Agassi: Nadal Is No.1 of All time

[Liberal Icon]

SINGAPORE -- Andre Agassi says Rafael Nadal should be considered the greatest tennis player ever, not Roger Federer. Read more from


Andre Agassi said Rafael Nadal is the greatest tennis player ever, not Roger Federer - ESPN

"Agassi made the comments in an interview with Singapore newspaper Straits Times, saying Nadal's achievements are more impressive because he has had to deal with tougher competition."

"Nadal had to deal with Federer, [Novak] Djokovic, [Andy] Murray in the golden age of tennis," said Agassi, himself a former world No. 1. "He has done what he has done, and he's not done yet."

Now, that is one man's opinion. Remember he was a former # 1 not an ordinary player. I am not saying Agassi is right or wrong. I do not even think that one can be very assertive here on that.

 

[bksballer89]

I sort of agree because for a lot of Fed career, the #2 player was Roddick who isn't on the level of a Novak, Fed, or Murray which is what Rafa had to deal with

 

[cezero]

If Nadal ties Fed's slam record, I'll agree.

The level of competition difference that Agassi mentioned would be the tiebreaker for me.

I love Fed, but his biggest competition for nearly half a decade of winning majors were Roddick and Hewitt.

I just wish that Nadal's tennis wasn't so hideous.

 

[Smart]

You all are acting like Nadal has been a dominant force outside clay. He simply hasn't. In total, he has 5 grand slams off of clay. Nole has more, and I don't think anyone would consider Nole a top 8 player in history. Nadal has never won the YEC. He's never won Miami or Paris Indoor. His only Cincy win was last year, where he barely took down Fed in the middle of the worst slump of Fed's career. His only Shanghai win was in 2005, when he beat one top 10 play (Ljubicic, 7-6 in the 5th).

He's clearly the best clay courter of all-time, but he's way too one-dimensional.

 

[cezero]

You all are acting like Nadal has been a dominant force outside clay. He simply hasn't. In total, he has 5 grand slams off of clay. Nole has more, and I don't think anyone would consider Nole a top 8 player in history. Nadal has never won the YEC. He's never won Miami or Paris Indoor. His only Cincy win was last year, where he barely took down Fed in the middle of the worst slump of Fed's career. His only Shanghai win was in 2005, when he beat one top 10 play (Ljubicic, 7-6 in the 5th).

He's clearly the best clay courter of all-time, but he's way too one-dimensional.

If Fed had been facing the same caliber at every tournament, he would probably have fewer majors. Tennis fans understand this.

I hate the way Nadal plays, but he's won more majors on his worst surface against a much better overall field than Fed did.

5 slams off of clay (2 over Fed and 2 over Djokovic) are actually very good. Hard courts are his worst sufrace, and he won his hard court major titles against Fed and Djok in their primes.

Fed won his 1 major on his worst surface over Soderling.

If Nadal ties or exceeds Fed's slam count, it's hard not to put him equal to or above Fed in terms of all time greats.

Again, just talking to tennis fans here.

 

[Dragon]

False. At this point in time Federer is #1. But Rafa will top him eventually.

I think you can say this just based on grand slams, obviously, because frankly they're the only things that matter in tennis.

Nadal is the number 1 player on clay of all time.

 

[bksballer89]

If Fed had been facing the same caliber at every tournament, he would probably have fewer majors. Tennis fans understand this.

I hate the way Nadal plays, but he's won more majors on his worst surface against a much better overall field than Fed did.

5 slams off of clay (2 over Fed and 2 over Djokovic) are actually very good. Hard courts are his worst sufrace, and he won his hard court major titles against Fed and Djok in their primes.

Fed won his 1 major on his worst surface over Soderling.

If Nadal ties or exceeds Fed's slam count, it's hard not to put him equal to or above Fed in terms of all time greats.

Again, just talking to tennis fans here.

I agree with you. No way does Fed have 17 majors if he played his entire career while Rafa, Novak, and Andy were around. Maybe he has 10 or 11

 

[bksballer89]

I love Andy Roddick but Roddick in his prime wouldn't be ranked 4th or 5th if he played during this era

 

[Hs0022]

Never liked Agassi much and he always played second fiddle to Pete Sampras even with his trampoline sized racquet against Pete's 85 sqin. I guess the losses against Federer at the USO really hurt and hence this recent bullcrap. One thing stood out more than others with AA, he was a sore loser and would only bow to the four sides of the court after a win. Yeah he takes the cake.

