BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
Well that’s the language that’s spoken here. At this point it’s pervasive in this forum, and I am brainwashed to think such flippant remarks are humorous.
Do any Federer fans think Nadal is "GOAT?"
- Thread starter ADuck
- Start date
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
I shouldn't post rubbish often. Some posters may start thinking that you're weird or whatever.It's because we're twins. Fam Slam
I disagree that Wim 2008 decided it for Nadal. At that point Fed way way ahead in slams and the Wim h2h is 3-1 in Feds favor with wins in 2006, 2007, and 2019.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Federev
G.O.A.T.
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
Of course. I was trying to think of all the stupid nicknames I've seen for him over the years. None of them are as meaningless or nonsensical as "Cow" though.
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
Getting put on Federev's ignore list is probably the worst insult possible. You're one of the nicest, most fair/well-reasoned FedFans out there; your ignore list must just be reserved for the worst of the worst
Federev
G.O.A.T.
Hey man - I’d never consider it w you!Getting put on Federev's ignore list is probably the worst insult possible. You're one of the nicest, most fair/well-reasoned FedFans out there; your ignore list must just be reserved for the worst of the worst
As I’ve said before - you’re the kind of poster who raises the culture around here.
And thanks for the encouragement!
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
Right back at you m8! Sometimes the discussion around here seems even more polarized and toxic than political Twitter, and all you can do is laugh at how ridiculous it is that we're flaming each other over 3 players who are probably good friends with each other.
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
yep I agree. Sometimes if I can’t control myself and start trolling, but I see @Federev, I stop and reconsider otherwise I feel bad.Getting put on Federev's ignore list is probably the worst insult possible. You're one of the nicest, most fair/well-reasoned FedFans out there; your ignore list must just be reserved for the worst of the worst
Federev
G.O.A.T.
Man.
You guys.
Need to get you to tell my wife what a great guy I am.
I mean - we’re doing pretty good, but you could get us to a whole new level.
And all through the kind words of Djokdal fans.
Who would have thought?
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
You're pretty level headed zagor... but 25 slams? I can't see that happening. That would be 11 slams after turning 30. Where do you think he'd get these extra 5 slams from?
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
I think 23.
RG, AO, retires 2022 after winning 15th RG.
25 too much. Unless he consistently executes the FO 2020 final gameplan
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
No he doesn't.
Besides, you don't take away a player's best slam in order to measure their greatness, that's nonsensical and pointless...
If WTF is so technically difficult why has Grigor, Zverev, Davydenko and Tsitsipas won it yet can't get near it at the majors. Well... Zverev did with none of the big 3 in his way and even then managed an epic choke.
Can't understand your constant whining about about Berrettini when Fed had posers like Bjorkman, Kiefer, Grosjean, Henman, Haas and get this.... CHUNG in slam semis on the way to some of his titles...
He doesn't NEED any of the titles you listed... as I've said before... even if he wins them, you'd shift the goal posts...
Remember 16 > 9 ... 17 > 14 ... 20 > 17 ? Yeah now it's 20 == 20 so now he NEEDS a WTF title + 2 more non FO slams? LOL
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
I mean maybe in 2-3 HC masters tournaments for that entire span his level was impressive for his standards. But same could be said for guys like Berdych or Nishikori at one point in time. Point is that they are non consistent threats, just like Nadal preprime on HC.
Nadal proceeded to straight set Gonzalez on HC 3 times in a row after that encounter, when Nadal was getting closer to his HC prime.
Whatever you are doing is not fair to Nadal. Sure he has had his fair share of easy draws but Fed has gotten them almost every slam in his PRIME.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Excuses, excuses...
Rafa had a grueling 5 setter with Murray the round before facing Gonzalez and back then he had a tendency to get blasted off the court in the next match after having a physical battle the round before... Just like against Moya in early 2008... 3 setter that went nearly 4 hours then Youhzny blew him off the court the next day. He was still a young kid playing inconsistently on his non-preferred surface. Need I remind you who Fed was losing to at around that age? Getting routined by Clement at the AO twice and by Max Mirnyi at the US Open?
See? excuses can be made anywhere...
Fed was playing well in Cincinnati... he tanked to Robredo because he knew he was no chance against Nadal and didn't want to have a loss to him at all 4 majors.
