Boom-Boom
Legend
Yeah and 6 WTF and 300 weeks as #1
Agassi is just an attention-seeking former meth addict - curiously his late professional tennis years have been ruined by a certain RF :mrgreen:
Andre Agassi picks Rafael Nadal ahead of Roger Federer as tennis's greatest all-time
- Thread starter newpball
- Start date
Yeah and 6 WTF and 300 weeks as #1
Agassi is just an attention-seeking former meth addict - curiously his late professional tennis years have been ruined by a certain RF :mrgreen:
Fiji
Legend
Pretty much.
Marius_Hancu
Talk Tennis Guru
from a cheat like Agassi, a pumper of drugs, can't expect nothing better
he was schooled by Pete in all the slams, happily for the game, both in terms of esthetics and health
he was schooled by Pete in all the slams, happily for the game, both in terms of esthetics and health
What players say about their own levels is completely irrelevant to this kind of analysis. You have to adopt standards of judgment that attempt to filter out subjective factors such as pride, stupidity, gamesmanship, denial, delusions, cluelessness, and self-marketing. What kind of GOAT ranking would depend on whether a player says, "I think I'm playing better at 35 than I did at 25," instead of, "Sorry, didn't catch that, could you repeat the question?"
Yeah decline is so slow and gradual, that you don't even notice it. Like gaining weight for example. You don't feel differently when you gain weight, you feel normal, because it's so slow.
Even Nole said, Fed lost half a step. Also Federer probably means his skills didn't decline, which is true. But skills alone aren't enough in tennis. You need speed and footwork to be in a position to use your skills.
Also you need to recover faster during matches and be less injury prone. That goes away in decline, so you lose consistency.
Also it's combination of both. Fed declined AND guys improved. Actually tennis evolves all the time, so everyone always improves. But Fed stopped improving at some point, that is also a decline. If the field continues to improve and you stay still. That is relative decline too. At first it was that with Federer and other greats, then you start to decline in the true sense.
Perfect example of this is Sampras vs Federer exhibition. His skills were still there. If he was transported directly in a GS final, he would do ok. But his speed and recovery don't allow him to dominate the tour. Without fitness and losing just 10% in speed you can't dominate anymore because competition is so tough.
Last edited:
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Well he has done some good things also.
Paul Murphy
Hall of Fame
Yes. And I interviewed Laver at the AO and he said Federer.
Who to believe?
Maybe it really is a matter of opinion.
Having said that, I'll take 17 Majors over 13 any day.
Who to believe?
Maybe it really is a matter of opinion.
Having said that, I'll take 17 Majors over 13 any day.
Agassi's opinion will be forgotten in a few years, if he doesn't change it himself before then. Laver's opinion also will be forgotten. The opinions expressed by forum members here are forgotten virtually as soon as they are posted.
Twenty-five years from now, assuming Federer and Nadal both remain viable GOAT candidates, anyone wanting to size them up will simply look at their career numbers. No one will ask, "Hey, who'd Agassi pick back in 2014?"It would be fine had Agassi said Nadal is greater than Sampras since it's debatable. But it's foolish to say Nadal is greater than Federer.
Agassi's comment has causes quite a stir. It was the same when Randy Moss causes a stir at the Super Bowl media in 2013 when he said he's the greatest wide receiver of all time. Of course everyone knows Jerry Rice is the greatest by consensus.
Agassi's comment has causes quite a stir. It was the same when Randy Moss causes a stir at the Super Bowl media in 2013 when he said he's the greatest wide receiver of all time. Of course everyone knows Jerry Rice is the greatest by consensus.
It wouldn't be nearly as shocking as to say Nadal > Federer, but no doubt the news would spread all over tennis websites, including twitter.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
Pretty much sums it up. The ex-pros miss the limelight and are jealous of the added fame the current crop gets because of the advancements in social media. So they say something controversial, knowing it will get them headlines.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Nadal just proved yet again he is the greatest warrior of this era by far.
cronus
Professional
Post of the millennium.:lol:
BTW are you uncle toni using Google translate? just curious.
Last edited:
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Yes, a win against an injured opponent really elevates Nadal's standing. :roll:
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Post of the millennium.:lol:
BTW are you uncle toni using Google translate? just curious.
Shhh.. Don't blow my cover.
monfed
Banned
Post of the millennium.:lol:
BTW are you uncle toni using Google translate? just curious.
Si. :lol:
10Sis
PrinceMoron
Legend
17 v 13
Agassi should do the meth, oh, he has.
Agassi should do the meth, oh, he has.
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
Most people would have lost in straights sooner, Nadal was able to last long enough and push Nishikori into submission.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
All credit to Nadal for staying the course but it's pretty obvious he was saved by Nishikori's back issues and fatigue from yesterday's exploits kicking in and forcing him to drop his level just in the nick of time.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
You talk like Nishikori is a 90 year old man. He is 24, at his very peak and is a professional athlete. If he can't rebound after a best of three match with Ferrer something is wrong with that picture. With that said, there is no question Nishikori was playing better than Nadal was today and deserved the win but he was injured yet again. This guy is in a perpetual state of injury it seems. It is too bad because he has some talent.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Sure, sure.
