POLL: Agassi (1999) vs Nadal (2008) who wins? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

POLL: Agassi (1999) vs Nadal (2008) who wins?

rocketassist
07-29-2008, 03:11 PM
On hardcourt, grass, and clay.

Both men (well Nadal up to now) in their best year.

Discuss.

ReturnWinner
07-29-2008, 03:12 PM
Clay: Nadal, Hard:Agassi Grass:too close.

Sebby
07-29-2008, 03:15 PM
on fast hard courts (cincy like) and indoors = Agassi

on all the rest = Nadal

rafa_maniac
07-29-2008, 03:17 PM
I'd agree with Seb. I think Nadal would win pretty much all the time on clay and grass, Agassi all the time on fast hardcourts, and they'd split slow hardcourt victories.

MacTheKnife
07-29-2008, 03:24 PM
Clay: Nadal, Hard:Agassi Grass:too close.

:yeah:

finishingmove
07-29-2008, 03:26 PM
comparing them on grass is as hypothetical as it goes.

we dont even know which grass? not to mention that in 99 nobody played like nadal on that surface.

Pepi.
07-29-2008, 03:31 PM
Nadal...

rocketassist
07-29-2008, 03:31 PM
comparing them on grass is as hypothetical as it goes.

we dont even know which grass? not to mention that in 99 nobody played like nadal on that surface.

It isn't- Put Agassi's 90s opponents in his success on grass on the current grass and they'd still be making it to the business end of Wimbledon.

rafa_maniac
07-29-2008, 03:31 PM
comparing them on grass is as hypothetical as it goes.

we dont even know which grass? not to mention that in 99 nobody played like nadal on that surface.

They did meet once on the surface though, and Nadal won easily, Agassi was past his prime, but did make a US Open final the year before, so it's not totally irrelevant.

gusman890
07-29-2008, 03:39 PM
Agassi hasnt had the same movement he did in the 90s verse when he played Nadal at Wimbledon in 2006. Andre wasn't playing well at all that season, so I wouldn't look at it seriously.

Tabledott
07-29-2008, 03:44 PM
Rafzilla to brutalize Andre a new one.

MacTheKnife
07-29-2008, 03:45 PM
They did meet once on the surface though, and Nadal won easily, Agassi was past his prime, but did make a US Open final the year before, so it's not totally irrelevant.

They actually played twice, once in 2005, and again in 2006 and Nadal won them both. But, Andre was already 34 and 35 years old. Hardly a comparison to 99 when he was still in his 20's, but barely.
Also, once was on grass and once on HCs, but not sure which year was which surface.

rafa_maniac
07-29-2008, 03:56 PM
They actually played twice, once in 2005, and again in 2006 and Nadal won them both. But, Andre was already 34 and 35 years old. Hardly a comparison to 99 when he was still in his 20's, but barely.
Also, once was on grass and once on HCs, but not sure which year was which surface.

I was replying to your comment that their match up on grass was a totally hypothetical one, and I pointed out that we do have SOME basis for a guess, they met once on THIS surface... grass (3rd round of Wimbledon 06), where Nadal won easily. Of course Agassi wasn't at his peak, but he was still playing well at that age, and of course we need to consider the fact that Nadal is a lot better on grass now than he was in 06. Their other meeting was in the finals of Montreal 05 where they had a tough match won by Nadal. Agassi was in good form that season so it's reason to believe that Nadal would be able to win many of their encounters on slower hard courts, but I would still favour Agassi on the faster ones.

Jimnik
07-29-2008, 03:56 PM
By surface it should be obvious. Clay and grass it's Nadal, outdoor and indoor hard and carpet it's Agassi.

Nobody should get ahead of theseves beause of Nadal's Toronto title. He didn't face any tough match-ups and it's still only his 3rd TMS on outdoor hard. Agassi won 4 AO and 5 Miami titles so he's still the king of slow hard courts.

Mansave_75
07-29-2008, 03:57 PM
Rafa in all courts but some more closed on hard courts, although for his mental strength I'd give the edge over Nadal.

rafa_maniac
07-29-2008, 04:01 PM
By surface it should be obvious. Clay and grass it's Nadal, outdoor and indoor hard and carpet it's Agassi.

Nobody should get ahead of theseves beause of Nadal's Toronto title. He didn't face any tough match-ups and it's still only his 3rd TMS on outdoor hard. Agassi won 4 AO and 5 Miami titles so he's still the king of slow hard courts.

I don't believe the question was "who has achieved more on each surface" though? Obviously with the retrospect of Agassi's entire career he has achieved a lot more on harcourts, however using that as basis to assume he'd beat a peak Nadal on hardcourt regularly is very suspect. Nadal did win their only meeting on hardcourts.

rocketassist
07-29-2008, 04:03 PM
Both these men are well compared- no 2 for a long time to a dominant player, dominated one slam in particular and have one Wimbledon title.

Hard court picking Agassi is logical, although he did prefer slow hardcourts to fast ones, as shown by his Melbourne successes, and also Nadal prefers slower HCs.

Grass, people say Nadal, but overall he has only got the better of one world class grass player whereas Agassi won in an era of power servers and superb volleyers, but people overrate this era.

Clay, Nadal would win, but Agassi's two handed backhand wouldn't be affected as much by the topspin FH and at his 1999 best on clay he might have won a set or two at RG, but would not win.

Manon
07-29-2008, 04:07 PM
Uncomparable.

Pfloyd
07-29-2008, 04:08 PM
Hard to say.

One thing is for sure, this match would be very loooong.

MacTheKnife
07-29-2008, 04:09 PM
I was replying to your comment that their match up on grass was a totally hypothetical one, and I pointed out that we do have SOME basis for a guess, they met once on THIS surface... grass (3rd round of Wimbledon 06), where Nadal won easily. Of course Agassi wasn't at his peak, but he was still playing well at that age, and of course we need to consider the fact that Nadal is a lot better on grass now than he was in 06. Their other meeting was in the finals of Montreal 05 where they had a tough match won by Nadal. Agassi was in good form that season so it's reason to believe that Nadal would be able to win many of their encounters on slower hard courts, but I would still favour Agassi on the faster ones.

That was not my comment, that was Finishingmove's comment. I was just pointing out that they'd actually played twice. Which I didn't know till I looked it up.

Jimnik
07-29-2008, 04:10 PM
I don't believe the question was "who has achieved more on each surface" though? Obviously with the retrospect of Agassi's entire career he has achieved a lot more on harcourts, however using that as basis to assume he'd beat a peak Nadal on hardcourt regularly is very suspect. Nadal did win their only meeting on hardcourts.
Not really. That one and only meeting on hard courts is more irrelevant than using Agassi's achievements. It's like saying Roddick's winning h2h with Sampras means more than past achievements.

