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

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
I wouldn't say Wilander was not dominating in those years. There were many players who were considered "dominating" during that period, and Wilander was definitely one of them.

Off-topic but Wilander is so underrated.

He won 7 slams in 7 years from 1982-1988, in one of the toughest periods of men's tennis. Don't know why some people want to ignore his success.
 

Thetouch

Professional
Who did Sampras have to deal with, who was so tough?

Are you kidding? Some of the greatest players ever played in his era.

Who did Federer have to deal with, especially from 2003-2007? An almost retired and aged Agassi and an up coming Nadal were his opponents. Since the competition became tougher, Federer barely succeed like he did prior. Just compare him to Nadal since 2008-2014:

Nadal 10 GS
Federer 5 GS
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
Your definition of dominating is wrong. Dominating does not mean you have to be #1. You just have to win the most important tournament. Slams are the most important tournament in tennis and Nadal has been winning the slams for 9 consecutive years and counting. This is exactly what long period of domination is all about, not just being #1.

Your definition of dominating doesn't even make sense. He hasn't been number 1 for 2 straight years..

If we go through the weeks at number 1 (a fair statistic with regards to dominating), he's second.

If we look at slams won in the last decade... he's still second.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
I wouldn't say Wilander was not dominating in those years. There were many players who were considered "dominating" during that period, and Wilander was definitely one of them.

The only time anyone ever considered Mats Wilander to be dominating tennis was 1988. Winning a slam and/or otherwise having a solid year does not equal domination. Wilander in particular was deemed a relatively "soft" player before 1988: great on clay, and generally consistent, but unable to impose his will in events and on surfaces not to his liking. Before 1988, Wilander was always the third guy on the totem pole at best. He was assuredly not a dominant force.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
Are you kidding? Some of the greatest players ever played in his era.

Who did Federer have to deal with, especially from 2003-2007? An almost retired and aged Agassi and an up coming Nadal were his opponents. Since the competition became tougher, Federer barely succeed like he did prior. Just compare him to Nadal since 2008-2014:

Nadal 10 GS
Federer 5 GS

What a silly argument. No one's tennis career should be measured by results achieved at age 27 and up.
 

Omega_7000

Legend
Are you kidding? Some of the greatest players ever played in his era.

Who did Federer have to deal with, especially from 2003-2007? An almost retired and aged Agassi and an up coming Nadal were his opponents. Since the competition became tougher, Federer barely succeed like he did prior. Just compare him to Nadal since 2008-2014:

Nadal 10 GS
Federer 5 GS

Sampras' H2H:-

vs krajicek :4-6
vs stich : 4-5
vs bruguera : 2-3
vs hewitt : 4-5
vs safin : 4-5
vs roddick : 1-2

Let's look at his rivals,

Agassi --- A good case for him being a chief rival even though he wasn't mentally there during Sampras' prime (meth, daddy issues etc.)...Teenage Nadal did more in 2005-2007 than Agassi from 1986-June 1999. Talk about having a worthy main rival.
Already dominating clay (3 French Open titles and barely any losses)
Already reaching 2 Wimbledon finals (as many as Agassi did in his entire career)
Getting better and better on hard courts with a couple of MS titles and Slam QF appearances

Bruguera --- two majors on clay in 93' and 94'. Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay.

Courier --- Two majors on clay in 91' and 92' (Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay.) & Two AO's in 92' and 93' (The two AO wins qualify him to be one of Sampras' rivals)

Goran --- Won his only Wim in 2001 when Sampras was wayy past his prime. Roddick is crucified for losing to Federer in important matches after winning a major and being number 1 but Goran is a greater rival than Roddick, Hewitt, Safin even though he was never able to overcome Agassi and Sampras in their primes and was never ranked # 1?

Becker --- won his last major in 1996. Even though he won his last major in 96', he did so by not beating Sampras who lost to Philippoussis in the fourth round...If Federer had lost in the fourth round at the 2006 USO, Roddick could've won his second major. Becker's prime was late 80's,90' and 91'. his prime did not coincide with Sampras' prime.

Edberg -- won his last major in 1992. Only one major coincides with Sampras' prime or his era of dominance. Can you really call him one of his rival? I don't think his prime coincided with Sampras'

Rafter --- Winner of USO in 97' and 98'. Good argument for Rafter to be a rival.

