Agassi and Nadal are 6 slams behind Pete and Fed respectively. Pete and Fed have accomplished more and are greater player than them, but if we look at the whole picture in their career, Agassi and Nadal has some achievements over them(i.e. Agassi has the career slam over Pete and Nadal has more MS over Fed). At the current time, who do you think has established a greater gap between their rivalry, Pete or Roger?
Is Agassi closer to Pete than Nadal to Federer?
- Thread starter TMF
- Start date
Set Sampras
Banned
Nadal is closer to Fed IMO because of the overrall h2h advantage and slam wins on hards, grass, and clay. Agassi had the advantage on Pete on the slower surfaces but couldn't capitalize on the faster surfaces and has wins on two surfaces vs Pete whereas Nadal has slam wins on all surfaces over Fed
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
Clearly Agassi is much closer to Sampras than Nadal to Federer. In fact, had Agassi been more serious he would have way outperformed Pete. Agassi was the superior tennis talent.
Sampras had a much better serve, second serve, better footspeed, better at hitting on the run, and when he was on form (1999) better groundstrokes.
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
Sampras had a better serve. Agassi had vastly superior groundstrokes.
billnepill
Hall of Fame
Dunno, but I'd say shall Nadal 1-2 Slams more he will equal Sampras in terms of achievements. Career Golden Slam + leading the H2H against the most accomplished player. I would give him the nod.
I guess Sampras will be third in the open era. Who knew!
I guess Sampras will be third in the open era. Who knew!
Rickenbacker4003
Hall of Fame
Of course the Federer Talk Tennis Forum will say Agassi. Nothing new.
H2H against one player doesn't say anthing about their achievement. Davy H2H against Nadal didn't translate him into a great player.
I can just throw in one stat...Agassi won the Year End Champion while Nadal has not won one, which is a significant achievement over irrelevant record.
tenniselbow1
Rookie
Oops voted Sampras should have voted Fed.
When Sampras was at his best he destroyed Agassi from the baseline. I don't know if you saw the Wimbledon 1999 final, or the year end masters. He was ten times the athlete Agassi was too, much faster. At the net there's no comparison.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
Agassi didn't get as much out of his talent as Nadal did. So Sampras has the bigger gap over his main rival.
If Agassi didn't squander some of his prime years away, he probably would have ended with as good or better a resume as Sampras.
If Agassi didn't squander some of his prime years away, he probably would have ended with as good or better a resume as Sampras.
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
Agassi won all the slams. He would have won more if he were serious about tennis like Pete was. Pete tried and tried and tried, but could not conquer the FO. THat alone says Agassi > Sampras.
billnepill
Hall of Fame
Are you saying you basing your whole theory on one match?
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
Agassi had too many other things going on his life. I saw the Agassi-Sampras rivalry from the beginning. Pete won more because he tried harder. Agassi just wasn't as serious. Seriousness about something can be changed, talent can't.
That's not true...you make it sound like Pete has everything over Andre. Andre is a superior from the baseline + better returner. Certainly has a better bh.
I said 'at his best', in my opinion that was the pinnacle of Sampras's career and the highest level of tennis he ever played.
Day to day, yes obviously, but at their respective bests, no.
It's a bit like Federer, day to day his backhand is nowhere near as good as someone like James Blake's, and this is reflected in his record against Nadal. At his best though, Federer has the best backhand in the world.
And Sampras was always a better defender at the baseliner than Agassi because he was so much faster, even when he was misfiring on his groundstrokes.
Set Sampras
Banned
What makes Nadal winning 7 or 8 of his 10 slams over Fed on hard, grass, and clay and the h2h irrelevant? Or is it irrelevant in your opinion because you are a Fed fan? What if Sampras had a losing record to Andre overrall? Chances are Pete would have been skinned alive by the media and fans if that was the case I think I would take the slams and overall h2h over Fed opposed to a YEC. But whatever. H2h should be deemed important in the top rivalries of the sport IMO. It furthers your argument for GOAT status
Last edited:
So you're going to base the better of two players by one tourney.
