[WeakestTennisEra]

I would think had Agassi played in this era instead of the 90s, he would have won more slams. At least a few more than his tally of 8. He was able to win 8 GS when conditions were fast as hell. Just imagine how many Slams he's with courts slowed down. His ROS, backhand would've cause huge trouble to opponents. He would got a way with a weaker serve in these slow conditions.

Guys like Del Potro, Murray, Cilic, Safin, and Wawrinka would never have won slams if Agassi had played along with big 3.

I see Agassi winning 2-3 US opens, 2-3 AO opens, 1-2 Wimbledons(Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer would not have so many Wimbledons if Agassi played. Even absolutely none if Sampras played).
I can see him winning more French Opens as well, probably 2004, 2005,2009,15, and 16.Rest all would have gone to Nadal.

So Agassi would have got around 11-12 GS in this era.

 

[Manu_ser]

Less than 8.

 

[RocketMan70]

Is this a new SetSampras. as a SetAgassi?
But Agassi achieved all he could, despite going awol for a couple of years , and then outlasting Sampras.
He wouldn't get any more than back then.

 

[WeakestTennisEra]

Less than 8.

You think so?
He was able to win 8 in an era of fast courts and serve and volley players.
In slower conditions and baseline dominating era, he would thrive under his peak.
Even at the age of 34-35 , he used to push Federer at his peak to the edge. More than Federer's contemporaries.

I would think he would be the greatest threat to the big 3
Even Sampras as well, had he played in this era. But, Sampras had a much weaker baseline game than Agassi.
Agassi's serve wouldn't be a hindrance in these slower courts . His ROS and backhand is one of the greatest in history.
A fully fit and motivated Agassi at his prime and peak level is unplayable in slower courts.

 

[Manu_ser]

You think so?
He was able to win 8 in an era of fast courts and serve and volley players.
In slower conditions and baseline dominating era, he would thrive under his peak.
Even at the age of 34-35 , he used to push Federer at his peak to the edge. More than Federer's contemporaries.

I would think he would be the greatest threat to the big 3
Even Sampras as well, had he played in this era. But, Sampras had a much weaker baseline game than Agassi.
Agassi's serve wouldn't be a hindrance in these slower courts . His ROS and backhand is one of the greatest in history.
A fully fit and motivated Agassi at his prime and peak level is unplayable in slower courts.

The 2000-2003 era when he won most of his Australian Open titles was terrible.

 

[WeakestTennisEra]

Is this a new SetSampras. as a SetAgassi?
But Agassi achieved all he could, despite going awol for a couple of years , and then outlasting Sampras.
He wouldn't get any more than back then.

Please read the post above. I explained why I think he could win more.
Agassi is seriously under estimated.
He is the greatest single digit slam winner in history.
And the only one with a complete resume of having all the achievements.
Which is why I rate him, Borg, and Pancho Gonzales as three of the best players, followed by Sampras, Connors, and then McEnroe,Lendl,Edberg,Becker, then Djokovic,Nadal etc
Federer falls out of the top 10.

 

[guitarra]

Crystal meth is still illegal so I don’t think he’d do any better.

 

[WeakestTennisEra]

The 2000-2003 era when he won most of his Australian Open titles was terrible.

He still won 5 slams in the 90s. 2000 was still a strong era. It was from 2001-till now that's weak.
And your are forgetting this was before surface homogenisation. After homogenisation , he became older and was in his mid 30s. A peak Agassi in his prime would have won more titles in this era of baseliner and slow conditions. He would neutralize other players serve with his ROS and Backhand. Similar to Djokovic, but with a more pleasing gamestyle and much more interesting to watch. A true aggressive baseliner.

 

[WeakestTennisEra]

Crystal meth is still illegal so I don’t think he’d do any better.

Lol Cilic failed drug tests as well and he won slams, reaching finals as well in this weak era .
Even if you take a few years off , Agassi would still win a lot of slams in this era .

 

[Manu_ser]

He still won 5 slams in the 90s. 2000 was still a strong era. It was from 2001-till now that's weak.
And your are forgetting this was before surface homogenisation. After homogenisation , he became older and was in his mid 30s. A peak Agassi in his prime would have won more titles in this era of baseliner and slow conditions. He would neutralize other players serve with his ROS and Backhand. Similar to Djokovic, but with a more pleasing gamestyle and much more interesting to watch. A true aggressive baseliner.

Fair enough, bro.

 

[hammett]

In this era starting 2020s , 25 slams

 

[WeakestTennisEra]

In this era starting 2020s , 25 slams

Well if Federer was able to exploit a weak era and win 20 Slams, I am sure prime/peak Agassi would do it even better.

 

[Pirao666]

Murray-like career.

 

[WeakestTennisEra]

Murray-like career.