Haile Selassie
07-29-2008, 04:14 PM
Another Hypothetical Situation.
It is not imagine tennis it is about real tennis.
Agassi is better than Nadal but Nadal has a lot of ages more on tour so when both retired you can make comparisson.

rafa_maniac
07-29-2008, 04:14 PM
That one and only meeting is more irrelevant than using Agassi's achievements. It's like saying Roddick's winning h2h with Sampras means more than past achievements.

Which is why I didn't actually use that single meeting to justify my answer... I used my own judgement, which is subjective, but it's all that one really CAN use. I used that match to counter the idea that because Andre has achieved more in his career on hardcourts, that would mean he'd win most of the time. Neither hypothesis has any considerable value.

Haile Selassie
07-29-2008, 04:15 PM
Not really. That one and only meeting on hard courts is more irrelevant than using Agassi's achievements. It's like saying Roddick's winning h2h with Sampras means more than past achievements.

Yeah and Gisela Dulko beat Martina Navratilova twice too :lol:

thrust
07-29-2008, 04:18 PM
Clay: Nadal, Hard:Agassi Grass:too close.

I agree, especially on hard courts. I really think Andre would have the advantage there. I also think clay would be close too, with Rafa having the advantage. Perhaps with today^s Wimbledon courts, Andre would be very close even against Roger. I still think that if Andre were not injured and 34 or so when he played Roger in the USO final, Andere would have won. I was never an Andre fan, but that^s how I see it.

Jimnik
07-29-2008, 04:24 PM
Which is why I didn't actually use that single meeting to justify my answer... I used my own judgement, which is subjective, but it's all that one really CAN use. I used that match to counter the idea that because Andre has achieved more in his career on hardcourts, that would mean he'd win most of the time. Neither hypothesis has any considerable value.
I'm just saying nobody should exaggerate Nadal on hard courts. He is being compared to one of the greatest hard court players of all time in this thread.

As for my opinion on the match-up itself, of course it's subjective.

rafa_maniac
07-29-2008, 04:46 PM
I'm just saying nobody should exaggerate Nadal on hard courts. He is being compared to one of the greatest hard court players of all time in this thread.

As for my opinion on the match-up itself, of course it's subjective.

Noone's saying Nadal is a better hardcourt player than Agassi in general, as I've said, the ability to use retrospect on Agassi's entire career compared to a few years of Nadal's makes it futile. The question of who would win against each other is an entirely different issue, the best "evidence" would be a comprehensive h2h, but all we have is one match.

guga2120
07-29-2008, 06:05 PM
On any type of hardcourt, very slow like Miami, or very fast, Agassi would win.

On clay Rafa, and grass Rafa.

spriwi
07-29-2008, 06:12 PM
nadal all the way (except fast harcourts)

green25814
07-29-2008, 06:13 PM
if were talking about the grass and equipment of 10 years ago i think agassi would win every time.

zicofirol
07-29-2008, 06:24 PM
Comparing the era of grass mugs in which nadal is playing to when agassi was winning wimbledon or playing at his top level, there is no doubt that agassi would beat nadal on grass, HC and everything else but clay...

navy75
07-29-2008, 06:39 PM
Nadal wouldn't come close to ever losing a set on clay, would handle Agassi on grass fairly easily, and would win all slow hard courts as well. I think Agassi would have a chance on the fast hard courts when Nadal was worn out...

Quadruple Tree
07-29-2008, 06:45 PM
Some of these posts are hilarious. It's obvious who has only been watching tennis for the last 5 years or so. Agassi on every surface but clay.

zeleni
07-29-2008, 06:54 PM
on fast hard courts (cincy like) and indoors = Agassi

on all the rest = Nadal

Affirmative.:)

cmurray
07-29-2008, 06:55 PM
Some of these posts are hilarious. It's obvious who has only been watching tennis for the last 5 years or so. Agassi on every surface but clay.

I disagree. And I've been watching tennis for 15 years or so. I was never particularly impressed with Andre's game on grass - I think Raf would have him there. Andre gets the check on hc, for sure. He dictated play so well on hards and the fact that he could take the ball on the rise would give Rafa fits.

Merton
07-29-2008, 06:56 PM
Nadal on natural surfaces, Agassi on hard, the matchup would be most interesting in the old Rebound Ace surface at the AO. By the way, Agassi 1995 is better than Agassi 1999.

Quadruple Tree
07-29-2008, 07:02 PM
I disagree. And I've been watching tennis for 15 years or so. I was never particularly impressed with Andre's game on grass - I think Raf would have him there. Andre gets the check on hc, for sure. He dictated play so well on hards and the fact that he could take the ball on the rise would give Rafa fits.

Moonballs to Agassi's backhand would not work. Trying to out grind Agassi would not work. Agassi loved to play long matches. Agassi would not break down mentally like so many players do today; and most importantly, he would not be scared of Nadal. He would take the match to Nadal, and he has the groundstrokes to handle Nadal's topspin. All those short balls that Nadal hits would be winners for Agassi. I just don't see what Nadal does that would trouble Agassi on grass. The guys who beat Agassi when he was at his best at Wimbledon were great serve and volleyers like Sampras and Rafter.

(I guarantee if Agassi has a look at an 80 mph second serve on break point, he is not going to dump his return into the net.)

maqk
07-29-2008, 07:08 PM
Nadal OverAll

cmurray
07-29-2008, 07:13 PM
Moonballs to Agassi's backhand would not work. Trying to out grind Agassi would not work. Agassi loved to play long matches. Agassi would not break down mentally like so many players do today; and most importantly, he would not be scared of Nadal. He would take the match to Nadal, and he has the groundstrokes to handle Nadal's topspin. All those short balls that Nadal hits would be winners for Agassi. I just don't see what Nadal does that would trouble Agassi on grass. The guys who beat Agassi when he was at his best at Wimbledon were great serve and volleyers like Sampras and Rafter.

(I guarantee if Agassi has a look at an 80 mph second serve on break point, he is not going to dump his return into the net.)

Did you watch Wimbledon this year? Nadal's backhands were NOT moonballs by any stretch of the imagination. In addition Andre had a TERRIBLE time with Rafa's topspin when the played in Montreal. It would have been worse for Andre on grass, not better. I will give you that Nadal's second serves would be punished, but he doesn't really serve that many second serves. He has the third highest first serve percentage on tour - usually in the mid-seventies, and certainly not enough to give Andre the win on grass. Plus, Rafa's movement is better.

