Agassi: Nadal best ever, not Federer

[Kieran]

In fairness to Mac, it wasn't just Lendl who caused him problems after 1984. Tatum O'Neal, her daddy, Becker and the young group of players. Mac just wasn't built to endure, but if he had the mindset to concentrate and grind for a few more years, he could have played well against the big boys...

 

[El Dude]

I can buy JMac and Connors above Agassi. I tend to view rankings as a combination of peak level and overall career performance. JMac had a really high peak, decent career longevity, while Agassi had great longevity but only a decent peak. Connors had both, so the argument can be made that he deserves to be above JMac.

My problem with Wilander over Edberg and Becker is just as Kieran said - Wilander was basically done by age 24 as an elite player. But those three are basically interchangeable in my mind; I give Boris the edge because he was basically a great player for 12 years, much longer than Wilander and a bit longer than Edberg. He didn't have that one great season that Wilander had in 1988 or the high peak that either had, but he had a longer career than both, and of course there's the matchup thing.

If Novak was the retire today, he'd be on a similar level, but I think he's probably already got an edge and will probably win at least two or three more Slams.

I don't know how I feel about this, but here's a revised version (it is the same as before except for Agassi and Connors switching):

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

I just had an idea: would people be interested in compiling a "Tennis Frontier Greatest Player's Of All Time" list? We could open up a discussion thread, devise some sort of voting system, and then hash it out for a couple months before compiling it into a blog entry.

 

[DarthFed]

The competition argument has got dumber over time. If someone is going to discredit Federer by saying he had weak competition in his prime then it is rather comical they are going to turn around and label Roger himself as strong competition when he was way past his prime. People laugh at 30+ year old Andre but now to make Rafa look better they talk of old man Roger as though he is much better (debatable he is better at all). Roger is also 4-1 in majors against Murray with most coming way past his prime. It'd be rich to suggest that Murray would have given Roger a lot of problems in his prime in the big matches. It'd have been a very big upset for Roger to lose to any Murray we've seen at any of the 4 majors. On the other hand Murray blasted Rafa out of slams during Nadal's 2 best years and that's before Murray truly became a great player. Roger has also played Novak in the same amount of matches at majors as Nadal has, and again most coming past his prime.

 

[Kieran]

Go for it, El Dude, these things generate discussion, even if nobody can agree on criteria and the results of the enquiry, it doesn't matter.

By the way, I would think an interesting argument is the one about Brilliance vs Longevity. Which would you have? Mats had one, Boris the other, although Boris longevity still earned him less than Mats has by age 23. Borg was gigantic - then he was gone. Still a better CV than Connors, who's still on the tour somewhere in Kuala Lumpur. Courier had a fizzled longevity, nothing much to show for the last ten years, and Roger has had a sustained brilliance, so there's no comparison there.

As for what Agassi says, and why he says it, the effect is still the same: people are fascinated by the idea of goats, and usually pick their favourite as the one. We're the real Men Who Stare at Goats, Clooney and Spacey are rank amateurs by comparison... :snigger

 

[El Dude]

DarthFed, I agree that the weak competition argument shouldn't lessen Roger's overall greatness, but I think it is something that should be considered. I mean, look at Roger's undisputed reign - 2004-07. Who were the best players during those years? Here's a list of every player who finished in the top 5 during 2004-07 with their rankings during those four years:

Federer 1, 1, 1, 1,
Nadal 51, 2, 2, 2
Roddick 2, 3, 6, 6
Hewitt 3, 4, 20, 21
Safin 4, 12, 26, 56
Moya 5, 31, 43, 17
Davydenko 28, 5, 3, 4
Blake 97, 23, 4, 13
Ljubicic 22, 9, 5, 18
Ferrer 49, 14, 14, 5
Nalbandian 9, 6, 8, 9

(I included Nalbandian so as not to offend Cali)

So it is clear from looking at that list that Nadal was really the only other truly dominant player during Roger's four year reign, and then when Rafa fully matured and diversified his game in 2008, they were basically coeval for two years (2008-09) before Rafa jumped ahead for good in 2010.

Another way to look at it is that during most of Federer's peak years, 2004-07, there was really only one other truly elite player, and that player hadn't quite reached his prime. When he did, and when two other truly elite players came of age, then Roger was just one of four great players but not head and shoulders above the rest anymore. Of course Roger was 5-6 years older than the other three, so we'll never know how he would have fared against them if they were the same age. 2009-10 are the closest we came to all four being in their prime years, with Roger being 27-29, Rafa 22-24, Novak and Andy 21-23.

