Roger Federer Still Greater Than Rafael Nadal; Andre Agassi’s Claim Premature

suppersready

New User
The Olympic is not the greatest achievement in all of sports anymore? Holiday exhibitions weigh more than slam H2H lol?
Actually, the olympics kinda seem like a holiday exhibition..

Agree that it's slams, then weeks at nr. 1, but then for me it's next number of finals, semis and quarters in slams or "overall slam performance", then WTF+masters and lastly H2H.
Yeah, slam perf. and wtf. I didn't think of that.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
Federer can't even beat Nadal.. Good lord. Its been established for a decade now

That's funny. I could've sworn that Federer has beaten Nadal 10 times so far but maybe it's just my mind playing tricks on me.
It's your mind, dude !

When we say Fed has never beaten Nadal, of course it is implied that we mean clay, and only slam finals (RG). How ridiculous and biased of you to take Mickey Mouse events like Masters into account or cheesy exos like WTF. And you must remember that we are only counting "healthy Rafa" who never loses.

You clearly are new to this forum so we will excuse you.
 

SoBad

G.O.A.T.
That's funny because I've always found debating WTF> Olympics more interesting. :lol:

What is there to debate? Basel >> WTF>>> Olympic

Clearly, a local grassroots tournament in the countryside trumps the circuit holiday exhibition and the exho trumps the greatest achievement in sports@!!:lol:
 

monfed

Banned
What is there to debate? Basel >> WTF>>> Olympic

Clearly, a local grassroots tournament in the countryside trumps the circuit holiday exhibition and the exho trumps the greatest achievement in sports@!!:lol:

Rather generous of you to make Basel greater than that local dirt ball in some outpost in Barcelona. :lol:
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
I'll give the haters one thing, it's a 24/7 job and they happily trot on non-stop without pay :shock: no way I could spend that much time bashing someone, kudos.

hhh-bow-o.gif
 

cronus

Professional
the greatest achievement in sports@!!:lol:

The moment you call Olympics as the greatest achievement in sports(not athletics) you should be given a special place in this forum.:)

Winning Olympics gold is greater than winning Wimbledon 10 times,Tiger woods agrees.

So the new math is olympic gold > Madird > french open > us open > Australian open > Wimbledon.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Unless you're a fanatic, it should be very clear for anyone with normal brain
that Nadal is a better tennis player than Federer.
17>13.

4 AO vs 1 AO
7 W vs 2 W
5 USO vs 2 USO

302>134

6 WTF> 0 WTF.

Yep. How irational you must be to believe Fed is still above Nadal with these stats....
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Unless you're a fanatic, it should be very clear for anyone with normal brain
that Nadal is a better tennis player than Federer.

unless you are a bitter sampras fan or nadal fanatic it should be very clear for anyone with a normal brain that federer is a clearly better player than nadal and sampras.

Anyways now your true colours are coming out more and more often ...
 

SoBad

G.O.A.T.
The moment you call Olympics as the greatest achievement in sports(not athletics) you should be given a special place in this forum.:)

Winning Olympics gold is greater than winning Wimbledon 10 times,Tiger woods agrees.

So the new math is olympic gold > Madird > french open > us open > Australian open > Wimbledon.

Maybe you're right, so forget the Olympics, when Basel = WTF = PharmaMama > everything else. Happy?:lol:
 

zam88

Professional
The mickey-mouse H2H is not given much weight in the traditional GOAT analysis techniques. Nadal was a slender fragile teenage boy unfamiliar with grass when he lost two Wimbledon finals.

if you're good enough to make the final and you're "unfamiliar" with grass then the rest of the field must be complete and total rubbish
 

Start da Game

Hall of Fame
almost all the tennis pundits believe that nadal is ultimately greater than federer......style, elegance, blind fanbase aside......when it comes to sheer greatness, it's just nadal over federer in many peopl'e opinion......

agassi is the first one to come out and speak openly......expect more people to say the same thing when nadal wins his 14th slam......
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
almost all the tennis pundits believe that nadal is ultimately greater than federer......style, elegance, blind fanbase aside......when it comes to sheer greatness, it's just nadal over federer in many peopl'e opinion......

agassi is the first one to come out and speak openly......expect more people to say the same thing when nadal wins his 14th slam......

Which are those manny people, show them, quoted them .... just do something with them not just say that they exist.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
Nadal have all the potential to surpass Roger but right now can someone explain to me how a player spending more time as number 2 than number 1 can be considered the best all time? In 5 years he ended the season as number two and in three he ended it as number 1 and truth to be told it would be very hard for him to correct this stat in his favour.
 

pjonesy

Professional
First of all, it absolutely does matter that Nadal owns Federer H2H. However, we all know how Agassi operates. At the root of everything, is Agassi's insecurity, related to his jealousy of Sampras.

