PDA

View Full Version : If Agassi was in his prime right now...


raiden031
01-16-2007, 11:15 AM
If Agassi was in his prime right now, what would be his ATP ranking?

Also how would he fare up against Nadal in the French?

Grimjack
01-16-2007, 01:41 PM
Hard to even tell exactly when his prime was.

Looked at one way, if he were playing his best tennis, consistently, right now, he'd be a solid #3, but no real danger to either Nadal on clay, nor to Fed on any other surface.

Looked at another way, if he were the same player he was in his PHYSICAL prime years, the fact that he would be no real danger to Nadal or Fed would probably get into his head, cause him to tank a lot of matches, and force his ranking to plummet to #150 or so.

When Agassi was at his physical peak, he was a mental case, and couldn't have handled his impotence against these two clearly-better players. At his mental peak, he wouldn't have been physically talented enough.

raiden031
01-16-2007, 01:47 PM
Hard to even tell exactly when his prime was.

Looked at one way, if he were playing his best tennis, consistently, right now, he'd be a solid #3, but no real danger to either Nadal on clay, nor to Fed on any other surface.

Looked at another way, if he were the same player he was in his PHYSICAL prime years, the fact that he would be no real danger to Nadal or Fed would probably get into his head, cause him to tank a lot of matches, and force his ranking to plummet to #150 or so.

When Agassi was at his physical peak, he was a mental case, and couldn't have handled his impotence against these two clearly-better players. At his mental peak, he wouldn't have been physically talented enough.

So would he be able to handle Nadal on non-clay surfaces?

BaseLineBash
01-16-2007, 01:57 PM
If Agassi was in his prime right now, what would be his ATP ranking?

Also how would he fare up against Nadal in the French?

If he were in his prime right now, anything would be possible.

sypl
01-16-2007, 04:08 PM
Either #2 or #3

anointedone
01-16-2007, 06:20 PM
Agassi would stand no chance against Nadal on clay, but would dominate the tour on every other surface today.

capriatifanatic
01-17-2007, 10:51 AM
He would be ranked 3rd. He would be better then Nadal on non-clay surfaces but Nadal would be ranked #2 because he would dominate so much on clay and get so many points with the long clay season with 3 Masters events on clay even.

noeledmonds
01-17-2007, 11:16 AM
Agassi is so underated these days. Agaasi would easily be number 2 in world if he were at his prime. He could give Federer a run for his money some days. He would lose to Nadal on cley, but that is less than 1/3 of the season and hew would certainly pummel Nadal on hard courts. Have any of you seen Agaasi pre 2000?

Look at the these clips of the man:

http://www.tennislegendondvd.com/TennisLegendOnDVDVideoHighlights.htm
Scroll down and look at Agassi vs Corretja and Agassi vs Kafelnikov

Also look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIGAPfKt9cI

noeledmonds
01-17-2007, 11:28 AM
I want to add that Agaasi was number 1 during his prime, and he had the likes of Sampras do contend with. Are you saying that Agaasi could be ahead of Sampras, but behind Nadal in the rankings?!

2handman
01-17-2007, 11:51 AM
Ball boy'd for Andre for 5 years when I was in a yute.Power was everything not image.Been on court with all of them 1990 to 1998 T.O. Open.Andre will always be my best.Double'A would hurt all these guys if he had the Racquet technology we do A.K.A.- N-code

Sagittar
01-17-2007, 11:57 AM
definetly a top 5 player , sliding up and down evey once in a while due to his mentality , other than that he would loose to nadal on clay only and fed on grass only , any other surface the battle would be interesting ..

tricky
01-17-2007, 03:17 PM
The thing with Agassi is that his overall game actually was better during the last 3 years of his career than during his physical prime. He had a terrific serve that failed him much less. He sometimes attacked the net to give his opponent a different look; he used more drop shots and varied his spin a bit more. He was more disciplined and more wily against his opponent. His mental faculty was better as well, because against the top players, he'd often have to play from behind.

Had 2005 Agassi the body of 1999 Agassi, he'd be a perennial top-3 threat in the world. He's one of the few tennis players in the world that can consistently strike Federer's forehand cleanly, meaning Fed vs. Agassi would always be interesting.

alwaysatnet
01-17-2007, 04:01 PM
Agassi would stand no chance against Nadal on clay, but would dominate the tour on every other surface today.It's hard to tell if you are being serious or not.Take off your blinders and catch a match by this Swiss kid you may have heard of,Federer.Agassi was quite good at times,this guy Federer is great!

lordmanji
01-17-2007, 04:09 PM
he got his butt kicked by federer in 03 at the masters. hard to argue the stretch from 99-03 wasn't his prime as he won all those grand slams. but yeah, if you had the agassi of 03 right now, he'd be no 2 right now. i dont see any guys in top ten able to beat double A.

