PDA

View Full Version : Is Agassi the greatest ALL-COURT(surface) player?


Azzurri
05-13-2009, 10:36 AM
There has been some discussion about GOAT lately and I thought about the GOAT of the surfaces...Agassi is my pick.

tudwell
05-13-2009, 10:38 AM
1) That's not what all-court means.
2) Not a shot in hell.

drakulie
05-13-2009, 10:39 AM
^^read the title (in it's entirety), then respond accordingly.

BTW, my answer is yes.

batz
05-13-2009, 10:40 AM
There has been some discussion about GOAT lately and I thought about the GOAT of the surfaces...Agassi is my pick.

Once Rafa does his career (calendar?!) slam then he will be GOATotS. Until then I'd go with Andre.

Zaragoza
05-13-2009, 10:40 AM
I don't think so, he won 6 out of his 8 majors on hardcourts.
I consider Federer and Nadal more complete all-court players than him.

tudwell
05-13-2009, 10:43 AM
^^read the title (in it's entirety), then respond accordingly.

BTW, my answer is yes.

I did read the title. I just think it can get rather confusing if we start using all-court to mean both all parts of the court AND all surfaces, so I'd rather keep it simple and use it only with the former.

batz
05-13-2009, 10:43 AM
I don't think so, he won 6 out of his 8 majors on hardcourts.
I consider Federer and Nadal more complete all-court players than him.


How can you go for Roger when he hasn't won the French? Surely one of the pre-reqs for GOATotS is having won slams on all surfaces?:confused:

Stchamps
05-13-2009, 10:47 AM
How can you go for Roger when he hasn't won the French? Surely one of the pre-reqs for GOATotS is having won slams on all surfaces?:confused:

Do you honestly think andre would have beaten nadal at the french open?

Dilettante
05-13-2009, 10:47 AM
1) That's not what all-court means.

My English is very bad, but I wonder: what is usually called "all-court game", shouldn't better be called "whole-court game", for example?

I know I'm probably wrong, though.

Chadwixx
05-13-2009, 10:50 AM
All court players know how to volley, agassi makes roddick look like edberg.

All surface probably not, but all court def no.

Agassi wasnt very good on clay vs good clay courters. I remember when coria made him look like a club player at the FO.

tudwell
05-13-2009, 10:53 AM
My English is very bad, but I wonder: what is usually called "all-court game", shouldn't better be called "whole-court game", for example?

I know I'm probably wrong, though.

I don't think you're wrong at all. "Whole-court game" is more specific. As is apparent from this thread title, when people see "all-court game" they think either "all of the court" or "all types of court". "Whole-court game" doesn't have that ambiguity.

Traditionally, however, I've always heard "all-court game" used to refer to a game that uses all parts of the court with proficiency (and in about equal quantities).

Dilettante
05-13-2009, 10:55 AM
I don't think you're wrong at all. "Whole-court game" is more specific. As is apparent from this thread title, when people see "all-court game" they think either "all of the court" or "all types of court". "Whole-court game" doesn't have that ambiguity.

Traditionally, however, I've always heard "all-court game" used to refer to a game that uses all parts of the court with proficiency (and in about equal quantities).

OK, thanks for the explanation. I was just wondering. This board helps me with my English, no doubt.

Bud
05-13-2009, 10:56 AM
There has been some discussion about GOAT lately and I thought about the GOAT of the surfaces...Agassi is my pick.

^^read the title (in it's entirety), then respond accordingly.

BTW, my answer is yes.

I'd have to say it's a toss up between Agassi and Connors... I'd like to hear some additional evidence prior to rendering my decision :-D

fedtastic
05-13-2009, 10:57 AM
I would say no. But he is in the top 4 list

Greatest All Surfaces player
1)Roger Federer (has won US open,Australian Open,Wimbldon multiple times, Three consecutive fench open finals where he had to face the GOAT of clay) not bad i say. :wink:

2)Rafael Nadal (Has won one grand slam at least on all three surfaces, needs to win multiple hardcourt and wimbledons to move ahead of Federer and I think he will but I might be wrong. I have included him because what I believe he will acheive in the future)

3)Andre Agassi (No 3 is where he belongs on this list. He won wimbledon and french only once each and he beat a nobody Medvedev in the final. Note that was Medvedev's only GS final ever. Medvedev = Tsonga. I wish Federer faced such a guy in FO final instead of NADAL)

4)Ivan Lendl (won multiple slams on clay and hardcourts of AO and USO. Reached two wimbledon finals as well, which is a testament to his greatness. Really unlucky not to win wimbledon)

I don't care about weak era bullcr*p. Thank you

Azzurri
05-13-2009, 11:00 AM
I did read the title. I just think it can get rather confusing if we start using all-court to mean both all parts of the court AND all surfaces, so I'd rather keep it simple and use it only with the former.

Tud, you are confusing all-around with all-court. the key term is COURT as in SURFACES...you seem to be quite confused. I even input the "surface" as a clue..but don't worry...now why don't you give us your opinion.

drakulie
05-13-2009, 11:00 AM
I don't think so, he won 6 out of his 8 majors on hardcourts.
I consider Federer and Nadal more complete all-court players than him.

How can you go for Nadal when he hasn't won the US Open? Surely one of the pre-reqs for GOATotS is having won all 4 slams?:confused:

sphinx780
05-13-2009, 11:00 AM
Agassi was my idol growing up. I would still say both Fed and Nadal trump him as the greatest all-surface players. Yes, Fed doesn't have the FO title and it's looking increasingly tough to get one...but how many FO finals did he play? How many other Clay tournaments did Fed win compared to Agassi?

I have to say that if Nadal takes another hard or grass slam title, then he'd trump agassi too because it would show to me that he could win slams on any surface consistently.

IMHO of course.

Azzurri
05-13-2009, 11:02 AM
Once Rafa does his career (calendar?!) slam then he will be GOATotS. Until then I'd go with Andre.

I would give Rafa the nod if he wins a few USO's or AO's (another words win both at least twice). You see, I still think the amount of titles Agassi has won on different surfaces still looks pretty good.

Dilettante
05-13-2009, 11:02 AM
How can you go for Roger when he hasn't won the French? Surely one of the pre-reqs for GOATotS is having won slams on all surfaces?:confused:

Federer has made three consecutive FO finals and one semi and always lost to one of the greatest claycourters ever, if not the best.
That's something to take in consideration.

I admire Agassi a lot as a player, he was great, I loved his game, but honestly I don't think he was nowhere near Federer on clay. Even if he won a FO and Fed didn't.

Azzurri
05-13-2009, 11:03 AM
How can you go for Roger when he hasn't won the French? Surely one of the pre-reqs for GOATotS is having won slams on all surfaces?:confused:

I could see if Agassi was a one hit wonder like Gomez, but the guy made 3 finals at RG..I don't see how Fed is a better clay-court player.

All-rounder
05-13-2009, 11:04 AM
How can you go for Roger when he hasn't won the French? Surely one of the pre-reqs for GOATotS is having won slams on all surfaces?:confused:
Yes you have a point but have prime agassi up against nadal or federer then its a different story

deltox
05-13-2009, 11:05 AM
andre may well be the best well rounded player of all time, the most athletic player of all time, and possibly the best conditioned champion of all time considering their entire careers, with the best work ethic, but any and all of those are arguable.


agassi is by far the most respected player of all time by myself, but he was to erradic thruout his career to sustain top notch rankings.

deltox
05-13-2009, 11:06 AM
Yes you have a point but have prime agassi up against nadal or federer then its a different story

agassi vs nadal on any surface but clay would be more than awesome, and agassi v federer on any surface would be awesome of course using prime career moments for comparison.

