If Agassi was in his prime, what rank would he be?

[Beast of Majorca]

Let's say that Agassi is in the prime of his career and that he's playing against the current top field. What rank would he be?

Personally, I can't see him getting past #4 in the world. The current top three (and Nadal, if he can be counted) seem like they've taken tennis to an entirely new level. Even though someone like Murray is definitely not a greater player than Agassi in that he's less accomplished, I think his level of tennis right now is better than anything Agassi could achieve.

What do you guys think?

[MonkeyBoy]

I don't think he be quite at the level of Murrkovic. It's questionable if peak Agassi could take present day Federer. Maybe not, but great grandfather aged Agassi was able to take sets off young Fed at slams.

[President]

Originally Posted by MonkeyBoy

I don't think he be quite at the level of Murrkovic. It's questionable if peak Agassi could take present day Federer. Maybe not, but great grandfather aged Agassi was able to take sets off young Fed at slams.

Yet Roger Federer is STILL ranked over Andrew Mugray...

Would have beaten him at Aussie too if he hadn't had a 5 setter against Tsonga in the QFs.

[NadalAgassi]

Probably #2 behind Djokovic, if not even possibly #1. A really old Agassi was pushing peak Federer to the limit, so prime Agassi would be ranked above a quite old Federer IMO, as long as he wasnt in one of his slumps. Murray isnt really better than prime Agassi on any surface to this point, I guess fast hard courts, grass, and indoors they are reasonably close, while prime Agassi is way better on slower hard courts and clay both. Nadal hasnt played for 8 months, so he is automatically ranked lower by default. Prime Djokovic and prime Agassi are closely matched on all surfaces. Probably the 2 best ever on slow hard courts, and similar on clay, grass, faster hard courts, as far as playing levels.

[Homeboy Hotel]

#2-#3 ish

10predictrankingchars

[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.

[MonkeyBoy]

Originally Posted by President

Yet Roger Federer is STILL ranked over Andrew Mugray...

Rankings are not a perfect representation of playing ability.

Originally Posted by President

Would have beaten him at Aussie too if he hadn't had a 5 setter against Tsonga in the QFs.

I'm not convinced of that at all.

[NatF]

How consistant was Agassi at his peak? He'd certianly be capable of hanging with and beating the top guys on any given day. He'd have probably beaten Murray or Federer at the AO this year. I'd say Federer or Murray from this years Wimbledon would have toppled him on grass though for example. Tough to call.

[batz]

Originally Posted by President

Yet Roger Federer is STILL ranked over Andrew Mugray...

Would have beaten him at Aussie too if he hadn't had a 5 setter against Tsonga in the QFs.

And if his Aunt had a set of bollocks, she'd be his Uncle.

[NatF]

Federer may have pulled out a win versus Murray at the AO if he didn't run out of steam abit in the fifth. But Murray could have won that match in straights too, he was flatout playing better tennis. Federer is just very good at forcing matches to go the distance even when he's not playing his best.

[President]

Originally Posted by batz

And if his Aunt had a set of bollocks, she'd be his Uncle.

Yeah it didn't happen so of course Murray's victory was totally deserved. Federer should have finished Tsonga off more quickly if he wanted to win the SF...although it helps to play the unseeded Chardy like Murray did rather than world #7 Tsonga...

[Beast of Majorca]

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.

[DropShotArtist]

Well this era is much much tougher than the past. And as Agassi himself has stated, he would be struggling to maintain a top 5 ranking today. Prime Sampras would probably be around #11, or 12 given the court speeds today, which would favour the more talented Agassi over Sampras

[NatF]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Well this era is much much tougher than the past. And as Agassi himself has stated, he would be struggling to maintain a top 5 ranking today. Prime Sampras would probably be around #11, or 12 given the court speeds today, which would favour the more talented Agassi over Sampras

Trolling? I hope...

[Cosmic_Colin]

About the same as current Fed and Murray

[NatF]

Originally Posted by Beast of Majorca

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.

You underrate Roddick and Hewitt by alot. Roddick beat Murray in 09 remember and has a winning h2h with Djokovic. They only "failed hard because they had to contend with prime Federer.

[tudwell]

His chances at the French would be about the same as Federer's at his current level, which is vastly behind Nadal and somewhat but still significantly behind Djokovic. His chances at Wimbledon would be about the same as Djokovic's, behind Federer, Nadal, and Murray. I doubt he'd win either one of those events, even in his prime of primes, in 2011-present (although maybe 2010 when Djokovic and Federer were both less than spectacular). He'd be up there with Djokovic and Murray as favorites for the U.S. Open and especially the Australian, though, so while he'd likely have mostly semifinal finishes at the two European slams, he'd probably make finals and win trophies at the two hard court slams. So I imagine his ranking would be around 2 or 3, depending on the form of other guys like Federer, Nadal, and Murray, but he'd probably be stuck behind Djokovic in his current form since Djokovic is more consistent than Agassi was even in 1995 and 1999, his best years.

Actually, looking at it more closely, it's eerie how similar Agassi's and Djokovic's careers have been so far. Consistent but far from dominant on clay and grass, lots of finals at the U.S. Open, but mostly runner-ups, and dominance at the Australian.

[WhiskeyEE]

peak agassi would be #1 or #2. The current surface scheme would suit his game better than it did during his career.

[Subventricular Zone]

Somewhere in top 5. Obviously.

[Gonzo_style]

Originally Posted by President

Would have beaten him at Aussie too if he hadn't had a 5 setter against Tsonga in the QFs.

LMAO so many excuses