127 mph
01-17-2007, 04:52 PM
Andre would be #1 plain and simple. He could beat Nadal on clay as well. In the late 80's early 90's the courts played way too fast so I think even then he should have been # 1 more often. (sorry pete)

No one has the ground game that A.A had.

alwaysatnet
01-17-2007, 05:01 PM
Andre would be #1 plain and simple. He could beat Nadal on clay as well. In the late 80's early 90's the courts played way too fast so I think even then he should have been # 1 more often. (sorry pete)

No one has the ground game that A.A had.
I think you had better do your homework and see how Pete and Andre matched up(here's a hint,Pete won a full third more matches from Andre than the other way around).It's obvious you like Andre but don't make crap up.

Swinging Simian
01-17-2007, 05:02 PM
He and Federer would have one of the greatest rivalries there could have been in tennis. Even in the twilight of his career he was one of the few who could take a set from Fed.

alwaysatnet
01-17-2007, 05:37 PM
He and Federer would have one of the greatest rivalries there could have been in tennis. Even in the twilight of his career he was one of the few who could take a set from Fed.So very,very true.It's these "what if" threads that make you realize,hey,wait.There's no need to play the "what if" game with Pete.He was the cream of the crop.

127 mph
01-17-2007, 06:41 PM
I think you had better do your homework and see how Pete and Andre matched up(here's a hint,Pete won a full third more matches from Andre than the other way around).It's obvious you like Andre but don't make crap up.

I am not making crap up little guy. I know that if the courts were not as fast back then he would have beat Pete more. Anyways this post is not on A.A versus Pete so don't turn in into that punk. I just happen to think that A.A and Pete would lay the smack down on Rafa and Fed but the ? is about Andre so in my opinion is that A.A would be # 1 today if he was in his prime.

justineheninhoogenbandfan
01-17-2007, 06:52 PM
Agassi is so underated these days. Agaasi would easily be number 2 in world if he were at his prime. He could give Federer a run for his money some days. He would lose to Nadal on cley, but that is less than 1/3 of the season and hew would certainly pummel Nadal on hard courts. Have any of you seen Agaasi pre 2000?

Look at the these clips of the man:

http://www.tennislegendondvd.com/TennisLegendOnDVDVideoHighlights.htm
Scroll down and look at Agassi vs Corretja and Agassi vs Kafelnikov

Also look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIGAPfKt9cI

Clay court events can build you up alot of points. Lets say Nadal wins 2 Masters titles(he usually plays only 2)and the French Open each year, and Agassi loses around the quarters of the French, quarters of 1 other Masters, and the 2nd round of the 1 other Masters(about normal results for him on clay in his prime). Nadal would gain a huge amount of points over Agassi. Then if Federer wins most of the non-clay events that could have Agassi ranked below Nadal even doing better then Nadal the rest of the year. It does not mean he is better, it means he gets the ranking since he dominates so much on one surface, you can gain alot of points on that one surface especialy with so many big win points, and Agassi does not pick up that many big win points probably on the other surfaces with Federer there.

Also remember Nadal is 2-2 vs Federer on hard courts.

justineheninhoogenbandfan
01-17-2007, 06:56 PM
I want to add that Agaasi was number 1 during his prime, and he had the likes of Sampras do contend with. Are you saying that Agaasi could be ahead of Sampras, but behind Nadal in the rankings?!

