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

[monfed]

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.

Haha, basically this.

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

Federer's legacy hinges on beating Hewitt and Roddick.

yes , and becoming nº1 and won titles with 31 years old against the super stars nadal , murray and djokovic.

you should talk of kitchen , not tennis my friend.

one guy talk about sampras`s thalasemmia , but that is sign of greatness??? or a sing on an era who was dominated by a guy with physicall problems and other guy in drugs and worried of his hair and that hated tennis????

 

[NatF]

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?

Look his losses in early 2010, he didn't make a final between the AO and Madrid in 2010. He won only 5 matches in 4 tournaments. Gets taken to 5 sets by Falla at Wimbledon and loses in the Quarters.

Post Wimbledon Federer played a lot better though, it must be said, but prime Federer does not slump like that. He didn't win a title between the AO and Cincinnati.

Sampras said he was playing his best tennis post 2000, it's a common thing for these players...

 

[Thetouch]

Sampras was talking about his last match as being his best match:

"The best tennis I played was when I was older. I wasn't as consistent week in and week out but that match I played against Andre [Agassi] at the 2002 US Open - my last match ever - was the highest level I have ever played.

But considering he only won 3 tournaments from 2000-2002 (of course WB and the Open) it is simple to say he wasn´t playing at his best anymore at that point. He says he got better when he was older which is to me 27-30. And there are some interviews where he says his best tennis he played was around 1999 during Wimbledon an right before the Open.

 

[NatF]

Sampras was talking about his last match as being his best match:



But considering he only won 3 tournaments from 2000-2002 (of course WB and the Open) it is simple to say he wasn´t playing at his best anymore at that point. He says he got better when he was older which is to me 27-30. And there are some interviews where he says his best tennis he played was around 1999 during Wimbledon an right before the Open.

I recall another interview where he said the competition had gotten better and that's why he wasn't winning so much.

 

[Mick]

For me, I don't know if Nadal is really the GOAT but the blemish on Federer's record as the GOAT is that since 2007 he has never beat Nadal in a GS tournament. IMO, the greatest player of all time cannot have a losing record against one of his rivals. So maybe neither one is the GOAT.

 

[SLD76]

What nonsense. NO athlete with a y competitive juices will ever publicly admit decline.


I recall roddick, whom we all know fed owned, being asked by reporters if fed was simply better than him. Roddick bristled and replied "if I belie e that then I may as well pack up my racquets and quit"

No athlete with any pride will ever say they are past it or that there is a player they can't beat.

And anybody who thinks fed was in his prime from 09 to current is a damn fool

 

[SLD76]

For me, I don't know if Nadal is really the GOAT but the blemish on Federer's record as the GOAT is that since 2007 he has never beat Nadal in a GS tournament. IMO, the greatest player of all time cannot have a losing record against one of his rivals. So maybe neither one is the GOAT.

Fair enough. But it's also a blight to Nadal he couldn't manage to meet fed more often in slams whose surfaces favor fed. Only 2 wb finals( fed has made 1 wb final since 08, but Nadal has only made 2 himself) no uso finals. (Since 08 fed has one uso final, Nadal only 2)

So even with Fed being past it Nadal still can barely make a slam final outside of paris.

So.....basically fed is penalized for success (consistent enough to make finals of all surfaces and face Nadal on least favorable surfaces), yet somehow Nadal is rewarded for failure?

 

[objectivity]

Look his losses in early 2010, he didn't make a final between the AO and Madrid in 2010. He won only 5 matches in 4 tournaments. Gets taken to 5 sets by Falla at Wimbledon and loses in the Quarters.

Post Wimbledon Federer played a lot better though, it must be said, but prime Federer does not slump like that. He didn't win a title between the AO and Cincinnati.

Sampras said he was playing his best tennis post 2000, it's a common thing for these players...

the issue is that it is extremely difficult to disentangle whether it is cos Federer's level had declined, or others had become better! The only best measure we have is what the player himself thinks.