 

[DarthFed]

And Rafa has never had a sustained period of dominance. Murray didn't even come into his own until 2012 so he gets a little more credit than he deserves in these debates. Rafa hasn't even played him since Murray won a slam. Then you are left with Nole (superhuman 1 year and just very good before and after) and Roger who has been past it for 5+ years now.

 

[El Dude]

One other thing. One of the research ideas that has been floating around in my head for sometime is coming up with some way to weight the level of competition for different players throughout their careers. Now I would argue that all players, or almost all players, play through eras ranging in competitiveness; for instance, if you look at Pete Sampras' career, his early years were of very high competition - with players like Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Courier, and Agassi all playing at or near their peaks. In the mid-90s it softened up a bit and then the late 90s to early 00s was a very weak era. But it all evens out.

On the other hand, then you have players like Ivan Lendl who played through different eras of greats. Early on he faced Connors, Borg, McEnroe and Vilas, then Wilander, Edberg and Becker, then Sampras, Agassi and Courier. This is one of the reasons why I rate Lendl as high as I do and why I think he's one of the most under-appreciated all-time greats: there was never a resting point in the storm of his career.

But the point is, winning three Slams in 2004 isn't as impressive as it would have been in 2012.

But just so it is clear that I'm not denigrating Roger, one mark of his greatness for me is that he has been able to hold his own in the peak years of a younger generation of superstars. If Roger's true prime ended after the 2010 Australian Open, when his SF streak was broken and was his last Slam victory in two and a half years, he was still able to remain in the elite of the game, finishing 2010 at #2, 2011 at #3 and 2012 at #2--years he was age 29-31 at the end of. In an era with Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray in their primes, that's rather impressive, don't you think?

 

[El Dude]

And Rafa has never had a sustained period of dominance. Murray didn't even come into his own until 2012 so he gets a little more credit than he deserves in these debates. Rafa hasn't even played him since Murray won a slam. Then you are left with Nole (superhuman 1 year and just very good before and after) and Roger who has been past it for 5+ years now.

As an aside to the main discussion of this thread, I think too much is made of Novak being "just very good" before and after 2011. I would he might have been "just very good" before (although even that is an understatement), but after he's been great. Not as good as he was in 2011, but he did finish 2012 at #1 (albeit when Rafa was injured) and he has played in 10 out of the last 14 Slam finals - which is quite impressive, in my mind.

Let us not underestimate how great of a player Novak has been in 2012 to the present. 2011 was impossible to repeat, especially with Roger playing at such a high level in 2012, Rafa rebounded, and Murray coming into his own. But Novak is too great of a player to write off as "just very good." He is a great player.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

^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...

it depended on who won which tourney..as some big events did not have rank points. and don't forget we had 2 tours back then. other being WCT played up to may.

 

[Kieran]

And Rafa has never had a sustained period of dominance. Murray didn't even come into his own until 2012 so he gets a little more credit than he deserves in these debates. Rafa hasn't even played him since Murray won a slam. Then you are left with Nole (superhuman 1 year and just very good before and after) and Roger who has been past it for 5+ years now.

As an aside to the main discussion of this thread, I think too much is made of Novak being "just very good" before and after 2011. I would he might have been "just very good" before (although even that is an understatement), but after he's been great. Not as good as he was in 2011, but he did finish 2012 at #1 (albeit when Rafa was injured) and he has played in 10 out of the last 14 Slam finals - which is quite impressive, in my mind.

Let us not underestimate how great of a player Novak has been in 2012 to the present. 2011 was impossible to repeat, especially with Roger playing at such a high level in 2012, Rafa rebounded, and Murray coming into his own. But Novak is too great of a player to write off as "just very good." He is a great player.

Yeah, Nole since 2011 is still a much bigger threat on all surfaces than Roger faced between 2004-2007...

 

[DarthFed]

And Rafa has never had a sustained period of dominance. Murray didn't even come into his own until 2012 so he gets a little more credit than he deserves in these debates. Rafa hasn't even played him since Murray won a slam. Then you are left with Nole (superhuman 1 year and just very good before and after) and Roger who has been past it for 5+ years now.

As an aside to the main discussion of this thread, I think too much is made of Novak being "just very good" before and after 2011. I would he might have been "just very good" before (although even that is an understatement), but after he's been great. Not as good as he was in 2011, but he did finish 2012 at #1 (albeit when Rafa was injured) and he has played in 10 out of the last 14 Slam finals - which is quite impressive, in my mind.

Let us not underestimate how great of a player Novak has been in 2012 to the present. 2011 was impossible to repeat, especially with Roger playing at such a high level in 2012, Rafa rebounded, and Murray coming into his own. But Novak is too great of a player to write off as "just very good." He is a great player.

Yeah, Nole since 2011 is still a much bigger threat on all surfaces than Roger faced between 2004-2007...

