Mens Tennis Forums banner

41 - 60 of 102 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Discussion Starter #41
Against whom? He's not as good as Nadal. That leaves one opportunity, in 2009, and I think Fed takes that because Fed is a better claycourter.

If we're assuming that He's exactly 10 years younger, then sure. That leaves 2004. He couldn't beat Guga then so he's unlikely to beat Guga now. That leaves the 2004 FO, the 2003 FO and the 2002 FO. So let's be generous then and say that he gets 3. Maybe in 2015 vs Stanimal.

Australian Open, who does he beat? Stan in 2014? Safin in 2005? I'll be generous and give him the 2000 AO, the 2001 AO, the 2002 AO, the 2003 AO, the 2005 AO and the 2014 AO.

As for Wimbledon who does he beat? Hewitt in 2002? Goran in 2001? I don't see either. Zero wimbledons.

US Open. 2009, 2014, 2003. I don't see him getting 2009. 2003 and 2014, maybe.

So looking at it, that gives us:

2002, 2003, 2004 FO.

2000, 2001, 2002, 2003

He'd win his last slam at the FO at 2004. And all of these are dependent on being born in 1980 like Safin.

If he were born in 1985, then I don't see him winning more than a couple of slams.








Like 04, 05(Nadal wasn't developed on clay yet), 09, and depending on his age, 15-16 as well.

As for AO and USO, conditions were much faster back then and still he managed to win 6 slams on HC, in these slow conditions he would fare much better. You are also forgetting he was Federer's toughest competition at 34-35 in 04-05 USO.

As for Wimbledon, yes this was his weakest surface I agree. But he still managed to win one , and make another final in the 90s era, of fast grass, serve and volley, and grass specialists. Sampras at his peak was a much better grass player than Federer. So Agassi would perform better in this slow grass era. Baseliners, like Nadal, Murray,Djokovic, have won 9 slams on grass. Surely Agassi can win quite a few Wimbledons.

A prime/peak Agassi if motivated, in this era could be a double digit slam winner.
Let's assume Agassi was born in the early to mid 80s.Say, 83-85.

Now let's analyse the slams in each year one by one. First with Wimbledon.
I'll start from 2002, as Agassi would probably in the juniors or not developed yet prior to that.
If Leyton Hewitt was able to win Wimbledon in 2002, a younger Agassi would have definitely won a Wimbledon that year. Agassi is a much better player, a better baseliner and has better weapons than Hewitt. A 2002 W would have been Agassi's. 2003 Wimbledon against Federer, Agassi would have had a chance, his opponent that year was Phillippoussis. 2004-2008 would have probably gone to Federer, Nadal, or Roddick etc but Agassi would have fared a chance and would still be in contention for them. 2009 W Agassi would beat Federer , Federer was in horrible form throughout the tournament, and Roddick played better in the final even though his peak years were long gone, and he didn't even deserve to be in the final in the first place, Nadal withdrew, Djokovic not yet developed on grass. Agassi would have a strong chance to beat that Fed in W.
Then that leaves 2013, 16, 18 as well. Agassi could have beat djokovic in 13 and 18(tired from 5 setter better chance than Anderson) , and obviously Raonic in 16 as well.

So that leaves 6 Wimbledons. And frankly it's not too far fetched when you have a guys like Djokovic, Nadal,Murray have 9 W despite being defensive baseliners.

