Would Agassi be more successful in this era?

[robow7]

Originally Posted by Dark Victory

Federer would've always beaten Agassi, even the mid-90's version of Andre.

Much of it is a match-up thing.

And this is how most of their matches would've looked like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkBUod7nnC0

Those two really should have put more pace on their groundies and quit pushing so much.

[Devilito]

Originally Posted by Dark Victory

Federer would've always beaten Agassi, even the mid-90's version of Andre.

Much of it is a match-up thing.

And this is how most of their matches would've looked like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkBUod7nnC0

i'd fully agree that Fed is just a bad match up for Andre because he feeds of pace and is more bothered by loopy spin shots than straight power. Andre would have better success against the other top players over Fed. However, it's funny to note how Fed plays nothing like that anymore. Compared to how he played in ’05 Fed is almost a pusher now. It’s insane how aggressive he was and how hard he hit the ball. He hits with way more spin now and gets into long rallies which hurt him against guys like Nadal and Djokovic that can out rally him. He needs to go back to being aggressive off the ground.

[Iron Man]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I disagree! Prime Agassi was a better ball striker on both sides than Federer, and would have more success breaking Federer's serve than he did Sampras' serve. Further, Agassi was steadier than Federer. Accordingly, he would have his best success against Federer on clay and slow hardcourts which would help compensate for his comparitively limited court coverage.

!!! what an expert

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Iron Man

!!! what an expert

Thank you!

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Thank you!

He doesn't believe a word you said. It was a sarcastic remark.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by TMF

He doesn't believe a word you said. It was a sarcastic remark.

Ironic perhaps. But, I didn't infer anything sarcastic about it.

[Zimbo]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

IMO, Agassi had the best groundstrokes in the history of tennis. Federer has a greater forehand, but, Agassi's backhand advantage over Fed more than makes up for that. I'm not saying he had the best ground game overall because his mobility was hampered by his congenital back problems. But, no one was a greater, more consistent, ball striker than Agassi.

Having said that, IMO, he might have been more successful today. If he was pushing a prime Federer to near his limit at the age of 34-35, perhaps he would have been successful against Federer in his own prime. On the other hand, if Agassi was healthier, both physically and mentally, throughout his career, he would have been more successful in any era.

Hey Limp we agree here. Agassi was a one of a kind ball striker. He would def do pretty well in this era. However, because it has gotten more physical and the pace of the game has increase, if Agassi didn't fully commit to tennis like he did for years in his career he would have gotten eaten up even worst

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Dark Victory

Federer would've always beaten Agassi, even the mid-90's version of Andre.

Much of it is a match-up thing.

And this is how most of their matches would've looked like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkBUod7nnC0

This is not the real Agassi.

This is Agassi after he was Agassi.

[Zimbo]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

This is not the real Agassi.

This is Agassi after he was Agassi.

Too funny. I love it.

[Top Jimmy]

Originally Posted by TMF

But Agassi who played both prime Pete and Fed believe Fed is a better player, tougher to beat, no place to get to. So your opinion is way off, as usual.



Federer's the best I've ever played, says Agassi

Ummm, I think Nadal and Joker proved that wasn't true.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

This is not the real Agassi.

This is Agassi after he was Agassi.

One of the greatest posts of all time. I nominate this for GPOAT.

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by Devilito

i'd fully agree that Fed is just a bad match up for Andre because he feeds of pace and is more bothered by loopy spin shots than straight power. Andre would have better success against the other top players over Fed. However, it's funny to note how Fed plays nothing like that anymore. Compared to how he played in ’05 Fed is almost a pusher now. It’s insane how aggressive he was and how hard he hit the ball. He hits with way more spin now and gets into long rallies which hurt him against guys like Nadal and Djokovic that can out rally him. He needs to go back to being aggressive off the ground.

Interesting what 5 yrs time will do; Andre of 2000 was more formidable than Andre of 2005. Similarly, Fed was much more potent in 2005 than he is now. Fed is not a great match up for Andre for the reasons you suggest; he can and does mix it up more. Also, in this match Andre was pushing 35 and had an ailing back, so I would not treat it as "typical"...prime to prime, he'd probably win a few off Fed, but Fed would take the majority of the matches.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Top Jimmy

Ummm, I think Nadal and Joker proved that wasn't true.

I'm talking about a peak Fed. Have you ever saw Fed play(not a 30 yr old Fed)?

And only one player(Nadal) doesn't mean it's the entire era. Nadal is the worst match up for Fed in the history of tennis. I don't believe Agassi meant Federer is perfect, but he's the closest. Overall, we measure against the entire field and Agassi is right, because Fed's achievements speak volumes.

[Dark Victory]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

This is not the real Agassi.

This is Agassi after he was Agassi.

It wouldn't have mattered that much even if it was 95 Agassi that 05 Fed was playing.

Roger is simply a bad match-up for Andre.

Another thing is that Agassi's specialty is being the anti serve volleyer of his time, check his 90's record against the s and vers - all except one, and that is because Pete could beat him from the back of the court also.

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I disagree! Prime Agassi was a better ball striker on both sides than Federer, and would have more success breaking Federer's serve than he did Sampras' serve. Further, Agassi was steadier than Federer. Accordingly, he would have his best success against Federer on clay and slow hardcourts which would help compensate for his comparitively limited court coverage.

Agassi would not have even reached Federer often on clay. His FO record between 1992 and 1999:

1993- DNP
1994- lost 2nd round to an out of prime Muster (who lost next round to Pat Rater)
1995- lost quarters to Kafelnikov with a bad hip injury
1996- lost 3rd round to Woodruff
1997- DNP
1998- lost 1st round to 18 year old Safin

Then after 1999:

2000- lost 2nd round to Kucera
2001- lost quarters to Grosjean


I think where Agassi would have his best success against Federer would be on hard courts, but any kind of hard courts, although probably even more on the slow to medium kind. That is where he would do some real damage to Federer, and more than ****s on this forum will ever admit. Clay he may have had a decent shot when they played, but Agassi was no consistently stellar clay courter and wouldnt have even played Federer much on them. Grass and carpet Federer would be too strong. Agassi's return wouldnt have helped him as much vs Federer who stays back on his serve.

[monfed]

On HCs,yes,he's the second best slow HC player imo. Majority of the HCs are slow HC so why not?
Grass maybe,clay most probably not.

[kimbahpnam]

Originally Posted by Dark Victory

Federer would've always beaten Agassi, even the mid-90's version of Andre.

Much of it is a match-up thing.

And this is how most of their matches would've looked like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkBUod7nnC0

clearly agassi was dressed for the wrong grand slam

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by TMF

I'm talking about a peak Fed. Have you ever saw Fed play(not a 30 yr old Fed)?

And only one player(Nadal) doesn't mean it's the entire era. Nadal is the worst match up for Fed in the history of tennis. I don't believe Agassi meant Federer is perfect, but he's the closest. Overall, we measure against the entire field and Agassi is right, because Fed's achievements speak volumes.

uhhh, PEAK Fed was being owned by Nadal...then and now.

[OriginalHockeytowner]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I think Agassi and Connors would thrive in this era.

Definitely agree, this is the new era of baseline bashers, and those two are 2 of the all-time great baseliners