Agassi: Nadal best ever, not Federer

[britbox]

Agassi is entitled to his opinion and I'm not sure why people get too concerned. I don't have an issue with his opinion but always find the narrative that Nadal had Djokovic and Murray to deal with as opposed to Federer. Federer has played Murray more times than Nadal has and far more regularly in recent times since Murray matured. Djokovic - he's no stranger to Federer either, they've met the same number of times as Agassi played Sampras and Federer has won 5 grand slam titles (a hall of fame career in itself) since Djokovic started winning majors.

 

[Ricardo]

either way it's nothing outrageous what Agassi said. It's not like he said Courier was the best ever.....

 

[El Dude]

Some day, when Roger and Rafa are both retired, I'll do a mega-article trying to compare all of the factors about their respective greatness, but at this point it is just too soon to say. There are legitimate arguments on either side, and probably always will be. As I've said before, the only way this becomes clear-cut is if Rafa surpasses Roger's Slam count. If he equals Roger then I'd still go with Rafa, but some won't; if he comes one or two short then it is pretty close.

But I do agree that these two are the best of the Open Era. Pete is third, but he's a solid step behind them, mainly because he was so (relatively speaking) poor on clay. Borg would have been up there if he had played longer. Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and Tilden are all legit candidates for GOAT, but they played in different eras.

My current top 12 of the Open Era:

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Lendl
6. Agassi
7. McEnroe
8. Connors
9. Djokovic
10. Becker
11. Edberg
12. Wilander

 

[Fiero425]

Some day, when Roger and Rafa are both retired, I'll do a mega-article trying to compare all of the factors about their respective greatness, but at this point it is just too soon to say. There are legitimate arguments on either side, and probably always will be. As I've said before, the only way this becomes clear-cut is if Rafa surpasses Roger's Slam count. If he equals Roger then I'd still go with Rafa, but some won't; if he comes one or two short then it is pretty close.

But I do agree that these two are the best of the Open Era. Pete is third, but he's a solid step behind them, mainly because he was so (relatively speaking) poor on clay. Borg would have been up there if he had played longer. Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and Tilden are all legit candidates for GOAT, but they played in different eras.

My current top 12 of the Open Era:

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Sampras
4. Borg
5. Lendl
6. Agassi
7. McEnroe
8. Connors
9. Djokovic
10. Becker
11. Edberg
12. Wilander

Amazing that Borg retains his status after all this time with such glaring holes in his resume! The genius of him playing with that wood racket, taking 6 FO and 5 straight Wimbledon (3 back to back) does a "Tennis GAWD" good I guess! :angel: No Aussie or US Open, but we've gone that extra mile to reason he should stay in the "top 5" of all time; Lendl in waiting even with 3 USO and 2 AO! :clap - I wonder what Agassi thinks about that since he has the career Grand Slam and Lendl doesn't; nee Wimbledon? Djokovic is already ahead of people with more majors due to his complete game and level of competition! Becker overall record wasn't better than Edberg and Wilander, but he did own them I suppose! :nono :cry - Connors is probably wondering if he's "chopped liver" with 109 career titles and only one other person in sight; Lendl again at 94! :clap

 

[Federberg]

Personally I would have JMac above Agassi. I never really felt that Agassi dominated for any period of time, which to me is very important determining where a player sits in the history of the game. It's actually one of the main reasons I would have difficulty conceding the top spot to Rafa. As great as he's been he's only dominated in an absolute sense for periods of time. While I would never say that Nole's resume is comparable to Rafa's, I do find it interesting that he seems to have compiled a span of dominance that's almost the same as Rafa's to date. No question about Federer, Sampras, Borg and Lendl though.. when these guys stepped on the court for years.. they were clearly viewed as dominant number 1s... Just my opinion

 

[britbox]

^ Agreed, I'd have JMac and Connors above Agassi. Both were dominant number ones for a spell. Andre never was.

 

[Kieran]

I'd also have Mats ahead of Becker. Mats had more or less cooked his goose by age 23, and he had some exceptional highs in those years, winning 7 majors across all surfaces. Mats and Rafa have in common that they're the only players to win more than one major on each surface.

