Agassi: Nadal best ever, not Federer

[Front242]

Let's be honest here, you don't give a damn about MS titles or the WTF and it's all about slams and the fact that many Nadal fans are pissed at the amount of slams Roger won between '04-07.

For your dig at Baggy AO '06 I give you Puerta RG '05.
For your dig at Gonzo AO '07 (amazingly high level making monkeys out of Nadal in the 1/4s and Haas in the semi (3! ufes in 3 sets as I mentioned earlier) I give you the fearsome (cough) Berdych Wimbledon 2010.
For your dig at Roddick, well....he was clearly a very tough player in his prime (and during Roger's, just the latter had an uncanny read of his serve which frustrated the hell out of him) and as late as 2009 still played a blinder of a final at Wimbledon losing 16-14 in the 5th. A poor opponent indeed. You said these 3: Baggy, Gonzo and Roddick were never gonna win a slam. Well, I'm sure you feel the same way about Soderling RG 2010 then too. A very big spoiler that year and in '09 obviously, but was he ever the favourite to win it? Can't be therefore any more fearsome than Baggy, Gonzo or Roddick can he?

Hey, I'll take your Soderling 2010 and raise you a Sod 2009.

The question being put is this: is Novak post-2011 a bigger danger on all courts than Roger faced from 2004-2007?

Your answer is...?

And that's it. Forget about Roger, let's make the question about Nole: Would you agree that this post-2011 version of Nole was a bigger danger on all courts than Roddick, Hewitt and so on, even Rafa, who was still a work in progress (albeit number 2 in the world) from 2004-2007?

That's fine but we're discussing his peak from '04-'07 not '09 when the old man won the title when he'd already started declining.
Well for a start, Novak's Wimbledon 2013 final was a terrible performance where he didn't even win a measly set, whereas look how the Wimbledon 2007 final went 5 sets. Hardly a tough comparison there for starters. Re Nadal: the all courts debate isn't even a debate since the match up on clay was never in Roger's favour and between 2005-2007 Nadal won 3 French Opens and reached two Wimbledon finals.

2012-2013 Djokovic won 2 slams versus 3 for Nadal from 2005-2007. Having got all the momentum back on his side in the 2012 US Open after being 2 sets down, Novak levelled the match against Murray only to play rubbish again in set 5. RG 2012 Djokovic was erratic as hell a lot of the first 2 sets and double faulted away both set 1 and the match and really only won set 3 because they didn't stop when the rain came.

Hewitt clearly wasn't a threat in Roger's peak years but to downgrade the levels of guys like Roddick, Gonzo, Baggy etc imo is just wrong. Overall sure their the h2hs with Federer aren't great but that doesn't mean those weren't finals/tournaments where their levels were extremely high. Look who they beat and the scorelines they won by. Gonzo AO '07 stands out the most in that regard the way he dismantled Nadal and Haas on route to that final. His FH was absolutely colossal back then. I also wasn't impressed with Novak's play in the US Open 2013 final and Rafa 2005-2007 was a much tougher opponent for Roger on both clay and grass than Novak 2012-2013 would've been there.

 

[Kieran]

Before I sleep, what are the collective h2h's of Gonzo, Baggy and A-Rod, versus Roger?

Come on brother, counting them numbers will help me sleep. You cannot seriously tell me that they were a greater threat over those four seasons than Novak would have been. And Rafa was only a threat on grass once. In 2006, he was a calf.

But I agreed with you above! Because I totally disagree with Agassi's attempt to canonise any man as goat. He did it previously when he said it was Roger, and already he's hopped aboard the next bandwagon to roll into town... :nono

Now I'm going asleep! Been nice chatting, fellers, have a good night...

 

[Front242]

The calf narrowly lost one TB 7–6(5) and won the next 6–7(2) so he's done better there already than Novak 2013 did against Murray at Wimbledon by failing miserably to even win a set. Djokovic is a great player but from 2012-2013 the amount of poor slam performances imo doesn't make him any more of a threat than the guys you're so desperately trying to slate and Nadal 2005-2007 was certainly more of a threat to Roger than Novak 2012-13.

 

[DarthFed]

Yeah Rafa of 06 on grass certainly looked more capable than the Novak that Rafa mopped up at USO in 2010 and 2013...

 

[Front242]

Yeah Rafa of 06 on grass certainly looked more capable than the Novak that Rafa mopped up at USO in 2010 and 2013...

Exactly. And add Murray 2013 Wimbledon to that too and you have 2 poor performances and 1 really poor performance where he didn't even win a set at Wimbledon 2013.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I am still waiting an answer to my question: Roger got to number one in 2012, way past his prime, during every major rival of his were in their prime. Why do people doubt he would fair any worse DURING his prime? Any takers?

 

[Front242]

^ The lack of answer says it all

 

[Front242]

You can only be in denial so much and usually on holiday in Egypt.