 

[SLD76]

the issue is that it is extremely difficult to disentangle whether it is cos Federer's level had declined, or others had become better! The only best measure we have is what the player himself thinks.

Lmaoooo ok buddy.

Yes Berdych falla and mardy fish all became immortals in 2010. Funny how they all peaked together rofl.

 

[Thetouch]

I recall another interview where he said the competition had gotten better and that's why he wasn't winning so much.

I think it has a lot to do with pride.;-)

I call myself a fan of Sampras´ though he is not my all time favourite and I respect Agassi for what he did in his later years but despite knowing both players were highly gifted I doubt they could have had the success they had in early 2000´s if it wasn´t for lack of competition. There is no way the Sampras from 2002 was any better than the Sampras from late 90´s, let alone his physicaly abilitty. I sure might be deadly wrong.

 

[objectivity]

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 am not averse to that notion. his serve was way better towards the end of his career than even at the commonly accepted "peak" of 95-97. his second serve's average speed really ramped up towards the end. besides as i have always said, it is almost impossible to disentangle whether a player is declining or others have just gotten better. for example, back in 95-97, sampras never had to deal with the kind of power safin had.

 

[NatF]

the issue is that it is extremely difficult to disentangle whether it is cos Federer's level had declined, or others had become better! The only best measure we have is what the player himself thinks.

So the players ranked around number 30 all improved rather than Federer declining? It makes much more sense for a player of 28 years of old to decline at a similar age to other greats than for the entire field to improve.

Not only that but the field in 2010 clearly declined compared to 2009. Federer, Djokoic, Murray all had much worse results plus Davydenko and Del Potro fell off. Essentially the whole top half of the top 10 regressed.

But yes Federer loses several guys ranked ranked outside the top 30 but he's still prime. The top 30 just improved.

 

[SLD76]

For sampras it was a number of things.

1) age and decline

2) changes in racquets and court speeds

3) younger players with heavy bass line games.


These three factors explain him getting demolished back to back years by Safin and Hewitt in the uso final

 

[objectivity]

Lmaoooo ok buddy.

Yes Berdych falla and mardy fish all became immortals in 2010. Funny how they all peaked together rofl.

could it be that federer never got better because he had already peaked -- but stayed at the same level -- while others continued working hard and got better? so the gap between him and the rest fell? is that possible?

 

[objectivity]

So the players ranked around number 30 all improved rather than Federer declining? It makes much more sense for a player of 28 years of old to decline at a similar age to other greats than for the entire field to improve.

Not only that but the field in 2010 clearly declined compared to 2009. Federer, Djokoic, Murray all had much worse results plus Davydenko and Del Potro fell off. Essentially the whole top half of the top 10 regressed.

But yes Federer loses several guys ranked ranked outside the top 30 but he's still prime. The top 30 just improved.

Federer doesn't have to decline -- he is just stagnant. isn't that possible?

 

[SLD76]

So the players ranked around number 30 all improved rather than Federer declining? It makes much more sense for a player of 28 years of old to decline at a similar age to other greats than for the entire field to improve.

Not only that but the field in 2010 clearly declined compared to 2009. Federer, Djokoic, Murray all had much worse results plus Davydenko and Del Potro fell off. Essentially the whole top half of the top 10 regressed.

But yes Federer loses several guys ranked ranked outside the top 30 but he's still prime. The top 30 just improved.

I don't know why you keep bothering with this guy. Some people revel in willful ignorance.

 

[NatF]

could it be that federer never got better because he had already peaked -- but stayed at the same level -- while others continued working hard and got better? so the gap between him and the rest fell? is that possible?

Occam's razor, whats more likely the entire field got better or one player got worse/less consistent?

Try and be objective, it is after all in your name.

 

[SLD76]

could it be that federer never got better because he had already peaked -- but stayed at the same level -- while others continued working hard and got better? so the gap between him and the rest fell? is that possible?

