Mustard
Bionic Poster
in which tournaments? The USO, the Australian?
No. Miami and Dubai.
in which tournaments? The USO, the Australian?
No. Miami and Dubai.
Nadal playing his best tennis in 2009 barely beat post prime Fed at the AO which included Fed choking in the 5th. You really think pre-2009 Nadal would have had a chance at a HC slam against prime Fed? Uh no, just no.
No. Miami and Dubai.
LOL at your suggestion about the 2009 Australian Open final. Federer demolished del Potro and Roddick in straight sets and has 2 days off before the final, while Nadal has a 5 hour plus marathon with Verdasco and has just 1 day off before the final, and yet you make it sound like Nadal had all the cards in his favour. Nice try![]()
Are you denying that Federer's prime was from 2004-2007?
No course not, but he remained a big threat beyond that. Federer was the favourite going into the 2009 Australian Open final.
Nadal matured on grass much faster than he did no HC.
In 2006 Nadal was soundly beaten at Wimby. Nadal would have no chance against 2006 Fed in any HC slam.
Before 2006 Wimbledon, Nadal was considered by a load of people to be average on grass, but he had already won 2005 Montreal, 2005 Beijing, 2005 Madrid Indoor and 2006 Dubai (beating Federer in the final). Back then, the "wisdom" was that Nadal was a better hardcourt player than grass-court player.
Well the match never happened because Nadal had a foot injury that ruled him out of the 2006 Australian Open, and Youzhny beat him in the quarter finals of the 2006 US Open.
Well to be honest, Wimbledon 2006 was only Nadal's 4th grass court tournament ever.. just saying.
Agassi leads 3-2 on clay. Agassi winning 1989 Rome, 1992 Atlanta and 1992 French Open. Sampras winning 1998 Monte Carlo and 2002 Houston.
Here's all their matches:
Pete Sampras 20-14 Andre Agassi
1989 Rome R32: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-1)
1990 Philadelphia R16: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (5-7, 7-5 ret.)
1990 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-3, 6-2)
1990 World Championships RR: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-2)
1991 World Championships RR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 1-6, 6-3)
1992 Atlanta F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-5, 6-4)
1992 French Open QF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-2, 6-1)
1993 Wimbledon QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-2, 3-6, 3-6, 6-4)
1994 Miami F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (5-7, 6-3, 6-3)
1994 Osaka SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-1)
1994 Paris Indoor QF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 7-5)
1994 World Championships SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (4-6, 7-6, 6-3)
1995 Australian Open F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (4-6, 6-1, 7-6, 6-4)
1995 Indian Wells F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (7-5, 6-3, 7-5)
1995 Miami F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-2, 7-6)
1995 Montreal F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (3-6, 6-2, 6-3)
1995 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5)
1996 San Jose F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-3)
1996 Stuttgart Indoor QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-1)
1996 World Championships RR: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-2, 6-1)
1998 San Jose F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-4)
1998 Monte Carlo R32: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 7-5)
1998 Toronto QF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-7, 6-1, 6-2)
1999 Wimbledon F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)
1999 Los Angeles F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (7-6, 7-6)
1999 Cincinnati SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (7-6, 6-4)
1999 World Championships RR: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-2, 6-2)
1999 World Championships F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-1, 7-5, 6-4)
2000 Australian Open SF: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 3-6, 6-7, 7-6, 6-1)
2001 Indian Wells F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 7-5, 6-1)
2001 Los Angeles F: Andre Agassi def. Pete Sampras (6-4, 6-2)
2001 US Open QF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-7, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6)
2002 Houston SF: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-1, 7-5)
2002 US Open F: Pete Sampras def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4)
Hardcourt: 11-9 to Sampras
Clay: 3-2 to Agassi
Grass: 2-0 to Sampras
Carpet: 5-2 to Sampras
In Slams: 6-3 to Sampras
So Andre has one advantage on clay and it was only a 1 match advantage. Now lets imagine for a second if Agassi laid claim to all those h2h surface advantages and Pete still had the slam record.. What would people say of Pete.
The point is Nadal's grass game matured at a much faster rate than HC game as proven by the data in 2008. Against Fed's best in 2006, Nadal was pretty soundly beaten at W06. Had Nadal somehow gotten to HC slams in 2006, he would have been been beaten quite soundly given that his game on HC lagged behind that on grass and on grass was beaten pretty soundly.
No no no, not one match advantage. Rather countless failed attempts by Pete at the FO.
