Is Agassi closer to Pete than Nadal to Federer?

Who has a greater gap over his rivalry?

  • Total voters
    66
TMF said:
But in the end, it's what you have accomplished that count. Davydenko can beat Nadal all he wants, but if he doesn't lift up the trophy at the end is pointless. Sampras and Andre has 64 and 60 single titles respectively. That's only 4 titles ahead. But Fed has 67 to Nadal 46, that's 21 titles ahead. Plus, Nadal is only 2 MS ahead of Fed, but Agassi is 6 ahead. That should tell you who is closer to his rivalry.
Click to expand...

The matches that count would be what I am talking about. Who cares if Davydenko beats him in some 250 or even a Masters series, Nadal doesn't, how many majors did Davydenko beat Nadal in? In the big moments, when it counts should be the measuring stick, not how many little tourneys so and so won, but rather who beat who in the Wimbledon final, US Open final, etc. I'm sure Davydenko would trade all his lame wins versus Nadal for just one in a major final. Connors has won the most tourneys of all time if I'm not mistaken, so based on your theory, he would be the GOAT correct. When it comes down to it, Nadal owns Fed when it counts and Sampras owned Agassi when it counted, bottom line.
 
jokinla said:
The matches that count would be what I am talking about. Who cares if Davydenko beats him in some 250 or even a Masters series, Nadal doesn't, how many majors did Davydenko beat Nadal in? In the big moments, when it counts should be the measuring stick, not how many little tourneys so and so won, but rather who beat who in the Wimbledon final, US Open final, etc. I'm sure Davydenko would trade all his lame wins versus Nadal for just one in a major final. Connors has won the most tourneys of all time if I'm not mistaken, so based on your theory, he would be the GOAT correct. When it comes down to it, Nadal owns Fed when it counts and Sampras owned Agassi when it counted, bottom line.
Click to expand...

(Plus Davy only leads Nadal 6-4. Unless Davy retires within the next 2 years, I suspect Nadal will likely get it to 6-6)
 
Federer was unlucky to be denied a better career by Nadal. He would have 7 straight years as No.1 (04-10), 22 slams, 6 more M1000s, 7 straight Wimbledon titles, 5 FO (do you believe he would have lost to Puerta?), 5 AO and 80 titles(excluding losses at semis).
 
TopFH said:
Federer was unlucky to be denied a better career by Nadal. He would have 7 straight years as No.1 (04-10), 22 slams, 6 more M1000s, 7 straight Wimbledon titles, 5 FO (do you believe he would have lost to Puerta?), 5 AO and 80 titles(excluding losses at semis).
Click to expand...

(He was lucky there was no another top player apart from Nadal)
 
BULLZ1LLA said:
(Plus Davy only leads Nadal 6-4. Unless Davy retires within the next 2 years, I suspect Nadal will likely get it to 6-6)
Click to expand...

hey goof... :

iamhrbatysbeachno.jpg


hi harr Douminik's beeeotch no?
 
DjokovicForTheWin said:
Isn't it worse to have a losing H2H against someone with no career achievements?
Click to expand...

(It doesn't look good to have a losing head2head, but when the encounters were early in a player's career, it can be extremely misleading. Nadal's h2h vs Hrbaty is no different to Federer losing in the 1st round of Wimbledon 3 times)
 
BULLZ1LLA said:
(It doesn't look good to have a losing head2head, but when the encounters were early in a player's career, it can be extremely misleading. Nadal's h2h vs Hrbaty is no different to Federer losing in the 1st round of Wimbledon 3 times)
Click to expand...

What about having a losing H2H against a slamless wonder like Davydenko.
 
BULLZ1LLA said:
(Don't forget to also check out Nadal's h2h vs Simon [compared with Federer v Simon], oh and Nadal vs Murray [compared with Murray vs Federer],
Click to expand...

Hrbaty owns Federer too goof... nice way to show you post out of your derriere!!!!

BULLZ1LLA said:
you silly girl)
Click to expand...

nice puch line... coming from the guy who thinks posting between brackets is cool and people like it!!! after so many beating that habit took in this forum!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gorecki said:
Hrbaty owns Federer too goof... nice way to show you post out of your derriere!!!!
Click to expand...

(Too goof? Oh I think the goof is obvious....

Hrbaty played Nadal in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2005. You are so pathetic, and even then prime Hrbaty lost one of those 4 meetings to young Nadal!

And did you know Murray leads Federer 8-6? And Nadal leads Murray 13-4?)
 
