Is Agassi closer to Pete than Nadal to Federer?

Who has a greater gap over his rivalry?


  • Total voters
    66
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.

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.
 
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.

(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).
 
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).

(He was lucky there was no another top player apart from Nadal)
 
(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)

hey goof... :

iamhrbatysbeachno.jpg


hi harr Douminik's beeeotch no?
 
Isn't it worse to have a losing H2H against someone with no career achievements?

(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)
 
(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)

What about having a losing H2H against a slamless wonder like Davydenko.
 
(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],

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

you silly girl)

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

(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?)
 
What about having a losing H2H against a slamless wonder like Davydenko.

(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)
 
(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!

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

And did you know Murray leads Federer 8-6? And Nadal leads Murray 13-4?)

yes i know that Goof. your point?
 
(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)

Better to have a losing record against a slam winner than a non-slam winner, no?
 
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.

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...
 
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...

That's cause Pete wasn't good enough to meet Agassi in many clay tourneys.
 
That's cause Pete wasn't good enough to meet Agassi in many clay tourneys.

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:
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.

FO conspicuously missing from those accolades. For shame Pete, for shaaaaame.
 
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.

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
 
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

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..
 
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..

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.
 
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.

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)
 
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...

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.
 
(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)

And yet, you ignore everything I've mentioned above. Including Fed beat more top ten players than Pete. LOL
 
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.

(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.
 
(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:)

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.
 
(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)

So, Nadal sucks on Grass and his Wimbledon title are also worthless! is that what you are saying? :twisted:
 
So, Nadal sucks on Grass and his Wimbledon title are also worthless! is that what you are saying? :twisted:

(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)
 
(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:)

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.
 
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.

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:
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.


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.
 
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...

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.
 
Back
Top