PDA

View Full Version : Better clay courter Agassi or Federer?


Cesc Fabregas
05-26-2009, 04:17 AM
Who do you consider to be the better clay court Agassi or Federer? Andre has 1 RG titles and 2 RU and a Rome title whilst Federer has 3 RU at RG 4 Hamburg titles and 1 Madrid title.

maximo
05-26-2009, 04:21 AM
Agassi the best ever.

Then of course Murray.

Cesc Fabregas
05-26-2009, 04:28 AM
Agassi the best ever.

Then of course Murray.

Murray :confused:

thalivest
05-26-2009, 05:55 AM
I think Federer is. I really dont think Agassi would do any better than Federer today as no way I could see Agassi beating Nadal in a best 3 of 5 set match on clay ever. In fact Agassi wouldnt be as consistently reaching all the finals as he isnt nearly as consistent a player as Federer in the first place. I also have no doubt Federer would have won atleast 1 French, perhaps more, in the 90s with no long term dominant clay courter even approaching Nadal even if the overall field on clay was deeper.

maximo
05-26-2009, 07:26 AM
Murray :confused:

My favorite (and best) player of all time is Agassi.

And Murray will end his career not far behind him.

Cesc Fabregas
05-26-2009, 07:29 AM
My favorite (and best) player of all time is Agassi.

And Murray will end his career not far behind him.

A). Agassi is the not the best player of all time
B.) Murray will not win 5+ slams and on every surface.

maximo
05-26-2009, 07:34 AM
A). Agassi is the not the best player of all time
B.) Murray will not win 5+ slams and on every surface.

A) Agassi is the most underrated player of all time.

B) Murray will win 5+ slams but not on clay, hence the reason why i said he will finnish his career not far behind Agassi.

RoddickAce
05-26-2009, 07:38 AM
Agassi, fact is he won a RG title and Federer didn't, so I'd put Agassi above Fed on clay until Fed wins one RG title.

egn
05-26-2009, 01:45 PM
Would not say either is leaps and bounds ahead of the other but until Fed wins the big one Agassi gets the edge. Agassi in his youth was actually an outstanding clay courter one of the top in the early 90s

grafselesfan
05-26-2009, 01:49 PM
It is very close. I dont think 1 is much better than the other. Neither are at the level of Nadal, Kuerten, or even prime Courier or Muster on clay. I think both are good enough to win the French but only with the right draw. Both have certain players they just couldnt beat at the French as those players are too good for either in a big clay match. I didnt vote since I would have to think about it.

jimwh
05-26-2009, 02:20 PM
I am a huge Fed fan, but you have to go with Agassi. His record speaks for itself.

GameSampras
05-26-2009, 05:23 PM
Its a close call.. But I would narrowly give the edge to Andre on this one

flying24
05-26-2009, 07:17 PM
I would pick Federer. While Agassi's prime is hard to define 1 thing that seems clear looking over his career results is his "clay court prime" was 1988-1992. That is when 2 of his 3 French Open finals, 4 of his 5 French Open semis, came. So during Agassi's "clay court prime" he was 1-3 vs Courier at the French, and lost to 30 year Andres Gomez in a French Open final. Unless Federer remains a force on clay beyond this year I would consider Federer's clay court prime to be 2005-2009. So during Federer's clay court prime he is 0-4 vs Nadal at the French but thus far those are his only losses at the French. Courier is a great clay courter but not at Nadal's level.

Then you look at Masters events. Federer has performed so well and so consistently in those. Agassi has done very little outside the French on clay. 2 Rome finals, 1 won and 1 lost, that is about it. Hardly anything at Monte Carlo, Hamburg, or anywhere else. Agassi focused just on the French. Federer performs year round on clay.

CEvertFan
05-26-2009, 08:09 PM
I picked Federer. Without Nadal blocking his way he would have won at least one French, and at least one Calendar Grand Slam as well and he has multiple Master Series clay titles as well.

raiden031
05-26-2009, 08:26 PM
Put Federer in any other era outside of the Borg/Nadal eras, and he easily wins 3 FO titles. Agassi was lucky to win his title, and Fed was unlucky not to win his.