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Agassi has found the key to immortality: judging by the writings of some people here he spent his entire career being 35.
Literally no one has said that...
Of course, can't expect much from you given your lack of tennis knowledge.
He was 34-35 and battling back pain when he was facing peak Fed in the latter stages of the US04 and 05 editions. And he was as tough as the competition got for Feddy at the US Open from 04-07...
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
Have u seen the drop volley?
Fedr.
zagor
Bionic Poster
He'll have a strong grip on FO for a few more years and is still a contender in every slam basically. Ever since 2017 he has been remarkably consistent in non-clay slams (even became a threat at Wimbledon again with his better serving and more aggressive play from the baseline) and has been mostly stopped by Novak and Fed. The latter is done most likely and Novak IMO has started showing some cracks against the field (despite his winning streak this year), not to mention that in general he has had more trouble with the younger players than Nadal who's just a tougher match-up for them.
I could definitely see Nadal winning a couple of more FOs, another USO or two which turned into his 2nd best slam in recent years and I also believe he'll win another Wimbledon, he's been getting very close there and people forget he was mere points away from winning the title two years ago.
aldeayeah
G.O.A.T.
I'd say Fed still > Nad
Tiebreaker to me is slam runner up dishes, and Fed has a bunch more of those.
H2H is just a bad GOAT metric. What Fed lost in the Djokodal matchup, he made up with greater domination of the field. Besides there's the age gaps, surface skews, etc which all muddy things up.
I don't really care about smaller stuff because all big 3 have a ton of those. It's all about the majors to me. And don't get me started on the whole rankings records nonsense.
Tiebreaker to me is slam runner up dishes, and Fed has a bunch more of those.
H2H is just a bad GOAT metric. What Fed lost in the Djokodal matchup, he made up with greater domination of the field. Besides there's the age gaps, surface skews, etc which all muddy things up.
I don't really care about smaller stuff because all big 3 have a ton of those. It's all about the majors to me. And don't get me started on the whole rankings records nonsense.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Oh, yes, you did. Every time Agassi is mentioned in relation to Fed's competition he is 35. Not 34. Not 33. 35.
As for tennis knowledge, you should check out when they first played (I know, I was there, despite of my "lacking knowledge"), how many times and where. I may well turn out that you don't know anything about that.
So, we should ask Agassi about that fountain of youth!
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Oh, yes, you did. Every time Agassi is mentioned in relation to Fed's competition he is 35. Not 34. Not 33. 35.
As for tennis knowledge, you should check out when they first played (I know, I was there, despite of my "lacking knowledge"), how many times and where. I may well turn out that you don't know anything about that.
So, we should ask Agassi about that fountain of youth!
Oh really? ....
You were saying?
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Oh really? ....
You were saying?
Every single one of those instances was not about Agassi being mentioned along other Fed rivals as his competition, so you better dig out the instances where you mentioned 33/34 years old Agassi along with Baghdatis, Gonzo, Safin, etc as a group.
BTW, did you find out when Fed and Agassi first played and how old was Agassi then and also how many times and when they played before Agassi hit 34?
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Interesting.
Here's my take... I definitely think he can win at least 1 more RG title, likely 2. After that... not so confident...
As for USO, 1 more title there MAX imo. I can't see him being able to win it there past the age of 36.
WIM he had a great chance in 2018. 2019 Fed stopped him, probably Novak would have in the final had he got past Fed.
He's a smoky there but not sure he'll convert his chances if they come along again.
I think Fed has one more crack at Wimbledon left in him.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Every single one of those instances was not about Agassi being mentioned along other Fed rivals as his competition, so you better dig out the instances where you mentioned 33/34 years old Agassi along with Baghdatis, Gonzo, Safin, etc as a group.
Do what you're doing best... when proven wrong, shift the goal posts.
You said in relation to Fed's competition... all of those posts were talking about 34 year old Agassi in relation to being Fed's competition.
Why would I say 33/34? LMFAO you have to refer to the irrelevant non-slam matches... keep scraping the barrel...
But here you go:
Run along now... back to your cave
PeoplesChamp
Legend
Hell no.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
It is not my fault that you cannot read, so you are proving "wrong" an inexistent claim, and so you resort to self-patting on the back to feel better about yourself.
