slams".I contend that whoever wins here is the real #1 and the GOAT. I have a feeling it won't be the guy with the elegant strokes.
Click to expand...
 
bluetrain4 said:
Now people rightly argue that the H2H is so lopsided and misleading because a lot of the matches were on clay and Fed hasn't had that many opportunities to meet Nadal in non-clay (particualrly fast hard court) Slams. Nadal beating Fed at the USO, without Fed reciprocating and beating Nadal somewhere other than Wimbledon, would make the H2H argument much weaker, even if the H2H remained tilted towards clay matchups.
Click to expand...

The age difference is being overlooked yet again... Time is not on Federer's side from here on (it never was in this rivalry anyway), there is a good chance that he won't play any better than he is now. Nadal however is still young. This doesn't mean Nadal's wins over Federer means little, it did and it always will mean a lot (even those victories on clay), but it should never devalue what Federer has accomplished and whatever he may accomplish in the future. If a 25 year-old Nadal beats a 30 year-old, slower-than-ever Federer at the USO... It would mean a lot for Nadal but I disagree that it would diminish Federer.

And in all honesty this GOAT talk has become quite boring for a long time now. And the manner in which people talk about it... It's like people will remember Federer (and maybe Nadal too... probably not though) on whether he "reached" the GOAT status or not; if he doesn't he's like, a failed player. That's just a sad way of thinking.
 
Last edited:
Sartorius said:
The age difference is being overlooked yet again... Time is not on Federer's side from here on (it never was in this rivalry anyway), there is a good chance that he won't play any better than he is now. Nadal however is still young. This doesn't mean Nadal's wins over Federer means little, it did and it always will mean a lot (even those victories on clay), but it should never devalue what Federer has accomplished and whatever he may accomplish in the future. If a 25 year-old Nadal beats a 30 year-old, slower-than-ever Federer at the USO... It will mean a lot for Nadal but I disagree that it would diminish Federer.

And in all honesty this GOAT talk has become quite boring for a long time now. And the manner in which people talk about it... It's like people will remember Federer (and maybe Nadal too... probably not though) on whether he "reached" the GOAT status or not; if he doesn't he's like, a failed player. That's just a sad way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Yeah,I mean even if he never wins another slam what Fed accomplished in his career is quite simply amazing,it's out of this world.However,if he loses to Nadal at USO this year or next or similar in this forum he'll again be a sucky,washed up loser who won all his slams due to beating clowns,just like he was after AO this year.

I gotta say,some keyboard experts here have very high standards.
 
i heard that interview. it seems agassi was expressing the same sentiment that sampras did: a goat cannot have an inferior head to head record against his main rival.
 
who cares, GOAT means of all time. in 20 years noone will ever bring up H2H with anyone.

only a few things will go into the mix, weeks at #1, slams, shields. nothing else will be said. maybe a nadal coulda been , IF he wasnt in feds era etc etc.

when you speak of laver what do you mention?

slams and calendar slams, nothing more. these arguments, although entertaining, are redundant.
 
Roger is in that circle, nuff said. Whoever joins him is entirely to them, rather if it's Nadal or Jaden or Jazz Agassi. He is already there... :neutral:
 
navratilovafan said:
Navratilova and Federer are the GOATs. Nuff said.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Navratilova is a legend and amazing player but still overrated by many and only should rate 4th greatest in the Open Era behind Graf, Court, and Evert. Federer of course is an all time great but is only the 4th greatest mens player of the Open Era behind Laver, Borg, and Sampras. All time probably behind Gonzales and Rosweall too.
 
grafselesfan said:
Wrong. Navratilova is a legend and amazing player but still overrated by many and only should rate 4th greatest in the Open Era behind Graf, Court, and Evert. Federer of course is an all time great but is only the 4th greatest mens player of the Open Era behind Laver, Borg, and Sampras. All time probably behind Gonzales and Rosweall too.
Click to expand...

Tennis isn't just singles. And if it were, Navratilova would still have the advantage over Evert. 41 doubles + mixed doubles slams just puts her over the top.

Btw, I hope you like my sig. I'll use it as a reference the next time you say that you are surrounded by inanely stupid people.
 
grafselesfan said:
Wrong. Navratilova is a legend and amazing player but still overrated by many and only should rate 4th greatest in the Open Era behind Graf, Court, and Evert. Federer of course is an all time great but is only the 4th greatest mens player of the Open Era behind Laver, Borg, and Sampras. All time probably behind Gonzales and Rosweall too.
Click to expand...

Federer only 4th? The guy won 18 slams (according to sureshs)!
 
If Nadal wins the career slam and ends up with as many slam wins as Federer, then yeah, he would likely be the GOAT. But I don't think that will happen. THe career slam COULD happen, but even that I doubt. The number of slam wins won't happen.

This is all silly though. OBVIOUSLY even if Federer is GOAT, it is possible to have a better career than he has had. So if you create a hypothetical future where a player has a better career than Federer, then he would no longer be GOAT. But it would just be hypothetical. Right now Federer is the greatest of all time.
 
sureshs said:
He was in the booth for the Roddick match and said two things:

1. If Nadal wins the USO, it will throw the GOAT discussion wide open again. The reasons he gave were Nadal would have career slam, an Olympic simgles gold which Fed does not have (and Agassi has, which is significant), and the lopsided head to head of 13-7 and counting.