Cyan
05-13-2009, 11:07 AM
There has been some discussion about GOAT lately and I thought about the GOAT of the surfaces...Agassi is my pick.

Yup. Only player to win slams on all four surfaces: slow HC AO, fast HC USO, grass Wimby and clay FO. Plus the Olympic Gold medal in singles plus Davis Cup. He was truly awesome.:)

Dilettante
05-13-2009, 11:08 AM
I could see if Agassi was a one hit wonder like Gomez, but the guy made 3 finals at RG..I don't see how Fed is a better clay-court player.

Besides Courier, Agassi faced Medvedev (sp?) and Gomez, isn't it?

But Federer has faced Rafael Nadal four times in a row.

drakulie
05-13-2009, 11:08 AM
Agassi was my idol growing up. I would still say both Fed and Nadal trump him as the greatest all-surface players. Yes, Fed doesn't have the FO title and it's looking increasingly tough to get one...but how many FO finals did he play? How many other Clay tournaments did Fed win compared to Agassi?

I have to say that if Nadal takes another hard or grass slam title, then he'd trump agassi too because it would show to me that he could win slams on any surface consistently.

IMHO of course.

nadal has yet to play in a final of a fast hard court slam. (Us OPen)

drakulie
05-13-2009, 11:10 AM
Besides Courier, Agassi faced Medvedev (sp?) and Gomez, isn't it?

But Federer has faced Rafael Nadal four times in a row.

and who has nadal faced???

Puerta????

federer 4 times??????

Azzurri
05-13-2009, 11:11 AM
All court players know how to volley, agassi makes roddick look like edberg.

All surface probably not, but all court def no.

Agassi wasnt very good on clay vs good clay courters. I remember when coria made him look like a club player at the FO.

LOL..just curious, how many FO finals did Coria win?

Besides Agassi's 3 FO fianls, he made 2 SF and 4 QF appearances in a very good clay era...do you know what you are talking about?

Coria made a F and SF...so what? So a guy that has 9 QF or better in the FO and won 7 clay titles in his career is not very good on clay(even vs. good clay courters..what does that even mean??)?

I know you are a bit clueless, but man you are way off on this....all-court is COURT..like the surfaces. All-around is the game..volley, passing shot, etc...a passing shot or overhead or even a volley is not a COURT!!!! man, you are way, way off.

tudwell
05-13-2009, 11:11 AM
Yup. Only player to win slams on all four surfaces: slow HC AO, fast HC USO, grass Wimby and clay FO. Plus the Olympic Gold medal in singles plus Davis Cup. He was truly awesome.:)

Wilander won the Australian Open twice on grass and once on Rebound Ace. He won the French Open three times and the U.S. Open once. That's all four surfaces (although I usually consider the Rebound Ace to be a type of hardcourt - and thus, only three surfaces).

Dilettante
05-13-2009, 11:13 AM
and who has nadal faced???

Puerta????

federer 4 times??????

Exactly. What's your point?

Azzurri
05-13-2009, 11:13 AM
I don't think you're wrong at all. "Whole-court game" is more specific. As is apparent from this thread title, when people see "all-court game" they think either "all of the court" or "all types of court". "Whole-court game" doesn't have that ambiguity.

Traditionally, however, I've always heard "all-court game" used to refer to a game that uses all parts of the court with proficiency (and in about equal quantities).

tradition is wrong then..so what is a passing shot? an overhead? a serve? is this an all-court game????? not everything you hear Mary Carillo say is correct...man.

Azzurri
05-13-2009, 11:14 AM
I would say no. But he is in the top 4 list

Greatest All Surfaces player
1)Roger Federer (has won US open,Australian Open,Wimbldon multiple times, Three consecutive fench open finals where he had to face the GOAT of clay) not bad i say. :wink:

2)Rafael Nadal (Has won one grand slam at least on all three surfaces, needs to win multiple hardcourt and wimbledons to move ahead of Federer and I think he will but I might be wrong. I have included him because what I believe he will acheive in the future)

3)Andre Agassi (No 3 is where he belongs on this list. He won wimbledon and french only once each and he beat a nobody Medvedev in the final. Note that was Medvedev's only GS final ever. Medvedev = Tsonga. I wish Federer faced such a guy in FO final instead of NADAL)

4)Ivan Lendl (won multiple slams on clay and hardcourts of AO and USO. Reached two wimbledon finals as well, which is a testament to his greatness. Really unlucky not to win wimbledon)

I don't care about weak era bullcr*p. Thank you

Were you born after 1990??

Cyan
05-13-2009, 11:15 AM
Wilander won the Australian Open twice on grass and once on Rebound Ace. He won the French Open three times and the U.S. Open once. That's all four surfaces (although I usually consider the Rebound Ace to be a type of hardcourt - and thus, only three surfaces).

He never won wimby:-? Wimby has always been the grass slam, just ask Borg...

Cyan
05-13-2009, 11:16 AM
Oh and also Agassi won more Masters Series than anyone. And used to have the most awesome look in tennis back in the early 90s. I could go on about why Agassi was so special.

sphinx780
05-13-2009, 11:16 AM
nadal has yet to play in a final of a fast hard court slam. (Us OPen)

I hear you and agree that if he can't round that corner then the nadal argument loses a lot of luster. Even though it's the end of the year and Nadal's knees seem to break down by then, I could see him turn that corner...couple that with one more of the 3 outside of RG, I'd have to give him the nod over Andre.

Azzurri
05-13-2009, 11:16 AM
Besides Courier, Agassi faced Medvedev (sp?) and Gomez, isn't it?

But Federer has faced Rafael Nadal four times in a row.

and what does that tell you? its common knowledge that the 90's had a lot of good-very good clay court players. Today is not indicative because look who Nadal has won 3/4 FO against...Federer..I just don't think the players of today are that good on the clay. Show me 3-4 players that are consistently in the SF at the FO over the past 3-4 years?

tudwell
05-13-2009, 11:16 AM
tradition is wrong then..so what is a passing shot? an overhead? a serve? is this an all-court game????? not everything you hear Mary Carillo say is correct...man.

Hey, feel free to use the term "all-court" however you want. But I prefer not to confuse my readers, so I'll stick with the traditional meaning.

drakulie
05-13-2009, 11:18 AM
Exactly. What's your point?

same as yours.

tudwell
05-13-2009, 11:18 AM
He never won wimby:-? Wimby has always been the grass slam, just ask Borg...

He never won Wimbledon, but he won two slams on grass (which is one more than Agassi). Whether or not the Australian is/was as prestigious as Wimbledon, you can't argue with the fact that Wilander won on all "four" surfaces before Agassi did.

Azzurri
05-13-2009, 11:19 AM
Wilander won the Australian Open twice on grass and once on Rebound Ace. He won the French Open three times and the U.S. Open once. That's all four surfaces (although I usually consider the Rebound Ace to be a type of hardcourt - and thus, only three surfaces).

sorry, but the AO on grass is not winning Wimbledon. I guess you did not notice that; Wilander never made it past the QF of any Wimbledon, so comparing AO grass to W is not appropriate.

Cyan
05-13-2009, 11:21 AM
I'd have to say it's a toss up between Agassi and Connors... I'd like to hear some additional evidence prior to rendering my decision :-D

But Connors won on Har-tru not true slower red clay like Agassi.

Dilettante
05-13-2009, 11:21 AM
and what does that tell you? its common knowledge that the 90's had a lot of good-very good clay court players. Today is not indicative because look who Nadal has won 3/4 FO against...Federer..I just don't think the players of today are that good on the clay. Show me 3-4 players that are consistently in the SF at the FO over the past 3-4 years?

