Who is a better player off clay Agassi or Nadal?
- Thread starter RS
- Start date
RS
Talk Tennis Guru
Lol I am just a AJ fan. I didn’t think he was the greatest or anything.
RS
Talk Tennis Guru
If Tyson doesn’t KO Frazier early he would probably have to deal with him all night.
dapchai
Legend
1. Djoko because he eventually lost to Sir Andrew Barron Murray OBE OLY
2. Agassi.
3. Agassi.
4. Agassi.
5. Sir Andrew Barron Murray OBE OLY.
1. Neymar. Rooney should be 2010 pre Bayern.
2. Neymar. Lewan again should be 2020.
3. Messi. Why not Cristiano 2008?
4. Modric. What did Salah do in WC?
5. Fed, for obvious reason.
6. Ali.
1. Borg. Djoko dared to beat Fed.
2. Sir Andrew Barron Murray OBE OLY.
3. Federer.
4. Toss up.
5. Delpo.
6. Ancic (should be QF).
7. Federer.
8. Djoko, because Berdych lost to Nadal.
RS
Talk Tennis Guru
Lewa was probably the best player in 2020 and 2021. Was close in 2019 as well but I think Messi deserved that one.
2022 is up for grabs. Thinking Benzema and Lewa are close but Lewa has started off this season better so far. Haaland is on fire right now depending on how he keeps it up 2022/23 might be his.
2022 is up for grabs. Thinking Benzema and Lewa are close but Lewa has started off this season better so far. Haaland is on fire right now depending on how he keeps it up 2022/23 might be his.
DSH
G.O.A.T.
dapchai
Legend
Lewan was no doubt the best in 2020 and 2021 (but I don't think anyone was great in 2021, a crazy season). Neymar 2015 was a different beast, one of the main factors of Barca's treble that season who shared the UCL top scorer with Cristiano and Messi.
2022 is obviously Benz. Again, what did Lewan do in the UCL? What he has done since late August means nothing if he continues to disappoint next spring like what he did in the last two springs.
Erling seems to be an interesting case. Would like to see his performance in the UCL knockout phase. For EPL if he can maintain this form then noone can touch him there.
You better relearn the TTW hypothetical rules.Nadal is better than DelPo on grass, buddy.
RS
Talk Tennis Guru
I wasn't giving to Lewa just a side note,
2022 is Benzema I guess the way he saved Madrid time and time again is incredible.
MSN were just deadly in 2014/2015 season and 2015/2016 season. Probably the best forward duo ever.
dapchai
Legend
14-15 was great (you mean trio? three players lol), 15-16 not so much (they were mediocre even since the group stage). Enrique played a huge role there by coming up with a more direct offensive game for Barca when Xavi-Iniesta were still there. That was a great idea, but in 15-16 when Xavi departed and Enrique didn't know how to modify that gameplan to make up for that, MSN faltered considerably especially in the UCL.
RS
Talk Tennis Guru
15-16 was dip but I still felt they were deadly.
14-15 should get the nod though because that's the treble year. Felt that Messi and Neymar were both better but Suarez was worse but that's still 2/3.
Xavi's creativity
dapchai
Legend
Until Atletico humbled them
Suarez just came to Barca that season but already made a statement; that goal vs Real in March was decisive in the outcome of La Liga 14-15. Before he (and Enrique) came, Barca was clueless vs Atletico in both Liga and UCL 13-14.14-15 should get the nod though because that's the treble year. Felt that Messi and Neymar were both better but Suarez was worse but that's still 2/3.
Xavi's creativity
dapchai
Legend
That Chiellini bite was hilarious
Guy had already been well known for his weird plays (handball in WC 2010, biting Ivanovic in 13-14 prior to the WC). But perhaps he should be thankful for that ban; guy regrouped pretty well in 14-15.I think their opening goal was a fluke. Casillas already showed great decline earlier that season and somehow Carletto still put him in the lineup???? Guy'd been a lucky charm for Real in the UCL finals for a while so that decision was understandable, but still too risky. Fortunately Ramos was the man that Lisbon night.Atletico just missed out on CL that year so close
RS
Talk Tennis Guru
Good old days
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
Agassi for sure. Much better HC player and maybe a tad slightly better on grass or at the very least they are even on grass. . Nadal with an extra Wimbledon but he couldn't even come close to doing what Agassi did in the 90s. Nadal with more US Open titles but he didn't have to deal with Pete either LOL. Or Fed for that matter.. His US Opens all together don't sniff the difficulty AGassi had to deal with there. And Agassi could actually win a year end title. and of course Agassi was much better in Australia than Nadal is.