Let me ask this...has anyone ever been more successful than Federer at RG without actually winning a title there?

helloworld
05-26-2009, 09:07 PM
Put Federer in any other era outside of the Borg/Nadal eras, and he easily wins 3 FO titles. Agassi was lucky to win his title, and Fed was unlucky not to win his.

Let me ask this...has anyone ever been more successful than Federer at RG without actually winning a title there?
Don't think so. In the 60s maybe.

380pistol
05-26-2009, 10:22 PM
Put Federer in any other era outside of the Borg/Nadal eras, and he easily wins 3 FO titles. Agassi was lucky to win his title, and Fed was unlucky not to win his.

Let me ask this...has anyone ever been more successful than Federer at RG without actually winning a title there?

Uh.... no. Coureir, Brugeura, Muster and Kerten get him in the 90's. Lendl and Wilander deal with him in the 80's. Rosewall and even Laver get him in the 60's. So maybe the 50's but there's Trabert and Hoad.

flying24
05-26-2009, 10:34 PM
Gomez, Moya, Kafelnikov, and Agassi all won a French in the 90s. None of those is better than Federer on clay. Federer would never dominate clay in any era, but he would win a French in the 90s, probably more than 1. Agassi on the other hand would never win a French in the era of Nadal's dominance.

CEvertFan
05-27-2009, 10:17 AM
Gomez, Moya, Kafelnikov, and Agassi all won a French in the 90s. None of those is better than Federer on clay. Federer would never dominate clay in any era, but he would win a French in the 90s, probably more than 1. Agassi on the other hand would never win a French in the era of Nadal's dominance.

I wholeheartedly agree. I also think prime Federer could beat prime Agassi on clay.

380pistol
05-27-2009, 11:13 AM
Gomez, Moya, Kafelnikov, and Agassi all won a French in the 90s. None of those is better than Federer on clay. Federer would never dominate clay in any era, but he would win a French in the 90s, probably more than 1. Agassi on the other hand would never win a French in the era of Nadal's dominance.

Gomez on the French when Agassi was 20, When Fed was 20 he was losing to guys like Arazi and Horna at RG. Kafelnikov won it 1996, Fed 2006 was getting *** handed to him down a set and 2 breaks to Nalbandian in 2006. And Moya won it 2008. Don't get me started on fed's 2008 RG performance 9Monfils and Nadal), clearly not the best of Roger.

Agassi may not win a French 2005 onwards, But I see guy like Costa winning it in 2002, and I like Dre for that one. There's no Courier who stopped him in 1992. And Agassi would not have lost to Arazi, Horna or whoever Roger lost to. Add the 2001 final (1991 Courier, make that Kuerten), 2005 final (no Kafelnikov in SF), and possibly the 2009 final (he won it 1999, but can't see him beating Nadal). Not to shabby for Dre.

egn
05-27-2009, 01:24 PM
Gomez on the French when Agassi was 20, When Fed was 20 he was losing to guys like Arazi and Horna at RG. Kafelnikov won it 1996, Fed 2006 was getting *** handed to him down a set and 2 breaks to Nalbandian in 2006. And Moya won it 2008. Don't get me started on fed's 2008 RG performance 9Monfils and Nadal), clearly not the best of Roger.

Agassi may not win a French 2005 onwards, But I see guy like Costa winning it in 2002, and I like Dre for that one. There's no Courier who stopped him in 1992. And Agassi would not have lost to Arazi, Horna or whoever Roger lost to. Add the 2001 final (1991 Courier, make that Kuerten), 2005 final (no Kafelnikov in SF), and possibly the 2009 final (he won it 1999, but can't see him beating Nadal). Not to shabby for Dre.


Only issues I see with Agassi in 2000-2002 is where does he line up with Juan Carlos Ferrero. Juan Carlos almost reminds of Agassi in so many ways on clay. He was so close many years yet one man stopped him, Guga. However I personally think Juan Carlos is a better clay courter than Agassi and he could take him out and in 2002 Costa was just playing on fire. He took out Kureten than after that thrilling comeback over Canas he looked like nobody was going to stop him and if those events were to repeat I don't know if Agassi could take him down. The way Costa played that final against Ferrero was just outstanding. 6-1, 6-0 in those first two sets. He was packing heat. I don't know how well Agassi could have done especially in his early days as he himself was nervous back then. Roger has definitely underpeformed at France compared to his early results. Andre performed quite well at France compared to the rest of his clay career. However all ready voted Agassi even if you want to go with Fed has overall better results, Agassi has 1 slam + 1 MS that very well equates to 5 master series given Andre's performance at France as a whole.