Any people with some trace of tennis understanding, knows that besides your head-to-head statistics, Rafael Nadal has an extraordinary powerful claycourt game. Something that goes beyond the simple H2H analysis. He has all the tools and weapons that a claycourt player could dream of. All of them. He's only comparable to Borg. He something like the ultimate claycourt specialist.

That is what Federer faced four times at the FO.

If you don't see this, then we have nothing to discuss here.

tudwell
05-13-2009, 11:23 AM
sorry, but the AO on grass is not winning Wimbledon. I guess you did not notice that; Wilander never made it past the QF of any Wimbledon, so comparing AO grass to W is not appropriate.

I never said he won Wimbledon. Surfaces are surfaces. Grass is grass. Wilander won on all "four". I don't understand what you find objectionable about that statement.

BHud
05-13-2009, 11:23 AM
1) That's not what all-court means.
2) Not a shot in hell.
Great insight "turdwell"! Thanks for the contribution.

sphinx780
05-13-2009, 11:24 AM
Where would people put Connors in this mix? He's got major titles on grass/clay/hard...

crazylevity
05-13-2009, 11:25 AM
Hey, feel free to use the term "all-court" however you want. But I prefer not to confuse my readers, so I'll stick with the traditional meaning.

Hear, hear. Conventionally, tennis writers seem to prefer the term 'all-surface' player.

Cesc Fabregas
05-13-2009, 11:27 AM
What about Borg? I know he didn't win the USO but he made loads of finals there and has titles indoors, outdoor hardcourts, 5 Wimbledons in a row and is considered the best clay courter ever.

fedtastic
05-13-2009, 11:27 AM
Were you born after 1990??

No. I was born in the 80s. yeah Baby.

If you don't agree with my list, thats fine. It's only my opinion.

tudwell
05-13-2009, 11:29 AM
Great insight "turdwell"! Thanks for the contribution.

All right, maybe "Not a shot in hell" was a little harsh. But Agassi won 6 slams on hard, 1 on grass, and 1 on clay. That doesn't look like his game is equally dominant on every surface. He looks like primarily a hard-court player (which he was). He was talented enough to win on all surfaces, but look, for example, at Wilander, who I've been talking about in my last few posts. He won twice on grass, twice on hardcourt, and three times on clay. That looks a bit more consistent across the surfaces to me (though less overall achievement). Also, consider this statistic: Rod Laver won double digit titles (i.e. at least 10) on all of the following surfaces: grass, clay, wood, carpet, and hardcourt. That's 5 completely different surfaces. Pretty impressive, I think, regarding surfaces.

380pistol
05-13-2009, 11:31 AM
There has been some discussion about GOAT lately and I thought about the GOAT of the surfaces...Agassi is my pick.

It's possible. Take Borg (who only won slams on 2 surfaces) or Sampras/Federer (3 of 4). That leaves them all behind Agassi in that regard, as they never accomlished that.

But I'd take Borg over Agassi on clay and grass. Maybe Agassi on hard. I'd take Sampras on 3 of 4 surfaces (incl. carpet, but not on clay) over Dre. But that's just factoring the sum of their parts so to speak. He was never as dominant on one particular surface as others, but he didn't have a surface that was thorn in his side as many others have had.

But like I said if going by what each was able to produce on every surface overall (generally), then Agassi may very well be it.

drakulie
05-13-2009, 11:36 AM
Agassi:

AO- 4 wins. quarters or better 7 times.

French- 1 win. quarters or better 9 times, including 3 finals.

Wimbledon- 1 win. quarters or better 7 times, including 2 finals.

US- 2 wins. quarters or better 13 times, including 6 finals.


When you momos get your tongues out of Nadal's behind, let me know.

Cyan
05-13-2009, 11:40 AM
All right, maybe "Not a shot in hell" was a little harsh. But Agassi won 6 slams on hard, 1 on grass, and 1 on clay. That doesn't look like his game is equally dominant on every surface. He looks like primarily a hard-court player (which he was). He was talented enough to win on all surfaces, but look, for example, at Wilander, who I've been talking about in my last few posts. He won twice on grass, twice on hardcourt, and three times on clay. That looks a bit more consistent across the surfaces to me (though less overall achievement). Also, consider this statistic: Rod Laver won double digit titles (i.e. at least 10) on all of the following surfaces: grass, clay, wood, carpet, and hardcourt. That's 5 completely different surfaces. Pretty impressive, I think, regarding surfaces.

Laver is the GOAT for sure.

sphinx780
05-13-2009, 11:44 AM
Agassi:

AO- 4 wins. quarters or better 7 times.

French- 1 win. quarters or better 9 times, including 3 finals.

Wimbledon- 1 win. quarters or better 7 times, including 2 finals.

US- 2 wins. quarters or better 13 times, including 6 finals.


When you momos get your tongues out of Nadal's behind, let me know.

Since Agassi's career is over and Nadal is 23 in a month...should we compare where Agassi was at 23 with all those results? I wouldn't consider Nadal better now but after his career is over, there is potential. Granted, potential is everything and nothing in tennis so only time will tell.

jms007
05-13-2009, 11:46 AM
I'd say Federer is. For now.

tonyg11
05-13-2009, 12:29 PM
I give it to Andre

He actually had to play on 4 different surfaces. Back in the day when grass was fast and slick, clay was slow and heavy, and the Australian open hard courts played slower and bouncier than the US open. Something that players now a days don’t have to deal with.

Not to mention his competition was different. He has to play clay court specialists on clay, serve on volley players on grass and a a mix of both on hardcourts. Now players play the same on all surfaces.

GameSampras
05-13-2009, 01:15 PM
Hell yea Andre is. A solid grass courter, great slow hardcourt player, great fast hardcourt player, good indoor court player and a very solid clay courter.

The only player IMO with the TRUE SLAM. Two hardcourt entities, fast grass, and clay.

There is no greater player in my mind who could adapt to as many various surfaces as Andre could.

Nadal doesnt compare. Nadal wouldnt have much success on fast courts in Andre's day IMO. He gets neutralized at the USO and his indoor game leaves a helluva lot to be desired. He doesnt compare with Andre. Roger has a case though as well

thalivest
05-13-2009, 01:25 PM
Not even close. I agree with Zaragoza that Federer and Nadal are both better all surface players than him. Laver was dominant on hard courts when he did get to play, it isnt his fault there wasnt a slam event on them then. Borg I consider a better hard court player than Agassi clay court despite not winning the U.S Open.

35ft6
05-13-2009, 01:27 PM
I think it's Fed.

GameSampras
05-13-2009, 01:32 PM
Not even close. I agree with Zaragoza that Federer and Nadal are both better all surface players than him. Laver was dominant on hard courts when he did get to play, it isnt his fault there wasnt a slam event on them then. Borg I consider a better hard court player than Agassi clay court despite not winning the U.S Open.

Andre is better on clay and grass his (two weaker surfaces) than Nadal is on faster courts IMO.

I think if Nadal had to play in a more polarized era his weaknesses would be more exposed because of the likes of faster grass and Indoor carpet.


Andre was solid on both slow and surfaces. Nadal is not a multi-surface player to the level that Andre and Fed are . Not even close

thalivest
05-13-2009, 01:45 PM
Andre was solid on both slow and surfaces. Nadal is not a multi-surface player to the level that Andre and Fed are . Not even close

Yes that is why he has won slam finals in the last year over Federer on all 3 major surfaces. Next.

GameSampras
05-13-2009, 03:16 PM
Yes that is why he has won slam finals in the last year over Federer on all 3 major surfaces. Next.

