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?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.
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.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.
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.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
djokovic might have agassi beat in the return department.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
-Great off both wings (solid hard hitting FH) GREAT BH
-His pure ball striking ability
Djokovic is also a much more complete player than Andre, he knew how to make proper volleys, while Agassi could be very primitive there.djokovic might have agassi beat in the return department.