 

[Federberg]

Great point by Murat. It's pointless using counterfactuals when there's such an obvious riposte based purely on fact

 

[El Dude]

I am still waiting an answer to my question: Roger got to number one in 2012, way past is prime, during every major rival of his were in their prime. Why do people doubt he would fair any worse DURING his prime? Any takers?

I don't think he'd fare worse during his prime, but I'm not sure he'd win three Slams a year, for three out of four years, with Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray all at their peak levels.

Don't get me wrong, I think peak Roger is better than peak Novak or Andy, and better than peak Nadal except on clay, but if all four were peaking at the same time? I doubt Roger would have won 11 of 16 Slams in four years.

 

[Federberg]

^That's speculation. But the key point is.. if anyone could he could

 

[Moxie]

^That's speculation. But the key point is.. if anyone could he could

Which is also speculation.

Wow…this thread is a head-spinner to catch up on!

 

[britbox]

I am still waiting an answer to my question: Roger got to number one in 2012, way past is prime, during every major rival of his were in their prime. Why do people doubt he would fair any worse DURING his prime? Any takers?

I don't think he'd fare worse during his prime, but I'm not sure he'd win three Slams a year, for three out of four years, with Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray all at their peak levels.

Don't get me wrong, I think peak Roger is better than peak Novak or Andy, and better than peak Nadal except on clay, but if all four were peaking at the same time? I doubt Roger would have won 11 of 16 Slams in four years.

You could make an argument that none of them would win 3 slams in a year if everyone else were playing at their peak levels. It's a little pointless as you can also then start saying ABC wouldn't have won a major in any specific year if EFG was playing at his peak level shown in another year.

Would Laver have won all those majors on grass if he had peak Sampras to deal with? ... going down that road is generally a futile exercise.

 

[atttomole]

Or would Borg have won the channel slams if his peak had coincided with that of Nadal?

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Or would Borg have won the channel slams if his peak had coincided with that of Nadal?

or would nadal win 8 French opens if his peak had coincided with that of borg?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Yeah Rafa of 06 on grass certainly looked more capable than the Novak that Rafa mopped up at USO in 2010 and 2013...

By getting bageled 6-0 in the first set? Please. Novak had already historically dominated Rafa on hard courts before that 2010, and certainly before that 2013, so the chances of him beating Nadal there were significantly bigger than Nadal, who had only played 8 or 9 CAREER MATCHES ON GRASS, beating Roger Federer in the 2006 Wimbledon final.

Sorry, but the selective argumentation is hilarious, especially the one ignoring that most of the tour takes place on hards, where Novak in 2011-until today is way more formidable than Nadal ever was in 04-07. Not to mention, Novak had already reached the top of the tennis world, so even from a pure perception standpoint, he was a bigger threat.

 

[DarthFed]

Yeah Rafa of 06 on grass certainly looked more capable than the Novak that Rafa mopped up at USO in 2010 and 2013...

By getting bageled 6-0 in the first set? Please. Novak had already historically dominated Rafa on hard courts before that 2010, and certainly before that 2013, so the chances of him beating Nadal there were significantly bigger than Nadal, who had only played 8 or 9 CAREER MATCHES ON GRASS, beating Roger Federer in the 2006 Wimbledon final.

Sorry, but the selective argumentation is hilarious, especially the one ignoring that most of the tour takes place on hards, where Novak in 2011-until today is way more formidable than Nadal ever was in 04-07. Not to mention, Novak had already reached the top of the tennis world, so even from a pure perception standpoint, he was a bigger threat.

Yeah but you're comparing Nadal on hard court to Roger on grass and there is no comparison. Of course Nole's chances coming in figured to be higher than Rafa's at 06 Wimbledon. But that doesn't negate the fact that Nadal put up a bigger fight in 06 Wimbledon than Nole put up at USO last year which wasn't the least bit competitive.

Novak reached the top of the tennis world on Rafa's watch, younger Rafa had a tougher task in 05-07.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Or would Borg have won the channel slams if his peak had coincided with that of Nadal?

or would nadal win 8 French opens if his peak had coincided with that of borg?

or how much time would we have saved if all posters don't go crazy at the same time
and talk about hypotheticals.

 

[Kieran]

I am still waiting an answer to my question: Roger got to number one in 2012, way past his prime, during every major rival of his were in their prime. Why do people doubt he would fair any worse DURING his prime? Any takers?

Because he's a great player, Murat, he got to number one then. Agassi isn't saying Roger isn't a great player: he's saying that not having a major threat on all surfaces from 2004-2007 was better for him than Rafa having Nole, Murray and Roger. He's not saying Roger wouldn't have done well.

The real question is why Agassi is saying all this. Maybe it's because he was asked? But it wasn't so long ago he'd hitched his star to a different bandwagon. The guy could become a popular commentator with a track record like this...

 

[Kieran]

Or would Borg have won the channel slams if his peak had coincided with that of Nadal?

or would nadal win 8 French opens if his peak had coincided with that of borg?

or how much time would we have saved if all posters don't go crazy at the same time
and talk about hypotheticals.

Imagine a world without hypotheticals, for a moment...