Why don't you make another thread about who is going to win the FO this year. How many have you made so far and how many times have you changed your mind about who is going to win it this year. Next you will be making a thread saying John Isner is going to win the FO.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Sure, sure.
Why don't you make another thread about who is going to win the FO this year. How many have you made so far and how many times have you changed your mind about who is going to win it this year. Next you will be making a thread saying John Isner is going to win the FO.
Huh? You have me confused with someone else.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Ok, yeah you are right. Fiji is the one who keeps making threads about who will win the FO and keeps changing his tune. Sorry.
But you also have been stating that Nadal is finished for how long now?
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Ok, yeah you are right. Fiji is the one who keeps making threads about who will win the FO and keeps changing his tune. Sorry.
But you also have been stating that Nadal is finished for how long now?
I didn't foresee this generation being so lame and taking so long to develop. Also other things like Del Potro's and Murray's injuries, etc. 2013 was a fluke against a geriatric field.
These days, Nadal is getting dominated by every decent player he plays. Agassi could probably come out of retirement and beat him in straights, provided his bad back didn't fail him.
Legend of Borg
G.O.A.T.
wrong thread
SoBad
G.O.A.T.
Just like how he refused to deny the truth that he is an addict, and one addict to another, i see the love.
Don't shoot the messenger -- embrace the message. We are not here to discuss Agassi drug addictions (or criminal matrimonial ties, for that matter).
Which part of "Nadal is much greater than Federer" are you failing understand? Not all hope is lost though for Federer -- 1 or more Olympics + 28 or more M1000 titles could go a long way to mitigate the H2H and give him a stab into the GOAT conversation, assuming Nadal accomplishes nothing more going forward.
MrFlip
Professional
When Nadal has a three or four year period where he win's 3 slams a year, over 5 MS titles and WTF wins then I'll call him the best.
Until he wins another AO and Wimbledon, he will be second best.
Lets see what happens when we take away any of Roger's Slams
Wimbledon = 10 slams (AO 4, US 5, FO 1)
AO = 13 slams (US 5, Wimbledon 7, FO 1)
FO = 16 slams (US 5, Wimbledon 7, AO 4)
US = 12 slams (Wimbledon 7, AO 4, FO 1)
Lets see what happens when we do the same for Nadal
Wimbledon = 11 Slams (AO 1, FO 8, US 2)
AO = 12 slams (Wimbledon 2, FO 8, US 2)
FO = 5 slams (Wimbledon 2, AO 1, US 2)
US = 11 slams (Wimbledon 2, FO 8, AO 1)
When we compare the two player's best slams or most favoured, Nadal doesn't fare too well, with only 5 slams outside the FO since 2001 (13 years).
Federer on the other hand has managed to obtain 10 slams outside Wimbledon since 1998 (16 years).
Nadal has earned around 36 clay titles outside of slams. 63 - 36 = 27. 27 - 13 = 14. Nadal has won 14 titles not on clay
Federer has earned around 8 titles on clay not including FO. 78 - 17 = 61. 61 - 8 = 53. That's not too bad considering that's across two surfaces.
Regardless of H2H, it appears Fed has dealt better with the contenders of his prime meanwhile Nadal hasn't (outside of clay). Considering Nadal denied Fed numerous Masters on clay and slams it's a fair argument to say Fed has a better standing on clay since he generally lost to one person on that surface during his prime. Meanwhile Nadal (the GOAT) has lost to more players on surfaces outside clay.
Until he wins another AO and Wimbledon, he will be second best.
Lets see what happens when we take away any of Roger's Slams
Wimbledon = 10 slams (AO 4, US 5, FO 1)
AO = 13 slams (US 5, Wimbledon 7, FO 1)
FO = 16 slams (US 5, Wimbledon 7, AO 4)
US = 12 slams (Wimbledon 7, AO 4, FO 1)
Lets see what happens when we do the same for Nadal
Wimbledon = 11 Slams (AO 1, FO 8, US 2)
AO = 12 slams (Wimbledon 2, FO 8, US 2)
FO = 5 slams (Wimbledon 2, AO 1, US 2)
US = 11 slams (Wimbledon 2, FO 8, AO 1)
When we compare the two player's best slams or most favoured, Nadal doesn't fare too well, with only 5 slams outside the FO since 2001 (13 years).
Federer on the other hand has managed to obtain 10 slams outside Wimbledon since 1998 (16 years).
Nadal has earned around 36 clay titles outside of slams. 63 - 36 = 27. 27 - 13 = 14. Nadal has won 14 titles not on clay
Federer has earned around 8 titles on clay not including FO. 78 - 17 = 61. 61 - 8 = 53. That's not too bad considering that's across two surfaces.