Rickenbacker4003
Hall of Fame
Somebody start the Marcelo Rios GOAT thread quickly!
billnepill
Hall of Fame
What about Agassi "at his best"?
It is like me saying Soderling at his best is better than Nadal on clay. Watch RG 2009.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
No he doesn't. At his best, his backhand is very solid (e.g. AO Final against Murray), but it's far from "the best backhand in the world."
Rickenbacker4003
Hall of Fame
Agassi's best wasn't enough to beat Pete at his best unless it was really really slow hardcourt and even then it was a coin toss.
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
No, not one tourney, but versatility across all surfaces. You have to understand Agassi's career slam >>>>> Fedal's career slam. Surfaces were vastly different. Pete couldn't hack it.
But Agassi was at his best in 1999, he'd just won the French Open and was in his first Wimbledon final since 1992, he won the AO (beating Sampras) a few months later. In that Wimbledon final and the YEC's he played his best tennis and Sampras beat him from every area of the court.
Last edited:
If you watched tennis in 2006 you'd know how good Federer's backhand was. Go on youtube and look up his YEC final against James Blake in 2006. His backhand was almost that good all year long.
billnepill
Hall of Fame
Nadal was at his best too. He had just won the AO 09 and was #1 player in the world.
Rickenbacker4003
Hall of Fame
NO WAY does Federer have the best backhand in the world, it has the most variety, but it's a clear weakness in his game. Now the Joker backhand is the best in the world, it doesn't have the variety of Fed's backhand, but Joker's backhand can take over a match.
On hardcourts he was at his best because he changed his game - hitting flatter forehands, this backfired on clay though.
ChanceEncounter
Professional
His backhand was very solid in 2006. But even in that year, he didn't have the "best backhand on tour."
It was always a shot that required a lot of precision and timing (leading to a lot of shanks), and it was always a shot that struggled with high topspin.
Day to day Djokovic's backhand is amazing, at it's best though Federer's backhand is a winner machine.
Rickenbacker4003
Hall of Fame
Of course, Blake his flat, low balls to Fed's backhand which eats low bouncing flat shots easily. But hit heavy or high bouncing shots there and you get short balls all day long, in 2004, 2005 and 2006 Fed's backhand couldn't handle Nadal's shots the same as today. Joker's backhand can handle flat, high bouncing, heavy topspin, low bouncing, slice, everything. His backhand is as close to perfect there is in tennis. And I absolutely undeniably hate Novak with the heat of a million Suns.
That one tourney(FO) decide if he's going to win a career slam, which Andre was only one of a few greats who reach that feat. Funny how you grasp on h2h as it's the most important achievement but ignore the career slam. You are a joke.
The only player in the world who could get to it was Nadal. If Federer has a bad backhand because Nadal can force him to hit high backhands, then Nadal has a terrible forehand because James Blake, Berdych and Soderling attack it and make him hit low skidding forehands.
Nadal's forehand has cost him more matches than Federer's backhand. I have never seen anyone (except Andreev once in the USO), successfully force Federer to hit high backhands other than Nadal.
Djokovic is at the top of his game and can't get to Federer's backhand for example, even with his big inside out western forehand, or with his much vaunted backhand.
Last edited:
Rickenbacker4003
Hall of Fame
Yeah, it's a winner machine as long as you hit it flat and low bouncing to it. It was never a winner machine in all those Nadal matchups. A shank here, a mishit there, a spray to the stands. You hid under a rock all those years when Nadal destroyed Fed's winner machine backhand like a red headed stepchild?
So Nadal has a terrible forehand then? Big flat hitters like Blake, Soderling, Tsonga and Berdych have broken it down countless times over the years.
Whatever grip you use makes you weak in a certain strike zone. This applies to everyone.
Djokovic can't hurt Federer's backhand with his own backhand which is supposed to be much better than Federers.