All on slow surfaces I might add. Not fast. Fed still owns the USO (the last of the fast surfaces in tennis). Nadal cant even make a final there.

tennis-hero
05-13-2009, 03:54 PM
Lendl for my money

I know he didn't win wimby, but 'cmon

look who was playing

Edberg, Mac, Connors (prime), Becker, cash (on fire)

seriously lendl's 2 finals would rank higher then Agassi's win if you ask me, just based on the field and era (i know Agassi had tough comp but still)

In general, i would say Lendl or Feddy have the best all court/surface skills

anything fast and its Pete

anything slow and its Bjorn

but inbetween its Feddy and Ivan

Azzurri
05-13-2009, 06:01 PM
Any people with some trace of tennis understanding, knows that besides your head-to-head statistics, Rafael Nadal has an extraordinary powerful claycourt game. Something that goes beyond the simple H2H analysis. He has all the tools and weapons that a claycourt player could dream of. All of them. He's only comparable to Borg. He something like the ultimate claycourt specialist.

That is what Federer faced four times at the FO.

If you don't see this, then we have nothing to discuss here.

I have said this many times, Nadal is the greatest clay-court player I have ever seen..by far. Even though I think the competition is not as good (other clay courter) I still think he is so dominant that it really does not matter. The lack of good quality CC players is the reason why Roger does as well, but its not to diminish Nadal. he would win all the same in the 90's on CC. I believe we are in agreement..yes?:)

Azzurri
05-13-2009, 06:03 PM
I never said he won Wimbledon. Surfaces are surfaces. Grass is grass. Wilander won on all "four". I don't understand what you find objectionable about that statement.

please confirm Wilander is noted as winning on all surfaces then. I get what you are saying, but for what its worth, no one played the AO at that time. I used to think the AO was a GS way back in the early 80's as any other GS, but the field was very suspect. Would he have beaten Mac or Borg??? Becker?? NO!

Azzurri
05-13-2009, 06:04 PM
Hear, hear. Conventionally, tennis writers seem to prefer the term 'all-surface' player.

that is why I put (surface) in there. guess Tud is still confused.:shock:

Azzurri
05-13-2009, 06:04 PM
No. I was born in the 80s. yeah Baby.

If you don't agree with my list, thats fine. It's only my opinion.

yup..a skewed one.:twisted:

Azzurri
05-13-2009, 06:06 PM
Agassi:

AO- 4 wins. quarters or better 7 times.

French- 1 win. quarters or better 9 times, including 3 finals.

Wimbledon- 1 win. quarters or better 7 times, including 2 finals.

US- 2 wins. quarters or better 13 times, including 6 finals.


When you momos get your tongues out of Nadal's behind, let me know.

its easy to agree with you because you obviously understand the game. thanks for the confirmation. those records are astounding.

Azzurri
05-13-2009, 06:08 PM
Lendl for my money

I know he didn't win wimby, but 'cmon

look who was playing

Edberg, Mac, Connors (prime), Becker, cash (on fire)

seriously lendl's 2 finals would rank higher then Agassi's win if you ask me, just based on the field and era (i know Agassi had tough comp but still)

In general, i would say Lendl or Feddy have the best all court/surface skills

anything fast and its Pete

anything slow and its Bjorn

but inbetween its Feddy and Ivan

I also think Lendl is up there, but his lack of a grass court (Wimbledon) slam title drops him a notch. Agassi beat Goran..a great grass player.

Tennis_Monk
05-13-2009, 08:13 PM
IMO it is a toss between Agassi and Ivan Lendl. I am a fan of Agassi so my opinion might be tainted in his favor.

They both have won on all surfaces.

thalivest
05-13-2009, 08:19 PM
All on slow surfaces I might add. Not fast. Fed still owns the USO (the last of the fast surfaces in tennis). Nadal cant even make a final there.

Grass is still a fast surface even today, and the Australian Open hard courts have been sped up. Regarding the U.S Open you may be eating your words this year.

Arafel
05-13-2009, 08:23 PM
please confirm Wilander is noted as winning on all surfaces then. I get what you are saying, but for what its worth, no one played the AO at that time. I used to think the AO was a GS way back in the early 80's as any other GS, but the field was very suspect. Would he have beaten Mac or Borg??? Becker?? NO!

Well, Borg was retired by the time Wilander started doing well. In fact, Mats has even stated that part of the factor in his winning the 82 French was that Bjorn retired.

As to the second, Wilander DID, in fact beat McEnroe at the Australian in 83, on grass, in four sets, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4, 6-3. The played one other time on grass, at Wimbledon in 89, with McEnroe winning in four sets 7-6, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4.

Wilander has a winning head to head against McEnroe in their career.

Arafel
05-13-2009, 08:26 PM
I also nominate Connors. He won on Australian Open grass (harder grass with the courts sloping uphill towards the net), Wimbledon, US Open grass (quagmire), US Open clay, and US Open hard court. He was kicked out of the French in 74 for playing WTT and then boycotted it for four years after. He started playing it again in 79 and made the semis four times and the quarters twice.

thalivest
05-13-2009, 08:43 PM
I also nominate Connors. He won on Australian Open grass (harder grass with the courts sloping uphill towards the net), Wimbledon, US Open grass (quagmire), US Open clay, and US Open hard court. He was kicked out of the French in 74 for playing WTT and then boycotted it for four years after. He started playing it again in 79 and made the semis four times and the quarters twice.

Yeah I think he would have won the French in 74, maybe 75.

Joseph L. Barrow
05-13-2009, 08:56 PM
Well, he is the only one to win the career Slam since the Slams were on three different surfaces. You could make a case that Agassi was the most well-rounded cross-surface player of the Open Era, but I don't think he's a serious candidate for Greatest of All Time when Sampras, his chief rival, held a decisive winning record against him and had nearly twice as many Slams.

Interestingly, Nadal (who was once criticized for being a one-surface specialist) currently looks like the strongest candidate in the foreseeable future for equaling Agassi's career Slam.

Federer_pilon
05-13-2009, 09:05 PM
I would give Rafa the nod if he wins a few USO's or AO's (another words win both at least twice). You see, I still think the amount of titles Agassi has won on different surfaces still looks pretty good.

Agassi has won the FO and Wimbledon only once each and yet you put him above Rafa.... I don't understand your logic when you say Rafa needs at least two of USO and AO each -.-

egn
05-13-2009, 09:33 PM
Agassi:

AO- 4 wins. quarters or better 7 times.

French- 1 win. quarters or better 9 times, including 3 finals.

Wimbledon- 1 win. quarters or better 7 times, including 2 finals.

US- 2 wins. quarters or better 13 times, including 6 finals.


When you momos get your tongues out of Nadal's behind, let me know.

This basically sums up how Agassi wins this. Agassi might not have been best on any single surface but you have to give it to him overall. Talk Fed all you want unless he wins a French Open he can't claim the title. Issues with Connors is unfortunately he never got to play red clay he is a clsoe second with Wilander third as Wilander was awful on Wimbledon grass.

please confirm Wilander is noted as winning on all surfaces then. I get what you are saying, but for what its worth, no one played the AO at that time. I used to think the AO was a GS way back in the early 80's as any other GS, but the field was very suspect. Would he have beaten Mac or Borg??? Becker?? NO!

Actually 1983 Austrailan Open Wilander had a strong draw. He had to beat three top 10 guys in a row to win, Kriek, McEnroe and Lendl. 1984 he also had to take out some tough guys but Edberg was not in his prime yet but there was some strong grass courters in his way again. My issue with Wilander though is he never did damage on Wimbledon. Agassi was probably the best overall on all the surfaces. Grass was his weakest probably as his clay results look bad due to his early mess ups but clay was not a weak surface for Agassi. Agassi was really comfortable on almost any surface he definitely is the definition of versatile.

egn
05-13-2009, 09:35 PM
I also think Lendl is up there, but his lack of a grass court (Wimbledon) slam title drops him a notch. Agassi beat Goran..a great grass player.