There is a clear reference to the generational competition when talked about Federer era i.e. when you present them as a group. The examples that you mentioned all refer to specific points in time/years. It would be another thing if I said that Agassi's age at 33 and 34 was never mentioned .... but I didn't, and so we will see in your two posts above the same thing - they speak of SPECIFIC YEARS, not as Agassi as part of Fed's generational competition as a whole which was entirely the point being made.
Why would you speak of "irrelevant" non-slam matches, when Agassi's competition with Federer was not only in the Majors and not only when Agassi was 34-35?
Oh, that is right, because even when you want to say 34, you actually say 34-35, 34 + or straight up 35. The very fact that you need to put a specific age next to Agassi's name, when talking him down as a competition tells the whole story.
BTW, I didn't know that USO is not a Major anymore, because Agassi played Federer there in 2001, if I remember correctly. So much for "irrelevant non-slam matches".
It looks like the one who will be running to a cave or wherever you reside will be you.
Last edited:
Beckerserve
Legend
You misunderstand my point. Federer is a far better grass court player. The 1 win Nadal got is therefore huge. Federer had 6 tries v Nadal at RG and never beat him.
For me they are the two greatest. There is little between them for me that one match in 2008 is the difference. To beat a guy considerably better on a surface at the most hallowed turf is a huge achievement.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
It is not my fault that you cannot read, so you are proving "wrong" an inexistent claim, and so you resort to self-patting on the back to feel better about yourself.
There is a clear reference to the generational competition when talked about Federer era i.e. when you present them as a group. The examples that you mentioned all refer to specific points in time/years. It would be another thing if I said that Agassi's age at 33 and 34 was never mentioned .... but I didn't, and so we will see in your two posts above the same thing - they speak of SPECIFIC YEARS, not as Agassi as part of Fed's generational competition as a whole which was entirely the point being made.
Why would you speak of "irrelevant" non-slam matches, when Agassi's competition with Federer was not only in the Majors and not only when Agassi was 34-35?
Oh, that is right, because even when you want to say 34, you actually say 34-35, 34 + or straight up 35. The very fact that you need to put a specific age next to Agassi's name, when talking him down as a competition tells the whole story.
BTW, I didn't know that USO is not a Major anymore, because Agassi played Federer there in 2001, if I remember correctly. So much for "irrelevant non-slam matches".
It looks like the one who will be running to a cave or wherever you reside will be you.
The whole argument has always been regarding the majors...
Anyone with half a brain would know the reason we say 34-35 yr old Agassi is because that's how old he was when he faced Fed after Fed had started winning majors...
2001 US Open match is as irrelevant as it gets...
No one cares when Fed didn't win the title... We're only interested in pointing out Fed's weaker competition during his slam winning years to highlight his hugely inflated tally.
Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Haas, Bjorkman, Kiefer, Grosjean, Ljubicic, Philippoussis, Safin, Blake, 34+ year old Agassi, Baghdatis and Gonzalez...
LMFAO if that was the field during Nadal and Novak's peak they'd have over 20 majors by now.
Thanks for the further explanation. While Nadal’s 2008 Wim win over Fed was a huge achievement and Fed did not have a similar win over Nadal at the FO, for me it doesn’t settle the GOAT debate between the two.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
LOL, and you are accusing me of shifting goal posts. You may want to check out what I was addressing when you intervened, and so be humbled by your failed interpretation.
Federer and Agassi played 5 matches before Agassi was 34-35 and 6 when he was 34-35. In that span they played at the USO, in the very next Major where Federer reached his best Major result to date (so not insignificant for Federer by any stretch), a final and a SF at a M1000 tournament, a match in the group stages of the TMC and a couple of others.
Just like his Wimbledon win vs Pete was, because he didn't win the title afterwards, right? Oh, wait, that is wrong for multiple reasons.
One who doesn't understand how tennis careers develop might not care. Not so with the other folk. BTW, Agassi wasn't "weak" competition: he met Feddie 3 times on his best surface and made him earn those wins. Anyone with a functioning brain and a good vision will testify for the quality of the said matches. I am sorry, if you can't.