Now the French Open.
2003 FO would have been his, as well as 2004 FO.
He would have had a chance in 05 FO, as Nadal was not yet developed on clay, and his opponent was Puerta, and he almost took him to 5 sets.
Then 09 FO, Soderling was mentally and physcially done after beating Nadal. Federer's form wasn't even that good in the tournament. Struggling against Haas and Delpo, 5 sets etc . Agassi would have had his chances.
Then there's 15-16 FO(Agassi would be early 30s), a declined Nadal , Agassi would have won those years as well. Agassi is a better clay courter than Wawrinka. Djokovic's form in 16 wasn't that good . In 15 he was good, but was taken to 5 sets by Murray. Agassi could pull out a win vs Djokovic.
2013 Agassi would have at least made the final and performed better than david Ferrer against Nadal.
Now Coming to the Ao and USO.
2003, Agassi beats Roddick at USO.
Even 34-35 year old Agassi pushed peak Federer to 5 and 4 sets in 04, 05 respectively.
An Agassi in his prime would win 04,05 as well.
05 AO, Safin would have lost to Agassi. Hewitt is not Agassi.
Then say he loses out on slams in 06,07, motivational issues, personal reasons,i injuries etc..
He still has 08 AO, Agassi could beat Tsonga and under developed Djokovic.
US 08, Agassi would have beat Mono and out of form Fed.
In 09 AO , Nadal was taken to 5 sets by Verdasco despite Verdasco choking in crucial moments. Agassi with his ROS and backhand , would have been a much bigger threat.
US 09, considering he would've won A0,FO,and W that year, he would be going for the CYGS, in front of an american crowd. His only competition was Delpo, and Fed, Nadal out of form. Federer as we know becomes mentally affected when he loses so many matches to a rival. Agassi would have the upper hand against him. 2012 US would have gone to Agassi instead of Murray, same with 14 AO and USO, and 16 USO.

In 2017, which is the weakest year in tennis, he would be in contention for slams seeing Fedal vultured 4 slams when there was no competition that year.

So that leaves us with around 6 W,6 FO, 8 USO, at least 4 AO.

So that's around 25 slams. That's my hypothesis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Discussion Starter #42
It was NOT peak Federer, peak Federer was later with better, more solid groundstrokes, he would straight set Agassi.
His peak was 04-07. 06 appears better on paper because of lack of competition. But it was the same actually. Only thing better by Fed was his clay form in 06,07.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,300 Posts
His peak was 04-07. 06 appears better on paper because of lack of competition. But it was the same actually. Only thing better by Fed was his clay form in 06,07.
Incorrect, those are the years with the best results (due to rather weak competition at the top), his peak came later with better rallying abilities.. Was more of a shotmaker back then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
860 Posts
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.
5 French Open titles? The clay was also slow in Agassi's era. Have you watched peak-clay Agassi playing in the FO finals 1990, 1991 and 1999?

FO 1990: Agassi couldn't cope with Andrés Gomez topspin. Lendl (who you claim is below Agassi on the ATG list leads Gomez 17-2) and Gomez was not an ATG.
FO 1991: Agassi lost to Jim Courier - a baseline slugger that Nadal would serve bakery products on the dirt.
FO 1999: Agassi nearly lost to Andrej Medvedev - a decent clay courter, but not an ATG.

BTW. Lendl was 6-0 ahead against Agassi and Agassi only beat Lendl twice in 1992-1993 when Lendl had clearly declined.
 

·
Chaos Theory
Joined
·
51,548 Posts
Let's assume Agassi was born in the early to mid 80s.Say, 83-85.

Now let's analyse the slams in each year one by one. First with Wimbledon.
I'll start from 2002, as Agassi would probably in the juniors or not developed yet prior to that.
If Leyton Hewitt was able to win Wimbledon in 2002, a younger Agassi would have definitely won a Wimbledon that year. Agassi is a much better player, a better baseliner and has better weapons than Hewitt. A 2002 W would have been Agassi's. 2003 Wimbledon against Federer, Agassi would have had a chance, his opponent that year was Phillippoussis. 2004-2008 would have probably gone to Federer, Nadal, or Roddick etc but Agassi would have fared a chance and would still be in contention for them. 2009 W Agassi would beat Federer , Federer was in horrible form throughout the tournament, and Roddick played better in the final even though his peak years were long gone, and he didn't even deserve to be in the final in the first place, Nadal withdrew, Djokovic not yet developed on grass. Agassi would have a strong chance to beat that Fed in W.
Then that leaves 2013, 16, 18 as well. Agassi could have beat djokovic in 13 and 18(tired from 5 setter better chance than Anderson) , and obviously Raonic in 16 as well.

