Finally, someone talking some sense. Agassi is the most overrated player. Him and Sampras are not even in the same league. The only reason Agassi is this liked is because of his personality and Americans liked that, that's it. Agassi is not even in the top 5 best tennis players.
Sampras says Nadal could surpass Federer as slams king
- Thread starter FedNad316
- Start date
Finally, someone talking some sense. Agassi is the most overrated player. Him and Sampras are not even in the same league. The only reason Agassi is this liked is because of his personality and Americans liked that, that's it. Agassi is not even in the top 5 best tennis players.
nadal_slam_king
Banned
Agassi almost pulled off the holy grail of tennis (or non-HG):
Won 1999 French Open
Finalist 1999 Wimbledon (lost to Sampras)
Won 1999 US Open
Won 2000 Australian Open (beat Sampras in SF)
I know he was slaughtered in that Wimbledon Final, but wow that was an incredible run he had, perhaps a better 9 months than Sampras ever had.
Won 1999 French Open
Finalist 1999 Wimbledon (lost to Sampras)
Won 1999 US Open
Won 2000 Australian Open (beat Sampras in SF)
I know he was slaughtered in that Wimbledon Final, but wow that was an incredible run he had, perhaps a better 9 months than Sampras ever had.
Last edited:
fed_the_savior
Banned
Which just shows that one good season a GOAT does not make.
nadal_slam_king
Banned
GOAT doesn't even exist. There would need to be an all-time ranking system for there to be a GOAT. Until then we just have "achievements" and "records".
fed_the_savior
Banned
Okay, so Greatest Until Right Now.
The GURN.
The GURN.
sonicare
Hall of Fame
GOAT does exist. His name is Roger Federer.
Stop trying to be a contrarian. You come across like a pathetic little weasel.
fed_the_savior
Banned
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
My original comment was not meant to be taken seriously.
However, to call Agassi overrated is either naive or disingenuous. He may not have been as accomplished as Sampras and some of the others in Slam count. But overrated? Hardly. 8 slams, gold medal and a long productive career (twice as long as most in the past 4 decades) with 870 singles wins makes him one of the elite. Even tho' he was playing against much younger players in his last decade of play, he still managed to win better than 3/4 of all his singles matches -- not a trivial feat for one in their 30s. The modern game owes much to his innovations and playing style.
Shady_Sawyer
Rookie
Sampras is looking for vengeance...he wants federer to feel the pain he felt when his 14 slam record was beaten...wishful thinking by this monkey with a hair transplant
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
^^ Forgot to mention that Agassi is considered one of the best, if not the best, returners of serve of all time. Overrated???
Butters!
Semi-Pro
Perhaps, but he better not have anymore wrist problems that put him out for another 9-10 months again or you can forget about it. His game isn't even that taxing FFS. However, I'm not sure he can win all four majors. This is a very hard thing to do which was made to look somewhat easy by 2 guys lately.
Butters!
Semi-Pro
Agassi's career stretched well into the 2000's while Sampras' ended so early in the decade in 2002, he was playing less and less. It seemed like that to me. But Andre better adapted to younger upcoming players than Sampras did post 1999. Agassi could beat Safin, Federer, Hewitt more often than Pete did. Agassi's baseline game would hold up much better in the emerging baseline era while Sampras' outdated serve and volley style aged very quickly from 1998 onwards.
Butters!
Semi-Pro
I don't see Don Budge or Pancho Gonzalez in that picture.
Butters!
Semi-Pro
Well he surely will get 3-4 more French Open's and 1 or 2 more Wimbledons so potentially that's 15 right there, add one more hc major as a possibility. It's realistic. He won the USO, I'm not doubting this kid anymore.
Butters!
Semi-Pro
That is CORRECT, the great one and only Don Budge. Best backhand of all time folks.
Butters!
Semi-Pro
I bold that part because I believe that is the way he can keep winning majors past 26-27 yrs of age.
Butters!