Agassi was ranked above Sampras at #1 an extremely small percentage of the time though, you are only refering to an extremely small percentage of that period of time. Even Rios was #1 over Sampras for a period of time, although even less time then Agassi, is there no way Nadal could have been over him in the rankings? As well the only year he ended #1 Sampras missed the U.S Open with a back injury and given his form leading into the U.S Open(including 3 straight wins over Agassi)it is extremely likely Sampras would have won the U.S Open and ended that year #1 over Agassi as well had he been able to play. That is not to diminish Agassi but I would not agree with reasoning "could Nadal be over Agassi while Agassi is over Sampras" when it was such a small percentage of the time that was ever the case anyway.

alwaysatnet
01-17-2007, 06:59 PM
I am not making crap up little guy. I know that if the courts were not as fast back then he would have beat Pete more. Anyways this post is not on A.A versus Pete so don't turn in into that punk. I just happen to think that A.A and Pete would lay the smack down on Rafa and Fed but the ? is about Andre so in my opinion is that A.A would be # 1 today if he was in his prime.Hey,jackass,there is no need to name call.I also know that if Andre Agassi was a seven foot tall cyborg with a cannon for a racquet he would've beaten everyone.But that's not how things were,punk.The fact that he wasn't rated number one,more often, must be a blow for you but don't have a stroke,jerkwad.That's the way things are.Too freakin' bad.

justineheninhoogenbandfan
01-17-2007, 07:00 PM
He's one of the few tennis players in the world that can consistently strike Federer's forehand cleanly

I guess we were not watching the same matches when they played. Agassi had to get at the backhand as much as possable to even stay in rallies with Federer in the matches I saw. Whenever Federer had a few forehands in a row Agassi was on his backfoot quickly.

alwaysatnet
01-17-2007, 07:07 PM
I guess we were not watching the same matches when they played. Agassi had to get at the backhand as much as possable to even stay in rallies with Federer in the matches I saw. Whenever Federer had a few forehands in a row Agassi was on his backfoot quickly.Absolutely correct.Well done.

127 mph
01-17-2007, 08:25 PM
Hey,jackass,there is no need to name call.I also know that if Andre Agassi was a seven foot tall cyborg with a cannon for a racquet he would've beaten everyone.But that's not how things were,punk.The fact that he wasn't rated number one,more often, must be a blow for you but don't have a stroke,jerkwad.That's the way things are.Too freakin' bad.
Go listen to some Jeff Beck. Maybe I am a little cranky in all fairness. Just still feel that A.A would be #1 today. Probably win all 4 slams in the same year, not just a carer slam. He has so far been the only one to do that in the modern era.

superman1
01-17-2007, 10:15 PM
If you define his prime as the point where he was physically at his peak (strength, speed, and endurance), mentally at his peak, and his ball striking was at its peak (I don't think those three peaks coincided), then he'd be #2 and would get the occasional win over Federer. Their '05 USO final convinced me of that. Agassi was crushing Federer with his crosscourt forehand to Federer's forehand.

IMO, Agassi at this defined peak would be the 3rd toughest player to beat ever, behind Sampras and Federer. Unfortunately he was never able to put it all together at the same time, something was always missing.

capriatifanatic
01-18-2007, 12:16 AM
Agassi was crushing Federer with his crosscourt forehand to Federer's forehand.

Yeah that is why Agassi ended that match with less then half the number of forehand winners as Federer. Delusional fanboy.

noeledmonds
01-18-2007, 04:20 AM
Federer has never played Agassi when he was at his peak. Most people tend to foget that Agassi is older than Sampras. Agassi was already 30 by the year 2000. Fedederer beating a 33 year old Agassi in 2003 is hardly impressive.

Agassi was not number one for as long as some as he was unconsitant, although he still spent over 100 weeks at number 1. Agassi at his peak though would be playing his best most consitant tennis.

I am not saying that Agassi would be above Federer, but he would certainly be a good rival, and Nadal would be nowheere near!

alwaysatnet
01-18-2007, 07:37 AM
Go listen to some Jeff Beck. Maybe I am a little cranky in all fairness. Just still feel that A.A would be #1 today. Probably win all 4 slams in the same year, not just a carer slam. He has so far been the only one to do that in the modern era.EVERYONE should listen to Jeff Beck.

capriatifanatic
01-18-2007, 08:57 AM
Federer has never played Agassi when he was at his peak. Most people tend to foget that Agassi is older than Sampras. Agassi was already 30 by the year 2000. Fedederer beating a 33 year old Agassi in 2003 is hardly impressive.

Agassi was not number one for as long as some as he was unconsitant, although he still spent over 100 weeks at number 1. Agassi at his peak though would be playing his best most consitant tennis.

I am not saying that Agassi would be above Federer, but he would certainly be a good rival, and Nadal would be nowheere near!

First of all I never said Federer neccessarily beat Agassi at his peak, I said an attempt to make Agassi doing better in his matches with Federer then he really did those times they played is an untruthfuly construed way to make Agassi look better and make Federer look worse. Saying he was crushing Federer forehand to forehand in a particular match when he ended the match with less then HALF the forehand winners of Federer is beyond bogus. There is no basis or truth behind statements like that.