 

[Hs0022]

I agree with you. No way does Fed have 17 majors if he played his entire career while Rafa, Novak, and Andy were around. Maybe he has 10 or 11

Actually it's even more impressive for Fed to have won slams against his juniors (Nadal 5 years junior and Novak 6 years junior). Fed has beaten players from three generations consistently and that is why he is the Greatest.

 

[Hs0022]

You all are acting like Nadal has been a dominant force outside clay. He simply hasn't. In total, he has 5 grand slams off of clay. Nole has more, and I don't think anyone would consider Nole a top 8 player in history. Nadal has never won the YEC. He's never won Miami or Paris Indoor. His only Cincy win was last year, where he barely took down Fed in the middle of the worst slump of Fed's career. His only Shanghai win was in 2005, when he beat one top 10 play (Ljubicic, 7-6 in the 5th).

He's clearly the best clay courter of all-time, but he's way too one-dimensional.

Exactly! I find Nadal's game very two dimensional myself and as far as tennis goes very one dimensional. He wins with a grinding pusher style of play and with mental toughness which comprises of gamesmanship and nasty body language. There is simply nothing to like about his game. But then again you have to be a tennis player to understand this. The ESPN writers and Nadal rabid fans will never get it because they have never owned a tennis racquet.

 

[Liberal Icon]

Exactly! I find Nadal's game very two dimensional myself and as far as tennis goes very one dimensional. He wins with a grinding pusher style of play and with mental toughness which comprises of gamesmanship and nasty body language. There is simply nothing to like about his game. But then again you have to be a tennis player to understand this. The ESPN writers and Nadal rabid fans will never get it because they have never owned a tennis racquet.

Hs, you are not being rational here and that is understandable since you worship Federer. The one who made the statement is Andre Agassi, a former No.1 player and not ESPN or anyone who does not understand tennis. You are too full of yourself to think anyone who holds a contrary opinion such as Nadal fans have never owned a tennis racquet.

 

[Liberal Icon]

Actually it's even more impressive for Fed to have won slams against his juniors (Nadal 5 years junior and Novak 6 years junior). Fed has beaten players from three generations consistently and that is why he is the Greatest.

Using age gap is not enough when Nadal has 23-10 head to head advantage over Federer. You may be right that Federer is probably the greatest tennis player that ever lived. But some of your arguments made are weak.

 

[RoboticDreams]

Fed is the best ever, IMO. If Nadal went against Fed in his prime, we would see a significant difference in his number of a grand slam titles. Plus he wears capri's which should knock him down another peg. I'd take Sampras over CapriMan.

 

[Smart]

If Fed had been facing the same caliber at every tournament, he would probably have fewer majors. Tennis fans understand this.

I hate the way Nadal plays, but he's won more majors on his worst surface against a much better overall field than Fed did.

5 slams off of clay (2 over Fed and 2 over Djokovic) are actually very good. Hard courts are his worst sufrace, and he won his hard court major titles against Fed and Djok in their primes.

Fed won his 1 major on his worst surface over Soderling.

If Nadal ties or exceeds Fed's slam count, it's hard not to put him equal to or above Fed in terms of all time greats.

Again, just talking to tennis fans here.

I love how the guy who has never even heard of the Futures tour is calling me (person who checks the Challenger and Future tour daily) out for not being a tennis fan.

The "worst surface" argument, where you make hard courts the same as clay, is a load of crap. There are two hard court majors. He was never able to win Fed's best hard-court major in Fed's prime, in much the same way that Fed wasn't able to win Roland Garros when Nadal played.

And let's look closer a those "strong fields" Nadal beat to win the US Open twice.

2010: Gabashvili, Istomin, Simon, Lopez, Verdasco, Youzhny, and Djokovic.
2013: Harrison, Dutra Di Silva, Dodig, Kohlschriber, Robredo, Gasquet, and Djokovic.

Those "strong fields" are straw men. Outside of taking down Nole in the finals, he never beat anyone seeded higher than #8. The win over Nole is nice and all, but both came after Nole had gone 5 sets in the semifinal. And it's not like Nole isn't known to play bad matches. He was routed by Murray at Wimbledon last year. Indeed, on the two fastest surfaces, he has two total slams, in the middle of the hottest stretch in his career.

So that "strong field" is a load of crap. Prime Fed would have rolled both those fields.

If Nadal ties Fed for grand slams (and he won't), Fed still would have the edge. He won the fifth most prestigious tournament six times. Nadal's never won it. Prime Fed was far more dominant than Prime Nadal. Between 2005 and 2009, Fed won 127 grand slam matches. That's an average (over five years) of more than Nadal has ever won in a single season). Nadal's best five-year stretch is 107. Remember, 140 is perfect, so Prime Nadal failed to win nearly three times matches as many as Prime Fed did. Fed has been more consistent. Fed has been #1 longer. Fed will end up with more match wins. He will likely end with more titles as well.

