PDA

View Full Version : How do Nadal and Agassi matchup


davey25
05-19-2010, 12:39 PM
How do you feel the games of Andre Agassi and Rafael Nadal matchup if both were in their primes? Here is how I would see it:

Serve- I think Agassi has the better serve on hard courts. Not sure about on grass. Nadal has the better serve for clay.

Return of Serve- Agassi is better on every surface, including even clay.

Forehand- Nadal is clearly better on clay. Probably better on grass but hard to tell as they never played on the same kind of grass. Hard courts I would say Agassi.

Backhand- Acually pretty much the same as the forehand.

Net game- I would say Nadal on clay since his drop volleys are great and those are effective on clay. Dont know about the other surfaces, neither is that good a volleyer really.

Movement and overall defense- This is Nadal in a landslide

Passing shots- Both are great, Agassi was tested by more attackers than Nadal is.

Mental toughness- I would say Nadal wins this easily, even when Agassi is at his best.

Court positioning- Agassi has a big edge here. This hurts Nadal sometimes.

Ingangibles- I would say they both have different intangibles.


It is again looking more likely Nadal will surpass Agassi in slam titles won. He has already stolen away his Masters titles record. Will he match his career slam.

President
05-19-2010, 12:57 PM
I think Agassi would probablybe a tough matchup for Nadal on hardcourts, considering his flat, penetrating groundstrokes and ability to take the ball early. He plays like Davydenko, but then again without Davy's exceptional movement. It's tough to say. On clay and grass Nadal has a clear edge.

Serve: Nadal-both had mediocre serves but Nadal's lefty serve throws off righty's

Return of Serve-Agassi, though this may be closer than you think. Nadal's return is very consistent, which might frustrate some players more than Agassi's more inconsistent bombs

Forehand-Nadal, on any surface other than fast hardcourt

Backhand-Agassi; its close but Agassi's backhand is phenomenal. Nadal's is great too, and he is capable of actually generating more power than Agassi, but doesn't seem to find the same angles Andre was able to

Net Game-Nadal; Rafa has a solid net game despite rarely coming to net. Very underrated touch player, probably a lot better in this department than Agassi

Movement-Nadal no contest

Passing Shots-Even; Nadal is tested by less net rushers so his pass seems better, but it's tough to call

Mental Toughness-Nadal no contest

Court Positioning-This is a strange category because they obviously have different games. Agassi had a tendency to play too far into the court, while Nadal has the opposite tendency. I guess Agassi has the edge though.

I'd say Nadal will almost certainly be remebered as the greater player by the end of his career. He has been much more consistent, mentally tough, and strong at a particular surface than Agassi was.

jigar
05-19-2010, 01:55 PM
You guys said it all

drakulie
05-19-2010, 05:15 PM
Forehand- Nadal is clearly better on clay. Probably better on grass but hard to tell as they never played on the same kind of grass. Hard courts I would say Agassi.

Backhand- Acually pretty much the same as the forehand.



Agassi's BH is the best ever. Nadal's is nowhere near close.

decades
05-19-2010, 05:46 PM
Nadal on clay and grass agassi on hard courts....

Nadalfan89
05-19-2010, 06:01 PM
Agassi's BH is the best ever. Nadal's is nowhere near close.

I'm going to have to agree with this. As much as I hate to say it, Agassi had a much better backhand than Nadal.

Li Ching Yuen
05-19-2010, 06:55 PM
I have to say that Agassi has a very similar game to Davydenko's, which is BY FAR Nadal's nemesis as far as the tour goes.

Of course the two, Agassi and Davy have their own qualities that set them apart from each other but also similarities that visibly affect Nadal's game:

-BOTH wings are very strong, and can withstand pressure.
-The ability to change direction in rallies, absolutely vital in annihilating Nadal's game.
-Simply the ability to just put ANOTHER ball in play, just not hitting that UE that Nadal is customed to receive from the other player over the net, both these guys are players that on a good day, made you WORK for your win, and that sends a message and means quite a lot.
-reliable serves
-decent all-court game.

But of course there are also differencies:

-Andre had much more power from the baseline and he was not as dependent on movement as Davydenko is.
-Davydenko on the other hand moves much better than Agassi but can't generate as much power as Agassi, especially if we think about serve and return.

vortex1
05-19-2010, 06:59 PM
Nadal would stomp Agassi on clay and grass. On HC it's a toss up, but I think Agassi would have the advantage.

drakulie
05-19-2010, 07:22 PM
Nadal would stomp Agassi on clay and grass.

They played once on grass, and Agassi, although lost, hardly got stomped. To add, it was agassi's last wimbledon, when he could hardly move. In his prime, agassi would kick the snot out of nadal, especially on old grass, where nadal wouldn't stand a chance.

On hard courts, it would be more of the same. Only on clay does Nadal own agassi.

davey25
05-19-2010, 07:24 PM
They played once on grass, and Agassi, although lost, hardly got stomped. To add, it was agassi's last wimbledon, when he could hardly move. In his prime, agassi would kick the snot out of nadal, especially on old grass, where nadal wouldn't stand a chance.

On hard courts, it would be more of the same. Only on clay does Nadal own agassi.

It was straight sets and only one set was close. That would qualify as a stomping. And in no way was the Nadal of 2006 on grass the same as the Nadal of 2008 or even 2007.

davey25
05-19-2010, 07:25 PM
I have to say that Agassi has a very similar game to Davydenko's, which is BY FAR Nadal's nemesis as far as the tour goes.

Of course the two, Agassi and Davy have their own qualities that set them apart from each other but also similarities that visibly affect Nadal's game:

-BOTH wings are very strong, and can withstand pressure.
-The ability to change direction in rallies, absolutely vital in annihilating Nadal's game.
-Simply the ability to just put ANOTHER ball in play, just not hitting that UE that Nadal is customed to receive from the other player over the net, both these guys are players that on a good day, made you WORK for your win, and that sends a message and means quite a lot.
-reliable serves
-decent all-court game.

But of course there are also differencies:

-Andre had much more power from the baseline and he was not as dependent on movement as Davydenko is.
-Davydenko on the other hand moves much better than Agassi but can't generate as much power as Agassi, especially if we think about serve and return.

That all makes sense actually. I think Nadal would have a very hard time beating Agassi on hard courts if Agassi was in form (which many years he wasnt so subsequently Nadal would still get alot of wins anyway). Nadal would own Agassi on clay. Grass is really where the main debate would come. I think on carpet Agassi would really own Nadal, that would be an awful surface for Nadal probably.

drakulie
05-19-2010, 07:31 PM
It was straight sets and only one set was close. That would qualify as a stomping. And in no way was the Nadal of 2006 on grass the same as the Nadal of 2008 or even 2007.


1. Agassi could barely walk, MUCH LESS MOVE. remember, this was his last wimbledon AS HE RETIRED DUE TO A BACK INJURY.
2. The first set went to a tie break.
3. the second set went 6-2.
4. the third set was decided by one break of serve.
5. Nadal made it to the finals.
6. That is hardly stomping on someone.
7. GO LEARN SOMETHING.

Li Ching Yuen
05-19-2010, 07:34 PM
That all makes sense actually. I think Nadal would have a very hard time beating Agassi on hard courts if Agassi was in form (which many years he wasnt so subsequently Nadal would still get alot of wins anyway). Nadal would own Agassi on clay. Grass is really where the main debate would come. I think on carpet Agassi would really own Nadal, that would be an awful surface for Nadal probably.

Yeah, I mourn the absence of tournaments played on carpet. Mostly because of it's uniqueness. It's not only about serve, and just hitting hard. You need speed, amazing reflexes. You have only one shot to make the right move on indoor carpets and that is what truly impressed me. The fact that the player always had to be with at least one shot ahead of where the rally actually is, is so much better than the rather passive game we often witness today on MOST surfaces.

egn
05-19-2010, 07:37 PM
It would be a very surface dependent rivalry. Agassi would take the hardcourts any day. He hits with pace, returns serve great and his solid backhand would have no problem dealing with Nadals forehand on every surface but possibly clay. (Even on clay it could probably deal with it just not as well.) Grass I want to give the edge to Agassi, just cause he hits more flat and a bit harder, but it could be interesting. However on clay Nadal would just dominate.

Li Chung Yien brings up a great point with Davydenko and I agree 100 percent.

I have to say that Agassi has a very similar game to Davydenko's, which is BY FAR Nadal's nemesis as far as the tour goes.

Of course the two, Agassi and Davy have their own qualities that set them apart from each other but also similarities that visibly affect Nadal's game:

-BOTH wings are very strong, and can withstand pressure.
-The ability to change direction in rallies, absolutely vital in annihilating Nadal's game.
-Simply the ability to just put ANOTHER ball in play, just not hitting that UE that Nadal is customed to receive from the other player over the net, both these guys are players that on a good day, made you WORK for your win, and that sends a message and means quite a lot.
-reliable serves
-decent all-court game.

But of course there are also differencies:

-Andre had much more power from the baseline and he was not as dependent on movement as Davydenko is.
-Davydenko on the other hand moves much better than Agassi but can't generate as much power as Agassi, especially if we think about serve and return.



Davydenko although not as great as Agassi is in a way a poor man's version of Agassi (with a bit extra speed) and it causes issues for Nadal. Nadal has notably struggled with guys who can smack the ball hard and flat when taking it on the rise. When Blake was on he too could hurt Nadal, same goes for Nalbandian. After Gilbert took a hold of Agassi he made him into an amazing wall type player. Every single ball came back. That would cause Nadal a huge issue and although on clay not really bother him on surfaces like hardcourts where he is more prone to make errors might be a problem. I also am starting to think a good flat two hander is the worst thing for Nadal. I wonder how a prime Safin would do against Nadal.

However although I think Agassi would be a bad match up either way the rivalry I feel would not be overly exciting. As I don't think on hardcourts Nadal would ever be able to do much damage to Agassi and I don't think on clay Agassi would ever do much damage to Nadal. Grass would be interesting to an extent. However I feel Agassi's flat strokes would just work better on grass as the topspin shots wont sit as high on clay and he could probably smack a couple huge winners due to his compact strokes.

davey25
05-19-2010, 07:41 PM
1. Agassi could barely walk, MUCH LESS MOVE. remember, this was his last wimbledon AS HE RETIRED DUE TO A BACK INJURY.
2. The first set went to a tie break.
3. the second set went 6-2.
4. the third set was decided by one break of serve.
5. Nadal made it to the finals.
6. That is hardly stomping on someone.
7. GO LEARN SOMETHING.

On any planet other than the one you are on when you win 7-6, 6-2, 6-4 and have a big edge in all the stats- many more winners, many fewer unforced errors, many more points won, serving stats, you stomped someone. And I am well aware Agassi was at the end of his career and nowhere near his prime but Nadal also was at a whole other level on grass in the following years to what he was in 2006. In 2006 he was still a baby on grass and made the final due to the really weak grass court field at the time. He nearly lost to Robert Kendrick, someone he would beat in under 2 hours in his prime on grass.

davey25
05-19-2010, 07:43 PM
Yeah, I mourn the absence of tournaments played on carpet. Mostly because of it's uniqueness. It's not only about serve, and just hitting hard. You need speed, amazing reflexes. You have only one shot to make the right move on indoor carpets and that is what truly impressed me. The fact that the player always had to be with at least one shot ahead of where the rally actually is, is so much better than the rather passive game we often witness today on MOST surfaces.

