Sampras-Agassi vs Federer-Nadal
- Thread starter President
- Start date
drwood
Professional
Fed-Nadal, b/c of how often they've met everywhere. The contrast b/c Sampras and Agassi was better at its peak, though.
Fed's been good enough on clay to meet Nadal regularly on all surfaces; the same can't be said for Sampras on clay or Agassi the way he disappeared in 97-98.
Fed's been good enough on clay to meet Nadal regularly on all surfaces; the same can't be said for Sampras on clay or Agassi the way he disappeared in 97-98.
grafselesfan
Banned
Sampras vs Agassi easily.
Federer's backhand and nerves both fall apart vs Nadal. It is hard to call them high quality matches with all the unforced errors and choking on break points for Federer.
Federer's backhand and nerves both fall apart vs Nadal. It is hard to call them high quality matches with all the unforced errors and choking on break points for Federer.
That's not true at all.
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Not even close, Fed/Nadal.
GameSampras
Banned
Agreed. Their 2 AO matchups made for some compelling matches.. And their USO matches as well which extended for nearly a decade was awesome too. And their h2h was 20-14 favoring sampras.. Not too one sided really except when Agassi had to meet Pete on the faster courts he was doomed
I dunno if I would call the Fed-Nadal a great rivalry like a Sampras-Agassi rivalry or a Mac-Lendl or Mac-Borg.
Rafa has pretty much owned the Fed-Nadal rivalry in convincing fashion.
grafselesfan
Banned
I agree with you, and definitely agree with the matches you described between Sampras and Agassi which were particularly excellent. I would also not yet put up Federer-Nadal with those rivalries you mentioned, nor Connors-Borg, Lendl-Wilander, or Laver-Rosewall, 3 other classics. Agassi and Sampras seem to bring out the best in each other. Those 2 AO matches, 3 of their 4 U.S Open matches (excluding the first one), the 93 and 99 Wimbledon matches. That is what you want to see, 2 great players bringing out the best in each others game together at once.
I will concede the last 2 Wimbledon finals between Rafa and Federer were outstanding, but many of their matches are letdowns, and involve choking from both players you dont see either do vs other guys, even moreso from Federer of course. To put it simply they dont often bring out the best in each other for whatever reason, the matchup, pyschological, I dont know. I am a big Rafa fan and admit I dont like Federer, but I keep hoping for great matches when they play and most of the time I am dissapointed again. Their matches on clay all suck pretty much, Rafa spinning it high to the Federer backhand time and time again and Federer going on an unforced errors avalanche.
As you suggested Federer hasnt made enough of a stand in the rivalry for it to be a great one either. Too lopsided overall, Rafa proving he can beat Federer anywhere, Federer unable to prove he can ever beat Rafa when it matters on clay- even with 1000 attempts, heck Federer not even yet proving he can beat "prime" Rafa in a big match anywhere of yet. Federer has alot of work to do to make it a better rivalry. The ironic thing is the far less accomplished player is the one who owns the rivalry to the extent it isnt a great one, LOL!
GameSampras
Banned
Yea their two Wimbeldon matches were some of the great ones. The Australian Open made a for a great one as well. But we seen of fragile Fed really was when Nadal put the pressure on which seems to be the highlight of this rivalry. Nadal putting too much pressure on Roger where almost all the facets of his game are then inaffective. As far as the overrall rivalry if we factor in the rest of the non slam events and the French Open rivalry.. its pretty ugly.. And the quality of play I dont think is nearly as good as some of the matches Pete and Andre put on.. USO 2001 where it went 4 Tiebreaks, AO 2000, 95 AO, 95 USO for example.
