- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Agassi Says Nadal and Federer are the Best Players in History
Posted on 9/26/13 at 9:37 am
Posted on 9/26/13 at 9:37 am
LINK
He says that Fed is the best ever...unless maybe it's Nadal.
Poor Pistol Pete gets little love from Andre.
But Andre doesn't give himself that much love either.
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?
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?
9
Posted on 9/26/13 at 9:38 am to bobbyray21
that is a pretty awesome photo, but agassi sounds mad. pete whooped him on the reg.
Posted on 9/26/13 at 9:45 am to bobbyray21
PED's are awesome because they work.
Posted on 9/26/13 at 10:06 am to bobbyray21
quote:
What would Nadal's best years (2008-2010) have looked like if Roger Federer's had been born three years later?
Another way of putting it.
Posted on 9/26/13 at 10:10 am to Black n Gold
I still think Pete was better on grass than Fed in his prime
Posted on 9/26/13 at 10:21 am to Wild Thang
quote:
I still think Pete was better on grass than Fed in his prime
I agree. And I think Andre would agree.
Posted on 9/26/13 at 10:23 am to Black n Gold
quote:
Another way of putting it.
There is little basis for advancing an argument that Roger Federer, a late blooming tennis player, was better at the game of tennis in 2007 than 2008. There is something that changed, and that something was the level of play from a tennis player, but that tennis player wasn't named Roger Federer.
Posted on 9/26/13 at 10:24 am to DelU249
quote:
that is a pretty awesome photo
I concur.
Posted on 9/26/13 at 10:46 am to bobbyray21
quote:
You’re talking about a guy who dominated pretty much on every surface, minus one guy [Nadal] on clay. He’s won everything.”
This statement makes no sense.
so he didn't dominate every surface.
This post was edited on 9/26/13 at 10:47 am
Posted on 9/26/13 at 10:59 am to barry
Hence the "pretty much".
Posted on 9/26/13 at 11:04 am to TotesMcGotes
I wish the MSB had a poll feature. I'd like to take the temperature of the board on the Nadal v. Fed question now that Nadal is sitting on 13.
Posted on 9/26/13 at 11:07 am to bobbyray21
If Nadal's body holds up reasonably well, what does he end up with? 20?
Posted on 9/26/13 at 11:15 am to bobbyray21
I'm still a fan of the Fed, and I've put off recognizing Nadal being a superior all time player....but he's improved his game on surfaces other than clay to such a level that it's gotten too tough to do. It's still close now IMO, but if he stays healthy no doubt in my mind he will finish as the GOAT
Posted on 9/26/13 at 11:15 am to bobbyray21
Awesome pic
Posted on 9/26/13 at 11:27 am to bobbyray21
nadal all day. should not be penalized for how bad arse he is on clay. that is one of the surfaces the game is played on and he is the all time best on it.
Posted on 9/26/13 at 5:15 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
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.”
Tangent alert.
Fwiw, I think Agassi, and also McEnroe and Borg are prime examples of why a player's career isn't defined historically solely on the number of majors they won.
Agassi wasted years in his prime. Mcenroe took a year off from the game when he was at his absolute best, so he could do blow with his cokehead wife (and he never won another major), and Borg just straight up quit in his prime.
Tangent over.
Posted on 9/26/13 at 5:55 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
that is a pretty awesome photo
Why do they look so tiny?
Posted on 9/26/13 at 5:55 pm to TotesMcGotes
quote:
Hence the "pretty much".
When you are dominated on 33% of surfaces you aren't dominant on pretty much all surfaces.
Posted on 9/26/13 at 5:57 pm to rockchlkjayhku11
quote:
dal all day. should not be penalized for how bad arse he is on clay. that is one of the surfaces the game is played on and he is the all time best on it.
I've said this a million times and will continue to say it a million times.
Rafa's total Slam numbers are more impressive because he's statistically less likely to win Slams. His 2 bets surfaces are clay and grass. 50% of the tournaments are on those 2. Fed and Pete's 2 best were grass and hards. 75% of the tournaments are on those.
Just by pure chance of surface Rafa is at a disadvantage so holding his dominance on one surface against him is moronic.
Posted on 9/26/13 at 6:04 pm to bobbyray21
I'd kill for that pic autographed and framed.
Bad arse.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News