Yeah I miss carpet alot too! I hate how the tour is making all the surfaces slower and more similar. Carpet was a very unique surface from all the others, and it provided some of the most exciting matches on tour when it was still around.

abmk
05-19-2010, 07:44 PM
probably:

9-1 on clay to nadal
6-4 on grass to nadal
7-3 on HC to agassi
8-2 on carpet/indoor to agassi

Those who are comparing davydenko to agassi - are forgetting a key point - davydenko is a GREAT mover, agassi is not. There are a lot of points where davydenko uses his movement to defend and then turn it into offense ... Not that agassi wouldn't be a tough matchup for nadal on HC, but this is a key difference !

egn
05-19-2010, 07:44 PM
Yeah I miss carpet alot too! I hate how the tour is making all the surfaces slower and more similar. Carpet was a very unique surface from all the others, and it provided some of the most exciting matches on tour when it was still around.

Carpet was also great cause not one type of player would ever dominate, baseliners like Ivan could thrive and serve and volley guys like Becker. Muster did pretty well on carpet, it was just a surface that had tons of competition in it. I understand the injury risk, but it was the major surface in the 80s and nobody was complaining then.. :(

egn
05-19-2010, 07:45 PM
probably:

9-1 on clay to nadal
6-4 on grass to nadal
7-3 on HC to agassi
8-2 on carpet/indoor to agassi

Those who are comparing davydenko to agassi - are forgetting a key point - davydenko is a GREAT mover, agassi is not. There are a lot of points where davydenko uses his movement to defend and then turn it into offense ... Not that agassi wouldn't be a tough matchup for nadal on HC, but this is a key difference !

I agree the movement is a key difference, however where he loses in movement I think he can make up for in sheer shotmaking ability. Agassi could probably come up with a few more winners than Davy can.

abmk
05-19-2010, 07:45 PM
the agassi nadal match in wimby 2006 doesn't prove anything really. Why bother arguing about it ?

davey25
05-19-2010, 07:47 PM
the agassi nadal match in wimby 2006 doesn't prove anything really. Why bother arguing about it ?

I agree it doesnt. It is pointless either way really. It would have only been meaningful if Agassi had actually been close which he wasnt. I wasnt the one who brought it up.

davey25
05-19-2010, 07:49 PM
Carpet was also great cause not one type of player would ever dominate, baseliners like Ivan could thrive and serve and volley guys like Becker. Muster did pretty well on carpet, it was just a surface that had tons of competition in it. I understand the injury risk, but it was the major surface in the 80s and nobody was complaining then.. :(

Yeah nobody could just say it was a serving contest since you had great servers doing well, great serve and volleyers including ones without overpowering serves like Henman, you had power baseliners, you even had some clay court baseliners. One year you had a Moya-Corretja final, two years before that Becker-Sampras. And the outdoor hard courts which monopolize most of the tour today are an even bigger injury risk if anything.

egn
05-19-2010, 07:51 PM
Yeah nobody could just say it was a serving contest since you had great servers doing well, great serve and volleyers including ones without overpowering serves like Henman, you had power baseliners, you even had some clay court baseliners. One year you had a Moya-Corretja final, two years before that Becker-Sampras. And the outdoor hard courts which monopolize most of the tour today are an even bigger injury risk if anything.

Yea sigh, Shanghai although is a nice venue its a slower hardcourt and just kills what used to be a fast indoor season. The fast tennis on indoor hardcourts and carpet was always great to watch. You would get some phenomenal shotmaking and see some players with great games thrive. I.E Nalbandian, Safin and Davy as of late.

Carpet provides the diversity and unpredictably that the tour needs. In a good way.

drakulie
05-19-2010, 07:56 PM
In 2006 he was still a baby on grass and made the final due to the really weak grass court field at the time.

Yeah, of course it was a weak field. :roll:

He didn't stomp anyone, and should be ashamed he was taken to a tie break by an old man who could barely walk. I hate to think what AA would do to him if he was in his prime.

Go back to your thread where you yap about how sampras dominated AA from the baseline. :roll:

Seriously, go learn something.

egn
05-19-2010, 07:58 PM
Yeah, of course it was a weak field. :roll:


34 year old Jonas Bjorkman made the semis that year....it was a tad bit weak..mostly due to Roddick magically being MIA that year.

drakulie
05-19-2010, 08:05 PM
34 year old Jonas Bjorkman made the semis that year....it was a tad bit weak..mostly due to Roddick magically being MIA that year.

I understand. anytime someone is arguing about a tournament, they need the field to be "weak" in order to prove their argument.

Let me try it>>>>>>>>

Nadal has only won all his French Open titles because the rest of the field sucks on clay, and is "weak". :roll:

one more thing, Roddick played in the 2006 wimbledon. He lost to andy murray.

Tennis_Monk
05-19-2010, 08:07 PM
I'm going to have to agree with this. As much as I hate to say it, Agassi had a much better backhand than Nadal.

I dont call it better. yes, Andre's backhand is something most people would die for, However there is one particular aspect of Nadal's backhand that is just so great. I am talking about Backhand cross court shot , especially the angled one where he gets his natural Right hand involved.

That shot got him out of trouble many a times and that alone sometimes worth the rest of the parts.

egn
05-19-2010, 08:08 PM
I understand. anytime someone is arguing about a tournament, they need the field to be "weak" in order to prove their argument.

Let me try it>>>>>>>>

Nadal has only won all his French Open titles because the rest of the field sucks on clay, and is "weak". :roll:

one more thing, Roddick played in the 2006 wimbledon. He lost to andy murray.

I know he played MIA as in he just magically sucked. He went from two time finalist to just playing awful in 06.

drakulie
05-19-2010, 08:11 PM
I know he played MIA as in he just magically sucked. He went from two time finalist to just playing awful in 06.

I undertand. His opponents were just lucky, as the sun was in Roddicks eyes that year.

okdude1992
05-19-2010, 08:11 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZVz_GP_aac
great match imo

i think nadal plays a similar game to agassi (wearing the opponent down) but does a better job at it, albeit in a different way (spin as opposed to flat and pace) The defense and speed of nadal is by far superior to agassi and that gives him an advantage

however prime nadal vs agassi, 10 meetings on every surface, i predict would be:
clay: nadal 10-0
grass: nadal 7-3
slow hard: even 5-5
fast hard: agassi 6-4 maybe 7-3

egn
05-19-2010, 08:18 PM
I undertand. His opponents were just lucky, as the sun was in Roddicks eyes that year.

I don't know why your so defensive it was a werid year on grass with a weak group of semifinalists. Nobody is doubt Nadal as a great grass court player who clearly proved it over the next two years..so whats the deal? 2006 was a weak grass court year.

drakulie
05-19-2010, 08:19 PM
2006 was a weak grass court year.

so was 2007, 2008, 2009, and will be this year. same goes for the last 6 years at the FO. weak fields.

egn
05-19-2010, 08:21 PM
so was 2007, 2008, 2009, and will be this year. same goes for the last 6 years at the FO. weak fields.

Never said that....sigh :-?

drakulie
05-19-2010, 08:23 PM
Never said that....sigh :-?


so only the years and matches **YOU** pick can be "weak"?? Like I said earlier, anytime someone wants to make their point about a player or tournament, they throw out the "weak field" argument.

egn
05-19-2010, 08:31 PM
so only the years and matches **YOU** pick can be "weak"?? Like I said earlier, anytime someone wants to make their point about a player or tournament, they throw out the "weak field" argument.

I understand your point I'm just agreeing with davey25 as wimbledon 06 was weak but not because I'm trying to make an argument. Cause you just look at the players who went deep and who was playing. Thats the reasoning at least by me agreeing with him. Seeing a 34 year old doubles specialist make the semi finals after being nearly 10 years past his best singles ranking and his days of a top 10 singles just seems to be a bit weird. Especially since Bjorkman was just doing the same thing he had been doing for the past few years and Fed kind of exposed that by beating him something crazy like 6-2, 6-0, 6-2 if I recall.

drakulie
05-19-2010, 08:36 PM
Seeing a 34 year old doubles specialist make the semi finals after being nearly 10 years past his best singles ranking and his days of a top 10 singles just seems to be a bit weird.

and seeing a guy who was nearly cripple take a guy who made the finals to a tie break speaks volumes.

But I agree, the entire history of tennis tournaments have all been weak fields. If only they would let us hacks who play recreationally play, we would show them what real tennis is about. I mean, I could have taken a set off Nadal easy in the 2008 FO finals after he beat up that weak *** player 6-1, 6-3, 6-0. But again, we have to endure these weak draws. oh well.

sir_shanks_alot
05-19-2010, 08:43 PM
Agassi was a great returner, but he was also aced often. He was never a great mover, like nearly everyone out there today. Today is baseline tennis and thats why players with exceptional movement and defense are so successful.

What Agassi hit he would pound and put Nadal under pressure or win the point outright. Grass would be interesting. Clay would be ugly. Agree, one match doesn't mean much. I think Nadal and Federer are probably the two best players to have ever played the game.

Leelord337
05-19-2010, 08:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZVz_GP_aac
great match imo

i think nadal plays a similar game to agassi (wearing the opponent down) but does a better job at it, albeit in a different way (spin as opposed to flat and pace) The defense and speed of nadal is by far superior to agassi and that gives him an advantage

however prime nadal vs agassi, 10 meetings on every surface, i predict would be:
clay: nadal 10-0
grass: nadal 7-3
slow hard: even 5-5
fast hard: agassi 6-4 maybe 7-3

good stuff, i liked the match b/w nalby 'n agassi here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNO_t4gibkk)

Spider
05-19-2010, 10:33 PM
Nadal is clearly leagues above Agassi on clay and will win each match on this surface.

On grass, Nadal will enter as the favorite each time and will end up winning most of their encounters.

On hard courts, Agassi in his prime would win most of their matches on fast hard courts and Nadal will have slight advantage on slow hard courts.

World Beater
05-19-2010, 10:47 PM
Nadal pretty much everywhere. I think it would be even on carpet indoors though.

Nadal just gets too many balls and contrary to popular belief, agassi has tons of trouble returning nadal's serve. agassi even stated it as much saying he had to actually stand further back to get a crack the serve because of the action on the ball.

Nadal's high ball does indeed bother agassi quite a bit. Watch the match in canada and you will see that agassi hit many routine bhs out because he found it tough to control the ball. agassi called nadal's ball the "meanest" he's ever faced.

agassi will have to play high risk tennis to take nadal out and be on his game. Because nadal is way more athletic, can play outstanding defense and has a higher percentage attacking game than agassi.

World Beater
05-19-2010, 10:50 PM
34 year old Jonas Bjorkman made the semis that year....it was a tad bit weak..mostly due to Roddick magically being MIA that year.

why is age the barometer for weakness???

i will tell you what is worse...

bastl taking out an out of prime sampras at wimbledon. why? bastl himself was a journeyman and not a young gun.

you want more???

how about voltchkov making the SF and losing to sampras. pioline making the finals!!!

bjorkman though older was still quality. the guy was #4 in the sampras era after all when the giants on grass supposedly played.

kafelnikov making the semifinal at wimbledon. call me when davydenko makes a semi at wimbledon.

World Beater
05-19-2010, 10:53 PM
How do you feel the games of Andre Agassi and Rafael Nadal matchup if both were in their primes? Here is how I would see it:

Serve- I think Agassi has the better serve on hard courts. Not sure about on grass. Nadal has the better serve for clay.

Return of Serve- Agassi is better on every surface, including even clay.Forehand- Nadal is clearly better on clay. Probably better on grass but hard to tell as they never played on the same kind of grass. Hard courts I would say Agassi.

Backhand- Acually pretty much the same as the forehand.

Net game- I would say Nadal on clay since his drop volleys are great and those are effective on clay. Dont know about the other surfaces, neither is that good a volleyer really.

Movement and overall defense- This is Nadal in a landslide

Passing shots- Both are great, Agassi was tested by more attackers than Nadal is.