TMJordan
07-29-2008, 07:13 PM
Nadal on all surfaces. Would be real close on hard though.

Quadruple Tree
07-29-2008, 07:53 PM
Did you watch Wimbledon this year? Nadal's backhands were NOT moonballs by any stretch of the imagination. In addition Andre had a TERRIBLE time with Rafa's topspin when the played in Montreal. It would have been worse for Andre on grass, not better. I will give you that Nadal's second serves would be punished, but he doesn't really serve that many second serves. He has the third highest first serve percentage on tour - usually in the mid-seventies, and certainly not enough to give Andre the win on grass. Plus, Rafa's movement is better.

Let me know when Nadal gets into backhand to backhand rallies with his opponents. I am talking about his forehand which is the shot he uses to try to break down all of his opponents. I don't see that working against Agassi. How do you figure that Nadal's topspin would have been harder to handle on grass than on hard courts? It is going to bounce lower on grass.

cocrcici
07-29-2008, 09:59 PM
Some of these posts are hilarious. It's obvious who has only been watching tennis for the last 5 years or so. Agassi on every surface but clay.



:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:

cmurray
07-29-2008, 10:02 PM
Let me know when Nadal gets into backhand to backhand rallies with his opponents. I am talking about his forehand which is the shot he uses to try to break down all of his opponents. I don't see that working against Agassi. How do you figure that Nadal's topspin would have been harder to handle on grass than on hard courts? It is going to bounce lower on grass.

wrong.

TMJordan
07-29-2008, 10:03 PM
Some of these posts are hilarious. It's obvious who has only been watching tennis for the last 5 years or so. Agassi on every surface but clay.

LoL!

Nadal is the best. Vamos Rafa.

LinkMage
07-29-2008, 10:16 PM
Nadal would triple bagel Sampras on the grass in the 90's so he would have no problem at all beating Agassi. :rocker2: :bowdown:



Seriously, Agassi would win on any type of hard courts. Are we forgetting Nadal got destroyed at the start of the year on slow hard courts by Youzhny, Tsonga, Djokovic and Davydenko? Typical MTF bandwagon thread. :retard:

Boris Franz Ecker
07-29-2008, 10:20 PM
Nadal on every surface.
Agassi would have to play at his limit to have a chance.
But current Nadal seems too strong for Agassi.
How should he beat him?
From the baseline?

cocrcici
07-29-2008, 10:24 PM
Nadal on every surface.
Agassi would have to play at his limit to have a chance.
But current Nadal seems too strong for Agassi.
How should he beat him?
From the baseline?

:worship:

NadalSharapova
07-29-2008, 10:26 PM
nadal will win with ease on clay. he will win with a close match on grass and on hardcourt it will be very very close

CyBorg
07-29-2008, 10:27 PM
I think Nadal has already proven to be the better player. Yes, I would like to see him win a hard court grand slam title or a Masters Cup indoors, but we're seeing our boy dominate in ways Agassi never did.

I agree with Merton that the 1995 Agassi was better than the 1999 Agassi. Andre got a bit lucky at the RG that year and I don't think he would have beaten a healthy Sampras at the US Open.

Vida
07-29-2008, 11:04 PM
Agassi would win more often in abstact, cause he had brains figuring out whats the thing that has to be done against particular player. Also he was a closer, not many of those around now.

Nadal would win clay comprehensively though.

rocketassist
07-30-2008, 02:22 AM
Nadal would triple bagel Sampras on the grass in the 90's so he would have no problem at all beating Agassi. :rocker2: :bowdown:



Seriously, Agassi would win on any type of hard courts. Are we forgetting Nadal got destroyed at the start of the year on slow hard courts by Youzhny, Tsonga, Djokovic and Davydenko? Typical MTF bandwagon thread. :retard:

I am an Agassi fan and I started the thread.

Seriously, some people in here make me laugh. Nadal beat Federer to win Wimbledon. A grand achievement, for sure. But who else is there on grass, a Rodduck with a barely top 300 baseline game, a weaponless Hewitt, and a Fakervic who moves likes a gimp on the green stuff, when Agassi had to face Boris, McEnroe and Goran, three of the greatest grass courters around, on super fast grass. Agassi in his prime would school Nadal everywhere but clay. People do overrate this era, yes it's more closely competitive, but the top players were stronger in the 90s.

When people try and tell me Fakervic and Federer on clay are bigger competition than Bruguera, Costa, JCF, Corretja, Mantilla, Gaudio, Agassi and Medvedev (the top clay courters in the era Guga won his titles) then I know they are overrating this era.

NYCtennisfan
07-30-2008, 04:20 AM
Nadal on natural surfaces, Agassi on hard, the matchup would be most interesting in the old Rebound Ace surface at the AO. By the way, Agassi 1995 is better than Agassi 1999.

I was about to post this as I was reading through this although Agassi's serve was better in 1999. Agassi's movement was a lot better in 1995 though, especially to the BH side where he struggled as he got older of course.

Merton
07-30-2008, 05:17 AM
I was about to post this as I was reading through this although Agassi's serve was better in 1999. Agassi's movement was a lot better in 1995 though, especially to the BH side where he struggled as he got older of course.

That is exactly what I had in mind, Agassi 95 definitely moved better than Agassi 99. Besides, his ground game was more than enough to compensate for the serve. The improvement in stamina was important but still Agassi 95 was a better mover.

crude oil
07-30-2008, 05:21 AM
Andre agassi even in his absolute prime controlled the baseline and never really relied on pure athleticism or quick movement the way a pete sampras did.

So this notion of andre suddenly having his movement would somehow make a difference is quite shaky at best. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either agassi is young, flashy and inexperienced OR he is disciplined, calculative (plays percentages) and experienced. You cannot mix and match both. agassi was playing arguably his best tennis towards the end of his career where he was hitting the ball better than ever and playing much more intelligently even if his movement suffered a little bit. He never truly relied on his movement like sampras, federer or nadal who are athletic freaks. Agassi was a disciplined pure ball striker who controlled the center of the court. Even in his younger days, his defense was not hewitt or michael change calibre.

I think in general, nadal is underrated on this forum. I would vote agassi on fast hardcourts/indoors and nadal everywhere else. One of agassi's most potent weapons against nadal would be his return but he himself once remarked the amount of spin nadal has on his serve, and that it was not possible to take the ball early.

i also noticed that andre was having a terrible time with rafa's topspin fh in the montreal final. It had nothing to do with his movement but everything to do with nadal. Andre was mistiming his bhs and couldnt find the range because of all the spin.

