Agassi vs Nadal --Who's the GOAT? 6-Agassi v 11-Nadal

[Tennis_Monk]

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon-reed/article/2059/


I dont buy it. interesting read though..

This part makes no sense

"On clay, I don't think there's any doubt that Nadal at his best would win the set against Agassi fairly comfortably, even though Agassi won the French"

Yes...Agassi won french and is a proven player on clay but no where near the league of Rafa Nadal. Nadal doesnt need his best to beat Agassi on clay.

 

[DownTheLine]

Andre is by far.

 

[kingdaddy41788]

On Clay, Rafa wins every time. On other surfaces, I think Agassi wins more. And I think he accomplished more (career slam whereas Rafa tends to flounder at the US Open).

 

[abmk]

lol, 3-6 on clay ???? you must be yoking !!!!!!!

 

[rommil]

Roids win over being high.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

On non clay courts, i would say it will still be even. Agassi's strength was in being 'punisher' but that advantage will be negated as Nadal can stay with him as long as Agassi can play.

So this may come down to taking chances and going for shots/winners. Their strokes match up well though i would say Nadal's inside out FH is much better than Agassi's. I would give slight edge to Agassi's backhand than Nadal's.

Ofcourse we are talking when they are at their respective peaks. Nadal's court coverage is better than Agassi's.

Agassi may win slightly more on faster courts but will lose to Nadal on slower courts (and ofcourse clay). across a season, i think Nadal will win more than Agassi in their H-H.

 

[Markov]

It just said that even though Agassi has also won the biggest clay court championship on the planet, Nadal would still win easily. It's not that big deal... Some guys who don't follow tennis and visit eurosport.com could get confused if they just said that Nadal would destroy him.

 

[Agassifan]

At this point, clearly Agassi. If Rafa wins 10 slams or gets the US Open, then we can discuss.

Please don't bring up Masters shields. They are worth ABSOLUTELY nothing other than ranking points of course.

 

[Markov]

At this point, clearly Agassi. If Rafa wins 10 slams or gets the US Open, then we can discuss.

Please don't bring up Masters shields. They are worth ABSOLUTELY nothing other than ranking points of course.

They might be worth something for someone... It's all about opinions. They certainly don't mean much for me, but some guys really value them. They even call Cincinnati the fifth Slam...

 

[AndyArodRoddick]

They might be worth something for someone... It's all about opinions. They certainly don't mean much for me, but some guys really value them. They even call Cincinnati the fifth Slam...

i tought miami was the fifth slam..

 

[Anaconda]

Both Dopers, however Nadal played tougher comptetion than Agassi who benefited by having weak draws.

 

[davey25]

I think Nadal clearly wins on clay. However I think Agassi wins on all types of hard courts and wins on carpet. I think Nadal probably wins on grass even if they play each other on the same grass. The gap between the two of them on clay is bigger than the gap between the two of them on any other surface IMO. My presumptions are also based on both being in good form and in their primes. Nadal was much more consistently good than Agassi, but Agassi had much more longevity than Nadal is likely to have.

Overall I would say the 2 are quite close and the hypothetical matchup between them also is quite close.

 

[davey25]

Both Dopers, however Nadal played tougher comptetion than Agassi who benefited by having weak draws.

Agassi had alot of weaker competition in the events he did win, and was unlucky to have alot of very tough competition in the events he did not win. I will leave it at that.

 

[davey25]

lol, 3-6 on clay ???? you must be yoking !!!!!!!

That is not the hypothetical head to head, it is the set score. That seems reasonable.

 

[bruce38]

Clearly at this stage based on the data Agassi is higher on the list of greatness. But Nadal will probably surpass him at his career's end.

 

[abmk]

That is not the hypothetical head to head, it is the set score. That seems reasonable.

oh yeah, I misread, my mistake

 

[Semi-Pro]

On any surface except clay then Agassi wins hands down.

Example:

Agassi & Davydenko...both with very similar styles (ie. play on baseline) taking time away which Rafa needs to set up for shots.