Nadal's peak on grass and clay was right against that competition. Nadal didn't have a better stretch of consecutive years on either surface than the one in 2006-2008. If you know of such point at it.
It is also funny that Federer kept the reigns all the way up till the spring of the 2010. Djoke and Nadal had to wait for him to turn almost 30 to "enter their peak". But the reality is that Nadal already had his everywhere but on HC, and Djokovic, well he tried in Federer's time, he just had to wait a bit longer.
BTW, I don't forget where this discussion started: right where you couldn't understand what I was responding to, and as far as I can see you still can't force yourself to not write about the 34+ Agassi. You keep writing that for the ignorant people that might take your writings seriously. No one else in his right mind does.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
You intervened regarding a poster saying Fed has won about 15 Berrettini opens... which was a response to a poast about Rafa getting a cheap USO title... It was about the majors
Completely irrelevant.
Fed's slam count is inflated, much more than Nadal or Novak's is. WTF has beating a washed up Pete got to do with anything?
Or rather, clear evidence that peak Feddy struggling with a 34-35 yr old wouldn't have won all of those matches if a prime Novak or Nadal was on the other side of the net...
Nadal wasn't at his peak on grass in 06... WTF LOL it was his 4th grass tournament...
Why do consecutive years matter so much? Has nothing to do with it.... every one knows Nadal's highest level of on grass were the 2007, 2008 & 2010 years.
It is also funny that Federer kept the reigns all the way up till the spring of the 2010. Djoke and Nadal had to wait for him to turn almost 30 to "enter their peak". But the reality is that Nadal already had his everywhere but on HC, and Djokovic, well he tried in Federer's time, he just had to wait a bit longer.
BTW, I don't forget where this discussion started: right where you couldn't understand what I was responding to, and as far as I can see you still can't force yourself to not write about the 34+ Agassi. You keep writing that for the ignorant people that might take your writings seriously. No one else in his right mind does.
Again... you were responding to a post about inflated slams...
34+ Agassi is not for ignorant people, it's for people who live in reality. That's how old he was when he faced Fed after he was winning majors. Deal with it.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
You intervened regarding a poster saying Fed has won about 15 Berrettini opens... which was a response to a poast about Rafa getting a cheap USO title... It was about the majors
Funny that I didn't know that when you said
The_Order said:
Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Haas, Bjorkman, Kiefer, Grosjean, Ljubicic, Philippoussis, Safin, Blake, 34+ year old Agassi, Baghdatis and Gonzalez...
... you were talking about the Majors.
I don't remember also "35 years old Agassi" to be exclusively about Majors,
Of course it is "irrelevant". Half of their matches are "irrelevant".
So, you started with the trolling the moment you found yourself in a tight spot, because why would you inject in a conversation about the merits of meeting an ATG early in one's career the overarching statement that you did. Oh you say that you don't understand the value of playing ATGs when gauging competition? I see.
Didn't know that Andre's ballstriking is a result of a "struggling Feddy". Might explain why you keep harping about "34+ Agassi": it is because you don't have a clue about level. Or maybe you simply didn't watch those matches. Either works to explain it.
I anticipated your lame response that is why I framed my question that way. I will repeat you just so that I see you pretzel yourself again:
Which three consecutive years on grass were better for Nadal than the period 2006-2008?
You don't get to pick separate tournaments years apart to form a peak. There is a level of results that corroborates "peak" performance and that is especially well seen when one traces consecutive years. If you can't show me such a period you can go home with your "LOL" s neatly packed in your bag.
Again... you were responding to a post about inflated slams...
34+ Agassi is not for ignorant people, it's for people who live in reality. That's how old he was when he faced Fed after he was winning majors. Deal with it.
As were all his pervious meetings with Federer. Deal with it. Your random decision which matches to count and which not to is your free pass so that you can write about "old Agassi", and even then, you can't erase the quality Andre had at the time.
So, after all your struggle to show me how you didn't really mean "35 years old", you spend the entirety of our conversation defending just that. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Last edited:
RS
Bionic Poster
Your ruthless lol.Funny that I didn't know that when you said
The_Order said:
Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Haas, Bjorkman, Kiefer, Grosjean, Ljubicic, Philippoussis, Safin, Blake, 34+ year old Agassi, Baghdatis and Gonzalez...