Agassi after the match was in awe of how "mean" nadal's ball was.

crude oil
07-30-2008, 05:28 AM
the best analogue we have today to andre agassi is nikolay davydenko in terms of playing styles. Nikolay moves better than andre while agassi is mentally tougher and generally more talented from the baseline while nikolay is more mechanical.

Davydenko could take nadal out on a slow surface. Why not andre? Of course davydenko had to severely red-line his game to beat nadal and out of 10 matches, he may not win the majority taking that much risk.

FairWeatherFan
07-30-2008, 07:07 AM
Agassi on hard and grass, Nadal obviously on clay.

Nadal's serve is not strong and Agassi would school it IMO. Agassi also had arguably the best backhand in history so I doubt Nadal's forehand cross-court would do much damage. Nadal stands too far behind the baseline on hard and Agassi would take control of the forecourt and push Nadal around. Nadal would still win some matches though, mainly due to his fighting spirit.

On clay it is no question, Nadal every time.

BTW, Nadal when he beat Agassi was playing against him in the final stages of Agassi's career. No valid argument can be taken out of those matches in Nadal's favour IMO.

Nadal_Fanatic
07-30-2008, 07:19 AM
Nadal on clay, high bouncing hardcourts, and modern grass.
Agassi on low bouncing hardcourts outdoors, indoors, and 90's grass.

rafa_maniac
07-30-2008, 07:24 AM
Agassi on hard and grass, Nadal obviously on clay.

Nadal's serve is not strong and Agassi would school it IMO. Agassi also had arguably the best backhand in history so I doubt Nadal's forehand cross-court would do much damage. Nadal stands too far behind the baseline on hard and Agassi would take control of the forecourt and push Nadal around. Nadal would still win some matches though, mainly due to his fighting spirit.

On clay it is no question, Nadal every time.

BTW, Nadal when he beat Agassi was playing against him in the final stages of Agassi's career. No valid argument can be taken out of those matches in Nadal's favour IMO.

Agassi managed runs to the finals of both Montreal and the US Open towards the end of 05, he was clearly still in very good form, so saying Nadal winning a match at that time means "nothing" is rather silly.

Stephan
07-30-2008, 07:25 AM
Andre Agassi was strong at any of surfaces,
he won all possible GSs: AO, FO, Wimb & USO
can Nadal stay in the top 10 during 20 years long?
Andre could!

Andre would beat Nadal :)

FairWeatherFan
07-30-2008, 07:45 AM
Agassi managed runs to the finals of both Montreal and the US Open towards the end of 05, he was clearly still in very good form, so saying Nadal winning a match at that time means "nothing" is rather silly.

I honestly think this is more a sad indictment of the modern tour than anything else. For some reason the tour just couldn't put away Agassi during his final years. Baghdatis failing to beat Agassi at Agassi's final US Open is one of the most pathetic results I've ever seen, given that Baghdatis is touted as a young star of the game.

I guess you could say I somewhat subscribe to the "weak era" theory.

rafa_maniac
07-30-2008, 07:53 AM
I honestly think this is more a sad indictment of the modern tour than anything else. For some reason the tour just couldn't put away Agassi during his final years. Baghdatis failing to beat Agassi at Agassi's final US Open is one of the most pathetic results I've ever seen, given that Baghdatis is touted as a young star of the game.

I guess you could say I somewhat subscribe to the "weak era" theory.

He took Federer to five sets in the final, the supposed GOAT in one of his peak years, who had no trouble putting Agassi away in his final years. Simple truth... Agassi had his last stand of top notch tennis during that period, his match against Nadal was a battle. I'd say Agassi was a level below his 99 form for certain, but Nadal was also a level below his 08 form, and that was the original posters' question.

FairWeatherFan
07-30-2008, 08:02 AM
He took Federer to five sets in the final, the supposed GOAT in one of his peak years, who had no trouble putting Agassi away in his final years.

The final was four sets and even though Federer may have given away the second (not at all a rare occurrence), the result was never in doubt.

Agassi scraped through against the towering mental giants that are Berdych, Blake and Malisse, and Robby Ginepri in the semis, in order to reach the final. Not the toughest draw in the world. A 99 Agassi would have destroyed it instead of going to multiple five-setters.

Agassi in 2005 was a very far way off from his best form. Nadal, not so much.

Edomaster
07-30-2008, 08:06 AM
This Nadal would rip the best Agassi in all surfaces. ;)

rafa_maniac
07-30-2008, 08:09 AM
The final was four sets and even though Federer may have given away the second (not at all a rare occurrence), the result was never in doubt.

Agassi scraped through against the towering mental giants that are Berdych, Blake and Malisse, and Robby Ginepri in the semis, in order to reach the final. Not the toughest draw in the world. A 99 Agassi would have destroyed it instead of going to multiple five-setters.

Agassi in 2005 was a very far way off from his best form. Nadal, not so much.

Sorry, four. But about as tough a Grand Slam final as Federer faced off clay until this year. I agree he wasn't at his best, but he was still playing very good tennis, good enough for us to have an idea of how Agassi matched up with Nadal (who I think has vastly improved on faster surfaces in the past three years).

All_Slam_Andre
07-30-2008, 08:10 AM
On clay Nadal would win easily.
On any type of hard court, either fast or slow, low bouncing or high bouncing, or outdoor or indoor, Agassi would be in charge. As Jimnik said earlier, while Agassi was a major force to be reckoned with on any type of hard court, the slower, high bouncing ones actually suited his game a bit more, and his 4 Australian Open titles and 6 Miami titles show that.
On the 90s grass I would favour Agassi. The tennis he was playing at Wimbledon in 1992, coming through a tough draw to win the title, and 1999, when he was very impressive against Rafter in the semi-finals and was only denied a French Open-Wimbledon double by an unstoppable and inspired Sampras in the final, was excellent.
On the modern day grass I would have to favour Nadal though.

Net Cord
07-30-2008, 01:49 PM
Sorry, four. But about as tough a Grand Slam final as Federer faced off clay until this year. I agree he wasn't at his best, but he was still playing very good tennis, good enough for us to have an idea of how Agassi matched up with Nadal (who I think has vastly improved on faster surfaces in the past three years).

I would respectfully disagree with this argument. Agassi was at his best through the early part of 2000. From mid-2000 through 2003, he was still very good, but a level removed from his best tennis. In 2004, he dropped another level. I don't think his 2005 match against Nadal gives us any information at all about how a peak Agassi would have fared against a peak Nadal on hard courts (and their 2006 match at Wimbledon tells us even less about a peak grass court matchup as Agassi's game had dipped yet another level in 2006).

