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

helloworld

Hall of Fame
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

Fed is 4 1/2 years older than Nadal. Make sure your facts are correct before you post.
 

ScottleeSV

Hall of Fame
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

For me he'll never be better than Federer unless he wins more slams than Fed on at least two of the three surfaces. It's not enough to just get to 18 by winning 10 French opens or something ridiculous.

Currently, Nadal needs five more Wimbledons to match Fed's grass court count, and six more to match his hard count. If he wants to surpass Fed, he needs to sort one of those out. Can't see him doing the Wimbledon one this late in his career, but the other might be possible if he goes on a tear. But it will still be very hard. 3 more US opens and 3 more Auz for a tie? Hard to see him doing it.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
For me he'll never be better than Federer unless he wins more slams than Fed on at least two of the three surfaces. It's not enough to just get to 18 by winning 10 French opens or something ridiculous.

Currently, Nadal needs five more Wimbledons to match Fed's grass court count, and six more to match his hard count. If he wants to surpass Fed, he needs to sort one of those out. Can't see him doing the Wimbledon one this late in his career, but the other might be possible if he goes on a tear. But it will still be very hard. 3 more US opens and 3 more Auz for a tie? Hard to see him doing it.
In a way i agree. Hard to picture someone the GOAT, when there is another guy who has the most slams on grass and HC. In other words, hard to picture Nadal the GOAT, if Federer is still above him on 2/3 surfaces.

Yes, Nadal does have the most slams on clay, but Fed has the most HC slams and the most grass slams. Can't compete against domination of 2 surfaces. I mean how can you be the greatest of all time, when there is another guy who has dominated 2 surfaces, compared with you dominationg only 1
 

Jam

Semi-Pro
Nadal is clearly in the equation given he's only 4 slams behind Fed has way more masters although zero YECs but a massive winning h2h particularly where it counts at the business end.that said Fed's record is currently superior. Nadal may overtake him in stats, probably will in my opinion (with the only one he won't beat him at being weeks at number 1 but that's a function of competition). Fed to me is the more elegant player, probably less physical I mean look at their relative build. that's the reason why. Fed had better shots, wasn't as physical and had a single backhand that nadal as a lefty was able to exploit. does it make Nadal greater?? debatable. I probably think Fed is more aesthetic on the eye but nadal also is brilliant.
 

TheMusicLover

G.O.A.T.
please...no more of this. dear god, no more of this.

+1.

Additionally, a request to the mods of this forum: please, dump/merge any reoccuring silly GOAT-dispute-discussion-threads (GOATS for the past/present/ and future) in/with this thread, so the sensible folks over here know immediately which thread to avoid forever.

Thanks.

;)
 

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
Agassi is 100% right.

If Federer was 28 years old right now, no way he would finish his career with 17 grand slams, especially when you see how weak he is in the money time (missing match points US open 2010 / US open 2011 / Australian open 2005 / leading easily the french open final 2006 before collapsing for no reason)...

Nadal and Djokovic are above Federer when it comes to mental strenght in key moments.

(Hewitt, Roddick, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, Baghdatis, Ferrero, old Agassi... how lucky Federer was back in years 2004-2006 when he was winning most of his grand slams).
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Agassi is 100% right.

If Federer was 28 years old right now, no way he would finish his career with 17 grand slams, especially when you see how weak he is in the money time (missing match points US open 2010 / US open 2011 / Australian open 2005 / leading easily the french open final 2006 before collapsing for no reason)...

Nadal and Djokovic are above Federer when it comes to mental strenght in key moments.

(Hewitt, Roddick, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, Baghdatis, Ferrero, old Agassi... how lucky Federer was back in years 2004-2006 when he was winning most of his grand slams).
Really? I remember Djokovic collapsing in the FO SF last year and also USO final last year.

So much mental strength
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Agassi is 100% right.

If Federer was 28 years old right now, no way he would finish his career with 17 grand slams, especially when you see how weak he is in the money time (missing match points US open 2010 / US open 2011 / Australian open 2005 / leading easily the french open final 2006 before collapsing for no reason)...

Nadal and Djokovic are above Federer when it comes to mental strenght in key moments.

(Hewitt, Roddick, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, Baghdatis, Ferrero, old Agassi... how lucky Federer was back in years 2004-2006 when he was winning most of his grand slams).
So what if he missed a couple of MP? You forget at 30 Federer reached MP against peak Novak, while peak Nadal was not even close to doing so.