Could also be that nothing you say makes any logical sense

 

[objectivity]

Occam's razor, whats more likely the entire field got better or one player got worse/less consistent?

Try and be objective, it is after all in your name.

i think federer had peaked, and stayed that level. while others had room to catch up.

 

[NatF]

Nadal was playing his peak clay tennis when he lost to Ferrer and Almagrom right objectivity?

Edit: What you think is quite frankly illogical. Federer is lucky Albert Montanes wasn't around to stop him making clay finals in 2006...

 

[objectivity]

Nadal was playing his peak clay tennis when he lost to Ferrer and Almagrom right objectivity?

Edit: What you think is quite frankly illogical. Federer is lucky Albert Montanes wasn't around to stop him making clay finals in 2006...

he could well be. doesn't mean he can't have bad days, or his opponents simply got better.

i had not claimed i know better. you guys are the ones who bear the entire burden of proof. i am merely postulating that Federer himself said he is /was in his prime -- who are we to judge?

 

[NatF]

he could well be. doesn't mean he can't have bad days, or his opponents simply got better.

i had not claimed i know better. you guys are the ones who bear the entire burden of proof. i am merely postulating that Federer himself said he is /was in his prime -- who are we to judge?

So Nadal was playing his best stuff but Almagro and Ferrer were just better?

Ok good to know, I'll let everyone who's been talking about Nadal's game dropping off a bit this year know that it's just the competition. This includes the commentators because clearly the 7 or so of them who've been saying Nadal's been struggling with his game are wrong too...

We have eyes and video's to judge.

Edit: Federer said he was a better playing in 2013 than in 2007, I guess the entire top 100 has now reached him the last 4 years :lol:

 

[objectivity]

So Nadal was playing his best stuff but Almagro and Ferrer were just better?

Ok good to know, I'll let everyone who's been talking about Nadal's game dropping off a bit this year know that it's just the competition. This includes the commentators because clearly the 7 or so of them who've been saying Nadal's been struggling with his game are wrong too...

We have eyes and video's to judge.

i honestly don't know if he had gotten worse. but as i had said, being in prime form does not preclude "off-days". for eg, a player can win 2 GS titles in a season -- prime form generally speaking -- but still lose in the first round of Wimbledon to an unknown because he might have had an off-day.

 

[forehand fan]

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

i have no problem in admitting that davy dominates nadal on hc. now back to my question. lendl or connors?

 

[NatF]

i honestly don't know if he had gotten worse. but as i had said, being in prime form does not preclude "off-days". for eg, a player can win 2 GS titles in a season -- prime form generally speaking -- but still lose in the first round of Wimbledon by an unknown because he might have had an off-day.

Yes but Federer didn't have those off days during his prime, at least not 4 tournaments in a row...

I wonder when you will accept that Federer has decline, what player has ever maintained the same level for a decade

 

[objectivity]

Yes but Federer didn't have those off days during his prime, at least not 4 tournaments in a row...

I wonder when you will accept that Federer has decline, what player has ever maintained the same level for a decade

I respect Federer so much, I tend to not regard what he says as lies.

 

[mike danny]

I respect Federer so much, I tend to not regard what he says as lies.

Wouldn't you criticize Federer if he admitted he is past it, thus not giving credit to the players who beat him?

 

[Mick]

Fair enough. But it's also a blight to Nadal he couldn't manage to meet fed more often in slams whose surfaces favor fed. Only 2 wb finals( fed has made 1 wb final since 08, but Nadal has only made 2 himself) no uso finals. (Since 08 fed has one uso final, Nadal only 2)

So even with Fed being past it Nadal still can barely make a slam final outside of paris.

