Would Agassi be more successful now? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Would Agassi be more successful now?

stewietennis
01-31-2012, 12:14 AM
Half of Agassi's majors were won on the slower HC in Australia. With the surfaces being slowed down now and being all similar, would Peak Agassi be more successful today than he was in his time?

abraxas21
01-31-2012, 12:24 AM
yes

slower surfaces and a muggier era

v-money
01-31-2012, 12:26 AM
Let me fire up my time machine and maybe we can find out.

Looner
01-31-2012, 12:30 AM
If he had the fitness levels of a Nadal or a Djokovic, maybe yes.

Shirogane
01-31-2012, 12:31 AM
Yes, except maybe in Australia, since Rebound Ace truly was the perfect surface for his game.

SetSampras
01-31-2012, 01:02 AM
Of course. He was perhaps the best slow hardcourt player ever. He could play on clay.. His chances would go through the roof on slower grass. He could play on fast hardcourts. He could play indoors. He got the most legit career slam. And he wouldn't have to worry about attacking aggressive players which bothered him. I'm sure he would be an easy double digit slam winner today. He had the ability to take the ball early which spell murder for today's tour.

He would have a field day running guys like Murray, Djoker, and Nadal side to side and dictating play from the baseline

ballbasher101
01-31-2012, 01:09 AM
He did not move well enough. Djokovic is the new Agassi but less attack minded. Speed is vital in the modern game. Agassi would struggle in today's game unless of course he worked on his movement.

TennisGrandSlam
01-31-2012, 02:10 AM
no, he is 42 years old now!

navy75
01-31-2012, 03:13 AM
No. The competition is far greater now, even if it is top heavy. I like Andre personally, but Roger alone is better than Pete, and then you have the brick walls with Djoker and Nadal thrown in (either of whom would be a massive favorite over Andre).

The better question might be just how many more GS titles that any of the top three would have had they been born 15 years earlier. Have a feeling that the Albert Costa's and Thomas Johansson's of the tennis world might not have been so fortunate.

MuzzahLovah
01-31-2012, 03:22 AM
Agassi was competitive with Federer in his mid thirties, and is a much more talented ball striker off both wings than any of the top four, so with slower surfaces he'd probably dominate still. But, he won all 4 slams on different surfaces before the homogenization, something more impressive than Fed's win on fast clay or Nadals wins on slow grass and hard.

SetSampras
01-31-2012, 03:30 AM
No. The competition is far greater now, even if it is top heavy. I like Andre personally, but Roger alone is better than Pete, and then you have the brick walls with Djoker and Nadal thrown in (either of whom would be a massive favorite over Andre).

The better question might be just how many more GS titles that any of the top three would have had they been born 15 years earlier. Have a feeling that the Albert Costa's and Thomas Johansson's of the tennis world might not have been so fortunate.

ROFL. Fed is older now.. I wouldn't say Andre has no chance vs. this Fed.. For god sakes. He took Fed to 5 sets in 2004, and played him big time tough in 2005 at the USO despite playing 3 straight 5 setters before the finals. What makes you think Andre couldn't beat this older Fed considered he was so competitve vs. a young 20s Fed when he was in his mid-late 30s with a bad back?


Andre wasn't a freak of nature but he didn't need to be. He was the purest ball striker perhaps ever and could dictate play from the baseline even if the opposition was more athletic then him. He was a smarter player then most. He ran you ragged because he could take the ball so early.


Andre would do just fine today IMO. He didn't need to be an athletic beast like a Monfils or someone to be successful.

SetSampras
01-31-2012, 03:36 AM
Agassi was competitive with Federer in his mid thirties, and is a much more talented ball striker off both wings than any of the top four, so with slower surfaces he'd probably dominate still. But, he won all 4 slams on different surfaces before the homogenization, something more impressive than Fed's win on fast clay or Nadals wins on slow grass and hard.

Exactly. Kudos. I think some people forget just how solid off both wings andre was and how he could take the ball so early. . This era is tailor made for Andre. He would just run the defensive horses, all over the court left and right.

Andre was also a better slow court player then fast court player lets not forget. If Andre can hang with a close to peak Fed in his mid-late 30s, I see no reason to believe he couldn't hang with the top guys today if he was in his prime

SetSampras
01-31-2012, 03:42 AM
Some of the key things Andre has which would make Andre successful in this era:

-ability to take the ball early
-no fast surfaces (his weaker point opposed to slower surfaces)
-arguably the greatest ROS ever (He would destroy Nole, Murray, and Nadal's serve)
-ability to tire out defensive grinders with running them left to right
-Good serve
-Great off both wings (solid hard hitting FH) GREAT BH
-His pure ball striking ability

ballbasher101
01-31-2012, 03:54 AM
Agassi is a legend. Lets be real though people. The game has gone up a level. Being a good ball striker is not good enough. You need exceptional movement. Agassi was never that good in the movement department. The top players have weapons and they will make you run so you need to be able to get into position in good time in order to hit those shots back. No doubt Agassi would be a success but dominate? no way.