Muster --- Won his only major on clay in 1995. Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay.

Chang --- Won his only only major on clay in 1989. Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay and this win was way before Sampras won his first major.


So really I would only consider Agassi, Courier and Rafter to be Sampras' rivals. Even though there were other big names...They were just that...Big names who were past their prime and/or won a surface where Sampras never had a chance to begin with.
 

Thetouch

Professional
I think it just depends on your definition of GOAT really.

For me GOAT is the best player the sport can offer right now in terms of titles, stats, trophies, numbers etc. Federer has majority of those and he DOMINATED tennis for 4-5 years.

Yeah but like I said, I can´t call him the GOAT just because he has won more GS than anybody else. It depends on so manny things as there are different eras, different competition, changes of the surfaces, etc. Lets take again the comparisson to Nadal who happens to play in the same era:

Nadal has even won Wimbledon twice, including beating Federer

Federer has won the French once but always lost to Nadal
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Are you kidding? Some of the greatest players ever played in his era.

Who did Federer have to deal with, especially from 2003-2007? An almost retired and aged Agassi and an up coming Nadal were his opponents. Since the competition became tougher, Federer barely succeed like he did prior. Just compare him to Nadal since 2008-2014:

Nadal 10 GS
Federer 5 GS
You forget that Fed was 27-32 during 2008-2013 and Nadal 22-27.

Your argumnt is silly.
 
Your definition of dominating is wrong. Dominating does not mean you have to be #1. You just have to win the most important tournament. Slams are the most important tournament in tennis and Nadal has been winning the slams for 9 consecutive years and counting. This is exactly what long period of domination is all about, not just being #1.
Well I would rather have the record for nr 1 than for nr 2.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Sampras' H2H:-

vs krajicek :4-6
vs stich : 4-5
vs bruguera : 2-3
vs hewitt : 4-5
vs safin : 4-5
vs roddick : 1-2

Let's look at his rivals,

Agassi --- A good case for him being a chief rival even though he wasn't mentally there during Sampras' prime (meth, daddy issues etc.)...Teenage Nadal did more in 2005-2007 than Agassi from 1986-June 1999. Talk about having a worthy main rival.
Already dominating clay (3 French Open titles and barely any losses)
Already reaching 2 Wimbledon finals (as many as Agassi did in his entire career)
Getting better and better on hard courts with a couple of MS titles and Slam QF appearances

Bruguera --- two majors on clay in 93' and 94'. Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay.

Courier --- Two majors on clay in 91' and 92' (Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay.) & Two AO's in 92' and 93' (The two AO wins qualify him to be one of Sampras' rivals)

Goran --- Won his only Wim in 2001 when Sampras was wayy past his prime. Roddick is crucified for losing to Federer in important matches after winning a major and being number 1 but Goran is a greater rival than Roddick, Hewitt, Safin even though he was never able to overcome Agassi and Sampras in their primes and was never ranked # 1?

Becker --- won his last major in 1996. Even though he won his last major in 96', he did so by not beating Sampras who lost to Philippoussis in the fourth round...If Federer had lost in the fourth round at the 2006 USO, Roddick could've won his second major. Becker's prime was late 80's,90' and 91'. his prime did not coincide with Sampras' prime.

Edberg -- won his last major in 1992. Only one major coincides with Sampras' prime or his era of dominance. Can you really call him one of his rival? I don't think his prime coincided with Sampras'

Rafter --- Winner of USO in 97' and 98'. Good argument for Rafter to be a rival.

Muster --- Won his only major on clay in 1995. Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay.

Chang --- Won his only only major on clay in 1989. Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay and this win was way before Sampras won his first major.


So really I would only consider Agassi, Courier and Rafter to be Sampras' rivals. Even though there were other big names...They were just that...Big names who were past their prime and/or won a surface where Sampras never had a chance to begin with.
Sampras and Agassi only met 3 times in majors between 93-98. What kind of rival was that? They did not meet in a major in '94, '96, '97, '98. That's 4 years. Had Nadal been missing for so much Fed would have already won 2 CYGS. Even eithout Agassi Sampras never had this opporunity.

Rafter began to be a rival mostly after 1997, when Sampras already was approaching the end of his prime.

Courier was done after AO 1994.

