FedSampras
Semi-Pro
Agassi has proven that he can definitely win the French in '99. Do you think PEAK Agassi could have beaten Nadal at Roland Garros...?
Prime Agassi could have beaten Nadal at the FO?
- Thread starter FedSampras
- Start date
BigServer1
Legend
I doubt it.
realplayer
Semi-Pro
No chance, he needed five sets to beat Medvedev
helloworld
Hall of Fame
I doubt he could beat Federer, let alone the king of clay.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
Nope. Agassi was never that great on clay. Hard court was clearly Agassi's best surface.
WhiteSox05CA
Hall of Fame
No. Agassi said that him winning the French was a fluke.
Polaris
Hall of Fame
No. I think he would have been straight-setted by Nadal on clay and by Federer on grass. On hard courts, he could perhaps have given a battle to both Federer and Nadal.
ACE of Hearts
Bionic Poster
Come on, Agassi got some consistent results on clay but i think he would lose to Nadal although he would give it a battle.
"perhaps" given a battle to both federer and nadal? ha! agassi in his prime would have dominated nadal on hard courts. a 35 year old agassi gave federer an extremely competitive match in the us open finals. i don't think agassi would have beaten nadal on clay but he would have had great matches on clay vs. federer. people forget that b/n 1988-1992 agassi reached 2 semi-finals and 2 finals.
Last edited:
lambielspins
Banned
Agassi would have been crushed by Nadal on clay. His record vs the quality clay courters of his generation was not particularly good. Federer averages 1 set per match with Nadal on clay, and I am not sure Agassi could even do that.
lambielspins
Banned
Nadal is 2-2 vs Federer on hard courts, so I wouldnt be so quick to say Agassi would have dominated Nadal on hard courts. Nadal does not have great slam results on hard courts yet but he is very tough vs the top guns. Look at his career matches vs Federer, Hewitt, and Roddick on hard courts so far.
A 34 year old Agassi gave Federer a decent match you say. A 34 year old Agassi is not a 34 year old the same way other players are. He is a player who was considered washed up at 28, and had his best year ever at 29, and won 5 of his career 8 slam titles from the time he turned 29 to just before his 33rd birthday. Dont even think of potraying him like a typical player who had all his peak years in his 20s, and was starting to go down in his late 20s like most players. He was not in his prime, but he was about 5 times closer then most are at that age.
Also judging by how Federer mulched Agassi every other time they played in 2004-2005 apart from the U.S Open Agassi needed the hostile environment of the U.S Open crowd to not be crushed by Fed at that point in time.
despite winning only 1 grand slam that year, i think agassi played his best tennis in 1995, not 1999. he won everything he played during that summer until he lost the US Open finals to sampras which sent his career into a spiral. he very likely would have won the french open that year had he not hurt his hip against kafelnikov in the quarters. a 1995 agassi would have beaten nadal on hardcourts and very likely would have beaten federer as well.
No way Jose!!!
Agassi had trouble with Muster, Wilander, and the lefty from Ecuador.
Nadal would eat Agassi alive. I don't care if Agassi ran backward against 90 degree mountains. There is nothing Agassi could do to beat Nadal.
I do think Wilander and Muster and even Lendl and Mecir could beat Nadal in their primes. To beat Nadal its all about legs, brains, and patience. These guys had all three.
Agassi had trouble with Muster, Wilander, and the lefty from Ecuador.
Nadal would eat Agassi alive. I don't care if Agassi ran backward against 90 degree mountains. There is nothing Agassi could do to beat Nadal.
I do think Wilander and Muster and even Lendl and Mecir could beat Nadal in their primes. To beat Nadal its all about legs, brains, and patience. These guys had all three.
lambielspins
Banned
You can think that if you want. The fact remains stats bears out that Agassi had the best year of his career as a 29 year old, and won 5 of his career 8 slams from just after he turned 29 to just before he turned 33. Even if you were right though Agassi still would have had at worst the second best year of tennis of his career as a 29 year old, and the best 4 year stretch of tennis of his career from just after turning 29 to just before turning 33. So my point about talking about a 34 or 35 year old Agassi as being an older player in the typical sense as being completely off base would still stand.
As for Agassi winning the French Open had he been healthy that year, I think that is a pipe dream. Muster was the overwhelming favorite to win the French Open that year. He went on a 46 match winning streak on clay that year, and 28 straight wins leading into the French Open. Agassi has never beaten one of the great clay courters of his time at the French Open.