Becker is the player who most disappointed me, in the open era. 2 majors by aged 18 - and only 4 more after? :nono

 

[Fiero425]

Personally I would have JMac above Agassi. I never really felt that Agassi dominated for any period of time, which to me is very important determining where a player sits in the history of the game. It's actually one of the main reasons I would have difficulty conceding the top spot to Rafa. As great as he's been he's only dominated in an absolute sense for periods of time. While I would never say that Nole's resume is comparable to Rafa's, I do find it interesting that he seems to have compiled a span of dominance that's almost the same as Rafa's to date. No question about Federer, Sampras, Borg and Lendl though.. when these guys stepped on the court for years.. they were clearly viewed as dominant number 1s... Just my opinion

I feel the same about Rafa; dominance intermittant and so heavily weighted on clay, it's hard to crown him the "GOAT!" Even if he surpasses Federer by a couple majors, unless he balances out those FO with a couple more USO and AO, forget it! :nono :angel: :idea:

 

[Federberg]

^Yup. I forgot about Connors too. Personally I always like to give him credit for the number of tournament wins. Granted some of those might have been uncompetitive, but the sheer the number must be respected. I also tend to think to be invited as a member of the elite top table you should at least bring 60 titles with you. Just my opinion again...

 

[britbox]

I'd also have Mats ahead of Becker. Mats had more or less cooked his goose by age 23, and he had some exceptional highs in those years, winning 7 majors across all surfaces. Mats and Rafa have in common that they're the only players to win more than one major on each surface.

Becker is the player who most disappointed me, in the open era. 2 majors by aged 18 - and only 4 more after? :nono

Disappointment is probably a tad strong a word, but agreed Becker should probably have won more. He had a far more natural game for when you compare him to Mats. I always thought he was much more physically gifted than Wilander... but for a brain.

 

[britbox]

^Yup. I forgot about Connors too. Personally I always like to give him credit for the number of tournament wins. Granted some of those might have been uncompetitive, but the sheer the number must be respected. I also tend to think to be invited as a member of the elite top table you should at least bring 60 titles with you. Just my opinion again...

For me , Connors is a guy who really slips under the radar in these discussions. Putting the Borg and Mac rivalries aside, in the early to mid seventies he was the dominant number one.

 

[Kieran]

^Yup. I forgot about Connors too. Personally I always like to give him credit for the number of tournament wins. Granted some of those might have been uncompetitive, but the sheer the number must be respected. I also tend to think to be invited as a member of the elite top table you should at least bring 60 titles with you. Just my opinion again...

For me , Connors is a guy who really slips under the radar in these discussions. Putting the Borg and Mac rivalries aside, in the early to mid seventies he was the dominant number one.

He didn't dominate Borg or Mac, though. This is why he's usually considered third in that three, and that's where I'd put him. He wasn't so brilliant, but he lasted longer. I think he won his 90th tourney aged 90! :snigger

 

[shawnbm]

Poor Roger, if only he had been mediocre on clay and not reached any FO final other than 2009, he's have a 17-3 record in slam finals and likely 5-9 H2H with Rafa and Agassi would not be spouting what he is spouting. LOL

I hope you're kidding. If Federer, had been mediocre on clay, he wouldn't have a career slam, and this conversation would be over already.

Oh, I was, but my LOL implied that he made the 2009 final and won--hence he would still have 17 majors and the career grand slam. These arguments are useless as Nadal would not have become the player he became without having to face Federer and later Novak and Roger would not be who he was without facing Sampras, Agassi and Hewitt and they would not have become what they did without facing Becker, Edberg and Lendl, etc. ...

 

[britbox]

^Yup. I forgot about Connors too. Personally I always like to give him credit for the number of tournament wins. Granted some of those might have been uncompetitive, but the sheer the number must be respected. I also tend to think to be invited as a member of the elite top table you should at least bring 60 titles with you. Just my opinion again...

For me , Connors is a guy who really slips under the radar in these discussions. Putting the Borg and Mac rivalries aside, in the early to mid seventies he was the dominant number one.

He didn't dominate Borg or Mac, though. This is why he's usually considered third in that three, and that's where I'd put him. He wasn't so brilliant, but he lasted longer. I think he won his 90th tourney aged 90! :snigger

Agreed but he dominated in his own prime... which kind of begs the perennial question... how long are these guys supposed to dominate for. Connors was the best player on the planet for around 4 years - we tend to judge him as he aged and faced younger foes like McEnroe. The same applies to McEnroe in all honesty - he couldn't break the Lendl/Edberg/Becker triumvirate in the late 80s.

 

[Kieran]

I'd also have Mats ahead of Becker. Mats had more or less cooked his goose by age 23, and he had some exceptional highs in those years, winning 7 majors across all surfaces. Mats and Rafa have in common that they're the only players to win more than one major on each surface.

Becker is the player who most disappointed me, in the open era. 2 majors by aged 18 - and only 4 more after? :nono

Disappointment is probably a tad strong a word, but agreed Becker should probably have won more. He had a far more natural game for when you compare him to Mats. I always thought he was much more physically gifted than Wilander... but for a brain.