Sampras never had rivals of Nadal,Djokovic, Murray quality in any period of his career.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Your definition of dominating is wrong. Dominating does not mean you have to be #1. You just have to win the most important tournament. Slams are the most important tournament in tennis and Nadal has been winning the slams for 9 consecutive years and counting. This is exactly what long period of domination is all about, not just being #1.
And yet in 2005, 2006,2007,2009,2011,2012 Nadal was always behind somebody else at no.2.

This can hardly be called dominating.
 
No matter whether Agassi is serious or not people miscalculate the success of different players. Federer has won 17 GS, so what? The circumstances count not the total overall victories. By saying that Nadal´s GS victories (just like Sampras´) are more impressive to me considering who he has had to deal with in order to succeed. Besides owning Federer in total H2H in the slams Federer has lost like 4 or 5 times in Roland Garros to Nadal so imo he is hardly considered to be the GOAT when Nadals owns him. Anyway, when it comes the GOAT I am not convinced that Nadal is the best either.
No he is the best on clay, overall Federer is better.
 

Thetouch

Professional
Sampras' H2H:-

vs krajicek :4-6
vs stich : 4-5
vs bruguera : 2-3
vs hewitt : 4-5
vs safin : 4-5
vs roddick : 1-2

So what is that suppose to mean? What have Roddick, Hewitt and Safin to do with that conversation? Most of these guys barely played against Sampras in GS, let alone guys like Roddick who may beat him at regular tournaments once or twice but got his a** whipped at the US Open. Btw, Stich vs Sampras is 3:3, they only faced in WB once when Sampras won. Safin is 3:3 and 2:2 when it comes to slams and Hewitt is 1:1 in GS. And Pete mostly met against Safin, Hewitt and Roddick when he was past his prime.



Agassi --- A good case for him being a chief rival even though he wasn't mentally there during Sampras' prime (meth, daddy issues etc.)...Teenage Nadal did more in 2005-2007 than Agassi from 1986-June 1999. Talk about having a worthy main rival.

What a bad comparisson.:twisted:

Agassi´s opponents were players you won´t ever forget because they wrote history. Really? Are comparing Nadal in 2005-07 with Agassi???

Already dominating clay (3 French Open titles and barely any losses)
Already reaching 2 Wimbledon finals (as many as Agassi did in his entire career)

Don´t make me laugh.^^

Wimbledon in the 80s and 90s is a whole different story than that twice slowed down WB we do have now without any guy playing S&V. Big deal for Nadal winning WM, when Agassi atleast had to deal with S&V killers like Sampras, Becker, Stich, Edberg, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek etc.

Becker --- won his last major in 1996. Even though he won his last major in 96', he did so by not beating Sampras who lost to Philippoussis in the fourth round...If Federer had lost in the fourth round at the 2006 USO, Roddick could've won his second major. Becker's prime was late 80's,90' and 91'. his prime did not coincide with Sampras' prime.

Becker peaked (again) in 96 and even when he got surgery on his whrist he was still a threat to Sampras, just like he was in 95. Becker wasn´t focussed enough but he beat Sampras in some great matches when Pete was in his prime (esp. on carpet).

Edberg -- won his last major in 1992. Only one major coincides with Sampras' prime or his era of dominance. Can you really call him one of his rival? I don't think his prime coincided with Sampras'

He retired in 96 and has a positive H2H against him in slams. You forget that all those players like Agassi, Edberg, Rafter, Chang, Stich, Becker, Courier etc. often played against each other in early rounds in GS or other tournaments so they couldn´t play all the time against Sampras because they eliminatedted themselves which prooves what a hard competition it was. We are talking here about multiple slam winners dude ;-)

Chang --- Won his only only major on clay in 1989. Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay and this win was way before Sampras won his first major.

Chang reached a couple of GS final later but he couldn´t win them - competition. ;-)

So really I would only consider Agassi, Courier and Rafter to be Sampras' rivals. Even though there were other big names...They were just that...Big names who were past their prime and/or won a surface where Sampras never had a chance to begin with.

That is a joke dude and you know it. If Sampras didn´t have any competition than who the hell is left for Federer in his first 5 years of domination?
 

Omega_7000

Legend
And Pete mostly met against Safin, Hewitt and Roddick when he was past his prime.