I think the quality of play between Agassi-Pete was just all around better from both participants than Rafa and Fed IMO. And what really made the AGassi-Pete match great was the actual longevity up.. These guys were battling it out at 19-20 years old, and then years later they are in the finals again at 30-31 years old.. Just awesome longevity
I think the quality of play between Agassi-Pete was just all around better from both participants than Rafa and Fed IMO. And what really made the AGassi-Pete match great was the actual longevity up.. These guys were battling it out at 19-20 years old, and then years later they are in the finals again at 30-31 years old.. Just awesome longevity
Chelsea_Kiwi
Hall of Fame
Defination of stupid here people.
grafrules
Banned
So says the anti-Graf troll who brings nothing to TW but flaming and childish name calling (like this post again shows).
grafselesfan
Banned
Yeah I agree with all that. Also I think you bring up a great point about the ages and longevity both. I think that is another difference. Many of the greatest rivalries the two players are years or less apart. Evert and Navratilova were only 2 years apart in age for instance. Federer and Nadal are about 5 years, not too much neccessarily, but a bit more than ideal. Sampras and Agassi being 1 year apart is great for the rivalry, and the fact BOTH had such great longevity meant they were both battling it out for so many years. Fans got to see them grow up and go through the various up and downs and trials and turbulations and triumphs together.
grafselesfan
Banned
Feel free to make an intelligent statement to what I said that didnt make sense or buzz off.
julesb
Banned
Because you are a Federer and Graf fanatic and cant stand to hear anyone speak poorly of your two heroes.
grafrules
Banned
He actually hates Graf (as well as Sampras and many others). He is definitely one of the biggest *******s though.
Chelsea_Kiwi
Hall of Fame
Irony.
Also please don't make stupid statements like "anti-Graf troll" when you clearly have no idea what you talk about, I haven't made one "anti-Graf" post so stop making up lies. To be honest it only makes you look desperate which is quite sad.
grafselesfan
Banned
Yeah he even said Sampras wasnt a top 100 clay courter in the Open Era. What a blind hater, and he has the gall to be mocking others knowledge on the game, LOL!
RCizzle65
Hall of Fame
I didn't watch tennis back in the Sampras/Agassi rivalary, but from a few of the matches I've seen, it's how a classic rivalry is, and they brought out the best in each other. Federer, although my favorite player, seems to lose his confidence against Nadal. It's also fun how Sampras/Agassi competed throughout the years, they were in the same era, and both had long careers, and still battled at the top from beginning to end.
Chelsea_Kiwi
Hall of Fame
I don't know what you have against me. It is so childish how people like you, grafrules and julesb have to make things all personal can't you have a decent discussion without doing it. I must admit I can understand as Sampras and all your other 90's "tennis players" have weak cases compared to the likes of Federer and Nadal.
grafselesfan
Banned
What weak cases.
Graf is the greatest female player of all time
Seles is the second greatest female player of all time
Navratilova who also played in the 90s is the third greatest female player of all time
So the decade featured the 3 greatest female players ever
Now moving onto the men.
Sampras is the greatest mens player of all time, the greatest grass court player of all time, and the greatest overall hard court player of all time
Agassi is a top 10 greatest mens player of all time, and the greatest rebound ace player of all time
Lendl who also played in the 90s is a top 10 greatest mens player of all time
So the decade featured 3 of the 10 greatest mens players of all time, and the greatest ever on 3 different surfaces
No weak cases there. The best decade ever.
GameSampras
Banned
Now I have to ask you GrafSelesFan. Even as a Sampras fan myself, do you think Sampra's lack of a French Open title, Takes Sampras now out of the running for GOAT? Or do you incorporate his Rome title, deep French Open runs, 95 Davis Cup win on clay as enough to make Pete the GOAT in your opinion?
Just wondering? How do u validate your claim as Pete being the GOAT.
I agree btw..
Now Im not saying Pete had the greatest career and the most achievement as guys like Laver, Pancho or heck even Fed has had considering the results...
But thats to say I dont believe Pete isnt the best player
Chelsea_Kiwi
Hall of Fame
Agreed.
This is debatably the most uninformed comment of all time. :-?
