PDA

View Full Version : Prime Agassi could have beaten Nadal at the FO?


Pages : [1] 2

FedSampras
06-10-2007, 02:09 PM
Agassi has proven that he can definitely win the French in '99. Do you think PEAK Agassi could have beaten Nadal at Roland Garros...?

BigServer1
06-10-2007, 02:13 PM
I doubt it.

CyBorg
06-10-2007, 02:15 PM
Oh shut up. No, he wouldn't.

realplayer
06-10-2007, 02:17 PM
No chance, he needed five sets to beat Medvedev

helloworld
06-10-2007, 02:20 PM
I doubt he could beat Federer, let alone the king of clay.

Nadal_Freak
06-10-2007, 02:24 PM
Nope. Agassi was never that great on clay. Hard court was clearly Agassi's best surface.

psamp14
06-10-2007, 02:26 PM
a prime agassi would dictate play on hard courts, and give us tennis fans great match-ups with sampras and rafter....

he wouldnt be able to beat federer on clay...forget about nadal...

WhiteSox05CA
06-10-2007, 02:38 PM
No. Agassi said that him winning the French was a fluke.

Polaris
06-10-2007, 02:45 PM
Agassi has proven that he can definitely win the French in '99. Do you think PEAK Agassi could have beaten Nadal at Roland Garros...?
No. I think he would have been straight-setted by Nadal on clay and by Federer on grass. On hard courts, he could perhaps have given a battle to both Federer and Nadal.

ACE of Hearts
06-10-2007, 02:46 PM
Come on, Agassi got some consistent results on clay but i think he would lose to Nadal although he would give it a battle.

rod99
06-10-2007, 03:46 PM
No. I think he would have been straight-setted by Nadal on clay and by Federer on grass. On hard courts, he could perhaps have given a battle to both Federer and Nadal.

"perhaps" given a battle to both federer and nadal? ha! agassi in his prime would have dominated nadal on hard courts. a 35 year old agassi gave federer an extremely competitive match in the us open finals. i don't think agassi would have beaten nadal on clay but he would have had great matches on clay vs. federer. people forget that b/n 1988-1992 agassi reached 2 semi-finals and 2 finals.

lambielspins
06-10-2007, 03:51 PM
Agassi would have been crushed by Nadal on clay. His record vs the quality clay courters of his generation was not particularly good. Federer averages 1 set per match with Nadal on clay, and I am not sure Agassi could even do that.

lambielspins
06-10-2007, 03:56 PM
"perhaps" given a battle to both federer and nadal? ha! agassi in his prime would have dominated nadal on hard courts. a 34 year old agassi gave federer an extremely competitive match in the us open finals. i don't think agassi would have beaten nadal on clay but he would have had great matches on clay vs. federer. people forget that b/n 1988-1992 agassi reached 2 semi-finals and 2 finals.

Nadal is 2-2 vs Federer on hard courts, so I wouldnt be so quick to say Agassi would have dominated Nadal on hard courts. Nadal does not have great slam results on hard courts yet but he is very tough vs the top guns. Look at his career matches vs Federer, Hewitt, and Roddick on hard courts so far.

A 34 year old Agassi gave Federer a decent match you say. A 34 year old Agassi is not a 34 year old the same way other players are. He is a player who was considered washed up at 28, and had his best year ever at 29, and won 5 of his career 8 slam titles from the time he turned 29 to just before his 33rd birthday. Dont even think of potraying him like a typical player who had all his peak years in his 20s, and was starting to go down in his late 20s like most players. He was not in his prime, but he was about 5 times closer then most are at that age.

Also judging by how Federer mulched Agassi every other time they played in 2004-2005 apart from the U.S Open Agassi needed the hostile environment of the U.S Open crowd to not be crushed by Fed at that point in time.

rod99
06-10-2007, 04:05 PM
despite winning only 1 grand slam that year, i think agassi played his best tennis in 1995, not 1999. he won everything he played during that summer until he lost the US Open finals to sampras which sent his career into a spiral. he very likely would have won the french open that year had he not hurt his hip against kafelnikov in the quarters. a 1995 agassi would have beaten nadal on hardcourts and very likely would have beaten federer as well.

djsiva
06-10-2007, 04:13 PM
Agassi had trouble with Muster, Wilander, and the lefty from Ecuador.

Nadal would eat Agassi alive. I don't care if Agassi ran backward against 90 degree mountains. There is nothing Agassi could do to beat Nadal.

I do think Wilander and Muster and even Lendl and Mecir could beat Nadal in their primes. To beat Nadal its all about legs, brains, and patience. These guys had all three.

lambielspins
06-10-2007, 04:23 PM
despite winning only 1 grand slam that year, i think agassi played his best tennis in 1995, not 1999. he won everything he played during that summer until he lost the US Open finals to sampras which sent his career into a spiral. he very likely would have won the french open that year had he not hurt his hip against kafelnikov in the quarters. a 1995 agassi would have beaten nadal on hardcourts and very likely would have beaten federer as well.

You can think that if you want. The fact remains stats bears out that Agassi had the best year of his career as a 29 year old, and won 5 of his career 8 slams from just after he turned 29 to just before he turned 33. Even if you were right though Agassi still would have had at worst the second best year of tennis of his career as a 29 year old, and the best 4 year stretch of tennis of his career from just after turning 29 to just before turning 33. So my point about talking about a 34 or 35 year old Agassi as being an older player in the typical sense as being completely off base would still stand.

As for Agassi winning the French Open had he been healthy that year, I think that is a pipe dream. Muster was the overwhelming favorite to win the French Open that year. He went on a 46 match winning streak on clay that year, and 28 straight wins leading into the French Open. Agassi has never beaten one of the great clay courters of his time at the French Open.

I dont see Agassi beating Federer much on any surface with both in their primes. Fed has a much better serve, a superior forehand, much better movement, much more all court ability and net play capability, has a wider arsenal of shots. The only players who can beat Fed seem to be ones that can impose their will on him, but Agassi is not in Nadals league in that regard.

rod99
06-10-2007, 04:29 PM
agassi could impose his will on federer through his ability to take the ball early and his clean ball striking. agassi had better ball striking ability than federer and a much better backhand. a 1995 or 1999 agassi vs a 2007 federer would have been very close on any surface (other than grass).

yes, agassi had great years towards the end of his career but what you fail to mention is that agassi from 2005-2006 (maybe even part of 2004 as well) is that he played in tremendous pain during those last few years due to his back. this includes his run at the US Open in 2005. he received numerous cortisone shots during those last few years and his movement became more limited. agassi of 2005/2006 was not the same player he was in 2003.

Mikael
06-10-2007, 04:41 PM
I remember watching Agassi play Nadal in Toronto, 2005 I think it was. I know Agassi was already quite old, but it was a hardcourt match so supposedly favoring Agassi. Still, it felt like Nadal had an answer to everything Andre threw at him...
Agassi winning the FO in 99 was definitely a fluke, way more of a fluke than if Fed had won the French this year.

lambielspins
06-10-2007, 04:44 PM
agassi could impose his will on federer through his ability to take the ball early and his clean ball striking. agassi had better ball striking ability than federer and a much better backhand. a 1995 or 1999 agassi vs a 2007 federer would have been very close on any surface (other than grass).

yes, agassi had great years towards the end of his career but what you fail to mention is that agassi from 2005-2006 (maybe even part of 2004 as well) is that he played in tremendous pain during those last few years due to his back. this includes his run at the US Open in 2005. he received numerous cortisone shots during those last few years and his movement became more limited. agassi of 2005/2006 was not the same player he was in 2003.

Agassi was a great baseline grinder but he could not pile up winners with ease the way Federer could. Federer can hit a forehand winner especialy at from any part of the court, at any given moment. Agassi relies or grinding guys into mistakes mostly to win points, although he was excellent at doing that. However Federer is frusterated into mistakes only by guys who are incredible retrievers like Nadal. Agassi was never that.

You make some very good points on 2005 and 2006 Agassi. However looking a few years back you see Hewitt in 2001 and 2002 going 3-2 vs Agassi head to head, and edging him for the year end #1 both years. Both years the #1 was in reach for both at the year end Masters, and Agassi stated his desire both times to end the year #1 and both times was badly outperformed by Hewitt at that crucial event. Hewitt was as good or better then ever in 2004-2005, losing to the eventual champion of 7 straight slams(5 of those Federer)and still Federer had him for lunch over and over again.

You make it sound like a slightly diminished Agassi was an almost even match for Federer. Yeah they had some good matches but there was still a chasm between the 2 players at that point. From 2003-2005 Agassi went 0-8, 4 reasonably close matches, and 4 very easy wins for Federer-straight sets with no set closer then 6-4. They were far from an even match at that point. Agassi in his prime would have been closer but still on the losing end. As for 2003, Federer played Agassi in the year end Masters final in 2003 and gave him a real smackdown.

If we want to come up with our own reasoning and theories, which you are certainly entitled to, I would suggest I feel there was enormous pressure on Federer playing what people considered an older Agassi at the U.S Open, in front of an incredibly hostile crowd. Matches like those Federer know people are waiting to tear him apart if he loses, and he has everything to lose and Agassi nothing to lose and everything to gain. It is similar to matches like playing a shocking Nadal in the Wimbledon final, which also showed in Feds arguably less-then-usual quality performance there too. That probably explains why Agassi in matches outside the U.S Open wasnt able to give Federer as good of matches at that point, for example getting beaten in easy straight sets in the Australian Open quarters of 2005 between their 2 U.S Open matches, on Agassis absolute favorite type of hard courts-rebound ace.

rod99
06-10-2007, 04:45 PM
why was agassi winning the french in '99 a fluke? maybe the way he made his comeback in the finals i guess. i think he was like the 13 seed that year but he was always a good clay court player. the real fluke was medvedev making it to the finals. i think he was ranked 100 in the world at the time.

lambielspins
06-10-2007, 04:48 PM
why was agassi winning the french in '99 a fluke? maybe the way he made his comeback in the finals i guess. i think he was like the 13 seed that year but he was always a good clay court player. the real fluke was medvedev making it to the finals. i think he was ranked 100 in the world at the time.

I wouldnt say it was a fluke since it was his 3rd ever French Open final, and he finally won it. However he was very lucky that Kuerten and even Rios went out before he played them. Kuerten was the undisputed favorite that year. Extremely little chance for Agassi to beat Kuerten in a French Open final. Rios was 2nd favorite and had very good head to head play with Agassi at that point.

goforgold99
06-10-2007, 04:53 PM
He wouldn't have even beaten Fed on clay ;)

rod99
06-10-2007, 05:01 PM
He wouldn't have even beaten Fed on clay ;)

a lot of ignorance here. evidently people have forgotten that great players actually existed b/f federer/nadl.

J-man
06-10-2007, 05:05 PM
I don't think so. Nadal's hitting style and movement would be so hard to contend with for Aggasi

lambielspins
06-10-2007, 05:05 PM
a lot of ignorance here. evidently people have forgotten that great players actually existed b/f federer/nadl.

No we dont. We recognize Agassi was a great player. However Fed at only 25, soon to be 26, has already surpassed the Agassi career. Nadal has a decent chance of possibly reaching a comparable career; perhaps vastly superior in some ways to Agassi such as consistency over a number of years, and vastly more dominance on a particular surface; comparable in other ways-slam wins, Masters titles, tournament titles; and inferior in other ways, balanced results over all surfaces, time spent ranked #1. It is not a surprise a player who has won 10 slams at 25, and a kid with 3 slams at 21 are compared favorably to Agassi by many. It is hardly being blind to his abilities.

Zimbo
06-10-2007, 05:19 PM
Agassi had trouble with Muster, Wilander, and the lefty from Ecuador.

Nadal would eat Agassi alive. I don't care if Agassi ran backward against 90 degree mountains. There is nothing Agassi could do to beat Nadal.

I do think Wilander and Muster and even Lendl and Mecir could beat Nadal in their primes. To beat Nadal its all about legs, brains, and patience. These guys had all three.

Totally different generations. The clay game was played differently when Lendl and Wilander dominanted the FO. In this era Nadal would kill them if they played the same game they did in the 80's. However, if Lendl and Wilander grew up in this era I'm one who believe that greats of past era's had the talent to develop into greats in the present era.

Good assessment about how do beat Nadal though. Legs, Brains, and Patients. I totally agree. Borg, Wilander, and Lendl (thought sometimes a little to rigid) had plenty of these attributes.

MrCLEAN
06-10-2007, 07:18 PM
Agassi beat the defending champ Moya at the French in '99, he was playing halfway decent ball back then.

Kobble
06-10-2007, 09:42 PM
Agassi has been in more French Open finals than Fed. No fluke.

federerfanatic
06-10-2007, 10:54 PM
Agassi has been in more French Open finals than Fed. No fluke.

What a dumb statement. When Agassi was Federer's current age he had been in the same # of French Open finals and won the same # of French Open title-0. Agassi did not add the 3rd final and only French Open title until he was 29. Federer is 25.

djsiva
06-11-2007, 01:50 PM
So how can we talk about Agassi and Nadal in the same breathe!!!

drakulie
06-11-2007, 01:57 PM
Yes, AA would have been compettive against Nadal on clay. For starters, he wouldn't be standing 10+ feet behind the baseline on the return, or off the ground.

drakulie
06-11-2007, 01:59 PM
So how can we talk about Agassi and Nadal in the same breathe!!!

And Nadal lost to Fed on clay who lost to Volandri. Over the course of a career, one is going to have losses, and be upset.

tennissavy
06-11-2007, 02:39 PM
Agassi, at his very best years ago, would not take a set off Nadal now.

ktownva
06-11-2007, 03:56 PM
Agassi of 1999 would not beat Nadal 3 out of 5 on clay, too many miles on the wheels at that point, and not aggressive enough. Agassi of 1991-92 would have been a tough match for Nadal. He was a lot quicker then and went for bigger putaways. A 100% zoned 21 year old Agassi could beat Nadal at the French.

tlm
06-11-2007, 04:01 PM
Agassi would have never even came close to rafa on clay, i dont care what year it was.

ktownva
06-11-2007, 04:18 PM
Agassi would have never even came close to rafa on clay, i dont care what year it was.

That's a good one, TROLL.

Morrissey
06-11-2007, 04:52 PM
Yes, AA would have been compettive against Nadal on clay. For starters, he wouldn't be standing 10+ feet behind the baseline on the return, or off the ground.

Yeah because Agassi was real competitve on grass last year in that beatdown at the hands of Nadal, slow grass or not. This is grass. A former Wimby champ against a guy who had a career record of 3-3 on grass prior to that Wimbledon. Agassi couldnīt handle the best clay courters in his era (Muster, Kuerten, Bruguera, Courier, Ferrero) how could he handle perhaps the best clay courter of all time?

bluegrasser
06-11-2007, 05:21 PM
No. Agassi said that him winning the French was a fluke.

No fluke, he was in three finals, and two he lost because the mental side of the game was found wanting.

drakulie
06-11-2007, 05:30 PM
Yeah because Agassi was real competitve on grass last year in that beatdown at the hands of Nadal, slow grass or not. This is grass. A former Wimby champ against a guy who had a career record of 3-3 on grass prior to that Wimbledon.

Hmmm :roll: I hardly think AA was in his **prime** last year. Guess you missed that.

Agassi couldnīt handle the best clay courters in his era (Muster, Kuerten, Bruguera, Courier, Ferrero) how could he handle perhaps the best clay courter of all time?

Against Kuerten he had a winning record of 7-4, so you are wrong in your ridiculous argeument that he couldn't handle him. By the way, he is a former 3 time French Champ in case you are stuck too far up nadal's behind to notice.

Against Muster he has a 5-4 record including a straight set victory on clay.
Against Bruguera he has a 7-3 record including a straight set victory on clay.
Against Ferrero he has a 2-3 record.
Against Courier he has a 5-7 record including two victories on clay.

That is a 26-21 record in his favor.

Like I said, a prime AA would have been compettive against Nadal on clay.

I suppose you think nadal would wipe the floor clean with him (6-0,6-0,6-0)?? Agassi isn't the players of today that Nadal is dominating on the stuff>> this is Agassi we are talking about >> perhaps one of, if not the greatest baseliner ever. And like I said, he sure as hell wouldn't be standing 10+ feet back on 105-115 mph serves, or for that matter 10-20 feet behind the baseline during rallies.

Morrissey
06-11-2007, 05:37 PM
Hmmm :roll: I hardly think AA was in his **prime** last year. Guess you missed that.



Against Kuerten he had a winning record of 7-4, so you are wrong in your ridiculous argeument that he couldn't handle him. By the way, he is a former 3 time French Champ in case you are stuck too far up nadal's behind to notice.

Against Muster he has a 5-4 record including a straight set victory on clay.
Against Bruguera he has a 7-3 record including a straight set victory on clay.
Against Ferrero he has a 2-3 record.
Against Courier he has a 5-7 record including two victories on clay.

That is a 26-21 record in his favor.

Like I said, a prime AA would have been compettive against Nadal on clay.