Mental toughness- I would say Nadal wins this easily, even when Agassi is at his best.

Court positioning- Agassi has a big edge here. This hurts Nadal sometimes.

Ingangibles- I would say they both have different intangibles.


It is again looking more likely Nadal will surpass Agassi in slam titles won. He has already stolen away his Masters titles record. Will he match his career slam.

all the bolded ones are wrong.

Mikael
05-19-2010, 10:58 PM
I think the 2005 Montreal final was a good match and a good indication of how things would unfold between Agassi and Nadal, at least on slowish hardcourts. 90s Agassi with the huge groundstrokes and the more reckless tennis would have a much better chance against Nadal than methodical, percentage tennis Agassi from the 00s.

vive le beau jeu !
05-20-2010, 01:17 AM
Yeah, I mourn the absence of tournaments played on carpet. Mostly because of it's uniqueness. It's not only about serve, and just hitting hard. You need speed, amazing reflexes. You have only one shot to make the right move on indoor carpets and that is what truly impressed me. The fact that the player always had to be with at least one shot ahead of where the rally actually is, is so much better than the rather passive game we often witness today on MOST surfaces.
i totally agree. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/images/icons/icon14.gif
it's really sad that carpet is not used anymore... :(
and as some :roll: complain about too much hardcourt, wouldn't it be a good alternative, as it's probably less "traumatising" for the joints ?
Nadal pretty much everywhere. I think it would be even on carpet indoors though.
agassi would kill nadal on carpet, where nadal's biggest weapon, his huge topspin, wouldn't work much.

drakulie
05-20-2010, 05:50 AM
Nadal pretty much everywhere. I think it would be even on carpet indoors though.

Nadal just gets too many balls and contrary to popular belief, agassi has tons of trouble returning nadal's serve. agassi even stated it as much saying he had to actually stand further back to get a crack the serve because of the action on the ball.


Where you guys get this stuff is unbelievable. Makes one wonder if you have watched, or even played the game.

Agassi had a winning record against Ivanisevic (lefty), who is arguably one of the best servers of all time. He beat him on grass and carpet, and you think he would have trouble with Nadal's 80-90 mph slice serve??? LMAO.

TennisFan008
05-20-2010, 08:11 AM
Nightmare matchup for Nadal.

aldeayeah
05-20-2010, 08:17 AM
Where you guys get this stuff is unbelievable. Makes one wonder if you have watched, or even played the game.

Agassi had a winning record against Ivanisevic (lefty), who is arguably one of the best servers of all time. He beat him on grass and carpet, and you think he would have trouble with Nadal's 80-90 mph slice serve??? LMAO.
The part with Agassi having problems with Nadal's serve is straight from the horse's mouth.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/15/sports/sp-newswire15

Also, Brad Gilbert:

“He [Nadal] won Canada [against Agassi] on what I thought was the fastest hard court I had seen in 10 years"

On paper, Agassi should be able to defeat Nadal consistently on hard courts, but in reality, I think it'd be very close.

drakulie
05-20-2010, 09:09 AM
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you considered a crippled Agassi in his prime. :roll: Get real. Agassi in his prime, who is one of, if not the greatest returner ever, has absolutely zero problems with nadal's mediocre serve.

Chadwixx
05-20-2010, 09:13 AM
You sound like azzuri or gamesampras (davey) with this prime talk drak :)

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=A092

Nadal owned him :twisted:

aldeayeah
05-20-2010, 09:20 AM
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you considered a crippled Agassi in his prime. :roll: Get real. Agassi in his prime, who is one of, if not the greatest returner ever, has absolutely zero problems with nadal's mediocre serve.
Crippled Agassi made it to USO finals like a month after that.

drakulie
05-20-2010, 09:24 AM
chadwixx, ^^Yes, he "owned him" during a "weak era", while agassi was months away from retirement. :roll:

but you're right, Nadals serve is way better than these guys:

Sampras
Becker
Ivanisevic
Stich
Roddick
Krajicek

:roll:

drakulie
05-20-2010, 09:26 AM
Crippled Agassi made it to USO finals like a month after that.

And it is obvious you didn't see that final, huh?

aldeayeah
05-20-2010, 09:39 AM
The final in which he put up a fight against an in fire Federer?

Chadwixx
05-20-2010, 09:39 AM
chadwixx, ^^Yes, he "owned him" during a "weak era", while agassi was months away from retirement. :roll:

but you're right, Nadals serve is way better than these guys:

Sampras
Becker
Ivanisevic
Stich
Roddick
Krajicek

:roll:

Better in the way he uses it, which is why he is more accomplished than all on the list except sampras :twisted:

drakulie
05-20-2010, 10:00 AM
Better in the way he uses it, which is why he is more accomplished than all on the list except sampras :twisted:


No, he is simply put, the greatest server of all time. Thanks for chiming in.

Cesc Fabregas
05-20-2010, 10:13 AM
Where you guys get this stuff is unbelievable. Makes one wonder if you have watched, or even played the game.

Agassi had a winning record against Ivanisevic (lefty), who is arguably one of the best servers of all time. He beat him on grass and carpet, and you think he would have trouble with Nadal's 80-90 mph slice serve??? LMAO.

What ******** logic, even by your standards. Federer owns Roddick so he should have no problem with Nadal's serve, right? :roll:

drakulie
05-20-2010, 10:15 AM
What ******** logic, even by your standards. Federer owns Roddick so he should have no problem with Nadal's serve, right? :roll:

Don't worry, I already gave in and acknowledged Nadal has the greatest serve in history, momo.

davey25
05-20-2010, 10:30 AM
all the bolded ones are wrong.

Interesting. So you believe Nadal is a better returner than Agassi on clay? I couldnt agree on that one.

vandre
05-20-2010, 10:45 AM
You sound like azzuri or gamesampras (davey) with this prime talk drak :)

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=A092

Nadal owned him :twisted:

what part of spondylolisthesis don't you understand? :twisted:

davey25
05-20-2010, 10:51 AM
My guess on the head to head if they played 10 matches everywhere:

Clay- Nadal leads 10-0
Carpet- Agassi leads 8-2
Hard courts- Tied 5-5. Agassi during his good years wins most of the meetings but he had so many slumping years
Grass- Nadal leads 7-3

Chadwixx
05-20-2010, 10:52 AM
All of it :)

He was healthy enough to play the match, dont see why he wants to use that as an excuse now. If it were really as bad as people make it out to be do you really think he would be competing with the best players in the world? Its like pete's blood disorder.

Drak, you cannot debate the guys on your list (aside from pete) have better serve's than nadal when nadals % held is much higher :twisted:

drakulie
05-20-2010, 11:02 AM
Drak, you cannot debate the guys on your list (aside from pete) have better serve's than nadal when nadals % held is much higher :twisted:

I already said, Nadal has the greatest serve of all time. Thanks for your insight.

TheNatural
05-20-2010, 11:17 AM
Too slow and no big serve is 1 too many weaknesses to match up decently with Nadal. To match up well Agassi would either need an oxygen machine at the change of ends or Nadal to be severely injured.

Semi-Pro
05-20-2010, 11:31 AM
Agassi would give no long periods of rest between points. There's another weakness.

Gorecki
05-20-2010, 11:39 AM
what part of spondylolisthesis don't you understand? :twisted:

the part where nadal got Aced by a man with that 7 times...

and somehow, these peeps think that Fedal would blow them of court prime to prime when they didnt do that on prime vs oldies...

bolo
05-20-2010, 11:42 AM
Agassi would give no long periods of rest between points. There's another weakness.

lol, agassi was getting impatient waiting for nadal to serve in their wimbledon match. :)

Gorecki
05-20-2010, 11:47 AM
lol, agassi was getting impatient waiting for nadal to serve in their wimbledon match. :)

nah... why would he? doesnt nadal serve within normality? unless there is something wrong with nadal's time between serves... oh wait.... nevermind...

:twisted:

bolo
05-20-2010, 12:01 PM
nah... why would he? doesnt nadal serve within normality? unless there is something wrong with nadal's time between serves... oh wait.... nevermind...

:twisted:

Can't rush perfection Gorecki!

Agassi's real problem was that his outside option was quite good at that point....steffi graf. ;)

Gorecki
05-20-2010, 12:05 PM
Can't rush perfection Gorecki!

Agassi's real problem was that his outside option was quite good at that point....steffi graf. ;)

those legs... my god...

bolo
05-20-2010, 12:07 PM
those legs... my god...

lol. 10 char. :)

thalivest
05-20-2010, 01:39 PM
the part where nadal got Aced by a man with that 7 times...

and somehow, these peeps think that Fedal would blow them of court prime to prime when they didnt do that on prime vs oldies...

Even if we exclude Wimbledon 2006 an old Agassi was still a combined 0-9 vs Federer and Nadal in 2003-2005 and 6-22 in sets with quite a few bagel and breadstick sets. He didnt even have to play Federer or Nadal on grass or clay either, or in Federer's case carpet. Their only matches were on hard courts, Agassi's best surface by a huge margin. Yet he was still much less of a threat to them than even Roddick, Hewitt, and Nalbandian were those years. Agassi was a late bloomer who wasted almost all his prime years and the old Agassi in 2003-2005 was playing much better than Agassi in 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, most of 1994 was. After all how would the Agassi who couldnt even beat Doug Flach, Luke Jensen, Scott Draper, have fared vs Federer and Nadal? I shudder to imagine. Prime Agassi is basically a myth which hardly ever existed as it lasted only 2 years total. July 1994-September 1995 and June 1999-January 2000. And even that Agassi had to go 5 sets to beat Medvedev and Todd Martin in slam finals, while getting thoroughly owned by Sampras at Wimbledon and the U.S Open.

As for never blowing off the court you obviously never saw the 2003 TMC final, Dubai 2005, Australian Open 2005. As for Nadal if Agassi had played Nadal on clay in 2005 he would have been lucky to win games given that he couldnt even beat him on hard courts while Nadal was then so weak on hard courts back then he was barely winning matches in slams on hard courts.

vandre
05-20-2010, 02:51 PM
Even if we exclude Wimbledon 2006 an old Agassi was still a combined 0-9 vs Federer and Nadal in 2003-2005 and 6-22 in sets with quite a few bagel and breadstick sets.

where do you see fed in the op's question? oh, that's right, NO WHERE!

this is strictly how prime nadal would fair against prime agassi. period. you can spout of with that whole "prime agassi" myth and i can spout off about how there's not been a prime nadal since the 09 aussie because of his gimpy little knees, but at the end of the day none of that means anything because it is about those two players facing each other at their peaks.

on clay, nadal wins and it isn't even close (hooray for you).

on hardcourt, agassi owns nadal. not even close. 4>1 and nadal's lone aussie title came after they changed the surface (which coincidentally happened to suit nadal's game). unless you've got a time-travelling delorean, neither 2003 or 2005 = 94-95 or even 99-00, so that stuff about tmc is pointless, especially since agassi's back problems started in 2001. the fact of the matter is this: agassi's pace and ability to hit on the rise would leave nadal's knees in a million little pieces.

on grass, i'd have to say it's pretty close but again i have to ask, which grass are they playing on (the modern "green clay" version or the circa 92 grass)? again, on the modern grass, it's an absolute toss up. nadal's topspin is going to be killer but i'm not sure agassi can't handle it. now on the old grass, agassi gets the edge.

overall, regardless of surface...

serve- even; agassi's serve wasn't a weapon but is was far from a liability and nadal has that lefty thing going for him.
return- agassi by a mile
forehand- nadal; he can put it anywhere and gets some incredible angles
backhand- agassi by a mile
movement- nadal by a ton, but he's gonna need it when a.a. camps out on the baseline and starts dictating play.
volleys- even; nadal might have better hands at the net but agassi's got the swinging forehand volley
intangibles- nadal might have a slight edge here; i think people forget that if sampras doesn't pull some of those running forehands out of his @$$, we might be hearing agassi's name in the goat discussion. what muddles things is the belief i have that speaking in terms of their games, i think what andre does will bother nadal more than the other way around.

davey25
05-20-2010, 02:55 PM
overall, regardless of surface...

serve- even; agassi's serve wasn't a weapon but is was far from a liability and nadal has that lefty thing going for him.
return- agassi by a mile
forehand- nadal; he can put it anywhere and gets some incredible angles
backhand- agassi by a mile
movement- nadal by a ton, but he's gonna need it when a.a. camps out on the baseline and starts dictating play.
volleys- even; nadal might have better hands at the net but agassi's got the swinging forehand volley
intangibles- nadal might have a slight edge here; i think people forget that if sampras doesn't pull some of those running forehands out of his @$$, we might be hearing agassi's name in the goat discussion. what muddles things is the belief i have that speaking in terms of their games, i think what andre does will bother nadal more than the other way around.

That all seems reasonable but one cannot ignore the mental side of the game which is a HUGE part of who wins especialy when players are closely matched. And it is here Nadal is superior to almost everyone in history, and certainly well superior to Agassi. Not that Agassi wasnt strong there himself when he was actually focused and into tennis but certainly not a Nadal.

I also dont see Agassi doing as well as Nadal does vs Federer on the current grass. When one thinks about it Nadal could have easily won the last 3 Wimbledons over Federer. He should have won that 2008 final where he overall outplayed Federer. And he probably would have won last year had he been able to play.

NamRanger
05-20-2010, 02:57 PM
People don't understand that the groundstrokes have to be matched up against one another. Clearly Agassi's forehand is a better groundstroke than Nadal's backhand, and his backhand is steady enough for him to hold off Nadal's forehand. This is especially true on hardcourts and grass. This whole "Nadal's BH is a weapon" is a myth. When he is balls on fire yeah, his backhand is a weapon, but who's weaker side isn't? Typically Nadal will roll his backhand into play crosscourt or towards the middle of the court, and this is why he loses sometimes is because he plays extremely passive off that side at times.

NamRanger
05-20-2010, 03:00 PM
That all seems reasonable but one cannot ignore the mental side of the game which is a HUGE part of who wins especialy when players are closely matched. And it is here Nadal is superior to almost everyone in history, and certainly well superior to Agassi. Not that Agassi wasnt strong there himself when he was actually focused and into tennis but certainly not a Nadal.

I also dont see Agassi doing as well as Nadal does vs Federer on the current grass. When one thinks about it Nadal could have easily won the last 3 Wimbledons over Federer. He should have won that 2008 final where he overall outplayed Federer. And he probably would have won last year had he been able to play.



Joke, you're saying he makes it pass Hewitt, Roddick, and Murray and then somehow beats a Federer serving absurdly well even for his standards?


Even if he gets to the final to reach Federer, he'll likely be exhausted. The best of Nadal vs. a subpar Roddick in 2008 on grass was a match decided by 1 break in each set.

Cesc Fabregas
05-20-2010, 03:04 PM
Joke, you're saying he makes it pass Hewitt, Roddick, and Murray and then somehow beats a Federer serving absurdly well even for his standards?


Even if he gets to the final to reach Federer, he'll likely be exhausted. The best of Nadal vs. a subpar Roddick in 2008 on grass was a match decided by 1 break in each set.

Federer played awful in last years final, lets not make out he played god like, we know its makes your boy Roddick look better. The main reason he was serving so well is because Roddick can't read his serve to save his life, he has terribe anticipation.

davey25
05-20-2010, 03:05 PM
Joke, you're saying he makes it pass Hewitt, Roddick, and Murray and then somehow beats a Federer serving absurdly well even for his standards?


Even if he gets to the final to reach Federer, he'll likely be exhausted. The best of Nadal vs. a subpar Roddick in 2008 on grass was a match decided by 1 break in each set.

Hewitt is a walkover for a healthy Nadal on any surface at this point in time. Roddick is a much bigger challenge but I am not sure I see Roddick beating Nadal in a slam. Even a subpar Roddick will hold serve most of the time btw. Murray can only beat Nadal on hard courts, he clearly isnt good enough on either grass or clay. As for Federer we all know about his Nadal phobia and what a nightmare opponent Nadal is for him on any surface these days. Serving absurdly well for his standards? Roddick is an awful returner, it is probably the worst part of his game, so that is the main reason in such a long match Federer's serve became absurdly strong for his standards.

NamRanger
05-20-2010, 03:08 PM
Federer played awful in last years final, lets not make out he played god like, we know its makes your boy Roddick look better. The main reason he was serving so well is because Roddick can't read his serve to save his life, he has terribe anticipation.



Yes, Federer played awful in last years final. Nadal must have played awful every time he's lost a match, or he's come close to losing one, or he was tired, injured, etc. He simply cannot be beaten when healthy AMIRITE?




Federer did not play awful in last year's final. If he did he would have lost in straights. If you want awful Federer see this :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EOTGN7fPO4




The funniest thing is you simply don't appear on these forums unless Nadal is in full gear. Isn't that funny?

Chadwixx
05-20-2010, 04:21 PM
lol, agassi was getting impatient waiting for nadal to serve in their wimbledon match. :)

The 3rd set of their match in canada was funny, i thought agassi's head was going to explode.

JeMar
05-20-2010, 04:33 PM
Agassi's BH is the best ever. Nadal's is nowhere near close.

Pretty much this.

I find the comparison to Andre's backhand pretty blasphemous.

The rest is okay.

davey25
05-20-2010, 04:55 PM
Agassi's backhand is certainly not the best ever on clay, nor grass. On hard courts maybe, though even that is debateable.

TheFifthSet
05-20-2010, 05:16 PM
My guess on the head to head if they played 10 matches everywhere:

Clay- Nadal leads 10-0
Carpet- Agassi leads 8-2
Hard courts- Tied 5-5. Agassi during his good years wins most of the meetings but he had so many slumping yearsGrass- Nadal leads 7-3

LOL. Agassi had 7 hardcourt slams, and is already a pretty a unfavourable matchup for Nads on HC. I reckon he wins 7/10 on HC.

Tennis_Monk
05-20-2010, 05:32 PM
and seeing a guy who was nearly cripple take a guy who made the finals to a tie break speaks volumes.

But I agree, the entire history of tennis tournaments have all been weak fields. If only they would let us hacks who play recreationally play, we would show them what real tennis is about. I mean, I could have taken a set off Nadal easy in the 2008 FO finals after he beat up that weak *** player 6-1, 6-3, 6-0. But again, we have to endure these weak draws. oh well.

You are really being modest. I will put it plainly and succintly. With about 1600 posts to my credit, i could have easily beaten Nadal in FO 2008 in straight sets. There is no telling what you could have done.

davey25
05-20-2010, 05:38 PM
LOL. Agassi had 7 hardcourt slams, and is already a pretty a unfavourable matchup for Nads on HC. I reckon he wins 7/10 on HC.

Agassi has 6 hard court slams. And atleast a couple of those were with the weakest draws any player has probably ever had to a slam (01 AO and 03 AO especialy). Nadal could end up with atleast 4 for all we know, and considering his competition would have been far tougher that is arguably superior if he manages that many. Anyway that is irrelevant, Corretja has 0 hard court slam semis and has a competitive hard court head to head with Agassi, as does Rios. What is relevant is going through all the years Agassi wasnt playing well in his so called physical prime:

1993- Not even in top 20. Won 4 slam matches all year.
1996- Barely stayed in top 10. Destroyed by Chang in straight sets in 2 slam semis, and crashed out first week of other 2 slams.
1997- Ended year outside top 100.
1998- Slam record of 7-4 this year, not past the 4th round of any of them.

Would Agassi have likely had the edge over Nadal on even just hard courts any of these years? Of course not. The hypothetical of how Agassi and Nadal at their best matchup on hard courts is only part of the consideration since Agassi at his best was very irregular. I admit Agassi and Nadal both at their best Agassi would win more, yet with how little he was at his best in his physical prime he would still do well to break even on hard courts. Only on carpet where Nadal would be fairly hopeless I think would even frequently slumping Agassi manage Nadal most times.

abmk
05-20-2010, 07:07 PM
I also dont see Agassi doing as well as Nadal does vs Federer on the current grass. When one thinks about it Nadal could have easily won the last 3 Wimbledons over Federer. He should have won that 2008 final where he overall outplayed Federer. And he probably would have won last year had he been able to play.

oh la la

and federer should've won the 2006 FO where he let nadal off the hook after a brilliant 1st set and the 2007 FO where he let go off a billion BP chances .. He was the "better" player in both of those and "outplayed" nadal

oh and yeah, he'd have crushed nadal in 2009 FO had they met in the finals seeing as nadal was taken out in 4 by sod and fed crushed sod in 3

:roll:

abmk
05-20-2010, 07:12 PM
Federer played awful in last years final, lets not make out he played god like, we know its makes your boy Roddick look better.

he played pretty ok in last year's wimby final, no way was his play awful. You don't get 100+ winners and 38 UEs by playing awful !

The main reason he was serving so well is because Roddick can't read his serve to save his life, he has terribe anticipation.

oh really ? when did he serve as well against this very roddick ? (save their TMC 2007 match ) ... He served darn well by ANY standards and would've had tons of aces against anyone - just that roddick being the returner made it appear even more impressive

THUNDERVOLLEY
05-20-2010, 07:30 PM
all the bolded ones are wrong.

Hold on...one of davey's bolded lines was:

Passing shots- Both are great, Agassi was tested by more attackers than Nadal is.

The greater volume of attacking players is on Agassi's side (think about the entire era)....while so few modern players even attempt that style of play.

drakulie
05-20-2010, 08:01 PM
Agassi has 6 hard court slams. And atleast a couple of those were with the weakest draws any player has probably ever had to a slam

I agree. Beginning with beating that weak 14 time grand slam winner for two of his AO titles.

davey25
05-20-2010, 08:18 PM
I agree. Beginning with beating that weak 14 time grand slam winner for two of his AO titles.

You continue to take things I say out of context. These are the draws Agassi had for his final 2 Australian Open titles I was referring to.

2001 Australian Open:
R128 Jiri Vanek (CZE) 78 W 6-0, 7-5, 6-3
R64 Paul Goldstein (USA) 80 W 6-1, 6-3, 6-1
R32 David Prinosil (GER) 39 W 7-6(11), 5-0 RET
R16 Andrew Ilie (AUS) 49 W 6-7(1), 6-3, 6-0, 6-3
Q Todd Martin (USA) 54 W 7-5, 6-3, 6-4
S Patrick Rafter (AUS) 15 W 7-5, 2-6, 6-7(5), 6-2, 6-3
W Arnaud Clement (FRA) 18 W 6-4, 6-2, 6-2

2003 Australian Open:

R128 Brian Vahaly (USA) 93 W 7-5, 6-3, 6-3
R64 Hyung-Taik Lee (KOR) 67 W 6-1, 6-0, 6-0
R32 Nicolas Escude (FRA) 37 W 6-2, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4
R16 Guillermo Coria (ARG) 45 W 6-1, 3-1 RET
Q Sebastien Grosjean (FRA) 16 W 6-3, 6-2, 6-2
S Wayne Ferreira (RSA) 39 W 6-2, 6-2, 6-3
W Rainer Schuettler (GER) 36 W 6-2, 6-2, 6-1

Draw your own conclusions to what I was talking about. And for that matter here are his 2 U.S Open titles were nothing to write home about either. His opponents out of those 14 matches have a combined 0 U.S Open titles between them all, and other than Martin's actual U.S Open final vs Agassi and Stich's actual U.S Open final vs Agassi those two no other U.S Open finals for any of them.