Ultravox
01-31-2012, 04:20 AM
He would have a field day running guys like Murray, Djoker, and Nadal side to side and dictating play from the baseline

Ask Agassi(or read his interviews) what he think about that. Of course,you "know" better than he himself:devil::wavey:

Sophocles
01-31-2012, 10:22 AM
Of course. He was perhaps the best slow hardcourt player ever. He could play on clay.. His chances would go through the roof on slower grass. He could play on fast hardcourts. He could play indoors. He got the most legit career slam. And he wouldn't have to worry about attacking aggressive players which bothered him. I'm sure he would be an easy double digit slam winner today. He had the ability to take the ball early which spell murder for today's tour.

He would have a field day running guys like Murray, Djoker, and Nadal side to side and dictating play from the baseline

This is largely true, with one important caveat: Agassi preferred slow hard courts, but the "slow" hard courts in his heyday were lightning-fast compared with the knee-crippling surfaces of today. He'd have enjoyed the slower grass at Wimbledon & the faster balls at R.G., though.

tests
01-31-2012, 11:27 AM
Some of the key things Andre has which would make Andre successful in this era:

-ability to take the ball early
-no fast surfaces (his weaker point opposed to slower surfaces)
-arguably the greatest ROS ever (He would destroy Nole, Murray, and Nadal's serve)
-ability to tire out defensive grinders with running them left to right
-Good serve
-Great off both wings (solid hard hitting FH) GREAT BH
-His pure ball striking ability

djokovic might have agassi beat in the return department.

fsoica
01-31-2012, 12:00 PM
Anyone reading agassi's Open autobiography would know that he has no place in today's tennis. He admits feeling hopeless vs. Fed and in front of a freak when playing Nadal. it was the end of his career, but tennis also changed. That Agassi would have no place in today's men's game, but an Agassi growing at the same time with Rafa and the djoker could be a different animal, though...

spencercarlos
01-31-2012, 12:22 PM
djokovic might have agassi beat in the return department.
Djokovic is also a much more complete player than Andre, he knew how to make proper volleys, while Agassi could be very primitive there.

We have to add that the speed of Nole around the court, court coverage-defensive to offensive transition game is better than Andre´s. It would be such an interesting match up because after that they are very similar, great shotmaking-consistency (Agassi post 1999 period) and will.

Shinoj
01-31-2012, 12:28 PM
To the topic Question.

yes he would have. The conditions suited his baseline dominated game. Although he would have liked it to be a bit more pacier, my guess.

sexybeast
01-31-2012, 12:38 PM
I think this AO is alittle bit too slow even for hAgassi, it is not really comparable to the rebound ace that he loved so much. However, I think Agassi would beat Nadal on any hardcourt, just look what mr "poor mans Agassi" Davydenko has done to Nadal over the years. However Agassi would need to win against the 2 other great slow hardcourt players of the open era, Djokovic and Federer, I am not quite sure that would be so much fun for Agassi as Nadal, Federer with the ability to take Agassi out of the picture almost like Sampras used to do and Djokovic beeing a player quite unlike anything Agassi ever faced in his prime, someone who hits hard, defends like no one else in the business and wont miss the ball in the process.

Maybe Agassi would like Usopen better when no one serves big in this generation, he can dictate better against Djokovic there. Federer would always be the favorite against Agassi on fast hardcourts but in this generation Agassi might not need to play Federer to win.

Wimbledon would really be alot more fun for Agassi, with Federer missin the SFs twice in a row it Agassi would have a playground with Nadal and Djokovic, I really dont think Agassi is superior to Nadal on grasscourts but the matchup is so favorable, he would always have the upper hand outside clay, Djokovic cant really play on grass and wouldnt be able to do anything against Agassi.

Clay is out of question, Agassi would not find easy opponents in the finals in this era, no Couriers, Medvedevs and 30 year old Gomez but only alltime great claycourters. No, he would never win a set against Nadal and neither against Djokovic or Federer IMO. Oh and he would have to beat 2 of them in a row, no way Agassi could just have his holidays during clay season, come over without having played 1 match on clay with his hardcourt game and just sleepwalk his way to the finals, this was only possible in the weak clay field of the 90s.

Quadruple Tree
01-31-2012, 12:52 PM
djokovic might have agassi beat in the return department.