I suppose you think nadal would wipe the floor clean with him (6-0,6-0,6-0)?? Agassi isn't the players of today that Nadal is dominating on the stuff>> this is Agassi we are talking about >> perhaps one of, if not the greatest baseliner ever. And like I said, he sure as hell wouldn't be standing 10+ feet back on 105-115 mph serves, or for that matter 10-20 feet behind the baseline during rallies.

Show me Agassi´s ¨clay court¨ record against them all. I know he´s played many of those people on hardcourt. I guarantee you it´s a losing record. Despite Agassi being past his peak he would have to be the favorite against Nadal on grass.

edit.
Agassi on clay vs Bruguera 1-2
Agassi on clay vs Muster 1-3
Agassi on clay vs Ferrero 0-1
Agassi on clay vs Kuerten (never played)
Agassi on clay vs Courier 2-3

drakulie
06-11-2007, 05:42 PM
^^^ Get a life. We are talking about "prime" agassi, and I didn't say he would beat him. I said he would be "competitive". How you find this notion unbelievable is beyond me.

Like I said, you need to get out of nadal's behind.

Heavy Metal Tennis Star
06-11-2007, 05:44 PM
MAn WHATEVER!!!!, NADAL WILL KILL HIM ONSTAGE!!!< GET OVER IT CRACKERS!

Morrissey
06-11-2007, 05:45 PM
^^^ Get a life. We are talking about "prime" agassi, and I didn't say he would beat him. I said he would be "competitive". How you find this notion unbelievable is beyond me.

Like I said, you need to get out of nadal's behind.

I´m just saying that even a prime Agassi against Nadal right now on clay wouldn´t win but competitive perhaps for a set. Agassi was never a natural mover on clay and his defense was practically non-existent. He was always an offensive player and on clay once he´s on the ropes in a rally he´s cooked. How he pulled out that match against Moya that year was beyond me. Here´s a good gauge. Do YOU think Agassi would have been competitive against Federer on clay? If not, don´t tell me he can be competitive with Nadal.

drakulie
06-11-2007, 05:51 PM
Of course he would be competitive against Fed on clay. In fact, the slower surface would favor Agassi. He was competitive with fed on hard court in his last 2-3 years on tour. In fact, for a while there>> he was the only guy on tour who was competitive against him and took him to the limit.

And, I'll tell you this>>> those players you mentioned are way better clay courters than the players nadal is facing. And, agassi won that french open by playing amazing defense and turning rallies into offensive stiuations.

You need to seriously wake up about nadal. The guys is amazing, but to go as far as to say agassi wouldn't be competitive against him and suggest it would be total domination is ridiculous.

Morrissey
06-11-2007, 05:56 PM
Of course he would be competitive against Fed on clay. In fact, the slower surface would favor Agassi. He was competitive with fed on hard court in his last 2-3 years on tour. In fact, for a while there>> he was the only guy on tour who was competitive against him and took him to the limit.

And, I'll tell you this>>> those players you mentioned are way better clay courters than the players nadal is facing. And, agassi won that french open by playing amazing defense and turning rallies into offensive stiuations.

Agassi won that French Open on luck. He was this close to losing in the second round to Clement. Was getting outplayed against Hrbaty in the SF until the rain delay and if it weren´t for Medvedev´s choke job up 2 sets to none Agassi would still not have won that FO. Without facing Guga, Rios or even Kafelnikov to boot. I must give Agassi alot of credit for defying the odds and winning a Wimbledon back in 1992 by beating Becker, McEnroe and Ivanisevic despite not having a grass court game and winning the French despite not having a clay court game either.

tricky
06-11-2007, 06:02 PM
Agassi could hit on the rise like few could. Okay, everybody knows that, but it also translates to Agassi had a phenomenal ability to cleanly hit back extreme topspin, extreme bounce shots from his opponents. That's the principal reason why Agassi-Fed matches were interesting for whole sets. Even against Fed's FH, Agassi could retrieve with a quality return.

It would have been really fun to see a magnificently fit and tennis strong Agassi against Nadal.

Morrissey
06-11-2007, 06:07 PM
Ok, I had time to think Drakulie. It would have been competitive. :-)


But he wouldn´t have won.

djsiva
06-11-2007, 06:13 PM
Agassi of 1999 would not beat Nadal 3 out of 5 on clay, too many miles on the wheels at that point, and not aggressive enough. Agassi of 1991-92 would have been a tough match for Nadal. He was a lot quicker then and went for bigger putaways. A 100% zoned 21 year old Agassi could beat Nadal at the French.

Wilander bageled him in the fifth at the french. That was a young full haired Agassi in 1987.

rod99
06-11-2007, 07:22 PM
Yeah because Agassi was real competitve on grass last year in that beatdown at the hands of Nadal, slow grass or not. This is grass. A former Wimby champ against a guy who had a career record of 3-3 on grass prior to that Wimbledon. Agassi couldn´t handle the best clay courters in his era (Muster, Kuerten, Bruguera, Courier, Ferrero) how could he handle perhaps the best clay courter of all time?

one of the dumbest posts of all-time. agassi last year was a shell of himself and was barely able to move on the court due to the sciatic nerve problem in his back. if you want to talk about a "past his prime" agassi then that would have been 2003-2005. also, agassi never played kuerten on clay, much less the french open. he also never played bruguera at the french.

federer/agassi (in his prime) would have been a great match on clay. agassi might not have beaten nadal on clay but he would have given him a serious run. he was a much cleaner striker of the ball than federer and could also take the ball earlier. he could also have handled the high topspin shots that federer can't.

ktownva
06-11-2007, 07:24 PM
Wilander bageled him in the fifth at the french. That was a young full haired Agassi in 1987.

That was a green Agassi vs the best claycourter of the day. Your point?

drakulie
06-11-2007, 07:43 PM
Agassi won that French Open on luck.

You are correct. I'm going to use YOUR logic. Since Nadal never had to face Kuerten, Rios, Kafelnikov, Courier, Brugera, etc >>> his 3 French Open victories were also luck.

He was this close to losing in the second round to Clement. Was getting outplayed against Hrbaty in the SF until the rain delay and if it werenīt for Medvedevīs choke job up 2 sets to none Agassi would still not have won that FO.

If that is the case, if it wasn't for the rain delay against courier he would have won that match, as he was clearly beating the crap out of Courier until that delay. Bottom line is, he beat those guys.


and winning the French despite not having a clay court game either.

Didn't have a clay court game? Agassi made it to the quarter final or better at the French 9 times, with 5 semi appearances and 3 final appearances. Also won 7 clay court titles. Name me one player who Nadal has played that could boast such numbers.

Quite frankly, I want to thank you for opening my eyes, because now that I really think of it and put it into perspective>>> Nadal has had some pretty crappy competition en route to his 3 French Open final appearances. Other than Fed, who the hell has he played?

Who out there is any good on clay, such as Kuerten, Kavelnikov, Costa, Brugera, Muster, Courier, etc.

Kirko
06-11-2007, 07:47 PM
Agassi had trouble with Muster, Wilander, and the lefty from Ecuador.

Nadal would eat Agassi alive. I don't care if Agassi ran backward against 90 degree mountains. There is nothing Agassi could do to beat Nadal.

I do think Wilander and Muster and even Lendl and Mecir could beat Nadal in their primes. To beat Nadal its all about legs, brains, and patience. These guys had all three.

yes Muster "schooled" Agassi a few times after his accident.

rod99
06-11-2007, 07:51 PM
the one time they played at the french in 1994 it went 7-5 in the 5th set. i wouldn't exactly call that getting "schooled".

drakulie
06-11-2007, 08:06 PM
yes Muster "schooled" Agassi a few times after his accident.

Muster went 2-4 against Agassi after his accident. He lost their last 4 meetings, losing 3 of them in straight sets. He didn't "school" Agassi >> it was the other way around. Oh, and AA fed him a bagel along the way.

ktownva
06-11-2007, 08:11 PM
Who out there is any good on clay, such as Kuerten, Kavelnikov, Costa, Brugera, Muster, Courier, etc.

Well, there was a guy named Coria who was pretty good, but he went back to Middle Earth. Other than him, you are right, pretty slim pickin's in the clay court expert department.

drakulie
06-11-2007, 08:22 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot about Coria. Has he found his shoulder yet?

I can't even believe Morissey would say Agassi would not be able compete with Nadal because he didn't do well against the clay courters during his own prime>>> although the numbers show other wise, and yet the best competition Nadal has had is Coria, who lasted all of 2??? years?

NadalForever
06-11-2007, 08:26 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot about Coria. Has he found his shoulder yet?

I can't even believe Morissey would say Agassi would not be able compete with Nadal because he didn't do well against the clay courters during his own prime>>> although the numbers show other wise, and yet the best competition Nadal has had is Coria, who lasted all of 2??? years?

Nadal has a 2-0 record over Agassi. Any questions?

Heavy Metal Tennis Star
06-11-2007, 08:28 PM
i love the AA, but he can try to dig down against a 2-0 deficit from nadal in paris and he will find out he doesnt have a big enough shovel.

rod99
06-11-2007, 08:28 PM
Nadal has a 2-0 record over Agassi. Any questions?

yeah, it was against a 35 and 36 year-old andre agassi. you're comparing apples and oranges. ridiculous comparison.

ktownva
06-11-2007, 08:36 PM
Nadal has a 2-0 record over Agassi. Any questions?

Yeah, were those wins at the French against Agassi in his prime? Because that is the topic of the thread. I could toss out barbs too, like "Blake owns Nadal", but that would be off-topic.

NadalForever
06-11-2007, 08:38 PM
yeah, it was against a 35 and 36 year-old andre agassi. you're comparing apples and oranges. ridiculous comparison.

I got nothing against Agassi and I am a big fan of him as a person and player but let's face the reality here. After watching this Sunday's final I gotta admit that Nadal is mentally tougher than both Sampras and Agassi combined. To have a 8-4 record against a legend like Federer and be able to save so many break points in the first set. Sampras and Agassi would wet their pants and break down and cry if they were put under the same pressure that Nadal was and keeping in mind that Nadal is only 21 years old. That is simply unbelivable. Like I said in the other thread we are very luck to be experiencing legends Nadal and Federer in the same decade who are both way more talented than Agassi.

federerfanatic
06-11-2007, 08:39 PM
Agassi won that French Open on luck. He was this close to losing in the second round to Clement. Was getting outplayed against Hrbaty in the SF until the rain delay and if it weren´t for Medvedev´s choke job up 2 sets to none Agassi would still not have won that FO. Without facing Guga, Rios or even Kafelnikov to boot. I must give Agassi alot of credit for defying the odds and winning a Wimbledon back in 1992 by beating Becker, McEnroe and Ivanisevic despite not having a grass court game and winning the French despite not having a clay court game either.

For once I completely agree with you. Agassi showed huge heart to win that French Open, but did all the cards fall in the right pieces as well. Not playing Kuerten or Rios, neither who he would have had much chance of beating. Clement 2 points from winning, then cramping. Moya up a set and 2 breaks, meltdowing down completely with foot faults and unforced errors. Then Medvedev in the final completely choking in the last 3 sets, and even though Agassi raised his level greatly from the first 2 sets, Medvedev in the first 2 sets as clearly better then Agassi even in the last 3 sets that day. The gods were smiling on him at that French Open.

The worst part to come of it was it caused John McEnroe to predict him the most likely winner of the French Open each of upcoming years from 2000-2003 when most people realized he would do well, probably a quarterfinal type result, but was clearly a long shot to win. When he went out in the quarters 3 of those 4 years(early round loss the other year)it was pretty much what most tennis fans expected, but McEnroe acted as if it was a huge shock and the heavy title favorite had just gone out.

rod99
06-11-2007, 08:41 PM
you're showing your ignorance about the history of tennis. believe it or not, great players existed b/f federer/nadal. i'm not sure anyone has the natural talent of federer. however, agassi was more talented than nadal. let's see if nadal can keep this up for years to come. players who play like him are usually past their prime by the time they are 25. and as far as mental toughness, it's hard to say anyone was more mentally tougher than sampras. give me a break.

ktownva
06-11-2007, 08:43 PM
Like I said in the other thread we are very luck to be experiencing legends Nadal and Federer in the same decade who are both way more talented than Agassi.

Ok, you're a troll. I'm gonna vomit now.

rod99
06-11-2007, 08:46 PM
For once I completely agree with you. Agassi showed huge heart to win that French Open, but did all the cards fall in the right pieces as well. Not playing Kuerten or Rios, neither who he would have had much chance of beating. Clement 2 points from winning, then cramping. Moya up a set and 2 breaks, meltdowing down completely with foot faults and unforced errors. Then Medvedev in the final completely choking in the last 3 sets, and even though Agassi raised his level greatly from the first 2 sets, Medvedev in the first 2 sets as clearly better then Agassi even in the last 3 sets that day. The gods were smiling on him at that French Open.

The worst part to come of it was it caused John McEnroe to predict him the most likely winner of the French Open each of upcoming years from 2000-2003 when most people realized he would do well, probably a quarterfinal type result, but was clearly a long shot to win. When he went out in the quarters 3 of those 4 years(early round loss the other year)it was pretty much what most tennis fans expected, but McEnroe acted as if it was a huge shock and the heavy title favorite had just gone out.


call it a fluke it you want, but using your same methodology he should have won the french open in 1991 but the rain delay saved courier. he also could have easily won in 1990 except for that fact that gomez played the match of his life since he finally didn't have to meet lendl in a grand slam.

these kind of things happen. he could have beaten rios. rios had a good record against agassi but he was also one of the mentally weakest players in the history of the game. he was only the 9th seed that year. and kuerten still hadn't reached his level of play he showed in 2000 and 2001. he was only an 8 seed that year and wasn't as feared as he was in the 2 years to come. moya was a more feared clay court player in 1999 than kuerten/rios and agassi took him out.

drakulie
06-11-2007, 08:51 PM
Nadal has a 2-0 record over Agassi. Any questions?

Yeah, who has more singles and grand slam titles? Who has more weeks at # 1? Who has been able to win a slam on all 4 surfaces?

Who had better clay court competition?

Agassi had>> Kevelnikov, Muster, Courier, Brugera, Costa, Moya (in his prime), Ferrero (in his prime), etc, etc, etc,

Nadal had has>>>. Fed, and Coria????

federerfanatic
06-11-2007, 08:53 PM
one of the dumbest posts of all-time. agassi last year was a shell of himself and was barely able to move on the court due to the sciatic nerve problem in his back.

I agree it is dumb to refer to any of Agassi's 2006 matches.

if you want to talk about a "past his prime" agassi then that would have been 2003-2005.

I agree. However if you concede Agassi was somewhat in his prime still in 2001-2002 keep in mind even Lleyton Hewitt went 3-2 vs him, and edged him out for the year #1 both years by outperforming him at the year end Masters both times. Hewitt has been dumped to the curb by Federer and Nadal.

also, agassi never played kuerten on clay, much less the french open. he also never played bruguera at the french.

He never played them at the French Open since he didnt ever go far enough at the French Open from 93-96 to have a chance to play guys like Bruguera or Muster there; and from 98-2001 he didnt go far enough at the French Open to play a guy like Kuerten there, except for 1999 a rare year Kuerten was the one to take the premature plunge. That is no endorsement of his chances vs such calibre clay courters. For the record though here are his record vs the best clay courters of his time on clay:

Agassi vs Muster on clay: 3-1 for Muster, 1-0 at French Open

Agassi vs Bruguera on clay: 2-1 for Bruguera(both of Bruguera's wins were 6-1, 6-3 scores including in 1995 at Hamburg, ouch!)

Agassi vs Courier on clay: 3-2 for Courier, 2-1 at French Open

Agassi vs Kuerten on clay: never played on clay

Agassi vs Ferrero on clay: 1-0 for Ferrero, 1-0 at French Open

Agassi has a winning record vs none of the best clay courters of his time. Bruguera and Muster imparticular got smacked down repeatedly on hard courts, but totally different story on the terre batue.

federer/agassi (in his prime) would have been a great match on clay. agassi might not have beaten nadal on clay but he would have given him a serious run. he was a much cleaner striker of the ball than federer and could also take the ball earlier. he could also have handled the high topspin shots that federer can't.

Federer and Agassi would have been a good match on clay, but probably Federer winning more often then not. Agassi vs Nadal would present less challenge to Nadal, as Federer does to Nadal on clay IMHO.

federerfanatic
06-11-2007, 09:00 PM
call it a fluke it you want, but using your same methodology he should have won the french open in 1991 but the rain delay saved courier.

True. He was lucky in 1999, and unlucky in 1991. So all in all they probably cancel out.

he also could have easily won in 1990 except for that fact that gomez played the match of his life since he finally didn't have to meet lendl in a grand slam.

This one I am not agreeing with. Your opponent playing the match or their life supposably, well in that case you are still outplayed, which is not bad luck. Even more significantly though you mention Lendl. Agassi nor Gomez would have had a prayer of winning this French Open had Lendl not bypassed it for extra focus on Wimbledon. So if we are going to use this methodology Agassi was lucky to even have this kind of chance to begin with, thanks to Lendl's absence.

these kind of things happen. he could have beaten rios. rios had a good record against agassi but he was also one of the mentally weakest players in the history of the game. he was only the 9th seed that year. and kuerten still hadn't reached his level of play he showed in 2000 and 2001. he was only an 8 seed that year and wasn't as feared as he was in the 2 years to come. moya was a more feared clay court player in 1999 than kuerten/rios and agassi took him out.