My only issue with Lendl was not only did he fail to win Wimbledon on grass but he had his shots on Austrailan Open grass and lost there as well.

My personal list is

Agassi
Connors
Wilander/Fed
Lendl
Nadal

that is how I feel it out at the moment.

CyBorg
05-13-2009, 09:37 PM
please confirm Wilander is noted as winning on all surfaces then. I get what you are saying, but for what its worth, no one played the AO at that time. I used to think the AO was a GS way back in the early 80's as any other GS, but the field was very suspect. Would he have beaten Mac or Borg??? Becker?? NO!

Not true. "No one" (one can say) played at the Australian from 1975 to 1982. In 1983 the field improved considerably. Do you have a particular objection to Wilander's draw in those Australians?

Borg had retired. Becker hadn't emerged yet. Mac played at the 1983 event.

grafrules
05-13-2009, 09:38 PM
Nadal will cinch this title by the time his career is over. There is no doubt with his incredible talent and determination he will win atleast 2 U.S Open titles on the lightning fast hard courts there.

egn
05-13-2009, 09:39 PM
Agassi has won the FO and Wimbledon only once each and yet you put him above Rafa.... I don't understand your logic when you say Rafa needs at least two of USO and AO each -.-

Well look at this way right now Rafa has
4 Clay
1 Grass
1 HC fast

Agassi has
4 HC Slow
2 HC Fast
1 Grass
1 Clay

In order for Nadal to top Agassi he needs to have at least 1 of each surface and more on at least 3. I mean if Nadal finishes

4-10 Clay
2 Grass
1 HC Slow
1 HC Fast

whats the diff they are probably tied even if he has tons of clay he still has very little anywhere else. He needs better results overall at all the slams thats simply what he is saying. To be ahead of Agassi he needs to do better makes perfect sense.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-13-2009, 09:40 PM
I don't think so, he won 6 out of his 8 majors on hardcourts.
I consider Federer and Nadal more complete all-court players than him. Agreed both are in fact the two best all-court players of all time.

egn
05-13-2009, 09:43 PM
I don't think so, he won 6 out of his 8 majors on hardcourts.
I consider Federer and Nadal more complete all-court players than him.

He also won 1 out of 8 on grass and 1 out of 8 on clay.

Fed has 8 out of 13 on HC 5 out of 13 on grass and 0 out of 13 on clay.
Nadal has 4 out of 6 on clay 1 out of 6 on grass and 1 out of 6 on HC.

Nadal's proportion looks the best but Agassi really should be taken into account that 2 of those were fast hardcourts and two were slower ones. The surface for the Austrailan Open and US Open are pretty different. Muster made two Austrailan Open Semifinals he could barely get past the 2nd round at the US Open. The Australian Open brings a different style of game than the US Open.

thalivest
05-13-2009, 09:50 PM
Well look at this way right now Rafa has
4 Clay
1 Grass
1 HC fast

Agassi has
4 HC Slow
2 HC Fast
1 Grass
1 Clay

In order for Nadal to top Agassi he needs to have at least 1 of each surface and more on at least 3. I mean if Nadal finishes

4-10 Clay
2 Grass
1 HC Slow
1 HC Fast

whats the diff they are probably tied even if he has tons of clay he still has very little anywhere else. He needs better results overall at all the slams thats simply what he is saying. To be ahead of Agassi he needs to do better makes perfect sense.

Nadal will win Wimbledon and the U.S Open this year so will already be atleast tied as an all surface player. He will have no problem moving ahead in the coming years.

egn
05-13-2009, 09:51 PM
Nadal will win Wimbledon and the U.S Open this year so will already be atleast tied as an all surface player. He will have no problem moving ahead in the coming years.

That is a bold statement do not count your chickens before they hatch when he wins them we will tally them up. You just basically said Nadal will win a calendar year slam.

slicefox
05-13-2009, 09:56 PM
its cool that andre won majors on all surfaces, but...

when i watch his game I see nothing too spectacular, like i see with sampras and federer

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-13-2009, 10:03 PM
He also won 1 out of 8 on grass and 1 out of 8 on clay.

Fed has 8 out of 13 on HC 5 out of 13 on grass and 0 out of 13 on clay.
Nadal has 4 out of 6 on clay 1 out of 6 on grass and 1 out of 6 on HC.

Nadal's proportion looks the best but Agassi really should be taken into account that 2 of those were fast hardcourts and two were slower ones. The surface for the Austrailan Open and US Open are pretty different. Muster made two Austrailan Open Semifinals he could barely get past the 2nd round at the US Open. The Australian Open brings a different style of game than the US Open.

Federer 8 HC Slams, 1 hard final > Agassi 6 HC Slams, 4 finals
Federer 5 Grass Slams, 1 Grass final > Agassi 1 Grass Slam, 1 final.
Federer 3 FO Finals vs the GOAT on clay = Agassi 1 Clay slam, 2 finals

Federer is better just because he hasen't won a clay slam due to facing the GOAT on clay doesn't mean he is worse then Agassi on clay. Lol at people who think otherwise.

thalivest
05-13-2009, 10:08 PM
That is a bold statement do not count your chickens before they hatch when he wins them we will tally them up. You just basically said Nadal will win a calendar year slam.

You are right. I am saying that is exactly what will happen. Mark my words, it will happen. I will be right like I pretty much always am, especialy when it comes to Nadal. Nadal will actually win 2 Calender year Slams atleast. 2009 and the Golden Slam in 2012. I believe those are the years he will choose to do so.

abmk
05-13-2009, 10:41 PM
You are right. I am saying that is exactly what will happen. Mark my words, it will happen. I will be right like I pretty much always am, especialy when it comes to Nadal. Nadal will actually win 2 Calender year Slams atleast. 2009 and the Golden Slam in 2012. I believe those are the years he will choose to do so.

Right :rolleyes: , bump this thread IF it happens ( I don't think it will ) .. Unless it does, your point holds ZERO value

tudwell
05-13-2009, 10:50 PM
please confirm Wilander is noted as winning on all surfaces then. I get what you are saying, but for what its worth, no one played the AO at that time. I used to think the AO was a GS way back in the early 80's as any other GS, but the field was very suspect. Would he have beaten Mac or Borg??? Becker?? NO!

I'm not arguing anything about the respective weights of Wilander's and Agassi's accomplishments. I'm not saying Wilander is better than Agassi. Someone earlier said Agassi was the first to win on all "four" surfaces, and I merely pointed out that they were wrong.

timnz
05-13-2009, 11:27 PM
please confirm Wilander is noted as winning on all surfaces then. I get what you are saying, but for what its worth, no one played the AO at that time. I used to think the AO was a GS way back in the early 80's as any other GS, but the field was very suspect. Would he have beaten Mac or Borg??? Becker?? NO!


December 1983 McEnroe was very near his peak. And yes in 1983 Wilander did beat McEnroe that AO tournament in the Semi-Finals - 4-6 6-3 6-4 6-3

thalivest
05-13-2009, 11:31 PM
Right :rolleyes: , bump this thread IF it happens ( I don't think it will ) .. Unless it does, your point holds ZERO value

Yes since Nadal haters are always so right in things he wont accomplish. :rolleyes: I mean he was going to be retired by 20, then retired by 22, never get past the 4th round of Wimbledon, never win a non clay court slam, never reach the semis of a hard court slam, never win a hard court slam, never be ranked #1. The guy has only won 6 slams at 22, including a slam title on every surface yet he wont reach such marks. Keep dreaming haterzz.

abmk
05-13-2009, 11:42 PM
Yes since Nadal haters are always so right in things he wont accomplish. :rolleyes: I mean he was going to be retired by 20, then retired by 22, never get past the 4th round of Wimbledon, never win a non clay court slam, never reach the semis of a hard court slam, never win a hard court slam, never be ranked #1. The guy has only won 6 slams at 22, including a slam title on every surface yet he wont reach such marks. Keep dreaming haterzz.

First of all, I actually like nadal.

Saying that I don't think he'll win THE slam this year doesn't make me a hater .. I am not ruling it out, but it'd be very tough ..

380pistol
05-13-2009, 11:43 PM
Yes since Nadal haters are always so right in things he wont accomplish. :rolleyes: I mean he was going to be retired by 20, then retired by 22, never get past the 4th round of Wimbledon, never win a non clay court slam, never reach the semis of a hard court slam, never win a hard court slam, never be ranked #1. The guy has only won 6 slams at 22, including a slam title on every surface yet he wont reach such marks. Keep dreaming haterzz.

All surface player??? Currently Nadal has 6 slams, but has ONE of them come on court faster than the one Dre won TWO US Opens on. Get back to me when he has, cuz last I checked, Agassi has one on the slowest surface Nadal has won a slam on.

Federer_pilon
05-13-2009, 11:46 PM
Well look at this way right now Rafa has
4 Clay
1 Grass
1 HC fast

Agassi has
4 HC Slow
2 HC Fast
1 Grass
1 Clay

In order for Nadal to top Agassi he needs to have at least 1 of each surface and more on at least 3. I mean if Nadal finishes

4-10 Clay
2 Grass
1 HC Slow
1 HC Fast

whats the diff they are probably tied even if he has tons of clay he still has very little anywhere else. He needs better results overall at all the slams thats simply what he is saying. To be ahead of Agassi he needs to do better makes perfect sense.

Tennis is not just about slams though...If you factor in other tournaments, how do the numbers look like? -.-

thalivest
05-13-2009, 11:47 PM
All surface player??? Currently Nadal has 6 slams, but has ONE of them come on court faster than the one Dre won TWO US Opens on. Get back to me when he has, cuz last I checked, Agassi has one on the slowest surface Nadal has won a slam on.

Grass today is still fast. That is why all the other clay courters not named Rafa have sucky results at Wimbledon. The slowed down grass excuse is true only to an extent. It is exagerrated by people looking to diminish Rafa's accomplishments. Are you sure the Wimbledon grass of today is slower then the U.S Open hard courts of the 90s.

thalivest
05-13-2009, 11:48 PM
First of all, I actually like nadal.

Saying that I don't think he'll win THE slam this year doesn't make me a hater .. I am not ruling it out, but it'd be very tough ..

Not really. The only thing that can stop him this year is injury. Murray and Djokovic have a hard time beating a healthy and rested Rafa in best of 3s on hard courts now, what will they do in a best of 5.

abmk
05-13-2009, 11:53 PM
Not really. The only thing that can stop him this year is injury. Murray and Djokovic have a hard time beating a healthy and rested Rafa in best of 3s on hard courts now, what will they do in a best of 5.

Umm, no , at this stage, IMO wimbledon is still 50-50 and I think any of the top 4 can take the U.S.O

thalivest
05-13-2009, 11:54 PM
Tennis is not just about slams though...If you factor in other tournaments, how do the numbers look like? -.-

Exactly. Agassi didnt even win his first Masters title on clay until 2002 at age 32, which translates into he didnt win anything meanginful on clay until he was 29 when he won the French. Rafa at only 19 was winning Masters titles on fast hard courts and indoors.

thalivest
05-13-2009, 11:55 PM
Umm, no , at this stage, IMO wimbledon is still 50-50 and I think any of the top 4 can take the U.S.O

Who makes Wimbledon 50-50? A rapidly declining mentally washed up Federer. Keep dreaming. The U.S Open is more open I agree. However if Nadal is healthy and rested he takes it. He has to be a bit injured for anyone to have a shot vs him at the Open this year.

abmk
05-13-2009, 11:58 PM
Who makes Wimbledon 50-50? A rapidly declining mentally washed up Federer. Keep dreaming. The U.S Open is more open I agree. However if Nadal is healthy and rested he takes it. He has to be a bit injured for anyone to have a shot vs him at the Open this year.

You are the one who is dreaming and not me ..... Lets see what happens at the wimby and the USO ..

thalivest
05-14-2009, 12:01 AM
You are the one who is dreaming and not me ..... Lets see what happens at the wimby and the USO ..

Federer is done. He is going to retire at unlucky 13. He couldnt even beat Rafa in the Wimbledon final last year playing the match of his life. Rafa is only getting stronger.

Federer_pilon
05-14-2009, 12:02 AM
Exactly. Agassi didnt even win his first Masters title on clay until 2002 at age 32, which translates into he didnt win anything meanginful on clay until he was 29 when he won the French. Rafa at only 19 was winning Masters titles on fast hard courts and indoors.

Agassi hasn't won anything on grass outside Wimbledon either....Nadal won Queens last year.

thalivest
05-14-2009, 12:02 AM
Agassi hasn't won anything on grass outside Wimbledon either....Nadal won Queens last year.

Good point. I bet if they played each other in their primes Nadal would always beat Agassi on clay, beat him 9 times out of 10 on grass, and be more competitive with him on hard courts than Agassi could be vs Nadal on any other surface.

abmk
05-14-2009, 12:05 AM
Federer is done. He is going to retire at unlucky 13. He couldnt even beat Rafa in the Wimbledon final last year playing the match of his life. Rafa is only getting stronger.

LOL, like rafa was playing crappy tennis at the wimby final ... Rafa played at his best and fed though played well, was not at his best .....

As for Fed being done, well we'll see what happens. I saw a lot of posts saying the same before last year's USO btw :)

thalivest
05-14-2009, 12:14 AM
LOL, like rafa was playing crappy tennis at the wimby final ... Rafa played at his best and fed though played well, was not at his best .....

As for Fed being done, well we'll see what happens. I saw a lot of posts saying the same before last year's USO btw :)

Federer was more competitive in the middle of last year than he is now. I did not discount Federer as a possible winner before Wimbledon and the U.S Open last year. However he has sunk even deeper vs the big 3 this year than he was in the middle of last year and now has very little chance.

abmk
05-14-2009, 12:19 AM
Federer was more competitive in the middle of last year than he is now. I did not discount Federer as a possible winner before Wimbledon and the U.S Open last year. However he has sunk even deeper vs the big 3 this year than he was in the middle of last year and now has very little chance.

I didn't talk about wimbledon.

I talked about the USO. Remind yourself of Fed's results b/w wimbledon and the USO ... He was playing real crappy tennis at that time ..... ( atleast in singles, only consolation was the doubles medal in olympics ) ... Well let it be, we'll see as things happen :)

Azzurri
05-14-2009, 04:15 AM
Well, Borg was retired by the time Wilander started doing well. In fact, Mats has even stated that part of the factor in his winning the 82 French was that Bjorn retired.

As to the second, Wilander DID, in fact beat McEnroe at the Australian in 83, on grass, in four sets, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4, 6-3. The played one other time on grass, at Wimbledon in 89, with McEnroe winning in four sets 7-6, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4.

Wilander has a winning head to head against McEnroe in their career.

I agree, Wilander's overall surface record is more impressive than I remember. The issue is the AO did not gain much "worldwide" respect until the eraly 90's. For whatever reason.