Regardless of H2H, it appears Fed has dealt better with the contenders of his prime meanwhile Nadal hasn't (outside of clay). Considering Nadal denied Fed numerous Masters on clay and slams it's a fair argument to say Fed has a better standing on clay since he generally lost to one person on that surface during his prime. Meanwhile Nadal (the GOAT) has lost to more players on surfaces outside clay.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Styles make fights. In tennis match ups matter. Nadal was always a bad match up .com fed hence why an unproven Nadal coukd beat fed in Miami in 2004 at Fed's HC prime.
Age+bad match up= Nadal wins....except on a court that favors fed but then Nadal isn't around to be faced.
Last edited:
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
Did Agassi really call this the 'golden' era of tennis? If so then John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors should go to Vegas and ***** smack him. Really it's been the same since 2007 with Fed/Nad/Murray/Djok at the top (and putting Murray in that category is a stretch since he just won his first slam in 2012).
Look at today's top 10, is Wawrinka really any better than 03-06 Nalbandian? Is Ferrer better than Davydenko at his peak? Berdych is no way in HELL better than Roddick. Prime Hewitt? Yet people act like the guys Roger was beating from 03-05 were crap compared to what's there now. I don't buy it one bit. Nadal has a past prime Fed, Djokovic (who did dominate him for an entire year lest we forget), and Murray who really only got "IT" in 2012. Other than that the competition of today isn't that much different from what was there in 03-05 era when Fed was far more dominant than Nadal is right now or ever has been.
Look at today's top 10, is Wawrinka really any better than 03-06 Nalbandian? Is Ferrer better than Davydenko at his peak? Berdych is no way in HELL better than Roddick. Prime Hewitt? Yet people act like the guys Roger was beating from 03-05 were crap compared to what's there now. I don't buy it one bit. Nadal has a past prime Fed, Djokovic (who did dominate him for an entire year lest we forget), and Murray who really only got "IT" in 2012. Other than that the competition of today isn't that much different from what was there in 03-05 era when Fed was far more dominant than Nadal is right now or ever has been.
ScottleeSV
Hall of Fame
Nadal 8-1 Federer (clay)
Federer 9-3 Nadal (hard)
Federer 7-2 Nadal (grass)
Overall, 2-1 to Fed.
Impossible for Nadal to turn that around. Fed will always be better than him on two of the three surfaces.
Federer 9-3 Nadal (hard)
Federer 7-2 Nadal (grass)
Overall, 2-1 to Fed.
Impossible for Nadal to turn that around. Fed will always be better than him on two of the three surfaces.
monfed
Banned
This is the H2H that matters.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
I totally agree with you and the fact that Haas (then number 2) came back at 34 years of age and got very close to the top 10 (beating Djokovic on the way) emphasizes that the "golden era" argument is a fraud. And whoever tells me that Haas played better at 34 than in his prime really needs a reality check.
Now is always "golden era". I think it was polite expression. Also tennis community always promote current tour.
I personally think 70-90s were the toughest era to win slams simple because
of surface varieties.
Pre-Open, 20+ slams (amatuer + pro). Now practically one surface. Top
players will reach 20 slams.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Thanks Hewitt, Roddick and old man Agassi.
Now we can brag about how good our idol Federer is :lol:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
You act like Hewitt and Roddick are soooo weak.
But in fact, Roddick has as many USO's as Djokovic.
Hewitt has as many W's and USO's as Djokovic.
And Federer dominated these 2 events beating these guys. Without Fed they could have also added more W's and USO's to their tallies.
Federer would beat Djokovic at W and USO just as well as he did with Hewitt and Roddick
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Also you forgot to add Djokovic, Murray and Nadal himself in the list of guys Fed defeated to win these slams.
But of course you have to ignore them in order to suit your argument
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Oh sorry i forgot. Hewitt and Roddick are not in the same class as Simon, Verdasco, Youzhny, Robredo and Gasquet. These guys whom Rafaa defeated are legends of the game
TheMusicLover
G.O.A.T.
Haas also just ousted the latest slam winner of this current 'Golden Age of Tennis'... aged 36. :lol:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
And WHY does Novak have only 1 USO title? Because of Nadal and Federer.
Why does Roddick have only 1 USO title? Because he's not that good...
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
Not sure if serious...
Roddick lost to the eventual champ or finalist 6x in his USO career. Djokovic has lost to the eventual champ or finalist...6x in his USO career.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
The logic… You're killing it, have mercy.
Roddick has only one Wimbledon title because of Federer and no Wimbledon titles because of Federer as well.
Roddick in his prime thrashed Nadal at the USO with ease. Nadal could not cope with Roddick's big serve and forehand, surrendering the first set 0-6. Djokovic lost to Isner (a poor man's Roddick really) on a slow hard court in his prime (Indian Wells 2012). I wonder what would happen on a faster USO hard court against Roddick… :roll:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Sorry had to bump this thread for this interview from Wilander one of the supposed champions of the Rafa is GOAT movement;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_USmscL29g&feature=player_detailpage#t=335
Guess who he picks?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_USmscL29g&feature=player_detailpage#t=335
Guess who he picks?
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I just watched this as well, but I think both would have been fine with any rackets and found a way to hone their talents dare I say even in multiple racket sports... well that's far reaching, but at least in tennis.