Don't judge Fed on how he faired at 29-30. Other greats were not even in contention at that age like Federer was.

Also i am glad you stick only to the negatives. How about mentioning some positives for a change?

FO 2011, when Nole seemed unbeatable against everybody, reaching no.1 at 31 against peak Nadal, peak Nole and peak Murray,while also winning Wimbledon

But of course, why even mention these, since it would make Federer look good and that's not your intention
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Agassi is 100% right.

If Federer was 28 years old right now, no way he would finish his career with 17 grand slams, especially when you see how weak he is in the money time (missing match points US open 2010 / US open 2011 / Australian open 2005 / leading easily the french open final 2006 before collapsing for no reason)...

Nadal and Djokovic are above Federer when it comes to mental strenght in key moments.

(Hewitt, Roddick, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, Baghdatis, Ferrero, old Agassi... how lucky Federer was back in years 2004-2006 when he was winning most of his grand slams).

How lucky was Nadal in his 2 USO wins? Youzhny and Gasquet as semi-finalists?

I guess Robredo was a tougher Quarter finalist than Agassi in 2004 right?

Lets not forget that Federer had to compete with Nadal on clay and grass during that period too...
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
How lucky was Nadal in his 2 USO wins? Youzhny and Gasquet as semi-finalists?

I guess Robredo was a tougher Quarter finalist than Agassi in 2004 right?

Lets not forget that Federer had to compete with Nadal on clay and grass during that period too...
It's easy to make someone look bad by pointing only to the negatives.

I could easily say Nadal would be lucky to even win a lot of titles off clay, seeing how it took him 2 years untill 2013 to win a title off clay.

I could easily say Djokovic would be lucky to win anything outside AO if he had peak Federer to contend with at W and USO, seeing how he lost to him at W and had to pull a houdini act twice to escape defeat at USO. Also he hasn't won anything outside AO for 2 years
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
It's easy to make someone look bad by pointing only to the negatives.

I could easily say Nadal would be lucky to even win a lot of titles off clay, seeing how it took him 2 years untill 2013 to win a title off clay.

I could easily say Djokovic would be lucky to win anything outside AO if he had peak Federer to contend with at W and USO, seeing how he lost to him at W and had to pull a houdini act twice to escape defeat at USO. Also he hasn't won anything outside AO for 2 years

I was going to stay out of this thread because I don't really care if someone thinks Nadal is greater than Federer. Just tired of the bs posts crapping on Federer's achievements. Like Nadal's draws are so hard because he gets to play Federer on his worst surface or because he plays a slumping Djokovic. Federer has beaten more top 10 players at every slam bar the FO compared to Nadal.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I was going to stay out of this thread because I don't really care if someone thinks Nadal is greater than Federer. Just tired of the bs posts crapping on Federer's achievements. Like Nadal's draws are so hard because he gets to play Federer on his worst surface or because he plays a slumping Djokovic. Federer has beaten more top 10 players at every slam bar the FO compared to Nadal.
Federer has also beaten more top 5 players than Rafa at W and USO. Rafa got to face most top 5 players at RG, which is favorite slam
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I was going to stay out of this thread because I don't really care if someone thinks Nadal is greater than Federer. Just tired of the bs posts crapping on Federer's achievements. Like Nadal's draws are so hard because he gets to play Federer on his worst surface or because he plays a slumping Djokovic. Federer has beaten more top 10 players at every slam bar the FO compared to Nadal.
And for the record i agree. Peak Fed could have beaten Djokovic of 2010 and 2013 USO's. The Novak match-up is much more enjoyable for Fed than for Rafa.
 

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
I agree about Federer competing good in 2010-2014
pushing the bests, beating Novak in 2011 at the french
having match points at the US, etc

my point was just that most of his grand slams were won during the famous weak era, that's all. Hence the number 17.

He's still a great champion of course, but the Greatest of all time, i disagree, if he had faced the same competition as Nadal did, maybe he would have ended up with 13 or 14, we'll never know but that's my guess.
 
F

FedererWinsWimbledon2014

Guest
I agree about Federer competing good in 2010-2014
pushing the bests, beating Novak in 2011 at the french
having match points at the US, etc

my point was just that most of his grand slams were won during the famous weak era, that's all. Hence the number 17.

He's still a great champion of course, but the Greatest of all time, i disagree, if he had faced the same competition as Nadal did, maybe he would have ended up with 13 or 14, we'll never know but that's my guess.