Agassi was returning bombs from Sampras, Becker, Stich, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, and others on courts that are faster than anything on tour today. Not only were the courts faster, but all those players were following their serves into the net, so any weak return was pretty much a guaranteed put away volley for them. Agassi's returns had to be pinpoint. There is no one on tour today that puts the kind of pressure on a returner that those guys did. Djokovic's returns are the best in the modern game, but I don't think they are comparable to Agassi at his best.

Macbrother
01-31-2012, 01:14 PM
People are forgetting a very important point which is Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal are all leaps and bounds ahead of Agassi in movement and overall athleticism. He may be a purer ball striker but is that going to be enough, especially with todays courts?

Branimir
01-31-2012, 01:29 PM
Who cares.

Sophocles
01-31-2012, 01:44 PM
Djokovic is also a much more complete player than Andre, he knew how to make proper volleys, while Agassi could be very primitive there.

Agassi was not a great volleyer by any stretch of the imagination, but the Djoker is surely no better, if as good.

Sophocles
01-31-2012, 01:45 PM
People are forgetting a very important point which is Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal are all leaps and bounds ahead of Agassi in movement and overall athleticism. He may be a purer ball striker but is that going to be enough, especially with todays courts?

If Del Potro can win a slam with his movement, why not?

Jamoz
01-31-2012, 01:52 PM
Only with modern wig :angel:

ossie
01-31-2012, 02:11 PM
lol agassi would barely win a masters title if he played against todays spartans

SetSampras
01-31-2012, 02:58 PM
Let me get this straight::


Agassi still reaching slam finals in his mid-late 30s, during a time there was more depth in the game then there is now, and taking the top player close to his peak Federer (2004-2005 Fed is better then 2011-2012 Nadal and Nole) to 4-5 sets at the time and disposing of other players en route 10-12 years younger then him and with a bad back , somehow couldn't compete today if he was in his prime where you dont have that Fed around or nearly the numbers of talented threats and slower surfaces where Andre wouldn't be attacked or hit off a speedy court since there isn't one around? ROFL!!!


People are nuts and delusional on here. These conditions are Andre's wet dream. Defensive ball retrievers and much weaker servers on slow surfaces. Andre couldn't ask for more

Ultravox
01-31-2012, 03:15 PM
1) Fed 2004-2005 is not better then Nole 2.0 and Rafa 2012.
2)Agasi himself about Novak:
“Does Djokovic resemble myself?” Agassi said. “No, he is even better. He defends really well, while I struggled more in that element of the game. Novak looks totally relaxed when defending, completely calm and the quality of his return is incredible. He is also extremely flexible in his game, which is facilitated by his ability to anticipate his rival’s moves. That is why I think he is a much more versatile player than I was and he is also much more athletic."

But I agree with you, people are really nuts and delusional on here...

SetSampras
01-31-2012, 03:19 PM
Thats Agassi being humble and building up today's game for publicity purposes. .. But those of us who watched Agassi during his heyday would tell you the conditions today suit his game more. Hell Laver does the same thing.. Arguably the greatest player to ever play the game.


And Fed in 04-05 is better then Nole is right now anyways. Hell an OLD Federer beat Nole last year. I don't see where 04-05 Fed would have any problems vs. this Nole. He had more game, had the movement, and more weapons in his arsenal then Djoker does

LawrenceOfTennis
01-31-2012, 03:40 PM
Thats Agassi being humble and building up today's game for publicity purposes. .. But those of us who watched Agassi during his heyday would tell you the conditions today suit his game more. Hell Laver does the same thing.. Arguably the greatest player to ever play the game.


And Fed in 04-05 is better then Nole is right now anyways. Hell an OLD Federer beat Nole last year. I don't see where 04-05 Fed would have any problems vs. this Nole. He had more game, had the movement, and more weapons in his arsenal then Djoker does

Agree with this.

Ultravox
01-31-2012, 03:49 PM
Thats Agassi being humble and building up today's game for publicity purposes. .. But those of us who watched Agassi during his heyday would tell you the conditions today suit his game more. Hell Laver does the same thing.. Arguably the greatest player to ever play the game.


And Fed in 04-05 is better then Nole is right now anyways. Hell an OLD Federer beat Nole last year. I don't see where 04-05 Fed would have any problems vs. this Nole. He had more game, had the movement, and more weapons in his arsenal then Djoker does

1) You're biased because Agassi and Sampras are Americans,just like you.
2) Fed is not 40 or 50 years old, he is 30 and he is not "old". Fish is playing his best tennis now, and he is 30 too.
3) We need a time machine to send Djoker 2.0 to 2005-2006 to play young Fed. Everything else is just a speculation and waste of time.

rocketassist
01-31-2012, 03:54 PM
1) You're biased because Agassi and Sampras are Americans,just like you.
2) Fed is not 40 or 50 years old, he is 30 and he is not "old". Fish is playing his best tennis now, and he is 30 too.
3) We need a time machine to send Djoker 2.0 to 2005-2006 to play young Fed. Everything else is just a speculation and waste of time.

