Is Agassi closer to Pete than Nadal to Federer?

[NadalAgassi]

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.

Federer has many weaknesses. Weak return of serve at times, weak backhand, mediocre and shakey volleys, attackable second serve. The overall package of his game does not live up to the likes of Sampras, Laver, or even Borg who despite being the best baseliner ever adopted very good serve and very good volleys as his career went on too.

 

[tennis_pro]

(Yet there are no players in the current top 10 who call grass their favorite surface.....)

It doesn't really matter nowadays since all surfaces play the same. Back in the 90's there were tons of, even no 1 players in the world like Kuerten/Muster/Bruguera/Moya who sucked on grass and there was a fair share of players who rolled on grass yet were far worse on clay a la Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Henman etc.

 

[tennis_pro]

Federer has many weaknesses. Weak return of serve at times, weak backhand, mediocre and shakey volleys, attackable second serve. The overall package of his game does not live up to the likes of Sampras, Laver, or even Borg who despite being the best baseliner ever adopted very good serve and very good volleys as his career went on too.

Way to go describing Federer's abilities at 30. Let's see how good Sampras was at the same age.

Loopy backhand, far worse than Federer's current one, very inconsistant forehand, lack of speed, almost complete mental burn-out apart from 1-2 tournaments per year

 

[vwfye]

I just wish they would go back to the 4 different surfaces being distinctly different in playability. I miss seeing 'specialists' screwing up the draw!

 

[TMF]

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.

???????????????????????

I didn't say Fed doesn't have any weaknesses.

All players have weaknesses, but Pete/Agassi has more weaknesses than Fed/Nadal. Their achievements say it all.

Nadal > Agassi on grass & obvious on clay. Nadal overall > Agassi.

Just listen to what Agassi had to say about this era:

“The game of tennis has changed a lot and I really enjoy watching matches nowadays. The players are quicker, stronger, bigger, fitter and the whole package is that there is much more strength in tennis today. We can see today incredible exchanges of shots as the level of play is raised by the day, which is terrific for the crowds. The players are creating a game everyone loves to watch,” said Agassi

 

[Set Sampras]

Well if thats a case.. Why was 32 or 33-35 year old Andre on his last leg, I mean back.. Dominating guys 10 years or over younger then him? Its not as though 2003-2005 was many decades ago and a completely different era. Tennis is pretty much the same thing it is now. At 34 he took a close to peak Fed to 5 sets. And played him tough the year after.

Andre's wrong. hes knows hes wrong.. hell he PROVED he's wrong with his late career surge. Yet Im supposed to think a younger Andre can't beat a 30 year old Federer, Murray, Nadal, or djokovic, Almagro, Monfils, etc?

 

[TMF]

Well if thats a case.. Why was 32 or 33-35 year old Andre on his last leg, I mean back.. Dominating guys 10 years or over younger then him? Its not as though 2003-2005 was many decades ago and a completely different era. Tennis is pretty much the same thing it is now. At 34 he took a close to peak Fed to 5 sets. And played him tough the year after.

Andre's wrong. hes knows hes wrong.. hell he PROVED he's wrong with his late career surge. Yet Im supposed to think a younger Andre can't beat a 30 year old Federer, Murray, Nadal, or djokovic, Almagro, Monfils, etc?

And I suppose you expect us to believe you know more than Agassi.:roll:

Agassi career overlapped both decades and have played with so many players throughout a span of 20 yrs. You cannot deny his knowledge/experience...the guy knows what he's talking about.

Really, you just insulted a hall of fame Agassi. That's not cool.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Way to go describing Federer's abilities at 30. Let's see how good Sampras was at the same age.

Loopy backhand, far worse than Federer's current one, very inconsistant forehand, lack of speed, almost complete mental burn-out apart from 1-2 tournaments per year

Federer never had a very good backhand (which is how young Nadal owned prime Federer in H2H by just attacking the backhand repeatedly), he always returned serve too defensively, and he was always shaky at net.

 

[Set Sampras]

And I suppose you expect us to believe you know more than Agassi.:roll:

Agassi career overlapped both decades and have played with so many players throughout a span of 20 yrs. You cannot deny his knowledge/experience...the guy knows what he's talking about.

Really, you just insulted a hall of fame Agassi. That's not cool.

I dont need to know more then Agassi, when he himself PROVED it wasn't true. Maybe he shouldnt have beat guys 10 years younger then him like Hewitt, Roddick, Blake etc and a whole host of others during his dinosaur years and maybe his absurd comments would carry more weight. But comments like those carry NONE!!