Past his prime? So this only applies to Sampras and not Federer? :roll:

The rest of your post is crapola..."These are multiple slam winners dude and thus they are good competition"...That's the summary of your post.
Having great players past their primes and about to retire in your era doesn't make it strong.

I explained in detail how their primes did not match Sampras' prime and others were slam winners on clay where Sampras would have done didly squat on in any era let alone an era with one of the greatest clay courters of all time...and this is what you come back with?
 

Omega_7000

Legend
Sampras and Agassi only met 3 times in majors between 93-98. What kind of rival was that? They did not meet in a major in '94, '96, '97, '98. That's 4 years. Had Nadal been missing for so much Fed would have already won 2 CYGS. Even eithout Agassi Sampras never had this opporunity.

Rafter began to be a rival mostly after 1997, when Sampras already was approaching the end of his prime.

Courier was done after AO 1994.

Sampras never had rivals of Nadal,Djokovic, Murray quality in any period of his career.

True. Agassi himself admitted that his best years were when he came back -- 1999 thru 2002...
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
So what is that suppose to mean? What have Roddick, Hewitt and Safin to do with that conversation? Most of these guys barely played against Sampras in GS, let alone guys like Roddick who may beat him at regular tournaments once or twice but got his a** whipped at the US Open. Btw, Stich vs Sampras is 3:3, they only faced in WB once when Sampras won. Safin is 3:3 and 2:2 when it comes to slams and Hewitt is 1:1 in GS. And Pete mostly met against Safin, Hewitt and Roddick when he was past his prime.





What a bad comparisson.:twisted:

Agassi´s opponents were players you won´t ever forget because they wrote history. Really? Are comparing Nadal in 2005-07 with Agassi???



Don´t make me laugh.^^

Wimbledon in the 80s and 90s is a whole different story than that twice slowed down WB we do have now without any guy playing S&V. Big deal for Nadal winning WM, when Agassi atleast had to deal with S&V killers like Sampras, Becker, Stich, Edberg, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek etc.



Becker peaked (again) in 96 and even when he got surgery on his whrist he was still a threat to Sampras, just like he was in 95. Becker wasn´t focussed enough but he beat Sampras in some great matches when Pete was in his prime (esp. on carpet).



He retired in 96 and has a positive H2H against him in slams. You forget that all those players like Agassi, Edberg, Rafter, Chang, Stich, Becker, Courier etc. often played against each other in early rounds in GS or other tournaments so they couldn´t play all the time against Sampras because they eliminatedted themselves which prooves what a hard competition it was. We are talking here about multiple slam winners dude ;-)



Chang reached a couple of GS final later but he couldn´t win them - competition. ;-)



That is a joke dude and you know it. If Sampras didn´t have any competition than who the hell is left for Federer in his first 5 years of domination?
Nadal in 2005-2007 did much more than Agassin in 1996-1998 in his supposed prime
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Sampras and Agassi only met 3 times in majors between 93-98. What kind of rival was that? They did not meet in a major in '94, '96, '97, '98. That's 4 years. Had Nadal been missing for so much Fed would have already won 2 CYGS. Even eithout Agassi Sampras never had this opporunity.

Rafter began to be a rival mostly after 1997, when Sampras already was approaching the end of his prime.

Courier was done after AO 1994.

Sampras never had rivals of Nadal,Djokovic, Murray quality in any period of his career.

Do you think any of these guys is capable of taking away 1 Wimbledon from Sampras in the 90s? Back then, it was the Specialist era, not the Homogenized era we have today where top guys can make slam finals in their sleep playing the same boring game. It was tough to win Wimbledon with all the grass court specialists in the draw and it was also tough to win the French with multiple clay court greats in the draw. The conditions were completely polarized, which is very different from today's everything is slow condition. So saying that Sampras didn't face rivals like Nadal, Djokovic, Murray type means little since they don't have much chance to take away any title from Sampras on fast surfaces in the 90s anyway.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Do you think any of these guys is capable of taking away 1 Wimbledon from Sampras in the 90s? Back then, it was the Specialist era, not the Homogenized era we have today where top guys can make slam finals in their sleep playing the same boring game. It was tough to win Wimbledon with all the grass court specialists in the draw and it was also tough to win the French with multiple clay court greats in the draw. The conditions were completely polarized, which is very different from today's everything is slow condition. So saying that Sampras didn't face rivals like Nadal, Djokovic, Murray type means little since they don't have much chance to take away any title from Sampras on fast surfaces in the 90s anyway.
Then he did not have rivals of Nadal's,Djokovic's and Murray's quality in the 90's conditions.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Do you think any of these guys is capable of taking away 1 Wimbledon from Sampras in the 90s? Back then, it was the Specialist era, not the Homogenized era we have today where top guys can make slam finals in their sleep playing the same boring game. It was tough to win Wimbledon with all the grass court specialists in the draw and it was also tough to win the French with multiple clay court greats in the draw. The conditions were completely polarized, which is very different from today's everything is slow condition. So saying that Sampras didn't face rivals like Nadal, Djokovic, Murray type means little since they don't have much chance to take away any title from Sampras on fast surfaces in the 90s anyway.
I can say the same things about Pete's competition.