Moya was NOT more feared then Kuerten and Rios in 1999. Moya was the defending Champion from 1998, but he was only the 3rd favorite at best for that years French Open. Kuerten and Rios both had better results then Moya on clay that year and were both more favored at this years French Open. If you really believe Moya was more feared then Kuerten or Rios going into that years French, then you have a short memory. Almost all bookies and experts had Moya behind both Kuerten and Rios at this years French.

Kuerten was atleast as favored to win the 1999 French, as either 2000 or 2001. Rios was mentally weak, but his seeding means squat, as Agassi was an even lower seed. Agassi had a very hard time beating Rios on hard courts then, his chances on clay would be dim.

pow
06-11-2007, 09:04 PM
Agassi has a way better chance on hard courts and even then I'm not completely sure who to favor.

drakulie
06-11-2007, 09:08 PM
federerfanatic,

I think the factor you are missing here is Agassi had many very good, if not great, clay court competition.

Let's look at the list you are using in your argument:

Agassi vs Muster on clay: 3-1 for Muster, 1-0 at French Open
Agassi vs Bruguera on clay: 2-1 for Bruguera(both of Bruguera's wins were 6-1, 6-3 scores including in 1995 at Hamburg, ouch!)
Agassi vs Courier on clay: 3-2 for Courier, 2-1 at French Open
Agassi vs Kuerten on clay: never played on clay
Agassi vs Ferrero on clay: 1-0 for Ferrero

and let's include these three, who other than Costa, he had a winning record against on clay.:

moya 1-0 on clay
costa 1-1 on clay
corretja- 1-0 on clay

Yes, you are correct when yo say he didn't have a winning record against these awesome clay court players. But he still managed to beat them on clay, and it wasn't like he was dominated.

Other than Fed, who has Nadal's competition been?

DashaandSafin
06-11-2007, 09:10 PM
Man drak is putting the hurt on all the trolls, and they just keep on coming...

ktownva
06-11-2007, 09:12 PM
Agassi in his prime could beat Nadal at the FO. Hard, flat, deep shots into the corners setting up easy volleys. Not some miracle victory. Why is this so hard for Nadal fans to believe? Don't drink the kool-aid.

federerfanatic
06-11-2007, 09:14 PM
federerfanatic,

I think the factor you are missing here is Agassi had many very good, if not great, clay court competition.

Let's look at the list you are using in your argument:

Agassi vs Muster on clay: 3-1 for Muster, 1-0 at French Open
Agassi vs Bruguera on clay: 2-1 for Bruguera(both of Bruguera's wins were 6-1, 6-3 scores including in 1995 at Hamburg, ouch!)
Agassi vs Courier on clay: 3-2 for Courier, 2-1 at French Open
Agassi vs Kuerten on clay: never played on clay
Agassi vs Ferrero on clay: 1-0 for Ferrero

and let's include these three, who other than Costa, he had a winning record against on clay.:

moya 1-0 on clay
costa 1-1 on clay
corretja- 1-0 on clay

Yes, you are correct when yo say he didn't have a winning record against these awesome clay court players. But he still managed to beat them on clay, and it wasn't like he was dominated.

Other than Fed, who has Nadal's competition been?

That is true. Nadal does not face anyone, except maybe Federer, who is at the level of any of Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten, or Courier on clay. Even Federer arguably is below those 4 as a clay court player as well. Then the rest dont even come close. I cant even decide who I consider the 3rd-5th best clay courters today are. There isnt anyone that really stands out after them.

So you do have a point there. Also you are right Agassi did atleast get 1 win over the 3 of those he played multiple times, and it wasnt like a huge number of meetings with any of them.

BiGGieStuFF
06-12-2007, 07:05 AM
For one thing Agassi would not be hitting all those errors that Fed was hitting in the Final. Nadal could not take advantage of Agassi's backhand. Andre would cut Nadal's time down by taking the ball early and often. Andre's movement was much better in his prime obviously.

Nadal would hit killer angles on Andre and force him to run. His high 1st serve percentage will somewhat neutralize Andre's aggressive returns. Nadal's defense will force Andre into higher number of errors than he's used to. Nadal will not be pressured by Andre's service game which may pose a problem since Andre won't get a lot of free points on serve.

Conclusion? We'll never know but I think it would be more competitive than Federer-Nadal where Nadal has dominated on clay. Agassi's greatest weapon may be enough to give him the edge against Nadal's greatest gameplan on clay which is to attack the backhand with that crazy forehand of his..

I wish I had a time machine but for now I can only speculate. I'll take the diplomatic approach and say 5-5. Nadal streaks and wins early but Andre adjusts and comes back to tie it up best out of 10.

djsiva
06-12-2007, 09:41 AM
That was a green Agassi vs the best claycourter of the day. Your point?

And still lost. How could he beat Nadal then?

If you're arguing Wilander was better than Nadal, then I will definitely agree with that. Wilander could run all day and he hit like 2 unforced errors in the final against Leconte.

ktownva
06-12-2007, 10:29 AM
And still lost. How could he beat Nadal then?

If you're arguing Wilander was better than Nadal, then I will definitely agree with that. Wilander could run all day and he hit like 2 unforced errors in the final against Leconte.

Agassi in 1987 was 17 and a tour rookie, not in his prime. Wilander was in his prime 87-88, and Agassi still took him to five sets!! Could he beat Wilander/Nadal the way he played in 91-92? My opinion is yes he could.

flying24
06-12-2007, 11:38 AM
To the thread starter, to quote John McEnroe "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!" Agassi would get completely outclassed by Nadal on clay with both in their primes. Agassi had many different primes so who knows what time period you are referring to. However Agassi's "prime" years include losing a French Open final to Anders Gomez, getting embarassed by Courier in a French Open semi winning winning only 7 games in 3 sets, a quarterfinal loss to Kafelnikov, and a quarterfinal loss to Grosjean. That is unless you include 1996 and 1998 as prime years as well, when he was prime age and ranked in the top 10, in which case you can add early losses to Woodruff and 18 year old Safin.

His finest moments at the French Open of all include losing a 2 sets to 1 lead on Courier in Courier's first slam final, getting overpowered by Gomez in Gomez's only ever slam final. The finest of the finest for Agassi at the French is winning the French Open by coming back vs choking Medvedev, another 1-time slam finalist, after getting humiliated in the first 2 sets, winning only 3 games in those first 2 sets. Imagine Nadal being down 6-1, 6-2 to Medvedev after two sets in a French Open final. ROTFL!!

flying24
06-12-2007, 11:48 AM
For one thing Agassi would not be hitting all those errors that Fed was hitting in the Final.

Want to bet? Bruguera and Muster were able to provoke Agassi in huge unforced error totals when they played him on clay even in 1994-1995, the absolute peak of his career. Nadal is a much better version of Muster. Nadal would provoke Agassi in alot of error on clay, like he does everyone else.

Nadal could not take advantage of Agassi's backhand.

Almost everyone has been having trouble with Nadal's forehand which kicks up so extremely high to the backhand. Agassi has one of the greatest backhands, but dont be so sure even he would not have trouble.

Andre would cut Nadal's time down by taking the ball early and often.

Would not be as effective on clay though.

Andre's movement was much better in his prime obviously.

Much better then who? Even Federer, Davydenko, and Robredo, move tons better then Agassi in his prime on clay; and play much better defence then he ever did on clay(or any surface probably).

Nadal would hit killer angles on Andre and force him to run.

Yes indeed, and the less mobile, and less skilled defensive player, Agassi would handle this nowhere near as well as Federer does when he is forced to do this.

His high 1st serve percentage will somewhat neutralize Andre's aggressive returns.

Yes indeed.

Nadal's defense will force Andre into higher number of errors than he's used to.

Yes indeed.

Nadal will not be pressured by Andre's service game which may pose a problem since Andre won't get a lot of free points on serve.

Yes indeed.

Conclusion? We'll never know but I think it would be more competitive than Federer-Nadal where Nadal has dominated on clay.

Nadal would dominate Agassi on clay even more then he dominates Federer on clay.

I wish I had a time machine but for now I can only speculate. I'll take the diplomatic approach and say 5-5. Nadal streaks and wins early but Andre adjusts and comes back to tie it up best out of 10.

LOL! If prime Agassi played 2003-2004 Nadal on clay he might have gone 5-5. 5-5 in their mutual primes might be more indicative of the number of sets Agassi even have won a 5th game per match.

ktownva
06-12-2007, 12:33 PM
Imagine Nadal being down 6-1, 6-2 to Medvedev after two sets in a French Open final. ROTFL!!

Imagine Puerta converting one of those set points in the 4th. Anyone's match.

Imagine Federer playing his best in either of the other two finals.

Nadal 0-3 in French Open finals. But it didn't turn out that way, so suddenly Nadal is utterly invincible on clay against anyone in the history of the sport. Whatever.

helloworld
06-12-2007, 12:38 PM
Imagine Puerta converting one of those set points in the 4th. Anyone's match.

Imagine Federer playing his best in either of the other two finals.

Nadal 0-3 in French Open finals. But it didn't turn out that way, so suddenly Nadal is utterly invincible on clay against anyone in the history of the sport. Whatever.

Nadal has beaten 81 opponents in a row on this surface. He has never lost to anyone in the French Open and he is likely to do so in the next couple of years. If he's not one of the greatest clay court player, do you think he would even come close to achieve such feat ? Use your brain more.

Chadwixx
06-12-2007, 12:43 PM
Straight sets for nadal

dubsplayer
06-12-2007, 12:46 PM
Stupid thread.

ktownva
06-12-2007, 12:46 PM
Nadal has beaten 81 opponents in a row on this surface. He has never lost to anyone in the French Open and he is likely to do so in the next couple of years. If he's not one of the greatest clay court player, do you think he would even come close to achieve such feat ? Use your brain more.

He's the greatest clay court player of this era, which is saying very little. The fact that a one-dimensional grunt could go undefeated for so long says a lot about the competition. Guga, Muster, Kafelnikov, Brugera, or anyone of that level would have stopped that streak long ago.

ckthegreek
06-12-2007, 12:48 PM
Agassi would have probably won 1 or 2 matches on clay against Nadal over a 10 year period. Nadal is by far the best clay court player ever. 81 matches unbeaten, 3 FOs in a row and he's only 21.

Warriorroger
06-12-2007, 12:50 PM
No one beats Nadal on this surface in Paris.

flying24
06-12-2007, 12:56 PM
Imagine Puerta converting one of those set points in the 4th. Anyone's match.

You really think Puerta would have had decent odds to win a 5th set with Nadal in a French Open final? Please.

Imagine Federer playing his best in either of the other two finals.

Federer is 1-6 vs Nadal on clay. Nadal is definitely not lucky to beat Federer both times they played in a French Open final. He has continously proved his superiority to Federer on clay.

Nadal 0-3 in French Open finals. But it didn't turn out that way, so suddenly Nadal is utterly invincible on clay against anyone in the history of the sport. Whatever.

He is nearly invincible on clay. He has lost 1 of his last 89 matches. Your what if scenarios make no sense. As I said it is extremely unlikely Puerta would win a 5th set vs Nadal in a French Open final anyway, and as it was he didnt manage to get to a 5th set anyway. Federer losing the 2 French Open finals to Nadal on clay just goes along with what regularly happens in other meetings between them on clay.

Chadwixx
06-12-2007, 12:57 PM
He's the greatest clay court player of this era, which is saying very little. The fact that a one-dimensional grunt could go undefeated for so long says a lot about the competition. Guga, Muster, Kafelnikov, Brugera, or anyone of that level would have stopped that streak long ago.

The players today are much stronger than the players 10 years ago. Equipment, strings, diet or whatever, they hit alot hard with alot more spin. The increase is like from that of the 80's to 90's. Its evolution.

How is nadal a 1dimentional grunt and agassi isnt?

In D Zone
06-12-2007, 01:06 PM
I am a fan of Agassi - he is a great player and will remain one of my all time favorites, but to think he can play against Fed and Nadal is just not possible (in Clay).
Agassi does not even stand a chance against Federer and even close against Nadal.

People talked about Agassi's ability to hit the ball early - so a Davydenko. If you watched the Federer / Davydenko match, you can see how much effort Davydenko had to play himself to even win a game against Federer ; he succeed but somehow lost steam to close a set. Davydenko is very fit compared to Agassi.

Against Nadal - you are talking about Agassi getting massacared on the court. Nadal tornado spin will just ripped Agassi - even if Agassi moved way back from the baseline, he does not even have the speed to come in the net when Nadal pulls him in with his drop shots. Agassi is not a net player.

djsiva
06-12-2007, 01:10 PM
Agassi in 1987 was 17 and a tour rookie, not in his prime. Wilander was in his prime 87-88, and Agassi still took him to five sets!! Could he beat Wilander/Nadal the way he played in 91-92? My opinion is yes he could.

I stand corrected Wilander won in 88 not 87. My point is some guy said "Agassi at 21 and zoned could beat Nadal". This is like saying Richard Simmons can beat up Bruce Lee.

Agassi didn't have the maturity at 17,18,19,20, or 21 to even challenge Nadal, let alone any physical weapons. Yeah he took it on the rise, but if he played Nadal it wouldn't matter. Did you watch any clay court matches in the last three years? Nadal runs downs winners Agassi would only dream of hitting.

Agassi won the French Open in 1999 against a pretty shaky Medvedev. Props to Agassi. Good win. But by that time Agassi wasn't into hitting winners. Yeah he ran mountains backwards, but he wasn't close to the fitness level of Wilander, Lendl, Muster, or Borg in their primes. Borg's blood pressure was like 70/20??? with a resting heart rate in the 40's. These guys were gizelles. Also in 1999 there was like a dearth of good clay courters.

This is what Federer dreams of: a year like 1999 or one where even Guadio can win a French Open or one where you get to face Korda in the final.

ktownva
06-12-2007, 01:14 PM
He is nearly invincible on clay. He has lost 1 of his last 89 matches. Your what if scenarios make no sense. As I said it is extremely unlikely Puerta would win a 5th set vs Nadal in a French Open final anyway, and as it was he didnt manage to get to a 5th set anyway. Federer losing the 2 French Open finals to Nadal on clay just goes along with what regularly happens in other meetings between them on clay.

Puerta had just won back to back 5 setters and got stronger the longer the matches went on. So yes, it actually could have been a competitive 5th set, imagine that. Or would Rafa had kicked it into some magical 7th gear and the tight match would just be over like that? Right. Either way it didn't go down, so you are right, Nadal = utterly untouchable.

Fed is a total choke job against Nadal, I don't even want to defend his *** at this point. So there you go, Nadal vastly superior to Fed as well.

Nads has a bright future, no doubt. But really, is he so good that the greats before him would stand no chance?

drakulie
06-12-2007, 06:44 PM
The players today are much stronger than the players 10 years ago. Equipment, strings, diet or whatever, they hit alot hard with alot more spin. The increase is like from that of the 80's to 90's. Its evolution.

The facts do not support your argument.

For starters, Brugerra and Muster alone hit and averaged over 3700 RPM's of spin, which, other than Nadal is way more than the competition Nadal has faced. Additionally, Agassi is also know for cranking it up at well over 3000 RPM's.

Your argument may hold water against the guys of the 70's and early 80's, but many of the guys that Agassi played had the same results.

Again, no one Nadal has faced was as good on clay as the guys mentioned in this discussion, and none of the come close to the power generated by these same guys.

Chadwixx
06-12-2007, 06:57 PM
So why do guys today hit harder? Juiced guns? Dementiava hit a 98 mph backhand winner.

You should know the string technology killed serve and volley tennis with its extreme spin, so lab vs reality. Maybe its comparable spin with lighter rackets (heavy rackets would produce more rpms), who knows, but people cant serve and volley because of the heavy topspin.

I see the way agassi handled musters spin vs nadals, and nadal seemed to push him back more.

Muster was a stud, brugera had that weak *** slice forhand, guys today would eat that up. Keep him on the ropes from that shot on. Muster would prove to be a tough battle, nadal doesnt appear to be mentally weak and is very fit, that one is debatable. I still think the modern tech would put nadal over the top.

BaseLineBash
06-12-2007, 07:22 PM
Like I said in the other thread we are very luck to be experiencing legends Nadal and Federer in the same decade who are both way more talented than Agassi.

What? Way more talented? How can people forget so fast. Andre ran on pure talent alone for half of his career, as great as he was he was still considered an underachiever. I don't know what the exact outcome would be if Nadal and Agassi played against each other, prime vs. prime, but Agassi would certainly not get crushed by ANY means.

rabidcow
06-12-2007, 07:30 PM
Agassi could come close but lose to Nadal on clay, but on hard courts, an Agassi in his prime and painless could handle Federer and Nadal. Nadal isn't great on hard courts and Agassi managed to make a match many years after his hay day with numerous shots for his pain.

drakulie
06-12-2007, 08:03 PM
So why do guys today hit harder? Juiced guns? Dementiava hit a 98 mph backhand winner.

You don't think Courier, Agassi, and all those guys were hitting 100 mph ground strokes during the era we speak about?

And I guarantee you this >. Dementiava may hit a 98 mph backhand, but she sure as hell isn't doing it on every stroke, and neither are the male pros..

I see the way agassi handled musters spin vs nadals, and nadal seemed to push him back more.

"Seemed to push him back more"??? LMAO! You need to go back and look at that Wimbledon match, and Canada finals match. He sure as hell wasn't being pushed back off the baseline. And remember, this is a guys who was barely even able to walk off the court after those matches.

If anything, Nadal was the one playing 10-15 feet off the baseline (like he usually does.

Again, WHO HAS NADAL PLAYED THAT COULD BOAST THE NUMBER OF AGASSI ON CLAY, COURIER, MUSTER, BRUGERA, KAFELNIKOV, KUERTEN, ETC???

ANSWER>>> NO ONE! He has yet to be challenged on that surface, because his competition are weak asses.

drakulie
06-12-2007, 08:14 PM
Like I said in the other thread we are very luck to be experiencing legends Nadal and Federer in the same decade who are both way more talented than Agassi.

Fed is one thing, but Nadal????? Come back and see me when Nadal has 8 slams, a gold medal, a career slam (which not even Fed has), 17 masters shields, over 100 weeks at # 1, win over 600 matches, be ranked # 1 at the age of 33, be in the top ten in three diffrerent decades.

Nadal is a punk compared to AA. He'll be lucky to be around when he is 25.

Tennis_Monk
06-12-2007, 08:56 PM
Fed is one thing, but Nadal????? Come back and see me when Nadal has 8 slams, a gold medal, a career slam (which not even Fed has), 17 masters shields, over 100 weeks at # 1, win over 600 matches, be ranked # 1 at the age of 33, be in the top ten in three diffrerent decades.

Nadal is a punk compared to AA. He'll be lucky to be around when he is 25.


While i dont intend to see you at all, here is my thought.

We cant compare Nadal's career with Agassi's until Nadal retires. But we can compare 21 yr Nadal to 21 yr Agassi and Nadal wins hands down on that competition. 3 grandslams at age of 21. What did Agassi have at age of 21?

drakulie
06-12-2007, 09:03 PM
Go read what the troll wrote, and then my response. No competition.

Tennis_Monk
06-12-2007, 09:19 PM
Go read what the troll wrote, and then my response. No competition.

I see what you mean. Nadal isnt exactly a Tennis Legend yet. Long ways to go. I agree with you.

Talent wise. I dunno. What does Talent mean anyways if it doesnt translate into results. In some ways Agassi was lucky to escape with a Grandslam guaranteeing his place among the Best tennis players of all time.

tlm
06-12-2007, 09:25 PM
Ya nadal has only been a pro for 4 years, just think how much you haters are going to have to eat your words in another 4 years.

drakulie
06-12-2007, 09:25 PM
Lucky??? How do you figure? If you are suggesting his French victory>>two coudl play that game, I would say Nadal is lucky to be playing in an era where he has zero competition on clay.

I'll remind you, and/or bring to your attention that Agassi reached the quarters of the French 9 times, semis 5 times, and finals 3 times. I would hardly call that luck. Who has Nadal played that comes anywhere near to **THAT** conversation?

drakulie
06-12-2007, 09:27 PM
Ya nadal has only been a pro for 4 years, just think how much you haters are going to have to eat your words in another 4 years.

who says anyone is a hater? If anything, I have been giving the guy props all over the board, and have even posted I think he will win wimbledon this year. I also posted last year he would make it to the finals.

I just don't have my head stuck so far up his rear end that I'm blinded.

Tennis_Monk
06-12-2007, 09:30 PM
Lucky??? How do you figure? If you are suggesting his French victory>>two coudl play that game, I would say Nadal is lucky to be playing in an era where he has zero competition on clay.

I'll remind you, and/or bring to your attention that Agassi reached the quarters of the French 9 times, semis 5 times, and finals 3 times. I would hardly call that luck. Who has Nadal played that comes anywhere near to **THAT** conversation?

DId Agassi do it all before he turned 21?

When i said Lucky, i meant he could have lost that final too. not to say that he won it by fluke.

I know Agassi's Tenni career and records as much as anyone around. He is the reason why i play some decent tennis today. In my book (given that my Tennis era starts in 90's with some history of Matts wilander and Lendl) Agassi is the Greatest ever so far!

drakulie
06-12-2007, 09:35 PM
well, to me "lucky" would mean>>>

You are in the fifth set tie breaker, up 7-6, and hit a shot that is clearly going out. The ball hits the net, and shoots inbounds into the court giving you the match.

VikingSamurai
06-12-2007, 09:38 PM
DId Agassi do it all before he turned 21?

When i said Lucky, i meant he could have lost that final too. not to say that he won it by fluke.

I know Agassi's Tenni career and records as much as anyone around. He is the reason why i play some decent tennis today. In my book (given that my Tennis era starts in 90's with some history of Matts wilander and Lendl) Agassi is the Greatest ever so far!

Becker had 2 by 18.. Whats your point? Rosewell played the final of Wimbledon at 39.. Simply cant see how Nadal's age fits into anything at this point in time?

tlm
06-12-2007, 09:52 PM
drakulie who said you were a hater? I will say you have given nadal some credit lately, as far as him winnig wimbly you have got to be kidding.I would love to see it but i doubt that it will happen.

I do recall in the last few weeks you repeatedly saying fed was the king of clay though, guess you were having fun with morrisey

drakulie
06-12-2007, 09:58 PM
^^^ No, just trying to give the trolls a taste of their own medicine. I'll admit, I love Fed, but give credit where it is due. Fed didn't lose that match>> he was beat.

As for Wimbldon, again I think I'm being fairly realistic when I say Nadal will make the finals again and possibly win it all. He is playing the best tennis of any pro, and being that Wimbledon is won from the baseline>>> who is going to take him out? The only guy I see taking him out is fed, and alas>> I believe fed is due for an upset.

tlm
06-12-2007, 10:03 PM
I cant believe you are saying that drakulie, i dont think anyone can beat fed on grass.But i would love to see nadal win it, i would like to see him win any of the other slams.But i am still waiting to see if he can be a real fast court player.

drakulie
06-12-2007, 10:13 PM
If Fed gets upset, I think Wimbledon is Nadal's for the taking.

People forget>>. Nadal last year used his serve to attack more, and was generating some great pop, hitting well over 120+. This was getting him as much free points as his competitors. He wasn't just slicing the ball in. Additionally, Nadal is a solid volleyer>> and knows when to come to net to put a point away>> unlike Roddick. Lastly, he has a very solid return.

The only thing I see hurting him is the amount of tennis he has played.

Ultra2HolyGrail
06-12-2007, 10:52 PM
If Fed gets upset, I think Wimbledon is Nadal's for the taking.

People forget>>. Nadal last year used his serve to attack more, and was generating some great pop, hitting well over 120+. This was getting him as much free points as his competitors. He wasn't just slicing the ball in. Additionally, Nadal is a solid volleyer>> and knows when to come to net to put a point away>> unlike Roddick. Lastly, he has a very solid return.

The only thing I see hurting him is the amount of tennis he has played.






I've never seen nadal volley without comming in on obvious easy put away.
Few exchanges with fed at the french looked good though. But never seen him attack and come in and volley some hard shots. Roddick sure tried more than nadal. Hard to imagine nadal winning wimbledon with that topspin galore forehand and mediocre serve.

tennis_hand
06-12-2007, 11:03 PM
drakulie changed his opinions a lot on Nadal...

BiGGieStuFF
06-13-2007, 07:03 AM
I've never seen nadal volley without comming in on obvious easy put away.
Few exchanges with fed at the french looked good though. But never seen him attack and come in and volley some hard shots. Roddick sure tried more than nadal. Hard to imagine nadal winning wimbledon with that topspin galore forehand and mediocre serve.

It may not be the hardest serve but it's well placed and he has a high 1st serve percentage. Through some miracle last year he served even better at wimbledon. Consistently hitting into the 120's and flattening it out a bit. He basically served Agassi off the court (such a disappointment) :(.

I think it messed with his game later in the year though as it seemed to take a while to get his service groove back in the hardcourt season. It'll be interesting if he employs the same change in his service again this time around.

Attila the tennis Bum
06-13-2007, 07:15 AM
In all his years Agassi could only win one FO....and even he did not think he could win that one. According to Brad Gilbert Agassi had a VERY easy draw.

On the other hand Nadal has won the FO every time he has eneterd it and he has had to face Federer all three times!

rommil
06-13-2007, 07:22 AM
Nadal over prime Agassi in straight sets....

Taram_Nifas
06-13-2007, 07:33 AM
I remember watching the Montreal Masters Cup finals in 2005; and definately Nadal's forehand was giving Andre's backhand some fits.

All this talk about Andre's prime thing, is kind of confusing too, I mean, I don't think the guy ever reached his potential. The young Agassi didn't have the old Agassi's intangibles, and the young Agassi didn't have the old's youth.

VikingSamurai
06-13-2007, 07:50 AM
I remember watching the Montreal Masters Cup finals in 2005; and definately Nadal's forehand was giving Andre's backhand some fits.

All this talk about Andre's prime thing, is kind of confusing too, I mean, I don't think the guy ever reached his potential. The young Agassi didn't have the old Agassi's intangibles, and the young Agassi didn't have the old's youth.

Yeah, but unlike you guys.. Our nuts have dropped, and we remember players that played 5-25 years ago or more... This whole Nadal worship is just a bunch of little boys having ******* competitions together.. Maybe one day you will all grow up and see tennis in a bit more of a respectfull light?

helloworld
06-13-2007, 08:00 AM
I remember watching the Montreal Masters Cup finals in 2005; and definately Nadal's forehand was giving Andre's backhand some fits.

All this talk about Andre's prime thing, is kind of confusing too, I mean, I don't think the guy ever reached his potential. The young Agassi didn't have the old Agassi's intangibles, and the young Agassi didn't have the old's youth.

I think his prime was in his early 30s' when he won his last slam at the Australian open. He was still fit and had the intangibles that the young Agassi didn't have, but I'd say his prime was short though.

Taram_Nifas
06-13-2007, 08:22 AM
Yeah, but unlike you guys.. Our nuts have dropped, and we remember players that played 5-25 years ago or more... This whole Nadal worship is just a bunch of little boys having ******* competitions together.. Maybe one day you will all grow up and see tennis in a bit more of a respectfull light?

Why bother quoting me, when you don't even remotely address what I said? Exactly how does sagging nuts and watching tennis players 5-25 years ago effect Montreal 2005?

ktownva
06-13-2007, 08:44 AM
This thread is sagging to new lows. heheheh

Marius_Hancu
06-13-2007, 09:25 AM
Borg, perhaps, not Agassi.

aramis
06-13-2007, 09:42 AM
The answer to this thread is Guga Kuerten.

rocket
06-13-2007, 09:51 AM
The only guy that can beat Nadal on clay is Federer himself, playing an agressive, smart tennis.

rod99
06-13-2007, 02:50 PM
Why bother quoting me, when you don't even remotely address what I said? Exactly how does sagging nuts and watching tennis players 5-25 years ago effect Montreal 2005?

agassi in 2006, 2005, and part of 2004 suffered greatly from the sciatic nerve problem. as such, his movement was greatly limited. comparing anyone to the agassi of the last couple of years is not fair.

federerfanatic
06-13-2007, 04:01 PM
agassi in 2006, 2005, and part of 2004 suffered greatly from the sciatic nerve problem. as such, his movement was greatly limited. comparing anyone to the agassi of the last couple of years is not fair.

Federer waxed Agassi in the year end Masters final in 2003 in a real exhibition of Federer's sublime talent, practicaly making Agassi a spectactor on the other side. Agassi in 2001-2002 was 2-3 vs Hewitt, and Hewitt outperformed him at the year end Masters both years to edge him for the year end #1, when Agassi had a stated intention both years of wanting to end the year #1. Ferrero not only beat Agassi at the 2002 French Open on his surface of clay, but at the 2003 U.S Open on Agassi's surface of hard courts, meaning he won both their slam meetings. I dont know what on earth makes you think Agassi only started to have trouble with this new breed of players when he started to suffer from his back problem. Nadal is clearly better then both Hewitt and Ferrero.

rod99
06-13-2007, 04:31 PM
Federer waxed Agassi in the year end Masters final in 2003 in a real exhibition of Federer's sublime talent, practicaly making Agassi a spectactor on the other side. Agassi in 2001-2002 was 2-3 vs Hewitt, and Hewitt outperformed him at the year end Masters both years to edge him for the year end #1, when Agassi had a stated intention both years of wanting to end the year #1. Ferrero not only beat Agassi at the 2002 French Open on his surface of clay, but at the 2003 U.S Open on Agassi's surface of hard courts, meaning he won both their slam meetings. I dont know what on earth makes you think Agassi only started to have trouble with this new breed of players when he started to suffer from his back problem. Nadal is clearly better then both Hewitt and Ferrero.

most everyone had trouble with hewitt during 2001-2003, including federer. agassi did beat hewitt in their biggest matchup in the 2002 us open semis though. during 2002-2003 ferrero was by far the best clay court player in the world and agassi had a very good chance of winning that match in 2002 (conditions was extremely heavy and agassi was a net cord away from serving to go up 2 sets to 1). yes, federer dominated agassi in the finals of the 2003 masters but just days before that they played a 7-6 in the 3rd match where i believe agassi had multiple match points.

VikingSamurai
06-13-2007, 04:37 PM
Why bother quoting me, when you don't even remotely address what I said? Exactly how does sagging nuts and watching tennis players 5-25 years ago effect Montreal 2005?

Because the whole Nadal worship thing is getting old.. The guy has been around for 5 minutes, and with the way he plays', probably only 5 minutes more. yet you are talking about him in the same breath as Agassi..

Go find the post I wrote about the FO champions of the last 20 years.. Then you will see what I am talking about..

federerfanatic
06-13-2007, 04:43 PM
most everyone had trouble with hewitt during 2001-2003, including federer. agassi did beat hewitt in their biggest matchup in the 2002 us open semis though. yes, federer dominated agassi in the finals of the 2003 masters but just days before that they played a 7-6 in the 3rd match where i believe agassi had multiple match points.

Federer was not in his prime in 2001-2003 when he had trouble with Hewitt. In 2004-2005 Hewitt was as good as ever, losing to the eventual Champion of 7 straight Grand Slams, 5 of those Federer. If it were not for Federer then Hewitt would have dominated 2004 and 2005 like he never did 2001 and 2002 even. Hewitt even had the clear edge on Roddick both of those years too, but kept getting stuck in Federer's half while Roddick hardly ever was(ending 2003 #1 helped him stay ranked over Hewitt by virtue of staying out of Fed's half alot more, alot longer).

You are right that Agassi gave Federer a great match in their first match at the year end Masters in 2003, before being dominated in the final. So 2 matches, one extremely close win for Federer in a best 2-of-3, and one dominating win for Federer in a best 3-of-5. Combine the two and who had the obvious advantage?

superman1
06-13-2007, 06:23 PM
1. Tennis is all about match ups
2. Agassi and Federer have completely different games. Federer is the better player but probably matches up with Nadal worse since he doesn't take the ball as early and has a more vulnerable backhand
3. I've never seen Agassi shank a ball in my life
4. To say that Agassi in his prime would not even be competitive with Nadal, but that Djokovic and Hewitt and Davydenko all have a shot at beating Nadal, is, for lack of a better word, ********.
5. Don't fall into the trap of creaming your pants over Nadal right after the clay court season and anointing him the GOAT already. Wait to see how he does the rest of the year against all the Blake's (Agassi H2H: 4-1) and Berdych's (Agassi H2H: 2-0) and Djokovic's and Youzhny's (Agassi H2H: 2-0) out there.

VikingSamurai
06-13-2007, 06:53 PM
Agassi has played everyone from McEnroe, Becker, Wilander, Edberg, Lendl, Sampras, Rafter, Federer.. And everyone in between..

Agassi at his best would own Nadal.. Period..

And I am not much of an Agassi fan either. ;-)

tlm
06-13-2007, 07:25 PM
Agassi at his best would own nadal? Ya right he would be owned you mean, while i think he could have been competitive with rafa, no way would he beat him on clay.

Chadwixx
06-13-2007, 09:14 PM
Talking about clay, no one is debating agassi at his prime on grass, hard or indoor.

1. Tennis is all about match ups

Nadal_Freak
06-13-2007, 09:38 PM
Agassi in his prime got bugged by high topspin shots to his backhand on clay. I remember hearing that from the announcers a lot. Nadal would do the same thing. Agassi doesn't slide so Nadal would definitely take advantage of Agassi's lack of comfort level on clay.

VikingSamurai
06-13-2007, 10:04 PM
Just goes to show that Nadal is a moon balling pusher.. How can anyone enjoy watching that *****?

Seriously, the guy has turned me off watching tennis.. If this is all the sport has got to look forward to, then you guys can have it...Bum picks and all!

Taram_Nifas
06-14-2007, 05:52 AM
agassi in 2006, 2005, and part of 2004 suffered greatly from the sciatic nerve problem. as such, his movement was greatly limited. comparing anyone to the agassi of the last couple of years is not fair.