But Agassi was a much better player than Murray ever was or will be.
Murray maxed out his potential at 3 slams. He wouldn't have won anything more in any era.
Agassi played in a much stronger era and won 8 slams.

Agassi would've won way more than Murray in this era. If Agassi had played than Murray, Wawrinka, Delpo, Cilic and the likes would have never won GS. Rather Agassi would have won them, and would've stopped the big 3 from winning a lot of the slams they had won.

I see him winning 10-13 slams. This covers the slams that the non big 3 members had won from 2004-16 as well.

 

[Pirao666]

But Agassi was a much better player than Murray ever was or will be.
Murray maxed out his potential at 3 slams. He wouldn't have won anything more in any era.
Agassi played in a much stronger era and won 8 slams.

Agassi would've won way more than Murray in this era. If Agassi had played than Murray, Wawrinka, Delpo, Cilic and the likes would have never won GS. Rather Agassi would have won them, and would've stopped the big 3 from winning a lot of the slams they had won.

I see him winning 10-13 slams. This covers the slams that the non big 3 members had won from 2004-16 as well.

Nobody cares what you think. Where did your previous thread end up? Hint: where this thread will be soon enough

 

[RocketMan70]

Please read the post above. I explained why I think he could win more.
Agassi is seriously under estimated.
He is the greatest single digit slam winner in history.
And the only one with a complete resume of having all the achievements.
Which is why I rate him, Borg, and Pancho Gonzales as three of the best players, followed by Sampras, Connors, and then McEnroe,Lendl,Edberg,Becker, then Djokovic,Nadal etc
Federer falls out of the top 10.

This is a purely subjective opinion, and many would disagree.
Lendl, Connors and even Mac were all better, and had multiple YE#1 seasons.

 

[WeakestTennisEra]

This is a purely subjective opinion, and many would disagree.
Lendl, Connors and even Mac were all better, and had multiple YE#1 seasons.

Lendl , Connors and McEnroe never had a complete resume, each of them missing a specific GS that they never won. I.e French Open for Connors and McEnroe, Wimbledon for Ivan Lendl. Plus they've all won lesser Slams than Agassi(except Lendl who equals him).
Agassi is the only one who has a complete resume. Even Laver never won the WTF. The Big 3 have missing tournaments in their resume as well.

 

[NADALalot]

Agassi had cortison injections during 2005 US Open in order to survive THREE 5-setters before playing Federer in the Final.
Agassi still only lost with a respectful scoreline of 63 26 76 61.
Federer looked absolutely helpless in the 2nd Set, with Agassi bossing every point, and I think Agassi was up a break in the 3rd Set before losing in tb.
In other words, peak Agassi would have beaten peak Federer at the US Open.

 

[Helicopter4hand]

Agassi had cortison injections during 2005 US Open in order to survive THREE 5-setters before playing Federer in the Final.
Agassi still only lost with a respectful scoreline of 63 26 76 61.
Federer looked absolutely helpless in the 2nd Set, with Agassi bossing every point, and I think Agassi was up a break in the 3rd Set before losing in tb.
In other words, peak Agassi would have beaten peak Federer at the US Open.

35 year Agassi with horrible back pain pushed Peak Federer..... plus at the US open the year earlier Agassi pushed peak Federer to 5 sets
Mid 30's Agassi was able to push prime Federer with any major weapons like a serve, he just stayed close to the baseline and hit flat (something which Federer needs to do now)

OF course he would have won more slams if he was in this era, I dont know how many but he was unfortunately born in the wrong era

 

[WeakestTennisEra]

Agassi had cortison injections during 2005 US Open in order to survive THREE 5-setters before playing Federer in the Final.
Agassi still only lost with a respectful scoreline of 63 26 76 61.
Federer looked absolutely helpless in the 2nd Set, with Agassi bossing every point, and I think Agassi was up a break in the 3rd Set before losing in tb.
In other words, peak Agassi would have beaten peak Federer at the US Open.

Yes exactly. Agassi was the most unluckiest player. Federer the most luckiest player ever. Agassi also took Federer to 5 sets in 2004 US Open, played under two days under extreme weather conditions, windy as hell. Still Federer almost lost.
Peak Federer is overrated. Federer had a poor backhand which wouldn't even be top 20 of all time. Not to mention his tendency to choke on serve, and a weak second serve. His ROS was atrocious for a top player, supposedly considered to be an ATG. Agassi's only weakness was his serve, which wouldn't have been much of a factor in slower courts and conditions anyway.

Federer's peak level would probably be around top 15 of all time in tennis history.

Peak Agassi would have won 15-20 Slams in this era, while Federer wouldn't have even won 3 in any other era. Even Nadal and Djokovic would probably have won around 5 GS in another era.