Sampras owned Agassi H2H in big matches, had more Majors, more weeks and years at #1 and was much more dominant at Wimbledon and the US Open.

Agassi played longer, won all 4 Majors and competed against a generation of players that Sampras didn't. It's very convenient for Agassi, after being beaten convincingly by Sampras in his last match in the final of the US Open, to claim that Federer and Nadal are at a different level than Sampras. Agassi is basically claiming that since he played against both generations of players, that the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic era is better. I suppose that is how he justifies the idea that Federer and Nadal are better than Sampras and Agassi is an expert because he played them all(except Djokovic). Sampras isn't an expert because he didn't compete with Federer and Nadal on a regular basis. I'm sure Agassi brought up the fact that Sampras lost to Fed at Wimbledon. Agassi is a jackass.
 

cknobman

Legend
almost all the tennis pundits believe that nadal is ultimately greater than federer......style, elegance, blind fanbase aside......when it comes to sheer greatness, it's just nadal over federer in many peopl'e opinion......

agassi is the first one to come out and speak openly......expect more people to say the same thing when nadal wins his 14th slam......

LMAO.

If no one beside Agassi is speaking of it openly how in the h3ll do you know what they think!!!!!!!!
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
I'd say it's not nearly as much activity as the recent Nadal "victory" has inspired in Nadal fans living in denial of his obvious decline..

Even in decline, Nadal still provides some very entertaining matches like the match against Simon in Rome tonight.
 
Last edited:
if you're good enough to make the final and you're "unfamiliar" with grass then the rest of the field must be complete and total rubbish

Nadal had 20 official matches on grass, going into the 2006 Wimbledon final.

It is a myth, that he was "unfamiliar" with the surface, which is perpetuated by the VB (and some other fanatics of other players) and used to elevate Nadal's status in the eyes of the illiterate audience.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Nadal had 20 official matches on grass, going into the 2006 Wimbledon final.

15 actually, unless you're seriously counting Nadal reaching the semi finals of 2002 Junior Wimbledon. Nadal's win-loss record on grass on the main ATP Tour prior to the start of 2006 Wimbledon, was just 5 wins and 4 losses. So at 2006 Wimbledon, Nadal won more matches on grass than he had in his whole career on the main tour prior to the event.
 
Last edited:
15 actually, unless you're seriously counting Nadal reaching the semi finals of 2002 Junior Wimbledon. Nadal's win-loss record on grass on the main ATP Tour prior to the start of 2006 Wimbledon, was just 5 wins and 4 losses.

Í am counting every official match on the surface, that he has played.

There is no reason to exclude anything, especially when someone is talking about "unfamiliar".
 

Candide

Hall of Fame
17>13.

4 AO vs 1 AO
7 W vs 2 W
5 USO vs 2 USO

302>134

6 WTF> 0 WTF.

Yep. How irational you must be to believe Fed is still above Nadal with these stats....

Ouch. That sound I'm hearing is the smack of the cold, hard hand of objective reality reverberating off the tender buttocks of delusional fantasy and counter-knowledge.
 

Omega_7000

Legend
So Adnan Akhtar's opinion is more highly valued than that of Andre Agassi.

OP reeks of desperation.

So if you're going to weigh opinions based on number of majors, then why don't you take off head out of Ralph's rear and listen to Rod Laver?

"When I look at Federer, with what he's accomplished, against the competition that he's accomplished it with, I'd have to say I would think that Roger is the greatest player,'' said the Aussie."

He also added you can only be the best of your era and different era's cannot be compared. Totally agree with this...

"I've always said if you're the best in your era, that's as good as you really can do. You could take it back to 'Is it Fred Perry, is it Don Budge, is it myself that came along?'" added Laver.


http://www.livetennis.com/category/...e-best-player-of-his-generation-201310110001/
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
So if you're going to weigh opinions based on number of majors, then why don't you take off head out of Ralph's rear and listen to Rod Laver?

"When I look at Federer, with what he's accomplished, against the competition that he's accomplished it with, I'd have to say I would think that Roger is the greatest player,'' said the Aussie."

He also added you can only be the best of your era and different era's cannot be compared. Totally agree with this...

"I've always said if you're the best in your era, that's as good as you really can do. You could take it back to 'Is it Fred Perry, is it Don Budge, is it myself that came along?'" added Laver.


http://www.livetennis.com/category/...e-best-player-of-his-generation-201310110001/

Rod Laver hasn't played against either Federer or Nadal in a competitive level like Agassi has.

Fed and Rod are little buddies which is why Fed sooked so much when he saw Rod being forced to hand Rafa the AO title.

Agassi, Djokovic, Murray all say Nadal is greater and all 3 have played against both.

You only have idiots like Soderling and Mirnyi saying Fed is greater...
 