Rafa is practically worthless without time and Davydenko proves it and I'm sure Agassi would to.

 

[davey25]

On any surface except clay then Agassi wins hands down.

Example:

Agassi & Davydenko...both with very similar styles (ie. play on baseline) taking time away which Rafa needs to set up for shots.

Rafa is practically worthless without time and Davydenko proves it and I'm sure Agassi would to.

The Rafa who Davydenko has had his last 3 victories against is not the same Rafa as 2005-mid 2009 at all. Rafa also still served up a bagel set and had match pionts in their last meeting inspite of that. In fairness to Davydenko he did spank Rafa in 2008 on hard courts once which was most impressive, but that is just one match. Rafa still led their head to head during this time and on hard courts it was 1-1 during this time before post injury Rafa we have seen the last 8 months. They also have never played in a slam, and I doubt Davydenko would beat Rafa in a slam on any surface, heck probably even in his current state.

 

[FedSampras1]

Roids win over being high.

LOL yep :twisted:

 

[JoshDragon]

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon-reed/article/2059/


I dont buy it. interesting read though..

This part makes no sense

"On clay, I don't think there's any doubt that Nadal at his best would win the set against Agassi fairly comfortably, even though Agassi won the French"

Yes...Agassi won french and is a proven player on clay but no where near the league of Rafa Nadal. Nadal doesnt need his best to beat Agassi on clay.

Not really, this guy is delusional if he really thinks that Andre would emerge with a winning head-to-head against Nadal on grass. Nadal's already done more on grass, than Andre did in his whole career.

And when it comes to clay, Andre would be so out-classed he'd be lucky to win more than an occasional set off Nadal. Would never have won 3 matches against Nadal on clay.

 

[zagor]

The Rafa who Davydenko has had his last 3 victories against is not the same Rafa as 2005-mid 2009 at all. Rafa also still served up a bagel set and had match pionts in their last meeting inspite of that. In fairness to Davydenko he did spank Rafa in 2008 on hard courts once which was most impressive, but that is just one match. Rafa still led their head to head during this time and on hard courts it was 1-1 during this time before post injury Rafa we have seen the last 8 months. They also have never played in a slam, and I doubt Davydenko would beat Rafa in a slam on any surface, heck probably even in his current state.

Davydenko is 5-1 against Nadal on HC and even that one match he lost(in 2006 TMC) he had an excellent chance to win,are you telling me Nadal has been injuried/fatiqued/not at his best in every single one of those matches? That sounds a bit ridiculous.

As for slams I would give Kolja a fair shot over Nadal at AO and USO despite his big match choking tendencies.

I'd say that at their primes(although I use that term loosely when it comes to Agassi as I honestly can'd define what is his prime actually)I'd say Agassi would have been pretty tough for Nadal on any HC/carpet/old grass,on clay it would be Nadal obviously and I would give him the edge on modern grass.

The fact that Agassi was arguably the best ever at punishing weaker serves,took the ball very early from the baseline and had one of the best 2 handers ever(very important fact when it comes to facing Nadal)would spell trouble for Nadal on faster surfaces IMO.

 

[TnTBigman]

How many majors are there on clay? Young Agassi vs healthy Rafa...Rafa would have had more knee injuries by then. Agassi for sure.

 

[abmk]

On any surface except clay then Agassi wins hands down.

Example:

Agassi & Davydenko...both with very similar styles (ie. play on baseline) taking time away which Rafa needs to set up for shots.

Rafa is practically worthless without time and Davydenko proves it and I'm sure Agassi would to.

difference is davydenko can keep with rafa in terms of movement/running , agassi cannot

 

[davey25]

Davydenko is 5-1 against Nadal on HC and even that one match he lost(in 2006 TMC) he had an excellent chance to win,are you telling me Nadal has been injuried/fatiqued/not at his best in every single one of those matches? That sounds a bit ridiculous.