DjokovicForTheWin said:
What about having a losing H2H against a slamless wonder like Davydenko.
Click to expand...

(Davydenko has 21 career titles. Not a good slam player but good at everything else, and even won the 2009 World Tour Finals by defeating Del Potro in the final. And in Doha 2010, Davydenko defeated Federer AND Nadal. So no shame in Nadal trailing 4-6 h2h and a chance still to even that up)
 
BULLZ1LLA said:
(Too goof? Oh I think the goof is obvious....

Hrbaty played Nadal in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2005. You are so pathetic, and even then prime Hrbaty lost one of those 4 meetings to young Nadal!
Click to expand...

so what goof? point is that the almighty Nadal is Hrbaty's pidgeon, no matter how many excuses you make for him!

BULLZ1LLA said:
And did you know Murray leads Federer 8-6? And Nadal leads Murray 13-4?)
Click to expand...

yes i know that Goof. your point?
 
BULLZ1LLA said:
(Davydenko has 21 career titles. Not a good slam player but good at everything else, and even won the 2009 World Tour Finals by defeating Del Potro in the final. And in Doha 2010, Davydenko defeated Federer AND Nadal. So no shame in Nadal trailing 4-6 h2h and a chance still to even that up)
Click to expand...

Better to have a losing record against a slam winner than a non-slam winner, no?
 
DjokovicForTheWin said:
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.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about dude? Agassi closer to Sampras, then Nadal to Federer? Are you kidding? Nadal Federer heat to head is 17-8 in favor of Nadal!! How can Nadal be "closer" to Federer, if his beaten him 17 out of 25 times. Nadal is better player then Roger! Jesus...
 
Achilles82 said:
What are you talking about dude? Agassi closer to Sampras, then Nadal to Federer? Are you kidding? Nadal Federer heat to head is 17-8 in favor of Nadal!! How can Nadal be "closer" to Federer, if his beaten him 17 out of 25 times. Nadal is better player then Roger! Jesus...
Click to expand...

That's cause Pete wasn't good enough to meet Agassi in many clay tourneys.
 
DjokovicForTheWin said:
That's cause Pete wasn't good enough to meet Agassi in many clay tourneys.
Click to expand...

He was good enough to win 7 Wimbledons, 5 USO's, 2 AO's, and I don't even know how many Year End Championships he won.

oh, and he was good enough to have a 4-1 head to head record in grandslam finals against Agassi.
 
Last edited:
BeHappy said:
He was good enough to win 7 Wimbledons, 5 USO's, 2 AO's, and I don't even know how many Year End Championships he won.

oh, and he was good enough to have a 4-1 head to head record in grandslam finals against Agassi.
Click to expand...

FO conspicuously missing from those accolades. For shame Pete, for shaaaaame.
 
DjokovicForTheWin said:
Well if he used Pete's strategy and started losing in the second and third rounds he perhaps could have prevented the losses he had. Oh Fed, why'd you have to be so much better than Pete? Stubborn guy.
Click to expand...

If he used Pete strategy or had Pete's game .. Maybe he would have the h2h over Nadal.. Just maybe. He certainly wouldn't have losess on every surface at the slams. Maybe on clay.. But not grass and hc
 
Set Sampras said:
If he used Pete strategy or had Pete's game .. Maybe he would have the h2h over Nadal.. Just maybe. He certainly wouldn't have losess on every surface at the slams. Maybe on clay.. But not grass and hc
Click to expand...

Yeah but then he would have fewer slams and be less wealthy. No wonder he chose the latter :)
 
How do you know that? He wouldn't have lost to Nadal at wimbledon.. Wouldn't have lost to Nadal at the Australian most likely. And regardless he couldnt beat Nadal at the French. He should have incorported more net play and bigger serving against Nadal..
 
Set Sampras said:
How do you know that? He wouldn't have lost to Nadal at wimbledon.. Wouldn't have lost to Nadal at the Australian most likely. And regardless he couldnt beat Nadal at the French. He should have incorported more net play and bigger serving against Nadal..
Click to expand...

Because using Pete's strategy gave him only 14 slams. Roger's gave him 16 balanced out better. I mean Pete is always considered Mr. Grass, LOL the guy only has one more Wimby than Roger, Mr. everything else! You choose.
 
DjokovicForTheWin said:
Because using Pete's strategy gave him only 14 slams. Roger's gave him 16 balanced out better. I mean Pete is always considered Mr. Grass, LOL the guy only has one more Wimby than Roger, Mr. everything else! You choose.
Click to expand...