Semi-Pro
I think you should trademark that.
nadal_slam_king
Banned
You can't declare someone the GOAT when you have simply no idea how they would match up with previous decades. It's pure guess-work. Everybody knows the top 10 of today is inferior to the top 10 of the 90s and especially the 80s.
People can call this era a stronger 'top 100' than other eras. But the top 100 doesn't mean anything in the semis and finals of slams. The era with the top 5 or 10 players is the toughest to win slams in. If anything a lack of depth in the top 100 helps the top 5 arrive fresh at the semis, making it even harder to beat them.
People can call this era a stronger 'top 100' than other eras. But the top 100 doesn't mean anything in the semis and finals of slams. The era with the top 5 or 10 players is the toughest to win slams in. If anything a lack of depth in the top 100 helps the top 5 arrive fresh at the semis, making it even harder to beat them.
Butters!
Semi-Pro
I don't think he dislikes Roger at all. He was gracious when his record was broken and went to see him win his 16th. One thing Sampras can't be accused of is being a sore loser or bitter person. Which I can't always say the same for my guy. He stated only the obvious but wasn't overboard with it. If he was as what you say he was, don't you think he wouldn't want another player to come in and break his slam count? Nadal going past Sampras would push him down the list more.
Its good, to see a more subtil argumentation in the debate, than before, when Sampras and many writers and posters only looked for the majors record. Its not everything, and of course other factors are important in the evaluation of a top player. One cannot simply dismiss the head to head between players, who were big rivals and who are in their primes. Interesting is the changing status of the Olympics. If cou would have asked in 2008, what would be more worth for Nadal or Federer, Olympics ore the overlapping USO, one would have answered: USO. Now in 2010, this seems not so clear: With having the USO in his bag, Nadal has one important piece more on his mantle than Federer.
It was often so - and it is good for the game - that two rivals take something away from each other. Budge had his Riggs, Gonzalez his Kramer, who beat him convincingly in his domain, the head to head pro series, Laver lost important matches to Rosewall, Borg was hurt by Connors and Mac at the USO. In the case of Edberg and Becker, i always thought, that those two combined would be the perfect player: Edbergs legs with Beckers cockyness and arm strenght, Edbergs backhand and volley with Boris' forehand and serve. In reality, they stole each other important titles. In Federer's case: I still think he still has a claim as goat, but this claim has been hampered since AO 2009, when Nadal beat him at the AO final. Federer lost to his biggest rival in the third successive major final, on all surfaces, on his own territories, and in that final at AO, with all cards in his hands. Since then he has to live with this great rival in his own era.
It was often so - and it is good for the game - that two rivals take something away from each other. Budge had his Riggs, Gonzalez his Kramer, who beat him convincingly in his domain, the head to head pro series, Laver lost important matches to Rosewall, Borg was hurt by Connors and Mac at the USO. In the case of Edberg and Becker, i always thought, that those two combined would be the perfect player: Edbergs legs with Beckers cockyness and arm strenght, Edbergs backhand and volley with Boris' forehand and serve. In reality, they stole each other important titles. In Federer's case: I still think he still has a claim as goat, but this claim has been hampered since AO 2009, when Nadal beat him at the AO final. Federer lost to his biggest rival in the third successive major final, on all surfaces, on his own territories, and in that final at AO, with all cards in his hands. Since then he has to live with this great rival in his own era.
Butters!
Semi-Pro
For a good amount of time (20+ years) from 1938 into the 60's Don Budge was the GOAT. So I digress.
Last edited:
powerangle
Legend
Most agree that Agassi is an all-time great with plenty of achievements and a plethora of different titles. That's not underrating him.
But to place Agassi above Sampras in terms of records and dominance is overrating him.
nadal_slam_king
Banned
Agassi was a better claycourter and rebound ace player than Sampras. Agassi is a combined 3-0 vs Sampras at the Australian Open and French Open, and Agassi won 4 Australian Opens and a French Open.
Fine he was slightly more versatile only due to Sampras's problems on clay (I certainly cant say rebound ace when Sampras did better on his 2nd worst surface of rebound ace than Agassi did on most surfaces). However Sampras is still hands down the greater player. That was my main point. You dont question that do you.
No class? what? I suppose Federer has always been this pompous, classy person we all know and love/despise. Look at Federer when he was 19-23, he was a spotty, ugly dude with a shocking dress sense. Money does buy class in this case eh.
Devilito
Legend
Back in the 90s and early 2000s they also expected tennis to evolve. They never expected 1 or 2 players to totally dominate an entire decade with pretty much zero competition.
Olympics are of secondary importance, like Masters events. Likewise, H2H is only important in-so-far as reflected in ranking, slam count, etc.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Jeez, ppl. Who is placing Agassi above Sampras? My comment on page 1 (post #16) was not supposed to be taken seriously. Did you read my follow up post on page 3:
Zero chance Del Potro ever wins Wimbledon. He is too tall, not limber enough, not athletic or quick enough, not comfortable enough slicing or volleying, there is just no way.
I do think he could win the other 3 slams though.
ksbh
Banned
The *******s were admant that Federer is the GOAT because Sampras says so. Now 'ol Pete thinks the H2H is significant. LOL, I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of a Federer lover these days!
I still like Federer and possibly more than Nadal and think he is the GOAT atleast for now...... Federer had his time....I have no problems being happy with what Federer achieved or what he may yet achieve in the next 2 odd years.
Now its Nadal's time....Lets enjoy Nadal the other contemporary great player of the current Era......If he manages to win 7- 8 slams more, you have to give it to him....he would be the GOAT....else there will always be open debates between warring factions and subjective viewpoints of the fedal ****s.
Last edited:
Given how Nadal appears to be just entering his prime, I think there's the real possibility he could reach 16 total slams in only 3 seasons from now. In 2013, he'll be 27, so that could still be considered a prime year for him or at least one not far from his best level of tennis. For comparison, when Federer was 25 and 26 he won 3 GS each year and when 27 in 2008, he won 1 GS and lost the finals of 2 others to Nadal (while losing the AO SF to Djoker at less than 100%), so Rafa should be able to win at least 1-2 GS at 27 even if his level dips a bit.
Here's Rafa's most likely route to 16 (# of each GS he'd need to win over the next 3 years):
3 FOs- certainly very possible given he's lost only one match there in 6 years. There seem to be virtually no clay-courters at the moment capable of beating a healthy Nadal at RG (although predicting into 2012-2013 leaves more ambiguity).
2 Wimbys- again very possible. He's won 2 Wimbys in the last 3 years, so I see no reason he can't do it again from age 25-27. Unlike clay, there are definitely some guys who can give him trouble on grass, but nowhere near as many as on HC. Barring injury, he'll be the favourite going into 2011 Wimby and should retain that status for 2012-2013. Even if a resurgent Fed beats him one of these years, winning 2 out of 3 would still be within reach.
2 HC- this is probably the trickiest to predict, given how there are far more quality HC players capable of upsetting Rafa than at any other surface. Although Rafa did greatly improve his serve and fast HC game at the USO, nobody can doubt that he was gifted an incredibly easy road to the final thanks to numerous upsets in his half of the draw (most notably Murray). Whether he can consistently beat the likes of Murray, a healthy Delpo, Djoker (all of whom may not have hit their primes yet given their age), or even a resurgent Fed on HC and consequently win several HC majors is still in doubt. In that sense, what happens at the 2011 AO could be quite revealing for the next few years ahead. However, even if he does get "upset" by Murray, Delpo, or some other tough HC player at a few of these majors, winning 2 out of the next 6 HCs really doesn't seem like too much to ask of Rafa at his current level. He should be considered the favourite for at least this AO, and if he can take that, he just needs just one more weak draw in the next few years to reach that target.
From 2008-2010, Rafa won 6 majors (2 FO, 2 Wimby, 2 HC), so this would really be more a continuation of his recent pattern than a new level of success. Of course, this scenario still leaves room for Fed to win a couple more majors over time and bump his total above 16 (I could definitely see Fed winning 1 more Wimby and at least 1 more HC).
To me, the biggest qualifier in all this is his health. Unlike Fed, who had virtually no injury issues at age 24, Rafa has had some significant problems for most of the last few years and the way he plays is definitely not conducive to a long career. Given the strain on his body, it remains in doubt whether Rafa can dominate consistently from age 23-26 the way Fed did.
Where Fed's ongoing decline has been very gradual, I have a feeling Rafa's will be very sudden and dramatic (either some serious career-ending injury or he'll lose some quickness/stamina that is indispensable to his dominance and his results will rapidly deteriorate). In any case, the next 2-3 years will almost certainly be decisive in determining Nadal and Fed's ultimate status relative to each other and among the all-time GOATs.
Here's Rafa's most likely route to 16 (# of each GS he'd need to win over the next 3 years):
3 FOs- certainly very possible given he's lost only one match there in 6 years. There seem to be virtually no clay-courters at the moment capable of beating a healthy Nadal at RG (although predicting into 2012-2013 leaves more ambiguity).
2 Wimbys- again very possible. He's won 2 Wimbys in the last 3 years, so I see no reason he can't do it again from age 25-27. Unlike clay, there are definitely some guys who can give him trouble on grass, but nowhere near as many as on HC. Barring injury, he'll be the favourite going into 2011 Wimby and should retain that status for 2012-2013. Even if a resurgent Fed beats him one of these years, winning 2 out of 3 would still be within reach.
2 HC- this is probably the trickiest to predict, given how there are far more quality HC players capable of upsetting Rafa than at any other surface. Although Rafa did greatly improve his serve and fast HC game at the USO, nobody can doubt that he was gifted an incredibly easy road to the final thanks to numerous upsets in his half of the draw (most notably Murray). Whether he can consistently beat the likes of Murray, a healthy Delpo, Djoker (all of whom may not have hit their primes yet given their age), or even a resurgent Fed on HC and consequently win several HC majors is still in doubt. In that sense, what happens at the 2011 AO could be quite revealing for the next few years ahead. However, even if he does get "upset" by Murray, Delpo, or some other tough HC player at a few of these majors, winning 2 out of the next 6 HCs really doesn't seem like too much to ask of Rafa at his current level. He should be considered the favourite for at least this AO, and if he can take that, he just needs just one more weak draw in the next few years to reach that target.
From 2008-2010, Rafa won 6 majors (2 FO, 2 Wimby, 2 HC), so this would really be more a continuation of his recent pattern than a new level of success. Of course, this scenario still leaves room for Fed to win a couple more majors over time and bump his total above 16 (I could definitely see Fed winning 1 more Wimby and at least 1 more HC).
To me, the biggest qualifier in all this is his health. Unlike Fed, who had virtually no injury issues at age 24, Rafa has had some significant problems for most of the last few years and the way he plays is definitely not conducive to a long career. Given the strain on his body, it remains in doubt whether Rafa can dominate consistently from age 23-26 the way Fed did.
Where Fed's ongoing decline has been very gradual, I have a feeling Rafa's will be very sudden and dramatic (either some serious career-ending injury or he'll lose some quickness/stamina that is indispensable to his dominance and his results will rapidly deteriorate). In any case, the next 2-3 years will almost certainly be decisive in determining Nadal and Fed's ultimate status relative to each other and among the all-time GOATs.
Last edited:
cigrmaster
Semi-Pro
I think it is possible if Nadal stays healthy, continues to improve, and gets a little lucky, he could do the unthinkable and get two calender slams back to back to go to 17 majors.
Now that would be something to root for and would be incredible to see. I don't care who you are a fan of, that would put tennis out in front of any sport.
Now that would be something to root for and would be incredible to see. I don't care who you are a fan of, that would put tennis out in front of any sport.
As incredible as that would be, it's definitely expecting far too much. Murray is still his Achilles-Heel on HC, DelPo could well come back 100% next year, Fed is probably going to work with Annacone to make his game more aggressive (and hence more formidable on HCs), and there's still other big-hitting 2nd-tier guys who may be able to hit through Rafa on fast courts. He won't repeatedly get draws like the USO.