It is actually 4-1 unless you are counting some exhibition match I dont know about. 3 of their 5 matches on hard courts (all which Davydenko won) have happened to come since Nadal's June 2009 injury and layoff since which he has been a totally different player to the 4 and a half years before that. That is hardly idle speculation but pretty plainly obvious. From spring 2005 (around the time Nadal and the late blooming Davydenko both began to enter their primes) and mid 2009 they are 1-1 on hard courts with only 2 meetings. Very limited evidence of how Davydenko and a prime Nadal stack up on hard courts as far as I am concerned.

 

[JoshDragon]

It is actually 4-1 unless you are counting some exhibition match I dont know about. 3 of their 5 matches on hard courts (all which Davydenko won) have happened to come since Nadal's June 2009 injury and layoff since which he has been a totally different player to the 4 and a half years before that. That is hardly idle speculation but pretty plainly obvious. From spring 2005 (around the time Nadal and the late blooming Davydenko both began to enter their primes) and mid 2009 they are 1-1 on hard courts with only 2 meetings. Very limited evidence of how Davydenko and a prime Nadal stack up on hard courts as far as I am concerned.

Did you count the Miami final in 2008?

That was the only time they played (on hard courts) when both were in their primes but Nadal was way out of form during the early 2008 hard court season (as was Federer) and lost pretty easily.

 

[The Edberg]

Well Nadal DID win all of his 6 slams by defeating Fed. Andre has the longevity issue but alot of those finals slams of his career were the result of weak crappy draws. Especially those final two AO's. Nadal had to get through Roger to win each slam he achieved

 

[Deleted member 22147]

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon-reed/article/2059/


I dont buy it. interesting read though..

This part makes no sense

"On clay, I don't think there's any doubt that Nadal at his best would win the set against Agassi fairly comfortably, even though Agassi won the French"

Yes...Agassi won french and is a proven player on clay but no where near the league of Rafa Nadal. Nadal doesnt need his best to beat Agassi on clay.

Where in that passage does it disagree with your views?

 

[Deleted member 22147]

difference is davydenko can keep with rafa in terms of movement/running , agassi cannot

Yeah, cause Agassi wasn't a good mover......:-?

 

[Semi-Pro]

difference is davydenko can keep with rafa in terms of movement/running , agassi cannot

Ugh I'm pretty sure prime Agassi would be able to keep up with anyone (including Nadal). His movement was unreal.

 

[The Edberg]

Nadal is not the greatest hardcourt player in the world.. And if guys like Tsonga or Murray can beat Nadal at the AO, and Murray, Youzhny, Ferrer etc can systematically take all of Nadal's USO chances away.. Andre would have to be the clear favorite. He was a force at the USO and was arguably the best player to ever play on the rebound ace. Indoors and older grass would probably go to Andre. However, today's wimbledon surface and clay of any kind should go to Nadal for sure. Still.. Andre with the overrall advantage. The tale of the tape would be Andre's punishiment of the Nadal serve. Not to mention Nadal would not be able to punish the Agassi BH like he does Federer's.

 

[Semi-Pro]

The tale of the tape would be Andre's punishiment of the Nadal serve. Not to mention Nadal would not be able to punish the Agassi BH like he does Federer's.

Also worth mentioning how hard Agassi's ground strokes were, I don't think Nadal would be able to handle the pace.

 

[The Edberg]

Also worth mentioning how hard Agassi's ground strokes were, I don't think Nadal would be able to handle the pace.

Yea Andre can definitely take a real whack at the ball even at 40 years old with today's racket technology. Really... all in all Andre's is just a terrible matchup it would seem. I always though Fed's problem with Nadal is he doesnt do enough with the BH and gets into a sense of complacency with the baseline game and his return of Nadal's serve and just doesnt go enough with all of his shots outside of his inside-out FH. This benefits Nadal. Agassi took clear cuts at the ball and did alot with his return of serve and his BH. That already creates an uphill battle for Nadal.