I watched a lot of Agassi's matches that summer/fall of 2005, yes his movement was limited but I thought his groundstrokes were still crisp, and I was only responding about his backhand againt's Nadal's forehand. The ball was bounching way above his shoulder, and you could see he was having some problems with it.

Taram_Nifas
06-14-2007, 05:56 AM
Because the whole Nadal worship thing is getting old.. The guy has been around for 5 minutes, and with the way he plays', probably only 5 minutes more. yet you are talking about him in the same breath as Agassi..

Go find the post I wrote about the FO champions of the last 20 years.. Then you will see what I am talking about..

Dude, saying that Agassi had some problems with Nadal's forehand is an observation, not Nadal worship. I actually think a mid-twenties Agassi could have produced some victories against a Nadal on Clay.

GuyClinch
06-14-2007, 06:08 AM
All of these "cross era' arguments are really problematic..

Why? Because if Agassi or Sampras had been in their primes when Nadal and Fed were they would have adjusted their games. People play to the level of their competition. If Agassi saw something Fed was doing to dominate he would adjust - and same with Sampras. Likewise Fed and Nadal might do the same thing.

Also training methods and techniques and more have all improved. The reason why say Fed is "better" then Sampras is that people could watch tapes and learn from him. Sampras could learn from John Mac and so on.

So again if your comparing cross era - the Sampras who grows up today isn't going to be the same Pete that grew up then. Today's Sampras would be stronger faster - have a better forehand and an even bigger serve. Today's Agassi would hit with even more pace and topsin and probably move better as well.

if you follow hoops - a simple example is the slam dunk contest. Dunks that won contests for Dominque Wilkins and Jordan have now been done by countless generations of young black kids. Accordingly those dunks are considered "easy" by dunkers and are routinely done in HIGH SCHOOL dunk contests.

To say OMG Federer would beat up Agassi - well no DUH. He could LEARN from Agassi and take the best aspects of his game and work them into his own. It's a tremendous advantage.

Pete

drakulie
06-14-2007, 07:44 AM
Agassi in his prime got bugged by high topspin shots to his backhand on clay.

You know, being a Nadal fan is one thing>>>>>>> but when are you going to make even the slightest attempt of knowing anything about tennis, or it's history?

Posts like this one are why people call you a troll, and don't take anything you say about Nadal seriously. All you do with stupidity is discredit Nadal.

djsiva
06-14-2007, 09:43 AM
Agassi has played everyone from McEnroe, Becker, Wilander, Edberg, Lendl, Sampras, Rafter, Federer.. And everyone in between..

Agassi at his best would own Nadal.. Period..

And I am not much of an Agassi fan either. ;-)

This is like saying Cal ripken is greatest baseball player period. Just because he played all these players doesn't mean he's the greatest.

Agassi was good, but he couldn't handle Muster, Mancini, Wilander, the aging Andres Gomez(who also is a left hander), and Lendl on clay

ksbh
06-14-2007, 10:09 AM
A prime Agassi would have creamed Federer on any court except clay. Federer is a baseliner and so is Agassi but Agassi was better.

As regards Nadal, he isn't in Agassi's league. 8 grand sams and on 4 different surfaces. It's not even worth comparison.

a lot of ignorance here. evidently people have forgotten that great players actually existed b/f federer/nadl.

tlm
06-14-2007, 02:28 PM
How long did it take agassi to get these 8 grand slams?Nadal has played 4 years+ already has 3 grand slams, i have a feeling agassi didnt have 3 after 4 years on tour.

Agassi was a better baseliner than fed? Why does fed already have 10 grand slams then?As long as agassi played+ beings he was better, then he should have 20 gs!!

Taram_Nifas
06-14-2007, 02:48 PM
Andre skipped Wimbledon and Australia alot during his early years. He didn't even play Australia untill 1995, and this seemed to excel down under. Plus there was some guy named Pete Sampras he had to compete against in Grand Slam Finals.

If Federer/Sampras/Agassi, were all in the same era, there's no way Federer gets 10 Slams and there would no mention of him completing any Grand Slams.

drakulie
06-14-2007, 02:54 PM
T

Agassi was good, but he couldn't handle Muster, Mancini, Wilander, the aging Andres Gomez(who also is a left hander), and Lendl on clay

What are you talking about? The only guy on that list Agassi has never beaten on clay is Lendl. Oh, and they only met once.

tricky
06-14-2007, 03:07 PM
If Federer/Sampras/Agassi, were all in the same era, there's no way Federer gets 10 Slams and there would no mention of him completing any Grand Slams.

Fed, Agassi and Sampras would cancel each other out. Agassi's run at the Australian Open would be in danger. Sampras's dominance at the US Open would be in danger. Federer and Sampras would make a blood bath at Wimbledon. All 3 guys would have spent those 10 years trying to get to 10 slams.

VikingSamurai
06-14-2007, 03:09 PM
What are you talking about? The only guy on that list Agassi has never beaten on clay is Lendl. Oh, and they only met once.

Agreed drak..

And if we are going to talk about woulda, shoulda, coulda.. Then I will go on to add that a Wilander, Muster, or Lendl would have beaten Nadal on clay!;)

My points being that Wilander was just too clever and would have no problems playing a 10 hour 5 setter with the sweating monkey.. Even at 17, Wilander was smarter than most..

Lendl simply didn't like to be beaten full stop, and unlike Roger, would have killed the children of Nadal's family to beat him. Aswell as go to Siberia for a Rocky-esk style training camp beforehand. Ivan didn't like people talking of kids as the next best thing. He hated it.. And then to beaten by them.. Simply no way...

As for Muster. Then no one has more guts.. Thomas would have pounded Nadal like a prize fighter.. And with a one handed topspin backhand to-boot!.. You wanna see spin, angles, and determination.. Then they dont come any better on clay than him!

I have not seen anything yet of Nadal to suggest that he is anything more than a better than average player.. The fact that there isn't a lot in the way of talent at the moment would suggest that.. I have no problems with people liking him, and for him to be their favourite player. But lets just stop with the worshiping stuff, and the talk of greatness.. I have seen too many greats to even put Nadal in the same locker room as them..

federerfanatic
06-14-2007, 03:32 PM
Andre skipped Wimbledon and Australia alot during his early years. He didn't even play Australia untill 1995, and this seemed to excel down under. Plus there was some guy named Pete Sampras he had to compete against in Grand Slam Finals.

If Federer/Sampras/Agassi, were all in the same era, there's no way Federer gets 10 Slams and there would no mention of him completing any Grand Slams.

If Agassi was in the same era as both Federer and Sampras he might have only 2 grand slams instead of 8. Hard to win grand slams when there are 2 people much better then you, not just one.

As for the slams Agassi missed there isnt a single time, except the 2002 Australian Open, where Agassi missed a slam he had a good chance of winning. Take a closer look at when those slams he missed were, what they were, and you will see what I mean.

For the record he only faced Sampras on the way to 2 of his 8 Slam titles. 1995 Australian Open, when Pete was in emotional turmoil upon hearing his coach was dieing of brain tumours, and was crying during some of his matches. 2000 Australian Open, when Pete was apparently injured during his extremely narrow 5 set semifinal loss to Agassi, said he was not sure if he could have even played the final with Kafelnikov had he won, and then skipped the next month of tennis to heal the injury.

drakulie
06-14-2007, 03:40 PM
^^^^^^ It's hilarious how when someone wins a slam, an idiot post comes up making excuses of why that player won the slam::

his opponents had diarrhea, or had nightmares the night before, or their regular racquet stringer didn't show up to work that day, blah, blah, blah. :roll:

You are right! In fact, the only reason ANYONE HAS AVER WON A SLAM, OR A MATCH IN THE HISTORY OF TENNIS IS BECAUSE THEIR OPPONENTS WEREN'T FEELING WELL THAT DAY.

lambielspins
06-14-2007, 03:42 PM
How long did it take agassi to get these 8 grand slams?Nadal has played 4 years+ already has 3 grand slams, i have a feeling agassi didnt have 3 after 4 years on tour.

Agassi was a better baseliner than fed? Why does fed already have 10 grand slams then?As long as agassi played+ beings he was better, then he should have 20 gs!!

By the time Federer and Nadal are both done they will have far eclipsed Agassi's career. Federer already has, and will continue to pull further ahead. Nadal will as well though.

Nadal will definitely someday surpass Agassi's 8 slam titles, 60 career singles titles, 17 Masters titles. He will win as many of his slam titles and Masters titles outside of clay, as Agassi did outside rebound ace or slow hard courts. Agassi won 4 slam titles only outside of rebound ace, Nadal will win atleast 4 outside of French Open clay. Agassi won around half of his Masters titles in the two Spring Masters events on hard courts; Nadal will win atleast as many outside of clay as Agassi won outside of those two events. The only area Agassi might end up having over Federer or Nadal is the career slam, but Nadal will win 3 of the 4 I think, and Federer already has. Their careers will be too superior in every other way to Agassi's for the career slam to make much case for him.

jhhachamp
06-14-2007, 03:47 PM
If Federer/Sampras/Agassi, were all in the same era, there's no way Federer gets 10 Slams and there would no mention of him completing any Grand Slams.

Right, and Agassi would be lucky to finish his career with 3 grand slams.

IcyBox
06-14-2007, 04:18 PM
surprising what i found!

head to head between the clay-court specialists from the 90's

muster vs. bruguera: 12-3
carrier titles: 44-14

bruguera had no chance against muster, surprising, i thought it would be the other way...

VikingSamurai
06-14-2007, 04:51 PM
By the time Federer and Nadal are both done they will have far eclipsed Agassi's career. Federer already has, and will continue to pull further ahead. Nadal will as well though.

Nadal will definitely someday surpass Agassi's 8 slam titles, 60 career singles titles, 17 Masters titles. He will win as many of his slam titles and Masters titles outside of clay, as Agassi did outside rebound ace or slow hard courts. Agassi won 4 slam titles only outside of rebound ace, Nadal will win atleast 4 outside of French Open clay. Agassi won around half of his Masters titles in the two Spring Masters events on hard courts; Nadal will win atleast as many outside of clay as Agassi won outside of those two events. The only area Agassi might end up having over Federer or Nadal is the career slam, but Nadal will win 3 of the 4 I think, and Federer already has. Their careers will be too superior in every other way to Agassi's for the career slam to make much case for him.

Look, I am in no way a fan of Agassi. Infact, towards the end, I kinda got sick of seeing him around.. The point I will make is that I have respect for the guy, as he has proved that even though he lost the plot in the 90's, he came back to have one of the careers that most players dream about.. He is a great in my opinion. And the fact he won slams on every surface backs that up for me..

Where I find comments and posts like yours hard to swallow, is that Nadal can only play on (1) one surface, and is somewhat average on all the other's. I simply cant see him transfering his one dimentional game on clay into anything that will give him a win in any other slam.. So to say that he will surpass Agassi is difficult for most players, and Nadal simply wont do it.. He could win 8 French Opens, and Agassi will always have the edge because of the ability to win on anything..

The only other surface I would have given Nadal a chance on would have been the Australian. But seeing that they are changing the surface to speed it up, then that one will allude him aswell..

VikingSamurai
06-14-2007, 04:55 PM
surprising what i found!

head to head between the clay-court specialists from the 90's

muster vs. bruguera: 12-3
carrier titles: 44-14

bruguera had no chance against muster, surprising, i thought it would be the other way...

Oh, no doubt about it.. Muster could play ball..

Although he didnt have the longevity of a Vilas, or won 3 FO's like Guga or Nadal. He in my opinion "is" the greatest clay courter ever.. And thats after a life threatening accident at the Lipton.. The guy would sit on a bench and practice hitting balls with a busted leg.. The guy has definately got nuts in my books!

Chadwixx
06-14-2007, 04:59 PM
Why do people keep labeling nadal as 1 dimentional and not agassi? Agassi was about as 1 dimentional as it gets.

VikingSamurai
06-14-2007, 05:06 PM
Why do people keep labeling nadal as 1 dimentional and not agassi? Agassi was about as 1 dimentional as it gets.

Now thats funny!

Agassi would attack and mix it up.. Nadal sits back and hits moon balls all day.. Nothing wrong with that, but not very interesting to watch..

Chadwixx
06-14-2007, 05:32 PM
You do understand what a 1 dimentional player is right?

Heavy topspin is now considered a moonball? Moonballs are generally slow, nadals is far from that, great speed and penetration.

Im not saying nadal isnt 1 dimentional but to say he is and agassi isnt doenst make sense. If you tell me agassi is an all courter because he won wimbledon im putting you on ignore :)

VikingSamurai
06-14-2007, 06:04 PM
You do understand what a 1 dimentional player is right?

Heavy topspin is now considered a moonball? Moonballs are generally slow, nadals is far from that, great speed and penetration.

Im not saying nadal isnt 1 dimentional but to say he is and agassi isnt doenst make sense. If you tell me agassi is an all courter because he won wimbledon im putting you on ignore :)

Ignore?.. Feel free..

This is a public message board dude.. If people don't agree with you, then thats life.. But to expect them to is another thing..

I think Agassi was predominantly a baseliner. But could adapt to different surfaces and conditions.. Nadal to me is great on clay, but falls into the average category for the other surfaces.. When he has won atleast one slam on every surface, and been playing for 15 or more years, then we will mention him in the same breath as Agassi.. And as I stated before. I am not a fan of Agassi..

djsiva
06-14-2007, 06:36 PM
What are you talking about? The only guy on that list Agassi has never beaten on clay is Lendl. Oh, and they only met once.

What are you talking about? I said "handle". I never said Agassi never beat them!!

Clay court records

Muster vs agassi 3-1 ( This was after his knee injury too!!!) Plus Muster beat him prior to being injuried on hardcourt.

Mancini vs Agassi 1-1 Agassi lost here when it counted in the finals at Rome. Agassi eventually beat him in 1991 ( two years after his best tennis) when the guy put on 30 pounds of fat in the round of 16. The guy was definitely not in at his best. Like beating a guy in a wheelchair.

Wilander vs Agassi 1-1 Agassi again lost to Wilander in a five setter where he was bagelled. Again in a match that counted semifinals at the French. Agassi can't go five sets with real grinders. Even with Gilbert and Reyes. This is a big misconception. Agassi beat Wilander in 1994 in the round of 128. Clearly Wilander was no where near his best. The guy probably got a wildcard to get into the French that year. Wilander was 30, Agassi 24. Nice win, beat an old man who can't run anymore.

Gomez vs Agassi 2-1 Again Gomez who was ten years older than Agassi beat him when it counted French Open Final.

Lendl vs Agassi 1-0 Yeah they only played once on clay. Lendl won easily 6-2, 6-3

Oh yeah Lendl pretty much owned Agassi on all surfaces, his record vs Agassi on all surfaces is 6-2. Lendl again is ten years older than Agassi.

Nadal would obliterate Agassi on clay.

Lendl like I said would have a much better chance against Nadal.

Even Wilander in his prime would.

Agassi is known to be mentally weak without endurance. Look at his record in finals.

rod99
06-14-2007, 06:36 PM
some people on this board are really, really stupid and ignorant. i'm not even sure where to begin here.

drakulie
06-14-2007, 06:36 PM
If you tell me agassi is an all courter because he won wimbledon im putting you on ignore :)

Compared to Nadal>>> he is an all-courter. Now shut up and put me on your ignore list.

drakulie
06-14-2007, 06:40 PM
What are you talking about? I said "handle". I never said Agassi never beat them!!

Well, he "handled" them when he did beat them on clay didn't he??? or, are you suggesting he won those clay court matches but wasn't able to "handle" them????

I suggest you go look up the meaning of the word and apply it correctly in relation to what is being discussed here.

federerfanatic
06-14-2007, 06:41 PM
some people on this board are really, really stupid and ignorant. i'm not even sure where to begin here.

Why? Because we disagree with you? Despite the fact many of us brought up stats and examples to back up our points. As for opinions on the players games itself, anybody can have those, and it doesnt mean we never saw him play.

Chadwixx
06-14-2007, 06:57 PM
Compared to Nadal>>> he is an all-courter. Now shut up and put me on your ignore list.

Perhaps you can break down an old match again and only count the 4th crosscourt backhand off a point that began on a 2nd serve, lol. I wouldnt put you on ignore for the sole reason of your entertainment value :)

Im hoping someone can come here and describe what an all court player is for you two. Its so basic i cannot put it into words. Watch becker play, he was a good example. Early sampras as well. Agassi was a great baseliner, this is as silly as those people trying to make us think pete was a baseliner the 2nd half of his career.

drakulie
06-14-2007, 07:00 PM
becker was a serve and volleyer

Chadwixx
06-14-2007, 07:06 PM
He could do it all, thus an allcourt player. Agassi couldnt even volley til the end.

Note, its not allsurface. Allcourt is used to describe the style of play not the surface.

Sidetracked enough, you guys still think agassi could beat nadal on clay? If so pass the pipe :)

federerfanatic
06-14-2007, 07:10 PM
Becker and Sampras had wonderful all court games. They were very good from both baseline and net, in both serve and return, and transitioned beautifully.

djsiva
06-14-2007, 07:18 PM
Well, he "handled" them when he did beat them on clay didn't he??? or, are you suggesting he won those clay court matches but wasn't able to "handle" them????