Secondly Agassi at 33-35 was not far from his peak at all when you consider he won 5 of his 8 Grand Slam titles from ages 29-33, and 1999-2003 from ages 29-33 was by far the longest stretch of substained top level tennis of his whole career. That is something you seem to forget, Agassi when most people were in their so called prime was sometimes ranked outside the top 10, sometimes ranked outside the top 20, and even briefly ranked outside the top 100. What are you going to argue, his peak was when most players would have been, from ages 21-28 say? In that case you are arguing during his peak he went on a 6 match losing streak against Courier from 92-95, had a year ranked outside the top 20 with a bad early round loss at the U.S Open(1993), had a year barely in the top 10 with losses to two unseeded journeymen in 2 of his 4slams and went 0-6 in sets vs Michael Chang in the semis he reached in the other 2 slams that year(1996), had a year dropped outside the top 100 while being beat around left and right by a string of journeymen(1997), had a year back barely in the top 10 but failing to get past the 4th round of any Grand Slam(1998, and just before turning 29 starts of 1999 by losing in the 4th round of Australia to Vince Spadea. Half of his U.S Open defeats during his "prime" would then include early round to Krickstein(1991), early round to Enqvist(1993), only 7 games won in semis vs Chang(1996), 4th round to Kucera(1998. Hey if that is what you want to argue as Agassi's prime and put it up against Federer or even Nadal though go right ahead. Otherwise put away this BS of "Agassi was so old from 33-35" when it comes to Agassi and acknowledge his prime was at a much later age then most, and being a player who won 5 of his 8 slams from 1999-2003 from ages 29-33, he was not that far from his prime from ages 33-35 as a typical player would be, and thus ignoring the unusual path of peaks and valleys of Agassi's career trajectory. Of course your last argument to avoid this would be his prime was only 1994-1995. In that case who cares about his prime as it is only a 2 year prime then, it wouldnt have been that long present anyway.

drakulie
01-18-2007, 09:33 AM
If Agassi was in his prime right now, what would be his ATP ranking?

Also how would he fare up against Nadal in the French?

Agassi in his prime with the CURRENT players on tour right now, would be the # 1 player in the world. Nadal would be #3.

lambielspins
01-18-2007, 09:39 AM
Agassi in his prime would be a distant #3 behind Federer and Nadal at times, other times much lower ranked. He was always up and down, some very high points, some very low points. In his high points he could be #3, in his low points he could be much lower.

As for Agassi being #1 if he were in his prime today-perhaps Tonya Harding would be Mrs. Universe if she entered it. Then again maybe not.

drakulie
01-18-2007, 09:57 AM
dumb^^^^^^^^^

lambielspins
01-18-2007, 10:19 AM
Sorry drakulie but you are in the very small minority who thinks Agassi in his prime would be #1 today.

drakulie
01-18-2007, 10:24 AM
You better be sorry!

alwaysatnet
01-18-2007, 10:25 AM
You might just as well argue who would win a fight if Jesus took on Superman.That's how much sense trying to prop up Agassi's career by making a "what if" scenario makes.I'm sure Agassi would be at or near the top somewhat.But who knows for sure? And what does it matter?

nadalgirl26
01-18-2007, 10:26 AM
Randeds #2 behind my sweet Nadal but overs Rogers Federer. Rankgsin would be:

1. Rafael Nadal-sweet cute little boy
----------huge gap------------
----------huge gap------------
2. Andre Agassi
3. Roger Federer
4. Roddickd or Hewitt I guess

alwaysatnet
01-18-2007, 10:31 AM
I you can read thank a teacher.If you can't read or write or reason very well thank the N.E.A.

superman1
01-18-2007, 01:02 PM
Yeah that is why Agassi ended that match with less then half the number of forehand winners as Federer. Delusional fanboy.

You're probably one of the top 5 most moronic people on this message board. I wish there was some way for me to erase all of your posts on my end. It would be glorious.

superman1
01-18-2007, 01:10 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xnNhnPLUOYY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ajcy1ZtmxA0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vNj7BzDxmTg

capriatifanatic
01-18-2007, 01:13 PM
You're probably one of the top 5 most moronic people on this message board. I wish there was some way for me to erase all of your posts on my end. It would be glorious.

So I easily disprove your stupid point by pointing out a fact which refutes it with ease and you resort to insults as your reply rather then posting a response or rebuttal to the fact I pointed out. LOSER!!

Oh yeah if you dont like my posts the ignore switch is easy, you are too stupid to even know how you use that I suspect, Agassi fanboy.

noeledmonds
01-18-2007, 01:27 PM
If you define his prime as the point where he was physically at his peak (strength, speed, and endurance), mentally at his peak, and his ball striking was at its peak (I don't think those three peaks coincided), then he'd be #2 and would get the occasional win over Federer. Their '05 USO final convinced me of that. Agassi was crushing Federer with his crosscourt forehand to Federer's forehand.

IMO, Agassi at this defined peak would be the 3rd toughest player to beat ever, behind Sampras and Federer. Unfortunately he was never able to put it all together at the same time, something was always missing.

I agree with this analogy completely. Agassi was at his best Physically in 1995, maybe even before. Sadly though he did not have the mentality until he returned to tennis. He won most GS around 1999 as he was a master tactitian and better mentally. However by then I think Agassi comprimsed some of the more physical aspects of his game with less agressive play to allow him to continue for longer. If Agassi had managed a fusion of these strenghs all at once, and maintained consitancy, then he would be far more highly rated than he is today. This is why I view Agassi as an underachiver, depite his success.

lambielspins
01-18-2007, 01:46 PM
I agree with this analogy completely. Agassi was at his best Physically in 1995, maybe even before. Sadly though he did not have the mentality until he returned to tennis. He won most GS around 1999 as he was a master tactitian and better mentally. However by then I think Agassi comprimsed some of the more physical aspects of his game with less agressive play to allow him to continue for longer. If Agassi had managed a fusion of these strenghs all at once, and maintained consitancy, then he would be far more highly rated than he is today. This is why I view Agassi as an underachiver, depite his success.

You cant evaluate a player based on a hypothetical peak that never existed though. If the players physical, mental, tactical, and technical aspects were never maximized for a period of time simatenously then that is just the way it was. A players peak is at whichever point they reached their highest level for a period of time whether or not they maximized all aspects that go into a game or not.

chrisdaniel
01-18-2007, 06:45 PM
Agassi would be at least number 2 right now... I think the final us open vrs Todd Martin..thats when I think Andre was playing some of his best tennis..1999 i think... I dont see Andre loosing to Nadal very much,ofcoarse on clay,thats logical... Agassi spanked Nadal around for a huge portion of their match in toronto in 2005..lost by one break i think...and in Wimbledon,well his back was far gone by then....

I really believe he would be at least number 2...having a nice rivalry with Federer.. and yes Agassi can Over Power Roger,and he did it many times at the U.S Open in 2004 and 2005...

flying24
01-18-2007, 07:17 PM
Agassi lost 6-1 in the 3rd set of his match with Nadal in Canada, he won the 2nd set on a break of serve in the final game. I am not sure how a match he still lost fairly handily he was spanking anyone around. The same goes for the 2005 US Open final with Federer, the 2nd and 3rd sets were closely played mostly due to Federer's sluggish and erratic backhand and return of serve those 2 sets, and the 1st and 4th sets were wipeouts for Federer. I would not consider Agassi to have ever been overpowering Federer in that match. Their 2004 U.S Open quarterfinal had the final 2 sets, which they split played in a monsoon the next day, so the end of that match was a crapshoot pretty much.

Anyway I see Agassi as a top 5 player today but definitely not #1. Looking at some of the players he played, he did well vs Roddick since he went 1-1 vs him even once Roddick became a top player and Agassi was nearing the end, but vs Hewitt he lost atleast half their matches even in 2001-2002 when Agassi was still in his prime. So Hewitt playing well would be a tough opponent for him, Roddick he would do well against but with Roddick's serve you can never count out. Federer would win almost all their meetings, Nadal would beat him on clay and they would have good matches on other surfaces. Safin, it would depend which Safin showed up. Agassi would do well vs Nalbandian and Ljubicic. So I say he would be top 5, maybe top 3, definitely not #1.

noeledmonds
01-19-2007, 04:22 AM
Agassi lost 6-1 in the 3rd set of his match with Nadal in Canada, he won the 2nd set on a break of serve in the final game. I am not sure how a match he still lost fairly handily he was spanking anyone around. The same goes for the 2005 US Open final with Federer, the 2nd and 3rd sets were closely played mostly due to Federer's sluggish and erratic backhand and return of serve those 2 sets, and the 1st and 4th sets were wipeouts for Federer. I would not consider Agassi to have ever been overpowering Federer in that match. Their 2004 U.S Open quarterfinal had the final 2 sets, which they split played in a monsoon the next day, so the end of that match was a crapshoot pretty much.