Do you think Becker with 15 double faults in the 1995 W final would take a W title from Federer?

Do you think mentally weak Goran would take a W title from Federer?

I doubt it
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
I can say the same things about Pete's competition.

Do you think Becker with 15 double faults in the 1995 W final would take a W title from Federer?

Do you think mentally weak Goran would take a W title from Federer?

I doubt it

Goran won Wimbledon in 2001, the same draw where Federer beat Sampras and became the favorite to win the title up until he choked against Henman in the next match.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Goran won Wimbledon in 2001, the same draw where Federer beat Sampras and became the favorite to win the title up until he choked against Henman in the next match.
Did he have to beat Sampras, the best grasscourter of that era to win that W? Nope.

Same in this scenario. I doubt he would beat a tennis great as Federer without choking
 

Thetouch

Professional
Past his prime? So this only applies to Sampras and not Federer? :roll:

The rest of your post is crapola..."These are multiple slam winners dude and thus they are good competition"...That's the summary of your post.
Having great players past their primes and about to retire in your era doesn't make it strong.

I explained in detail how their primes did not match Sampras' prime and others were slam winners on clay where Sampras would have done didly squat on in any era let alone an era with one of the greatest clay courters of all time...and this is what you come back with?

I think you don´t know what you are talking about. ;-)

So in your oppinion, Federer´s prime was lets say from 2003-07 when he did face ALL those great competitors wh wrote history, while Sampras´ was from 1993-2000 when he didn´t have any real competitor? Now that is a joke. ;-)

First you post some ridic. h2h which are worthless for this conversation and then you make a nonsense comparisson Nadal 2005-07 to Agassi, though I was telling you that the competition was much different in their eras.

You try to convince me that Nadal is kind of Superman because he won WB when I clearly explained you that Wimbledon 2010 was not the same as WM for example 1992. Now that´s funny.
 

Thetouch

Professional
Try using logic instead of sarcasm. :neutral:

You wouldn´t get it anyway. ;-)

Your comparrison of Nadals success in 2005-07 to those of Agassi when he was young is just silly without considering the whole competition and changes the game went through for the last 10-12 years.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Do you think Becker with 15 double faults in the 1995 W final would take a W title from Federer?

Do you think mentally weak Goran would take a W title from Federer?

I doubt it

Apparently, it doesn't take grass specialists like Becker or Goran to take a Wimbledon title from Federer. In fact, it only takes a clay court great to steal a Wimbledon title from him. :oops:
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Apparently, it doesn't take grass specialists like Becker or Goran to take a Wimbledon title from Federer. In fact, it only takes a clay court great to steal a Wimbledon title from him. :oops:
A clay courter who has twice as many W titles as grass specialist Goran.

Now that is embrassing for goran that a clay courter managed to win more W titles than him
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Apparently, it doesn't take grass specialists like Becker or Goran to take a Wimbledon title from Federer. In fact, it only takes a clay court great to steal a Wimbledon title from him. :oops:
But it is useless to even have this discussion. You very well know that grass is not what it used to be. So it takes different kinds of players to win W now.

Just deal with the fact that S&V is not as effective as it iwas back in the 90's. You need more than that to win W today.
 

Fxanimator1

Hall of Fame
And the fact that they've slowed the courts down to a crawl to suit Nadal's game has no bearing of course....Right Agassi?
 

morten

Hall of Fame
But it is useless to even have this discussion. You very well know that grass is not what it used to be. So it takes different kinds of players to win W now.

