Originally Posted by dominikk1985
I think he would be 4th.
He is certainly not as good as fed and nadal (in shape) and god nole was also something else.
But I can see him beating murray. Even in his mid 30s he still played at a similar level as prime roddick and hewitt did who were not that much worse than murray.
I think a prime agassi could have beaten murray.
Roddick and Hewitt shouldn't be compared to Murray at all. They're much worse players and they failed pretty hard in an era that really only had one good player in it. Murray on the other hand is successful in an era dominated by three players who could all potentially be GOAT contenders.
And anyway, I think people are hyping up old-man Agassi's feats against Federer too much. He might have taken him to five sets, but that doesn't make him anywhere near Prime Fed on an average day. You can't just look at one match and use that as your sample size.