SI.com: You recently said the Federer-Nadal rivalry is “more compelling” than the one you had with Pete. Why do you think that?
Agassi: For a couple reasons. I think, first of all, they’re the two greatest players historically speaking and playing in the same generation. Their accomplishments are — maybe Laver you could compare, what he did was extraordinary on two surfaces — but for these guys to win all of them? Plus for Nadal to play so long at No. 2 and just to be so relentless during those years when Fed was dominant and to believe that he could still be better than thim — and to prove it with his head-to-head record. To have the No. 1 best player of all time have a losing record against the No. 2 player of all time, and to have the No. 2 player heading into his prime. That Pete and I really never had. We were No. 1 and No. 2 in the world, but we hadn’t come anywhere near establishing what these two have established during their primes.
Fair. Balanced. American.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
On Federer/Nadal versus Agassi/Sampras: