Better clay courter Agassi or Federer?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Cesc Fabregas, May 26, 2009.

?

Better clay courter Agassi or Federer?

  1. Agassi

    22 vote(s)
    25.9%
  2. Federer

    63 vote(s)
    74.1%
  1. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,316
    Who do you consider to be the better clay court Agassi or Federer? Andre has 1 RG titles and 2 RU and a Rome title whilst Federer has 3 RU at RG 4 Hamburg titles and 1 Madrid title.
     
    #1
  2. maximo

    maximo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,327
    Location:
    London
    Agassi the best ever.

    Then of course Murray.
     
    #2
  3. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,316
    Murray :confused:
     
    #3
  4. thalivest

    thalivest Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,486
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    I think Federer is. I really dont think Agassi would do any better than Federer today as no way I could see Agassi beating Nadal in a best 3 of 5 set match on clay ever. In fact Agassi wouldnt be as consistently reaching all the finals as he isnt nearly as consistent a player as Federer in the first place. I also have no doubt Federer would have won atleast 1 French, perhaps more, in the 90s with no long term dominant clay courter even approaching Nadal even if the overall field on clay was deeper.
     
    #4
  5. maximo

    maximo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,327
    Location:
    London
    My favorite (and best) player of all time is Agassi.

    And Murray will end his career not far behind him.
     
    #5
  6. Cesc Fabregas

    Cesc Fabregas Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    8,316
    A). Agassi is the not the best player of all time
    B.) Murray will not win 5+ slams and on every surface.
     
    #6
  7. maximo

    maximo Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,327
    Location:
    London
    A) Agassi is the most underrated player of all time.

    B) Murray will win 5+ slams but not on clay, hence the reason why i said he will finnish his career not far behind Agassi.
     
    #7
  8. RoddickAce

    RoddickAce Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,461
    Agassi, fact is he won a RG title and Federer didn't, so I'd put Agassi above Fed on clay until Fed wins one RG title.
     
    #8
  9. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    Would not say either is leaps and bounds ahead of the other but until Fed wins the big one Agassi gets the edge. Agassi in his youth was actually an outstanding clay courter one of the top in the early 90s
     
    #9
  10. grafselesfan

    grafselesfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,594
    It is very close. I dont think 1 is much better than the other. Neither are at the level of Nadal, Kuerten, or even prime Courier or Muster on clay. I think both are good enough to win the French but only with the right draw. Both have certain players they just couldnt beat at the French as those players are too good for either in a big clay match. I didnt vote since I would have to think about it.
     
    #10
  11. jimwh

    jimwh Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    195
    Location:
    The Southland
    I am a huge Fed fan, but you have to go with Agassi. His record speaks for itself.
     
    #11
  12. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    Its a close call.. But I would narrowly give the edge to Andre on this one
     
    #12
  13. flying24

    flying24 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,924
    I would pick Federer. While Agassi's prime is hard to define 1 thing that seems clear looking over his career results is his "clay court prime" was 1988-1992. That is when 2 of his 3 French Open finals, 4 of his 5 French Open semis, came. So during Agassi's "clay court prime" he was 1-3 vs Courier at the French, and lost to 30 year Andres Gomez in a French Open final. Unless Federer remains a force on clay beyond this year I would consider Federer's clay court prime to be 2005-2009. So during Federer's clay court prime he is 0-4 vs Nadal at the French but thus far those are his only losses at the French. Courier is a great clay courter but not at Nadal's level.

    Then you look at Masters events. Federer has performed so well and so consistently in those. Agassi has done very little outside the French on clay. 2 Rome finals, 1 won and 1 lost, that is about it. Hardly anything at Monte Carlo, Hamburg, or anywhere else. Agassi focused just on the French. Federer performs year round on clay.
     
    #13
  14. CEvertFan

    CEvertFan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    2,057
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    I picked Federer. Without Nadal blocking his way he would have won at least one French, and at least one Calendar Grand Slam as well and he has multiple Master Series clay titles as well.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2009
    #14
  15. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    Put Federer in any other era outside of the Borg/Nadal eras, and he easily wins 3 FO titles. Agassi was lucky to win his title, and Fed was unlucky not to win his.

    Let me ask this...has anyone ever been more successful than Federer at RG without actually winning a title there?
     
    #15
  16. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,672
    Don't think so. In the 60s maybe.
     
