- Joined
- 23 April 2008
- Posts
- 1,853
- Reactions
- 630
Have to be Andre Agassi.
Federer vs Nadal
- Thread starter MRC & Co
- Start date
Have to be Andre Agassi.
Yes, it is Andre. He won the following-
Aussie 1995, 2000, 2001, 2003
French 1991, 1999
Wimbledon 1992
US 1994, 1999
- Joined
- 13 June 2007
- Posts
- 1,203
- Reactions
- 2
Re:Agassi only the 2nd to win all 4(open era)
top of the class mcquack...great allrounder thats for sure to win the 4,nadal will get his turn as hes only a pup...think of all the greats who have come since laver & only agassi so far has won the 4...
btw borg & mcenroe only won 2 slams...borg the french & wimbledon,mac the us & wimbledon...amazing hey
sampras 14,fed 13 but the french they couldnt win,fed still only 27 so may get his turn?if nadal gets beat there,hard to see...
nadal just blows the fed backhand away,fed has to break him up at the net(serve volley) but fed reminds me of lendl at the net...hopeless
fed needs to get tony roche back
on lendl...remember back to wimbledon 87 with cash in the other half of the draw...cert to meet lendl for me & nice 25/1 thx very much...
nadal forehand with a pat cash backhand...unbeatable
top of the class mcquack...great allrounder thats for sure to win the 4,nadal will get his turn as hes only a pup...think of all the greats who have come since laver & only agassi so far has won the 4...
btw borg & mcenroe only won 2 slams...borg the french & wimbledon,mac the us & wimbledon...amazing hey
sampras 14,fed 13 but the french they couldnt win,fed still only 27 so may get his turn?if nadal gets beat there,hard to see...
nadal just blows the fed backhand away,fed has to break him up at the net(serve volley) but fed reminds me of lendl at the net...hopeless
fed needs to get tony roche back
on lendl...remember back to wimbledon 87 with cash in the other half of the draw...cert to meet lendl for me & nice 25/1 thx very much...
nadal forehand with a pat cash backhand...unbeatable
- Joined
- 16 February 2008
- Posts
- 2,906
- Reactions
- 2
Roy Emerson?
- Joined
- 13 June 2007
- Posts
- 1,203
- Reactions
- 2
LAVER & AGASSI ONLY 2 TO WIN THE SLAM(OPEN ERA)
sorry mate i dont think you understand the difference in tennis history from your answers,the open era(professionals)began in '68 i think,laver won the grand slam in 62 & 69,so either side...
similair to world series cricket & super league,players like laver went on the pro tour from 63-68,previously they were paid like semi pros...
we lost our dominance in the open era as the game now went worldwide.
laver,newcombe,rosewell,edmondson,cash,rafter,hewitt the only aussie guys to win in the open era,before open we had...sedgeman,hoad,mcgregor,cooper,laver,emerson(won 5 aus opens when the pros where banned)fraser,roche...
just go from the open era to see what champions laver & agassi are,nadal to get his slam at this years US,shoo in for his 5th french,wimbeldon will be a classic again...chance for fed to equal sampras 14 slams...
sorry mate i dont think you understand the difference in tennis history from your answers,the open era(professionals)began in '68 i think,laver won the grand slam in 62 & 69,so either side...
similair to world series cricket & super league,players like laver went on the pro tour from 63-68,previously they were paid like semi pros...
we lost our dominance in the open era as the game now went worldwide.
laver,newcombe,rosewell,edmondson,cash,rafter,hewitt the only aussie guys to win in the open era,before open we had...sedgeman,hoad,mcgregor,cooper,laver,emerson(won 5 aus opens when the pros where banned)fraser,roche...
just go from the open era to see what champions laver & agassi are,nadal to get his slam at this years US,shoo in for his 5th french,wimbeldon will be a classic again...chance for fed to equal sampras 14 slams...
- Joined
- 16 February 2008
- Posts
- 2,906
- Reactions
- 2
The thing with Nadal is he is yet to show how he performs over time. Don't get me wrong, I love Nadal and his pure power style, but the ability to be consistant over years is what makes a true champ. I hope to see Nadal stay up there, just for the entertainment, but I think Federer will come right back to number one, all it would take is an out of form Nadal, and a mentally strong Federer.
I honestly feel Roger should of one last night, he has the body and soul, just his mind let him down. He's not too old at all, I'm 27 too
Nadal has been up there for years now and is far from pure power and a beast, despite what the commentators keep saying.
Guys like Verdasco and Tsonga hit far harder than him (add in Gonzalez, Safin), it's his overall performance from the back of the court that make him so lethal, along with his mental edge and fitness.