380pistol
05-27-2009, 02:06 PM
Only issues I see with Agassi in 2000-2002 is where does he line up with Juan Carlos Ferrero. Juan Carlos almost reminds of Agassi in so many ways on clay. He was so close many years yet one man stopped him, Guga. However I personally think Juan Carlos is a better clay courter than Agassi and he could take him out and in 2002 Costa was just playing on fire. He took out Kureten than after that thrilling comeback over Canas he looked like nobody was going to stop him and if those events were to repeat I don't know if Agassi could take him down. The way Costa played that final against Ferrero was just outstanding. 6-1, 6-0 in those first two sets. He was packing heat. I don't know how well Agassi could have done especially in his early days as he himself was nervous back then. Roger has definitely underpeformed at France compared to his early results. Andre performed quite well at France compared to the rest of his clay career. However all ready voted Agassi even if you want to go with Fed has overall better results, Agassi has 1 slam + 1 MS that very well equates to 5 master series given Andre's performance at France as a whole.

Using a 10 year interval, Agaasi is shut out by Kuerten in 200 and 2001. Gomez and JC simply become Guga. I'm not sold on Costa. The genral consensus (one I tend to believe) was that Ferrero put up a sub pare performance, and on top of that he beat Kuerten in late May/early June, h... he had his frst hip surgery in February. From 1997-2001 he went 0-6 vs Guga losing 13 of 15 sets!!

And you can save me the JCF played Guga tough reason, cuz I can say the same for kafelnikov (on 3 different occasion, 2 five setters), and we know the level of respect he gets around here.

So in this era, Agassi, could have a title and 3 finals (2000,01 and 05), seeing how he won it 199 that could possibly be his 4th final. I just wanted point out some things about Agassi in this era. I did't buy the Nadal reason as Rafa did play a match in RG til 2005.

droliver
05-27-2009, 02:20 PM
I think Federer takes 7 out of ten from Andre on clay. He's been the 2nd best player on the surface for most of the decade at this point, behind the greatest (or at least 2nd greatest player after Borg) on clay.

Agassi's a singulair talent and was good on clay (versus great on HC), but I think it's just a bad match up for him. Federer can play with anyone on the stuff off the ground and would match up favorably with the best clay courters of the last 25 years. I think he'd be favored head up over anyone but Nadal or Kuerten if everyone brings their "A game" on a given day.

I think Albert Costa & Kafelnikov are getting a little disrespected up thread. They were very talented players and could beat anyone on a given day. Costa was brilliant the year he won. I loved his backhand.

Datacipher
05-27-2009, 04:09 PM
Uh.... no. Coureir, Brugeura, Muster and Kerten get him in the 90's. Lendl and Wilander deal with him in the 80's. Rosewall and even Laver get him in the 60's. So maybe the 50's but there's Trabert and Hoad.

Quite correct. Unfortunate that so many have such a skewed perspective.

As for Agassi, indeed, as another poster said, the record speaks for itself. Agassi has a FO, Federer = 0. End of story. Should he win one, then we can talk.

If we're talking head-to-head, very tough battle of course, Agassi wins a slight margin in 100 matches because he POUNDS the Federer backhand relentlessly, eventually it breaks down enough to give Agassi the majority of matches. Fed won't be able to rely on too many extra free points on serve. Yes, he can hit some big winners, but not enough over 5 sets when Agassi is in his prime. Not to mention Agassi will jerk him all over the place with powerful CONSISTENT groundstrokes and angles off both sides.

Agassi/Nadal is not as open/shut as people here think either. Agassi's ability to take the ball very early and control the center helps him. Not enough to beat Nadal the majority of the time on clay, but enough to take quite a few matches. When Agassi was young, and prepared on clay, he covered court well, was patient enough to hand in rallies with claycourters all day but also took control with early ballstriking when possible. The thing about Agassi is that when he has as much time to set up his groundstrokes as he does on clay, he can deliver punishing, power and angles very, very, consistently.

