Mens Tennis Forums banner

61 - 80 of 102 Posts

Registered
Joined
38 Posts
To me "peak agassi" means no distractions. So no torrid love affairs, no drugs and immense motivation. That Agassi would be deadly.

As this era is top heavy he would have to battle harder, meaning no final would be NID like the aussie open in 01' and 03'. I could see him winning between 6-9. Fed at SW19 and Rafa at RG would be a task too hard to overcome. His career super slam wouldn't have occurred. However, I could see his brilliant point construction and GOAT ROS (yes, he's better than novak) getting the better of the big 3 between 2005-11 at the aussie open and 2008-17 at the us open.

All in all, his accomplishments would be greatly diminished because he would have to share the wealth more, but i think his most memorable moments would have double the impact that the 1999 French Open had, which i would argue is he defining moment.
 

Registered
Joined
182 Posts
Tweaker Extraordinaire is a level below them but wins one AO and one USO. He's still completely nauseating, regardless so hopefully none. 馃ぎ
 

Registered
Joined
1,559 Posts
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.
Fair enough, but Agassi has aIready pubIicIy stated Novak to arguabIy b the most versatiIe muIti-surface competitor in history & Sampras went out of his way to congraguIate him when he passed his record so both of these pIayers u hoId in such high regard themseIves pubIicIy admitted to this. As for IabeIing him a more defensive pIayer than AA, earIier in his career his game consisted of more attacking styIe but sort of evoIved when success came from his transitioning which if u notice in todays fieId, more of them adapting to more defensive mode as perhaps AA woud have had to adapt had he been in current era (my own "hypothesis").
 

Registered
Joined
10,069 Posts
I just don't see it, Weak Era. He's better than Murray, but that would lead me to believe he might win 4, 5 slams at most. Agassi benefitted from the era behind him being weak and his career resurgence.
 

Registered
Joined
117 Posts
Discussion Starter #65
Agassi at his best, had the greatest return of all time. Even better than Djokovic as it resulted in direct return winners most of the time . The angles created on the return was magnificent.
And the rivalry between Agassi and Sampras, a contrast of styles. Striking , all court tennis at display.

 

justice for all
Joined
11,663 Posts
Baldassi in his prime was Pete's lapdog and had to wait till Pistol Pete was semi retired to vulture his slams vs the real titans of the game: Medvedev, Kafelnikov, Martin, Clement, Schuttler.
 

Registered
Joined
117 Posts
Discussion Starter #67
Baldassi in his prime was Pete's lapdog and had to wait till Pistol Pete was semi retired to vulture his slams vs the real titans of the game: Medvedev, Kafelnikov, Martin, Clement, Schuttler.
H2H between Pete and Agassi was 8-8 until 1996. From 96-97, his worst years struck, fitness, injuries, personal issues, lack of motivation, drugs etc. It was from there that the H2H went lopsided in Pete's favor.But , Agassi still managed to turn it around and bring it to 17-14 at one stage. He lost the last 3 . Most of which were extremely fast courts. Servebotting.

So if you were actually present during the era, you would know what you said was false. Pete only had the advantage at Wimbledon. And Maybe USO. Everywhere else was always on Agassi's racquet. His performance against pete is still better than a certain swiss against a certain Spaniard, and against a certain Serb.
 

Registered
Joined
117 Posts
Discussion Starter #68
Baldassi in his prime was Pete's lapdog and had to wait till Pistol Pete was semi retired to vulture his slams vs the real titans of the game: Medvedev, Kafelnikov, Martin, Clement, Schuttler.

This is one of the greatest HC matches of all time and one of the greatest QF matches. A match with sheer amount of winners and return games. Two quality shot makers. Attractive baseline game. Not the shit which is there now. Blake was GOATing the tournament and was playing at a high level throughout the match, he was in the zone. Had he won the QF, he would've most likely won the tournament. Agassi came back from two sets down to win it. Also faced another 5 set match, before going down to Federer in 4 sets. He still managed to take Federer to 4 sets, having been physically week that time, taking injections. At the age of 34-35 he pushed Federer to 5 sets in 04 and 05 respectively. Back at a time when nobody played in their mid 30s(Rosewall , Connors being the exceptions). He was never as physcially gifted or fit as Federer as well. Still he took sets of Peak Federer in his prime years.
 

Registered
Joined
11 Posts
Well the 90s were full of strong clay courters and specialists. It was a stronger clay era than now. Only Nadal was good on clay, who else? He could easily win a couple of french opens in his prime. 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.
i loved Agassi but doubt he'd win more than 8 slams competing against 3 GOATs as opposed to the 1 ATG he had as competition, all his slam wins after 95 were soft aside from AO00 and he had some horrible off years (93, 96, 97 ..). Saying that, in his 95 form, he would destroy Mac, Connors or Lendl on any surface (that's no too say he achieved the the same consistent dominance those guys did). Plus no one ever talks about just how stunning his 92 W victory was (epic back to back matches against Wimbledon legends Becker, Mac and Goran on his least favourite surface). + the word defensive didnt exist to him
 

Registered
Joined
27,104 Posts
Quite a few. He鈥檚 essentially the same exact player as Djokovic
That's like saying Atomic Tomic is essentially the same player as big Andrew.
 

