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

[TMF]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Agassi would be even more successful in this era then he was in the 90s-00s since there would be no fast courts

Probably 10-11 slams at least..

You mean 10-11 Master Series.

[MichaelNadal]

Top 3, without a doubt.

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Agassi would be even more successful in this era then he was in the 90s-00s since there would be no fast courts

Probably 10-11 slams at least..

I don't know about that. He's got Djokovic to challenge him at the Australian, Nadal who he would never beat at the French (and if he did, Federer and Djokovic are still above him), and he'd most likely not be able to luck out and play a headcase like Goran in a Wimbledon final. It's likely he wouldn't win the career slam and possible he wouldn't win a single slam off hard court (although it's also possible he would). His success at the U.S. Open would probably increase, though. No one's been dominant there since Federer's begun to decline, so Agassi wouldn't run into a Sampras-caliber player time and time again like he did in his real career.

[Mick3391]

Originally Posted by President

Well Federer DIDN'T win and looked tired in the 5th set...so what is your point? Dopeovic is a way more obvious doping candidate than Federer is.

To me that's borderline slander. Look, can't stand Djoke, I'm the biggest Fed fan on the planet, but to say that Fed at 25 didn't have as much stamina as Djoke, or that because Djoke does well he's "A better candidate", it's just bias.

Djoke is a HERO in Serbia, I understand now why many go crazy with the slightest of criticism, I mean leave the guy alone, just say "Don't like him", and move on, clearly he's an awesome player.

[Mick3391]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyEE

fed is a terrible match up for agassi. he's just too good at dictating play and breaking up agassi's rhythm. I think that peak agassi would beat pusher murray more often than not and win against joker often as well.

Interesting. Yea Agassi is a hell of a player.

[pjonesy]

Originally Posted by Mick3391

I think he'd have a real hard time with the top 4. He had said there was no way he could have beat Federer, and said "there is no where to go with Federer, no opening or weakness", with the Gazelle type play and return of the other 3 guys, could it be "He had no where to go" as well?

Agassi was great, I think being able to play so close to a prime Fed I'd favor him over the other 3, but we are splitting hairs.

I tend to agree with this assessment. If Agassi could blend his early career shotmaking with his late career fitness, consistency and percentage tennis, maybe #2 or#3. However, he beats none of them on clay. Honestly, AO and US Open are probably his best chances to compete. US summer HC series would be the meat of Agassi's season. Similar to Roddick.

Agassi loves to blow smoke up these guys asses. Just to avoid giving Sampras his just due. Sure, they are the 4 fittest, fastest, most athletic pattern baseliners the game has ever seen. But their skill level and competitive desire is not above the champions of the past. They've perfected the baseline game and raised the bar on stamina and athleticism in tennis.

Djokovic would be the most difficult for Agassi. Djokovic is sort of like a blend of Lendl and Kafelnikov/Safin, IMO. Agassi would need all his weapons and a bag full of tricks for pull this off. Agassi played Nadal and Federer competitively as an old man. You can imagine he could give them all they want, in his prime.

How do you guys think Agassi matches up with Murray?

[corners]

Agassi himself said, just a week ago, that he would have to fight to be #5 right now. And you guys are debating this? Why not just believe the player himself?

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by corners

Agassi himself said, just a week ago, that he would have to fight to be #5 right now. And you guys are debating this? Why not just believe the player himself?

See the bold part below.

Apparently, Agassi has devoted his post tennis life to taking digs at Sampras under the guise of praising other players for their greatness.

I hear that he pays out of pocket to have subliminal messages inserted into tennis advertisements that attempt to rob Sampras of his glory.

Please put on your aluminum hats before it is too late.

Originally Posted by pjonesy

I tend to agree with this assessment. If Agassi could blend his early career shotmaking with his late career fitness, consistency and percentage tennis, maybe #2 or#3. However, he beats none of them on clay. Honestly, AO and US Open are probably his best chances to compete. US summer HC season would be the meat of Agassi's season. Similar to Roddick.

Agassi loves to blow smoke up these guys asses. Just to avoid giving Sampras his just due. Sure, they are the 4 fittest, fastest, most athletic pattern baseliners the game has ever seen. But their skill level and competitive desire is not above the champions of the past. They've perfected the baseline game and raised the bar on stamina and athleticism in tennis.

Djokovic would be the most difficult for Agassi. Djokovic is sort of like a blend of Lendl and Kafelnikov/Safin, IMO. Agassi would need all his weapons and a bag full of tricks for pull this off. Agassi played Nadal and Federer competitively as an old man. You can imagine he could give them all they want, in his prime.

How do you guys think Agassi matches up with Murray?

[Sid_Vicious]

Originally Posted by President

Well Federer DIDN'T win and looked tired in the 5th set...so what is your point? Dopeovic is a way more obvious doping candidate than Federer is.

Djokovic looked pretty tired in the 5th set against Nadal last year. Nadal actually looked like he had more left in the tank than Djokovic, but he played like such a mug on huge points that it didn't matter. Djokovic was falling on his ***, praying to Jesus, and breathing really heavy after every point in the 5th set.

That 5th set at the USO was pretty poor from Djokovic also. Murray clearly outlasted him that day. I was not surprised, just look how tormented he is trying to hit (hideous) groundstrokes in windy conditions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...ko7xc4c#t=645s

[90's Clay]

Yea... It would be tough for Andre to be in top 4-5.. I mean Murray and Ferrer are just too good for him. ROFLMAO

Bottom line.. If you got a talentless MUG like Ferrer in the top 4. Andre is good enough to be top 1-2 EASY (especially with Fed old and Nadal out injured for a year)

Gimme a break

[Surecatch]

#3 and perpetually threatening to break higher.