 

[NadalAgassi]

And I suppose you expect us to believe you know more than Agassi.:roll:

Navratilova, Evert, John McEnroe, and Bud Collins have all called Serena a top 5 player all time. Yet you deny she is an all time great of any kind. I suppose a fool like TMF knows more about tennis than Evert, Navratilova, McEnroe, and Collins though.

 

[NadalAgassi]

I dont need to know more then Agassi, when he himself PROVED it wasn't true.

Federer himself admited he won so much since "the other guys hadnt matured yet" so basically admits he was so dominant and won so much since his competition was weak. Yet TMF and the Fed cheerleaders deny this profusely. I suppose they think they know more about tennis than Federer then.

 

[billnepill]

what a miserable couple lol

 

[Set Sampras]

Federer himself admited he won so much since "the other guys hadnt matured yet" so basically admits he was so dominant and won so much since his competition was weak. Yet TMF and the Fed cheerleaders deny this profusely. I suppose they think they know more about tennis than Federer then.

Exactly.. If dinosaur Agassi takes close to peak Fed to 5 sets and gives him major issues the year after , destroys roddick, beats Hewitt at his peak, beats Blake, and others and wins slams , we are supposed to believe Agassi can't hang with Old Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray. :shock:

 

[NadalAgassi]

Exactly.. If dinosaur Agassi takes close to peak Fed to 5 sets and gives him major issues the year after , destroys roddick, beats Hewitt at his peak, beats Blake, and others and wins slams , we are supposed to believe Agassi can't hang with Old Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray. :shock:

Exactly. Of course prime Nadal and prime Djokovic are also twice the players prime Roddick and prime Hewitt were, but isnt that also kind of the point when it comes to Federer's competition when he won most of his slams and dominated so much. Dinosaur Agassi at 35 and 36, barely able to walk, also nearly beat Nadal in their hard court meeting in Canada, and nearly took the first set of their Wimbledon match, remember when Nadal despite being only around 19 himself was also in his "prime" according to *******s (lol).

 

[billnepill]

Exactly. Of course prime Nadal and prime Djokovic are also twice the players prime Roddick and prime Hewitt were, but isnt that also kind of the point when it comes to Federer's competition when he won most of his slams and dominated so much. Dinosaur Agassi at 35 and 36, barely able to walk, also nearly beat Nadal in their hard court meeting in Canada, and nearly took the first set of their Wimbledon match, remember when Nadal despite being only around 19 himself was also in his "prime" according to *******s (lol).

Exactly.. If dinosaur Agassi takes close to peak Fed to 5 sets and gives him major issues the year after , destroys roddick, beats Hewitt at his peak, beats Blake, and others and wins slams , we are supposed to believe Agassi can't hang with Old Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Exactly.. If dinosaur Agassi takes close to peak Fed to 5 sets and gives him major issues the year after , destroys roddick, beats Hewitt at his peak, beats Blake, and others and wins slams , we are supposed to believe Agassi can't hang with Old Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray. :shock:

That 5 sets was in 2004. But that is contradicted by the fact that non-peak Fed (according to you in 2003) destroyed Agassi in straights when Agassi was one year closer to his prime.

 

[Set Sampras]

That 5 sets was in 2004. But that is contradicted by the fact that non-peak Fed (according to you in 2003) destroyed Agassi in straights when Agassi was one year closer to his prime.

The point is Andre hung with and BEAT all of the guys of the modern era. Except for Roger, who he came close to beating himself. Yet a younger Andre can't hang with this crew? Yea he can't with top 10. Can't hang with Fish, or Isner, or Monfils, or Almagro, or Murray, Soderling etc.. Yea they are too good. Way better then Andre was. Thats rich.

 

[Cup8489]

The point is Andre hung with and BEAT all of the guys of the modern era. Except for Roger, who he came close to beating himself. Yet a younger Andre can't hang with this crew? Yea he can't with top 10. Can't hang with Fish, or Isner, or Monfils, or Almagro, or Murray, Soderling etc.. Yea they are too good. Way better then Andre was. Thats rich.

Ironic thing? ANDRE HIMSELF WOULD SAY THIS EXACT THING LOLOLOLOL

 

[NadalAgassi]

Yeah I am sure Agassi really believes the likes of Mardy Fish, Gilles Simon, and Tomas Berdych are better players than him. Some of you belong in the loon.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

The point is Andre hung with and BEAT all of the guys of the modern era. Except for Roger, who he came close to beating himself. Yet a younger Andre can't hang with this crew? Yea he can't with top 10. Can't hang with Fish, or Isner, or Monfils, or Almagro, or Murray, Soderling etc.. Yea they are too good. Way better then Andre was. Thats rich.