Clay lover
05-20-2010, 08:53 PM
Now we're not comparing players, but commenting on how they match up in a REAL tennis match. I fail to see why comparing their greatness or each of their strokes have any relevance to the actual debate, more like a desperate **** attempt to prove that their player is better. Bear in mind, however, that what we are talking about is a MATCH UP issue and even if a player loses the match up it does not automatically mean he is the lesser player, so insecure fanboys should find somewhere other than this thread to worship their favorite players.

Objectively speaking, I think Nadal is a bad matchup for Agassi than it is the other way round. Agassi's game was built around consistent and hard groundstrokes when he enjoyed the most success. But his groundstrokes were not "force-a-winner" kind of hard but "consistently" hard to break down his opponents. As we all know, an in form Nadal gets to almost EVERY of these shots, and Agassi does not really have the net skills or the "pull-a-winner" ability to capitalize on his hard consistent groundstrokes. Agassi also didn't have the speed (well arguably because his "prime" actually came when he was older) of most of the big hitters Nadal has trouble with today, and struggles to get into position when faced with Nadal's defensive shots to the other side of his court. This is what Nadal does to you. Yes he runs a lot, but he makes you run a lot too. he almost has an uncanny knack during defense to hit to the comparatively empty area of your court to give himself more time to recover while you run to get into position for the next shot. In the two ATP matches they played it can be seen that Agassi was often the one in command but he somehow failed to end points and let Nadal comeback with spectecular defensive plays.

Moreover, big hitters who overpower Nadal normally have a very good first serve to go with them so on a good serving day they could literally blow Nadal off the court with their one-two punches and Nadal will struggle to break even one game. Agassi has never had a strong first serve at any point of his career.

However, I still see a prime Agassi beating a prime Nadal on any surface other than clay. His consistent flat hard groundstrokes can still give Nadal all kinds of trouble, not to mention that he is considered one of the best groundstrokers ever and one of the all time greats on hardcourts. I also don't think the edge goes to Nadal on slower hardcourts because Agassi won the most slams in Australia--where they had slow hardcourts.

My pick:
Any hardcourt: Agassi 6/4
Grass now:Nadal 7/3
Grass then: Agassi 6/4
Clay: Sorry Andre no wins for you, ever.

Wilander Fan
05-20-2010, 11:48 PM
Don't particularly like agassi but I think he (as well as conners) are the worst possible match up for Nadal. They would destroy him. Both were very patient and moved you from side to side with flat balls until they could get a short ball. Agassi was also more dangerous of his backhand and would destroy those high rising topspin forehands that fed has trouble with. Agassi would have no trouble putting those away down the line. I also don't remember anyone really able to dominate agassi on the baseline either. He was dangerous and consistent off both sides and was in fact very fast.

I think the service game would be a problem for nadal as well. He doesn't have the kind of serve that would give Agassi trouble and Agassi wAs the best I have seen at attacking medicre serves.

zagor
05-21-2010, 12:28 AM
Can't rush perfection Gorecki!

Agassi's real problem was that his outside option was quite good at that point....steffi graf. ;)

those legs... my god...

Agassi is one lucky guy,he gets to play with Steffi all day,ehm.. I better get back to the topic now,my mind has drifted off :).

zagor
05-21-2010, 12:36 AM
probably:

9-1 on clay to nadal
6-4 on grass to nadal
7-3 on HC to agassi
8-2 on carpet/indoor to agassi

Those who are comparing davydenko to agassi - are forgetting a key point - davydenko is a GREAT mover, agassi is not. There are a lot of points where davydenko uses his movement to defend and then turn it into offense ... Not that agassi wouldn't be a tough matchup for nadal on HC, but this is a key difference !

Yes,but Agassi hit with more pace,took the ball even earlier and was just a plain better ballstriker even than Kolja,nobody was good as Dre at jerking people left and right on court.On HCs he would take the time away from Nadal atleast as successfully as Kolja does it(who basically owns Nadal on HC).

I reckon that a younger Agassi would have been a very tough match-up for Nadal on HC,not to mention on carpet where Agassi certainly could play ball as well(I think he won 6-7 carpet tourneys beating guys like Stich,Edberg and Becker to win it).

Now on clay Nadal would kill him and on modern grass I'd still give Nadal a big edge but on old grass I don't know,I've never seen Nadal play on old grass so I don't know how would he adapt.He's still a natural mover on that surface no doubt but IMO a very low bounce would have made it much harder for him to play his game than on improved modern grass.

abmk
05-21-2010, 01:14 AM
Yes,but Agassi hit with more pace,took the ball even earlier and was just a plain better ballstriker even than Kolja,nobody was good as Dre at jerking people left and right on court.On HCs he would take the time away from Nadal atleast as successfully as Kolja does it(who basically owns Nadal on HC).

I reckon that a younger Agassi would have been a very tough match-up for Nadal on HC,not to mention on carpet where Agassi certainly could play ball as well(I think he won 6-7 carpet tourneys beating guys like Stich,Edberg and Becker to win it).



I know , I know , that really doesn't/didn't need to be stated by me, others already did .... that is why I said 7-3 on HC to agassi and 8-2 on carpet ..but no one mentioned the difference in movement aspect, which I felt was necessary to be mentioned

Gorecki
05-21-2010, 01:15 AM
Even if we exclude Wimbledon 2006 an old Agassi was still a combined 0-9 vs Federer and Nadal in 2003-2005 and 6-22 in sets with quite a few bagel and breadstick sets. He didnt even have to play Federer or Nadal on grass or clay either, or in Federer's case carpet. Their only matches were on hard courts, Agassi's best surface by a huge margin. Yet he was still much less of a threat to them than even Roddick, Hewitt, and Nalbandian were those years. Agassi was a late bloomer who wasted almost all his prime years and the old Agassi in 2003-2005 was playing much better than Agassi in 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, most of 1994 was. After all how would the Agassi who couldnt even beat Doug Flach, Luke Jensen, Scott Draper, have fared vs Federer and Nadal? I shudder to imagine. Prime Agassi is basically a myth which hardly ever existed as it lasted only 2 years total. July 1994-September 1995 and June 1999-January 2000. And even that Agassi had to go 5 sets to beat Medvedev and Todd Martin in slam finals, while getting thoroughly owned by Sampras at Wimbledon and the U.S Open.

As for never blowing off the court you obviously never saw the 2003 TMC final, Dubai 2005, Australian Open 2005. As for Nadal if Agassi had played Nadal on clay in 2005 he would have been lucky to win games given that he couldnt even beat him on hard courts while Nadal was then so weak on hard courts back then he was barely winning matches in slams on hard courts.

bold part one: like nadal and federer never had shamefull losses....

bold part two: of course i never saw those matches, and while at the crystal ball, can you guess me the numbers for the lottery? what the frack do you know what i saw or not? prtty dumb statement there no?

The-Champ
05-21-2010, 01:32 AM
This shouldn't even be debated. Prime Nadal would be lucky to get a single game. There no shot in tennis that Nadal can do better than AA. Prime AA had ten times the speed of Nadal, plus mentally, Andre is considered the strongest in history. Talenwise, let's not even go there. Andre won 8 slams without taking the game seriously, unlike Sampras, Federer or Nadal. And stop the nonsense about Rafa owning him on clay. Prime André would destroy him on any surface.

If they played 50 times on all surfaces, Prime Andre would win all. The fact that Andre is american, proves that he is already better.

drakulie
05-21-2010, 06:00 AM
You continue to take things I say out of context.

No, you continue to put down one player any way you can, to put your player up on a higher platform. In this case, if AA won because of weak draws, then this means he is a weak player. We conclude, based on your logic the 4 slams Sampras won against Agassi, he realy just beat a weak player (weak draw). Now, being that AA was clearly the second best player during this time, means the other 10 slams he won, were weaker than the 4 he won against AA.

This leaves Sampras with zero slams.

Thanks for playing.

Hitman
05-21-2010, 06:25 AM
In their primes, this would be an intense match up.

I would say Rafa wins virtually every clay match. He has superior footwork, and high margin for safety. But Andre wasn't too shabby either, he might be able to squeeze out a win somewhere if Rafa didn't play at 100%

On new grass, I would again give the edge to Rafa. I think he would have 6-4, or 7-3 ratio.

Old grass, I would say Andre 7-3. The ball would bounce lower and go through the court quicker, Andre has some of the best hand eye co-ordination going and is better with the low balls, some of the half volleys he hit were insane.

Hard courts again Agassi for me wins more, he would control the T and just make Rafa run off of both wings with flat shots.

TheNatural
05-21-2010, 07:35 AM
Roland Garros: Nadal 10-0
AO/USO: 5-5
Wimbledon: Nadal 8-2

NamRanger
05-21-2010, 09:03 AM
Now we're not comparing players, but commenting on how they match up in a REAL tennis match. I fail to see why comparing their greatness or each of their strokes have any relevance to the actual debate, more like a desperate **** attempt to prove that their player is better. Bear in mind, however, that what we are talking about is a MATCH UP issue and even if a player loses the match up it does not automatically mean he is the lesser player, so insecure fanboys should find somewhere other than this thread to worship their favorite players.

Objectively speaking, I think Nadal is a bad matchup for Agassi than it is the other way round. Agassi's game was built around consistent and hard groundstrokes when he enjoyed the most success. But his groundstrokes were not "force-a-winner" kind of hard but "consistently" hard to break down his opponents. As we all know, an in form Nadal gets to almost EVERY of these shots, and Agassi does not really have the net skills or the "pull-a-winner" ability to capitalize on his hard consistent groundstrokes. Agassi also didn't have the speed (well arguably because his "prime" actually came when he was older) of most of the big hitters Nadal has trouble with today, and struggles to get into position when faced with Nadal's defensive shots to the other side of his court. This is what Nadal does to you. Yes he runs a lot, but he makes you run a lot too. he almost has an uncanny knack during defense to hit to the comparatively empty area of your court to give himself more time to recover while you run to get into position for the next shot. In the two ATP matches they played it can be seen that Agassi was often the one in command but he somehow failed to end points and let Nadal comeback with spectecular defensive plays.

Moreover, big hitters who overpower Nadal normally have a very good first serve to go with them so on a good serving day they could literally blow Nadal off the court with their one-two punches and Nadal will struggle to break even one game. Agassi has never had a strong first serve at any point of his career.

However, I still see a prime Agassi beating a prime Nadal on any surface other than clay. His consistent flat hard groundstrokes can still give Nadal all kinds of trouble, not to mention that he is considered one of the best groundstrokers ever and one of the all time greats on hardcourts. I also don't think the edge goes to Nadal on slower hardcourts because Agassi won the most slams in Australia--where they had slow hardcourts.

My pick:
Any hardcourt: Agassi 6/4
Grass now:Nadal 7/3
Grass then: Agassi 6/4
Clay: Sorry Andre no wins for you, ever.




Lol you have to be kidding me. Agassi can't put a ball away? Have you ever seen Agassi hit the ball in real life? Half the time he puts zero effort and he's CRUSHING the ball harder than the pros today. Agassi is FULLY capable of putting the ball away; he just chooses not to do so most of the time as he wants to use his superior fitness to win with.

davey25
05-21-2010, 09:23 AM
There were 2 different versions of Agassi. The younger more agressive version who played with alot more risk and was more inconsistent. Then the older percentage version who while he was hitting the ball very hard and well was not hitting nearly as many outright winners.

pjonesy
05-21-2010, 04:09 PM
Yes,but Agassi hit with more pace,took the ball even earlier and was just a plain better ballstriker even than Kolja,nobody was good as Dre at jerking people left and right on court.On HCs he would take the time away from Nadal atleast as successfully as Kolja does it(who basically owns Nadal on HC).