I suggest you go look up the meaning of the word and apply it correctly in relation to what is being discussed here.


Read my post!!

Any wins Agassi had against the players listed (which are few) were way passed their primes.

Point is Agassi lost when it mattered most. Thus he couldn't HANDLE them.

Apologies to Chris. I also agree Nadal isn't the greatest yet. All those players listed except MAncini and Gomez, I think could beat or should I say HANDLE Nadal on clay. Here is another GUGA and Kent Carlsonn. Kent beat Muster before both of them were injured.

Again like Chris, I respect Agassi, but I don't think he was good enough on clay to beat Nadal.

Chadwixx
06-14-2007, 07:23 PM
Nadal is pretty damn dominate on clay, after 3 years you gotta start respecting what he has done and is still doing. Has anyone did a winning % on clay with nadal vs other greats like borg, muster and the others listed?

djsiva
06-14-2007, 07:24 PM
becker was a serve and volleyer

Becker like Lendl served and volleyed at Wimbledom. Does this make Lendl a S&V?

Becker pretty much stayed back everywhere else like Federer does now. I wouldn't consider him a S &V.

Write this down!! And make flash cards!!

S & V: Edberg, McEnroe, Pat Cash, Rafter, and Tim Henman

You are really showing how ignorant and dumb you are about tennis. Go play with your star war figures. You know about as much tennis as Yoda does.

djsiva
06-15-2007, 11:49 AM
Really? Wow you are good. Apparently you never saw the masters ending championships against sampras indoors, or the davis cup matches indoors, or any of his other matches. You are an idiot.


Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeJt9GXTa30

Becker did not serve and volley once in these representative clips that you told me you supposedly watched.

Just because Becker goes to the net on a short ball doesn't mean he's a serve and volleyer.

Like I said take out the flash cards! Put away your Star Wars figures.

Becker was raised on red clay. He's not instinctively a S&V. He pretty much only S&V on grass. Did he ever serve and volley on select points on other surfaces? Of course he did. So does that make Wilander a serve and Volleyer too? Of course not. Just because Agassi dropshots, is he classified as a dropshotter? Of course not. Take your flash cards out, take the rubber band off the single card, and start flipping it over back and forth. Hopefully in a few days you' ll learn who are S&V. Good luck, tommorow we'll learn colors and next week maybe shapes.

drakulie
06-15-2007, 11:59 AM
Like I said, Becker primarily served an volleyed. He did it on grass, carpet, and indoors. Additionally, did it on other surfaces as well.

Just look at his titles>> most of them won on fast surfaces like the ones I described, and he did it serving a volleying. He also has a number of doubles titles because he was a good s & v. Do you think he won those doubles titles playing from the baseline? LOL

Does this mean he s &v on every single point of his life? No. For you to make such a suggestion is ridiculous. However, for the most part>> he was a s & volleyer. Now gow watch some of his matches (in completion), and learn something.

anointedone
06-15-2007, 12:07 PM
What a ******** thread. Nadal would triple bagel Agassi on clay. This thread title is so out of line it ****es me off. I feel like smashing my computer.

CyBorg
06-15-2007, 12:14 PM
That's an mid-90s clip. The game had changed significantly by then and Becker served and volleyd less when he got older.

More accurately stated, Becker was a bit of everything. He was a cocky show-off who liked to adjust his game depending on his opponent. He liked to beat his opponent at his own game - by playing the opponent's style. In his youngest years on the tour, Becker served and volleyed primarily as did many players. By the mid-90s he conformed to more baseline tactics.

I tend to judge Boris more on his peak years in the late 80s where he mostly served and volleyed. Thus I'd say he was a server and volleyer who could adjust his game to virtually any style.

CyBorg
06-15-2007, 12:16 PM
What a ******** thread. Nadal would triple bagel Agassi on clay. This thread title is so out of line it ****es me off. I feel like smashing my computer.

Agassi would do at least as well as Hewitt against Nadal. You may recall the Rome SF match between the two where Nadal struggled. Agassi would have beaten him in that match. Agassi was an opportunist.

But when Nadal is at 100% he doesn't lose a set to Andre on red.

anointedone
06-15-2007, 12:19 PM
Agassi would do at least as well as Hewitt against Nadal. You may recall the Rome SF match between the two where Nadal struggled. Agassi would have beaten him in that match. Agassi was an opportunist.

But when Nadal is at 100% he doesn't lose a set to Andre on red.

Yeah but Hamburg was not the real Nadal. He was very tired from playing too much. He even lost to Federer on clay which he must be in really bad fitness and form to happen.

I agree Agassi could have even maybe beaten Nadal in Hamburg, but that was not the real Nadal.

ktownva
06-15-2007, 12:22 PM
What a ******** thread. Nadal would triple bagel Agassi on clay. This thread title is so out of line it ****es me off. I feel like smashing my computer.

Nadal has never tripled bageled anyone on clay, what makes you think he would against AA? BTW - you SHOULD smash your computer. I heard it talking about you behind your back.

djsiva
06-15-2007, 12:22 PM
Like I said, Becker primarily served an volleyed. He did it on grass, carpet, and indoors. Additionally, did it on other surfaces as well.

Just look at his titles>> most of them won on fast surfaces like the ones I described, and he did it serving a volleying. He also has a number of doubles titles because he was a good s & v. Do you think he won those doubles titles playing from the baseline? LOL

Does this mean he s &v on every single point of his life? No. For you to make such a suggestion is ridiculous. However, for the most part>> he was a s & volleyer. Now gow watch some of his matches (in completion), and learn something.

Of course they did!! Did this make them S&V in singles? Of course not.

Your logic is wrong.

S&V means serving and going to the net immediately and hitting the ball before it bounces. Becker did not do this except grass. Watch the matches you cited. I can kind of see how you might be confused. But seriously, the guy's not a serve a volleyer. Becker's grips made it extremely difficult to volley on all surfaces. Have you ever seen the grip becker uses for a forehand volley? Its pretty ugly. Joking aside I think you need to reclassify what a serve and volleyer is before you start "teaching" people.

I think we can both agree Becker was awesome to watch though. Don't you remember Cliff Drysdale commenting in the background how he wishes Becker would serve and volley more. Did Becker do it? Nope.

jfortin
06-15-2007, 12:23 PM
The prime Agassi could have beaten Nadal on clay. He won the French and was in two finals! Who says he wasn't great on clay???? He played Nadal on clay and lost a very tight match in 3 sets (best of three) and this with pack pain. Andre changed his style of play with age, in the early 90's he hit harder then anyone and probably the best clay court player next to Courier. If you take Andre's early hard hitting aggressive style and mix it with the determination he developed late in his career, he could beat anyone at anyplace.

anointedone
06-15-2007, 12:26 PM
The prime Agassi could have beaten Nadal on clay. He won the French and was in two finals! Who says he wasn't great on clay???? He played Nadal on clay and lost a very tight match in 3 sets (best of three) and this with pack pain. Andre changed his style of play with age, in the early 90's he hit harder then anyone and probably the best clay court player next to Courier. If you take Andre's early hard hitting aggressive style and mix it with the determination he developed late in his career, he could beat anyone at anyplace.

Agassi was a clown compared to Nadal on clay. You say take early Agassi and combine it with late Agassi. That means you are inventing an Agassi that never existed. You cant just take parts of his career and put them together for something he never was.

So someone who was the second best to flash in the pan Courier could beat Nadal. ROTFL!!!

djsiva
06-15-2007, 12:35 PM
The prime Agassi could have beaten Nadal on clay. He won the French and was in two finals! Who says he wasn't great on clay???? He played Nadal on clay and lost a very tight match in 3 sets (best of three) and this with pack pain. Andre changed his style of play with age, in the early 90's he hit harder then anyone and probably the best clay court player next to Courier. If you take Andre's early hard hitting aggressive style and mix it with the determination he developed late in his career, he could beat anyone at anyplace.

I like Agassi. I've hit with Agassi when he and I were at Bolleteri together. Yeah he was only 15 and I was 18, but I could tell even then that he definitely was never going to be as strong or as fit as someone like Nadal. Andre use to whine and complain a lot like a little girl. He grew out of it, but some guys never act like that. Don't get me wrong, Agassi has heart, but he doesn't have the genes like Nadal. Agassi used to be a pencil neck. You can even imagine him one as one now. Nadal was never a pencil neck.

Chadwixx
06-15-2007, 01:26 PM
I still say nadal will handle him 2-2-3 max

drakulie
06-15-2007, 01:46 PM
S&V means serving and going to the net immediately and hitting the ball before it bounces. Becker did not do this except grass. Watch the matches you cited.

Here are matches that ARE NOT WIMBLEDON:

Becker vs Sampras (serving and volleying)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Toh8wE3M30Q

Becker against Mcenroe: (serving and volleying)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg87QEGsFFo

Becker vs Kafelnikov (serving and volleying)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL58sqzmNQs

Becker vs Edberg (serving and volleying)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL58sqzmNQs


Bye, bye.

CyBorg
06-15-2007, 01:50 PM
Yeah but Hamburg was not the real Nadal. He was very tired from playing too much. He even lost to Federer on clay which he must be in really bad fitness and form to happen.

I agree Agassi could have even maybe beaten Nadal in Hamburg, but that was not the real Nadal.

The Hewitt match was in Rome and yes Nadal was pretty tired. Agassi feasted on guys who were tired - like Medvedev.

CyBorg
06-15-2007, 01:54 PM
Here are matches that ARE NOT WIMBLEDON:

Becker vs Sampras (serving and volleying)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Toh8wE3M30Q

Becker against Mcenroe: (serving and volleying)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg87QEGsFFo

Becker vs Kafelnikov (serving and volleying)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL58sqzmNQs

Becker vs Edberg (serving and volleying)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL58sqzmNQs


Bye, bye.

Apparently he thinks that in order to be a server and volleyer one has to come to the net on every single point.

drakulie
06-15-2007, 01:58 PM
^^^ he is misinformed. Additionally, those matches are from the mid 90's. I agree with what you said that earlier in his career, he served and volleyed a lot more. Later on, he changed things up. And yes, he also had some huge groundstrokes. But to say he only s & volleyed at Wimbledon just goes to show he does not know anything about Becker's game.

drakulie
06-15-2007, 02:00 PM
Yeah but Hamburg was not the real Nadal. He was very tired from playing too much. He even lost to Federer on clay which he must be in really bad fitness and form to happen.

I agree Agassi could have even maybe beaten Nadal in Hamburg, but that was not the real Nadal.

Of course it wasn't the **REAL** NADAL. :roll:

The **Real** Nadal only wins. The one the rest of us see losing is an imposter. LMAO!

sureshs
06-15-2007, 02:14 PM
The Nadal who loses (like Hamburg, and today in Queens) is not Nadal at all. He is Feliciano Lopez paid by Nadal's camp to impersonate him. Nadal was taking rest for FO and now for Wimbledon.

CyBorg
06-15-2007, 02:25 PM
The Nadal who loses (like Hamburg, and today in Queens) is not Nadal at all. He is Feliciano Lopez paid by Nadal's camp to impersonate him. Nadal was taking rest for FO and now for Wimbledon.

And the Oscar Hernandez who loses is not Oscar Hernandez at all.

He is Nadal.

Chadwixx
06-15-2007, 03:35 PM
Here are matches that ARE NOT WIMBLEDON:

Becker vs Sampras (serving and volleying)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Toh8wE3M30Q

Becker against Mcenroe: (serving and volleying)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg87QEGsFFo

Becker vs Kafelnikov (serving and volleying)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL58sqzmNQs

Becker vs Edberg (serving and volleying)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL58sqzmNQs


Bye, bye.

Since becker only played 4 matches in his career and you have video footage of them all, im withdrawing my comments :)

zpeed7
06-15-2007, 04:02 PM
Agassi has proven that he can definitely win the French in '99. Do you think PEAK Agassi could have beaten Nadal at Roland Garros...?

Andre is my all time favorite player. But I highly doubt it.

VikingSamurai
06-15-2007, 06:52 PM
Uh-oh...

This has turned into another "who wants to be Nadal's boyfriend" thread again.. ;-)

As for Becker, he was a S & V'er.. Of course we all get old, and so later on he had to adapt to an all court game, and play a little more patient..

If we are going to focus on someone like Becker, then I will say that he "was" the most talented tennis player to play after Laver.. Some people say that McEnroe was, but he proved that week in week out.. The reason why people dont think that so much of Becker is that he was very hot and cold, and enjoyed his celebrity a little too much compared with his results..

If and when he was switched on and focused, he simply was the most talented player and could beat anyone on any surface.. Proving that by going the distance with Muster on clay (whom I think is a better clay courter than Nadal)..And considering clay was Becker's worst surface. McEnroe didnt win a FO either, yet still performed on it..

Agassi "did" win a FO regardless of what people say, and even though he didn't win 3 in a row doesn't mean that Nadal is any better of a player. Infact Agassi proved he could play on and win on clay, but was also able to win on everything else.. Something Nadal has not been able to achieve.. (In GS anyway).. And so why I continue to go on about him only being a one court player..

In my opinion, he simply cant be placed among the Becker's, Lendl's, Wilander's, Agassi's, Sampras', and Federer's of this world just yet.. .. In-fact he has only won 2 more than Michael Chang, and that doesn't say a lot!;-)

djsiva
06-15-2007, 08:35 PM
Since becker only played 4 matches in his career and you have video footage of them all, im withdrawing my comments :)

The stuff is like grass. Like I said Martin Jaite served and volleyed regularly on this stuff. And his serve was as hard as Kournikova's second serve.

All the points you cited, shows Becker serving aces or winners and then him plopping his fat a-- halfheatedly to the net. He never hit a volley. I guess you can call him a serve and volleyer if you want. But how is this any different from what Roddick does.

Serve and Volley are two actions. You are suppose to use the serve to set up the volley. Watch Edberg, Cash, or Rafter. They don't try to hit aces. They are true S&V ers. They regularly S&V on second serves and even on clay. Was Ivanensivic a serve and volleyer? Of course not.

ATPballkid
06-15-2007, 09:22 PM
Agassi. He was competitive with fed on hard court in his last 2-3 years on tour. In fact, for a while there>> he was the only guy on tour who was competitive against him and took him to the limit.



And THIS is one reason Sampras only allowed Agassi to win 14 of their 34 matches .. this is why Sampras went 6-0 vs. Agassi at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open .. this is why Sampras won his last 4 tournament matches vs. Agassi on DecoTurf II in the 2001 U.S. Open quarters .. on Rebound Ace in the 2002 Colonial Bank final .. on red clay in straight sets in their match at the 2002 U.S. Clay Court Championships .. and then on DecoTurf II again in the 2002 U.S. Open final for Sampras' all-time record 14th Grand Slam singles title .. his all-time record 5th U.S. Open singles title on hardcourt .. and, his all-time record 7th Grand Slam singles title on hardcourts.

Sampras beat Agassi in their last match on grass courts.
Sampras beat Agassi in their last match on clay.
Sampras beat Agassi in their last match indoors.
Sampras beat Agassi in their last match on DecoTurf II.
Sampras beat Agassi in their last match on Rebound Ace.

drakulie
06-15-2007, 09:58 PM
Sampras only......

HAS ZERO FRENCH OPEN TITLES.

drakulie
06-15-2007, 10:02 PM
Serve and Volley are two actions.

Everyone who is witnessing this discussion agrees Becker was a Serve and Volleyer.

It's OK for you to say you don't know anything about Boris Becker. We have all learned something new while on this forum. You have now learned Boris Becker was a serve and volleyer>>>> YES, even outside of Wimbledon.

edmondsm
06-15-2007, 10:04 PM
I remember watching Agassi play Nadal in Toronto, 2005 I think it was. I know Agassi was already quite old, but it was a hardcourt match so supposedly favoring Agassi. Still, it felt like Nadal had an answer to everything Andre threw at him...
Agassi winning the FO in 99 was definitely a fluke, way more of a fluke than if Fed had won the French this year.

A fluke?!?!? He made two finals on top of the 99' win. You are throwing the word fluke around a little to loosely I think.

CyBorg
06-15-2007, 10:23 PM
n/m 10 char

tommytom11
06-15-2007, 11:03 PM
despite winning only 1 grand slam that year, i think agassi played his best tennis in 1995, not 1999. he won everything he played during that summer until he lost the US Open finals to sampras which sent his career into a spiral. he very likely would have won the french open that year had he not hurt his hip against kafelnikov in the quarters. a 1995 agassi would have beaten nadal on hardcourts and very likely would have beaten federer as well.

100% right

fednad
06-16-2007, 12:54 AM
All the points you cited, shows Becker serving aces or winners and then him plopping his fat a-- halfheatedly to the net. He never hit a volley. I guess you can call him a serve and volleyer if you want. But how is this any different from what Roddick does.


How old are you?
Please see more matches that took place before you were born.
Or read tennis magazines etc etc
Becker is one of all time great serve and volloeyers. Agreed, his volleys won't be as sublime as Edberg's but then he did not need that sublimity either - his serve fixed the things so much for him.
And about you calling him - "plopping his fat a-- halfheatedly to the net"
I think no one in tennis history must have dived on wimbledon as much as Becker did.
Please read/see/know facts before you dish out your judgement.