Azzurri
05-14-2009, 04:21 AM
Agassi has won the FO and Wimbledon only once each and yet you put him above Rafa.... I don't understand your logic when you say Rafa needs at least two of USO and AO each -.-

Basically he needs to have a better record on the other, more popular surfaces. if he ends up winning a few more FO and one USO, then sorry, I still consider Agassi the better all-around player. Don't forget, Rafa has the "luxury" of playing court surfaces not much different (speed) as compared to when Agassi won his majors. All the courts were drastically different.

I also don't care for your attitude toards Agassi.."Agassi has won the FO and Wimbledon only once.." Do you realize how stupid you sound? Don't you get the point he won on all four surfaces?? Just to make my point, UNLESS RAFA WINS THE USO, PLEASE KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.

Azzurri
05-14-2009, 04:26 AM
Not true. "No one" (one can say) played at the Australian from 1975 to 1982. In 1983 the field improved considerably. Do you have a particular objection to Wilander's draw in those Australians?

Borg had retired. Becker hadn't emerged yet. Mac played at the 1983 event.

sorry, but I am not going into that.:) Its been discussed. Lots of quality, high profile players routinely skipped the AO until the early-mid 90's. That is a fact. I will state this again: I also believed (past tense) that the AO was just as important a GS as any other during the 70's and 80's. Hoever, upon discussions in some threads, it has been shown that too many of the top players skipped the tourney far too often. That will be the last time I mention this and won't bother getting into it, its been discussed.

thejoe
05-14-2009, 04:26 AM
Federer is done. He is going to retire at unlucky 13. He couldnt even beat Rafa in the Wimbledon final last year playing the match of his life. Rafa is only getting stronger.

Are you crazy? Seriously...

Azzurri
05-14-2009, 06:41 AM
Good point. I bet if they played each other in their primes Nadal would always beat Agassi on clay, beat him 9 times out of 10 on grass, and be more competitive with him on hard courts than Agassi could be vs Nadal on any other surface.

Thank you for offering an extremely subjective opinion steeped in illogical-ignorant thoughts. Nadal, for the 800th time, won Wimbledon on a much slower surface than Agassi against NOT ONE s&v player, which is what grass court tennis is truly about. Agassi, to my delight and surprise, won in an era where there were quite a few goo-great grass-court players and the speed was very quick at that time. For a "baseliner" to win Wimbledon at that time was utterly amazing. But you, being no older than 15, would not know this. Thank you.

drakulie
05-14-2009, 06:53 AM
Not even close. I agree with Zaragoza that Federer and Nadal are both better all surface players than him. Laver was dominant on hard courts when he did get to play, it isnt his fault there wasnt a slam event on them then. Borg I consider a better hard court player than Agassi clay court despite not winning the U.S Open.

Yes that is why he has won slam finals in the last year over Federer on all 3 major surfaces. Next.

Grass is still a fast surface even today, and the Australian Open hard courts have been sped up. Regarding the U.S Open you may be eating your words this year.

Yeah I think he would have won the French in 74, maybe 75.

Nadal will win Wimbledon and the U.S Open this year so will already be atleast tied as an all surface player. He will have no problem moving ahead in the coming years.

You are right. I am saying that is exactly what will happen. Mark my words, it will happen. I will be right like I pretty much always am, especialy when it comes to Nadal. Nadal will actually win 2 Calender year Slams atleast. 2009 and the Golden Slam in 2012. I believe those are the years he will choose to do so.

Yes since Nadal haters are always so right in things he wont accomplish. :rolleyes: I mean he was going to be retired by 20, then retired by 22, never get past the 4th round of Wimbledon, never win a non clay court slam, never reach the semis of a hard court slam, never win a hard court slam, never be ranked #1. The guy has only won 6 slams at 22, including a slam title on every surface yet he wont reach such marks. Keep dreaming haterzz.

Grass today is still fast. That is why all the other clay courters not named Rafa have sucky results at Wimbledon. The slowed down grass excuse is true only to an extent. It is exagerrated by people looking to diminish Rafa's accomplishments. Are you sure the Wimbledon grass of today is slower then the U.S Open hard courts of the 90s.

Not really. The only thing that can stop him this year is injury. Murray and Djokovic have a hard time beating a healthy and rested Rafa in best of 3s on hard courts now, what will they do in a best of 5.

Exactly. Agassi didnt even win his first Masters title on clay until 2002 at age 32, which translates into he didnt win anything meanginful on clay until he was 29 when he won the French. Rafa at only 19 was winning Masters titles on fast hard courts and indoors.

Who makes Wimbledon 50-50? A rapidly declining mentally washed up Federer. Keep dreaming. The U.S Open is more open I agree. However if Nadal is healthy and rested he takes it. He has to be a bit injured for anyone to have a shot vs him at the Open this year.

Federer is done. He is going to retire at unlucky 13. He couldnt even beat Rafa in the Wimbledon final last year playing the match of his life. Rafa is only getting stronger.

Good point. I bet if they played each other in their primes Nadal would always beat Agassi on clay, beat him 9 times out of 10 on grass, and be more competitive with him on hard courts than Agassi could be vs Nadal on any other surface.

Federer was more competitive in the middle of last year than he is now. I did not discount Federer as a possible winner before Wimbledon and the U.S Open last year. However he has sunk even deeper vs the big 3 this year than he was in the middle of last year and now has very little chance.

http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc195/Curioso343/Fail/8.jpg

Azzurri
05-14-2009, 08:19 AM
^^^Hysterical!!!!!

380pistol
05-14-2009, 10:54 AM
Grass today is still fast. That is why all the other clay courters not named Rafa have sucky results at Wimbledon. The slowed down grass excuse is true only to an extent. It is exagerrated by people looking to diminish Rafa's accomplishments. Are you sure the Wimbledon grass of today is slower then the U.S Open hard courts of the 90s.

"Grass today is still fast" and you're point would be.....???? Is it faster than the grass Agassi won his Wimbledon crown on??? Don't think so. It's not exaggerated, it's a fact, even so disclosed by Wimbledon groundsmen, who sod the damn grass!!! But they are trying to diminish Rafa's accomplishments as well though???

Science has proven they use a different type of Welsh rye, that was first used in 2001.... so what science (and scientists) are trying to diminish Nadal as well???


And am I sure the Wimbledon grass is slower than the US Open hardcourts of the 90's??? Well I know this.....

-according to the USTA (are they trying to diminish Rafa's accomplishments as well?), that from 1978-00 the Deco Turf II in Flushing whas at a certain speed. Then in 2001-02 they slowed it down, feeling it was too slow, the sped it back, but not as fast as it originally was (1978-00). And weh what USTA call a "Big Server" (Roddick) and a "Claycourter" (Ferrero) made the final in 2003 the felt they had reached what they called a "happy medium". This was before Nadal did anything.

So I know according the USTA the Deco Turf II 1978-00 is faster than the one 2003 - present.

-now according to groundspeople and science, the grass 2001 - present is slower than it was 2000 and prior

-the general consensus (among many) is that the US Open is quickest playing slam


Put all that together and and you get the 3rd fastest slam that Agassi played is faster, than the fastest one Nadal has played on. Yet Agassi has played and won a slam on the slowest court that Nadal has played and won on. And we haven't even talked about carpet yet.

It's not a slight against Nadal, but it's something that should be considered when address the best "all surface" player.

gshaffer23
05-14-2009, 11:06 AM
Put me down for Agassi as I am in agreement with the OP on this one. While rather than Nadal I would rank Federer's game a closer second to that of Agassi when considering ALL COURTS... Nadal being more dominant on the clay in general, but not so on ALL surfaces.