By the time the French is over, he will be one shy of the Grand Slam record of Agassi. Incredible for a 22 year old, or any player for that matter, considering just how damn good Agassi was.
He is MILES ahead of Fed in the rankings now and only improving.
I love Fed and think he will break Sampras record to become the best ever, but Nadal will be hot on his heals, that is the great aspect of this rivalry. Not just two greats, but possibly the two greatest ever............(bar an injury to the knees of Nadal or Fed all of a sudden falling off a cliff with his game).
Fascinating time, but both Nadal and Fed will have their hands full, the talent out there right now is scary to say the least.
Anybody going to tip Fed (or anyone else? to beat Nadal in the French?)
Thx for the history lesson Tiger. Agree with your last paragraph as far as this years potential matchups/winners.
- Joined
- 13 June 2007
- Posts
- 1,203
- Reactions
- 2
Re: Federer vs Nadal going for the 4th slam in 09
no probs mrc...for me all the greats win 3 slams but only legends win 4 such as laver & agassi...
nadal only needs the us & fed needs the french(maybe they could do a deal?)
love to see a decent serve volleyer take it up to nadal,someone like a becker,cash,edberg.would be a great game.as for the others i dont think they are in the hunt,nadal & fed have taken the game to a level ive never seen before.
nadal got the pysche advantage atm but like the agassi comeback,never write of a champ like the fed,he could come back in the next 3 slams bigger & better...for me the fed has to get tony roche back in his corner,dont be surprised if he does...
nadal:the us & french
fed:wimbledon
the rest are just making up the numbers & ive seen(im nearly 43) just about all the greats of the open era...
no probs mrc...for me all the greats win 3 slams but only legends win 4 such as laver & agassi...
nadal only needs the us & fed needs the french(maybe they could do a deal?)
love to see a decent serve volleyer take it up to nadal,someone like a becker,cash,edberg.would be a great game.as for the others i dont think they are in the hunt,nadal & fed have taken the game to a level ive never seen before.
nadal got the pysche advantage atm but like the agassi comeback,never write of a champ like the fed,he could come back in the next 3 slams bigger & better...for me the fed has to get tony roche back in his corner,dont be surprised if he does...
nadal:the us & french
fed:wimbledon
the rest are just making up the numbers & ive seen(im nearly 43) just about all the greats of the open era...
- Joined
- 16 February 2008
- Posts
- 2,906
- Reactions
- 2
Yeh, to me, the greats win as many Slams as possible. If your unstoppable on one surface, then you make up for not being the best on another. If your great on all 4, then no excuses for not being the record holder for total number of Slams. But definately always nice to win all 4. Can't say Sampras is not the best for example, just because he never won the French.
The rest are definately making up the numbers, but Murray appears to challenge both Nadal and Fed from a head to head point of view, and has the goods to match most other guys out there (and to think, his only 21). Guys like Tsonga and Verdasco also have a chance, due simply to their big hitting, if their on their game.
Nadal for the US? The surface is fastest of all I hear, I think he may struggle.
I wouldn't normally write off Fed to get back his #1 spot, but to me, Nadal is something very very special. The improvement he has made in the last year, is dramatic! Healthy, I don't see him not breaking the record, come his 30th Bday. Hold me to that if you will.
Hope Fed tries the serve volley approach more at Wimbledon this year. He has a fantastic volley and a pretty decent serve.
The rest are definately making up the numbers, but Murray appears to challenge both Nadal and Fed from a head to head point of view, and has the goods to match most other guys out there (and to think, his only 21). Guys like Tsonga and Verdasco also have a chance, due simply to their big hitting, if their on their game.
Nadal for the US? The surface is fastest of all I hear, I think he may struggle.
I wouldn't normally write off Fed to get back his #1 spot, but to me, Nadal is something very very special. The improvement he has made in the last year, is dramatic! Healthy, I don't see him not breaking the record, come his 30th Bday. Hold me to that if you will.
Hope Fed tries the serve volley approach more at Wimbledon this year. He has a fantastic volley and a pretty decent serve.
Re: Federer vs Nadal going for the 4th slam in 09
Agree with most of what you say, Tiger but I have a different view on legends. I think Sampras, Federer and soon Nadal qualify as legends by winning 10 or more Grand Slams in the open era.
The difference between the Pros and Amateurs in the fifties and sixties was never better demonstrated than when Laver turned professional in Jan 63. He was easily beaten by both Hoad and Rosewall in Jan 63 at White City in Sydney after winning the Slam as an Amateur in 62. I saw the match against Hoad as a youngster. But within a year he was beating them all. The first full year of Open Tennis was 69 and Laver won the Slam again against fierce competition. His opponents in all those Slam finals were at the Aussie Open last week.