VikingSamurai
06-16-2007, 02:32 AM
How old are you?
Please see more matches that took place before you were born.
Or read tennis magazines etc etc
Becker is one of all time great serve and volloeyers. Agreed, his volleys won't be as sublime as Edberg's but then he did not need that sublimity either - his serve fixed the things so much for him.
And about you calling him - "plopping his fat a-- halfheatedly to the net"
I think no one in tennis history must have dived on wimbledon as much as Becker did.
Please read/see/know facts before you dish out your judgement.

Exactly!

Children should be seen and not heard!;)

crazylevity
06-16-2007, 02:49 AM
Halfheartedly??!!

I remember reading an article on Boris Becker. The first thing his first coach had to teach him, before serving, volleying, and even how to hold the racquet, was the dive-n-roll. Becker flung himself at the every ball at the net, and his coach figured that he needed to teach Becker the move proper to prevent injury.

VikingSamurai
06-16-2007, 06:43 AM
Even the year before he won his first Wimbledon at 17, Boris Becker used to use the adidas/Kneissl frame that Lendl used.. It was Ion Teriac (however you spell it?) that struck the deal with PUMA and got him the bigger frame to make better use of his power and vollying..

ATPballkid
06-16-2007, 08:45 AM
HAS ZERO FRENCH OPEN TITLES.

And Andre Agassi ... 20 years on the ATP Tour ... and only 1 Wimbledon .. only 1 ATP Tour Championship .. and only 1 year ranked #1 ... why could he not win more than just once in these areas? Pretty pathetic that he couldn't?

Pete Sampras ... Pete Sampras ... Pete Sampras ... even when Sampras was going through the biggest drought in his great career, he still managed to beat Agassi in their last 4 tournament format matches. Sampras really made it to Grand Slam singles finals in 11 consecutive years? How close has Agassi come to doing that? Not very.

ATPballkid
06-16-2007, 09:18 AM
Yeah, who has more singles and grand slam titles? Who has more weeks at # 1? Who has been able to win a slam on all 4 surfaces?



I think Agassi is among the top 10 of the Open Era just based on him winning 8 Grand Slam singles titles .. even if half of them were Australian Opens.

However, with just 1 Wimbledon .. just 1 Tour Championship .. just 1 year ranked #1 .. and just 3 from Wimbledon and the U.S. Open combined .. Agassi is a pretty big underachiever when it comes to the very, very biggest events and when it comes to the #1 ranking.

Roger_Federer.
06-16-2007, 09:50 AM
And Andre Agassi ... 20 years on the ATP Tour ... and only 1 Wimbledon .. only 1 ATP Tour Championship .. and only 1 year ranked #1 ... why could he not win more than just once in these areas? Pretty pathetic that he couldn't?

Pete Sampras ... Pete Sampras ... Pete Sampras ... even when Sampras was going through the biggest drought in his great career, he still managed to beat Agassi in their last 4 tournament format matches. Sampras really made it to Grand Slam singles finals in 11 consecutive years? How close has Agassi come to doing that? Not very.

Ballkid, next time you win your next Wimbledon title, ATP Tour Championship, and become world number 1 post here please.

Chadwixx
06-16-2007, 09:52 AM
I think no one in tennis history must have dived on wimbledon as much as Becker did.

Gimblestob in his wimbledon match vs hewitt, it was a joke, even hewitt had to make comments.

Players who serve and volley and play from the baseline are all court players. I dont understand how dim the people here are.

federerfanatic
06-16-2007, 10:12 AM
ATPballkid knows his/her stuff. He is very well versed in the history of the game and all records and achivements of all the great players. Some of you dont like what he is posting since it is hard to argue against, and if it goes against your favorite people then.......

ATPballkid
06-16-2007, 10:15 AM
Ballkid, next time you win your next Wimbledon title, ATP Tour Championship, and become world number 1 post here please.

You are one clueless pup, son ... LMAO ... totally clueless.

Ultra2HolyGrail
06-16-2007, 10:16 AM
Not at the FO. But on other surfaces for sure.

djsiva
06-16-2007, 01:18 PM
How old are you?
Please see more matches that took place before you were born.
Or read tennis magazines etc etc
Becker is one of all time great serve and volloeyers. Agreed, his volleys won't be as sublime as Edberg's but then he did not need that sublimity either - his serve fixed the things so much for him.
And about you calling him - "plopping his fat a-- halfheatedly to the net"
I think no one in tennis history must have dived on wimbledon as much as Becker did.
Please read/see/know facts before you dish out your judgement.


Here is what I have learned from you guys:

1) Agassi can beat Nadal because he has played the most players.

2) Becker is a S&V because he S&V on grass and indoor carpet.

3) Becker is a S&V because he dives for balls.

If you believe any of this, you have an IQ of about 60.

If you don't believe me, do this:

Substitute Bjorkman, Chang, or even Spadea for Agassi in item number 1; Martin Jaite, Lendl, or even Wilander for Becker in item 2;
and Johan Kriek, Gonzalez, Leander Paes, or Hewitt for Becker in item # 3.

If you do this, anyone can see your Logic totally falls apart.

If you still believe 1,2, and 3, then you're the kid that would rather have two pennies than one dime.

Seriously, you're missing the forest for the trees. You guys are fixated on small inconsquential details and basing your whole argument on it. Take a step back and analyze the big picture. You don't have to admit on this thread that you're wrong. I just don't want you making a fool of yourself, when you go talking tennis at your country club 3.0 tournaments. You guys are nice guys, please don't embarss yourself in front of your kids.

VikingSamurai
06-16-2007, 03:20 PM
You are one clueless pup, son ... LMAO ... totally clueless.

Easy to attack.. But seriously. How many GS tittles have you won?..

As for me, I like to give players credit where it is due.. As I have said on numerous occasions. I am not an Agassi fan. But I can appreciate him as a player..

Alot of you people make biased statements because it is obvious that you have a certain favourite player (in your case I am guessing Sampras).

Chadwixx
06-16-2007, 03:41 PM
Easy to attack.. But seriously. How many GS tittles have you won?..



If we all used this logic there would be no posts on this forum.

VikingSamurai
06-16-2007, 03:52 PM
I didnt mean that its easy for me to attack.. I was meaning that it is easy for other people to attack a players creds, because they want to boost the rating of their own favourite player.. Its called having an adgenda, and not actually adding anything constructive to a discussion....

fednad
07-05-2007, 02:10 AM
Here is what I have learned from you guys:

1) Agassi can beat Nadal because he has played the most players.

2) Becker is a S&V because he S&V on grass and indoor carpet.

3) Becker is a S&V because he dives for balls.

If you believe any of this, you have an IQ of about 60.

If you don't believe me, do this:




So, whom do you call a serve and volleyer.
somebody, who would run to the net even on clay court even when he is being passed consistently?
Becker's sticking to baseline on clay does not reduce him to a non serve and volleyer.
Answer like a person with decent IQ - don't ramble like a kid having toothache as you did in your last post

Big Fed
07-05-2007, 10:48 AM
6-7 3-6 7-5 7-6 6-2 Nadal Wins

clymb420
07-05-2007, 01:04 PM
I'm getting into this thread a little late...haven't read too much of the 11 pages...but, I think Agassi in his prime would have been extremely competitive with Nadal on clay and could even win a final with him in the field. Agassi would be able to pound away all day with Nadal, and would be able to step in and take those heavy spinning shots on the rise from either side. Agassi would also eat up Nadal's serve much more than Fed has been able to, and break him more often. I think all the great players from every generation would be able to be competitve with each other. I think Courier would be competive with Nadal as well, that's actually the match I love to see...Courier vs. Nadal in a French final.

anointedone
07-05-2007, 01:25 PM
Nadal would slaughter Agassi both in their primes on clay. It wouldnt even be close. Any of you clowns who believe otherwise are fools. When do you consider Agassi's prime anyway? It seems everyone has different versions, some say 1990-1995, some say 1999-2003, Whenever it was he isnt good enough.

In 1990 Agassi lost a French Open final to an aging Gomez who had never gotten past the quarters of a slam before that and who was 0-10 or something vs the king of tennis of his own time-Ivan Lendl. In 1991 Agassi lost to Courier in his first slam final, when it was Agassi's third, after going up 2 sets to 1, winning only 5 games in the last two sets. In 1992 Agassi was murdered by Courier in the semis, winning only 7 games. In 1993 Agassi did not play. In 1994 he went out in an early round to Muster. In 1995 he was straight setted out in the quarters by Kafelnikov.

Agassi won the French Open in 1999 with a really tough 4 set win over Hrbaty in the semis, then he got smoked in the first 2 sets of the final vs Medvedev before rallying for a hard fought 5 set win. Then in 2000 he goes out in an early round to Kucera. In 2001, 2002, and 2003 he loses in the quarters to Grosjean, Ferrero, and Coria.

Prime Agassi is not even in the same league as Nadal on clay, whenever you consider his prime. As for doing better then Federer, what makes you think that. Agassi does not move as well on any surface as Federer. Does not serve nearly as well either. Does not a putaway shot as extreme as the Federer forehand. On clay he would handle the high backhands better then Federer I agree. Agassi though would be lapped ever more in the mental department by Nadal, then Federer is. Federer may not have won the French Open but he is more consistent on clay then Agassi ever was and I hate Federer.

Nadal would jerk Agassi all over the place and run down anything Agassi could throw at him. Agassi would be begging for mercy by the end. Prime Agassi vs Nadal on clay, would like like old Agassi vs Nadal at Wimbledon last year for Agassi, at best.

clymb420
07-05-2007, 01:55 PM
Damn! You're right! Nadal would kick King Kong's ***, rip the heart out of Bruce Lee in his prime, and narrowly edge Bobby Fischer with his amazing mental powers.

rod99
07-05-2007, 02:41 PM
Nadal would slaughter Agassi both in their primes on clay. It wouldnt even be close. Any of you clowns who believe otherwise are fools. When do you consider Agassi's prime anyway? It seems everyone has different versions, some say 1990-1995, some say 1999-2003, Whenever it was he isnt good enough.

In 1990 Agassi lost a French Open final to an aging Gomez who had never gotten past the quarters of a slam before that and who was 0-10 or something vs the king of tennis of his own time-Ivan Lendl. In 1991 Agassi lost to Courier in his first slam final, when it was Agassi's third, after going up 2 sets to 1, winning only 5 games in the last two sets. In 1992 Agassi was murdered by Courier in the semis, winning only 7 games. In 1993 Agassi did not play. In 1994 he went out in an early round to Muster. In 1995 he was straight setted out in the quarters by Kafelnikov.

Agassi won the French Open in 1999 with a really tough 4 set win over Hrbaty in the semis, then he got smoked in the first 2 sets of the final vs Medvedev before rallying for a hard fought 5 set win. Then in 2000 he goes out in an early round to Kucera. In 2001, 2002, and 2003 he loses in the quarters to Grosjean, Ferrero, and Coria.

Prime Agassi is not even in the same league as Nadal on clay, whenever you consider his prime. As for doing better then Federer, what makes you think that. Agassi does not move as well on any surface as Federer. Does not serve nearly as well either. Does not a putaway shot as extreme as the Federer forehand. On clay he would handle the high backhands better then Federer I agree. Agassi though would be lapped ever more in the mental department by Nadal, then Federer is. Federer may not have won the French Open but he is more consistent on clay then Agassi ever was and I hate Federer.

Nadal would jerk Agassi all over the place and run down anything Agassi could throw at him. Agassi would be begging for mercy by the end. Prime Agassi vs Nadal on clay, would like like old Agassi vs Nadal at Wimbledon last year for Agassi, at best.

you're an idiot if you think your last sentence is true. total idiot. agassi when he was playing his best (he totally choked in 1990 and 1991, and got injured in 1995 early in his match vs. kafelnikov due to his hip and in 2000 vs. kucera due to blisters). i think nadal would have won more often than not on clay but it would have been competitive. agassi has a game that troubles nadal. he hits deep and flat and can penetrate nadal's forehand. the topspin wouldn't give him as much trouble b/c he is so strong.

anointedone
07-05-2007, 03:01 PM
you're an idiot if you think your last sentence is true. total idiot. agassi when he was playing his best (he totally choked in 1990 and 1991, and got injured in 1995 early in his match vs. kafelnikov due to his hip and in 2000 vs. kucera due to blisters). i think nadal would have won more often than not on clay but it would have been competitive. agassi has a game that troubles nadal. he hits deep and flat and can penetrate nadal's forehand. the topspin wouldn't give him as much trouble b/c he is so strong.

You are the idiot based on that stupid reasoning you come up with. You say Agassi choked vs a past-his-prime second tier player like Gomez, and vs Courier in his rookie slam final before he became the intimidating Courier of 92, yet you are defending his chances vs Nadal on clay when he even choked in 2 of his 3 French Open finals vs those guys? Apparently you have no idea how dumb an argument supposbly in Agassi's defence that is.

Since we are making excuses though his only French Open title came by an opponent choking in the final after dominating him in the early going, and yet another opponent of second tier quality (at best) for a slam final opponent.

Yeah Agassi has the game to trouble Nadal. On HARD COURTS. Not on clay. Federer's matches with Nadal on clay are tons better then Agassi could have ever given him. Agassi would probably tank the match before he played Nadal everytime after his first ever meeting with on clay since he would never want to go through with it again.

superman1
07-05-2007, 10:41 PM
Federer's matches with Nadal on clay are tons better then Agassi could have ever given him. Agassi would probably tank the match before he played Nadal everytime after his first ever meeting with on clay since he would never want to go through with it again.

You're full of bull*****. Your writing is decent enough, so it must be some other part of your brain that is underdeveloped.

Agassi didn't shank balls. Agassi didn't have an exposable backhand. Agassi was strong to hit ball above his shoulders. Agassi hit hard and flat to the corners and would have had Nadal working his @$$ off on every single point.

Would Nadal have won most of the time? Probably. But he would have had to work incredibly hard for it. I don't know of ANYONE who got past Agassi at his best without working very hard for it.

To say that Nadal would destroy prime Agassi on clay, but that Hewitt and Djokovic and Davydenko could pose Nadal serious problems on clay, is ABSURD.

I'm done.

anointedone
07-05-2007, 10:53 PM
You're full of bull*****. Your writing is decent enough, so it must be some other part of your brain that is underdeveloped.

Agassi didn't shank balls. Agassi didn't have an exposable backhand. Agassi was strong to hit ball above his shoulders. Agassi hit hard and flat to the corners and would have had Nadal working his @$$ off on every single point.

Would Nadal have won most of the time? Probably. But he would have had to work incredibly hard for it. I don't know of ANYONE who got past Agassi at his best without working very hard for it.

To say that Nadal would destroy prime Agassi on clay, but that Hewitt and Djokovic and Davydenko could pose Nadal serious problems on clay, is ABSURD.

I'm done.

Agassi have Nadal running his *** off on every single point on clay. ROTFL!!! He wasnt able to do that to old man Gomez, Courier, Bruguera, Muster, and Medvedev when he played them on clay even close to every single point, so how the hell would he do that vs Nadal. In fact when he played those guys on clay he was running his *** off much more then they were.

Hewitt gave Nadal serious problems on clay in 1 match out of 3. It was at an event Nadal was obviously fatigued and went down tamely 6-0 in the final set to Federer. Kind of beyond belief that your first loss in 81 matches on clay would be a bagel in the final set and barely moving, when you are known as the biggest fighter on tour. Most rational minded people would see a match in the late rounds of that event as not under normal circumstances, and that is the only time he gave Nadal a truly tough time on clay. Djokovic has definitely not given Nadal serious problems on clay in either their matches. What are you going to tell me the French Open semi was serious problems since there was one 7-5 set? Well if that is your cheap standards of serious problems then yeah maybe Agassi could then give Nadal what you consider serious problems on clay, but for most people it takes much more then one 7-5 set for it to be termed that.

Picture Nadal's only French Open title coming from behind after losing the first 2 sets to Andrei Medvedev 6-2, 6-1. Nah. Imagine Nadal losing a French Open final to Andres Gomez. When pigs fly. Imagine Nadal losing 3 straight years in the quarters to Sebastien Grosjean, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Guillermo Coria while ranked #1 or #2 in the World. Agassi on clay cant even hold Nadal's jockstrap. You Agassi fanboys are really a hoot. Actually arguing Agassi's chances vs Nadal on clay. Great entertainment value, keep it up to give the rest of the us a good laugh. :p

anointedone
07-05-2007, 11:12 PM
Lets look at Agassi vs some of the top clay courters of his time:

Agassi vs Bruguera on clay:

1989 Rome- Agassi defeats Bruguera 6-3, 6-4
1993 Barcelona-Bruguera defeats Agassi 6-3, 6-1
1995 Hamburg-Bruguera defeats Agassi 6-3, 6-1

Agassi vs Muster on clay:

1988 Rome - Agassi wins 6-4, 7-5
1990 Davis Cup semi- Muster wins 6-2 6-2 7-6
1994 French Open- Muster wins 6-3 6-7(5) 7-5 2-6 7-5

Agassi vs Courier on clay:

1988 Forest Hill- Agassi wins 3-6 6-3 7-5
1989 French Open- Courier wins 7-6 4-6 6-3 6-2
1990 French Open- Agassi wins 6-7 6-1 6-4 6-0
1991 French Open- Courier wins 3-6 6-4 2-6 6-1 6-4
1992 French Open- Courier wins 6-3 6-2 6-2

So vs the 3 best clay courters of his time, losing records to all of them. Contrast that to Nadal who loses to nobody on clay, never mind a losing head to head, doesnt even lose matches on it. Also notice some of the smackdowns.