Fed 04-05 (maybe 07) was the most complete tennis player ever.

nadalwon2012
01-31-2012, 04:02 PM
I think Agassi could have won about 2-4 more Australian Opens if he played it before 1995. Agassi was a slam contender as early as 1990 when he made the US Open final, and 1990 RG final and 1991 RG final. He would have won some Australian Opens before 1995. He may have even done it before 1990.

Black Adam
01-31-2012, 04:07 PM
Let me fire up my time machine and maybe we can find out.
Hold on I'll bring a the flux capacitor.

rocketassist
01-31-2012, 04:18 PM
Even the 03 AO (the last slam he won) was lightning fast compared to today's courts.

He'd be the aggressor vs Rafole but they'd get everything back. It'd be tough.

Sophocles
01-31-2012, 04:22 PM
Even the 03 AO (the last slam he won) was lightning fast compared to today's courts.

He'd be the aggressor vs Rafole but they'd get everything back. It'd be tough.

Yes, but if Davydenko can own Nadal on today's hard courts I'm sure Agassi would.

nadalwon2012
01-31-2012, 04:39 PM
Yes, but if Davydenko can own Nadal on today's hard courts I'm sure Agassi would.

But Davy has never beaten Nadal at a slam. Best-of-5 is a different proposition. Agassi would struggle to put Nadal away.

Nadal beat Agassi in the final of Montreal Masters (hardcourt) in 2005, and at Wimbledon 2006.

In Agassi's book "Open" he says of Nadal "I've never before seen anyone move like that on a tennis court".

SetSampras
01-31-2012, 05:17 PM
But Davy has never beaten Nadal at a slam. Best-of-5 is a different proposition. Agassi would struggle to put Nadal away.

Nadal beat Agassi in the final of Montreal Masters (hardcourt) in 2005, and at Wimbledon 2006.

In Agassi's book "Open" he says of Nadal "I've never before seen anyone move like that on a tennis court".

Well alot of that is because Davy is a freakin headcase NUTJOB. He was destroying Fed at the AO a few years back before he totally crapped the bed mentally

SetSampras
01-31-2012, 05:20 PM
1) You're biased because Agassi and Sampras are Americans,just like you.
2) Fed is not 40 or 50 years old, he is 30 and he is not "old". Fish is playing his best tennis now, and he is 30 too.
3) We need a time machine to send Djoker 2.0 to 2005-2006 to play young Fed. Everything else is just a speculation and waste of time.

You don't call 30 "old" for a men's player? I dunno much of any players who did big things in the last 20-30 years past the age of 30. They are few and far between. You can count them on one hand (Connors, Agassi, Fed, Pete, thats about it) Fish isn't doing much either at 30. A big reason why he could be doing so good now at 30, because he didn't do much of anything in his 20s. Whereas in Fed's case, hes been on top for the better part of 7-8 years now

shiaben
01-31-2012, 05:21 PM
Agassi is a great player, but in this generation, he would be *****. The thing is, he lives off consistency and accuracy. His forehand was great, but it's not good enough against Federer or Djokovic who would murder him. And against a player like Nadal, he doesn't have the quick enough footwork nor does he have the kind of serves and returns to allow him to compete.

If he had a hard time against a guy like Sampras who didn't have a top level backhand and his forehands weren't as powerful as Djokovic or Federer during rallies, how can he expect to have more success against these beasts?

SetSampras
01-31-2012, 05:26 PM
Agassi is a great player, but in this generation, he would be *****. The thing is, he lives off consistency and accuracy. His forehand was great, but it's not good enough against Federer or Djokovic who would murder him. And against a player like Nadal, he doesn't have the quick enough footwork nor does he have the kind of serves and returns to allow him to compete.

If he had a hard time against a guy like Sampras who didn't have a top level backhand and his forehands weren't as powerful as Djokovic or Federer during rallies, how can he expect to have more success against these beasts?

Pete's FH's weren't as powerful? :confused: Are we talking about the same Sampras here? He had more power in his FH with less racket technology on his small pro staff then guys today today with super racket technology

BodyServe
01-31-2012, 05:35 PM
Fed 04-05 (maybe 07) was the most complete tennis player ever.