True, Federer performed better than Pete in other 3 slams. Pete has the edge on grass with one more W than Federer. But remember,

-Fed join Borg as the only player to win 5 straight W.
-Fed holds the record for most consecutive win on grass
-Fed beat more top ten players than Pete
-Fed made 7 straight W finals

For some of Pete's fans keep saying he's all wash up after losing to a young Fed in 2001, here is what Pete said after the match:

"Let's not get carried away," he said. "I plan on being back for many years. There's no reason to panic and think that I can't come back here and win here again. I feel like I can always win here."



Pete is very confident and believe he can play high level to win Wimbledon. Credit to young Fed for playing great which is no surprise b/c he dominate the grass later on.

"I lost to a really, really good player," Sampras said. "He played great. He came up with some really good stuff at huge times."
 
(Sampras' Wimbledon titles are worth a lot more than Federer's Wimbledon titles. Look at the opponents Sampras faced, so many better grasscourt players than those Federer faced. Federer is not even in the discussion as far as grass GOAT is concerned)
 
Achilles82 said:
What are you talking about dude? Agassi closer to Sampras, then Nadal to Federer? Are you kidding? Nadal Federer heat to head is 17-8 in favor of Nadal!! How can Nadal be "closer" to Federer, if his beaten him 17 out of 25 times. Nadal is better player then Roger! Jesus...
Click to expand...

He has yet to prove he's better against the field, H2H is only one part of the equation. The OP is obviously meaning achievements, Nadal is close but still has some work to do.
 
BULLZ1LLA said:
(Sampras' Wimbledon titles are worth a lot more than Federer's Wimbledon titles. Look at the opponents Sampras faced, so many better grasscourt players than those Federer faced. Federer is not even in the discussion as far as grass GOAT is concerned)
Click to expand...

And yet, you ignore everything I've mentioned above. Including Fed beat more top ten players than Pete. LOL
 
zagor said:
He has yet to prove he's better against the field, H2H is only one part of the equation. The OP is obviously meaning achievements, Nadal is close but still has some work to do.
Click to expand...

(When you say "h2h is only part of the equation" have you seen Nadal's h2h records vs the current top 10?

16-13 [5-2 slams] vs Novak Djokovic
17-8 [7-2 slams] vs Roger Federer
13-4 [6-2 slams] vs Andy Murray
13-4 [1-2 slams] vs David Ferrer
6-2 [5-1 slams] vs Robin Soderling
6-2 [1-1 slams] vs Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
6-1 [3-0 slams] vs Mardy Fish
8-1 [1-0 slams] vs Gael Monfils
10-3 [2-0 slams] vs Tomas Berdych

:lol:)
 
Sampras and Agassi speaks American English and curse in the same language as well.

Nadal speaks Spanish. Federer doesn't. Nadal's English is much worse than Federer's.

Federer is closer to Wawrinka than to Nadal.
 
BULLZ1LLA said:
(When you say "h2h is only part of the equation" have you seen Nadal's h2h records vs the current top 10?

16-13 [5-2 slams] vs Novak Djokovic
17-8 [7-2 slams] vs Roger Federer
13-4 [6-2 slams] vs Andy Murray
13-4 [1-2 slams] vs David Ferrer
6-2 [5-1 slams] vs Robin Soderling
6-2 [1-1 slams] vs Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
6-1 [3-0 slams] vs Mardy Fish
8-1 [1-0 slams] vs Gael Monfils
10-3 [2-0 slams] vs Tomas Berdych

:lol:)
Click to expand...

Eh yes, when I compare players H2H is just one part of the equation, many other things come into play so sorry for me personally Nadal still has ways to go before I'll consider him a better player than Fed though I do think Nadal has a great chance to equal or better Fed in the future given how great he's playing at the moment.
 
BULLZ1LLA said:
(Sampras' Wimbledon titles are worth a lot more than Federer's Wimbledon titles. Look at the opponents Sampras faced, so many better grasscourt players than those Federer faced. Federer is not even in the discussion as far as grass GOAT is concerned)
Click to expand...

So, Nadal sucks on Grass and his Wimbledon title are also worthless! is that what you are saying? :twisted:
 
Gorecki said:
So, Nadal sucks on Grass and his Wimbledon title are also worthless! is that what you are saying? :twisted:
Click to expand...