I reckon that a younger Agassi would have been a very tough match-up for Nadal on HC,not to mention on carpet where Agassi certainly could play ball as well(I think he won 6-7 carpet tourneys beating guys like Stich,Edberg and Becker to win it).

Now on clay Nadal would kill him and on modern grass I'd still give Nadal a big edge but on old grass I don't know,I've never seen Nadal play on old grass so I don't know how would he adapt.He's still a natural mover on that surface no doubt but IMO a very low bounce would have made it much harder for him to play his game than on improved modern grass.

Look, if agassi and nadal played on a marshmallow someone would have an expert opinion. From what I remember, agassi and nadal played twice. Once on hardcourt, which nadal won in 3 sets. Once at Wimbledon, which nadal won in straight sets. Agassi was 36, but he was not a decrepit old man. He was still competitive, still dangerous and certainly could still strike the ball with conviction. Agreed, agassi would have no chance on clay, period. Although agassi was a great hardcourt player, nadal represents the kind of player agassi struggled against. A player who can run down everything, hits a heavy ball and never misses. Add the extreme topspin and left handed player advantage, and you have a bad matchup for the bald one. Agassi would have an advantage if he could rush nadal, but I am not sure that agassi would get many clean looks at the ball. Nadal would keep agassi out of position as often as possible. Agassi had tremendous trouble with Hewitt (lost 3 in a row from '01-'02) and lost to Federer 7 or 8 times in a row. Nadal is at least as fast and consistent as Hewitt was in his prime and is a nightmare for Federer. I think nadal would be very competitive with agassi on hardcourts. Just for the record, I think Sampras would be able to compete with agassi or nadal, if they played on a marhmallow.

World Beater
05-21-2010, 04:13 PM
Look, if agassi and nadal played on a marshmallow someone would have an expert opinion. From what I remember, agassi and nadal played twice. Once on hardcourt, which nadal won in 3 sets. Once at Wimbledon, which nadal won in straight sets. Agassi was 36, but he was not a decrepit old man. He was still competitive, still dangerous and certainly could still strike the ball with conviction. Agreed, agassi would have no chance on clay, period. Although agassi was a great hardcourt player, nadal represents the kind of player agassi struggled against. A player who can run down everything, hits a heavy ball and never misses. Add the extreme topspin and left handed player advantage, and you have a bad matchup for the bald one. Agassi would have an advantage if he could rush nadal, but I am not sure that agassi would get many clean looks at the ball. Nadal would keep agassi out of position as often as possible. Agassi had tremendous trouble with Hewitt (lost 3 in a row from '01-'02) and lost to Federer 7 or 8 times in a row. Nadal is at least as fast and consistent as Hewitt was in his prime and is a nightmare for Federer. I think nadal would be very competitive with agassi on hardcourts.

spot on.

nadal can recover from defensive positions...agassi not so much. nadal can take away the baseline from andre and that is how you can hurt andre.

It wasn't sampras' serve or his volley that most troubled agassi. It was his athleticism on the baseline and he could hang enough with andre to get a break a set and defeat agassi.

nadal can do way more than that, and his hold game is not far behind sampras.

World Beater
05-21-2010, 04:17 PM
Hold on...one of davey's bolded lines was:



The greater volume of attacking players is on Agassi's side (think about the entire era)....while so few modern players even attempt that style of play.

this is a chicken / egg question though.

there is a reason that there arent many attacking players in today's generation. the volume of players that exist today can hit passing shots with more accuracy and more spin that in past generations. More players today are adept at this skill because of tech and training...and nadal represents the elite of this generation when it comes to hitting those passing shots.

Few dare to play this high risk attacking game, lest they want to be passed again and again....even against "mediocre" players.

Nadal has some of the best ones out there, if you have actually seen him try to pass guys at net. Passing shots are nothing for nadal.

pjonesy
05-21-2010, 04:38 PM
Even if we exclude Wimbledon 2006 an old Agassi was still a combined 0-9 vs Federer and Nadal in 2003-2005 and 6-22 in sets with quite a few bagel and breadstick sets. He didnt even have to play Federer or Nadal on grass or clay either, or in Federer's case carpet. Their only matches were on hard courts, Agassi's best surface by a huge margin. Yet he was still much less of a threat to them than even Roddick, Hewitt, and Nalbandian were those years. Agassi was a late bloomer who wasted almost all his prime years and the old Agassi in 2003-2005 was playing much better than Agassi in 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, most of 1994 was. After all how would the Agassi who couldnt even beat Doug Flach, Luke Jensen, Scott Draper, have fared vs Federer and Nadal? I shudder to imagine. Prime Agassi is basically a myth which hardly ever existed as it lasted only 2 years total. July 1994-September 1995 and June 1999-January 2000. And even that Agassi had to go 5 sets to beat Medvedev and Todd Martin in slam finals, while getting thoroughly owned by Sampras at Wimbledon and the U.S Open.

As for never blowing off the court you obviously never saw the 2003 TMC final, Dubai 2005, Australian Open 2005. As for Nadal if Agassi had played Nadal on clay in 2005 he would have been lucky to win games given that he couldnt even beat him on hard courts while Nadal was then so weak on hard courts back then he was barely winning matches in slams on hard courts.

I agree with much of your post. Recently had a similar post, noting some of the same observations you made in your post. I overlooked your post and just read it a few minutes ago. Sorry for being redundant. However, I do not agree completely with your assessment of Agassi. At his best, he was a phenomenal ball striker off both wings, had an intimidating return and had an underrated serve. He was still a great player in 2005, so those losses to nadal certainly should be factored into the mix. I certainly believe that agassi benefited from weak finalists in many of his Australian Open victories and he was absolutely inferior to sampras. But, the close matches with Medvedev and Martin were well earned in my opinion. Medvedev was on fire at the FO that year, taking out Sampras and more importantly, Guga in straight sets. Martin could have been a big spoiler, as consistent as he was in that match. Agassi showed great focus and determination to see that victory through. I do not believe that Agassi's prime was just a myth. He beat Stich at the US Open and took out Becker at Wimbledon. Those guys were world beaters at the time. But, I firmly agree that nadal would be more than competitive with a prime agassi on hardcourts.

Clay lover
05-21-2010, 06:34 PM
delete post

Clay lover
05-21-2010, 06:50 PM
Lol you have to be kidding me. Agassi can't put a ball away? Have you ever seen Agassi hit the ball in real life? Half the time he puts zero effort and he's CRUSHING the ball harder than the pros today. Agassi is FULLY capable of putting the ball away; he just chooses not to do so most of the time as he wants to use his superior fitness to win with.

I know how hard he hits and am fully aware it is a tactic to break down the opponent. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "ability" because it lead people to thinking Agassi "CAN'T" hit winners, which I definitely did not mean.

If he chooses not to do it like he does in his older age, Nadal gets it back, and the rally continues, that's not putting the ball away, period. Being able to put the ball away is different from doing it in reality. Watch the two matches between him and Nadal.

2006 Wimbledon
Nadal 44 W 10 UE
Agassi 23 W 18 UE

Ok, Agassi was old then, but Nadal was nowhere near his hard/grasscourt prime either.

drakulie
05-21-2010, 07:19 PM
I agree that Nadal, if he played AA tomorrow, would beat him on every surface. Oh wait.... we are talking about prime years right??

namelessone
05-22-2010, 02:52 AM
I don't know who would be the favourite but here's what Andre has to say:

"Rafa's forehand is nasty.On clay I would have had to play on the edge against him and play lights out and that's not the way to play tennis. It's about calculated risk and he's going to make you take some crazy chances because the alternative is to get moved around court like you are on a string.

When I played him in final of Montreal (a three-set loss on hardcourts in 2005), I thought that if I could step up and cane a backhand cross-court that he might be a little late to the forehand and leave it short and then I could take over the point. So the first time I caned a backhand to his forehand, he hit a forehand so high and so short that in order for me to take that ball early, I was literally on the service line. You think that's a good position to be in until you realize that after your approach shot he's going to be in position to put it at your feet and then you are going to hit a volley to a guy who is going to get to it and pass you with the ability to go around you or over you as well. Even if you cover the passing shot, sometimes you can't reach it because it's 10 feet up in the air."

Make of it what you will.

pjonesy
05-22-2010, 09:45 AM
I don't know who would be the favourite but here's what Andre has to say:

"Rafa's forehand is nasty.On clay I would have had to play on the edge against him and play lights out and that's not the way to play tennis. It's about calculated risk and he's going to make you take some crazy chances because the alternative is to get moved around court like you are on a string.

When I played him in final of Montreal (a three-set loss on hardcourts in 2005), I thought that if I could step up and cane a backhand cross-court that he might be a little late to the forehand and leave it short and then I could take over the point. So the first time I caned a backhand to his forehand, he hit a forehand so high and so short that in order for me to take that ball early, I was literally on the service line. You think that's a good position to be in until you realize that after your approach shot he's going to be in position to put it at your feet and then you are going to hit a volley to a guy who is going to get to it and pass you with the ability to go around you or over you as well. Even if you cover the passing shot, sometimes you can't reach it because it's 10 feet up in the air."

Make of it what you will.

Interesting. Seems to indicate that if you are on a tennis court with Nadal, you are going to lose.

World Beater
05-23-2010, 12:27 PM
Where you guys get this stuff is unbelievable. Makes one wonder if you have watched, or even played the game.

Agassi had a winning record against Ivanisevic (lefty), who is arguably one of the best servers of all time. He beat him on grass and carpet, and you think he would have trouble with Nadal's 80-90 mph slice serve??? LMAO.

Speed isn't everything.

Actually, agassi said this himself. I will find the quote for you...

he needed to stand back on the return to get a crack at nadal's serve because of the action on it.

Also, if you watch their matches, you will see that andre wasn't having his way with nadal's serve.

drakulie
05-23-2010, 12:29 PM
Speed isn't everything.

Actually, agassi said this himself. I will find the quote for you...

he needed to stand back on the return to get a crack at nadal's serve because of the action on it.

Also, if you watch their matches, you will see that andre wasn't having his way with nadal's serve.


Yeah, we all know nadal has the greatest serve of all time and AA was peaking when he played Nadal those two times. :roll:

World Beater
05-23-2010, 12:37 PM
Where you guys get this stuff is unbelievable. Makes one wonder if you have watched, or even played the game.

Agassi had a winning record against Ivanisevic (lefty), who is arguably one of the best servers of all time. He beat him on grass and carpet, and you think he would have trouble with Nadal's 80-90 mph slice serve??? LMAO.

Just for you. From Agassi's mouth...

----------------------------------------------------------

Q. What made his serve so tough for you?
ANDRE AGASSI: Well, you know, his serve is, first of all, it's -- it really is an awkward movement through the air, so you never get a real clean swing at it unless you're able to give it time to settle down. And then if you do that, you have to back up and you're really giving him position on the court.
But more than that, if you don't hit a good return - like a really good return - he's going to take hold of that first shot. I can't afford for that to happen. Maybe somebody with better wheels than me can afford for that to happen a few more times.
But once he got me a bit behind in the point, you know, the point was pretty much over. So I have to take more chances to get a good hit, which means you start leaning and you start taking bigger swings and you start playing closer to the lines.
But his serve has an awkward spin to it, plus he's, you know -- he backs it up very well.