    #16
  17. 380pistol

    380pistol Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,903
    Uh.... no. Coureir, Brugeura, Muster and Kerten get him in the 90's. Lendl and Wilander deal with him in the 80's. Rosewall and even Laver get him in the 60's. So maybe the 50's but there's Trabert and Hoad.
     
    #17
  18. flying24

    flying24 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,924
    Gomez, Moya, Kafelnikov, and Agassi all won a French in the 90s. None of those is better than Federer on clay. Federer would never dominate clay in any era, but he would win a French in the 90s, probably more than 1. Agassi on the other hand would never win a French in the era of Nadal's dominance.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2009
    #18
  19. CEvertFan

    CEvertFan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    2,057
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    I wholeheartedly agree. I also think prime Federer could beat prime Agassi on clay.
     
    #19
  20. 380pistol

    380pistol Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,903
    Gomez on the French when Agassi was 20, When Fed was 20 he was losing to guys like Arazi and Horna at RG. Kafelnikov won it 1996, Fed 2006 was getting ass handed to him down a set and 2 breaks to Nalbandian in 2006. And Moya won it 2008. Don't get me started on fed's 2008 RG performance 9Monfils and Nadal), clearly not the best of Roger.

    Agassi may not win a French 2005 onwards, But I see guy like Costa winning it in 2002, and I like Dre for that one. There's no Courier who stopped him in 1992. And Agassi would not have lost to Arazi, Horna or whoever Roger lost to. Add the 2001 final (1991 Courier, make that Kuerten), 2005 final (no Kafelnikov in SF), and possibly the 2009 final (he won it 1999, but can't see him beating Nadal). Not to shabby for Dre.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2009
    #20
  21. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973

    Only issues I see with Agassi in 2000-2002 is where does he line up with Juan Carlos Ferrero. Juan Carlos almost reminds of Agassi in so many ways on clay. He was so close many years yet one man stopped him, Guga. However I personally think Juan Carlos is a better clay courter than Agassi and he could take him out and in 2002 Costa was just playing on fire. He took out Kureten than after that thrilling comeback over Canas he looked like nobody was going to stop him and if those events were to repeat I don't know if Agassi could take him down. The way Costa played that final against Ferrero was just outstanding. 6-1, 6-0 in those first two sets. He was packing heat. I don't know how well Agassi could have done especially in his early days as he himself was nervous back then. Roger has definitely underpeformed at France compared to his early results. Andre performed quite well at France compared to the rest of his clay career. However all ready voted Agassi even if you want to go with Fed has overall better results, Agassi has 1 slam + 1 MS that very well equates to 5 master series given Andre's performance at France as a whole.
     
    #21
  22. 380pistol

    380pistol Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,903
    Using a 10 year interval, Agaasi is shut out by Kuerten in 200 and 2001. Gomez and JC simply become Guga. I'm not sold on Costa. The genral consensus (one I tend to believe) was that Ferrero put up a sub pare performance, and on top of that he beat Kuerten in late May/early June, h... he had his frst hip surgery in February. From 1997-2001 he went 0-6 vs Guga losing 13 of 15 sets!!

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

    So in this era, Agassi, could have a title and 3 finals (2000,01 and 05), seeing how he won it 199 that could possibly be his 4th final. I just wanted point out some things about Agassi in this era. I did't buy the Nadal reason as Rafa did play a match in RG til 2005.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2009
    #22
  23. droliver

    droliver Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    677
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL U.S.A.
    I think Federer takes 7 out of ten from Andre on clay. He's been the 2nd best player on the surface for most of the decade at this point, behind the greatest (or at least 2nd greatest player after Borg) on clay.

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

    I think Albert Costa & Kafelnikov are getting a little disrespected up thread. They were very talented players and could beat anyone on a given day. Costa was brilliant the year he won. I loved his backhand.
     
    #23
  24. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    Quite correct. Unfortunate that so many have such a skewed perspective.

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

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

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

    When Agassi was young and quick AND FIT, he was actually quite a nightmare on clay. Chang, Courier and many others could tell you that.
     
    #24
  25. Zaragoza

    Zaragoza Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Messages:
    5,433
    Location:
    Zaragoza,Spain
    Better, Federer.

    Greater, Agassi (unless Federer wins Roland Garros).
     
    #25
  26. scraps234

    scraps234 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    2,847
    i agree... if federer wins rg he will be greater but if not agassi
     
    #26
  27. thejoe

    thejoe Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,710
    Location:
    England
    Interesting way to phrase it, but I couldn't agree more.
     
