Agassi Says Nadal and Federer are the Best Players in History

LINK

He says that Fed is the best ever...unless maybe it's Nadal.

quote:

---

“I think Federer is a class above, quite frankly,” Agassi told HuffPost Live. “You’re talking about a guy who dominated pretty much on every surface, minus one guy [Nadal] on clay. He’s won everything.”

“Nadal has an argument to make for the best of all time,” Agassi said. “If Nadal is sitting at a table with Federer and Federer says, ‘I’m the best ever,’ my first question would be, ‘Well, then how come you didn’t beat me, because I beat you twice as many times? And, hey, by the way, you know I won everything, including a gold medal [in singles at the Olympics] and Davis Cup [with Spain].’

---

Poor Pistol Pete gets little love from Andre.

quote:

---

“Pete was obviously off the hook on faster courts, but during the clay season players wanted to play against him,” Agassi said. “It was an opportunity to get a win over him. You didn’t have that luxury with Fed. He was really the world-class, all-around player. Until Nadal, you would say that Fed is probably the best of all time.”

---

But Andre doesn't give himself that much love either.

quote:

---

“I’m way down the list from guys like that. I did manage to win all of [the Slams], but that’s just the first criterion in my mind. … For me, those two [Federer and Nadal] and [Rod] Laver are in a whole other tier.”

---

I don't necessarily disagree with what Andre is saying but will add:
1. Agassi and Sampras are not exactly BFFs. This should be noted.

2. To me the Nadal v. Federer debate boils down to one question and one question alone:

What would Roger Federer's best years (2005-2007) have looked like if Rafael Nadal had been born three years earlier?

3. Unfortunately, the aforementioned question is hypothetical. We can speculate on the answer, but we'll never know for sure. Actually, check that. FORTUNATELY, the aforementioned question is hypothetical, otherwise what the hell would we have argue about?