--------------------------------------

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=36093



---------------------------------------------------------

Q. You said you'd have the best seat in the house. I'm curious as to your impressions of the young man.

ANDRE AGASSI: Well, he has a difficult game. It's certainly easy to see why he's won so many matches. He does a lot of things really well. Just a great mover on the court. Gets good power from very stretched positions so you're never quite sure if you have complete control of the point. I found his serve more awkward than I was anticipating because if you don't hit a good return, he immediately gets on the offense. That's a sign of a great player: somebody who can play good defense, but also when they get ahold of a point, they don't let go of it. He's one of those guys that if he gets ahold of a point, he's not going to let go of it. It puts more pressure on you to hit a quality return, and it moves a little bit. I felt like today that was a big difference. I wasn't getting neutral enough right off his serve. That surprised me a little bit.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=39

--------------------------------------------

World Beater
05-23-2010, 12:38 PM
Yeah, we all know nadal has the greatest serve of all time and AA was peaking when he played Nadal those two times. :roll:

i'm not sure where i said otherwise.

but i definitely think andre would have difficulty returning nadal's serve. I'm not the one saying it...andre says it himself.

Take it up with him, not me....

thalivest
05-23-2010, 12:39 PM
One thing we often hear is Agassi would be a GOAT contender if Sampras didnt exist. Sorry I dont see that. Which additional slams would he have won:

1990 U.S Open- No way. Played an awful final, and Lendl owned him back then anyway.

1993 Wimbledon- Again no. Out of shape, and Courier who played the grass event of his life owned him at the time.

1995 U.S Open- Possibly but Courier's now 6 match win streaky vs Agassi carried into 1995 and he was in the semis, and gave Sampras an equally tough match as Agassi. Quite possibly still not.

1999 Wimbledon- Yes. No doubt here really.

2001 U.S Open- Probably not. Hewitt would win their next 3 meetings and there were alot of guys to potentially beat him in the draw.

2002 U.S Open- Quite possibly. Then again if he plays Hewitt in the final rather than the semis he quite possibly loses, especialy as Hewitt clearly had an off day in the semis and had a win streak over Agassi going in.

So I would say 9-11 slams. 99 Wimbledon for sure, possibly 95 U.S Open, possibly 2002 U.S Open.

I have also heard the what if Federer didnt exist brought up. Really none of the slams Federer won would Agassi have been favored to win even without Federer though.

I have also heard the what if Agassi had played the Australian Open every year. Agassi wasnt favored to win any of the years he missed other than 2002 which he missed with an injury (and injuries are just part of the game).

1988- too young and immature at the time and Wilander who owned him at the time won the event.
1989 and 1990- Lendl owned him at the time and Lendl won
1991- his best chance of the years he missed but this was in the middle of having choked away all 3 of his first slam finals. And while he owned eventual winner Becker he still wouldnt have had it easy with Becker, Edberg, and Lendl all in the semis.
1992 and 1993- Courier owned him and Courier won
1994- Sampras at his peak won. Nuff said.

Really there is no scenario Agassi would have been even close to GOAT status even with no Sampras or Federer existing, even playing the Australian every year, even all those things put together at once. If anything he was lucky to hit a late peak in the early 2000s when the field was so unbelievably weak he could take advantage to win alot of slams he probably wouldnt have won had his prime been at a more normal age back when his competition was tougher anyway.

drakulie
05-23-2010, 12:42 PM
i'm not sure where i said otherwise.

but i definitely think andre would have difficulty returning nadal's serve. I'm not the one saying it...andre says it himself.

Take it up with him, not me....


Let me explain something to you. Agassi faced Pete Sampras, who hit 120+ mhp serves on a dime with **5000 RPMS OF SPIN**., and beat him 14 times in his career. You think hitting a 80-90 mph serve, with way less spin is harder????

Get your head out of Nadal's rear,,,, it is very obvious from all the butt picking he does, he doesn't want it there.

World Beater
05-23-2010, 12:47 PM
Let me explain something to you. Agassi faced Pete Sampras, who hit 120+ mhp serves on a dime with **5000 RPMS OF SPIN**., and beat him 14 times in his career. You think hitting a 80-90 mph serve, with way less spin is harder????

Get your head out of Nadal's rear,,,, it is very obvious from all the butt picking he does, he doesn't want it there.

I'm not sure why you are getting so angry and defensive. All those caps..really?

All i did was re-iterate what Andre himself said.

I never said facing nadal's serve was the hardest thing out there. But agassi did have trouble against it. He even says so himself.

Nowhere did i say that nadal has the best serve of all time or even comparable to sampras.

I provided the quote...its upto you to refute agassi himself.

drakulie
05-23-2010, 12:51 PM
I never said facing nadal's serve was the hardest thing out there. But agassi did have trouble against it.



Like I said, Nadal has the greatest serve of all time.

davey25
05-23-2010, 12:53 PM
It is not always as simple as some people think. Federer has more trouble returning Nadal's serve than Roddick's. Often the stronger returners like a bigger serve. Anyway Agassi did have a huge amount of trouble returning Sampras's serve, it is not like he was even close to handling it with ease especialy on a surface with any speed in it. Why else is he 0-6 vs Sampras at Wimbledon and the U.S Open, especialy when drakulie always loves bringing up stats how Agassi is winning more of the baseline rallies in matches he still keeps losing to Sampras. Of course he had no real problem returning Sampras's serve on clay, but we all agree Agassi would be dominated by Nadal on clay so what does that matter.

drakulie
05-23-2010, 12:57 PM
It is not always as simple as some people think. Federer has more trouble returning Nadal's serve than Roddick's. Often the stronger returners like a bigger serve. Anyway Agassi did have a huge amount of trouble returning Sampras's serve, it is not like he was even close to handling it with ease especialy on a surface with any speed in it. Why else is he 0-6 vs Sampras at Wimbledon and the U.S Open, especialy when drakulie always loves bringing up stats how Agassi is winning more of the baseline rallies in matches he still keeps losing to Sampras. Of course he had no real problem returning Sampras's serve on clay, but we all agree Agassi would be dominated by Nadal on clay so what does that matter.


More doo-doo from someone who has obviously never watched Sampras play Agassi other than youtube highlights.

Oh, and by the way, Agassi was injured those 6 matches you refer to.

aphex
05-23-2010, 01:00 PM
Nadal pretty much everywhere. I think it would be even on carpet indoors though.

Nadal just gets too many balls and contrary to popular belief, agassi has tons of trouble returning nadal's serve. agassi even stated it as much saying he had to actually stand further back to get a crack the serve because of the action on the ball.

Nadal's high ball does indeed bother agassi quite a bit. Watch the match in canada and you will see that agassi hit many routine bhs out because he found it tough to control the ball. agassi called nadal's ball the "meanest" he's ever faced.

agassi will have to play high risk tennis to take nadal out and be on his game. Because nadal is way more athletic, can play outstanding defense and has a higher percentage attacking game than agassi.

seriously?
you do know Davydenko raeps nadal on any moderately fast surface.
Agassi was a much better version of Davydenko.

Nadturd demographic:

50%: clueless 12 year old boys
45%: middle aged women
5%: actual tennis fans


clearly, you belong in the first category.

davey25
05-23-2010, 01:03 PM
More doo-doo from someone who has obviously never watched Sampras play Agassi other than youtube highlights.

Oh, and by the way, Agassi was injured those 6 matches you refer to.

I have watched them play many times and fact is Agassi had a huge amount of trouble returning Sampras's serve, especialy on any medium or faster surface. If you think otherwise you are obviously blind or too big an Agassi fanboy to be at all objective. You are the one who keeps posting stats (probably fake ones but anyway) of Agassi winning so many more of the baseline rallies in matches that he loses to Sampras. Yet he is doing that having no problem returning his serve, LOL!

World Beater
05-23-2010, 01:05 PM
seriously?
you do know Davydenko raeps nadal on any moderately fast surface.
Agassi was a much better version of Davydenko.

Nadturd demographic:

50%: clueless 12 year old boys
45%: middle aged women
5%: actual tennis fans


clearly, you belong in the first category.

you do realize that agassi did play nadal twice and no...agassi had trouble with nadal's serve and the rest of his game. he even says it himself.

so if i belong in the first 50%, so does Agassi. I posted his quotes on the previous page. Go take a look.

i dont what davydenko has to do with anything here. he plays a similar style to andre but he isn't the same player as agassi.

But if it helps your argument to say im a young 12 year old, you can go ahead and believe it.

World Beater
05-23-2010, 01:08 PM
seriously?
you do know Davydenko raeps nadal on any moderately fast surface.
Agassi was a much better version of Davydenko.

Nadturd demographic:

50%: clueless 12 year old boys
45%: middle aged women
5%: actual tennis fans


clearly, you belong in the first category.


one more just for you...

----------------------------------------
Q. We know you like to take the ball pretty early. It looked like you were a little bit closer up to the baseline at the start of the match on Nadal's serve, a little bit further back towards the end. Is that a good assessment?

ANDRE AGASSI: Yeah, that is a good assessment. That was the case. I thought -- you know, you watch him on TV, it looks like he just rolls that serve in. It looks like you should be able to hit it pretty effectively. But it is a lefty action with sort of a slice sometimes kick to it. So the ball's moving around a bit. If you don't hit it square, you leave anything hanging, and that's where he's really dangerous. So it's not so much that you can't stand up on the serve as much as if you don't hit it perfectly, you're going to pay for that. And I felt like I wasn't getting into enough points on his serve, so I drifted back to give myself a chance just to hit a quality cut and get into the point, which turned out to be pretty necessary. You know, the ball's jumping out there. The way he hits it, it's even jumping that much more.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=39

---------------------------------------

i guess agassi is a nadturd too, huh?


so everyone assumes that agassi can just take nadal's ball early and have him on a string...

not exactly...from agassi himself. nadal forced him back, something that we thought we never happen to andre.

davey25
05-23-2010, 01:09 PM
I dont think Agassi would have a huge problem returning Nadal's serve either, but I think the reverse is also true. Nadal has no problem returning Federer's serve at all in fact, just look at the head to head in this case, Nadal 14-7. Yet Federer's serve is superior to Agassi by a huge margin. Not by as much as Sampras vs Nadal, but still by a huge margin. So if Nadal has no problem returning Federer's serve (literally no problem unlike Agassi returning Sampras's serve which indeed is a problem) then he would have an easy time returning Agassi's. So really what difference does it make. The serve wouldnt be a factor either way in the match.

drakulie
05-23-2010, 02:00 PM
I have watched them play many times

No you haven't.

federerhoogenbandfan
07-19-2010, 04:53 AM
Gamewise:

Serve- Nadal
Return of Serve- Agassi
Forehand- Nadal
Backhand- Agassi
Movement- Nadal by a country mile
Mental game- Nadal
Volleys- Nadal
Overhead- Agassi
Passing shots- Nadal
Drop Shots- Nadal
Court positioning- Agassi
Intangibles- Nadal

Surfaces:

Hard courts- Agassi
Clay- Nadal by a country mile
Grass- Nadal

Overall- Nadal

Spider
07-19-2010, 04:55 AM
Clay - Nadal and it isn't even close

Grass - Nadal

Hard courts - Agassi

federerhoogenbandfan
07-19-2010, 05:02 AM
I guess one question is will Nadal surpass Agassi on hard courts or not. Any thoughts on that?

aldeayeah
07-19-2010, 05:07 AM
My opinion is "I don't think so but wouldn't be terribly surprised if it happened".
seriously?
you do know Davydenko raeps nadal on any moderately fast surface.
Agassi was a much better version of Davydenko.
You do know Davy from early 2010 (who was playing as good as it gets) ate a bagel from Nadal on a moderately fast surface (and yes, I know he went on to win the match).

davey25
07-19-2010, 05:11 AM
Furthermore that statement would imply Davydenko would raape Nadal on grass which is most certainly a more than moderately fast surface even today, which makes that statement an epic fail already.