Last edited:

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Rod Laver hasn't played against either Federer or Nadal in a competitive level like Agassi has.

Fed and Rod are little buddies which is why Fed sooked so much when he saw Rod being forced to hand Rafa the AO title.

Agassi, Djokovic, Murray all say Nadal is greater and all 3 have played against both.

You only have idiots like Soderling and Mirnyi saying Fed is greater...

And why do you think Djokovic and Murray(?) say that? Surely not because they have had their own time of success in Nadal's prime which boosts their own importance if he truly is the GOAT as they say, right? :roll:

Agassi is the same. He is using arguments that can be used for himself against Pete. It's just about himself.

But you know, what others say is irrelevant. Try using logic and reasoning and forget your senseless bias. The numbers speak truly.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
It's too early to say Nadal is greater than Federer. The two biggest stats against Nadal are weeks at no.1 and Slam wins. Nadal needs to at least equal number of slams to overtake Federer. Also, the fact that Federer is 5 years senior to Nadal is always easily overlooked. Nadal is getting beaten more this year and I expect over the next few years, it will be harder for him to stay at the current level. That will make the younger generation of players look better and maybe someone like Thiem will be hailed as the potential greatest of all time if he starts to dominate. The point is, we have to wait until the dust is settled. It's too early to get carried away by Nadal's success, especially from 2013 which seem to have swayed a lot of people's opinions. If he starts losing more frequently due to his age, this perception can suddenly change again. Federer was 28 in 2009, which is the age of Nadal in 2014. Nadal showing signs of decline should tell us that Federer from 2009 was not the best version, yet he was perceived as good as the other big 4 which should indicate how good Federer actually has been past his prime years. That can become more and more obvious in the next 2-3 years as both Nadal and Djokovic decline with age and that may change people's opinion yet again. We'll see how things pan out in the future. Any conclusive opinion now is too premature.
 
Last edited:

Omega_7000

Legend
Rod Laver hasn't played against either Federer or Nadal in a competitive level like Agassi has.

Fed and Rod are little buddies which is why Fed sooked so much when he saw Rod being forced to hand Rafa the AO title.

Agassi, Djokovic, Murray all say Nadal is greater and all 3 have played against both.

You only have idiots like Soderling and Mirnyi saying Fed is greater...

Yeah ok. So now that I have crushed your argument (only listen to people with more majors) into dust you come up with "but Rod Laver is friends with Federer". LMAO.

Actually Rod Laver has most impartial stance on this. He's got nothing to gain by saying Federer is the greatest.
 

cknobman

Legend
Rod Laver hasn't played against either Federer or Nadal in a competitive level like Agassi has.

Fed and Rod are little buddies which is why Fed sooked so much when he saw Rod being forced to hand Rafa the AO title.

Agassi, Djokovic, Murray all say Nadal is greater and all 3 have played against both.

You only have idiots like Soderling and Mirnyi saying Fed is greater...

Wow, you are seriously dumber than I imagined.

Stooping low enough to try and discredit Rod Laver is about the most pathetic thing I have seen.
 

Start da Game

Hall of Fame
Rod Laver hasn't played against either Federer or Nadal in a competitive level like Agassi has.

Fed and Rod are little buddies which is why Fed sooked so much when he saw Rod being forced to hand Rafa the AO title.

Agassi, Djokovic, Murray all say Nadal is greater and all 3 have played against both.

You only have idiots like Soderling and Mirnyi saying Fed is greater...

quite true...
 

KHSOLO

Semi-Pro
When comparing Nadal to Fed people tend to forget Fed is 6 years older then Nadal, also 6 years older than Murray or Nole

Is like comparing Nadal to Dimitrov agewise, just saying
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic and Murray have had their success during Nadal's prime. Obviously they will say Nadal is greater.

When Djokovic and Murray turns 28, they will appreciate what Fed has been doing as 28+ yo. It's like we don't appreciate our parents' hard work until we become parents ourselves. Or, it's like as we grow old, we realize how age can be a bi*ch.
 

AngieB

Banned
8 out of 13 of Nadal's GS wins were on clay. Heck no, he's not the GOAT! Until he ties or surpasses Roger's 17 and/or Weeks at No. 1, his name shouldn't even be mentioned.

Praise the Lord!

AngieB
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
8 out of 13 of Nadal's GS wins were on clay. Heck no, he's not the GOAT! Until he ties or surpasses Roger's 17 and/or Weeks at No. 1, his name shouldn't even be mentioned.

Praise the Lord!

AngieB

I agree, Nadal can only realistically be placed in 6th place all time at present.

1. Roger Federer
2. Rod Laver
3. Pete Sampras
4. Pancho Gonzales
5. Ken Rosewall
6. Rafael Nadal
 
Top