Though I dunno what we are going by with Andre's prime here. He played quite a few years especially what would should be his prime very subpar. This would give Nadal the advantage. But 1994, 1995, 1999, 2000 Andre would be a absolute nighmare for Nadal I think outside of clay

 

[The Edberg]

Yeah, cause Agassi wasn't a good mover......:-?

Agassi never had to be Michael Chang. He had the ability to dictate from inside the baseline, take clear whacks at the ball, and punish weak servers

 

[The Edberg]

Id like Andre's chances better on the current wimbledon surface than in the 90s to be honest. He could rally all day from the baseline, wouldnt have to worry about attackers, the grass would be easier on his body. He would probably be licking his chops to play under today's conditions where he could hit flat, dictate from the baseline today. He won one wimbledon in the 90s and made the finals once.. You could probably rest assured his results would look more nicer in this era than his era

 

[JoshDragon]

Also worth mentioning how hard Agassi's ground strokes were, I don't think Nadal would be able to handle the pace.

Really? so then why is he able to beat Federer, Roddick, Karlovic, Soderling, or Tsonga?

 

[The Edberg]

Really? so then why is he able to beat Federer, Roddick, Karlovic, Soderling, or Tsonga?

Federer doesnt do alot with his return of serve vs. Nadal or his strokes. He get sucked into a sense of complacency when he plays Nadal. Alot of chipping shots back and alot of BH slices. Roddick doesnt have the ground game Agassi did. Not even close. Karlovic is nothing outside his serve. Soderling has recently gave Nadal trouble because of his big cuts at the ball. Tsonga is inconsistent

 

[JoshDragon]

Federer doesnt do alot with his return of serve vs. Nadal or his strokes. He get sucked into a sense of complacency when he plays Nadal. Alot of chipping shots back and alot of BH slices. Roddick doesnt have the ground game Agassi did. Not even close. Karlovic is nothing outside his serve. Soderling has recently gave Nadal trouble because of his big cuts at the ball. Tsonga is inconsistent

Andre's serve was never great, his speed was never better than average (during his best years) and his volleys weren't good at all.

Andre, did not move well on grass does and he didn't even slide on clay. There's absolutely no way he could have beaten Nadal 7 times on grass and 3 times on clay.

 

[The-Champ]

Yea Andre can definitely take a real whack at the ball even at 40 years old with today's racket technology. Really... all in all Andre's is just a terrible matchup it would seem. I always though Fed's problem with Nadal is he doesnt do enough with the BH and gets into a sense of complacency with the baseline game and his return of Nadal's serve and just doesnt go enough with all of his shots outside of his inside-out FH. This benefits Nadal. Agassi took clear cuts at the ball and did alot with his return of serve and his BH. That already creates an uphill battle for Nadal.

Agassi on Rafa's serve...

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

 

[The-Champ]

Federer doesnt do alot with his return of serve vs. Nadal or his strokes. He get sucked into a sense of complacency when he plays Nadal. Alot of chipping shots back and alot of BH slices. Roddick doesnt have the ground game Agassi did. Not even close. Karlovic is nothing outside his serve. Soderling has recently gave Nadal trouble because of his big cuts at the ball. Tsonga is inconsistent

I know what you mean...Nadal cannot play tennis.

 

[abmk]

Ugh I'm pretty sure prime Agassi would be able to keep up with anyone (including Nadal). His movement was unreal.

LOL , yeah, right ! :roll:

 

[abmk]

It is actually 4-1 unless you are counting some exhibition match I dont know about. 3 of their 5 matches on hard courts (all which Davydenko won) have happened to come since Nadal's June 2009 injury and layoff since which he has been a totally different player to the 4 and a half years before that. That is hardly idle speculation but pretty plainly obvious. From spring 2005 (around the time Nadal and the late blooming Davydenko both began to enter their primes) and mid 2009 they are 1-1 on hard courts with only 2 meetings. Very limited evidence of how Davydenko and a prime Nadal stack up on hard courts as far as I am concerned.

umm, so a nadal who was in top form in doha 2010 final, bagelling davy in the first set doesn't count, nice to know ...:roll:

Isn't it worth noting that almost all of nadal's HC losses since june 2009 have come to players with strong BHs - djokovic, del potro, davydenko,murray,cilic

There's more than enough evidence from their matches and style of play about their matchup on hard that davydenko is tough for nadal to handle on hardcourts

 

[NamRanger]

Did you count the Miami final in 2008?