I always feel that Becker's ego was so big, it could comfortably accommodate loss, too. It's Boris who invented the losers lap of honour at Wimbledon. He started off great, but he lacked the desire and ambition that Borg or Pete or Fedal have. He liked to be liked, which is a dangerous habit for a great player to have...

 

[britbox]

^Agreed.

 

[Kieran]

^Yup. I forgot about Connors too. Personally I always like to give him credit for the number of tournament wins. Granted some of those might have been uncompetitive, but the sheer the number must be respected. I also tend to think to be invited as a member of the elite top table you should at least bring 60 titles with you. Just my opinion again...

For me , Connors is a guy who really slips under the radar in these discussions. Putting the Borg and Mac rivalries aside, in the early to mid seventies he was the dominant number one.

He didn't dominate Borg or Mac, though. This is why he's usually considered third in that three, and that's where I'd put him. He wasn't so brilliant, but he lasted longer. I think he won his 90th tourney aged 90! :snigger

Agreed but he dominated in his own prime... which kind of begs the perennial question... how long are these guys supposed to dominate for. Connors was the best player on the planet for around 4 years - we tend to judge him as he aged and faced younger foes like McEnroe. The same applies to McEnroe in all honesty - he couldn't break the Lendl/Edberg/Becker triumvirate in the late 80s.

He had a patchy run at things. For example, a career year in 1974, followed by 3 GS final defeats in 1975. Slams in dribs and drabs until Borg retired and Connors caught a second wind. I don't think he was so dominant, and I'm surprised he was #1 in 1977 and 1978, for example, when clearly Borg was the greater player by then...

 

[Federberg]

^Yup. I forgot about Connors too. Personally I always like to give him credit for the number of tournament wins. Granted some of those might have been uncompetitive, but the sheer the number must be respected. I also tend to think to be invited as a member of the elite top table you should at least bring 60 titles with you. Just my opinion again...

For me , Connors is a guy who really slips under the radar in these discussions. Putting the Borg and Mac rivalries aside, in the early to mid seventies he was the dominant number one.

He didn't dominate Borg or Mac, though. This is why he's usually considered third in that three, and that's where I'd put him. He wasn't so brilliant, but he lasted longer. I think he won his 90th tourney aged 90! :snigger

Agreed but he dominated in his own prime... which kind of begs the perennial question... how long are these guys supposed to dominate for. Connors was the best player on the planet for around 4 years - we tend to judge him as he aged and faced younger foes like McEnroe. The same applies to McEnroe in all honesty - he couldn't break the Lendl/Edberg/Becker triumvirate in the late 80s.

To be fair, what did for Mac was racquet technology. His kind of 'feel' play was perfect for wood. But as soon as you started to move to graphite and the power game he was utterly exposed

 

[britbox]

^ Agree,to a degree... but then you look at Edberg who lived and died with serve and volley, shovelled his forehand and won 6 majors...and probably should have won 8 or 9.

 

[Fiero425]

^Yup. I forgot about Connors too. Personally I always like to give him credit for the number of tournament wins. Granted some of those might have been uncompetitive, but the sheer the number must be respected. I also tend to think to be invited as a member of the elite top table you should at least bring 60 titles with you. Just my opinion again...

For me , Connors is a guy who really slips under the radar in these discussions. Putting the Borg and Mac rivalries aside, in the early to mid seventies he was the dominant number one.

He didn't dominate Borg or Mac, though. This is why he's usually considered third in that three, and that's where I'd put him. He wasn't so brilliant, but he lasted longer. I think he won his 90th tourney aged 90! :snigger

Agreed but he dominated in his own prime... which kind of begs the perennial question... how long are these guys supposed to dominate for. Connors was the best player on the planet for around 4 years - we tend to judge him as he aged and faced younger foes like McEnroe. The same applies to McEnroe in all honesty - he couldn't break the Lendl/Edberg/Becker triumvirate in the late 80s.

To be fair, what did for Mac was racquet technology. His kind of 'feel' play was perfect for wood. But as soon as you started to move to graphite and the power game he was utterly exposed.

You ain't kidding! Lendl was beating McEnroe like a rented mule; embarrassing him in fact! :laydownlaughing Ivan was one of the first players with that controlled, powerful baseline game and he picked John apart for a while there in the early 80's; DC, indoors, and HC! Supposedly McEnroe got some kind of 'pep talk' from either Budge or Kramer, upgraded to graphite racket in '84, and was able to compete with Lendl for a couple more years before again getting destroyed; a couple times at the USO! :lolz: :angel: