mike danny, what do you think about Andre Agassi's opinion here?
Look i don't doubt the fact that Agassi may have some solid arguments.
But he is wrong on other aspects.
1) Nadal did not have all his success during fed's prime. He did not win the USO during fed's prime for example. He did not have his other best seasons 2010 and 2013 during Fed's prime. It is laughable to suggest Fed was in his prime in either of those years.
2)What is so remarkable about nadal being 1 slam away from the double career slam? So is Federer. And he has much better numbers than Rafa at 3 of the 4 slams. Fed has also been much closer to the calendar slam than Rafa ever was.
3)It is foolish on Andre's part that he ignores 34 matches between Federer and Djokovic and 21 matches between Fed and Murray. Fed played those guys just as much as Rafa did. And he did it while he was approaching the end of his prime as well, making his life much more difficult. He also can't ignore 16 slam matches between Fed and those 2.
4) The golden era of tennis began in 2011, when Djokovic and later Murray started being contenders at pretty much every slam, which was not the case in the previous years. Nadal won most of his slams before the golden era of tennis