Rickenbacker4003
Hall of Fame
Jeez, I clearly see I'm talking to a blind ****. How did Nadal's forehand cost him more matches? He won 10 slams, career slam, winning h2h vs Fed and Olympic Gold Medal with that forehand. Ever since 2008 Fed's backhand has been costing much more against big hitters than before, Delpo, Soderling, Berdych, Joker. It's not even a Nadal problem anymore.
Jeez, I clearly see I'm talking to a blind *********. How did Federer's backhand cost him more matches? He won 16 slams, career slam, winning h2h vs Djokovic and Olympic Gold Doubles Medal with that backhand.
I actually like watching Nadal's game more than Federer's, but this is getting stupid. Name one player in the world, when Federer was at his peak in 2005-2006, that broke down Federer's backhand other than Nadal?
Set Sampras
Banned
Is he? Yea he has the resume but Andre was a more well rounded player across all surfaces though IMO. To get a career slam back in Andre's day you better be damn good on severely contrasted surfaces. I would have loved to see Andre play under these conditions. That would have been a hoot
flyinghippos101
Legend
Nadal =/= the rest of the tour.
His spin was (and still is) a freak of nature. Citing one example of proof that Fed's backhand wasn't at the very least competent during his prime is absurd.
People are hyping Fed's backhand. It performed well, but was far from the greatest even at it's prime. He could hit some ridiculous winners but with nowhere near the consistency of his forehand for example. It performed admirably however wasn't the best in it's time. But citing Nadal as an example doesn't mean it was terrible either.
Rickenbacker4003
Hall of Fame
Are you illiterate? I never said Nadal had a terrible forehand. His forehand didn't cost him more matches than Fed's backhand at all. Learn to read.
Whenever Fed feels the pressure coming to his backhand side and he can't handle the pace, spain, whatever, he presses more on the forehand wing because he knows that he feels the pressure of the backhand falling apart which has countless times. However, Fed's backhand is better than Nadal's backhand, except on the run. I think Nadal's backhand is a better shot under pressure and when he needs to react and counterpunch as opposed to when he has time with it. Fed's backhand holds up better when he has time to either hit it out or slice it. Ironic really. Fed's forehand reacts better with less time as opposed to Nadal's forehand which reacts better WITH time. But then on the backhand side, Nadal's backhand works better when it has pace to work with while Fed's backhand functions better when it has more time to create variety.
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
I agree with you Agassi was a better player than Nadal. No way Nadal would ever win Wimby on fast grass.
I meant in terms of achievements rather than quality of play/opposition etc.
Federer today simply cannot be compared to Federer 5 years ago. That is your mistake. You talk about Nadal's backhand being better when counterpunching, have you never seen the half volley flick passing shots Federer specializes in? Nadal has never dominated a match with his backhand the way Federer did at his absolute best (versus James Blake for example)
Rickenbacker4003
Hall of Fame
Fed's backhand problem with Nadal is not a recent issue. Nadal has been raping Fed's backhand since 2004. So I made no mistake. I see you just keep going away from the facts.
Set Sampras
Banned
Sure for achievements. But it goes so much more deeper then that and its actuall more complex. IMO. But I digress. I always personally felt Andre's career slam carries more weight but thats me. To me Andre achieved the ultimate career slam. Lightning fast grass, slow clay, rebound ace, and lightning fast decoturf and then you add in Carpet. 4 or 5 very distinct, totally separate surfaces. All played very differently and you actually had to have a different strategy for ever slam
Last edited:
Rickenbacker4003
Hall of Fame
I've seen them, but Nadal has done more damage under pressure on the backhand than Fed ever did. Fed's backhand is a great rhythm breaker shot when faces powerful hitters. He can bring them to net with it or simply take the pace off when a big guy is overpowering him. Nadal's backhand can't do that unless he's backed into a corner and comes with his impossible passing shots.
Similar threads