So.....basically fed is penalized for success (consistent enough to make finals of all surfaces and face Nadal on least favorable surfaces), yet somehow Nadal is rewarded for failure?

for me, i would say Federer accomplishes more and clearly has a better record but it's hard to say he's the goat when he kept on losing to Nadal. Not sure if you would consider the Australian Open a slam that favors Nadal but Federer lost to Nadal again quite easily a few months ago.

 

[mike danny]

for me, i would say Federer accomplishes more and clearly has a better record but it's hard to say he's the goat when he kept on losing to Nadal. Not sure if you would consider the Australian Open a slam that favors Nadal but Federer lost to Nadal again quite easily a few months ago.

At his age he is just going to keep losing. Nadal is too much for him now.

 

[monfed]

for me, i would say Federer accomplishes more and clearly has a better record but it's hard to say he's the goat when he kept on losing to Nadal. Not sure if you would consider the Australian Open a slam that favors Nadal but Federer lost to Nadal again quite easily a few months ago.

Plexicushion favours Nadal. And Fed's well past his prime now or do you think that doesn't count?

 

[mandy01]

Federer doesn't have to decline -- he is just stagnant. isn't that possible?

I'm going to leave aside the fact that Federer HAS been in decline, at the very least since 2010. But leaving aside that, I'm going to address the stagnant part. That is the biggest bunch of bollocks ever. If anything, Federer has been at a constant disadvantage in the game ever since the tour decided they wanted only one type of style to work everywhere. He is the one who had to adjust the MOST out of any top player. Nadal of course, the least.

 

[mike danny]

I respect Federer so much, I tend to not regard what he says as lies.

Just think for a second.

Untill 2010, Federer reached 18 out of 19 slam finals and 23 consecutive SF.

Untill 2010 he missed a slam final only 4 times in 25 slams.

Any rational person would know that after all this mountain of consistency and high level, a player's level of play would decline eventually. For Federer, 2010 was the beginning of his decline

 

[Russeljones]

Agassi is bitter that Federer reduced Agassi's career to a mere footnote in modern tennis history.

 

[kanamit]

This is the equivalent of Agassi wearing neon clothing onto the court in the early 90s. The man likes his attention, and knows how to get the media buzzing. Take his remarks with a grain of salt.

 

[Mick]

Plexicushion favours Nadal. And Fed's well past his prime now or do you think that doesn't count?

my problem is at his age, Federer still could beat Djokovic, Murray, etc.... but when he runs into Nadal, most likely he would lose. If you don't mind that, that's ok but I am bothered by that.

I like both players, Djokovic too, so i don't care which one of them is considered the Goat.

 

[monfed]

Agassi is bitter that Federer reduced Agassi's career to a mere footnote in modern tennis history.

But Agassi did call Fed the GOAT not too long ago. Plus he has more reason to be bitter about Pete than Fed.

 

[World Beater]

andre comes from a boxing family.

he has long compared tennis to boxing..mano-e-mano style, where hth plays a big role.

I dont think it has anything to do with jealousy or bitterness at all.

Its just that as a spectator watching nadal make federer look hapless is kind of a buzz kill when taking about fed as the GOAT.

Can't really blame the guy. With the proper perspective, one will see that federer is still objectively the best based on records, but in the moment when he is getting throttled by nadal - its easy to miss all that.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

For me, I don't know if Nadal is really the GOAT but the blemish on Federer's record as the GOAT is that since 2007 he has never beat Nadal in a GS tournament. IMO, the greatest player of all time cannot have a losing record against one of his rivals. So maybe neither one is the GOAT.

Considering their age difference and Nadals comparative strength on slower surfaces, it is ok...

 

[Povl Carstensen]

the issue is that it is extremely difficult to disentangle whether it is cos Federer's level had declined, or others had become better! The only best measure we have is what the player himself thinks.

No, because hardly any player would ever admit to declining.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Federer doesn't have to decline -- he is just stagnant. isn't that possible?

It is not so much about what is possible, but what is more probable, and what you see with your eyes also ofcourse.