    #27
  28. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    25,781
    Location:
    Weak era
    They're close but Agassi won FO which gives him the definite edge right now and I don't think that will change in the future as I don't see Fed winning the FO(hopefully I'm wrong).
     
    #28
  29. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,745
    agassi has the FO.

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

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

    federer is a much much better clay player than agassi.
     
    #29
  30. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    25,781
    Location:
    Weak era
    At the FO Agassi has 2 finals,2 semis,4 quartefinals and most importantly a WIN(which Fed doesn't have yet).How exactly is Fed "much" better than Agassi on clay? He didn't even reach more FO finals than Andre yet.
     
    #30
  31. quest01

    quest01 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,611
    I think Federer overall is better on clay even though he hasn't won a French Open. Agassi at least won a French Open and probably should have won another one early in his career but Federer probably could have won a few if it wasn't for the best clay courter of all time, Nadal. Federer seems to only lose to Nadal at the French Open while Agassi lost to a bunch of players at the French and in other clay court tournaments.
     
    #31
  32. BTURNER

    BTURNER Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,512
    Location:
    OREGON
    I picked Federer.
     
    #32
  33. Nadal_Freak

    Nadal_Freak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    10,625
    Location:
    Harker Heights, Texas
    Federer easily. Agassi is best on hardcourts.
     
    #33
  34. Nalbandian great

    Nalbandian great New User

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Messages:
    47
    wait until sunday... ROGER!
     
    #34
  35. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,745
    use your eyes.

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

    but if you compare their abilities and skills on clay, agassi comes up short BIG TIME.
     
    #35
  36. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,215
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    since all the experts are going to measure carrers by "movement" or "court coverage" i can say whatever subjective stupidity comes to mind :

    Federer because he uses better cardigans...
     
    #36
  37. 35ft6

    35ft6 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,557
    No contest. Fed. But not by a lot. Fed pretty much loses to the greatest clay courter I've ever seen and only him. Agassi lost to a lot of people on clay.
     
    #37
  38. Argento full

    Argento full New User

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    59
    Xavi and Iniesta :)
     
    #38
  39. malakas

    malakas Banned

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    15,791
    Location:
    Greece
    Jan Silva.
     
    #39
  40. ChanceEncounter

    ChanceEncounter Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    Because "better" is not the same as comparing achievements. Better is who would beat the other player head to head. Better is who would beat a pool of random 'average' players more often than the other. Better is who has the better game, better skills, better tools, etc.

    How would Agassi's 2 FO finals stack up as greater than Federer's 4 FO finals, 3 of them as losses to Rafael Nadal, who's obviously better than any clay-courter Agassi played during his prime?
     
    #40
  41. TENNISSLAVE

    TENNISSLAVE Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    104
    Federer for sure. .the guys a freakin genius.
     
    #41
  42. DonBudge

    DonBudge New User

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    27
    Ken Rosewall
     
    #42
  43. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,745
    lol..you dont really get it do you.

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

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

    in the 90's it was the serve, in the 2000's its movement, quickness, agility, footwork.
     
    #43
  44. thalivest

    thalivest Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,486
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    I am glad I voted for Federer now. Now that he has won the French it is no contest.
     
    #44
  45. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,745
    it is indeed closed.

    THREAD OVER.
     
    #45
  46. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    Yea switch my vote to Fed.
     
    #46
  47. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,672
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I voted Fed earlier. Fed has a better clay-court record than Agassi.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2009
    #47
  48. lambielspins

    lambielspins Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,715
    Federer: 1 French Open title, 4 total French Open finals, 5 total French Open semis, 6 total French Open quarters. 5 total Masters titles, 11 total Masters finals.

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

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

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

    Federer is a superior player to Agassi on every surface IMO.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2009
    #48
  49. CEvertFan

    CEvertFan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    2,057
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    I voted For Federer even without a FO title and now that he has one it goes even more in Federer's favor. That's not to say that Agassi wasn't a good clay court player, because he was. If Agassi couldn't really hurt Federer on Andre's best surface (hard courts) I just don't see him being able to hurt Federer on clay either.
     
    #49
  50. thalivest

    thalivest Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,486
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    In fairness to Agassi that wasnt Agassi's prime. Then again what is an Agassi prime, LOL! Agassi's greatness is amazing longevity of high level play even with few true prime years where he wasnt either too young, too old, underachieving, slumping, injured. He collected 8 slams with atleast one on each surface with only about 2 true prime years so obviously was still an excellent in the many non-prime years which make up almost his whole career.
     
    #50

Share This Page