Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 81 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,041 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,655 Posts
Let me fire up my time machine and maybe we can find out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,069 Posts
Yes, except maybe in Australia, since Rebound Ace truly was the perfect surface for his game.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,956 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,815 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,787 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,336 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,956 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,956 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,956 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,815 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,432 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,570 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
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...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
731 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,757 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 81 Posts
Top