Anyway I see Agassi as a top 5 player today but definitely not #1. Looking at some of the players he played, he did well vs Roddick since he went 1-1 vs him even once Roddick became a top player and Agassi was nearing the end, but vs Hewitt he lost atleast half their matches even in 2001-2002 when Agassi was still in his prime. So Hewitt playing well would be a tough opponent for him, Roddick he would do well against but with Roddick's serve you can never count out. Federer would win almost all their meetings, Nadal would beat him on clay and they would have good matches on other surfaces. Safin, it would depend which Safin showed up. Agassi would do well vs Nalbandian and Ljubicic. So I say he would be top 5, maybe top 3, definitely not #1.


Top 5, maybe top?! You are suggesting that players like Ljubicic and Davydenko would outrank one of the alltime greats playing at his peak. What makes you think his peak was 2001 to 2002. He was over 30 then. Agassi's peak was defenitly pre 2000. You could argue it was 1999 or that it was 1995, but either way it was not 2002. Comparing Head 2 heads with a few other players (Roddick and Hewwit) means nothing. Sampras had a losing H2H against Krijeck, but noone says Krijeck is better than Sampras. The fact that Agassi has won 8 grand slams, including the career slam, shows he is far a supiror performer to Hewwit, Nadal, Safin and Roddick who have less slams between them than Agassi has alone.

alwaysatnet
01-19-2007, 05:56 PM
If Agassi were in his prime right now...it would not be the year 2007

noeledmonds
01-20-2007, 12:52 PM
Have found statistics to back up claim that Agassi was at his prime in 1995, not 2001 as many seem to think.

Agassi won most tournaments (7) in 1995
Had best season wins to losses (72-10), this is better than Sampras's best season! (72-12)
Played Sampras in 5 finals and won 3 of them, including AO
Had best winning streak (26 matches)

I rest my case

capriatifanatic
01-20-2007, 11:37 PM
[B]Top 5, maybe top?! You are suggesting that players like Ljubicic and Davydenko would outrank one of the alltime greats playing at his peak. What makes you think his peak was 2001 to 2002. He was over 30 then. Agassi's peak was defenitly pre 2000. You could argue it was 1999 or that it was 1995, but either way it was not 2002.

So you are saying his prime was only 2 random years 4 years apart, 1995 and 1999? Sorry that is so ridiculous. A players prime lasts a period of multiple years and it isnt broken up into 2 random years 4 years apart. If you want to make a prime for Agassi that suits your argument then he had no real prime I guess, since a prime is not 2 random years 4 years apart.

Mick
01-20-2007, 11:44 PM
I think if Agassi was in his prime right now, it would be difficult for him to win those grand slam titles that he had won because to win them he would have to beat Federer (Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open) and Nadal (Roland Garros), and Federer is nearly unbeatable.

noeledmonds
01-21-2007, 02:28 AM
So you are saying his prime was only 2 random years 4 years apart, 1995 and 1999? Sorry that is so ridiculous. A players prime lasts a period of multiple years and it isnt broken up into 2 random years 4 years apart. If you want to make a prime for Agassi that suits your argument then he had no real prime I guess, since a prime is not 2 random years 4 years apart.

Are you fogetting the twilight years where Agassi fell apart mentlly and fell to over 140 in the rankings. During this period we would have been in his prime physically baring his wrist injury and his mental lapse. 1995 was just before his mental collapse. 1999 was when Agassi got back to number 1 after reusrecting his career. The years inbetween his was either not playing tennis, or recovering and improving after the time off. This is was he has an unsual scinerio where his peak could either be defined after his resurection, or as I think more likely, just before his collapse.

chrisdaniel
01-23-2007, 12:30 AM
are we all getting confused with the terms "Prime" and "Best Tennis"


the problem is Agassi didnt always put together his best tennis in his prime age... now he had many great points in his carreer...

there are tennis players,there are great tennis players,there are legend tennis players,and then there is Agassi... even his prime or best tennis is hard to explain,what a great guy....

yes Agassi playing great tennis with a healthy body could be whatever ranking he wants or at least close,and could have some great battles with Roger!!! thats for sure.. I think healthy he would dominate Nadal

chrisdaniel
01-23-2007, 12:33 AM
and yes Agassi was already having back problems when he met Nadal in Toronto...and alomost won as well

BigServer1
01-23-2007, 12:46 AM
Agassi would stand no chance against Nadal on clay, but would dominate the tour on every other surface today.