In many ways, it's similar to the Federer-Sampras Wimbledon matchup in 2001. Sampras was at his best through the end of 1998. His game then dropped a level in 1999, and in 2001, his game dropped another level. By the time he played Federer, he wasn't the same Sampras, just as Federer hadn't become the player on grass that he would become (just like Nadal hadn't reached his hard court peak 2005).

groundstroke
07-30-2008, 02:32 PM
Nadal on clay, Agassi on hard and grass.

Jimnik
07-30-2008, 02:42 PM
Sorry, four. But about as tough a Grand Slam final as Federer faced off clay until this year. I agree he wasn't at his best, but he was still playing very good tennis, good enough for us to have an idea of how Agassi matched up with Nadal (who I think has vastly improved on faster surfaces in the past three years).
No chance, mate. I'm sorry but that one meeting on hard courts is totally irrelevant. You think just because he made that USO final appearance against Federer that he was still playing near his best. Again, I can make the Sampras parallel. He even won the USO at the end of his career but that doesn't take away the fact he was never close to his peak the many tournaments he played before.

Agassi at his peak would have been a bit similar to Davydenko. He took the ball very early, on the rise and would have taken all of Nadal's time away. His BH would have held up much better against the loopy FH than Federer's. Importantly, he also would have returned more aggressively, much like Blake.

Even on slow hard courts, I only see Agassi winning. Although I agree with Merton, he wasn't at his peak in 1999. And in 2005 he wasn't even close.

Boris Franz Ecker
07-30-2008, 02:46 PM
I am an Agassi fan and I started the thread.

Seriously, some people in here make me laugh. Nadal beat Federer to win Wimbledon. A grand achievement, for sure. But who else is there on grass, a Rodduck with a barely top 300 baseline game, a weaponless Hewitt, and a Fakervic who moves likes a gimp on the green stuff, when Agassi had to face Boris, McEnroe and Goran, three of the greatest grass courters around, on super fast grass.

Nonsense. Ivanisevic was a nobody back then. He wasn't even comparable with Roddick or Hewitt.
Becker was in the worst condition of his career when he lost to Agassi in 1992.
McEnroe was far worse than 35 year old Agassi or even today's Hewitt.
Stop dreaming.

To repeat it:
Agassi would have only a little chance.
Agassi always had problems against strong base liners like Courier, Rios and such guys.
And these played at least a level lower than Nadal.

And Agassi was in 2005 in great condition, playing a very good US Open (he COULD not play better when he was younger). He lost to Nadal at Montreal. And that would have been the usual outcome.

Net Cord
07-30-2008, 02:57 PM
Nonsense. Ivanisevic was a nobody back then. He wasn't even comparable with Roddick or Hewitt.
Becker was in the worst condition of his career when he lost to Agassi in 1992.
McEnroe was far worse than 35 year old Agassi or even today's Hewitt.
Stop dreaming.

To repeat it:
Agassi would have only a little no chance.
Agassi always had problems against strong base liners like Courier, Rios and such guys.
And these played at least a level lower than Nadal.

And Agassi was in 2005 in great condition, playing a very good US Open (he COULD not play better when he was younger). He lost to Nadal at Montreal. And that would have been the usual outcome.

Ivanisevic was a nobody back then? In 1990, he lost in the Wibledon SF to Becker in a 4th set tiebreaker. In 1991, he won Manchester over Sampras in straight sets. When he played Agassi in 1992, he was ranked #8 and had beaten Lendl in the R16, Edberg in the QF, and Sampras in the SF.

Boris Franz Ecker
07-30-2008, 02:58 PM
Ivanisevic was a nobody back then? In 1990, he lost in the Wibledon SF to Becker in a 4th set tiebreaker. In 1991, he won Manchester over Sampras in straight sets. When he played Agassi in 1992, he was ranked #8 and had beaten Lendl in the R16, Edberg in the QF, and Sampras in the SF.

Compare that with Hewitt or Roddick...

He was a nobody.

Smash.
07-30-2008, 03:00 PM
Rafa, easily :cool::worship:

Net Cord
07-30-2008, 03:05 PM
Compare that with Hewitt or Roddick...

He was a nobody.

Hewitt or Roddick when? At age 20, the age at which Goran played Andre? At age 20, Goran was a much better grass court player than Hewitt or Roddick at age 20. Or are you saying that Roddick and Hewitt are better on grass when they played Rafa than Goran was when he played Andre? In that case, I would take a 1992 Goran on grass any day of the week over a 2006 Hewitt on grass (who beat Rafa) or a 2008 Roddick on grass (who lost to Rafa).

Corey Feldman
07-30-2008, 03:07 PM
Andre would flat stroke him to death

then both would go for a drink after and talk about how unfortunate they each were to be in the shadow of the 2 most loved legends of all time in the sport - Pete and Fedgod.

prima donna
07-30-2008, 03:10 PM
A good portion of Nadal's fans haven't a clue about tennis, they really have to be the most uneducated base of fans in terms of historical knowledge pertaining to the sport, it's really quite an indictment on the state of tennis as a whole.

I mean, there's a substantial difference between being a newcomer to the sport and just being staunchly ignorant. Moreover, this day in age with all of the technological advancements that have been made, one would presume that reviewing footage of the numerous Agassi matches available on rapidshare; checking data on atptour.com or at least watching relatively short clips of his 1999 season on YouTube would be fairly simple concepts to grasp, but obviously for several people such isn't the case.

The level of ingenuity truly boggles one's mind, never have I seen a group of people that are so incredibly deluded, it would be difficult for even the most neutral of observers to state otherwise.

Clay Death
07-30-2008, 03:19 PM
A good portion of Nadal's fans haven't a clue about tennis, they really have to be the most uneducated base of fans in terms of historical knowledge pertaining to the sport, it's really quite an indictment on the state of tennis as a whole.

I mean, there's a difference between being a newcomer to the sport and just being staunchly ignorant.


blind Federereeeeeesians like you are the ones who are ignorant and cluless.

what sport are you watching anyway? do you now see what is transpiring right before your very eyes? its ok to be ignorant. there is help. just ask for it.

Stephan
07-30-2008, 03:19 PM
On hardcourt, grass, and clay.

Both men (well Nadal up to now) in their best year.