But hanging in doesn't make sense. A better version of Andre was no problem at all for an even worse version of Federer in 2003. You can't use things like hanging and taking sets here and there for proof of anything.

 

[Set Sampras]

But hanging in doesn't make sense. A better version of Andre was no problem at all for an even worse version of Federer in 2003. You can't use things like hanging and taking sets here and there for proof of anything.

But there is proof of Dinosaur Andre destroying Roddick, beating Hewitt, beating everyone else of the "younger modern generation" despite being 10 plus years older.

So why can't a prime Andre beat any of these guys? Hell he beat the younger ones when he was OLD. Unless you want to say Fish, Almagro, Monfils, Berdych, Soderling etc.. are that much better then who Andre was beating.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

But there is proof of Dinosaur Andre destroying Roddick, beating Hewitt, beating everyone else of the "younger modern generation" despite being 10 plus years older.

So why can't a prime Andre beat any of these guys? Hell he beat the younger ones when he was OLD. Unless you want to say Fish, Almagro, Monfils, Berdych, Soderling etc.. are that much better then who Andre was beating.

Yeah but if dinosaur Andre could take prime Fed to 5 sets, then why couldn't younger Andre take baby Fed to beyond 3 sets? You're just picking and choosing the matches as proof. You aren't using all of the matches that also would contradict what you propose.

 

[Set Sampras]

Yeah but if dinosaur Andre could take prime Fed to 5 sets, then why couldn't younger Andre take baby Fed to beyond 3 sets?

Well he did beat Fed at the USO in 2001. Baby Fed as well. The point is he stood with Fed toe to toe playing the prime Fed (2004 still superior to his 2003 form) and played all those 5 setters before meeting Fed in the Finals in 2005 at the USO.

Not even that. Andre beat superior plays at an old age to alot of what we got in the top 10 right now. For him to make a comment citing he can't compete in todays era is absolutely lunacy. Or he is just paid to hype the era up. But again.. He PROVED otherwise.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Well he did beat Fed at the USO in 2001. Baby Fed as well. The point is he stood with Fed toe to toe playing the prime Fed (2004 still superior to his 2003 form) and played all those 5 setters before meeting Fed in the Finals in 2005 at the USO.

Not even that. Andre beat superior plays at an old age to alot of what we got in the top 10 right now. For him to make a comment citing he can't compete in todays era is absolutely lunacy. Or he is just paid to hype the era up. But again.. He PROVED otherwise.

Yes exactly, taking someone to 5 sets or 3 sets is proof of nothing. Even beating them a couple times is proof of nothing. Because counter examples always exist. He stood toe to toe with Fed in 2004, but before 2004 he could not stand toe to toe with an even younger Fed. You're still picking and choosing. He didn't play all those 5 setters in 2003 and still lost easily to Fed then. That those players Andre beat are superior is your subjective claim, you don't have data backing it up.

 

[Set Sampras]

Yes exactly, taking someone to 5 sets or 3 sets is proof of nothing. Even beating them a couple times is proof of nothing. Because counter examples always exist. He stood toe to toe with Fed in 2004, but before 2004 he could not stand toe to toe with an even younger Fed. You're still picking and choosing. He didn't play all those 5 setters in 2003 and still lost easily to Fed then. That those players Andre beat are superior is your subjective claim, you don't have data backing it up.

But Andre beating all the rest of that era proves nothing? I think taking Fed to 5 sets at 34-35 years of age proves ALOT. Who else during that time time was taking Fed to 5 sets?

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

But Andre beating all the rest of that era proves nothing? I think taking Fed to 5 sets at 34-35 years of age proves ALOT. Who else during that time time was taking Fed to 5 sets?

Andre didn't beat all of the rest of the era. He didn't get to every final. Taking Fed to 5 sets at 34-35, doesn't explain why he couldn't do the same at 33-34 when Fed was worse. You're picking and choosing.

 

[Set Sampras]

He DESTROYED Roddick, he beat Hewitt, he beat Blake ( when Blake was pretty dang good) and a host of others while at the time being 10-15 years older then those guys. Obviously because of his age he wasn't as consistent when he was younger, but he beat pretty much all the guys in the era at one time or another. Its enough to make one believe Agassi could play and beat these guys today if he was in his prime. Its assinine to think otherwise really.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

He DESTROYED Roddick, he beat Hewitt, he beat Blake. Obviously because of his age he wasn't as consistent when he was younger, but he beat pretty much all the guys in the era at one time or another. Its enough to make one believe Agassi could play and beat these guys today if he was in his prime. Its assinine to think otherwise really.

