Agassi: Nadal Is No.1 of All time

[nuraman00]

I think grass is Nadal's worst surface. He is prone to big servers like a lot of players are.

After what Nadal did on hard courts last year, that isn't his worst surface IMO.

 

[bksballer89]

I think grass is Nadal's worst surface. He is prone to big servers like a lot of players are.

After what Nadal did on hard courts last year, that isn't his worst surface IMO.

Even if it is, he beat the King of Grass to win Wimbledon title while Federer beat Soderling to win his only French Open.

 

[Hs0022]

Points to address:

Nadal is getting the GOAT billing with just one factor, his h2h vs the real GOAT.

It shouldn't matter who you beat to win a slam, if you both play the same event and you lose to any other player then that should be held as the judging factor, not whether you beat your biggest nemesis. Its the titles that should decide how great you are not how many times you lose to someone or beat him.

Nadal h2h vs Federer : The age gap of five years should be factored in if you are being fair. Also add the clay factor where Nadal got the bulk of his wins over Fed.

Sampras not winning the FO: He has Thalasemia minor that prevents him from sustaining long rallies, and he played with a tiny headsize racquet that also is counter effective for long rallies. However he won 14 slams with that tiny size racquet which should also be factored in. He was a physical beast on the court with an unreturnable serve because his racquet weighed over 14 oz. Try carrying that racquet in your hand and swinging it and see how many days you can keep it up. Talentwise Sampras is right up there with Fed above Nadal who uses a trampoline and spin friendly strings to become a beast on the court.

 

[Hs0022]

Even if it is, he beat the King of Grass to win Wimbledon title while Federer beat Soderling to win his only French Open.

So what? they slowed the grass down after 2000 so players like Nadal who play with a baseline game, has no serve, and uses topspin can win. Just to promote longer rallies this was a stupid measure taken.
Nadal would be routinely losing in the early rounds (like he is now), had the grass remained the same as in Pete's era. But Federer would have thrived and won probably 12 Wimbys.

 

[Hs0022]

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.

Great post.

 

[LALakersboy24.7]

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.

I think we forget how dominant Sampras was in his career, IMO he is the GOAT, & can take on any of these chumps like Nadal &Fed & eat them for lunch.

 

[cezero]

Points to address:

Nadal is getting the GOAT billing with just one factor, his h2h vs the real GOAT. [/B]

that had nothing to do with what agassi said

it has nothing to do with my opinion, either

i disagree with agassi only so long as rafa is behind fed in total slam count. it rafa ties him, i'd have to lean rafa's way, though.

 

[cezero]

I think we forget how dominant Sampras was in his career...

Saying that Sampras was more dominant on tour than Fed shows how little you know tennis.

Fed was more dominant in every way, especially at majors.

In the 10 year span where he was most dominant (1993-2002), Pete went out before the QF fourteen times. During that 10 years, he won 13 majors.

Compare that to Roger's 10 year span where he was most dominant (2004-2013), where he went out before the QF three times. During that 10 years, he won 16 majors.

Pete was 15 years on the tour and won 64 total titles. In his first 15 years, Roger won 76.

By definition, Fed has been more dominant on tour than Pete ever was.

 

[cezero]

On top of all of that, Rafa has been on tour 4 years less than Pete's total years, and has already acquired 13 majors (1 behind Pete), and 62 total titles (2 behind Pete).

 

[Liberal Icon]

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.

Actually, you make some very good points here. However, you pack too much emotions into it that diminishes or take away the points you are trying to make. Your certainty that Nadal would not tie or even pass Fed in Grand Slams is more the rant of a partisan than a dispassionate analysis you want to portray here. And are you claiming that Nadal did not beat Federer in his prime? I think Agassi got carried away by his premature coronation of Nadal as the greatest but some of you Federer supporters are not hitting aces here on behalf of Federer.

 

[nuraman00]

Saying that Sampras was more dominant on tour than Fed shows how little you know tennis.

Fed was more dominant in every way, especially at majors.

In the 10 year span where he was most dominant (1993-2002), Pete went out before the QF fourteen times. During that 10 years, he won 13 majors.

Compare that to Roger's 10 year span where he was most dominant (2004-2013), where he went out before the QF three times. During that 10 years, he won 16 majors.

Pete was 15 years on the tour and won 64 total titles. In his first 15 years, Roger won 76.

By definition, Fed has been more dominant on tour than Pete ever was.

I agree.