Just deal with the fact that S&V is not as effective as it iwas back in the 90's. You need more than that to win W today.

More than that... Well sad thing is the one thing you dont need IS S&V... Anyone can win anywhere.. It kills tennis IMO
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
More than that... Well sad thing is the one thing you dont need IS S&V... Anyone can win anywhere.. It kills tennis IMO
The thing that kills tennis is ultra slow surfaces.

All surfaces besides clay IMO should be medium-fast. That way, everybody would be able to win with a mixture of S&V and baseline play.

Some people don't like very short points. But having very long rallies also kills the sport IMO.

I think the speed of the surfaces were just fine in 2004. They should have kept them like that. W was not very fast, but not very slow either and USO for ex had just the perfect surface for both baseline play and S&V
 
Sampras said Federer was, Agassi will naturally say the opposite.

I don't know, or care who the greatest ever is. It's the most boring, tedious, teeth-pulling 'debate' tennis fans have.

However, of the two, Federer is the greater player, this is not even up for debate- results, records, statistics, titles, variety of surface dominance. This shouldn't really be a discussion but for a H2H stat which is not important. There's the same gap in slams between Djokovic and Murray, as there is between Federer and Nadal.
 

ultradr

Legend
It will become all clear pretty soon.

Each dominating player of an era after 2003 will win ~ 20 slams.

The homogeneous surface condition (and thus tennis) has brought an inflation
on slam counts of dominating players.
 

big ted

Legend
However, of the two, Federer is the greater player, this is not even up for debate- results, records, statistics, titles, variety of surface dominance. This shouldn't really be a discussion but for a H2H stat which is not important. There's the same gap in slams between Djokovic and Murray, as there is between Federer and Nadal.

i agree. even rafa himself says that federer is the greatest at the moment
 

bullfan

Legend
Sampras said Federer was, Agassi will naturally say the opposite.

I don't know, or care who the greatest ever is. It's the most boring, tedious, teeth-pulling 'debate' tennis fans have.

However, of the two, Federer is the greater player, this is not even up for debate- results, records, statistics, titles, variety of surface dominance. This shouldn't really be a discussion but for a H2H stat which is not important. There's the same gap in slams between Djokovic and Murray, as there is between Federer and Nadal.

Funny, the differences between Fed/Nadal and Novak/Murray. GS wins against each other: 2:9 and 2:2. Overall h2h 10:21 and 12:8. Not quite apples to apples, but nice deflection attempt!
 
Funny, the differences between Fed/Nadal and Novak/Murray. GS wins against each other: 2:9 and 2:2. Overall h2h 10:21 and 12:8. Not quite apples to apples, but nice deflection attempt!

So what with their H2H? The slam gap, which is important unlike the H2H, is the same distance. The H2H doesn't mean a thing.
 

bullfan

Legend
So what with their H2H? The slam gap, which is important unlike the H2H, is the same distance. The H2H doesn't mean a thing.

Nope, that's a lame cop out of stats. The slam gap needs to entail h2h slam count. You can't bring up H2h and then cherry pick the h2h stats.
 
Last edited:

monfed

Banned
Nope, that's a lame cop out of stats. The slam gap needs to entail h2h slam count. You can't bring up H2h and then cherry pick the h2h stats.

LOL H2H is all about cherry picking bud. Your boy gets owned by Davy at HC but owns Davy on clay. So yes H2H is surface dependent.
 
Nope, that's a lame cop out of stats. The slam gap needs to entail h2h slam count. You can't bring up H2h and then cherry pick the h2h stats.

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.
 
Yes I agree, 1-6 Nadal -Davy is ownage.

their h2h is 0-0 in slams, and thats the h2h thats matter, and comparing fed-nadal h2h with davy-nadal h2h :? their rivalry was not the poster hild of the media. they are not said to be the two greatest player of their era.. i mean in no sense of historical importance you can compare fed-nadal with davy-nadal
 

monfed

Banned
their h2h is 0-0 in slams, and thats the h2h thats matter, and comparing fed-nadal h2h with davy-nadal h2h :? their rivalry was not the poster hild of the media. they are not said to be the two greatest player of their era.. i mean in no sense of historical importance you can compare fed-nadal with davy-nadal

Yes I agree 1-6 on HC is brutal ownage. Deal. :lol:
 
Top