Nadal the ace of aces, says Agassi

Andre Agassi served up a strong argument yesterday: Rafael Nadal, he declared, is the greatest tennis player of all time.

It is difficult to volley back a winner against the opinion of Agassi, a former world No. 1 and winner of eight Grand Slams who retired after the 2006 US Open.

Talking to The Straits Times in an interview organised by Swiss watchmaker Longines, he said: "I'd put Nadal No. 1, (Roger) Federer No. 2.

The reason is that "Federer separated himself from the field for four years. He separated himself from (Andy) Roddick and (Lleyton) Hewitt.

"Nadal had to deal with Federer, (Novak) Djokovic, (Andy) Murray in the golden age of tennis. He has done what he has done and he's not done yet."

Agassi does not discount the career of Rod Laver, the Australian who was the only player to win all four Majors in a calendar year twice, in 1962 and 1969.

"I would need to talk to a historian a bit better when it comes to Laver, so I don't leave him out of the discussion," acknowledged the 44-year-old.

"But if you separate Laver... I would say Nadal has earned his keep and more."

While many pundits and observers point to Federer, winner of a record 17 Grand Slam singles titles, as the best the sport has ever seen, Agassi does not concur.

Nadal has 13 Grand Slam singles titles, vanquishing Federer in six finals.

The world No. 1 Spaniard has lost just two Major finals to Federer, in one of many superior head-to-head results against leading opponents.

Nadal leads the Swiss 23-10 in career meetings over the course of their 10-year rivalry.

And he has beaten Federer more times on every surface except grass (1-2). On clay, Nadal leads 13-2; on hard courts, the left-hander is up 9-6.

Only two men - Laver and fellow Australian Roy Emerson - have won all four Grand Slam titles twice.

In January this year, Nadal fell short of becoming the third, when he was upset by Stanislas Wawrinka in the Australian Open final.

However, Agassi believes Nadal, whose sole Australian crown was won in 2009, will eventually join that elite group - at Federer's expense.

"He has won multiple (Majors), every single one (more than once) except the Australian Open - and give him another year on that," said Agassi.

"It's just remarkable to me what he has done, and he has done it all during Federer's prime."

He argues that the number of Major wins alone is not a sufficient yardstick by which to decide the greatest player in history.

"That's never been the criterion in the history of our sport," he said.

"(Ivan) Lendl skipped two French Opens (in an abortive attempt) to try to win Wimbledon."

Lendl lost two consecutive Wimbledon finals, to Boris Becker in 1986 and Pat Cash in 1987.

"(Bjorn) Borg skipped several Australian Opens, played it one time when it was on grass. He quit when he was 26 and he had 11 (Major titles)."

In order to drive home his point about the number of titles not being a sole measure of worth, Agassi cited the example of Borg, who won the French Open six times and Wimbledon five times.

"He was two French Opens away from 13, (to beat) Roy Emerson (12) but he wasn't interested."

WHY NADAL IS THE GREATEST

Nadal had to deal with Federer, Djokovic, Murray in the golden age of tennis. He has done what he has done and he's not done yet. - Agassi

WHY FEDERER IS NOT Federer separated himself from the field for four years. He separated himself from Roddick and Hewitt. - Agass

This article was published on May 8 in The Straits Times.

Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.