Registered
Joined
117 Posts
Discussion Starter #72
Agassi is the same player as Djokovic, especially the Djokovic from 07-10. Only thing Djokovic would be better in is his serve, and slightly better in defense and court movement. Everything else Agassi is better.
 

Registered
Joined
28,554 Posts
I mean. Why are people responding seriously to OP. This is what he wrote in that other thread:

In this generation, Kyrgios, Tsitsipas, Shapovolav, are more talented and have greater potential than Federer.
Guy could have had a great ACC run if he peaked earlier.
 

Registered
Joined
117 Posts
Discussion Starter #74
I mean. Why are people responding seriously to OP. This is what he wrote in that other thread:



Guy could have had a great ACC run if he peaked earlier.
What I meant was they all have a higher potential and have shown to be more talented than Federer, especially when Federer was their age .
I have never said they are better or have achieved more than Federer.

I said they are more naturally talented, they have the potential to achieve more. Though in Kyrgios case, he might never seem to utilize that potential.
 

Registered
Joined
28,554 Posts
What I meant was they all have a higher potential and have shown to be more talented than Federer, especially when Federer was their age .
I have never said they are better or have achieved more than Federer.

I said they are more naturally talented, they have the potential to achieve more.
Indeed. And your statement is still completely absurd. The fact that you can't see that, says just about everything.
 

Registered User
Joined
5,953 Posts
Agassi is the same player as Djokovic, especially the Djokovic from 07-10. Only thing Djokovic would be better in is his serve, and slightly better in defense and court movement. Everything else Agassi is better.
The Djokovic of 07-10 only won 1 Slam.
And somehow Agassi still wins more?
Djoker from 2011 onwards is better than Agassi in every aspect.
16 Slams is twice as many as Agassi, which gives you some idea.
 

Registered
Joined
1,207 Posts
The Djokovic of 07-10 only won 1 Slam.
And somehow Agassi still wins more?
Djoker from 2011 onwards is better than Agassi in every aspect.
16 Slams is twice as many as Agassi, which gives you some idea.
For the most part I'd agree, but when Agassi was on he had a devastatingly attacking return. As wonderful as Djokovic's return is, he doesn't go for anywhere near as many clean winners as Agassi did.
 

Registered
Joined
5,300 Posts
To me "peak agassi" means no distractions. So no torrid love affairs, no drugs and immense motivation. That Agassi would be deadly.

As this era is top heavy he would have to battle harder, meaning no final would be NID like the aussie open in 01' and 03'. I could see him winning between 6-9. Fed at SW19 and Rafa at RG would be a task too hard to overcome. His career super slam wouldn't have occurred. However, I could see his brilliant point construction and GOAT ROS (yes, he's better than novak) getting the better of the big 3 between 2005-11 at the aussie open and 2008-17 at the us open.

All in all, his accomplishments would be greatly diminished because he would have to share the wealth more, but i think his most memorable moments would have double the impact that the 1999 French Open had, which i would argue is he defining moment.
For the most part I'd agree, but when Agassi was on he had a devastatingly attacking return. As wonderful as Djokovic's return is, he doesn't go for anywhere near as many clean winners as Agassi did.
What is more important? Hitting a return with depth (and getting on a neutral rally) on 8 out of 10 serves, or hitting the odd return winner on say one 1 out of 20 serves and getting aced 10 times in the process?

Agassi return of serve was good, but nowhere near Djokovic level.
 

Registered
Joined
1,207 Posts
What is more important? Hitting a return with depth (and getting on a neutral rally) on 8 out of 10 serves, or hitting the odd return winner on say one 1 out of 20 serves and getting aced 10 times in the process?

Agassi return of serve was good, but nowhere near Djokovic level.
Yeah for sure, I agree with that, Novak's consistent depth is incredible. It's more a nostalgic thing for me; Agassi along with Rafter was my first favourite player as a kid, and back then I used to marvel at how often he would hit return winners.

And I think you're slightly underestimating Agassi's return. He definitely more than just the odd return winner. Djokovic has the best return I've seen, but Agassi is probably second, and certainly has the best attacking return of serve.
 

Registered
Joined
38 Posts
What is more important? Hitting a return with depth (and getting on a neutral rally) on 8 out of 10 serves, or hitting the odd return winner on say one 1 out of 20 serves and getting aced 10 times in the process?

Agassi return of serve was good, but nowhere near Djokovic level.
Disagree completely! Djoker has never faced a serve like Pete's. Agassi could hit outright winners from 140 mph serves and consistently get the return back in play. In addition, most players putting the importance of speed over placement in this era would make Agassi's life much easier if he were barely 30 nowadays.
 
61 - 80 of 102 Posts
Top