Debatable, seeing as 2011 was the only year he has won a slam off hard courts.

 

[Kieran]

Debatable indeed. Because anything we say in these goat talkies are debatable, but still, Nole gave Rafa huge doses of the heebie-jeebies in Paris the last two years, and reached the final at W. He's definitely come down from the mountain of 2011, but he's greater and more consistent across the surfaces than anyone Roger faced in the early clean-up years of his reign...

 

[Front242]

Except in the matches that mattered most since 2011, sadly he's not been great at all.

 

[Kieran]

Except in the matches that mattered most since 2011, sadly he's not.

Compared to Roddick and Hewitt? Baggy and Gonzo? I beg to differ. Nole has been a serious contender at all the majors since 2011, winning two, and reaching four finals. Winning two WTF's, and finishing 2012 as #1. Dunno how many MS titles he's also taken, but he's the current holder of four of them.

Was there anyone better across the surfaces in 2004-2007, that Roger faced? Seriously? Give the guy some credit...

 

[Front242]

Except in the matches that mattered most since 2011, sadly he's not.

Compared to Roddick and Hewitt? Baggy and Gonzo? I beg to differ. Nole has been a serious contender at all the majors since 2011, winning two, and reaching four finals. Winning two WTF's, and finishing 2012 as #1. Dunno how many MS titles he's also taken, but he's the current holder of four of them.

Was there anyone better across the surfaces in 2004-2007, that Roger faced? Seriously? Give the guy some credit...

No, I won't give him credit for the Wimbledon final against Murray and countless others since 2011 'cos he's been a big letdown. You forget quite easily and conveniently how well Gonzo was playing when he destroyed Nadal and Haas to reach that AO '07 final. He had 3(!) ufes against Haas in 3 sets! Roddick was almost always outmatched by Federer down to Roger's uncanny reading of his serve but he was no walk in the park opponent. Also Baggy was pretty damn good in 2006.

 

[Kieran]

Except in the matches that mattered most since 2011, sadly he's not.

Compared to Roddick and Hewitt? Baggy and Gonzo? I beg to differ. Nole has been a serious contender at all the majors since 2011, winning two, and reaching four finals. Winning two WTF's, and finishing 2012 as #1. Dunno how many MS titles he's also taken, but he's the current holder of four of them.

Was there anyone better across the surfaces in 2004-2007, that Roger faced? Seriously? Give the guy some credit...

Won't give him credit for the Wimbledon final against Murray and countless others since 2011 'cos he's been a big letdown.

Regardless of whether or not he's a let down in some matches. And he's only a let down relative to his exceptional 2011. He's not a let down, if you compare him with himself on any years before 2011...

 

[shawnbm]

El Dude mentions something about Roger winning 3 of four slams in 2004 not being as impressive as doing it in 2012. That is hackneyed analysis in my view, respectfully. Prior to Roger accomplishing that feat for only the third time in the Open Era, it had been almost twenty years since Wilander did it and the world's focus was on Roger like nobody's business as he seemed to explode onto the scene as the new number one in January of that year and was just hands-down in another league. This was not the seasoned Roger of 2007 doing it for the first time--the pressure after the 2004 Wimbledon (which he won for the second time) was huge going into New York. We can't forget that; yet, he came through. Let us not understate that. Now, what Nole did in 2011, but Rafa had turned the trick the year before and Federer had done it three times by then. No, I believe Roger's triple crown in 2004 stacks up quite nicely with anyone else's triple crown. It has become more routine of late for a variety of reasons we have bantered about here for years. What Fed accomplished in 2004 was MIGHTY impressive.

 

[Front242]

Except in the matches that mattered most since 2011, sadly he's not.

Compared to Roddick and Hewitt? Baggy and Gonzo? I beg to differ. Nole has been a serious contender at all the majors since 2011, winning two, and reaching four finals. Winning two WTF's, and finishing 2012 as #1. Dunno how many MS titles he's also taken, but he's the current holder of four of them.

Was there anyone better across the surfaces in 2004-2007, that Roger faced? Seriously? Give the guy some credit...

Won't give him credit for the Wimbledon final against Murray and countless others since 2011 'cos he's been a big letdown.

Regardless of whether or not he's a let down in some matches. And he's only a let down relative to his exceptional 2011. He's not a let down, if you compare him with himself on any years before 2011...

Not winning a set against Murray isn't a letdown ? :nono

 

[Kieran]

It is a let down, but he's still better and more successful across the surfaces than anyone Roger faced between 2004-2007, that's the point...

 

[Front242]

^ He's been extremely poor in many big matches and that's the best example. Even before his rise to full power in 2011 there's no way he'd have lost a final to Murray without winning a measly set.