Rafa sweeping FO + Wimby for the next couple years is definitely realistic, but him winning 5 straight HC Slams (including the one already) just can't happen IMO. You can bump this in a year or 2 if I'm horribly wrong.
nadal_slam_king
Banned
Federer stopped trying to improve his game, and even ignored parts of his game such as serve-volley and chip-charging, flat backhand, and now he doesn't even feel comfortable trying those things against top players.
Whereas Rafa is a hard-worker, always looking to improve, so his strengths will only get stronger and his weaknesses will continue to become strengths. The only way this pattern stops occurring is if Rafa simply can't run anymore. While he can run it's just not in his nature to let parts of his game slip and that is why when he is 30 he will still be playing polished tennis. Either that or he'll retire, as he always said, he'll play for as long as he can improve.
Legend of Borg
G.O.A.T.
Yes, very much so. Both players are legends in their own right and I don't think it's quite so simple to say Nadal>Federer, but let's see how their career pan out. It feels like these comparisons are done to make people feel good about themselves. My player is better than yours, therefore I win. Ha-ha! Jolly good laugh and all that!
illuminati
Rookie
god i hope nadal doesnt come crashing back down to earth next year after all this nadal hyping.
remember 2009 after his 2008 year?
remember 2009 after his 2008 year?
Legend of Borg
G.O.A.T.
He has better schedule management now, so we shouldn't be seeing any injuries. I'm sure his bionic knees are holding up just fine.
nadal_slam_king
Banned
The only thing I'd like to see changed in his schedule is that I think he should completely skip the Florida hardcourt season (and also skip Rotterdam). I'm sure that won't happen, but hopefully he only plays Indian Wells, and nothing else. That'd be the best case scenario.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
It really doesn't matter what Sampras, or anyone else says. The only problem is when people attach importance to what others say. Former players, pundits, writers, etc. are paid for, or looked to for their opinions. That doesn't make their opinions valid, or gospel.
Many people cling to their assertions and try to use them as leverage in arguments only to end up with egg on their face. One thing we know is that the tennis landscape always changes and comments made can be easily dismissed in light of new information. So, if what Pete said a few years ago strengthened someone's opinion, then surely Pete offering a much wider view now has to be a little deflating, because some of their validity was lost.
It never bothered me what the "experts" said, regardless of their "knowledge" or opinion. It's still only an opinion.
The first time I saw Nadal I knew he was a special talent, and neither praise or criticism swayed my decision making capabilities.
Now, as to what Pete said, I think he is right along with a lot of other people who didn't think for themselves, but went along with the status quo. Now the status quo is being made to see that they were too hasty in their judgments. Rafa has proved them all wrong. So, for all of their he won't do this, he won't do that theories, it appears they didn't know as much as some fans.
Whether you like Rafa or not, there's no denying that he's a huge talent. Better? Meh. Who cares. The only one who should be caring about their greatness and legacy are those who have an actual stake in it, and that in my opinion boils down to those two, and those two only.
Rafa could surpass Fed, and he could not. Either way both men have contributed greatly to the sport as a whole. The whole tennis community should be grateful for the tennis they both have put on display.
The constant bickering amongst fans is stupid. Even if you like Federer's game because you think it's elegant, it shouldn't be outside the realm of thinking that others don't feel the same way. Dogging Rafa out isn't helping Fed. He's just a player trying to fulfill his own dreams.
When they both hang up their rackets they should be proud of what they accomplished, and what they brought to their own lives. The rest of us should simply enjoy the tennis. That's what I'm going to do. While Rafa is playing I'm going to enjoy seeing the most passionate, exciting, and humble champion I've ever seen.
His knees, his achievements, belong to him. Thankfully, I can separate the two. I'm pleased about that.
Many people cling to their assertions and try to use them as leverage in arguments only to end up with egg on their face. One thing we know is that the tennis landscape always changes and comments made can be easily dismissed in light of new information. So, if what Pete said a few years ago strengthened someone's opinion, then surely Pete offering a much wider view now has to be a little deflating, because some of their validity was lost.