Roddick, Hewitt and Blake are not all the era. Who said Andre wouldn't be competitive against those guys in their prime.

 

[Set Sampras]

Roddick, Hewitt and Blake are not all the era. Who said Andre wouldn't be competitive against those guys in their prime.

Ok but there are/were at the time better then most of the guys we have in the top 10 today aren't they? Aside from the top 3?

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Ok but there are/were at the time better then most of the guys we have in the top 10 today aren't they? Aside from the top 3?

Blake? Not really.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

But Andre beating all the rest of that era proves nothing? I think taking Fed to 5 sets at 34-35 years of age proves ALOT. Who else during that time time was taking Fed to 5 sets?

You said it, son. I would like to add how Ivan Lendl showed the world how crappy the tennis was in the 90s. It took Sampras 5 sets to beat 30 year old Ivan Lendl in the USO QF. To make matters worse, Sampras actually lost a 5 setter to Ivan Lendl the very next year.

Pretty pathetic that he was not able to capitalize on a 11 year advantage.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

You said it, son. I would like to add how Ivan Lendl showed the world how crappy the tennis was in the 90s. It took Sampras 5 sets to beat 30 year old Ivan Lendl in the USO QF. To make matters worse, Sampras actually lost a 5 setter to Ivan Lendl the very next year.

Pretty pathetic that he was not able to capitalize on a 11 year advantage.

Oh hmmm, that definitely proves without a doubt 90s was the weakest era in modern tennis.

 

[NadalAgassi]

You said it, son. I would like to add how Ivan Lendl showed the world how crappy the tennis was in the 90s. It took Sampras 5 sets to beat 30 year old Ivan Lendl in the USO QF. To make matters worse, Sampras actually lost a 5 setter to Ivan Lendl the very next year.

Pretty pathetic that he was not able to capitalize on a 11 year advantage.

Nice try but 20 year old Federer lost both matches he played to 31 and 32 year old Agassi, and got humiliated by him at the U.S Open winning only 6 games. That is far more "pathetic" if you want to look at things that way.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Nice try but 20 year old Federer lost both matches he played to 31 and 32 year old Agassi, and got humiliated by him at the U.S Open winning only 6 games. That is far more "pathetic" if you want to look at things that way.

Federer won 7 games when he was humiliated. Interesting that that same Federer who was humiliated by Agassi had just completed humiliating Sampras at Wimby fast grass who still had another slam left in him

 

[Set Sampras]

Yea 7-5 in the 5th is utter humiliation.

 

[BrooklynNY]

Federer won 7 games when he was humiliated. Interesting that that same Federer who was humiliated by Agassi had just completed humiliating Sampras at Wimby fast grass who still had another slam left in him

If you actually play tennis, and lose 7-5 in the 5th set, do you feel humiliated? That's not exactly a terrible loss, but it is a disappointing one. Humiliated is a pretty wild hyperbole for that match. 7 games over 3 sets is not comparable to a 5 set match.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Yea 7-5 in the 5th is utter humiliation.

Well it is humiliation in the sense that that SAME Federer could only get 7 games on Agassi only a few months later.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

If you actually play tennis, and lose 7-5 in the 5th set, do you feel humiliated? That's not exactly a terrible loss, but it is a disappointing one, seriously, humiliated is a pretty wild hyperbole for that match. 7 games over 3 sets is not comparable to a 5 set match.

Please see my response above.

 

[BrooklynNY]

The nature of true grass court tennis is way different than a match on a hardcourt. The probability of holding serve is way higher.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Nice try but 20 year old Federer lost both matches he played to 31 and 32 year old Agassi, and got humiliated by him at the U.S Open winning only 6 games. That is far more "pathetic" if you want to look at things that way.

I thought it was established by Pete cheerleaders that Federer is pathetic

However, using similar logic it is easy to see why Sampras was pathetic and a disgrace to tennis like Federer.

 

[NadalAgassi]

There is a big difference between not conceding one the undisputed/dont dare suggest otherwise slam dunk GOAT, as *******s do Federer and then attack and insult anyone who dares to suggest othewise, and considering one a pathetic player.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

There is a big difference between not conceding one the undisputed/dont dare suggest otherwise slam dunk GOAT, as *******s do Federer and then attack and insult anyone who dares to suggest othewise, and considering one a pathetic player.