But then he would have easier post prime competition meaning more slams at an older age.

Also having the clay GOAT who is a nightmare match up is pretty hard competition. Whereas Nadal had an opponent (Federer) who was a dream match up. Not much clay competition for Rafa then.

Also Roddick was a great grass court player. Arguably tougher than Nole.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I agree about Federer competing good in 2010-2014
pushing the bests, beating Novak in 2011 at the french
having match points at the US, etc

my point was just that most of his grand slams were won during the famous weak era, that's all. Hence the number 17.

He's still a great champion of course, but the Greatest of all time, i disagree, if he had faced the same competition as Nadal did, maybe he would have ended up with 13 or 14, we'll never know but that's my guess.

Our point is it wasn't a weak era. Why does only the final count?

If Nadal is better than Federer, then it means Federer has had tougher competition than Nadal and his slam count would actually be much greater in other era's ;)

The fact is Nadal has won 13 slams from 05-14 the same as Federer, same era's. If Nadal had had a strong clay era to deal with maybe he'd have less FO's right, maybe just 5 so far and he'd be a 10 time champ.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I agree about Federer competing good in 2010-2014
pushing the bests, beating Novak in 2011 at the french
having match points at the US, etc

my point was just that most of his grand slams were won during the famous weak era, that's all. Hence the number 17.

He's still a great champion of course, but the Greatest of all time, i disagree, if he had faced the same competition as Nadal did, maybe he would have ended up with 13 or 14, we'll never know but that's my guess.
First of all Federer can't playhimself to make his comp tougher.

Second of all, you are looking wrongly at this. For Nadal, Federer was a great match-up, therefore you can't claim he was as tough for him like Nadal is for Federer.

Also what do you mean if he had the same competition as Nadal? They played in the same era against the same opponents. They were the top 2 players for 6 straight years afterall. Also read and take notes:

Federer-Djokovic 34 matches, 11 GS matches.

Federer-Murray 21 matches 5 GS matches.

Also if he had to face Robredo, Gasquet,Verdasco and Youzhny in quarters and semis of USO, Fed would not break a sweat in reaching the final. And if he had to face a slumping Djokovic in the final then he would also win in 4 sets at best.

Nadal also won most of his slams before the arrival of Djokovic 2.0.
 
I agree about Federer competing good in 2010-2014
pushing the bests, beating Novak in 2011 at the french
having match points at the US, etc

my point was just that most of his grand slams were won during the famous weak era, that's all. Hence the number 17.

He's still a great champion of course, but the Greatest of all time, i disagree, if he had faced the same competition as Nadal did, maybe he would have ended up with 13 or 14, we'll never know but that's my guess.
Or perhaps Federer made it look like a weak era, circular arguing. As you say, we'll never know, but his regaining nr. 1 at 31 points in that direction.
 
F

FedererWinsWimbledon2014

Guest
First of all Federer can't playhimself to make his comp tougher.

Second of all, you are looking wrongly at this. For Nadal, Federer was a great match-up, therefore you can't claim he was as tough for him like Nadal is for Federer.

Also what do you mean if he had the same competition as Nadal? They played in the same era against the same opponents. They were the top 2 players for 6 straight years afterall. Also read and take notes:

Federer-Djokovic 34 matches, 11 GS matches.

Federer-Murray 21 matches 5 GS matches.

Also if he had to face Robredo, Gasquet,Verdasco and Youzhny in quarters and semis of USO, Fed would not break a sweat in reaching the final. And if he had to face a slumping Djokovic in the final then he would also win in 4 sets at best.

Nadal also won most of his slams before the arrival of Djokovic 2.0.

The problem is that despite being all correct this too much detail for most people.

People are simple. Nadal had tough competition and Federer weak is about as much as they can compute.

Anyway Agassi only made his claims to promote this new Indian league.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
The problem is that despite being all correct this too much detail for most people.

People are simple. Nadal had tough competition and Federer weak is about as much as they can compute.

That's true and what's funny is that guys like Sampras or Agassi, who know about tennis tell about this weak opposition in Federer's best years, but people on this forum will claim the opposite.
I'd better take more in consideration Agassi or Sampras 's opinion than fans here and there, but that's just me.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Funny how you are talking about a Djokovic 2.0 (lol), but not a Nadal 1.0 (in 2004-2007 except for clay).

By the way man just check these statistics, they are a great answer http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=481184

Obviously Nadal is going to have better numbers against his own contemporaries, Federer is 5-6 years older than those guys...