Discuss.

let's do Discuss:
Nadal is an active player, he has huge number of active fans of 2008 that are voting here for him :D
Agassi was retired in 2006..., you cannot bring here all his fans of 1999, when he was Nr 1 ;)


this poll does not means nothing ...

in real match Andre Agassi (of 1995 - 2003) will always beat Nadal in almost (we have to ask Andre himself about clay)
all surfaces :p

rocketassist
07-30-2008, 03:26 PM
42 misguided souls.

prima donna
07-30-2008, 03:33 PM
blind Federereeeeeesians like you are the ones who are ignorant and cluless.

what sport are you watching anyway? do you now see what is transpiring right before your very eyes? its ok to be ignorant. there is help. just ask for it.
What exactly is transpiring other than the media now taking away the title which had prematurely been assigned to him ? Roger is one of the greats, but one cannot make a fair assessment of his career until it's been completed, therefore, he remains a work in progress.

Everything is about Federer or Nadal around here, yet when someone mentions Bill Tilden, Rod Laver or John McEnroe the sound of mice scattering back to their holes can be heard, I mean let's call a spade a spade: this is blind and willful ignorance; people that are perfectly content with knowing nothing of the game, yet anointing one player better than another without having even seen that particular player at that stage of their career.

Threads like these would be worthwhile if they were generating responses from knowledgeable people like PMK is Innocent, but instead we're getting people with nicknames like RaFa_2008, which to say the least aren't very enlightened individuals, at least in terms of tennis knowledge.

Agassi would pulverize Nadal on hard courts and Nadal would return the favor on clay, as for the grass court discussion, it'd depend on what the conditions were, as for playing indoors, Nadal would not stand a chance.

rocketassist
07-30-2008, 03:46 PM
What exactly is transpiring other than the media now taking away the title which had prematurely been assigned to him ? Roger is one of the greats, but one cannot make a fair assessment of his career until it's been completed, therefore, he remains a work in progress.

Everything is about Federer or Nadal around here, yet when someone mentions Bill Tilden, Rod Laver or John McEnroe the sound of mice scattering back to their holes can be heard, I mean let's call a spade a spade: this is blind and willful ignorance; people that are perfectly content with knowing nothing of the game, yet anointing one player better than another without having even seen that particular player at that stage of their career.

Threads like these would be worthwhile if they were generating responses from knowledgeable people like PMK is Innocent, but instead we're getting people with nicknames like RaFa_2008, which to say the least aren't very enlightened individuals, at least in terms of tennis knowledge.

Agassi would pulverize Nadal on hard courts and Nadal would return the favor on clay, as for the grass court discussion, it'd depend on what the conditions were, as for playing indoors, Nadal would not stand a chance.

Even over the Serbtards? Obviously it's close.

prima donna
07-30-2008, 03:52 PM
Even over the Serbtards? Obviously it's close.
It's really a coin toss, with the clay court season approaching and the possibility of the four Grand Slams being swept by Djokovic looming, there were heaps of his supporters playing verbal gymnastics and pretending to understand the game; however, they were less subtle about their ignorance: there was at least an attempt to mask it, conversely, Nadal's fans are hardly secretive about their indifference to players other than the Spaniard himself.

Let's just say that Djokovic's fans get a language bonus.

Albatros99
07-30-2008, 04:07 PM
never have I seen a group of people that are so incredibly deluded, it would be difficult for even the most neutral of observers to state otherwise.

I fully agree with you.

thrust
07-30-2008, 05:04 PM
Nonsense. Ivanisevic was a nobody back then. He wasn't even comparable with Roddick or Hewitt.
Becker was in the worst condition of his career when he lost to Agassi in 1992.
McEnroe was far worse than 35 year old Agassi or even today's Hewitt.
Stop dreaming.

To repeat it:
Agassi would have only a little chance.
Agassi always had problems against strong base liners like Courier, Rios and such guys.
And these played at least a level lower than Nadal.

And Agassi was in 2005 in great condition, playing a very good US Open (he COULD not play better when he was younger). He lost to Nadal at Montreal. And that would have been the usual outcome.
I read that Agassi^s leg was so sore during the 2005 USO final that he had to lean against Roger at the trophy presentation. In all probability, at their best, Andre and Rafa would have been very close on all surfaces. Andre would have had the advantage on hard courts, Rafa on clay. Grass, who knows?

NYCtennisfan
07-30-2008, 05:38 PM
Nonsense. Ivanisevic was a nobody back then. He wasn't even comparable with Roddick or Hewitt.
Becker was in the worst condition of his career when he lost to Agassi in 1992.
McEnroe was far worse than 35 year old Agassi or even today's Hewitt.
Stop dreaming.

To repeat it:
Agassi would have only a little chance.
Agassi always had problems against strong base liners like Courier, Rios and such guys.
And these played at least a level lower than Nadal.

And Agassi was in 2005 in great condition, playing a very good US Open (he COULD not play better when he was younger). He lost to Nadal at Montreal. And that would have been the usual outcome.


Wow....just wow. :eek:

Andi-M
07-30-2008, 06:32 PM
Agassi on clay definately. :p

Nadal imo far superior on clay and grass. Hard 55:45 Nadal too. Indoors Agassi.

jcempire
07-30-2008, 06:38 PM
Clay: Nadal, Hard:Agassi Grass:too close.

you right

Nadal took Clay, Mr. Andre took rest of courts

rocketassist
07-30-2008, 06:46 PM
Nonsense. Ivanisevic was a nobody back then. He wasn't even comparable with Roddick or Hewitt.
Becker was in the worst condition of his career when he lost to Agassi in 1992.
McEnroe was far worse than 35 year old Agassi or even today's Hewitt.
Stop dreaming.

To repeat it:
Agassi would have only a little chance.
Agassi always had problems against strong base liners like Courier, Rios and such guys.
And these played at least a level lower than Nadal.

And Agassi was in 2005 in great condition, playing a very good US Open (he COULD not play better when he was younger). He lost to Nadal at Montreal. And that would have been the usual outcome.

Nadal would lose to 1992 Ivanisevic on grass, 1992 Becker on grass, and would probably beat 1992 McEnroe on grass. Agassi beat all three, and would have no problems gobbling up Rodduck, Hewitt, Fakervic if he was in his prime now.

MisterQ
07-30-2008, 07:46 PM
A few thoughts on this.... Agassi is superior to Nadal when it comes to taking the ball early and dictating off both wings from the center of the court with hard, precise, punishing groundstrokes. This is no small matter -- it enabled Andre to beat many opponents who were otherwise younger, faster, and more versatile. However, Nadal seems to be his equal in conditioning, and he is superior to Andre in almost every other department: mental strength, speed, consistency, net play, and variety.