When Agassi was young and quick AND FIT, he was actually quite a nightmare on clay. Chang, Courier and many others could tell you that.

Zaragoza
05-27-2009, 05:51 PM
Better, Federer.

Greater, Agassi (unless Federer wins Roland Garros).

scraps234
05-27-2009, 07:15 PM
Better, Federer.

Greater, Agassi (unless Federer wins Roland Garros).
i agree... if federer wins rg he will be greater but if not agassi

thejoe
05-30-2009, 05:32 AM
Better, Federer.

Greater, Agassi (unless Federer wins Roland Garros).

Interesting way to phrase it, but I couldn't agree more.

zagor
05-30-2009, 05:21 PM
They're close but Agassi won FO which gives him the definite edge right now and I don't think that will change in the future as I don't see Fed winning the FO(hopefully I'm wrong).

World Beater
06-02-2009, 08:20 PM
agassi has the FO.

but if fed wins the fo...the result nid.

federer moves so much better than andre on clay...its ridiculous.

federer is a much much better clay player than agassi.

zagor
06-02-2009, 08:33 PM
agassi has the FO.

but if fed wins the fo...the result nid.

federer moves so much better than andre on clay...its ridiculous.

federer is a much much better clay player than agassi.

At the FO Agassi has 2 finals,2 semis,4 quartefinals and most importantly a WIN(which Fed doesn't have yet).How exactly is Fed "much" better than Agassi on clay? He didn't even reach more FO finals than Andre yet.

quest01
06-02-2009, 08:40 PM
I think Federer overall is better on clay even though he hasn't won a French Open. Agassi at least won a French Open and probably should have won another one early in his career but Federer probably could have won a few if it wasn't for the best clay courter of all time, Nadal. Federer seems to only lose to Nadal at the French Open while Agassi lost to a bunch of players at the French and in other clay court tournaments.

BTURNER
06-02-2009, 09:40 PM
I picked Federer.

Nadal_Freak
06-02-2009, 09:44 PM
Federer easily. Agassi is best on hardcourts.

Nalbandian great
06-03-2009, 01:39 PM
wait until sunday... ROGER!

World Beater
06-03-2009, 03:50 PM
At the FO Agassi has 2 finals,2 semis,4 quartefinals and most importantly a WIN(which Fed doesn't have yet).How exactly is Fed "much" better than Agassi on clay? He didn't even reach more FO finals than Andre yet.

use your eyes.

nobody needs to debate achievements. agassi already has the results from a complete career, which are more complete and "greater".

but if you compare their abilities and skills on clay, agassi comes up short BIG TIME.

Gorecki
06-03-2009, 03:56 PM
since all the experts are going to measure carrers by "movement" or "court coverage" i can say whatever subjective stupidity comes to mind :

Federer because he uses better cardigans...

35ft6
06-04-2009, 12:52 AM
No contest. Fed. But not by a lot. Fed pretty much loses to the greatest clay courter I've ever seen and only him. Agassi lost to a lot of people on clay.

Argento full
06-04-2009, 05:11 PM
Who do you consider to be the better clay court Agassi or Federer? Andre has 1 RG titles and 2 RU and a Rome title whilst Federer has 3 RU at RG 4 Hamburg titles and 1 Madrid title.

Xavi and Iniesta :)

malakas
06-04-2009, 05:24 PM
Agassi the best ever.

Then of course Murray.

Jan Silva.

ChanceEncounter
06-05-2009, 03:03 PM
At the FO Agassi has 2 finals,2 semis,4 quartefinals and most importantly a WIN(which Fed doesn't have yet).How exactly is Fed "much" better than Agassi on clay? He didn't even reach more FO finals than Andre yet.
Because "better" is not the same as comparing achievements. Better is who would beat the other player head to head. Better is who would beat a pool of random 'average' players more often than the other. Better is who has the better game, better skills, better tools, etc.

How would Agassi's 2 FO finals stack up as greater than Federer's 4 FO finals, 3 of them as losses to Rafael Nadal, who's obviously better than any clay-courter Agassi played during his prime?

TENNISSLAVE
06-05-2009, 03:16 PM
Federer for sure. .the guys a freakin genius.