So that leaves 6 Wimbledons. And frankly it's not too far fetched when you have a guys like Djokovic, Nadal,Murray have 9 W despite being defensive baseliners.

Now the French Open.
2003 FO would have been his, as well as 2004 FO.
He would have had a chance in 05 FO, as Nadal was not yet developed on clay, and his opponent was Puerta, and he almost took him to 5 sets.
Then 09 FO, Soderling was mentally and physcially done after beating Nadal. Federer's form wasn't even that good in the tournament. Struggling against Haas and Delpo, 5 sets etc . Agassi would have had his chances.
Then there's 15-16 FO(Agassi would be early 30s), a declined Nadal , Agassi would have won those years as well. Agassi is a better clay courter than Wawrinka. Djokovic's form in 16 wasn't that good . In 15 he was good, but was taken to 5 sets by Murray. Agassi could pull out a win vs Djokovic.
2013 Agassi would have at least made the final and performed better than david Ferrer against Nadal.
Now Coming to the Ao and USO.
2003, Agassi beats Roddick at USO.
Even 34-35 year old Agassi pushed peak Federer to 5 and 4 sets in 04, 05 respectively.
An Agassi in his prime would win 04,05 as well.
05 AO, Safin would have lost to Agassi. Hewitt is not Agassi.
Then say he loses out on slams in 06,07, motivational issues, personal reasons,i injuries etc..
He still has 08 AO, Agassi could beat Tsonga and under developed Djokovic.
US 08, Agassi would have beat Mono and out of form Fed.
In 09 AO , Nadal was taken to 5 sets by Verdasco despite Verdasco choking in crucial moments. Agassi with his ROS and backhand , would have been a much bigger threat.
US 09, considering he would've won A0,FO,and W that year, he would be going for the CYGS, in front of an american crowd. His only competition was Delpo, and Fed, Nadal out of form. Federer as we know becomes mentally affected when he loses so many matches to a rival. Agassi would have the upper hand against him. 2012 US would have gone to Agassi instead of Murray, same with 14 AO and USO, and 16 USO.

In 2017, which is the weakest year in tennis, he would be in contention for slams seeing Fedal vultured 4 slams when there was no competition that year.

So that leaves us with around 6 W,6 FO, 8 USO, at least 4 AO.

So that's around 25 slams. That's my hypothesis.
Alright, that's enough.
Image result for cat hand gif stop keyboard


Agassi's lack of serve would ultimately hurt him in the modern era. It actually wasn't that bad for him in the 90s because his ground game and ROS was much better than his compatriots (see Hewitt, Chang). Agassi's wealth of experience meant he could translate his game to still be successful in the 00s.

The big hypothetical you didn't address: physicality. Would his body be able to handle the more physical game over time? He did not have to charge his body too great in the 90s and early 00s with a lot of SV opponents who didn't stretch him that much physically. Also he had periods he was certainly far from his best. He was a very good player but I feel he would be a better Nalbandian. Nalbandian for his talent still was unable to win a grandslam, and the board here celebrates this guy to be a beast. Double digit slams is plausible and I'm willing to facilitate up to 12. But for 20+ you really have to stretch your imagination. Of course, I know you are being facetious.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,264 Posts
The op is a clone, DA. He is talking about Agassi only to attack Federer over and over by saying how his 2nd serve is not even top20 all time. Lmao.
Federer's second serve is one of the best out there, the numbers speak for themselves. It's hilarious to even read what this clown writes.
In any era, winning 20 slams is a tough task. Also, making 10 consecutive slam finals is a record which will not be broken any time soon, most likely ever. Also making 23 consecutive slam semifinals is most likely another record which will be there for eternity.
Relax and accept the fact that Agassi is not an all time great, not even close.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,264 Posts
¿? Of course Agassi is an all time great, just on a lower tier than Federer (and Nadal and Djokovic too, for that matter).
Yes, exactly. I must have rushed typing, but this is what i exactly wanted to say.
He is second tier Atg player.
Imho, first tier ATG are only the big3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,853 Posts
personally:

Tier 1- Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Laver
Tier 2- Rosewall, Sampras, Borg, Gonzalez
Tier 3- Connors, Lendl, Agassi, McEnroe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Discussion Starter #52
Lol those that are saying big 3 are top tier ATGs. Their career stats and achievements are inflated by slow surfaces, lack of competition and surface variety, mental midgets and chokers in the tour etc.

Not too mention the era of only 16 seeds. Less prone to upsets until the second week etc. Other era greats had to deal with tougher courts, tougher competition , 16 seed tournaments etc.
Not too mention only best of 3 sets in tournaments other than Grand Slams. No best of 5 finals etc.

This is the luckiest era ever. Plus modern medicine, fitness and technology , equipments etc have made it easier to be at the top for long.
Other era greats didn't have that luxury or facilities. At least Nadal and Djokovic would win slams on clay in any other era(though Nadal wouldn't in the 60s-70s with wooden racquets and lack of topspin.) Djokovic might have won a few HCs in another era. But 5-6 max for them. Federer wouldn't have even crossed 5 slams in another era . This guy was complaining about surfaces being too fast on carpet. And they had to remove it because of his complaining. There's a reason why he never achieved anything on carpet. And when surfaces didn't favor his style, he'd go polar opposite and say they were too slow. Clearly always complaining. He didn't have the champion mindset. Skipping clay when he knew he'd be defeated. Good luck trying all this in another era.

Those who doubted whether Agassi would be able to maintain the physicality in these conditions, are forgetting the fact that if he was born in this era, he would have adjusted to the conditions and played accordingly. Agassi was physically fit till his mid 30s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
Tell me how many Slams would Federer win in the 90s? With Peak Sampras on grass, followed by an entire era of grass specialists. Only chance Federer would have is 96, and even that is not a given.
On Clay? With strong clay courters and clay specialists, like Muster, Bruguera,Kuerten(he couldn't even beat a Kuerten with an immobile hip in 04, forget peak Kuerten), then there's Agassi, Courier etc. Too much competition.

He would win 0 slams on clay and grass.
That leaves HC, he might win 2-3 depending on how the draw opens and the form of other players, not more that that because of Sampras, Agassi from the mid to late 90s. And Edberg,Becker,Cash,Rafter etc

Now in the 80s, with guys like McEnroe, Becker, Edberg,Connors, and other grass specialists, you think he can win?

On Clay 80s is his best chance, but with Ivan Lendl there, along with Wilander, Borg ,Connors, etc in the early 80s He'll find it tough to win a FO, his best chance is one, maybe the 1989 one(in place of Chang).
HCs , same story as with the 1990s, too much competition, he'd win 2-3.
1970s, with Borg,Vilas,Connors,Nastase, etc on Clay, he'd find it tough to win.
On Grass, Borg had a stronghold , in the 70s.
In the 50-60s with the likes of Gonzales,Kramer,Rosewall,Laver,Seguera,etc, forget it.