Agreed. Unfortunately, you and a few of your forum buddies are just as awful those *******s who attack anyone who says that Federer is not the GOAT. Indeed, you are one of those posters who practically starts an inquisition against anyone who does not believe that Laver is the GOAT.

 

[TMF]

Navratilova, Evert, John McEnroe, and Bud Collins have all called Serena a top 5 player all time. Yet you deny she is an all time great of any kind. I suppose a fool like TMF knows more about tennis than Evert, Navratilova, McEnroe, and Collins though.

Did Navratilova, Evert, John McEnroe, and Bud Collins ever played Serena on the women's tour?
Sure their opinion has merit, but Agassi has much, much more merit. Agassi played against prime Sampras and Fed, and host of players in both decades. There's no warrant for you and Set Sampras insult Agassi's intelligence.

Agassi has knowledge/experience on the ATP than say Navratilova who is a spectator. Big difference !

 

[BULLZ1LLA]

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.

(How are those players relevant? Gonzo? :lol: Nadal is the only player in the world with a winning h2h record against every player in the current top 10. I own you-

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

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Agreed. Unfortunately, you and a few of your forum buddies are just as awful those *******s who attack anyone who says that Federer is not the GOAT. Indeed, you are one of those posters who practically starts an inquisition against anyone who does not believe that Laver is the GOAT.

Quoted for truth. That guy is one of the most vile and hypocritical posters on this forum.

 

[tennis_pro]

Federer never had a very good backhand (which is how young Nadal owned prime Federer in H2H by just attacking the backhand repeatedly), he always returned serve too defensively, and he was always shaky at net.

Yet Federer's backhand is twice as good as Sampras' ever was. Nadal would r.a.p.e Pete's backhand on a slow/medium paced surface.

 

[billnepill]

Agreed. Unfortunately, you and a few of your forum buddies are just as awful those *******s who attack anyone who says that Federer is not the GOAT. Indeed, you are one of those posters who practically starts an inquisition against anyone who does not believe that Laver is the GOAT.

it is not about that imo

The guy is just a very bitter Federer hater. He delivers some of the most flawed logic I have ever seen.

The way Davey talks about Federer is like Federer is some tier-2 great. Most probably because that is his real opinion. On the other hand, he wants to see himself as a reasonable person, because his suggestions would sound otherwise wrong and wouldn't be taken seriously. That is why he is fiercely attacking Federer, as if he were nothing special, and in the same time he says he is "probably" top 5 all time lol.

Get A Life. NA/Davey25

 

[tennis_pro]

Nice try but 20 year old Federer lost both matches he played to 31 and 32 year old Agassi, and got humiliated by him at the U.S Open winning only 6 games. That is far more "pathetic" if you want to look at things that way.

Didn't Sampras actually lose to a 33-year old Lendl in STRAIGHT SETS in 1993 on a hard court while he himself was in his prime?

That's far worse than Agassi who went 0-8 against Federer after april 2002.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Did Navratilova, Evert, John McEnroe, and Bud Collins ever played Serena on the women's tour?
Sure their opinion has merit, but Agassi has much, much more merit. Agassi played against prime Sampras and Fed, and host of players in both decades. There's no warrant for you and Set Sampras insult Agassi's intelligence.

Agassi has knowledge/experience on the ATP than say Navratilova who is a spectator. Big difference !

Kim Clijsters and Martina Hingis called Serena Williams the best player ever. By YOUR logic Kim and Martina having played against Serena so many times are the most qualified. Martina has also played both Graf and Serena many times, and she said she found Serena had the better game and was tougher to play (and she played prime Graf in 95-96 too). So by YOUR logic are you now going to concede Serena as the best ever. After all do you think you more about tennis than Kim Clijsters or Martina Hingis, haha.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Yet Federer's backhand is twice as good as Sampras' ever was. Nadal would r.a.p.e Pete's backhand on a slow/medium paced surface.

I agree except for the fact that Pete would not allow that to happen as he wouldnt get involved in 20 shot backcourt rallies where he tried to beat Nadal's forehand with his own backhand. Federer often chooses this worst possible strategy out of sheer pride. Of course Nadal would crush Sampras on clay, but it has already been conceded Sampras is a weaker clay courter than Federer, and even prime Federer got his ass owned by Nadal 90% of the time on clay. Most likely they would almost never meet on clay anyway.