VivalaVida
Banned
Seles the greatest women's player of all time? That is total nonsense.
grafselesfan
Banned
I do believe his lack of a French Open final and overall clay court results being less than other GOAT contenders defintiely could be an argument against him being the mens GOAT. I would certainly not dispute that. If one uses that as a main basis for not picking him, it is harder to argue against it.
That being said I personally rate Sampras as the GOAT or atleast co-GOAT with Laver for the following reasons:
-flat out I believe at his best vs every other player in history at their best if a time machine could be invented Sampras beats everyone on a non clay surface. Of course unproveable, just my honest opinion.
-his unmatched record at Wimbledon, still regarded by most the greatest tournament in the World.
-his outstanding record at the U.S Open which is probably the best in the Open Era (Connors has a strong case too mind you).
-his incredible longevity at a time longevity is much harder to achieve. Slam titles 12 years apart, 9 straight years ended in the top 3 ranked.
-his consistency was also outstanding. 8 straight years winning atleast 1 slam, 11 straight years reaching atleast 1 slam final, as mentioned 9 straight year ends in the top 3 ranked. Consistency and longevity are two keys for a GOAT, and he has both in spades.
-the fact as you mentioned he did have some creditable performances on clay, although there are a number of other all time greatest better on their worst surface than Pete on clay (including Fed, Agassi, Laver, Borg) he still was a pretty good clay courter in his prime all the same who suffered from playing in such a deep field on his worst surface.
-his dominance over all his biggest rivals. Only Laver can also claim that of the GOAT candidates I can think of. By biggest rivals I mean Agassi, Courier, Becker, Rafter, Ivanisevic on grass.
-the depth of competition he faced. Edberg early on; Becker, Agassi, Courier, through the heart of his career; later in his career Rafter. As well as the surface specialists such as Ivanisevic on grass/carpet, Krajicek on grass, Muster and Bruguera on clay. Then behind them all the solid outside slam contenders or streaky slam contenders like Kafelnikov, Stich, Chang, Korda.
-the amazing completeness of his game. Rallied and even outrallied some of the best baseliners in history. Arguably the greatest server in history, and one of the best volleyers of the last few generations. Amazing overall athletic ability as well. He could do it all.
Last edited:
grafselesfan
Banned
You are right. Graf is clearly the greatest female player of all time, thus Seles cannot be. However Seles is 2nd greatest female player of all time behind Graf.
grafselesfan
Banned
I did not say Seles was the greatest women player of all time. I said she was 2nd greatest behind Steffi Graf. Do not put words in my mouth.
VivalaVida
Banned
I agree that Graf is the best but I think Navratilova has a good claim at no. 2. Seles was a great player but obviously her career was pretty much ended by the tragic accident. I see no point in deducing her achievements. It is a shame of course. I mean we might as well start adding 10 more grand slams to Laver's resume while we are at it.
grafselesfan
Banned
I agree Navratilova has a good claim at no. 2, but I give Seles the edge for 2nd greatest ever behind Graf. Without the stabbing she would have won around 20 slams in her career.
VivalaVida
Banned
btw grafselesfan, I apologize. I didnt realize kiwi tampered with your quote.
grafselesfan
Banned
No worries, all is good.
Chelsea_Kiwi
Hall of Fame
Only returning the favour
grafselesfan
Banned
Only returning the favour
Well you can put Seles at #1 as long as you have Graf at #2. Those two simply amazing women have to be the top two in one order or another, hehe.
NonP
Legend
grafselesfan, I don't disagree with you on Seles' potential, but the fact is that she has "only" 9 Slam trophies in her closet. We can argue over Laver, Borg, Sampras and Federer because their Slam counts aren't so far apart. The same can't be said of Seles vs. Court, Evert, Navratilova and Graf.
Anyway I'm off. Nite.
Chelsea_Kiwi
Hall of Fame
Is this reply serious or am I missing a hidden message?
VivalaVida
Banned
Grafselesfan, When did you start watching tennis? just curious.
grafselesfan
Banned
I am serious.
grafselesfan
Banned
In the 1980s.