[The_Question]

Top 5 for sure...he's got that killer backhand w/sharp angles...but today's players are quicker and stronger than players 20 years ago...

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Yea... It would be tough for Andre to be in top 4-5.. I mean Murray and Ferrer are just too good for him. ROFLMAO

Bottom line.. If you got a talentless MUG like Ferrer in the top 4. Andre is good enough to be top 1-2 EASY (especially with Fed old and Nadal out injured for a year)

Gimme a break

Exactly. A really really old Agassi was giving peak Federer all he could handle. So why wouldnt a prime Agassi be able to be ranked above a really old Federer, a good 3 years or more past the end of his prime, and a good 7 years or so now past his peak. Nadal doesnt even factor into the current rankings as he has played something like 3 matches in 8 months (yet has only dropped to #5, and it took World #4 Ferrer over 7 months in a 12 month rolling system of absolutely no tennis for Nadal to overtake him, what does that say about the current ATP, lol!). Murray is not better than prime Agassi, not yet anyway. That leaves only Djokovic as a threat to a prime and in form Agassi to be ranked above.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by tudwell

I don't know about that. He's got Djokovic to challenge him at the Australian, Nadal who he would never beat at the French (and if he did, Federer and Djokovic are still above him), and he'd most likely not be able to luck out and play a headcase like Goran in a Wimbledon final. It's likely he wouldn't win the career slam and possible he wouldn't win a single slam off hard court (although it's also possible he would). His success at the U.S. Open would probably increase, though. No one's been dominant there since Federer's begun to decline, so Agassi wouldn't run into a Sampras-caliber player time and time again like he did in his real career.

With Federer past his prime and except for this past Wimbledon generally sucking on grass since 2009 (and even at this past Wimbledon he was lucky for it not to turn into another disaester with a loss to Benneteau had Benneteau not choked) prime Agassi would have real chances at Wimbledon each year. He would be just as strong as Nadal had he ever gotten to play on todays slowed grass, and in his prime he is definitely a better grass courter than Djokovic or Murray.

[Devilito]

Andre loved a target and he thrived in the 90s when people came in and played more hit/miss aggressive tennis. The people that constantly gave him more trouble were baseline grinders or other aggressive baseliners. Courier owned him, Hewitt, Rios, Muster, Safin, etc. So while I’m a HUGE Andre fan, the players at the top today would be the ones that would give him the most amount of trouble. He’d do well against guys like Berdych, Tsonga, Delpo etc. In his prime he could still beat any of the top 4 but not consistently and would be a give / take battle. Top 5 would shuffle around quite a bit due to result cannibalization at big events.

[pjonesy]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

See the bold part below.

Apparently, Agassi has devoted his post tennis life to taking digs at Sampras under the guise of praising other players for their greatness.

I hear that he pays out of pocket to have subliminal messages inserted into tennis advertisements that attempt to rob Sampras of his glory.

Please put on your aluminum hats before it is too late.

So you agree?

Ok. Fair enough. Agassi is just promoting the future of the game. Such a noble man.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Devilito

Andre loved a target and he thrived in the 90s when people came in and played more hit/miss aggressive tennis. The people that constantly gave him more trouble were baseline grinders or other aggressive baseliners. Courier owned him, Hewitt, Rios, Muster, Safin, etc. So while I’m a HUGE Andre fan, the players at the top today would be the ones that would give him the most amount of trouble. He’d do well against guys like Berdych, Tsonga, Delpo etc. In his prime he could still beat any of the top 4 but not consistently and would be a give / take battle. Top 5 would shuffle around quite a bit due to result cannibalization at big events.

Hmm good points, although he didnt have much trouble with Chang (the ultimate grinder), Kafelnikov (an excellent offensive and defensive baseliner), Ferrero and Moya (agressive baseliners and also speedy defenders). He played Hewitt and Safin mostly old and past his prime, although Safin on his best day can beat anyone, period. Muster he only had trouble with on clay. He seemed to have more trouble with baseliners who had stronger forehands than backhands, but guys like Murray and Djokovic have stronger backhands than forehands.

[MichaelNadal]

Originally Posted by Sid_Vicious

Djokovic looked pretty tired in the 5th set against Nadal last year. Nadal actually looked like he had more left in the tank than Djokovic, but he played like such a mug on huge points that it didn't matter. Djokovic was falling on his ***, praying to Jesus, and breathing really heavy after every point in the 5th set.

That 5th set at the USO was pretty poor from Djokovic also. Murray clearly outlasted him that day. I was not surprised, just look how tormented he is trying to hit (hideous) groundstrokes in windy conditions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...ko7xc4c#t=645s

God, I can't stand seeing Djokovic win a point like that. It's borderline sickening.

[Towser83]

Prime Agassi? I say number 2 or 3 perhaps. Prime Agassi for me is better than Murray currently is, also a bit better than old Federer generally (Nadal has been forced down to 5 through not playing) but the only issue is consistancy. Agassi wasn't that consistant in majors even in his best years. Only 2 years (1995 and 2001) did he progress beyond the 4th round of all 4 majors. So though prime Agassi would be potentially the best player in the world, dunno if he could keep that level up enough to be number one. But he could probably get to 3 or 2 by winning a slam and some masters.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by pjonesy

So you agree?

Ok. Fair enough. Agassi is just promoting the future of the game. Such a noble man.

There is no need to take Agassi at his word necessarily, as even he can't be sure how he would fare if he were in his prime right now. There is something to be admired about a player who is willing to give away the spotlight instead of keeping quiet with the exception of some bitter muttering that ends up coming out every now and then.

The hyping of current players is something that always happens. When their times are over, they will be compared to players like Agassi and Sampras more objectively, and the new players will be overhyped. You should be used to it by now.