That was the only time they played (on hard courts) when both were in their primes but Nadal was way out of form during the early 2008 hard court season (as was Federer) and lost pretty easily.

What a joke, a SF and a Final losing to 2 super hot players is out of form? You have to be kidding me. He lost to Djokovic who JUST won the AO, beating the AO finalist Tsonga in IW, and then he went on to crush EVERYONE along the way (except Blake, who still is a historically bad match-up against him) until he met Davydenko in the final.

 

[Anaconda]

What a joke, a SF and a Final losing to 2 super hot players is out of form? You have to be kidding me. He lost to Djokovic who JUST won the AO, beating the AO finalist Tsonga in IW, and then he went on to crush EVERYONE along the way (except Blake, who still is a historically bad match-up against him) until he met Davydenko in the final.

Rare to see you on the boards

Nadal was the 3rd best on Hard courts in 2008 and slightly better than JMDP in 2009 to take #1 on HC's.

 

[davey25]

What a joke, a SF and a Final losing to 2 super hot players is out of form? You have to be kidding me. He lost to Djokovic who JUST won the AO, beating the AO finalist Tsonga in IW, and then he went on to crush EVERYONE along the way (except Blake, who still is a historically bad match-up against him) until he met Davydenko in the final.

I agree there. Nadal was totally in form the whole of 2008 on hard courts, the best hard court tennis he has ever played. Davydenko spanking him in the Miami final was very impressive indeed. The Nadal since his return from injury after last years Wimbledon though, that is another matter altogether.

 

[JoshDragon]

What a joke, a SF and a Final losing to 2 super hot players is out of form? You have to be kidding me. He lost to Djokovic who JUST won the AO, beating the AO finalist Tsonga in IW, and then he went on to crush EVERYONE along the way (except Blake, who still is a historically bad match-up against him) until he met Davydenko in the final.

You're forgetting some stuff. Nadal, suffered a string of bad losses during the early 2008 season. Youzhney, Tsonga, Djokovic, and Davydenko, were all able to take him apart early in the year.

 

[davey25]

You're forgetting some stuff. Nadal, suffered a string of bad losses during the early 2008 season. Youzhney, Tsonga, Djokovic, and Davydenko, were all able to take him apart early in the year.

Nadal even at his best is beatable on hard courts. You will never be able to point out a long stretch he could hardly be beaten on hard courts since it doesnt exist.

 

[JoshDragon]

Nadal even at his best is beatable on hard courts. You will never be able to point out a long stretch he could hardly be beaten on hard courts since it doesnt exist.

What about January-March 2009.

 

[abmk]

You're forgetting some stuff. Nadal, suffered a string of bad losses during the early 2008 season. Youzhney, Tsonga, Djokovic, and Davydenko, were all able to take him apart early in the year.

bad losses ?????? LOL !

the youzhny match was immediately after a 4 hour marathon vs moya, hence the lopsidedness ...

tsonga played the match of his life in the AO 2008 SF

nadal losing to djokovic on hard courts is a bad loss, LOL !

and davydenko was playing great in miami and hence was able to take out nadal easily

none of these were bad losses really

 

[Cyan]

Pretty even. Rafa would win on the slower surfaces while Agassi would win on the fastest ones.

 

[abmk]

What about January-March 2009.

yeah, how long, oh my 3 months, that is 90 days !!!!!!! are you serious ??????

verdasco nearly got him in australia

murray bagelled him in the final set in rotterdam to win ( though he was injured, he still had tough 3-setter there )

nalby squandered 5 MPS in IW

and of course nadal lost to delpo in miami just after

that is being invincible for a long period on HC ???