DonBudge
06-06-2009, 11:32 AM
Ken Rosewall

World Beater
06-06-2009, 02:08 PM
since all the experts are going to measure carrers by "movement" or "court coverage" i can say whatever subjective stupidity comes to mind :

Federer because he uses better cardigans...

lol..you dont really get it do you.

are you telling me with a straight face that agassi has more skills on clay than federer?

the biggest difference i see is movement on the surface, and movement is the biggest commodity in tennis today.

in the 90's it was the serve, in the 2000's its movement, quickness, agility, footwork.

thalivest
06-07-2009, 04:28 PM
I am glad I voted for Federer now. Now that he has won the French it is no contest.

World Beater
06-07-2009, 04:42 PM
I am glad I voted for Federer now. Now that he has won the French it is no contest.

it is indeed closed.

THREAD OVER.

egn
06-07-2009, 05:34 PM
Yea switch my vote to Fed.

hoodjem
06-09-2009, 06:22 AM
I voted Fed earlier. Fed has a better clay-court record than Agassi.

lambielspins
06-09-2009, 06:43 AM
Federer: 1 French Open title, 4 total French Open finals, 5 total French Open semis, 6 total French Open quarters. 5 total Masters titles, 11 total Masters finals.

Agassi: 1 French Open title, 3 total French Open finals, 5 total French Open semis, 9 total French Open quarters. 1 Masters title, 2 total Masters finals.

Federer clearly has the edge IMO. Federer from 2005-2009 has only lost to Nadal at the French. We will see if he stretches out his clay court prime longer or not. If so we add those years, if not we would also add his 2001-2004 losses in comparision to Agassi but even of those 2 were to Corretja, and 1 to Kuerten (yet a past his prime injured Kuerten but champions like that can still play lights out on a given day), with Luis Horna being the only bad loss.

Agassi's 3 finals at the French where from 1990-1999. He played 8 French Opens in that time span. His losses included: 30 year old Gomez in his only ever slam final, straight sets to Kafelnikov in the quarters, Chris Woodruff, and 18 year old Safin. Also worth noting he didnt even play the French in his two worst years of 1993 and 1997, but I would imagine a Woodruff or worse loss was in store for him those years if he had.

Federer is a superior player to Agassi on every surface IMO.

CEvertFan
06-09-2009, 02:26 PM
I voted For Federer even without a FO title and now that he has one it goes even more in Federer's favor. That's not to say that Agassi wasn't a good clay court player, because he was. If Agassi couldn't really hurt Federer on Andre's best surface (hard courts) I just don't see him being able to hurt Federer on clay either.

thalivest
06-09-2009, 02:42 PM
I voted For Federer even without a FO title and now that he has one it goes even more in Federer's favor. That's not to say that Agassi wasn't a good clay court player, because he was. If Agassi couldn't really hurt Federer on Andre's best surface (hard courts) I just don't see him being able to hurt Federer on clay either.

In fairness to Agassi that wasnt Agassi's prime. Then again what is an Agassi prime, LOL! Agassi's greatness is amazing longevity of high level play even with few true prime years where he wasnt either too young, too old, underachieving, slumping, injured. He collected 8 slams with atleast one on each surface with only about 2 true prime years so obviously was still an excellent in the many non-prime years which make up almost his whole career.

Winners or Errors
06-09-2009, 03:36 PM
Because of the fitness regimen late in his career, I think Agassi's prime extended to the age of 35. The only thing that stopped him was his back. If not for that injury, he'd have been playing, like Rosewall and Pancho, at a high level until he was in his 40s. Simply amazing longevity. I think it was because of the way he hit the ball.

dincuss
06-09-2009, 03:47 PM
Fed, Agassi never taken a set off Nadal;)

kimbahpnam
06-09-2009, 04:06 PM
Agassi, fact is he won a RG title and Federer didn't, so I'd put Agassi above Fed on clay until Fed wins one RG title.
Better, Federer.

Greater, Agassi (unless Federer wins Roland Garros).
i agree... if federer wins rg he will be greater but if not agassi
Interesting way to phrase it, but I couldn't agree more.

Lots of switched votes.

flying24
06-10-2009, 03:09 AM
How many total clay court titles do both have in their careers so far?