Agassi's ability was truly unique for not only his era of tennis, but all era's. Take nothing away from the great players of today, meaning Nadal or Federer... but Agassi's skills were truly remarkable on all surfaces.

egn
05-14-2009, 07:26 PM
Thank you for offering an extremely subjective opinion steeped in illogical-ignorant thoughts. Nadal, for the 800th time, won Wimbledon on a much slower surface than Agassi against NOT ONE s&v player, which is what grass court tennis is truly about. Agassi, to my delight and surprise, won in an era where there were quite a few goo-great grass-court players and the speed was very quick at that time. For a "baseliner" to win Wimbledon at that time was utterly amazing. But you, being no older than 15, would not know this. Thank you.

Wow...in agreement with Azzurri. The fact that Agassi won that Wimbledon in 92 was amazing..He was a baseliner. The last baseliner to win wimbledon was Borg and that was before the booming serves that came about late 80s early 90s. The 80s saw serve and volley domination at wimbledon and the best baseliner could not even win against Pat Cash (Ivan Lendl) there. The fact that Andre was able to show up it being only his third wimbledon and win it shocked people. Not only was it shocking who took out Goran who had one of the biggest serves and at the moment many felt he was going to dominate at wimbledon. Goran served more aces that match than Agassi did all tournament! Agassi beat him strongly sure he never repeated his wimbledon success but he came close. In 93 he was knocked out in an epic 5 set QF by Sampras and 99 and 2000 and 2001 he put up strong performances. His wimbledon victory just shocked people as he won grass playing a style many considered to be foreign to the surface.

Azzurri
05-15-2009, 08:28 AM
While I think Nadal is a great player, I just can't give him that much credit for being an all-surface player. Anyone that watched the game in the 80's and 90's knows that todays game lacks versatile players and true competition for the top players. Everyone talks about how good everyone is, I see it as how "common" almost all players are. Its odd, but Murray seems to be the only player anyone talks about that has a "versatile" game...sad. Until the game changes and the courts contrast themselves like in Agassi's time, then I just can't give Nadal the credit.

veroniquem
05-15-2009, 08:32 AM
LOL, like rafa was playing crappy tennis at the wimby final ... Rafa played at his best and fed though played well, was not at his best .....

As for Fed being done, well we'll see what happens. I saw a lot of posts saying the same before last year's USO btw :)
Rafa did not play at his best. He is playing better this year than he was playing last year. IMO his best is still to come.

tonyg11
05-15-2009, 11:08 AM
Agassi hasn't won anything on grass outside Wimbledon either....Nadal won Queens last year.

because the entire ATP grass court season consists of Queens and Wimbledon. It's not like it's the clay court season that lasts 5 months

CyBorg
05-15-2009, 11:08 AM
Agassi isn't the greatest anything.

Okay, maybe the greatest Armenian tennis player.

Al Czervik
05-15-2009, 11:25 AM
Agassi wasnt very good on clay vs good clay courters. I remember when coria made him look like a club player at the FO.

Blasphemy, at least in the early part of his career. He was probably 2nd or 3rd best clay courter in the world for a 3-5 year span.

Al Czervik
05-15-2009, 11:28 AM
beat him 9 times out of 10 on grass

No. Nadal would not have gotten a sniff of Wimby finals with that speedy grass and playing against the likes of Pete, Edberg, Becker, Rafter, Goran, etc., etc.

thetaxman
05-15-2009, 01:00 PM
No, he is not. But these things are subjective.

hyogen
05-15-2009, 01:15 PM
Once Rafa does his career (calendar?!) slam then he will be GOATotS. Until then I'd go with Andre.

agreed :)

i don't think rafa will get a calendar slam though.

pennc94
05-15-2009, 01:20 PM
Hard to argue against Andre (certainly for his era). He won on all surfaces - even the old grass at Wim - which Federer has never won on.

timnz
05-15-2009, 06:28 PM
Responding to earlier comments. The Australian Open got really good players from 1983 onwards. Hence, from then on its Grand Slam status should be regarded as on par with the other ones. In the late 80's who didn't appear that made it a lesser tournament? They all were there.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-16-2009, 12:39 AM
Hard to argue against Andre (certainly for his era). He won on all surfaces - even the old grass at Wim - which Federer has never won on. But Andre has never won on the new grass...

380pistol
05-16-2009, 12:52 AM
But Andre has never won on the new grass...

Federer has not won a slam on surface faster than the one Agassi won his 2 US Opens on, or as slow as the wo he won his French Open title on. Now be quiet.

Agassi has won slams on surfaces both faster and slower than Federer.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-16-2009, 01:03 AM
Federer has not won a slam on surface faster than the one Agassi won his 2 US Opens on, or as slow as the wo he won his French Open title on. Now be quiet.

Agassi has won slams on surfaces both faster and slower than Federer. Of course now you are attacking me everywhere. As usual of your posting, making it personal

380pistol
05-16-2009, 12:46 PM
Of course now you are attacking me everywhere. As usual of your posting, making it personal

Yes talking about players winning slams, and the speed of said slams at the time they won it is "personal". Do you what making i "persona" means???

Well now that you have no logical arguments to make, this is your new staple??When you can't say anything logic or make a point based on something, your new war cry it I'm "making it personal".

World Beater
05-16-2009, 09:22 PM
in terms of ability, i would say NO.

in terms of results..yes

but we will have to see when federer and nadal retire...fed still has a year or two in him..nadal is in his prime...

Azzurri
05-18-2009, 07:24 AM
in terms of ability, i would say NO.

in terms of results..yes

but we will have to see when federer and nadal retire...fed still has a year or two in him..nadal is in his prime...

I am aconfused, don't you need to have ability to win on 4 different surfaces? I may be missing your point.:)

Winners or Errors
05-18-2009, 08:18 AM
I shudder to think that I actually agree with Azzurri here. Of the players with the opportunity to win on four different surfaces, which only really includes about 20 years of history, with the AO being contested on Rebound Ace for the first time in 1988, Agassi is the one I'd choose as most versatile. It is a fact that he won on Wimbledon grass, RG clay, USO Decoturf, and AO Rebound Ace. It is also a fact that he did so during an era when clay was slow, grass was fast, and there were players who specialized in techniques that were particularly effective on both surfaces.

Honorable mention goes to one of my favorite players of all time, Mats Wilander, who won on RG clay, USO Decoturf, AO grass, and AO Rebound Ace. Sad that he never put it together at Wimbledon, but that shows just how difficult a feat Agassi pulled off. Unfortunately, even if Federer or Nadal conquer their fourth surface, the debate will go on because of the relative homogenization of the surfaces since 2001.

Azzurri
05-18-2009, 09:45 AM
I shudder to think that I actually agree with Azzurri here. Of the players with the opportunity to win on four different surfaces, which only really includes about 20 years of history, with the AO being contested on Rebound Ace for the first time in 1988, Agassi is the one I'd choose as most versatile. It is a fact that he won on Wimbledon grass, RG clay, USO Decoturf, and AO Rebound Ace. It is also a fact that he did so during an era when clay was slow, grass was fast, and there were players who specialized in techniques that were particularly effective on both surfaces.

Honorable mention goes to one of my favorite players of all time, Mats Wilander, who won on RG clay, USO Decoturf, AO grass, and AO Rebound Ace. Sad that he never put it together at Wimbledon, but that shows just how difficult a feat Agassi pulled off. Unfortunately, even if Federer or Nadal conquer their fourth surface, the debate will go on because of the relative homogenization of the surfaces since 2001.

do you realize you are a bit of a clown? but I agree with what you said.

Winners or Errors
05-18-2009, 10:54 AM
do you realize you are a bit of a clown? but I agree with what you said.

Well, I try. ;-)