... you were talking about the Majors.
I don't remember also "35 years old Agassi" to be exclusively about Majors,
Of course it is "irrelevant". Half of their matches are "irrelevant".
So, you started with the trolling the moment you found yourself in a tight spot, because why would you inject in a conversation about the merits of meeting an ATG early in one's career the overarching statement that you did. Oh you say that you don't understand the value of playing ATGs when gauging competition? I see.
Didn't know that Andre's ballstriking is a result of a "struggling Feddy". Might explain why you keep harping about "34+ Agassi": it is because you don't have a clue about level. Or maybe you simply didn't watch those matches. Either works to explain it.
I anticipated your lame response that is why I framed my question that way. I will repeat you just so that I see you pretzel yourself again:
Which three consecutive years on grass were better for Nadal than the period 2006-2008?
You don't get to pick separate tournaments years apart to form a peak. There is a level of results that corroborates "peak" performance and that is especially well seen when one traces consecutive years. If you can't show me such a period you can go home with your "LOL" s neatly packed in your bag.
As were all his pervious meetings with Federer. Deal with it. Your random decision which matches to count and which not to is your free pass so that you can write about "old Agassi", and even then, you can't erase the quality Andre had at the time.
So, after all your struggle to show me how you didn't really mean "35 years old", you spend the entirety of our conversation defending just that. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
He played all of those guys in latter stages of the majors apart from Ljubicic...
So yeah, quite funny, but not surprising that you don't know something...
Of course it is "irrelevant". Half of their matches are "irrelevant".
Irrelevant to Fed's major total... keep trying..
There's no trolling... only facts that you can't handle... Fed's 2001 slam encounters with washed up Sampras and Agassi have no bearing on his majors total whatsoever...
Yeah, he struggled to handle a 34+ yr old Andre's groundstrokes... prime Nadal or Novak play Fed much tougher than Andre did...
You mean, you cherry pick a period to suit your narrative?
Nadal's level in 2008 has nothing to do with his 2006 level. So trying to lump them together as one is just pure bs.
Oh, don't I?
Put whatever spin you want, Nadal was not at his peak on grass in 2006... LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
As were all his pervious meetings with Federer. Deal with it. Your random decision which matches to count and which not to is your free pass so that you can write about "old Agassi", and even then, you can't erase the quality Andre had at the time.
So, after all your struggle to show me how you didn't really mean "35 years old", you spend the entirety of our conversation defending just that. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
What are you on about? Where did I say I didn't really mean 35? It's never been a random decision, I included his age at the time he encountered Fed at majors when Fed was winning major titles. Have done so for years, so you can keep crying about their other meetings all you want, they have no relevance to Fed's inflated slam count.
You've been proven wrong and can't handle it. Sorry to point out your flaws once again but you just keep walking right in. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Huge Fed fan here. Nadal is definately the GOAT
BackhandDTL
Hall of Fame
Umm.....so you are saying he built his career by outplaying the rest of the tour, including someone who was only considered at one point the GOAT of tennis?
Roger would be third wheel had his primes overlapped with that of Djokodal.
So basically......What are you saying? This is the stupidest thing I’ve heard all day, congrats.
Subway Tennis
G.O.A.T.
"Cow" and "Nose" both felt so forced and desperate as epithets for Federer. They elicited a shoulder-shrug and/or confusion and not much more. The only way of knowing they were specifically anti-Federer terms was noting the person using them.
Subway Tennis
G.O.A.T.
How many more majors for Novak in your opinion?
I think his days of being able to reel off three in a single season are gone but I figure he wins AT LEAST three more in the next few seasons before he retires.
Beckerserve
Legend
That is why they are the Big 2. Arguments both ways. Despite the best efforts of another player to suggest otherwise
Tennis_Hands
Banned
He played a lot of people in the later stages of Majors, so just randomly picking up names doesn't point at any one particular set of tournaments, which was the point. You even listed players that he didn't play in Majors "in latter stages of tournaments" as you acknowledge above, so "not knowing" something that didn't happen is, how shall we say it. .... normal. The opposite: to conclude something as if something happened (i.e. that you are talking about Majors based on who he played), when it didn't (because he didn't play them), is much more indicative of either ignorance of dysfunctional logic.
Nothing is irrelevant to a player's career, especially playing an ATG while coming out of age, and certainly not when it is in the biggest tournaments in tennis (Majors, TMC or M1000s). To say that half of their encounters are "irrelevant" to anything is pure lunacy.
Oh yes, there is, because you have to arrive at that conclusion in the discussion, and not only make blanket statements. That is like putting the cart in front of the horse.
So why are you even talking about Agassi at "34+"? By that logic washed up Agassi is of even less interest at that age than "washed up Sampras and Agassi in 2001". So meeting Agassi at 30-32 was somehow not interesting, because Agassi was "washed up"? OK, so let's put in question every win Nadal or Djokovic had over Federer when Federer was in that age range, and say that every other win they had over Federer after that doesn't count at all, since, you know, 34+ Federer. Oh, you say that you don't like it? Well, look at your logic now!
Wait a second, so was Federer weak sauce, or was Andre weak sauce, because you can't seem to decide which you claim.
BTW, you have no fricking idea from stroke production, if you think that you can attribute Agassi's ball striking ability at the time or his movement to Federer's game. Just NO. FRICKING. CLUE.
It is how peak is determined, duh. You analyse game and results and look in which time frame he had the best of those. The fact that Nadal has been like that on TWO surfaces (out of 3) in that period is quite the pointer why I picked up that period, so I am curious to see whether you can come up with with something better. I actually threw you a bone by agreeing to talk only about grass, but the reality is that, if we have to look into his performance overall there is no better period for him result wise or as a level than the period in question. Again, if you can come up with other such period, let's see which one it is!
No, you don't. Separate tournaments are not indicative of constant playing ability at the absolute highest level, as separate tournaments have their own dynamic depending on draw, conditions etc. Two tournaments years apart are absolutely impossible to use to gauge the peak ability: even the player himself is very different. Nadal in 2018 was a completely different player on grass than Nadal in 2008 (Nadal from 2008 would have flattened him, plain and simple), neither is Federer from 2017 the same player than Federer from 2007 (same applies here). The consistent peak level is therefore determined by consistent peak performance, and Nadsy didn't have better in any stretch in his career than that in that period.
Why, because of your ignorance?
That is like saying that Becker's 1985 wasn't part of his peak on grass, despite that being his first full Wimbledon tournament (without retirements).
Always being confused when you have nothing to say?
What I mean is that you spent the better part of this discussion arguing how actually Agassi was described differently that the "35 y old Agassi", and now you are saying that all the time you did really mean just that. Are you even following your own posts or do you even know why you addressed my posts?
It's never been a random decision, I included his age at the time he encountered Fed at majors when Fed was winning major titles. Have done so for years, so you can keep crying about their other meetings all you want, they have no relevance to Fed's inflated slam count.
You've been proven wrong and can't handle it. Sorry to point out your flaws once again but you just keep walking right in. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Who said anything about random decision, boy? You interfered in a hissy fit about people writing about 35 years old Agassi, and now all you do is confirm my statement with everything you write. We already established that whether you write 34-35, 34+ or 35 is just cosmetics.
It is yet another time you post so that you can post the tirade above: utmost trolling of no interest to anyone who has already seen what you have to "say" (which is to say, nothing). Throw as many of the bolded statements and you are set, and to top it off you finish it off with a good amount of self patting on the back. Your effort to play the words isn't particularly successful either, you just wanted to show that you can copy me. Duh!
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Not random... most of the time it was them... so yeah still not surprised you don't know...
non slam matches irrelevant to Fed's slam total. Try again...
He played Andre when he was 34+ in the majors after he started winning them. Old, broken spine Agassi was his toughest match up at the US Open... slam inflation... Deal with it.
Peak Fed not the Godly level player you and your brethren make him out to be.
Agassi's movement was never great. Spinal pain certainly hampered it even further.
Peak means the highest point. 2006 Nadal is not his highest point on grass in terms of his level. Deal with that too.
Yeah, I do
No, because of yours.
Two completely different players from two different eras... next...
No I haven't... stuck to the facts... he was born in April 1970... he was 34 when they met at the QF in US04 and he was 35 in the US05 F.... facts and reality... something you obviously cannot comprehend...