Chelsea_Kiwi
Hall of Fame
Oh well thats a nice reply from you compared to what I normally get from you
VivalaVida
Banned
Wowzers! That is impressive. I am not gonna try to argue with you about former pros anymore. :lol::lol:
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
Neglecting all the other factours Sampras-Agassi wins for me by default since it's a S&V/attacking all-court player against baseliner match-up which is the best match-up in tennis IMO bar none.
There's also the fact that Sampras-Agassi it's the best server against best returner.
There's also the fact that Sampras-Agassi it's the best server against best returner.
grafrules
Banned
Totally off topic but you are delusional if you think Seles is #2 all time.
one thing we often forget to take into account about seles is the style of her play, which would have eventually taken a toll on her body by year 1994 or 1995 (knife or no knife). Just like we are witnessing in the case of nadal. when he is "100%" he has even dominated federer ...but well he is only 23 now and even some of his own fans ( fans not ****s i must clarify here) are now doubting him as his knees often give up every 9 months.
graf quite similar to federer, had a style that helps longevitiy to a career which is why i still think in the longer run she would have had sele's number and does not deserves to be underrated because of sele's tragic career .
so as far as gathering slams are concerned, i dont think seles would have even reached all time # 2, forget about beating steffi's all time slam record beyond 20 slams.
jelle v
Hall of Fame
I voted Fed-Nadal..
Sampras-Agassi was a great rivalry in terms of who equality. Sampras leading 20-14 (I think I read that here in this thread) says the rivalry was close.
Federer Nadal is indeed a little one-sided. But the rivalry has had an extra dimension because of Roger wanting to win Roland Garros to achieve the career slam and maybe even the calender slam. It was a rivalry that had more to it than "just" a rivalry between the 2 big players on the tour.
I don't see much in the point that the Federer Nadal rivalry is dominated by Nadal. A lot of those matches were on clay and Nadal is possible the greatest claycourter ever. That is also a big difference between the two rivalries. Sampras and Agassi were both hardcourt players. Nadal clearly has the edge over Federer on clay, because he is a claycourter. And yes, i know that Nadal has beaten Fed on all surfaces, but Fed has beaten Nadal on all surfaces also.
Furthermore, I think that if Agassi and Federer were to meet 34 times, Federer would lead much more than 20-14. I think it would be more like 25 - 9. Not starting a GOAT-discussion here, it is simply a case of match ups. Federer loves the game that Agassi played, but while the game that Agassi played doesn't hurt Federer, it hurts the game of Sampras much more, because he played more serve and volley. The game that Nadal plays however, hurts Federer very much.
Sampras-Agassi was a great rivalry in terms of who equality. Sampras leading 20-14 (I think I read that here in this thread) says the rivalry was close.
Federer Nadal is indeed a little one-sided. But the rivalry has had an extra dimension because of Roger wanting to win Roland Garros to achieve the career slam and maybe even the calender slam. It was a rivalry that had more to it than "just" a rivalry between the 2 big players on the tour.
I don't see much in the point that the Federer Nadal rivalry is dominated by Nadal. A lot of those matches were on clay and Nadal is possible the greatest claycourter ever. That is also a big difference between the two rivalries. Sampras and Agassi were both hardcourt players. Nadal clearly has the edge over Federer on clay, because he is a claycourter. And yes, i know that Nadal has beaten Fed on all surfaces, but Fed has beaten Nadal on all surfaces also.
Furthermore, I think that if Agassi and Federer were to meet 34 times, Federer would lead much more than 20-14. I think it would be more like 25 - 9. Not starting a GOAT-discussion here, it is simply a case of match ups. Federer loves the game that Agassi played, but while the game that Agassi played doesn't hurt Federer, it hurts the game of Sampras much more, because he played more serve and volley. The game that Nadal plays however, hurts Federer very much.
Similar threads