 

[Thetouch]

I don´t get this. Yes Federer is way older than Nadal and probably past his prime but he hasn´t beaten him at any GS since 2007 If am not mistaken. Federer was like 27, still young which is normaly an age you are about to peak in while Nadal was in his early 20´s and not even close to his prime.

 

[objectivity]

Wouldn't you criticize Federer if he admitted he is past it, thus not giving credit to the players who beat him?

no, i wouldn't criticize him.

 

[objectivity]

Just think for a second.

Untill 2010, Federer reached 18 out of 19 slam finals and 23 consecutive SF.

Untill 2010 he missed a slam final only 4 times in 25 slams.

Any rational person would know that after all this mountain of consistency and high level, a player's level of play would decline eventually. For Federer, 2010 was the beginning of his decline

or the beginning of his opponents' rise without him declining.

 

[mike danny]

or the beginning of his opponents' rise without him declining.

Untill 2010 Federer owned both Soderling and Berdych.

It is not like some new oppoents just appeared and took Federer by surprise. No. He simply started losing to players he normally used to beat.

Decline is normal. And when it happens, even the matches you are supposed to win don't go your way.

Let's be real. Federer did not maintain the same level in 2010 he had in 2004-2009, which is why he was prone to more losses. I don't believe that myth that suddenly plenty of players you used to beat on a regular basis suddenly got better while you remained the same. You simply lost a step and others simply took advantage of this.

 

[TMF]

could it be that federer never got better because he had already peaked -- but stayed at the same level -- while others continued working hard and got better? so the gap between him and the rest fell? is that possible?

Highly unlikely. History isn't on your side since all great players achieved the most before their 28th birthday.

 

[Russeljones]

But Agassi did call Fed the GOAT not too long ago. Plus he has more reason to be bitter about Pete than Fed.

1) He feels a need to be a part of the tennis buz (just like JMac, PCash, BBecker and everyone else airing opinions in front of the media).

2) Sampras maybe made him feel second best. Federer has made him feel inadequate. Two different things, I know which one I'd hate more.

 

[agreed]

Fed isn't the best. Losing at age 21-5 and 29, 30 & 32 to mug safin once, hewitt, benneteau, roddick & stakhovsky didn't involve much more aging efforts than any other Siam winner because he didn't play Davis cup and lost early in masters1000, Olympics & clay events the last 7 years.

He's not the best when better journeymen are winning easily and he can't come back from 2-5 or 1-5 in finals unless you count injured chokers benneteau & del potro, and Ramirez-hidalgo who inexplicably threw away 2 chances to serve out a clay match with mindless unforced errors.
Less talented journeymen lost to fed easily, so don't give the ******** about fed being old since 2007-8.
With a wood racket, fed wouldn't be so lucky at age 30, let alone 32.
He depends a lot on easy hard flat shots & aces just like he did in 2002-2006.

Nadal, Djoker and tsonga beat him from final set deficits.
Nadal did when he was down 2-5 two breaks and tsonga came back from 1-5 in 2008 Montreal.
Fed was beaten 4 times from 2 sets to one lead- djoko twice, tsonga, del potro
In 2007, he was beaten back to back by canas who also owned him in 2002.
He talked like he was so bitter about getting fairly beaten and getting revenge on canas. Canas was missing from the tour before playing in indian wells.
What a joke.
Why was grass more important when the clowns from 2002-2006 couldn't win another fluke slam after 2004-5?

Did roddick feel like calling federer lucky in roddick's planless matches with federer? How come Djoker was a junior shot maker to fed, but Roddick was described by federer as his "man"? Because Roddick was a self-described friendly fellow to djokovic despite being a smug, shamelessly insulting, violent thug at the 2008 us open to djokovic?

 

[Fiji]

No discussion until Nadal hits 17 slams(not sure that will happen though, he is getting old for a grinder).

 

[Fiji]

Double post.