It never bothered me what the "experts" said, regardless of their "knowledge" or opinion. It's still only an opinion.
The first time I saw Nadal I knew he was a special talent, and neither praise or criticism swayed my decision making capabilities.
Now, as to what Pete said, I think he is right along with a lot of other people who didn't think for themselves, but went along with the status quo. Now the status quo is being made to see that they were too hasty in their judgments. Rafa has proved them all wrong. So, for all of their he won't do this, he won't do that theories, it appears they didn't know as much as some fans.
Whether you like Rafa or not, there's no denying that he's a huge talent. Better? Meh. Who cares. The only one who should be caring about their greatness and legacy are those who have an actual stake in it, and that in my opinion boils down to those two, and those two only.
Rafa could surpass Fed, and he could not. Either way both men have contributed greatly to the sport as a whole. The whole tennis community should be grateful for the tennis they both have put on display.
The constant bickering amongst fans is stupid. Even if you like Federer's game because you think it's elegant, it shouldn't be outside the realm of thinking that others don't feel the same way. Dogging Rafa out isn't helping Fed. He's just a player trying to fulfill his own dreams.
When they both hang up their rackets they should be proud of what they accomplished, and what they brought to their own lives. The rest of us should simply enjoy the tennis. That's what I'm going to do. While Rafa is playing I'm going to enjoy seeing the most passionate, exciting, and humble champion I've ever seen.
His knees, his achievements, belong to him. Thankfully, I can separate the two. I'm pleased about that.
ninman
Hall of Fame
Yep, pretty pathetic and childish if you ask me. I'm really hoping to see someone who can do better than a 315-24 win loss record over a 4 year period, as well as make 10 consecutive slam finals and win more than 8 of them. It's going to take someone really special to beat a lot of Federer's records, and I really hope I get to see that in my life time.
Legend of Borg
G.O.A.T.
Join the club. I'm on the Dimitrov bandwagon now, and with right too. He's been having the best summer of his short career. Jumped from 359 in the world in January, to his current 136. Youngest in the top 150. If he keeps it up he may just get a WC or manage to qualify for the AO. Then the fun begins.
Nice post, I agree with a lot of it.
In terms of decline, nadal has no weaknesses at all on clay. For him off the ground on clay every shot is possible from everywhere on the court. While the FO rewards quickness/speed, you can also win there with average/below average speed, like Kuerten, moya, ferrero, costa, gaudio, courier, gomez.
Moya, and ferrero (gaudio too?) are good athletes, coordinated on the run, moya especially I find to be very smooth, but they are not really elite on those dimensions. Nadal's margins on clay are also extraordinary, he wins without losing sets, which means even if he drops he will still have margins to work with that are similar to a very good player on clay.
If nadal can control his competitiveness, he can play at RG for a long time imo.
Since his 81 game streak I always thought he had good chances to break borg's FO record, but if he can take like 9 FOs, that would be something, lol. 
Ultra2HolyGrail
Hall of Fame
It doesnt matter if he reaches or surpasses fed. What matters is all those matches fed-nad played that nads won over federer.. All the beat downs at the french-big win at the AO, and wimbledon win.. Fed did beat nadal at wimbledon twice though..
Last edited:
D
decades
Guest
Nice post, I agree with a lot of it.
In terms of decline, nadal has no weaknesses at all on clay. For him off the ground on clay every shot is possible from everywhere on the court. While the FO rewards quickness/speed, you can also win there with average/below average speed, like Kuerten, moya, ferrero, costa, gaudio, courier, gomez.
Moya, and ferrero (gaudio too?) are good athletes, coordinated on the run, moya especially I find to be very smooth, but they are not really elite on those dimensions. Nadal's margins on clay are also extraordinary, he wins without losing sets, which means even if he drops he will still have margins to work with that are similar to a very good player on clay.
If nadal can control his competitiveness, he can play at RG for a long time imo.
I think as he gets older he might choose to play only 2 tune ups pre french.
Similar threads
- Poll