Andre got 1 win over a green Bruguera in 1989 when Agassi was already a top player and Bruguera was not. The two times he played Bruguera in Bruguera's prime he was just blitzed, 6-3, 6-1 both times, major ouch. The second of those two was in 1995 as well, Agassi's career year along with 1999.

Also notice Courier being down 2 sets to 1 on Agassi in the 91 French final and still coming back to lose only 5 games the last 2 sets. Imagine Nadal letting an opponent made a rugmat of him being 1 set from victory like that, LOL! Then look at the smackdown Courier gives Agassi in the 92 French semis, 6-3, 6-2, 6-2, again major ouch. Agassi's prime? Well since he won his only Wimbledon just after being in the semis of the French that pretty much answers that for itself. Also losing to the same player, even if it is one as good as Courier, at the French Open 3 times in 4 years. Yeah even try imagining Nadal doing that at the French Open to anyone, short of maybe Borg in his prime, without falling off your chair with laughter.

This whole topic is so ridiculous I am getting a good laugh while typing this and really it is so easy to mock its ridiculousness and those few fanboys deluded enough to actually defend it. Really it a blast.

NadalandFedererfan
11-04-2008, 04:59 PM
Haha this thread is hilarious. When pigs fly would that happen.

matchmaker
11-04-2008, 05:59 PM
Lets look at Agassi vs some of the top clay courters of his time:

Agassi vs Bruguera on clay:

1989 Rome- Agassi defeats Bruguera 6-3, 6-4
1993 Barcelona-Bruguera defeats Agassi 6-3, 6-1
1995 Hamburg-Bruguera defeats Agassi 6-3, 6-1

Agassi vs Muster on clay:

1988 Rome - Agassi wins 6-4, 7-5
1990 Davis Cup semi- Muster wins 6-2 6-2 7-6
1994 French Open- Muster wins 6-3 6-7(5) 7-5 2-6 7-5

Agassi vs Courier on clay:

1988 Forest Hill- Agassi wins 3-6 6-3 7-5
1989 French Open- Courier wins 7-6 4-6 6-3 6-2
1990 French Open- Agassi wins 6-7 6-1 6-4 6-0
1991 French Open- Courier wins 3-6 6-4 2-6 6-1 6-4
1992 French Open- Courier wins 6-3 6-2 6-2

So vs the 3 best clay courters of his time, losing records to all of them. Contrast that to Nadal who loses to nobody on clay, never mind a losing head to head, doesnt even lose matches on it. Also notice some of the smackdowns.

Andre got 1 win over a green Bruguera in 1989 when Agassi was already a top player and Bruguera was not. The two times he played Bruguera in Bruguera's prime he was just blitzed, 6-3, 6-1 both times, major ouch. The second of those two was in 1995 as well, Agassi's career year along with 1999.

Also notice Courier being down 2 sets to 1 on Agassi in the 91 French final and still coming back to lose only 5 games the last 2 sets. Imagine Nadal letting an opponent made a rugmat of him being 1 set from victory like that, LOL! Then look at the smackdown Courier gives Agassi in the 92 French semis, 6-3, 6-2, 6-2, again major ouch. Agassi's prime? Well since he won his only Wimbledon just after being in the semis of the French that pretty much answers that for itself. Also losing to the same player, even if it is one as good as Courier, at the French Open 3 times in 4 years. Yeah even try imagining Nadal doing that at the French Open to anyone, short of maybe Borg in his prime, without falling off your chair with laughter.

This whole topic is so ridiculous I am getting a good laugh while typing this and really it is so easy to mock its ridiculousness and those few fanboys deluded enough to actually defend it. Really it a blast.

Nice post, backed up with stats. I fully agree. This thread is ridiculous.

persondudething
11-04-2008, 07:12 PM
He wouldn't have even beaten Fed on clay ;)

but agassi has everything that a bunch of people on this board say federer needs to beat nadal. a strong twohander and a larger head racquet!:twisted:

crazylevity
11-04-2008, 09:47 PM
^^ But Agassi's clay footwork can be compared to Sharapova's; his footwork on clay and hardcourt has no difference.

Morrissey
11-04-2008, 09:52 PM
Agassi would have as much a chance as McCain did of winning tonight.

veritech
11-04-2008, 09:58 PM
Agassi would have as much a chance as McCain did of winning tonight.

so the score would be a landslide, but the actual points would be a lot closer...

msc886
11-04-2008, 10:10 PM
Agassi will have trouble beating Federer on clay let alone Nadal.

paulorenzo
11-04-2008, 10:17 PM
Agassi will have trouble beating Federer on clay let alone Nadal.

yep. on clay.

Cenc
11-05-2008, 06:17 AM
well imo nadal from 08 is the best claycourter ever
however he would have far more troubles defeating agassi than bruguera or berasategui
because of top spins of course
agassi wouldnt have as much problems as federer with nadals top spin so agassi would be tough opponent for nadal
however imo by far the toughest opponent nadal could get on clay would be chang

tennis-hero
11-05-2008, 06:32 AM
Agassi might take a set

he wouldn't get destroyed, well i don't think so

i always believed someone with an excellent backhand could give Rafa trouble- Agassi's was amongst the best

this is clay though, so Agassi wouldn't beat Rafa on the dirt

on Hard he'd win though

tennis-hero
11-05-2008, 06:37 AM
Federer may not have won the French Open but he is more consistent on clay then Agassi ever was and I hate Federer.



OMG

how very very surprising

no one would have realized :roll: :rolleyes:

thalivest
11-05-2008, 03:23 PM
you're an idiot if you think your last sentence is true. total idiot. agassi when he was playing his best (he totally choked in 1990 and 1991, and got injured in 1995 early in his match vs. kafelnikov due to his hip and in 2000 vs. kucera due to blisters). i think nadal would have won more often than not on clay but it would have been competitive. agassi has a game that troubles nadal. he hits deep and flat and can penetrate nadal's forehand. the topspin wouldn't give him as much trouble b/c he is so strong.

So in other words Agassi was this amazing stupendous clay courter but never showed it since there was always an excuse: he choked, was injured, he had blisters, or something else. I got you. :rolleyes:

If one wants to go into the process of excuses lets look at all that had to happen for Agassi to win his lone French Open.

kungfusmkim
11-05-2008, 03:25 PM
maybe i think he can win if his having a good day. If Agassi got on top of Nadals serve inside the baseline and went for the corners maybe

thalivest
11-05-2008, 03:29 PM
maybe i think he can win if his having a good day. If Agassi got on top of Nadals serve inside the baseline and went for the corners maybe

Maybe on an amazing day he could do that for a set. No way would he have been consistent enough on clay to do that for a whole match. He could not attack off the ground with enough consistency to hardly ever win vs the top clay courters of his own day, let alone a historically great one like Nadal. Agassi also doesnt move well enough on the surface, he doesnt slide all that well, and his defence is far from amazing which is needed on clay. He also doesnt hit the ball with enough topspin for clay.

To be honest I think Federer is a better clay courter then Agassi and has given Nadal much more battle on clay then Agassi would have been able to. Federer has taken a set off of Nadal almost every time they played on clay, Agassi would only be able to get a set once in awhile.

kungfusmkim
11-05-2008, 03:32 PM
if Serena Williams was a man and she had that pounding return aces she had during 2001- 2003 she could take on nadal lol..

NamRanger
11-05-2008, 03:34 PM
Maybe on an amazing day he could do that for a set. No way would he have been consistent enough on clay to do that for a whole match. He could not attack off the ground with enough consistency to hardly ever win vs the top clay courters of his own day, let alone a historically great one like Nadal. Agassi also doesnt move well enough on the surface, he doesnt slide all that well, and his defence is far from amazing which is needed on clay. He also doesnt hit the ball with enough topspin for clay.

To be honest I think Federer is a better clay courter then Agassi and has given Nadal much more battle on clay then Agassi would have been able to. Federer has taken a set off of Nadal almost every time they played on clay, Agassi would only be able to get a set once in awhile.


I don't know about that. Agassi at his very best probably would play Nadal harder then Federer, simply because he controls the center of the court better then Federer does. Combine 1995 Agassi with 2000 era Tactics, and Agassi I think would do better.


Agassi has a more solid backhand, and didn't need to move well since he could read the ball extremely well and took it on the rise the majority of the time. His return game is not weak, and is an aggressive one, and he does use his serve effectively.

FitzRoy
11-05-2008, 03:37 PM
I'd have to say that Federer seems like a superior clay-courter than Agassi. I know, I know, Roger has yet to win the French. Still. Just watching the tennis that they play, Federer seems better to me on the surface.

I do not at all think Agassi would beat Nadal at the French.

NamRanger
11-05-2008, 03:59 PM
I'd have to say that Federer seems like a superior clay-courter than Agassi. I know, I know, Roger has yet to win the French. Still. Just watching the tennis that they play, Federer seems better to me on the surface.

I do not at all think Agassi would beat Nadal at the French.


I think he would play Nadal better though, not because Agassi is a better clay court player than Federer, but simply because Agassi matches up better then Federer.


Agassi is willing to grind, hits many of the balls on the rise which neutralizes spin, attacks serves very well (Nadal has a relatively mediocre to weak serve), and is a master tactician. Also, he does not suffer the weakness of an inconsistent backhand as Federer does.

The-Champ
11-05-2008, 05:34 PM
Agassi would probably win 60 60 60. Why? He serves extremely well and he has the greatest return. Every return would be a winner against Nadal. Nadal wouldn't be able to track down those powerful fh and bh that Andre can generate, because Rafa's footwork is the worst ever. Clearly Andre was the greatest mover ever on clay, so everything Rafa throws at him would be sent back with interest. Those losses Andre had on clay were mainly due to ilness. Andre was undoubtedly the greatest clay courter ever. I'm a Rafa fan, and I'm willing to admit this!

Darth Nihilus
11-05-2008, 05:54 PM
Nah. Nadalīs defense, topspin and angles would prove too much for Agassi. Andre was never an effective player when he had to be moved away from the middle of the court. Federer has better defense and I believe he controls the middle of the court as good if not better than Agassi. Agassiīs flat game would not do anything vs Nadal on clay. Federer has the best game, but not the mental endurance to beat Nadal in a best of 5 in clay.

thalivest
11-05-2008, 06:05 PM
if Serena Williams was a man and she had that pounding return aces she had during 2001- 2003 she could take on nadal lol..

Serena isnt even the best women clay courter. Justine Henin is better by far. 4-1 vs Serena lifetime on clay, 4-1 over Serena in French Open titles.

NamRanger
11-05-2008, 06:13 PM
Nah. Nadalīs defense, topspin and angles would prove too much for Agassi. Andre was never an effective player when he had to be moved away from the middle of the court. Federer has better defense and I believe he controls the middle of the court as good if not better than Agassi. Agassiīs flat game would not do anything vs Nadal on clay. Federer has the best game, but not the mental endurance to beat Nadal in a best of 5 in clay.


Definitely no. Federer goes for too much and his backhand is too big of a liability against Nadal, even with the improvements he made in 2006 and his incredible movement.


Agassi took the ball earlier better then Federer off BOTH sides. Federer is not good at taking the ball early with his backhand. Agassi is a capable mover, not a great one, but good enough to be a great base liner. I mean, this guy isn't a slouch on clay, he beat a prime Moya enroute to his FO title, who was also an extremely good player in his own right.


Agassi would not have to cover as much court, as he knows how to cut off balls, sees them better, hits cleaner, and is much more consistent. His game in his "second" prime was mainly based on consistency and grinding his opponent out, with the occasional winner thrown in. Give him his physical prime body with his tactics, and Agassi definitely could give Nadal a tougher match then Federer ever could IMO.


It simply comes down to this. Federer's backhand is that big of a liability against Nadal on clay, and Agassi's isn't. Sure, Agassi's movement CAN be exposed, but it's not like it can't be done. I mean, heck, PHM was giving Nadal the match of his life, and PHM is DEFINITELY not a good mover.

thalivest
11-05-2008, 06:17 PM
I don't know about that. Agassi at his very best probably would play Nadal harder then Federer, simply because he controls the center of the court better then Federer does. Combine 1995 Agassi with 2000 era Tactics, and Agassi I think would do better.


The problem is you are using a hypothetical of combining the best of a 1995 Agassi and a 2000 Agassi. That Agassi never existed which is why you are using that hypothetical. Since the things he didnt get until he was alot older was when he lost alot of the things because he was too old. If we are talking about what Agassi could have done, it had to be the best Agassi that ever existed (whenever that was), not a combination of the best of Agassi at various points in time that never all came together at once in reality.

NamRanger
11-05-2008, 06:20 PM
The problem is you are using a hypothetical of combining the best of a 1995 Agassi and a 2000 Agassi. That Agassi never existed which is why you are using that hypothetical. Since the things he didnt get until he was alot older was when he lost alot of the things because he was too old. If we are talking about what Agassi could have done, it had to be the best Agassi that ever existed (whenever that was), not a combination of the best of Agassi at various points in time that never all came together at once in reality.


Well, that's true. But even if we put together the best of Federer hypothetically, I don't think he could beat Nadal at all. However, I think the best possible Agassi might have a sliver of a chance against Nadal simply because of how well he matches up with Nadal.

thalivest
11-05-2008, 06:22 PM
Well, that's true. But even if we put together the best of Federer hypothetically, I don't think he could beat Nadal at all. However, I think the best possible Agassi might have a sliver of a chance against Nadal simply because of how well he matches up with Nadal.

Just curious who from the 90s would you think is most similar to Nadal style wise. Of course ability wise they are probably weaker, but style wise who do you think would be most like Nadal. Muster or someone else perhaps. Someone Agassi played on clay more then once preferably too.

Atleast with Agassi we can speculate. We do know Federer cant ever beat Nadal at the French. If he were going to he would have done it in either 2005-2006. At this point Nadal is out of Federers reach on clay.

NamRanger
11-05-2008, 08:47 PM
Just curious who from the 90s would you think is most similar to Nadal style wise. Of course ability wise they are probably weaker, but style wise who do you think would be most like Nadal. Muster or someone else perhaps. Someone Agassi played on clay more then once preferably too.

Atleast with Agassi we can speculate. We do know Federer cant ever beat Nadal at the French. If he were going to he would have done it in either 2005-2006. At this point Nadal is out of Federers reach on clay.



Well, if I had to pick, I'd probably pick the right handed version of Nadal, Carlos Moya. This guy was an incredible defender on the clay, and had one of the nastiest and vicious forehands during his short prime. Very crafty player, and although he did have abit more power on his forehand, he still relied heavily on the spin when he played on clay. He was abit more offensive minded though.



Berasategui comes to mind. Also Brugrera. These are probably the closest you get. Muster may be one, but he was more of a junk baller, while Nadal is a court controller.



It would have to be Agassi's 1995 body with his 2000 era tactics put together, along with the best returning he's ever done in his life. The reason why I think Agassi would do better is because he would be able to break, something Federer cannot do against Nadal on clay for whatever reason. It is important to be able to break Nadal, as he's bound to break you on clay, no matter how well you serve. Also Agassi's backhand would hold up against the barrage of Nadal's forehand, and even though he won't do much damage with it, at least he stays alive unlike Federer. Agassi would have to do most of the damage with his forehand, which can get erratic at times, but he's pretty much forced to.

Cenc
11-06-2008, 07:04 AM
Agassi would probably win 60 60 60. Why? He serves extremely well and he has the greatest return. Every return would be a winner against Nadal. Nadal wouldn't be able to track down those powerful fh and bh that Andre can generate, because Rafa's footwork is the worst ever. Clearly Andre was the greatest mover ever on clay, so everything Rafa throws at him would be sent back with interest. Those losses Andre had on clay were mainly due to ilness. Andre was undoubtedly the greatest clay courter ever. I'm a Rafa fan, and I'm willing to admit this!

you are just nervous

Gorecki
11-06-2008, 08:07 AM
No. I think he would have been straight-setted ... by Federer on grass.

i just dont know where to start to tear down such Ludicrous post...

but i would love to see you question his best results in against the best REAL grass players:
1993 Wimbledon Q Sampras 6-2 6-2 3-6 3-6 6-4 (5 Sets)
1999 Wimbledon F Sampras 6-3 6-4 7-5 (3 sets)
S Rafter, Patrick (AUS) 10 6-2 3-6 6-3 2-6 6-8
S Rafter, Patrick (AUS) 21 5-7 6-4 5-7 6-4 3-6
S Becker, Boris (GER) 4 6-2 6-7(1) 4-6 6-7(1)

JoshDragon
11-06-2008, 09:30 AM
Agassi, wouldn't have stood a chance against Nadal. Clay requires an incredible amount of stamina and speed. Even in his prime Agassi was nowhere near as quick as Nadal.