I'm tired of this myth, this younger fed would lost patience against Djokovic like he did against Nadal and result would came down to speed of the court, and that topspin backhand isn't that great to speak of.

Paylu2007
01-31-2012, 05:42 PM
Let me get this straight::


Agassi still reaching slam finals in his mid-late 30s, during a time there was more depth in the game then there is now, and taking the top player close to his peak Federer (2004-2005 Fed is better then 2011-2012 Nadal and Nole) to 4-5 sets at the time and disposing of other players en route 10-12 years younger then him and with a bad back , somehow couldn't compete today if he was in his prime where you dont have that Fed around or nearly the numbers of talented threats and slower surfaces where Andre wouldn't be attacked or hit off a speedy court since there isn't one around? ROFL!!!


People are nuts and delusional on here. These conditions are Andre's wet dream. Defensive ball retrievers and much weaker servers on slow surfaces. Andre couldn't ask for more

Agree. I dont understand why ppl say otherwise.

Mateya
01-31-2012, 05:44 PM
Could be.
But he would also be closer to a wheelchair than winning matches at the age of 35.

Slower courts > faster deterioration.
:wavey:

Quadruple Tree
01-31-2012, 05:57 PM
Agassi is a great player, but in this generation, he would be *****. The thing is, he lives off consistency and accuracy. His forehand was great, but it's not good enough against Federer or Djokovic who would murder him.

Agassi's forehand was great, but don't forget he also had one of the best if not the best backhand on tour. And Federer-Agassi is not some mythical match-up. We got to see how 30+ year old Agassi did against Federer at the peak of his abilities (2004, 2005), and he was holding his own much of the time and still taking sets off of Roger. This idea that a younger, fitter Agassi would get murdered is hilarious.

And against a player like Nadal, he doesn't have the quick enough footwork nor does he have the kind of serves and returns to allow him to compete.

This is one of the dumbest thing I've read on MTF. Agassi doesn't have the return to compete with Nadal? OK. A guy who could return Sampras, Becker, Stich, Ivanisevic, and Krajicek serves is going to get owned by Nadal's WTA level serve. Please let me have some of what you're smoking.

If he had a hard time against a guy like Sampras who didn't have a top level backhand and his forehands weren't as powerful as Djokovic or Federer during rallies, how can he expect to have more success against these beasts?

You realize Sampras plays an entirely different style from anyone on tour today. He wouldn't get into extended rallies. When he got a short ball to his forehand (which by the way was a huge shot), he was either hitting a winner or hitting an unforced error. He didn't mess around. He also came into net often behind his slice backhand to shorten points. Sampras didn't let Andre get into much of a rhythm from the baseline. That wouldn't be the case with Djokovic. The only thing I can conclude from reading your post is that you've never watched tennis pre-2006 and have no clue what you're talking about.

shiaben
01-31-2012, 06:02 PM
I'm sorry but you can't compare the athleticism of Agassi with those three. They're just on another level. Agassi's superb return of serve and cutting down points short isn't enough to grant him success against these guys. He'd definitely probably get some wins over them, but these 3 would definitely have the better end of the stick most days. Their athleticism and overall games are at another level. There are no disputes about that.

Quadruple Tree
01-31-2012, 06:10 PM
Well, the guy who thinks Sampras had a weak forehand and Agassi couldn't return Nadal's serve says there's no debate. I guess it's settled then.

buzz
01-31-2012, 06:51 PM
If you put agassi up against the same players from his generation with the conditions of today, he would probably more succesfull. But he also wouldn't win much in the years he was less motivated.

SetSampras
01-31-2012, 06:59 PM
If you put agassi up against the same players from his generation with the conditions of today, he would probably more succesfull. But he also wouldn't win much in the years he was less motivated.

I think Sampras caused that and his wife at the time Brooke Shields.

HKz
01-31-2012, 07:01 PM
Agassi is a legend. Lets be real though people. The game has gone up a level. Being a good ball striker is not good enough. You need exceptional movement. Agassi was never that good in the movement department. The top players have weapons and they will make you run so you need to be able to get into position in good time in order to hit those shots back. No doubt Agassi would be a success but dominate? no way.

Right but much of this is due to the fact that he played against serve and volleyers and by the time he was playing against many baseliners, he was already 30 yet could still keep up with them due to his great ability to read shots.

I personally do not think Agassi would benefit as much as some posters are making it seem from the current aspects of the game when including court speeds and competition. While Agassi was certainly very successful on slower surfaces, remember, Agassi was also a tremendous fast court player, highlighted by his success on "real" grass. It just so happened to be that Sampras was in his time.