I dont see Agassi beating Federer much on any surface with both in their primes. Fed has a much better serve, a superior forehand, much better movement, much more all court ability and net play capability, has a wider arsenal of shots. The only players who can beat Fed seem to be ones that can impose their will on him, but Agassi is not in Nadals league in that regard.
agassi could impose his will on federer through his ability to take the ball early and his clean ball striking. agassi had better ball striking ability than federer and a much better backhand. a 1995 or 1999 agassi vs a 2007 federer would have been very close on any surface (other than grass).
yes, agassi had great years towards the end of his career but what you fail to mention is that agassi from 2005-2006 (maybe even part of 2004 as well) is that he played in tremendous pain during those last few years due to his back. this includes his run at the US Open in 2005. he received numerous cortisone shots during those last few years and his movement became more limited. agassi of 2005/2006 was not the same player he was in 2003.
yes, agassi had great years towards the end of his career but what you fail to mention is that agassi from 2005-2006 (maybe even part of 2004 as well) is that he played in tremendous pain during those last few years due to his back. this includes his run at the US Open in 2005. he received numerous cortisone shots during those last few years and his movement became more limited. agassi of 2005/2006 was not the same player he was in 2003.
I remember watching Agassi play Nadal in Toronto, 2005 I think it was. I know Agassi was already quite old, but it was a hardcourt match so supposedly favoring Agassi. Still, it felt like Nadal had an answer to everything Andre threw at him...
Agassi winning the FO in 99 was definitely a fluke, way more of a fluke than if Fed had won the French this year.
Agassi winning the FO in 99 was definitely a fluke, way more of a fluke than if Fed had won the French this year.
lambielspins
Banned
Agassi was a great baseline grinder but he could not pile up winners with ease the way Federer could. Federer can hit a forehand winner especialy at from any part of the court, at any given moment. Agassi relies or grinding guys into mistakes mostly to win points, although he was excellent at doing that. However Federer is frusterated into mistakes only by guys who are incredible retrievers like Nadal. Agassi was never that.
You make some very good points on 2005 and 2006 Agassi. However looking a few years back you see Hewitt in 2001 and 2002 going 3-2 vs Agassi head to head, and edging him for the year end #1 both years. Both years the #1 was in reach for both at the year end Masters, and Agassi stated his desire both times to end the year #1 and both times was badly outperformed by Hewitt at that crucial event. Hewitt was as good or better then ever in 2004-2005, losing to the eventual champion of 7 straight slams(5 of those Federer)and still Federer had him for lunch over and over again.
You make it sound like a slightly diminished Agassi was an almost even match for Federer. Yeah they had some good matches but there was still a chasm between the 2 players at that point. From 2003-2005 Agassi went 0-8, 4 reasonably close matches, and 4 very easy wins for Federer-straight sets with no set closer then 6-4. They were far from an even match at that point. Agassi in his prime would have been closer but still on the losing end. As for 2003, Federer played Agassi in the year end Masters final in 2003 and gave him a real smackdown.
If we want to come up with our own reasoning and theories, which you are certainly entitled to, I would suggest I feel there was enormous pressure on Federer playing what people considered an older Agassi at the U.S Open, in front of an incredibly hostile crowd. Matches like those Federer know people are waiting to tear him apart if he loses, and he has everything to lose and Agassi nothing to lose and everything to gain. It is similar to matches like playing a shocking Nadal in the Wimbledon final, which also showed in Feds arguably less-then-usual quality performance there too. That probably explains why Agassi in matches outside the U.S Open wasnt able to give Federer as good of matches at that point, for example getting beaten in easy straight sets in the Australian Open quarters of 2005 between their 2 U.S Open matches, on Agassis absolute favorite type of hard courts-rebound ace.
why was agassi winning the french in '99 a fluke? maybe the way he made his comeback in the finals i guess. i think he was like the 13 seed that year but he was always a good clay court player. the real fluke was medvedev making it to the finals. i think he was ranked 100 in the world at the time.
lambielspins
Banned
I wouldnt say it was a fluke since it was his 3rd ever French Open final, and he finally won it. However he was very lucky that Kuerten and even Rios went out before he played them. Kuerten was the undisputed favorite that year. Extremely little chance for Agassi to beat Kuerten in a French Open final. Rios was 2nd favorite and had very good head to head play with Agassi at that point.
goforgold99
Semi-Pro
He wouldn't have even beaten Fed on clay 
He wouldn't have even beaten Fed on clay
a lot of ignorance here. evidently people have forgotten that great players actually existed b/f federer/nadl.
lambielspins
Banned
No we dont. We recognize Agassi was a great player. However Fed at only 25, soon to be 26, has already surpassed the Agassi career. Nadal has a decent chance of possibly reaching a comparable career; perhaps vastly superior in some ways to Agassi such as consistency over a number of years, and vastly more dominance on a particular surface; comparable in other ways-slam wins, Masters titles, tournament titles; and inferior in other ways, balanced results over all surfaces, time spent ranked #1. It is not a surprise a player who has won 10 slams at 25, and a kid with 3 slams at 21 are compared favorably to Agassi by many. It is hardly being blind to his abilities.
