Andre Agassi picks Rafael Nadal ahead of Roger Federer as tennis's greatest all-time

bullfan

Legend
well it's Nadal fans who bring up H2H as if it's relevant- it really isn't- it just suggests Federer should have tanked all those clay QFs that he would go on to lose to Nadal in the F, just so his personal H2H looks better while having less finals on his resume.

It's not just Nadal fans that bring up the H2H, and it's sad to hear otherwise.
 

Kalin

Legend
Lazy to read through the whole thread but Andre probably picked Rafa since he is closest to him as a player- awesome record, major wins on all surfaces, relentless ground game, thinning hair, substance abuse and second-fiddle to the GOAT at the time (Andre to Pete, Rafa to Fed). :)
 
Yes I agree 1-6 on HC is brutal ownage. Deal. :lol:

given that you think a 9-2 h2h in slams is comparable to a 6-5 h2h in smaller tourneys, you must also think that connors or lendl rank higher than fed in the goat list as they have won more smaller tourneys than fed, am i right? who do you prefer as the goat connors or lendl? :)
 

monfed

Banned
given that you think a 9-2 h2h in slams is comparable to a 6-5 h2h in smaller tourneys, you must also think that connors or lendl rank higher than fed in the goat list as they have won more smaller tourneys than fed, am i right? who do you prefer as the goat connors or lendl? :)

1-6 H2H against a non-slam winner is humiliating,you have my sympathy.
 

Day Tripper

Semi-Pro
You would expect Nadal to have achieved a lot more than he has given his h2h against Federer.

When all is said and done it is highly unlikely that Nadal will have anything near comparable achievements to Federer.

In a way you could say Nadal won the battle but Federer won the war.
 

monfed

Banned
You would expect Nadal to have achieved a lot more than he has given his h2h against Federer.

When all is said and done it is highly unlikely that Nadal will have anything near comparable achievements to Federer.

In a way you could say Nadal won the battle but Federer won the war.

These Naddies are so disrespectful to Fed when they don't even realise their boy is codependent on Fed, his entire legacy hinges on Fed. What a parasite. :lol:
 

bullfan

Legend
LOL you're all about H2H, I'm all about achievements, so it's basically a question of who shuts up first. I'll do that which means you owe me one. :lol:

I owe you zero. I have referred to Fed being Nadal's beyotch since Nadal, 5 years younger than Fed has owned his behind.
 

monfed

Banned
I owe you zero. I have referred to Fed being Nadal's beyotch since Nadal, 5 years younger than Fed has owned his behind.

You know you oughta show more respect to a guy who your hero's legacy hinges on. :lol:

17>13. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Maybe, but that's not gonna fill up Pete's trophy cabinet with a RG trophy. :lol:

you have still not answered my question. since you believw slam h2h and small tourney h2h are comparable, then you must do the same for no of slam wins and no of small tourney wins. so lendl or connors? who is the greatest of the open era?
 

monfed

Banned
you have still not answered my question. since you believw slam h2h and small tourney h2h are comparable, then you must do the same for no of slam wins and no of small tourney wins. so lendl or connors? who is the greatest of the open era?

Not so fast. First, tell me have you seen Davy play Nadal on HC? Describe your thoughts. :lol:
 

PMChambers

Hall of Fame
Both Agassi and McEnroe at looking at he game of Federer and Nadal played rather than their pure results and both think the peak 28/29 year old Federer vs 24/25 year old Nadal and think Nadal has the edge. Then looking at a peak 28 year old Nadal and his opposition Djokovic (28) and Murray (27) and believes he has the edge throughout the last 5-6 years. The other thing is it's been stated that Federer peaked early and declined during his physical prime 27-29, but it's not true, Federer game was a sound or better when he was 28-30 than his peak results 24-26, but he was facing better field. That is what Mac and Agassi are saying. On a level playing field Nadal is a better player, not all the time but more than even. Federer took advantage in winning 12 GS during a lull 2004-2007 of his 17 GS. When he should have peaked physically and mentally and dominating, Nadal & Djokovic where 23-25 and was starting to dominate. It's there thoughts and where you like them or not it wont effect either of them nor does not actually matter both Nadal and Federer are in the top 5 all time great players and how they stack up is personal choice or biases.
 

PrinceMoron

Legend
Blame it on Rio

Olympics might be back in London if progress is not made in Rio.

Would be a nice way for Federer to bow out and tick one more box.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
And yet 90% of the all time greats had their best results results before 28-30.

What's your argument of Sampras winnong just 4 slams after 26? The field suddenly got tougher?

Go watch Federer play in 2010. It had nohing to do with the field. He was just terrible
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
mike danny, what do you think about Andre Agassi's opinion here?
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
You would expect Nadal to have achieved a lot more than he has given his h2h against Federer.

When all is said and done it is highly unlikely that Nadal will have anything near comparable achievements to Federer.

In a way you could say Nadal won the battle but Federer won the war.

I hate to say it but he is already very close to Fed. He will definitely win the FO this year and will probably pick up 2-3 more majors minimum.

And his Masters 1000 achievements will never be matched.

Really what we will be left with is an impasse of sorts. Sort of like the Graf/Navratilova debate in the women's GOAT discussion.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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
 
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.

the problem is that Federer himself has said time and again, when pressed with questions that he was no longer in his prime, said he IS in his prime. do i really have to drag up all the news articles? or are you really claiming you know federer better than he knows himself?
 

underground

G.O.A.T.
Agassi is pathetic.

So Nadal has won every single major multiple times except for AO.

Did he forget that Federer has won Wimbledon SEVEN times, USO FIVE times, AO FOUR times, and has won every single major MULTIPLE times (definition of multiple being larger than THREE, not just two) except the FO?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
the problem is that Federer himself has said time and again, when pressed with questions that he was no longer in his prime, said he IS in his prime. do i really have to drag up all the news articles? or are you really claiming you know federer better than he knows himself?
Sampras also said in 2002 that he is playing the best tennis of his career (or something like that).

Do you think he is right?
 

TonyB

Hall of Fame
Not going to read 25 pages of this, so I'm not sure if it's been said, but in my opinion, someone who wins 70% of their major titles at one tournament can't be considered the GOAT.

GOAT of clay? Sure. All-time GOAT? No way.
 

Thetouch

Professional
Sampras also said in 2002 that he is playing the best tennis of his career (or something like that).

Do you think he is right?

I don´t think he ever said that. But I know he said he played his best tennis around 1999 when winning Wimbledon and went to a winning streak until withdrawing the US Open. Due to his injuries he also missed the Aussies in early season.But he still destroyed Agassi in the Master Cup 99.
 
the problem is that Federer himself has said time and again, when pressed with questions that he was no longer in his prime, said he IS in his prime. do i really have to drag up all the news articles? or are you really claiming you know federer better than he knows himself?
Hardly any player will ever admit to be becomming worse, they more or less might as well pack it up then. I should think you knew/know this.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Agassi is pathetic.

So Nadal has won every single major multiple times except for AO.

Did he forget that Federer has won Wimbledon SEVEN times, USO FIVE times, AO FOUR times, and has won every single major MULTIPLE times (definition of multiple being larger than THREE, not just two) except the FO?

It's like I said earlier either in this thread or the other one, Agassi told half the story here and left out some important parts. Probably on purpose.
 
Top