(I don't mind, Nadal has 2 Wimbledons, but its just to make up the numbers really. He is now becoming a better hardcourt player than grasscourt. AO and USO are where his future titles will be)
 
BULLZ1LLA said:
(When you say "h2h is only part of the equation" have you seen Nadal's h2h records vs the current top 10?

16-13 [5-2 slams] vs Novak Djokovic
17-8 [7-2 slams] vs Roger Federer
13-4 [6-2 slams] vs Andy Murray
13-4 [1-2 slams] vs David Ferrer
6-2 [5-1 slams] vs Robin Soderling
6-2 [1-1 slams] vs Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
6-1 [3-0 slams] vs Mardy Fish
8-1 [1-0 slams] vs Gael Monfils
10-3 [2-0 slams] vs Tomas Berdych

:lol:)
Click to expand...

Fed has better record than Nadal against these players:

Davydenko:
Nadal... 6-4
Fed...15-2

Roddick:
Nadal...7-3
Fed....20-2

Blake:
Nadal...4-3
Fed...12-1

Hewitt:
Nadal...6-4
Fed...18-8

Gonzalez:
Nadal...7-3
Fed...12-1

Del Potro:
Nadal...6-3
Fed...7-2

Ferrer:
Nadal...13-4
Fed...11-0

Clearly Fed was more successful against the playing field. Your point?

Anyway, it doesn't matter. What matter is if you can lift up the trophy in the end.

Since we know Fed > Sampras and Nadal > Agassi. The debate is who's closer to his rivalry. Stay on topic.
 
If Sampras has a better return, better bh, better ground game, he would be 34-0 instead of 20-14.

It's pretty clear these two have strengths and weaknesses. Andre has the advantage over a slow surface and Pete has the advantage on fast surface.
 
TMF said:
If Sampras has a better return, better bh, better ground game, he would be 34-0 instead of 20-14.

It's pretty clear these two have strengths and weaknesses. Andre has the advantage over a slow surface and Pete has the advantage on fast surface.
Click to expand...

If Roger wasn't such a stubborn and mental weakling what would his h2h be over Nadal? Fed probably doesn't have the advantage over Nadal anywheres of 08-present. Give Agassi some credit. hes a great rival and was a great player. He achieved a career slam at a time where it was the most difficult to do.

No one could be undefeated their whole career against Andre. He was too good.
 
Last edited:
Set Sampras said:
If Roger wasn't such a stubborn and mental weakling what would his h2h be over Nadal? Fed probably doesn't have the advantage over Nadal anywheres of 08-present. Give Agassi some credit. hes a great rival and was a great player. He achieved a career slam at a time where it was the most difficult to do.

No one could be undefeated their whole career against Andre. He was too good.
Click to expand...


Nadal > Agassi overall. On clay, Nadal >>>> Agassi. There's no argument since Fed fans agree Nadal > Fed on clay. And there's no arugument since fans agree Agassi > Sampras on slow surfaces(rebounce ace & clay).

All players have weaknesses, but Pete/Agassi has more weaknesses than Fed/Nadal. Their achievements say it all.
 
What makes you think Fed has no weaknesses? Didn't Nadal expose them? And Agassi>>>> Nadal on hardcourts. Nadal could NEVER win a wimbledon when Andre won a wimbledon.

Whats this no weakness stuff? I dont get it.
 
Achilles82 said:
What are you talking about dude? Agassi closer to Sampras, then Nadal to Federer? Are you kidding? Nadal Federer heat to head is 17-8 in favor of Nadal!! How can Nadal be "closer" to Federer, if his beaten him 17 out of 25 times. Nadal is better player then Roger! Jesus...
Click to expand...

Exactly. Many debate whether Federer is even better than Nadal. There is no debate that Sampras is better than Agassi. Thus making this a pointless discussion.

Sampras > Federer and Nadal > Agassi. Although if Agassi played under todays playing conditions and had no Sampras to deal with he could have been as good or better than Federer or Nadal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Poll Poll
Is Sampras closer to Federer than Lendl is to Borg?
2
Replies
83
Views
10K
PrinceMoron
PrinceMoron
T
  • Poll Poll
Who has better rivalry? Fed/Rafa or Pete/Andre
Replies
2
Views
943
statto
statto
mike danny
So how exactly is it established that Pete is mentally tougher than Roger?
10 11 12
Replies
561
Views
22K
Herald
H
Neptune
The GOAT points from UTS
Replies
3
Views
479
Jonesy
J
The Dark Knight
According to Agassi logic Nadal is the goat
2 3 4
Replies
183
Views
17K
The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight
Back
Top