About the 2006 Wimbledon final, yes Federer was better but it wasn't as one-sided as you're suggesting. Nadal was a break up for most of the second set and failed to serve it out. Nadal did win the third set.
It did hurt Pete's career not winning a French Open for sure.. But he does have a davis cup (something Fed doesn't have) on clay, and he has a rome title. And some big clay wins over some big names.. That SHOULD help his case a bit IMO.
It did hurt Pete's career not winning a French Open for sure.. But he does have a davis cup (something Fed doesn't have) on clay, and he has a rome title. And some big clay wins over some big names.. That SHOULD help his case a bit IMO. I dunno why people think pete was useless on clay.. never understood that
Well to be honest, Wimbledon 2006 was only Nadal's 4th grass court tournament ever.. just saying.
Yes it does help his case for third best behind Fed and Laver. Maybe 4th best if Nadal wins a few more.
So Andre has one advantage on clay and it was only a 1 match advantage. Now lets imagine for a second if Agassi laid claim to all those h2h surface advantages and Pete still had the slam record.. What would people say of Pete.
Hmmm.. Alright whatever you say.. Your opinion![]()
Should we count Laver's calendar or anyone at the time since he didn't win a hardcourt slam?
Now imagine Sampras didn't win RG, didn't have career slam and has 14 slams and you compare him to a guy with 16 and with career slam.
Oh wait.
Imagine Sampras and Agassi had met 13-14 times on clay. Imagine Pete against Nadal on clay. RG 2008 on repeat.
There is no such thing as a GOAT, just exceptional champions in every era.
We're lucky to have several of them in this era but there will always be arguments against singling out 1 player as a GOAT. There will always be records 1 player doesn't have. Great tennis players are complementary, not mutually exclusive: Connors has record for most titles won, Sampras has record for weeks at #1, Agassi has record for most different tier 1 events won, Nadal has record for master titles, Fed has record for slam titles, etc, etc .
The point is if Pete came out of the losing end of the h2h despite achieving more, pete would still be crucified. Yet we can't crucify Fed at all for coming off the losing end in the rivalry with Nadal. I don't get that. Thats one thing people can't hold against Pete. In day, he never had some hugely lopsided h2h against him.( especially in slams) Especially not from a main rival.
Probably not but he doesn't have it and that's exactly my point. Not one player has every record, hence no goat but a family of goats so to speak![]()
Laver has 11 slams, bit harsh to exclude his amateur slams. He deserves a mention on that list.
So Andre has one advantage on clay and it was only a 1 match advantage. Now lets imagine for a second if Agassi laid claim to all those h2h surface advantages and Pete still had the slam record.. What would people say of Pete.
You mean, if they played 13 times on clay and Andre won like 11?
I wonder who writes Sports Illustarted.Sports Illustrated put him at number 4 in the top 10 men's tennis players of all time, right behind Federer, Sampras and Laver.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1009/top.ten.tennis/content.1.html
I wonder who writes Sports Illustarted.
- This is classic. Lendl has won 10 Grand Slams (by SI)
- Mcenroe ranked higher than lendl (very much debatable and they think lendl wn 10 slams)
Originally Posted by CMM
Sports Illustrated put him at number 4 in the top 10 men's tennis players of all time, right behind Federer, Sampras and Laver.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mul...content.1.html
I'll stop you right there...Experts often argue Nadal to be GOAT due to his winning all slams and dominance over Fed.
But, interestingly he is falling further behind in terms of achieving the 17 slams needed to pass Federer when you look at a career timeline.Another solid year and Nadal surpasses a few guys by the numbers probably..
What??? Sounds like a middlle aged female ******* to me![]()
Let's find arguments for Nadal to be GOAT before we find any against.
There are no arguments for Nadal to be GOAT at the moment so why do people talk about it so much? We can talk about it once Rafa goes around the 13-14 mark in GS's. If he does that is.
ClayGOAT maybe but overall GOAT? No.
Exactly. Nadal does not belong anywhere near the topic of who is Goat,so I too am confused as to why he keeps getting brought up in the conversation as to who is the best ever. I am not so sure he's even clay goat,either. To me,Borg still edges him in that department.
Exactly. Nadal does not belong anywhere near the topic of who is Goat,so I too am confused as to why he keeps getting brought up in the conversation as to who is the best ever. I am not so sure he's even clay goat,either. To me,Borg still edges him in that department.
The idea of Rafa being the GOAT is ridiculous. Roger is the GOAT. Rafa is the guy who is better than him, though...