2. He said very softly towards the end that Murray would win the USO.

The first sentiment is being echoed by several commentators. If Nadal wins this one, claims of Fed GOATness fade away. I believe it was Cahill who said that Fed needs to beat Nadal in a Slam final to settle this. Losing repatedly in the FO final was OK as Nadal was a "clay court specialist" but then losing in both W and AO finals to him showed a troubling pattern of inferiority.

Looking at how Fed played against Devin yesterday, I don't think he has a chance against Murray, let alone Nadal.
Click to expand...

I don't care about the GOAT discussion, as there will never be a result that is satisfying for everyone. But what I cannot believe is what you wrote at the very end of your post. Have you ever seen Federer at his maximum in the first rounds of a slam? I haven't.

Federer in slams is like this:

First round -> 1st gear
Second + third round -> 2nd gear
Fourth round -> 3rd gear (maybe 4th)
QF -> 4th gear
SF and F -> 5th gear
 
TheFifthSet said:
Tennis isn't just singles. And if it were, Navratilova would still have the advantage over Evert. 41 doubles + mixed doubles slams just puts her over the top.

Btw, I hope you like my sig. I'll use it as a reference the next time you say that you are surrounded by inanely stupid people.
Click to expand...

I realize most people put Graf and Navratilova as the top two in one order or another. However I really believe in terms of singles play anyway Evert should rate higher. This is why:

Longevity- Chris's was a great player for about 12 years. Martina was a great player for about 5 years. Advantage Chris bigtime

Consistency- This one is no contest. Chris, Steffi, Margaret all kill Martina in consistency, and Chris is tops of all of them.

Dominance- OK Martina was more dominant

Versatility- Chris was in 10 Wimbledon finals. She would have 7 or 8 Wimbledons without Martina. Martina on clay doesnt even come close to this.

Competition- The 70s was a very deep field. The 80s Martina had nobody other than Chris a bit past her prime and the erratic Hana.

Plus had the Australian and French Opens been fully valued in the 70s like today Chris would have many more slams than Martina. Martina gets far too much credit for an amazing 5 year period of dominance, and for longevity of very good but not great play to somewhat compensate for being a gross underachiever until she was 25. And the other holes in her career are conveniently overlooked.
 
Yeah I don't agree with Agassi. Basically what hes saying is Nadal is the greatest (with USO win) because he has won on all surfaces and has a better H2H than federer?? That somehow erases all the slams fed has??

I understand his view, and I dont think there can be a GOAT (can't compare eras), but in terms of this conversation . . . he is saying that a H2H > Slam / major titles. Im not sure about that when it comes to tennis.
 
coyfish said:
Yeah I don't agree with Agassi. Basically what hes saying is Nadal is the greatest (with USO win) because he has won on all surfaces and has a better H2H than federer?? That somehow erases all the slams fed has??

I understand his view, and I dont think there can be a GOAT (can't compare eras), but in terms of this conversation . . . he is saying that a H2H > Slam / major titles. Im not sure about that when it comes to tennis.
Click to expand...

He is not saying it erases Federers slams. It is not like he is saying Federer should be evaluated as someone with 8 slams or his record isnt credited and a part of his career. However that a poor head to head with your main rival is a big blotch against him that other GOAT contenders dont have, and is a big factor against him being the undisputed GOAT at this moment.
 
grafselesfan said:
He is not saying it erases Federers slams. It is not like he is saying Federer should be evaluated as someone with 8 slams or his record isnt credited and a part of his career. However that a poor head to head with your main rival is a big blotch against him that other GOAT contenders dont have, and is a big factor against him being the undisputed GOAT at this moment.
Click to expand...

Laver is really the only other GOAT contendor. His era was so different you can't even begin to compare. Smaller field of competition . . . He has less slams then Fed but argue whatever you want . . . it doesn't matter.

Bjorn lacks USO, Tilden / Sampras lack french. Sampras sucked on clay so hes out of it.

I think this is just another reason why GOAT isn't possible with tennis. You / Agassi are saying that Fed isn't goat because Nadal has him on a stick. Thats true / I agree but that would make Nadal GOAT which is certainly not the case. So do they just cancel each other out at this point lol?
 
Federer needs to win this US Open, to knock the stuffing out of Nadal and to put-down any fool who thinks Murray will win the US Open.
 
Question: Why does Nadal pick his butt
Answer: To get Sureshs out of there

Another of his 'I worship Nadal' threads using Agassi's comments especially after the dumb Cinci thread last week. what a goofball
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Dark Knight
According to Agassi logic Nadal is the goat
2 3 4
Replies
183
Views
18K
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight
D
Agassi says Fed and Nadal are on their way out.
Replies
22
Views
3K
Baikalic
Baikalic
Hitman
Nadal v Agassi - The AO USO question
2
Replies
67
Views
4K
Holmes
Holmes
ForehandDTL
Hypothetical Strong era on modern slam surfaces — 100 year simulation
Replies
19
Views
937
ND-13
N
Fiji
Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have very few slam wins left....
2
Replies
72
Views
6K
Tshooter
Tshooter
Back
Top