I've confirmed your statement is full of crap as usual by posting actual quotes I've made over the years CLEARLY showing that he was not only always referenced as a 35 year old...
It is yet another time you post so that you can post the tirade above: utmost trolling of no interest to anyone who has already seen what you have to "say" (which is to say, nothing). Throw as many of the bolded statements and you are set, and to top it off you finish it off with a good amount of self patting on the back. Your effort to play the words isn't particularly successful either, you just wanted to show that you can copy me. Duh!
Wrong again... I just wanted to show that you're full of crap. Nobody on here takes anything you say seriously.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
When you say that he played them in Majors, and among those players there is someone who didn't, it wasn't about Majors.
"Most of the time", so not only you don't know who was and who wasn't, but you also seem to have a completely random measure, so that it doesn't look ridiculous that you have so loosely defined your "claim".
So, "random". 1-0. Next.
Ignorance. There were also "slam matches" and there is a whole body of work related to Fed's advancement in the pro tennis/rankings etc. That you decide to exclude matches on a whim is not a problem of anyone but you. 2-0. Next.
Ignorant and wrong. Deal with it. 3-0. Next.
Avoiding answers. Ignorance. 4-0. Next.
I asked about peak period. Avoiding answers. 5-0. Next.
Added for clarity. 6-0. Next.
Doesn't explain anything except that you have no answers. 7-0. Next.
Facts are also the 5 times Federer met Agassi before Agassi was 34, so you fail to abide by your own standard. 8-0. Next.
Those quotes didn't address Andre's standing overall, which was the matter. Furthermore, every post of yours here has been a confirmation that those are just cosmetics to your claim. 9-0. Next.
Wrong again... I just wanted to show that you're full of crap. Nobody on here takes anything you say seriously.
You wanted to "show me" by patting yourself on the back? Illogical, delusional and in the end of the day just proving what I previously said.
Please, feel free to make a thread about "broken-spine Agassi". I would very much like to read the reactions to that.
Don't forget to explain his level at the time.
Also, don't forget to list Agassi without your cosmetics in the future: it is deeply disturbing to see you so deeply hurt over his level back then. He was a player and a half after he returned form his mid-career slump.
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
It is about the majors. You're right about it being 1-0. My way. next..
No fact. 2-0, next...
Fact. Deal with it. 3-0 next..
Didn't avoid anything. Just gave more facts. 4-0, next...
So? 2006 wasn't his peak. 5-0, Next...
Added nonsense. 6-0, Next...
More irrelevant gibberish from you. 7-0, next..
Irrelevant. 8-0, next
It did. You lack knowledge and reading comprehension. 9-0, next.
No, don't care about showing you. Showed the rest of the readers of this forum so they know to avoid taking you seriously. 10 - 0, next...
Please, feel free to make a thread about "broken-spine Agassi". I would very much like to read the reactions to that.
Don't forget to explain his level at the time.
Also, don't forget to list Agassi without your cosmetics in the future: it is deeply disturbing to see you so deeply hurt over his level back then. He was a player and a half after he returned form his mid-career slump.
He was old and had spinal pain. More facts that you can't handle.
HA! Beat you 10 - 0!
Tennis_Hands
Banned
HA! Beat you 10 - 0!
You consistently failed on every step of that argument. No answers.
I leave the part that most describes your delusion. Gladly. Everyone can make up his mind who proved what in that debate.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
The GOAT concept is just fanboyism and it was when Fed was way ahead on slams too. You can use slam count as a way to compare some players, but it's one way of many and you will never get a definitive ranking of something that is in many ways subjective.
Nadal is one of the greatest players ever. As is Federer. That's as far as you can go and be relatively unassailable.
Nadal is one of the greatest players ever. As is Federer. That's as far as you can go and be relatively unassailable.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
You consistently failed on every step of that argument. No answers.
I leave the part that most describes your delusion. Gladly. Everyone can make up his mind who proved what in that debate.
It wasn't a debate. It was me hitting you with facts and you can't accept them because they proved you wrong.
So in an attempt to address these facts, you tried foolishly to argue against them only making yourself look even more stupid in the process.
Similar threads