IF Agassi could hold his ground from the center of the court, he could win the match -- but I think Nadal has enough game to prevent Agassi from doing this. Once Agassi was on the defensive (pushed far wide, or behind the baseline), his strokes became far less potent. Nadal's speed and defense are vastly better than Agassi's, and indeed better than anyone Agassi had to face in his prime. Agassi often relied on weak replies off of punishing shots -- he would even move into the net to volley them sometimes. Nadal has enough strength to return many of those balls with control and pace. Essentially, Nadal shrinks the court with his speed, and even Agassi could be forced into errors by this pressure.

Agassi also relied (especially circa 1999-2001) on his ability to wear opponents down mentally and physically. I have seen very few instances of Nadal succumbing to this sort of adversity.

Agassi's backhand could hold its ground against the best of them -- but Andre's best backhand was the crosscourt, which feeds right into Nadal's forehand. Agassi was often troubled by right-handed players like Safin and Kuerten who could break open the crosscourt rallies with punishing backhands down the line. Andre was camped far enough to the left that he had to run to reach these shots -- but his running forehand was not his most reliable shot, if he could get to the ball at all. For Nadal, as a lefty, it would be his forehand that would break open the rally, and this is a shot he hits well, with depth and a good margin for error.

Regarding spin: it's true that Agassi struggled with Nadal's topspin in Montreal, but Andre had never played Nadal before, and he said that he never played anyone with that much spin before. I believe that Agassi's ball-striking abilities would have been good enough to make this adjustment if they had played more --- I don't think it would be a lasting factor, and I don't think Agassi would have nearly the number of mishits that Federer has against Nadal, for example.

Regarding serves: Both players improved their serves during their careers to the point where their serves were difficult to break, though not exactly major weapons. Not sure there is a clear winner in this department. Both players were remarkably good at protecting their service games.

On clay, Nadal is a clear favorite. Not sure I need to explain this one... ;)

Grass tends to reward athletic prowess (as Sampras, Federer, Becker and Navratilova have shown). I believe that Nadal's physicality would be too much for Andre on grass -- but this is a tough call, as neither player has a conventional grasscourt approach.

On hardcourt these matches would be thrillers. The pure bounce and pace would give Agassi opportunities to take control from the center of the court. For reasons I mentioned above, my gut says that Nadal would come out the victor more often than not. However, Agassi always had a way of surprising people on this surface... he knew how to play a hardcourt baseline game as well as anyone. Too bad we can't watch this hypothetical matchup.

zoparrat
07-30-2008, 09:18 PM
On hard courts and anything faster, where Nadal's spin sits up nicely for Agassi to pound them on the lines, I give the edge to Agassi.

On rebound ace, I would think it'd be close with maybe an edge to Nadal, but comparing Agassi's and Nadal's track records upto now at Australian suggests results in favor of Agassi.

On clay Nadal would murder Agassi.

On a 90's grass court Agassi would be clear winner. On today's joke of a grass court Nadal would have the edge.

Action Jackson
07-31-2008, 02:05 PM
Thanks Mr Q, for a well thought out and constructed response to the particular question.

rafa_maniac
07-31-2008, 02:39 PM
A good portion of Nadal's fans haven't a clue about tennis, they really have to be the most uneducated base of fans in terms of historical knowledge pertaining to the sport, it's really quite an indictment on the state of tennis as a whole.

I mean, there's a substantial difference between being a newcomer to the sport and just being staunchly ignorant. Moreover, this day in age with all of the technological advancements that have been made, one would presume that reviewing footage of the numerous Agassi matches available on rapidshare; checking data on atptour.com or at least watching relatively short clips of his 1999 season on YouTube would be fairly simple concepts to grasp, but obviously for several people such isn't the case.

The level of ingenuity truly boggles one's mind, never have I seen a group of people that are so incredibly deluded, it would be difficult for even the most neutral of observers to state otherwise.

Trolling at it's most psuedo-intellectual and concieted :lol: As for whoever said the poll is unfair because we live in the era of Nadal where his fans can vote... we also happen to live in the era of Nadal where the volumes of haters can also vote. That said, this thread is useless, and comparing between players of different eras is totally asinine and redundant, and as much as posters like Prima above would love to believe, there is no truly objective way to argue the case.

Sebby
07-31-2008, 02:43 PM
As for whoever said the poll is unfair because we live in the era of Nadal where his fans can vote... we also happen to live in the era of Nadal where the volumes of haters can also vote.

yep, it's clear that some are not very objective in their votes ;)

rafa_maniac
07-31-2008, 02:51 PM
yep, it's clear that some are not very objective in their votes ;)

I don't believe anyone truly is, and I include myself in that.

Sebby
07-31-2008, 02:58 PM
I don't believe anyone truly is, and I include myself in that.

I am, I voted Nadal :angel:

Nadal_Fanatic
08-02-2008, 03:51 AM
On hard courts and anything faster, where Nadal's spin sits up nicely for Agassi to pound them on the lines, I give the edge to Agassi.

On rebound ace, I would think it'd be close with maybe an edge to Nadal, but comparing Agassi's and Nadal's track records upto now at Australian suggests results in favor of Agassi.

On clay Nadal would murder Agassi.

On a 90's grass court Agassi would be clear winner. On today's joke of a grass court Nadal would have the edge.
Joke of a grass court? Go to hell.

Boris Franz Ecker
08-02-2008, 01:19 PM
Nadal would lose to 1992 Ivanisevic on grass, 1992 Becker on grass, and would probably beat 1992 McEnroe on grass. Agassi beat all three, and would have no problems gobbling up Rodduck, Hewitt, Fakervic if he was in his prime now.

in your dreams.

He would have no problems with Roddick, some problems with Hewitt, but Djokovic would nearly be the worst possible matchup for Agassi.

maybe Nadal would have lost against these (surely not always), but we are talking about Agassi - Nadal match. Apart from that Nadal beat big server Ancic as he was a 17 year old boy on grass.

The reality and deciding factor is, that Agassi had always problems with good base liners, he was lucky that Courier, Rios, Safin, Hewitt and such guys had a short career (as world class players) or weren't really world class players as Kucera.
He also lost some times to Chang.
Nobody can seriously state that Chang plays at the same level than Nadal.

Nadal would - as Djokovic or Federer - be the worst possible opponent for Agassi.
That's a nearly sure thing, if you take a look at Agassi's career.

Stephan
08-02-2008, 08:12 PM
in your dreams.