In my view Laver is above all other players (although I am biased as I grew up in Rocky and once was coached in school holidays by his cousin Bob). But I believe Sampras, Agassi, Federer and soon Nadal (whether or not he wins all 4 slams) should be considered as Legends because of the spread of years to win 10 or more slams.
I believe Nadal is odds on to win the French (providing he's fit) but Federer can win both Wimbledon and the US providing he is both physically and MENTALLY fit. Regarding getting Roche back as coach, I think Roche has a coaching arrangement with Hewitt.
The other Aussie (in the Open era) I hold in high regard is John Newcombe.This is mainly because of his memorable 1975 Aussie Open win against then World No 1, Jimmy Connors, in 4 sets- 7-5 3-6 6-4 7-5 . This was the first big tennis match broadcast in colour in Australia. Newc used the lob with great effect against a net rushing Connors.Newc won 2 Aussies, 2 US Opens and 3 Wimbledons (see Below).
1971 J.D. Newcombe (AUS) 2 S.R. Smith (USA) 4 6-3, 5-7, 2-6, 6-4, 6-4 170 mins
1970 J.D. Newcombe (AUS) 2 K.R. Rosewall (AUS) 5 5-7, 6-3, 6-2, 3-6, 6-1 163 mins
1969 R.G. Laver (AUS) 1 J.D. Newcombe (AUS) 6 6-4, 5-7, 6-4, 6-4 136 mins
1968 R.G. Laver (AUS) 1 A.D. Roche (AUS) 15 6-3, 6-4, 6-2 60 mins
1967 J.D. Newcombe (AUS) 3 W.P. Bungert (GER) U 6-3, 6-1, 6-1 71 mins
no probs mrc...for me all the greats win 3 slams but only legends win 4 such as laver & agassi...
nadal only needs the us & fed needs the french(maybe they could do a deal?)
love to see a decent serve volleyer take it up to nadal,someone like a becker,cash,edberg.would be a great game.as for the others i dont think they are in the hunt,nadal & fed have taken the game to a level ive never seen before.
nadal got the pysche advantage atm but like the agassi comeback,never write of a champ like the fed,he could come back in the next 3 slams bigger & better...for me the fed has to get tony roche back in his corner,dont be surprised if he does...
nadal:the us & french
fed:wimbledon
the rest are just making up the numbers & ive seen(im nearly 43) just about all the greats of the open era...
Agree with most of what you say, Tiger but I have a different view on legends. I think Sampras, Federer and soon Nadal qualify as legends by winning 10 or more Grand Slams in the open era.
The difference between the Pros and Amateurs in the fifties and sixties was never better demonstrated than when Laver turned professional in Jan 63. He was easily beaten by both Hoad and Rosewall in Jan 63 at White City in Sydney after winning the Slam as an Amateur in 62. I saw the match against Hoad as a youngster. But within a year he was beating them all. The first full year of Open Tennis was 69 and Laver won the Slam again against fierce competition. His opponents in all those Slam finals were at the Aussie Open last week.
In my view Laver is above all other players (although I am biased as I grew up in Rocky and once was coached in school holidays by his cousin Bob). But I believe Sampras, Agassi, Federer and soon Nadal (whether or not he wins all 4 slams) should be considered as Legends because of the spread of years to win 10 or more slams.
I believe Nadal is odds on to win the French (providing he's fit) but Federer can win both Wimbledon and the US providing he is both physically and MENTALLY fit. Regarding getting Roche back as coach, I think Roche has a coaching arrangement with Hewitt.
The other Aussie (in the Open era) I hold in high regard is John Newcombe.This is mainly because of his memorable 1975 Aussie Open win against then World No 1, Jimmy Connors, in 4 sets- 7-5 3-6 6-4 7-5 . This was the first big tennis match broadcast in colour in Australia. Newc used the lob with great effect against a net rushing Connors.Newc won 2 Aussies, 2 US Opens and 3 Wimbledons (see Below).
1971 J.D. Newcombe (AUS) 2 S.R. Smith (USA) 4 6-3, 5-7, 2-6, 6-4, 6-4 170 mins
1970 J.D. Newcombe (AUS) 2 K.R. Rosewall (AUS) 5 5-7, 6-3, 6-2, 3-6, 6-1 163 mins
1969 R.G. Laver (AUS) 1 J.D. Newcombe (AUS) 6 6-4, 5-7, 6-4, 6-4 136 mins
1968 R.G. Laver (AUS) 1 A.D. Roche (AUS) 15 6-3, 6-4, 6-2 60 mins
1967 J.D. Newcombe (AUS) 3 W.P. Bungert (GER) U 6-3, 6-1, 6-1 71 mins
Similar threads