Agassi is right up there with with the best on hards to ever do it. Nadal is probably 2nd tier on hards
Agassi is right up there with with the best on hards to ever do it. Nadal is probably 2nd tier on hards
Last edited:
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
Yea he dealt with Peak/Prime Sampras his entire career on hards/grass and peak/close to peak Fed at the AO and US Open during the beginning of Fed's peak level. . Nadal never even played Fed at Flushing. Yea he didn't have to deal with Djokovic on hards but its not like Sampras was some pushover. LOL. Hes a top 3-4 player on hardcourts/indoors ever easy. Sampras was Definitely a betterplayer than DJokovic is at the US Open.. And better on grass. And probably better indoors. .(Obviously Djoker is better than Pete on slow hards though)
Last edited:
Rafa4LifeEver
Legend
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
Yea Nadal at his peak in 2010 was scary at the US OPen.. But so was Agassi in 2001 to be fair
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
He didn't deal with prime Pete his whole career. He won AO01 and AO03 without facing Pete.
The 1990 YEC Pete was #5 and not anywhere near his best.
He never beat Pete to win any of his 3 Cinci titles...
Only had to beat Pete in 1/3 Canada titles...
Faced Pete in only 1/6 Miami titles he won...
Didn't beat Pete at the US Open when he got his 2 titles there...
Didn't have to beat Pete to win the Olympics either...
So that's 15 big hc titles where he didn't even have to face Pete and the 1990 YEC when Pete was well below par...
Hardly dealing with him his whole career...
And it's not even close to dealing with Fed and Djok your whole career either.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
100%
Guys like to overrate Agassi bc then PETE is THE GREATEST
Not acknowledging that PETE underachieved big time in what was a pretty weak era...he won 3 Slams in one year exactly 0 times. Rafa has done it 5-6 times, no?
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
No player has had a 3 slam season 5-6 times.
As far as multiple slam seasons go - Pete had 4. Nadal has 6. Same as Djok and Fed who also have 6.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
Not even morally?
Ah thanks for reminding me.The_Order said:
Rafa has one 3-Slam season. Funny, it feels like a lot more?
Roger and Novak have 3 each.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
We all know Rafa has just one 3 slam season.
However when it comes to single slam seasons, Fed has 5, Djok has 6 and Rafa has 9
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
Pete sent him to into a spiraling depression after the 95 Open preventing him from winning other years there too like 2001, 1995, 1990. If Pete wasn't around, Agassi wins 7-8 US Opens most likely. Pete stopped him from winning 3 Wimbledons at least most notably in 1993 and 1999. And they were legit contemporaries. Only a year apart. Djoker Stopped Nadal alot but Fed is 5 years old with a different career trajectory than Nadal so contemporaries in a way but not like Pete/Agaassi were.
Nadal basically just had Djokovic to deal with. Due to the 5 year age difference, Fed was already hitting the very beginning of decline 2008-on when Nadal was just hitting his peak
Last edited:
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
Pete underachieved? Not for the time. Due to the condition 2 slams in a year was huge back then as there was no homogenization. Different game anyways. Rafa doesn't even win 2 slams in a calendar year in the 1990s. Whats he winning off clay back then?
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Yeah yeah Pete sent him into spiralling depression hahahahha... how delusional...
Fed wasn't declining in 08. He had a bad start to the season due to mono... he was perfectly fine by the clay season pushing Nadal in Masters clay finals, winning every grass match in straight sets all the way up to the Wimbledon final... lmao...
Fed's 2008 was better than Pete's 96 and 98...
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
He actually was already hitting the back end of his career though. 26 is when most athletes start to decline. Djok has been an odd exception.
And lmao at him "pushing Nadal," on clay, what kind of a Nadal fan says that?
Pheasant
Hall of Fame
Federer and Djoker won:
15 WI titles
23 hard court slam titles
12 WTF titles.
That is a lot of road blocks. That’s truly absurd. Let’s look at when Nadal faced Djoker and Fed at WI, USO, and AO. I will toss in a zoning Stan in 2014, since he ended Djoker’s run at the AO with a classic performance.
2006: knocked out by Peak Fed twice
2007: knocked out by peak Fed twice
2008: beat prime Fed once
2009. Beat prime Fed once
2010: lost to prime Fed and beat prime Djoker
2011. Lost to peak Djoker
2012. Lost to peak Djoker
2013. Beat peak Djoker and lost to peak Djoker
2014. Lost to zoning Stan, who beat peak Djoker
2015. Lost to Fed
2017: lost to Fed
2018 lost to Djoker
2019. Lost to Djoker
Wow. This is insanely tough competition.
I’m giving this to Nadal.
15 WI titles
23 hard court slam titles
12 WTF titles.
That is a lot of road blocks. That’s truly absurd. Let’s look at when Nadal faced Djoker and Fed at WI, USO, and AO. I will toss in a zoning Stan in 2014, since he ended Djoker’s run at the AO with a classic performance.