Nadal was at his best on grass in 2007, even in 2006 I don't think he was any worse in the final than in 2011. His level was seriously better than in 12-13 as well.
 
F

FedererWinsWimbledon2014

Guest
That's true and what's funny is that guys like Sampras or Agassi, who know about tennis tell about this weak opposition in Federer's best years, but people on this forum will claim the opposite.
I'd better take more in consideration Agassi or Sampras 's opinion than fans here and there, but that's just me.

The majority of players think Federer is greater. It doesn't make news when someone says Federer is the greatest. It makes news when someone says Nadal because it is a shocking statment.
Also just because someone is good at tennis, it doesn't make them intelligent in life and about tennis. I doubt many footballer really understand the game. Mourinho wasn't a good player but he is knowledgeable about the game, most players wouldn't know anything about football.

Also Agassi was promoting the new Indian league , it is all about money.
 

monfed

Banned
As has been stated numerous times before, Fed's better on 2/3 surfaces. That shuts out Nadal's GOAT case. At this point, the debate is between Fed and Laver.
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Agassi used to regard Fed as the greatest before Rafa put Fed in his place. 2nd isn't so bad. Fed can tell his grand kids that he won 2 slam finals vs the greatest.:)
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
That's true and what's funny is that guys like Sampras or Agassi, who know about tennis tell about this weak opposition in Federer's best years, but people on this forum will claim the opposite.
I'd better take more in consideration Agassi or Sampras 's opinion than fans here and there, but that's just me.
Well Laver also called Fed the best. And did not criticize his competition. On the contrary.

Tell me when did Sampras say Fed had weak comp
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
I've just had a strange conversation with someone on a helpline regarding my laptop. He noticed that I had many tennis websites open so asked who my favourite player is, and I said Nadal. He then said Federer is his favourite but he thought Nadal is unbeatable on clay. Then he asked which tournament is on at the moment, so I said Rome, he then asked which surface it is and I said clay.

This proves that many people who say Fed is their favourite do not even watch tennis or know much about it. They are just buying into the Federer marketing propaganda.
 
Last edited:

Talker

Hall of Fame
Fed made #1 when Djokovic and Nadal were at their peak, Fed had already declined at the time quite a bit. Forhand errors, lost some speed etc.

How could a declining Fed make #1?
This ERA is easier than when Fed was in his prime.

Most players at the top are great but injured, Nadal has been out, Djokovic has been out and has Murray.
DelPo has been in and out, not in form.
Then others are very inconsistent, Dolgo, Roanic, Tsonga and Berdych.


It doesn't help to look at what the better players have achieved, they are not at top form much of the time these days.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
That's true and what's funny is that guys like Sampras or Agassi, who know about tennis tell about this weak opposition in Federer's best years, but people on this forum will claim the opposite.
I'd better take more in consideration Agassi or Sampras 's opinion than fans here and there, but that's just me.
Agassi who claimed he did it all during Fed's prime? Nadal won his last 7 slams after Fed's prime.

And the Golend Era of tennis began in 2011,when Nole and Murray became consistent threats in pretty much all GS. Since then Nadal only won 4 slams.

Before 2011 you could hardly call Murray and Djokovic consistent threats

Before 2011
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I've just had a strange conversation with someone on a helpline regarding my laptop. He noticed that I had many tennis websites open so asked who my favourite player is, and I said Nadal. He then said Federer is his favourite but he thought Nadal is unbeatable on clay. Then he asked which tournament is on at the moment, so I said Rome, he then asked which surface it is and I said clay.

This proves that many people who say Fed is their favourite do not even watch tennis or know much about it. They are just buying into the Federer marketing propaganda.

Yes this one person clearly shows that many people buy into the Federer propaganda...he didn't even say Federer was the best as per your words, only his favorite.

I could just as easily extrapolate that because you're a brain dead fan girl who mostly likes Nadal for his biceps that many Nadal fans must be like you desperate wastes of space. But I don't do that, I tend to judge fans on a case by case basis ;)
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
I've just had a strange conversation with someone on a helpline regarding my laptop. He noticed that I had many tennis websites open so asked who my favourite player is, and I said Nadal. He then said Federer is his favourite but he thought Nadal is unbeatable on clay. Then he asked which tournament is on at the moment, so I said Rome, he then asked which surface it is and I said clay.

This proves that many people who say Fed is their favourite do not even watch tennis or know much about it. They are just buying into the Federer marketing propaganda.