SetSampras
01-31-2012, 07:09 PM
Right but much of this is due to the fact that he played against serve and volleyers and by the time he was playing against many baseliners, he was already 30 yet could still keep up with them due to his great ability to read shots.

I personally do not think Agassi would benefit as much as some posters are making it seem from the current aspects of the game when including court speeds and competition. While Agassi was certainly very successful on slower surfaces, remember, Agassi was also a tremendous fast court player, highlighted by his success on "real" grass. It just so happened to be that Sampras was in his time.

The bulk of Agassi's wins came on slower surfaces though. Slow hardcourts, clay, etc. He had less success against on faster surfaces against the likes of Rafter, Pete etc where these guys would attack him relentless and take away his timing etc. In today's era, Andre would be able to be more comfortable on slower surfaces on a primary baseline game where he can get in the groove and run guys back and forth by taking the ball early

shiaben
01-31-2012, 08:24 PM
Federer/Nadal/Djokovic would exploit Sampras and Agassi's footwork and their bodies flexibilities. These three are ridiculously athletic.

I'm sure the American duo would have their chances for a few slams. But they would struggle in h2hs against these three. Perhaps like Murray, they would be able to consistently reach many QFs and SFs.

stewietennis
01-31-2012, 08:52 PM
Because of Agassi's success on faster courts, wouldn't his opponent's attempts to run him around the court (to exploit his, arguable, movement issue) be neutralised by his faster reaction time, ability to 'read' shots and they way he would control most points (as opposed to Novak's and Rafa's defensive style)?

Personally, if Agassi was in Peak Form and around 25 today, I think he'd have moderate success against older Federer, around 55/45. I think he might have initial trouble with Rafa's heavy topspin shots but he would adjust after a couple of years. He might get frustrated by Novak's ability to get a lot of ball back into play. But I believe in the latter two, he'd be dictating points most of the time, whether serving or returning. He would more than likely lose on clay

spencercarlos
01-31-2012, 08:57 PM
I think Sampras caused that and his wife at the time Brooke Shields.
Not certainly. If anything Agassi´s decline in 1996 could have more to do with Chang than Sampras IMO. Agassi took 2 defeats off Chang in slams. Anyway it was a general personal problem. Agassi also suffered such a setback in the end of 1995 at the Usopen and more when he was on his way of ending the year as number one rather comfortably got injured.

LawrenceOfTennis
01-31-2012, 09:00 PM
It's not really complicated. 35 year old Agassi took a set off prime Federer. That's a fact.
He played with modern strings, but give that to a 23-24 year old Agassi, not to mention 25 year old peak form one. His movement is not on Djokovic's or Nadal's level, but does not need to be there because of his shotmaking. Both Nadal and especially Djokovci can place their shots well, but Agassi is simply on another level.

Macbrother
01-31-2012, 09:09 PM
It's not really complicated. 35 year old Agassi took a set off prime Federer. That's a fact.

And? Much lesser players than Agassi have taken a set off peak Federer. Are we suppose to make such grandiose claims about them as well?

shiaben
01-31-2012, 09:17 PM
And? Much lesser players than Agassi have taken a set off peak Federer. Are we suppose to make such grandiose claims about them as well?

Well spoken.

LawrenceOfTennis
01-31-2012, 09:21 PM
And? Much lesser players than Agassi have taken a set off peak Federer. Are we suppose to make such grandiose claims about them as well?

Well, taking out of context is...an interesting method. Anyway.
The way he could play that Federer was awesome, nothing less.

rocketassist
01-31-2012, 09:22 PM
I'm tired of this myth, this younger fed would lost patience against Djokovic like he did against Nadal and result would came down to speed of the court, and that topspin backhand isn't that great to speak of.

Nope. Fed's movement, forehand and intangibles would destroy him. Only the slowest courts would have made it interesting.

SetSampras
01-31-2012, 09:41 PM
And? Much lesser players than Agassi have taken a set off peak Federer. Are we suppose to make such grandiose claims about them as well?

Andre was damn near going on FOURTY doing it. Thats what makes it impressive. While guys 10 years younger were getting blown off the court with bagels and breadsticks.

Ultravox
01-31-2012, 09:44 PM
Fed 04-05 (maybe 07) was the most complete tennis player ever.

This is not an objective fact,this is just your personal opinion. Nothing more,nothing less.
Tell me, who is the better footballs player Maradona or Messi? The answer to this question does not contain any facts, just personal opinion.

rocketassist
01-31-2012, 10:26 PM
This is not an objective fact,this is just your personal opinion. Nothing more,nothing less.
Tell me, who is the better footballs player Maradona or Messi? The answer to this question does not contain any facts, just personal opinion.