2006: knocked out by Peak Fed twice
2007: knocked out by peak Fed twice
2008: beat prime Fed once
2009. Beat prime Fed once
2010: lost to prime Fed and beat prime Djoker
2011. Lost to peak Djoker
2012. Lost to peak Djoker
2013. Beat peak Djoker and lost to peak Djoker
2014. Lost to zoning Stan, who beat peak Djoker
2015. Lost to Fed
2017: lost to Fed
2018 lost to Djoker
2019. Lost to Djoker
Wow. This is insanely tough competition.
I’m giving this to Nadal.
bnjkn
Professional
I agree Agassi was huge, incredibly talented player. It's just that peak Nadal was totally unplayable. Even 2013 Nadal I think was kind of unplayable.
You mean to say Nadal has greater achievements but Agassi a better player .. rt? Because for me how can a player be greater but not better than other.
Tennfan123
Hall of Fame
Agassi. Won on fast grass and had to go up against hard court Sampras. Won HC slams in a more competitive era.
BorgTheGOAT
Hall of Fame
In no possible scenario would Andre ever have won 7-8 USO. Even if he had won all editions where he faced Pete, he would have 6, all the other years he lost against other opponents. We should not blow this depression after 95 thing out of proportion. He might have underperformed in 96 a little and definitely in 97, but at the latest in 98 he was fully back on track and nevertheless lost against Kucera. In 90, he would have faced Lendl or Mac if it weren’t for Pete, which is not a foregone conclusion, considering that those are two of the most successful USO players with tons of experience against a 20 years old, inconsistent young player in his second slam final. Also very arguable that he would have won 2001, even without Pete. Going through Safin and Hewitt back to back is by no means an easy task. 95 and 2002 would probably be his, here I can agree.
Even less however, I see him winning 3 Wimbledons. He would have good chances to win in 99, but very unlikely he wins 93. His serve was seriously hampered by his wrist injury and he wouldn’t have beaten Becker and peak Courier back to back. Not sure, why you are mentioning 98. Andre lost in the second round against Haas, this would have happened regardless of Pete.
Hitman
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, because Nadal has 8 non clay slams and Agassi has 7 non clay slams. However, Agassi is better as a player outside of clay, because he can shown he can win titles everywhere.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
The kind that actually watched the matches... Fed has pushed Nadal on clay at times... not every match was RG08 final level humiliation you know...
Agree. On these forums people quickly equate greater achievements to being a greater player.
Stan on song - one of the best things you see on tennis court.
RS
Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal/Agassi/Stan/Sod/Del Potro. 5 best players to watch in that order.
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
If Pete wasn't around? Why exactly would he NOT win them? There would be no 96-98 slam disappearing act most likely. So he should be good to win at least 1-2 during those years at least. 1990 Agassi wins the Open. If he just beat Becker then he is without a doubt beating end of his career McEnroe.. Lendl/Mac's best days were over by then. No one is beating him in 95 either except for Pete. No one is beating him in 2001 or 2002 except for Pete. Theres like 4-5 extra right there. 93 Wimbledon, he was the only player to take Pete 5 sets there. Becker around that time was almost his pigeon and he should probably get by Courier on grass though Courier is a bit of a matchup issue for him
Last edited:
TheFifthSet
Legend
Too kind about '90 if anything. Lendl was going to make it through and he was sporting a 6-0 H2H advantage, pushed Pete to 5, was higher-ranked, won a major that year and followed up his USO campaign with a very successful indoor run to cap off the year. He would be the firm favourite against Agassi. The only thing going for Andre here is crowd support.
Never thought '95 was a gimme either. Courier was his personal boogeyman in those days, beat him in '95 convincingly, and Agassi was insistent he woke up feeling “38%” on the day of the final. I give Courier at least a 35% chance.
‘01 he would have to beat Rafter, Safin and Hewitt consecutively. In a vacuum he might be favoured in each of those three match-ups, but getting through all three as the older player is unlikely, even for a fitness freak like Dre.
I echo your thoughts about ‘93, very unlikely he beats Becker and Courier without much of a serve.
‘02 Pete denied him, sure. Probably even ‘99. But in sum, it’s not often that Pete stymied Dre in instances where he would have been a shoo-in otherwise. AA not staying the course after ‘95 is his own fault. Of course if you remove a players biggest rival they increase their haul, but Andre wasn’t uniquely affected by Pete. All of the Big 3 make off like bandits if you remove one of the other two, much less both. Borg’s historical stock increases immeasurably sans Mac or Borg. Lendl has Becker and Connors. Connors has Borg and Mac. This is the norm.
djokovic the conqueror
Rookie
Agassi. Nadal would be annihilated by Agassi outside of clay.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Nadal beat Agassi twice off clay and never lost to him...