Was Andre Agassi a better pure ball striker than Federer?

[Tennis Dunce]

best ballstrikers Ive ever seen are Agassi, Nalbandian, Baghdatis, and on the ladies side definitely Lindsay Davenport, Capriati and Zina Garrison.

[mental midget]

Originally Posted by dominikk1985

AA did hit the ball more cleanly but that doesn't mean he was a better ballstriker.

He just used a quite moderate swing while federer swings really wristy and spinny. that means he has much less margin for error. the more spin and wrist action you have the less margin for error you have because your swing plane doesn't match the ball plane but intersects it steeply meaning you have a short time window to hit the ball.

Extreme spin always means some framing and shanking it's much easier to strike the ball cleanly flat. no coincidence that all the flat hitters look like they hit it always cleanly (davydenko, agassi, Delpo).

glad you made this point so i didn't have to. agassi and connors, everyone's top-of-the-heap ball strikers, both had exceedingly compact strokes with fairly flat swing planes. Connors in particular has mentioned he has what amounts to a 'woman's game,' imparted by his mother: very simple strokes, straight back, straight through.

you can add guys like petr korda and berdych to the 'ball strikers' list, which we might rename 'guys who hit flat and are good at it.'

[vandre]

Originally Posted by Kalin

Agassi at his best was the best ballstriker I have seen, including Fed whom I personally consider the GOAT, by the way. When Andre was still young (his long hair and fluorescent spandex 'image is everything' years) he could hit every shot in the book with winners out of nowhere no less outrageous than the ones Fed is known for. But it didn't win him many tournaments so he toned it down a notch going for the extra consistency.

During his most successful years Agassi had perfected his tactics to a point where his game was indeed quite boring to watch- heavy serve intended not to hit an outright winner but to pull the receiver out of position and then take him apart with precision groundies. During this period you always had the feeling that Agassi still had an extra gear which he very seldom used rather preferring to stay in the zone of utmost control. He would still hit the occasional out-of-this-world return when he was himself out of position but he always chose to stay in balance whenever possible and make the opponent run instead.

Needless to say, I much preferred watching the young Andre, that was so much more fun.

On a side note, yes, his volleys always looked a bit awkward compared to the supreme stylists like Edberg and Boris and even Pete but he had excellent hands, good coverage and the luxury of being able to come back behind the best groundstrokes in the game This helps a lot!

if i could bronze this post i would and hang it in my home next to my agassi shrine !!!!

what you said about agassi in his early (i.e long hair) days was dead on the money! you didn't dare take your eyes off one of his matches for a second because you might miss aa hitting the most insane winner ever (until the next time he did it )! didn't win a whole lot of titles those days but it was alot of fun to watch. back then, his groundies where his whole game. his serve wasn't a weapon itself, he just used it to start the point on his own terms. i remember he used to like serving wide in the ad court to open up the court for a crosscourt forehand. his volleys might have been uglier than roddicks but the difference is aa only came in on sitters and would usually end it with a swinging forehand volley.

[corners]

Originally Posted by Down_the_line

What do you guys think? Federer is undeniably the GOAT, but in terms of pure ball striking ability, I have to say it's Agassi. His ability to hit the ball so early and hit it as flat as he did was otherworldly. I don't think Federer - even in his prime - punished opponents and fired the ball from one side of the court to the other as well as Agassi.

Agassi hit flatter than Fed, which is both easier (less chance of clipping the frame or near it, producing a weak shot) and harder (less net clearance). But flat shots fly faster for a given swingspeed. I would guess that Fed's average RHS is faster than Agassi's was, so he's hitting nearly as fast a ball as Agassi but with more spin. What's pure ball striking anyway? A fast, flat ball? A heavy, accurate ball?

The question of flat vs. spin is also relavant to the baseline half volley. Yes, Agassi pretty much invented, and was master of that shot. But he hit it flat with an oversize frame, which is easier to time than grinding it with topspin like Fed does with a midsize.

When watching highlights of matches like the 04 US Open final vs. Hewitt, it's tough for me to think that Agassi ever struck the ball better, cleaner or more fearsomely than Fed does there. On the other hand, Agassi could bash! Here's a great match vs. a prime Becker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXQJK8P9bHU

[sabala]

I wanna see an exo with Federer and Agassi - and they have to switch rackets!

[magnut]

Andre was a great athlete. The problem is people only remember him from his last years on the tour when he couldnt move. He was quick as hell. Watch some of his matches from his 94 US Open run. He a speed demon. Check out the match where he played Chang in the round of 16. As quick as Chang was Andre was right there with him.

People think Pete was slow too which is a laugh. Pete was like a cheeta on court in his prime.