That is so incorrect it's not even funny. He might win the AO, but Fed would give him all he's worth, and if you're trying to tell me he'd beat a better HC player than Sampras was (Roger right now), you're high. He wouldn't beat Federer on grass either.

stormholloway
01-23-2007, 11:08 AM
The way I see it, a near-retired Agassi took a set from a prime Federer at the US Open final, and came close to running away with it. If he can do that he can do anything in his prime. His problems were always mental.

tkramer15
01-24-2007, 08:55 AM
I've read through everyone's responses and I can see there's a debate over when Agassi's prime actually was...I've paid close attention to the tour since 1995-96 and I'll say that, just from watching on TV and a few times in person, the Andre of 2004 or 2005 was every bit as good in most respects as the Agassi of even 1995. His serve seemed to get better and better with age and he appeared to raise the velocity and level of his groundstrokes as the game evolved and the competition improved. I've got a number of his matches from 1995, 96, 98, 99, 02, 03, 04, 05 and 06 on tape or DVD and honestly, I think he hit the ball harder and better when he was 35 than he did when he was 25. Again, I think a lot of that has to do with his increased strength and fitness over the years, and to the fact that he simply had to do everything a bit better to keep up with the other players.

Even last year, when his back kept him from playing much at all, I thought he still showed flashes of brilliance. Agassi's baseline play against Baghdatis at the Open was incredible. Clearly, his movement was not nearly as good in his last couple of years, but it was still good enough against most players. Even though Andre lost to Federer his last eight matches, several of those were tight, including the last two they played, in Miami and at the U.S. Open. The Miami match was 6-3, 6-4, but Federer was in trouble in a number of service games in the 2nd set while Agassi held easily. And in the Open final, Agassi really outplayed him from late in the 1st set through the middle of the 3rd. Yes, Federer's level dropped in the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd, but at least some of that had to be credited to Agassi, who pummeled deep groundstrokes to both corners, outhitting him at times.

So where would Agassi rank now? This is what I said in the last couple of years. A healthy, match-fit Agassi, without back or ankle issues, could beat anyone other than Federer or Nadal at his best on a hard court. I think you could throw in Safin or maybe Roddick, the way he's playing now, but I truly believe Agassi would still easily be in the top ten and maybe top five had he not broken down physically.

drakulie
01-24-2007, 09:10 AM
, but I truly believe Agassi would still easily be in the top ten and maybe top five had he not broken down physically.

Uhmm???? He was in the top ten even when he was broken down.

By the way, I agree with a alot of what you said. I actually saw that Miami Match live- he was absolutely creaming the ball. But in the end, Federer served lights out when it counted. Every time he needed a big serve-he got it. Kind of reminded me pf Pete.

justineheninhoogenbandfan
01-24-2007, 06:00 PM
He would be ranked #2 behind Fed if it were one of his great years, he would be ranked #8 or so if it was one of his average years, and if it was one of his bad years he would be ranked #25. With Agassi you never know, most of the years in his physical prime he wasnt playing at a level to be right at the top though, he only had certain years he really brought his best game for the whole year.

stormholloway
01-25-2007, 08:44 AM
I don't really see that much talent on tour today. Nadal is #2 because he is an animal, not because of talent. Agassi is a far greater talent in my opinion.

capriatifanatic
01-26-2007, 02:20 AM
The way I see it, a near-retired Agassi took a set from a prime Federer at the US Open final, and came close to running away with it. If he can do that he can do anything in his prime. His problems were always mental.

Came close to "running away with it". ROTFL! That is a wild overstatement.
The only one capable of running away with that particular match was Federer if he got hot, as he showed in the final set and a half. Even when Agassi was in the match with a chance, and even very briefly took a slight lead in the 3rd set he was never running away with the match.

stormholloway
01-26-2007, 01:22 PM
I never said he was running away with it. Go ROTFL somewhere else. I said he came close to running away. I think if he had taken that set where he broke Fed, he would have run away with it. So in that sense, he came close to running away with it.