Gorecki
07-19-2010, 05:29 AM
oh my.. what a novel idea for a new thread:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=317345&highlight=nadal+agassi

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=283730&highlight=nadal+agassi

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=266502&highlight=nadal+agassi

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=223166&highlight=nadal+agassi

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=212431&highlight=nadal+agassi

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=138130&highlight=nadal+agassi

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=138130&highlight=nadal+agassi

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=84732&highlight=nadal+agassi

just in the first two pages of a Agassi + Nadal "search titles only"...

Hitman
07-19-2010, 06:33 AM
I guess one question is will Nadal surpass Agassi on hard courts or not. Any thoughts on that?

Difficult. Agassi has 6 hard court slams to his name. I really can't see Rafa winning that many hard court slams.

He has surpassed him on clay and grass, but I think he will take the backseat on hard courts to Agassi.

davey25
07-19-2010, 06:44 AM
Difficult. Agassi has 6 hard court slams to his name. I really can't see Rafa winning that many hard court slams.

He has surpassed him on clay and grass, but I think he will take the backseat on hard courts to Agassi.

I dont think Nadal has to win 6 hard court slams to potentially surpass Agassi on hard courts. Agassi is not considered a greater hard court player than Connors, McEnroe, or Lendl by many people inspite of having more hard court slams.

Is must be considered Agassi won some of those hard court slams vs some of the weakest draws in history. And he dominated the Australian Open during the interim period in the mens game between Sampras and Federer which was perhaps the most painful period ever in the game. The year end #1s those years were Kuerten, Hewitt twice, and Roddick keep in mind. Nadal of 2007 and 2008 who got destroyed by Tsonga and Gonzalez would have even won the 2001 and 2003 Australian Opens vs the same draws Agassi faced those years, and Nadal of 2008 and 2009 would have easily won the 1994 and 1999 U.S Opens vs the same draws Agassi faced as well. Of course that is not what happened and Nadal still has to greatly builid his hard court achievements to make it a discussion.

If Nadal wins 4 hard court slams one could reevaluate him vs Agassi on hard courts and seriously argue his being better.

Murrayfan31
07-19-2010, 09:52 AM
It would be similar to the Nadal and Davydenko matchup.

drakulie
07-19-2010, 09:58 AM
I dont think Nadal has to win 6 hard court slams to potentially surpass Agassi on hard courts.


I agree. Likewise, Agassi doesn't need to suprass Nadal on clay to be considered a better clay courter considering Nadal hasn't played any good players on clay during his reign. :roll:

davey25
07-19-2010, 09:59 AM
It would be similar to the Nadal and Davydenko matchup.

That would mean Agassi winning on hard courts but always losing on clay or grass. Well Davydenko hasnt even gotten far enough to play Nadal on grass since he sucks on it. Agassi is many times stronger than Davydenko on grass but probably still not strong enough to take Nadal so ironically that would help Nadal have a better head to head vs Agassi than Davydenko who he almost always plays only on hard courts.

davey25
07-19-2010, 09:59 AM
I agree. Likewise, Agassi doesn't need to suprass Nadal on clay to be considered a better clay courter considering Nadal hasn't played any good players on clay during his reign. :roll:

Only you would even think of suggesting Agassi is anywhere near Nadal's league on clay. Continue your delusions.

By the way what do you consider prime Agassi. When it comes to clay was it the one who couldnt beat a 30 year old Gomez, Courier in his first slam final, then got waxed the next year by Courier, in the early 90s. Or was it the one who lost 2nd round, quarters to Kafelnikov, and Woodruff in the mid 90s. Or the one who lost to 18 year old Safin 2nd round, won his only French in 5 sets over Medvedev, and lost 2nd round to Kucera. Or the early 2000s Agassi who lost 3 straight years in the quarters to Grosjean, Ferrero, and Coria. Which one of those Agassi's is arguably better than prime Nadal on clay. :lol:

drakulie
07-19-2010, 10:01 AM
Only you would even think of suggesting Agassi is anywhere near Nadal's league on clay. Continue your delusions.

Only you would even think of suggesting Nadal is anywhere near Agassi's league on hardcourt. Continue your delusions.

drakulie
07-19-2010, 10:03 AM
Agassi, 6 slams on hard court, and 10 slam finals.

1 FO championship, and 3 finals vs Nadal's 1 AO title and 1 sole slam final.
Nadal, 1 slam on hard court, and 1 slam final.

Fact is, Agassi has done better on clay than Nadal has done on hard courts, and add to that, nadal has twice as many chances a year to do well on hardcourts, as Agassi did on clay, you momo.

muzza123
07-19-2010, 10:04 AM
Only you would even think of suggesting Nadal is anywhere near Agassi's league on hardcourt. Continue your delusions.

Touche!!!

:)

come davey25, hit back!!!

davey25
07-19-2010, 10:04 AM
Only you would even think of suggesting Nadal is anywhere near Agassi's league on hardcourt. Continue your delusions.

I said if he wins 4 hard court slams it would be worth debating. Obviously he has a long ways to go at this point. You do realize Nadal beat Federer in a slam final on hard courts. Not exactly easy to do. Especialy since you are one of the sea of Federer fanatics who keeps pointing out how superior to Sampras he supposably is.

Murrayfan31
07-19-2010, 10:05 AM
Agassi is a hardcourt god. To even mention Nadal in the likes of Agassi is blasphemy. To think that Nadal can't even handle Davydenko on a hardcourt. Like some mentioned. Agassi is a better version of Davydenko.

davey25
07-19-2010, 10:06 AM
Agassi, 6 slams on hard court, and 10 slam finals.

1 FO championship, and 3 finals vs Nadal's 1 AO title and 1 sole slam final.
Nadal, 1 slam on hard court, and 1 slam final.

Fact is, Agassi has done better on clay than Nadal has done on hard courts, and add to that, nadal has twice as many chances a year to do well on hardcourts, as Agassi did on clay, you momo.


Nadal wins his hard court slam by beating Federer in 5 sets
Agassi wins his clay court slam by beating the World #100 in 5 sets

See the difference.

Nadal at 24 has already won 5 Masters on hard courts.
Agassi won his first and only Masters title on clay courts at age 32.

tennisplayer666
07-19-2010, 10:09 AM
Take away the headcases issues with Agassi add some tennis dedication and he would have as many slams as Sampras by now and throttle a prime Nadal everywhere except clay.

federerhoogenbandfan
07-19-2010, 10:12 AM
Take away the headcases issues with Agassi add some tennis dedication and he would have as many slams as Sampras by now and throttle a prime Nadal everywhere except clay.

Interesting. You think Agassi was as naturally talented as Sampras?

drakulie
07-19-2010, 10:13 AM
I said if he wins 4 hard court slams it would be worth debating. Obviously he has a long ways to go at this point. You do realize Nadal beat Federer in a slam final on hard courts. Not exactly easy to do. Especialy since you are one of the sea of Federer fanatics who keeps pointing out how superior to Sampras he supposably is.


You lose.

Agassi has 6 Hard Court Slams under his belt.
Nadal has 1.

Advantage Agassi.

Agassi has reached 10 hard court slam finals.
Nadal has reached 1.

Advantage Agassi.

Agassi has reached 3 clay court slam finals, vs Nadal's 1 slam final on hard courts.

Advantge Agassi


Agassi has won 1 clay slam final, Nadal has won 1 hard court final. However, there are more chances for Nadal to win on hard court slams, than there was for agassi to win the clay slam.

Adantage Agassi.


YOU LOSE.

vortex1
07-19-2010, 10:15 AM
Take away the headcases issues with Agassi add some tennis dedication and he would have as many slams as Sampras by now and throttle a prime Nadal everywhere except clay.

Not with his serve.

Chadwixx
07-19-2010, 10:16 AM
Going with davey on this one, agassi was as overhyped as a player could be. He could lose 2 points then blast a winner all the sheep would remember was the winner.

Nadal beat agassi on hardcourts and both were playing pretty well in the match.

Agassi has never beaten nadal just like pete has never beaten fed. The guys today are so much better.

tennisplayer666
07-19-2010, 10:16 AM
Interesting. You think Agassi was as naturally talented as Sampras?

Actually yes, if not more. Did you read his book? The guy was made into a tennis robot by his father. But so many problems with the hair, women, etc etc caused his demise. I'm not saying he would have had the better H2H with Sampras, but definitely would have had more slams to his name.

federerhoogenbandfan
07-19-2010, 10:19 AM
Actually yes, if not more. Did you read his book? The guy was made into a tennis robot by his father. But so many problems with the hair, women, etc etc caused his demise. I'm not saying he would have had the better H2H with Sampras, but definitely would have had more slams to his name.

No I didnt read his book. I was going to but I heard from some friends it was not very good, alot of bitterness and pent up anger and I wasnt sure reading a hundred pages of that was worthwhile. Given what you are saying that sounds pretty much on the mark.

Does he talk about Sampras much in the book? Also does he talk about Bolleteiri much.

drakulie
07-19-2010, 10:20 AM
Interesting. You think Agassi was as naturally talented as Sampras?

Lets put it this way, Sampras was 150% dedicated to his career, and being the "best". Agassi was a no show for most of his career, and still mangaed to beat Sampras 14 times, and 9 times in finals. He also out-performed Sampras in half the slams (AO and FO).

Now, imagine if he were to be as dedicated as Sampras.

Cesc Fabregas
07-19-2010, 10:21 AM
Funny how drakuliar forgot to mention Nadal's 5 MS on hardcourts to Agassi's 1 on clay.

muzza123
07-19-2010, 10:21 AM
Agassi hates tennis :(

drakulie
07-19-2010, 10:22 AM
Funny how drakuliar forgot to mention Nadal's 5 MS on hardcourts to Agassi's 1 on clay.


Oh, sorry. I didn't realize these equated to an extra slam for each player. :roll:

federerhoogenbandfan
07-19-2010, 10:22 AM
Lets put it this way, Sampras was 150% dedicated to his career, and being the "best". Agassi was a no show for most of his career, and still mangaed to beat Sampras 14 times, and 9 times in finals. He also out-performed Sampras in half the slams (AO and FO).

Now, imagine if he were to be as dedicated as Sampras.

It is an interesting thing to wonder for sure. One big advantage Sampras had going for him was that serve though. Agassi even as he was probably would have won alot more of their matches without Sampras having the greatest serve ever. And even if Agassi were more commited and even better than he was that serve would still be hard to get past on faster surfaces.

Federer and Nadal are both probably lucky not to face that serve at Wimbledon and the U.S Open too.

tennisplayer666
07-19-2010, 10:30 AM
No I didnt read his book. I was going to but I heard from some friends it was not very good, alot of bitterness and pent up anger and I wasnt sure reading a hundred pages of that was worthwhile. Given what you are saying that sounds pretty much on the mark.

Does he talk about Sampras much in the book? Also does he talk about Bolleteiri much.

Yeah he talks about both a lot. Get the audio book if you don't want to read it. He is bitter and angry to be sure. But that doesn't change how talented he was.

federerhoogenbandfan
07-19-2010, 10:33 AM
Yeah he talks about both a lot. Get the audio book if you don't want to read it. He is bitter and angry to be sure. But that doesn't change how talented he was.

He might well have had good reason to be. It sounds like his father almost wanted to live his own dreams through his kids which is never fair. And Bolleteiri was a major d0uche in the 90s according to nearly all his former players. As for the fellow tour players there was a diverse bunch in the 90s, but there were definitely some personality conflicts.