It's my opinion and it's true. Great attacker, great defender, server, complete shotmaker... perfect tennis player.

But yeah you think these baseline grind 'n' run pushers are much better. MUCH better. :lol:

Roddickominator
01-31-2012, 11:07 PM
I loved Agassi but come on guys, he would get slaughtered on today's courts against these athletic freaks(i'd say "freaks of nature", but there is hardly anything natural about several of them).

Agassi would have a better chance against these guys on faster hardcourts. In today's slow conditions, he'd hardly be able to hit a winner against these guys. He didn't blast 100 mph groundstrokes, he just ran his opponent around the court and was very accurate and consistent with his groundies and could put the ball away when given a short ball or got his opponent out of position.

He was never a great mover or defender, and was never known for his pure stamina, which is something you absolutely MUST have in today's game to even compete with the big dogs.

I think Agassi is more talented than any of the Top 4 except for Federer, but the physical side of the game is THAT important now....his talent would not help him in 5 set matches against guys that can and will run every ball down without really getting tired and never hit UE's.

HKz
01-31-2012, 11:16 PM
I'm tired of this myth, this younger fed would lost patience against Djokovic like he did against Nadal and result would came down to speed of the court, and that topspin backhand isn't that great to speak of.

You can't be serious. Federer is the EXACT type of player Djokovic dislikes. He struggles against big servers (Roddick anyone?) as it frustrates him being unable to take advantage of returns, and he requires the rhythm off the ground which players like Murray and Nadal give him. You think Federer in 2004-2007 was willing to continuously play long extended rallies? No. Coupled with the fact that Federer's shot go through the court much more and his willingness to come in when needed would have made him Novak's worst nightmare. Again, who was the only player to beat Djokovic last year at the slams? Sure, Djokovic was not at his very best, but Federer also has his age excuse to throw him into the mix.

Sure peak Federer wouldn't blow peak Djokovic out of the water especially on slower hardcourts, but I doubt Djokovic would have a winning record on any surface.

RagingLamb
01-31-2012, 11:27 PM
Pete's FH's weren't as powerful? :confused: Are we talking about the same Sampras here? He had more power in his FH with less racket technology on his small pro staff then guys today today with super racket technology

Don't forget the very high string tension. The fact that he generated that much power (especially those running forehand on the stretch) shows you how powerful he actually was.

Anyhow, yes Agassi would fair very well in this era.

Time Violation
01-31-2012, 11:48 PM
Let me get this straight::


Agassi still reaching slam finals in his mid-late 30s, during a time there was more depth in the game then there is now, and taking the top player close to his peak Federer (2004-2005 Fed is better then 2011-2012 Nadal and Nole) to 4-5 sets at the time and disposing of other players en route 10-12 years younger then him and with a bad back , somehow couldn't compete today if he was in his prime where you dont have that Fed around or nearly the numbers of talented threats and slower surfaces where Andre wouldn't be attacked or hit off a speedy court since there isn't one around? ROFL!!!


People are nuts and delusional on here. These conditions are Andre's wet dream. Defensive ball retrievers and much weaker servers on slow surfaces. Andre couldn't ask for more

Lol, if there is anyone nuts and delusional here, then it must be you :) This is tennis, it's not math and you cannot make such conclusions, if A > B and B > C, then A > C? Get a grip :o

No need to go further than last year, IW and Miami, where Nadal lost two very close matches on his worst surface, against Nole on his best surface. So, "common wisdom" would suggest that when the game moves to Nadal's best surface he should have no problems, because he played so well on his worst surface. The argument gets even stronger when Nadal wins MC and Barcelona against tough competition, and Novak plays only Belgrade where he struggles against Lopez. However, when the clay came Nadal couldn't win a set. Same thing later repeats itself at Wimbledon, where everything favored Nadal and he was good enough only to get one set.

Bottom line, reality >>>>>>>>> theory :wavey:

Mjau!
01-31-2012, 11:57 PM
Agassi is like a more agressive Djokovic without the athleticism... no chance versus current top 4... except maybe Rafa indoors and maybe Murray & Nole on grass.

stewietennis
02-01-2012, 01:40 AM
I think Agassi is more talented than any of the Top 4 except for Federer, but the physical side of the game is THAT important now....his talent would not help him in 5 set matches against guys that can and will run every ball down without really getting tired and never hit UE's.