Only in this era he was able to reach multiple grand slams, and win slams in double digit numbers.
You can’t really compare eras due to completely different conditions, it works both ways as those 80’s and 90’s players would get trashed in today’s era due to completely different conditions and styles that win matches. Even so, Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon when Sampras was 29 so he may of not been at peak level but he was still Sampras which proves Federer would’ve at least stood a chance. Players adapt their games for their current era so what worked in the 80’s and 90’s doesn’t work today and vice versa.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,965 Posts
It is actually quite difficult to define prime/peak Agassi. The guy was definitely a pure talent, however he totally screwed it up with his attitude and inability to focus and show his best skills on court. His personal affairs, women in his life, his drug affairs and other things he admits in his book made a huge impact on his career resume mainly because it ruined his best years. Briefly said - he did not manage to exist as a sport celebrity. It is actually a shame because in my opinion he was even better tennis player in terms of pure talent than Sampras and despite his natural disadvantage in terms of serving he was still abe to defeat Sampras repeatedly and when one considers all his struggles with motivation and inconsistency, his H2H with Sampras is actually very good. When you look at his performance during later years after his comeback in 98/99, one can think what career resume he could have achieved without all those affairs and other stuff. I think that Agassi with the attitude of Sampras might have easily won 12 Slams, which seems to be a quite low estimate considering what "legends" won Slams during 90s. It is definitely difficult to estimate his possible achievements in this era, but I don't see any reason why he couldn't challenge the actual big 3 in terms of Slam titles. He had definitely the talent and longevity to be up there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,069 Posts
Now let's analyse the slams in each year one by one. First with Wimbledon.
If you have him in 1984, he's not winning slams ahead of Nadal. It's really better for him to be born in 1980 than in 1984. That means that you're looking at the Wimbledon's from 2006, on and have him hitting both peak Fed early on and then Peak Djokovic. Djokovic is better on grass than Agassi, so he has no advantage. And he's not beating Fed on Grass.

So that leaves 6 Wimbledons.
He's not the favourite in any. I count zero. He has to beat Fed/Djokovic to win any of them, and that's no guarantee.

Then 09 FO, Soderling was mentally and physcially done after beating Nadal. Federer's form wasn't even that good in the tournament.
Fed is still the better claycourter, he would not be the favourite in the final vs Fed.

Agassi is a better clay courter than Wawrinka.
I'm not so sure about that. That's an interesting question. Both have exactly 7 titles on clay. Both have the single RG. Both have a single clay masters. Stan has an additional masters final. Both have a title and a final on clay.

I would say that Stan has a slightly better resume on clay.

2003, Agassi beats Roddick at USO.
Not at 18. He's really better off being born in 1980 than in 1985.

05 AO, Safin would have lost to Agassi. Hewitt is not Agassi.
Agassi loses 4 AOs by being born in 1985, he'd also be 20 against peak Safin. Does he beat him? Not so sure about that. But sure, say he beats Hewitt and Safin on his favourite surface. That's one.

Where are the others? USO 2014, he's got to go through Fed/Djokovic to get to the final. I just don't see anything other than a Murray/Stanimal like career of a couple of slams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,559 Posts
Lol those that are saying big 3 are top tier ATGs. Their career stats and achievements are inflated by slow surfaces, lack of competition and surface variety, mental midgets and chokers in the tour etc.

Not too mention the era of only 16 seeds. Less prone to upsets until the second week etc. Other era greats had to deal with tougher courts, tougher competition , 16 seed tournaments etc.
Not too mention only best of 3 sets in tournaments other than Grand Slams. No best of 5 finals etc.

This is the luckiest era ever. Plus modern medicine, fitness and technology , equipments etc have made it easier to be at the top for long.
Other era greats didn't have that luxury or facilities. At least Nadal and Djokovic would win slams on clay in any other era(though Nadal wouldn't in the 60s-70s with wooden racquets and lack of topspin.) Djokovic might have won a few HCs in another era. But 5-6 max for them. Federer wouldn't have even crossed 5 slams in another era . This guy was complaining about surfaces being too fast on carpet. And they had to remove it because of his complaining. There's a reason why he never achieved anything on carpet. And when surfaces didn't favor his style, he'd go polar opposite and say they were too slow. Clearly always complaining. He didn't have the champion mindset. Skipping clay when he knew he'd be defeated. Good luck trying all this in another era.