I've had 3 similar instances recently where all the three casuals picked Nadal as their favourite. The argument is absolutely shocking. Many fans of any top player do not follow the sport closely but having a random chat with one person does not present ''proof'' for the fact.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Agassi used to regard Fed as the greatest before Rafa put Fed in his place. 2nd isn't so bad. Fed can tell his grand kids that he won 2 slam finals vs the greatest.:)

Does that mean we need to put asterisk against all of Sampras' wins because he didn't play the two greatest of all time? Is he even third...or does Agassi think he is not even worth mentioning in the same breath as Nadal and Federer.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
The GOAT debate thing is no more than just a media hype. In the end, you can only be the best in your era, nothing more. Is Federer the best of his era? I doubt it.
 
I've just had a strange conversation with someone on a helpline regarding my laptop. He noticed that I had many tennis websites open so asked who my favourite player is, and I said Nadal. He then said Federer is his favourite but he thought Nadal is unbeatable on clay. Then he asked which tournament is on at the moment, so I said Rome, he then asked which surface it is and I said clay.

This proves that many people who say Fed is their favourite do not even watch tennis or know much about it. They are just buying into the Federer marketing propaganda.
Federers game and results is pretty good marketing in itself.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Not this weak era crap again? I thought that was put to bed after Wimbledon 2012.

For the slow people. Fed slam titles before FO 2005: 4
Fed slam titles after FO 2005:13.

So fed has the same number of slams as Nadal since the FO of 2005. How is it they didn't play the same competition again?

And again. Hewitt Agassi Safin and Nalbandian were all much better players before 2005 than after. So if anything fed and Nadal aside the field was weaker til 2008 when Murray and djoker emerged. And given that Rafa already has match up advantage with roger, how is it that he did not overtake fed but was his second fiddle in a weakend field yet is somehow better than roger?
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Not to mention Nadal was aided by the constant slow down of the courts. Federer would have achieved more if the ATP and ITF have kept the surfaces the same.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Not to mention Nadal was aided by the constant slow down of the courts. Federer would have achieved more if the ATP and ITF have kept the surfaces the same.

Indeed. So rafa had everything in his favor (slower courts, weakened field, match up advantage) and it took mono and age for him to overcome fed. And then as soon as he did djoker knocked him off his perch.

Still trying to understand how a guy who spent 4 + years ranked below fed is superior to fed.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
Not to mention Nadal was aided by the constant slow down of the courts. Federer would have achieved more if the ATP and ITF have kept the surfaces the same.

Federer wouldnt achieve more because at that point Roddick, Berdych, Soderling, Del Potro, Tsonga, Isner and so on would have step in. Its true that Rafa gain a lot from the slow courts but Federer is not that much behind him.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
Not this weak era crap again? I thought that was put to bed after Wimbledon 2012.

For the slow people. Fed slam titles before FO 2005: 4
Fed slam titles after FO 2005:13.

So fed has the same number of slams as Nadal since the FO of 2005. How is it they didn't play the same competition again?

And again. Hewitt Agassi Safin and Nalbandian were all much better players before 2005 than after. So if anything fed and Nadal aside the field was weaker til 2008 when Murray and djoker emerged. And given that Rafa already has match up advantage with roger, how is it that he did not overtake fed but was his second fiddle in a weakend field yet is somehow better than roger?

Nalbandian had his best seasons in 2005 and 2006
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Federer wouldnt achieve more because at that point Roddick, Berdych, Soderling, Del Potro, Tsonga, Isner and so on would have step in. Its true that Rafa gain a lot from the slow courts but Federer is not that much behind him.

Old fed beat Delpo at rotterdami 2012. He followed that by beating Murray at dubai, where the courts were very fast that year
After the match Murray said if conditi ons were still fast fed would be world number 1..

Söderling best results are on clay. Makes sense because he has a big fb windup

Old fed beat Tsonga and Berdych at Madrid 2012 when the conditions were like fast grass.

Fed returned a 145 mph roddick serve right at his feet during the USO.

Basically, I'm saying you're wrong.
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Federer wouldnt achieve more because at that point Roddick, Berdych, Soderling, Del Potro, Tsonga, Isner and so on would have step in. Its true that Rafa gain a lot from the slow courts but Federer is not that much behind him.

Nadal win but a loss for Federer. Two players are exact opposite...one is better on fast, low bounce surfaces while the other is better on slow, high bounce surfaces. There results on these conditions speak volumes.
 
Top