.... such guys had a short career (as world class players)
.....That's a nearly sure thing, if you take a look at Agassi's career.

agree:

1)"such guys had a short career (as world class players)"
and
2) "if you take a look at Agassi's career":
it was 20 years long, from 1986-2006,!!! ( as world class player)

that's Andre Agassi...:)



how long will be the career of current players (fed, rafa,...etc) as world class players?
what do you think, fan? ;)

rocketassist
07-10-2011, 01:55 AM
bump

abraxas21
07-10-2011, 02:41 AM
agassi, no doubt

rafa's topspin and high bouncing balls wouldn't affect agassi too much because agassi was probly one of the best 3 players ever when it comes to taking the ball early. plus, agassi is consistent on both wings and like that can hit winners with his forehand and backhand. he's got all the shots from the back of the court, as the slow current conditions demand the players to play the game today.

in several ways, agassi is a better version of davydenko and we all know how davydenko owns nadull so you can all guess the level of total ownage agassi would inflict on rafito. even on clay, i think agassi would own nadull.

there's however a strange myth in some of today's tennis fans (most of whom have only been watching it for the last 3 years) that says that a healthy young nadal is unbeatable on clay. i believe djokovic (who doesn't even play at his best on clay) debunked that myth in madrid and rome this year. the simple reason nadal has been so consistent on clay thru the years is purely that this era isn't very good in terms of the overall quality of the players. if we could go back 10-15 years, i'm convinced that guys like agassi, kafelnikov, ríos would totally own nadal on all surfaces.

thrust
07-10-2011, 03:37 AM
Clay: Nadal, Hard:Agassi Grass:too close.
I agree, though I would give Andre the slight edge on grass.

selyoink
07-10-2011, 03:44 AM
Considering that Davydenko owns Nadull I think it is pretty obvious Agassi would as well. Not on clay, though he would beat Nadull sometimes. But on hard and grass it would be all Agassi all the time.

SERBINATOR
07-10-2011, 06:39 AM
Agassi Obviously

Davydenko and Novak's game is replica model of Agassi's game....esp Davy who hits Flat out and we see how he dominates Nadal

in simple words Nadal would get BitchSlapped by everyone not only agassi if he had played in the 90's (read Boring) era

juan27
07-10-2011, 07:59 AM
Agassi Obviously

Davydenko and Novak's game is replica model of Agassi's game....esp Davy who hits Flat out and we see how he dominates Nadal

in simple words Nadal would get BitchSlapped by everyone not only agassi if he had played in the 90's (read Boring) era

I don`t think that everyone of the 90s owns nadal.....

players like sampras,federer or agassi in the fast courts of the 90s can own nadal sometimes.

but other players like pioline,chang,courier,martin,kafelnikov,kuerten,mo ya,corretja and many other can`t own nadal.....nadal could win that player in any surfaces and very times

samanosuke
07-10-2011, 08:31 AM
Nadal would have moonballing edge on the clay . Everything else painful **** for spanish ass . Actually nadal is very lucky not to play in the same era with peak agassi . HC matches against andre would discredit him hugely

stebs
07-10-2011, 10:32 AM
Agassi would be a bit of a nightmare for Nadal on hardcourts in my opinion. Taking the ball early, bossing points, capitalising on weaker service (easiest time to attack Nadal). As MisterQ stated a few years ago, that Agassi struggled with Nadal's spin on their first meetings is no reason to believe he would continue to do so if they played a bunch of matches. Nadal would still take matches from Agassi on HC but imo Agassi at his best would win 2 out of 3.

Clay is easy as always with Nadal, no explanation needed to say that Nadal would win pretty much every time.

Grass is the closest to call for me. Agassi's game still fits well toward punishing Nadal off the ground but on the other hand Agassi is a long way behind Djokovic, Murray or Federer when it comes to defending. Whilst Agassi is one of the greatest ball strikers of all time, his mediocre defence (relative to the greats) would give Nadal an easier time if he got ahead in rallies. Majority of players on tour struggle to win any points against Nadal once the Spaniard gets to dictating, could be a problem for Agassi. The thing is, if Nadal could make it close, you have to favour him to win because of the mental strength. Agassi could hold his own in big moments sometimes but I don't see him winning too many big points in Wimbledon SF's and F's against Nadal in his prime (unreal mental strength). For those reasons, I think I take Nadal to win 60% of matches (or 3 of 5) on grass vs Agassi.

rocketassist
07-10-2011, 05:11 PM
Exactly, Agassi at his peak on hardcourts would be a nightmare opposition for Nadal. He's a hybrid version of Djokovic/Davydenko but with better serve/netgame.

Johnny Groove
07-10-2011, 05:53 PM
Nadal on clay for sure.

Nadal on grass for sure.

Agassi on hard.

Orka_n
07-10-2011, 11:48 PM
Agassi takes the ball early and would neutralise Nadal's topspin a la Kolya. Nadal would probably win anyway on clay due to his movement but on everything else I'd favor Agassi.

barahmasa
07-11-2011, 12:04 AM
Nadal wouldn't come close to ever losing a set on clay, would handle Agassi on grass fairly easily, and would win all slow hard courts as well. I think Agassi would have a chance on the fast hard courts when Nadal was worn out...

Yes, that's why Agassi has 4 AO's and Rafa has 1, Agassi has 2 US O's and Rafa has 1 (with only one apperance in finals of both HC GS) :o

I know Rafa is only 24 but ATM he really doesn't look like a guy who's gonna win 4 more HC GS....

Never say never though, whenever I think tennis has hit bottom I see it can go even lower :confused:

barahmasa
07-11-2011, 12:46 AM
Just realised I replied to a 3 years old post :o :facepalm:

Johnny Groove
07-11-2011, 01:46 AM
Interesting that their only meeting came in 2005, Nadal winning in 3 sets in the finals of the Canada Masters.

Nadal was pre-peak, Agassi was past it, similar to Sampras-Fed in Wimbledon 2001.

It would be fun to watch for sure.

Solista
07-11-2011, 02:04 PM
Nadal clay , Agassi hard , on grass - tie !

Boris Franz Ecker
07-11-2011, 07:11 PM
on every surface: Nadal.
He is by far better than Agassi.
Although Nadal lost to Davydenko, who plays a little bit like Agassi, some times.

Boris Franz Ecker
07-11-2011, 07:22 PM
It's still right. Nadal

Nadull_tard
07-11-2011, 07:26 PM
Agassi would make Nadal look like an amateur on harcourts, face a little bit of resistance on real grass, and probably lose on clay in a close encounter.