Never hit UFEs? I'm not sure about this. Nadal/Djokovic hit 140 UFEs in their match. Murray/Djokovic hit 155 UFEs. Those two matches, as epic as they were, contained a lot of errors. I like the current players as much as the next guy but let's not give them superhuman attributes that they don't really have.

juan27
02-01-2012, 02:22 AM
I think that agassi should be a very difficult match-up for nadal.....

his great returns and backhand should hurt very much nadal`s game.

agassi was an exellent hard court player , for me 35 years old agassi in hardcourts it`s more dangerous than today`s murray , especially in slams( murray choked always).

but this surfaces are much more slow that in agassi`s time , even the slow hardcourts are very very slow in comparassion with agassi`s era.

Ultravox
02-01-2012, 04:45 AM
It's my opinion and it's true. Great attacker, great defender, server, complete shotmaker... perfect tennis player.

But yeah you think these baseline grind 'n' run pushers are much better. MUCH better. :lol:

Jawohl herr doctor.
18:9:wavey:

TennisGrandSlam
02-01-2012, 07:54 AM
How defind successful?

Andre Agassi's last 3 Australian Open derived in the so-called weak era (2000-2003, post-Sampras era).

Do you think that Agassi can win 3 Australian Open in 2004-2011 (assume he keeps his age at 30-33)???

JediFed
02-01-2012, 08:21 AM
Agassi was world number 1 at 33. If that's not a sign of a 'weak era', then I don't know what to say.

Sophocles
02-01-2012, 05:03 PM
Why do people keep banging on about "athleticism"? It wasn't that long ago the distinctly unathletic Juan Martin Del Potro was slaughtering the athletic Rafael Nadal & outlasting the athletic Roger Federer to win a slam. Agassi was no worse a mover than Del Po, probably better (he wasn't that slow), & although he never had Del Po's raw power, his shots were just as hard to get to thanks to his brilliant anticipation & timing. On this year's A.O. court, yes, he'd struggle against Djoker & Nadal, but that court (or the balls) was painfully slow.

rocketassist
02-01-2012, 05:31 PM
Jawohl herr doctor.
18:9:wavey:

What a surprise, you were nothing more than a fanboy clown without a point.

Not even a Fedtard, but 16 with 1 homogenized slam >>> 10 with 4 homogenized slams.

Ultravox
02-01-2012, 09:53 PM
What a surprise, you were nothing more than a fanboy clown without a point.

Not even a Fedtard, but 16 with 1 homogenized slam >>> 10 with 4 homogenized slams.

You are Fedtard,of course, dont hide that,and you are hypnotized, just like the rest of yours.
Your "perfect tennis player" got spanked by Rafa when he was 23 and Nadal 18??? Its just funny. In 2006 "prima Fed" lost 4 times against 19 years old Rafa and won only 2.Imagine that Tomic is doing same thing against Nole today?
So, your "perfect tennis player" is Rafas sextoy and who cares about slams, only hardcore Fedtards.

PS Feds tennis is visually beautiful, no doubt about that, but beautiful tennis and strongest tennis are two entirely different things.

Vida
02-01-2012, 10:24 PM
You are Fedtard,of course, dont hide that,and you are hypnotized, just like the rest of yours.
Your "perfect tennis player" got spanked by Rafa when he was 23 and Nadal 18??? Its just funny. In 2006 "prima Fed" lost 4 times against 19 years old Rafa and won only 2.Imagine that Tomic is doing same thing against Nole today?
So, your "perfect tennis player" is Rafas sextoy and who cares about slams, only hardcore Fedtards.

PS Feds tennis is visually beautiful, no doubt about that, but beautiful tennis and strongest tennis are two entirely different things.

he's not a fed tard. thats a cover. he's a closet murray fangirl. always was.

rocketassist
02-01-2012, 10:25 PM
he's not a fed tard. thats a cover. he's a closet murray fangirl. always was.

zzzzzzzzzzzz bore me you do

rocketassist
02-01-2012, 10:27 PM
You are Fedtard,of course, dont hide that,and you are hypnotized, just like the rest of yours.
Your "perfect tennis player" got spanked by Rafa when he was 23 and Nadal 18??? Its just funny. In 2006 "prima Fed" lost 4 times against 19 years old Rafa and won only 2.Imagine that Tomic is doing same thing against Nole today?
So, your "perfect tennis player" is Rafas sextoy and who cares about slams, only hardcore Fedtards.

PS Feds tennis is visually beautiful, no doubt about that, but beautiful tennis and strongest tennis are two entirely different things.

A great attacking player will usually beat a great defensive player on anything medium paced or higher. Now, that doesn't happen cause the courts are of a snail pace. Great defenders the top 2 and Murray may be, but they're aided by the court speeds.

fast_clay
03-17-2012, 02:11 AM
post drug abuse aka drink spike peak agassi would have had a field day controlling mid court like a ring general judging by the match ups at the top... it would have been nice to see him shorten some careers of today...