Those who doubted whether Agassi would be able to maintain the physicality in these conditions, are forgetting the fact that if he was born in this era, he would have adjusted to the conditions and played accordingly. Agassi was physically fit till his mid 30s.
Again, i agree w/ many of your points, esp. regarding Agassi an ATG, overrating Fed & homogenization but that stiII doesn't negate the fact that for the most part, your posts r strictIy hypotheses regarding Agassi's potential majors count.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Discussion Starter #57
If you have him in 1984, he's not winning slams ahead of Nadal. It's really better for him to be born in 1980 than in 1984. That means that you're looking at the Wimbledon's from 2006, on and have him hitting both peak Fed early on and then Peak Djokovic. Djokovic is better on grass than Agassi, so he has no advantage. And he's not beating Fed on Grass.



He's not the favourite in any. I count zero. He has to beat Fed/Djokovic to win any of them, and that's no guarantee.



Fed is still the better claycourter, he would not be the favourite in the final vs Fed.



I'm not so sure about that. That's an interesting question. Both have exactly 7 titles on clay. Both have the single RG. Both have a single clay masters. Stan has an additional masters final. Both have a title and a final on clay.

I would say that Stan has a slightly better resume on clay.



Not at 18. He's really better off being born in 1980 than in 1985.



Agassi loses 4 AOs by being born in 1985, he'd also be 20 against peak Safin. Does he beat him? Not so sure about that. But sure, say he beats Hewitt and Safin on his favourite surface. That's one.

Where are the others? USO 2014, he's got to go through Fed/Djokovic to get to the final. I just don't see anything other than a Murray/Stanimal like career of a couple of slams.
Okay let's say he was born in the early 80s then. I still think he would be able to compete with the big 3 in the late 00s-now, he would have a longer prime.

But lets assume he's born in the early 80s.
He wins most of the slams from 2000-2005. Including a CGS , and maybe even a CYGS. There are 24 slams from 2000-2005. He can win USO, AO, and FO before Nadals entry. Wimbledon he'd at least win 2001,2002,2003. That's 3 Wimbledons.
French Open I see him easily winning , 2002-2005. That's 4 FOs. That's 7 slams from the natural surfaces.

On hard , his best surface , and considering the lack of competition, he'd win pretty much every HC slam from 2000-2005 including 2002 USO(peak Agassi beats older version of Sampras), 2003 USO(handles Roddick easily), 2004-5 US(beats Federer). So that's 6 US opens from 2000-2005.
AO, his best slam would also be in the taking for him from 2000-2005. That's 6 AO as well.
So he'd win 19 slams at the minimum from 2000-05. And this is assuming he wouldn't compete with peak Federer and Nadal on clay. I'd think he would in his prime in this era on slow courts with modern fitness and medicine . No reason to think he'd play well until the end of 2010s. Also the only difference between Djokovic and Agassi's grass game is serve. Everything else , Prime Agassi and Djokovic are pretty much the same. Agassi much better at attack, Djokovic slightly better on defense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Discussion Starter #58
Again, i agree w/ many of your points, esp. regarding Agassi an ATG, overrating Fed & homogenization but that stiII doesn't negate the fact that for the most part, your posts r strictIy hypotheses regarding Agassi's potential majors count.
Well yea it is a hypothesis. This whole thread is a theoretical debate. We will never know how Agassi would have performed if he was born in the 80s. But we can estimate and assume based in reasonable facts and measures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Discussion Starter #60

This is a glimpse of what Agassi would have been like at his peak in slower courts and conditions. He would have done serious damage to Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc. He was able to handle Sampras Serve pretty decently in those courts. In the 00s and 10s he would handle Federer's as well. Agassi was probably the most charismatic player, in an era of serve and volley, he introduced interesting and attacking baseline tennis. He revolutionised the baseline game. He made it exciting. His ROS and casual stance was a thing of beauty to watch.
 
41 - 60 of 102 Posts
Top