I'm sorry, but some flawed notion of a "strong field" and a head to head record based primarily on slow surfaces and/or matches outside Fed's prime doesn't overpower the fact that Fed's peak was better. I think this is a moot discussion, because my hunch is Nadal ends with 15 or 16 and Fed ends with 18.

 

[Old Lion]

Fed is the best ever, IMO. If Nadal went against Fed in his prime, we would see a significant difference in his number of a grand slam titles. Plus he wears capri's which should knock him down another peg. I'd take Sampras over CapriMan.

Sampras in his prime was better than any of these guys. His serve was unreturnable except on clay. None of these guys could touch him on grass or hard courts. Imagine Pete with todays racquet technology. I have seen all of them play live and none of them have a big enough weapon to compete with Pet's serve. JMO though.

 

[Smart]

Again, I'd like people to tell me which of Fed's 17 titles wouldn't have happened against the fields Nadal has beaten. Maybe the 2009 French Open, though that's not exactly fair since it was during Nadal's prime and the field was likely stronger than the one Nadal beat to capture the title the next year.

Which one of Prime Nadal's opponents beats Fed from 2004 to 2007? Aged Fed? No, clearly Prime Fed was a much better player than aged Fed. Nole? He was 1-4 against Fed in slams before 2010, and that one took place in 2008, in Fed's worst slump and at Nole's best slam (Australian Open). Djokovic only won one set in the four losses. And, of course, Aged Fed had match points on Prime Nole at the US Open twice and actually beat him at Wimbledon and the French Open. If he can only beat Fed at Fed's worst and his best slam, and he can barely beat Aged Fed at Wimbledon and the US Open, are we seriously going to pretend that Nole could have beaten Prime Fed there?

Perhaps the best proof is this: In the heart of Nadal's prime, Fed had a stretch where he sort of resembled his old self (following Wimbledon 2011 through Wimbledon 2012). This was a one ear period where Nadal played a full schedule. Outside of a claimed injury in his last match, there is no claim that Nadal was injured at all. And guess what? Over an entire year, a 30 year old Fed who was clearly past his prime had more points than Nadal. Meanwhile, Nadal never got close to passing Prime Fed (2004-2007) in the rankings.

If "Well Past His Prime" Fed could win a grand slam and get to #1 in the world during Nadal's era, and "Approaching His Prime" Nadal couldn't reach #1 in Fed's era, then at least one of the two propositions offered (1. Nadal is greater than Fed; and 2. Prime Nadal faced tougher competition) is false. It's a logical fallacy to suggest otherwise.

 

[cezero]

False. At this point in time Federer is #1. But Rafa will top him eventually.

I think you can say this just based on grand slams, obviously, because frankly they're the only things that matter in tennis.

Nadal is the number 1 player on clay of all time.

Yep. I'm thinking it will be within the next 24 months. The benchmark is at least tying Fed's overall slam count.

Until then, it's a little silly to call Rafa the greatest ever.

 

[Gooch1034]

I like both Feds and Rafa but I don't think you can discredit Feds for lack of competition. He steamrolled everyone like he should have. I think he is #1 all time and Sampras a close #2. Rafa is moving in fast and I think will eventually be #1 all time IMO.

 

[cezero]

I like both Feds and Rafa but I don't think you can discredit Feds for lack of competition. He steamrolled everyone like he should have. I think he is #1 all time and Sampras a close #2. Rafa is moving in fast and I think will eventually be #1 all time IMO.

I'd put Sampras 4th behind Fed, Rafa, and Laver.

And yes, you do have to factor in level of competition. Hewitt's 2 slam wins were during a ridiculous dearth of decent talent on the ATP. He was a placeholder #1 between eras with all-time greats. Fed's 1st four years of slam success were when he had very little competition. There is no disputing that, and only a tennis dilettante doesn't recognize it.

I never thought that Rafa would diversify his game enough to win majors on grass or hard courts, but he did. It's amazing how he went from 10 feet behind the baseline retrieving everything and hitting back moonballs at Roland Garros, and then just a few days later to standing on top of the baseline, taking balls early and flattening out his shots. If Fed had remained his only decent competition (i.e., djok and murray not surfacing), then Rafa would probably have a few more hard court majors.

In short, Rafa never had a time where he wasn't facing a field with all-time greats, including the current greatest of all time, Federer. Fed had several years where the best in the field were Hewitt and Roddick. That has an impact on major wins, whether dilettantes understand it or not.