Totally different generations. The clay game was played differently when Lendl and Wilander dominanted the FO. In this era Nadal would kill them if they played the same game they did in the 80's. However, if Lendl and Wilander grew up in this era I'm one who believe that greats of past era's had the talent to develop into greats in the present era.
Good assessment about how do beat Nadal though. Legs, Brains, and Patients. I totally agree. Borg, Wilander, and Lendl (thought sometimes a little to rigid) had plenty of these attributes.
federerfanatic
Banned
What a dumb statement. When Agassi was Federer's current age he had been in the same # of French Open finals and won the same # of French Open title-0. Agassi did not add the 3rd final and only French Open title until he was 29. Federer is 25.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
And Nadal lost to Fed on clay who lost to Volandri. Over the course of a career, one is going to have losses, and be upset.
tennissavy
Hall of Fame
Agassi, at his very best years ago, would not take a set off Nadal now.
ktownva
Semi-Pro
Agassi of 1999 would not beat Nadal 3 out of 5 on clay, too many miles on the wheels at that point, and not aggressive enough. Agassi of 1991-92 would have been a tough match for Nadal. He was a lot quicker then and went for bigger putaways. A 100% zoned 21 year old Agassi could beat Nadal at the French.
M
Morrissey
Guest
Yeah because Agassi was real competitve on grass last year in that beatdown at the hands of Nadal, slow grass or not. This is grass. A former Wimby champ against a guy who had a career record of 3-3 on grass prior to that Wimbledon. Agassi couldn´t handle the best clay courters in his era (Muster, Kuerten, Bruguera, Courier, Ferrero) how could he handle perhaps the best clay courter of all time?
bluegrasser
Hall of Fame
No fluke, he was in three finals, and two he lost because the mental side of the game was found wanting.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Hmmm :roll: I hardly think AA was in his **prime** last year. Guess you missed that.
Against Kuerten he had a winning record of 7-4, so you are wrong in your ridiculous argeument that he couldn't handle him. By the way, he is a former 3 time French Champ in case you are stuck too far up nadal's behind to notice.
Against Muster he has a 5-4 record including a straight set victory on clay.
Against Bruguera he has a 7-3 record including a straight set victory on clay.
Against Ferrero he has a 2-3 record.
Against Courier he has a 5-7 record including two victories on clay.
That is a 26-21 record in his favor.
Like I said, a prime AA would have been compettive against Nadal on clay.
I suppose you think nadal would wipe the floor clean with him (6-0,6-0,6-0)?? Agassi isn't the players of today that Nadal is dominating on the stuff>> this is Agassi we are talking about >> perhaps one of, if not the greatest baseliner ever. And like I said, he sure as hell wouldn't be standing 10+ feet back on 105-115 mph serves, or for that matter 10-20 feet behind the baseline during rallies.
M
Morrissey
Guest
Show me Agassi´s ¨clay court¨ record against them all. I know he´s played many of those people on hardcourt. I guarantee you it´s a losing record. Despite Agassi being past his peak he would have to be the favorite against Nadal on grass.
edit.
Agassi on clay vs Bruguera 1-2
Agassi on clay vs Muster 1-3
Agassi on clay vs Ferrero 0-1
Agassi on clay vs Kuerten (never played)
Agassi on clay vs Courier 2-3
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavy Metal Tennis Star
Professional
MAn WHATEVER!!!!, NADAL WILL KILL HIM ONSTAGE!!!< GET OVER IT CRACKERS!
M
Morrissey
Guest
I´m just saying that even a prime Agassi against Nadal right now on clay wouldn´t win but competitive perhaps for a set. Agassi was never a natural mover on clay and his defense was practically non-existent. He was always an offensive player and on clay once he´s on the ropes in a rally he´s cooked. How he pulled out that match against Moya that year was beyond me. Here´s a good gauge. Do YOU think Agassi would have been competitive against Federer on clay? If not, don´t tell me he can be competitive with Nadal.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Of course he would be competitive against Fed on clay. In fact, the slower surface would favor Agassi. He was competitive with fed on hard court in his last 2-3 years on tour. In fact, for a while there>> he was the only guy on tour who was competitive against him and took him to the limit.
And, I'll tell you this>>> those players you mentioned are way better clay courters than the players nadal is facing. And, agassi won that french open by playing amazing defense and turning rallies into offensive stiuations.
You need to seriously wake up about nadal. The guys is amazing, but to go as far as to say agassi wouldn't be competitive against him and suggest it would be total domination is ridiculous.
And, I'll tell you this>>> those players you mentioned are way better clay courters than the players nadal is facing. And, agassi won that french open by playing amazing defense and turning rallies into offensive stiuations.
You need to seriously wake up about nadal. The guys is amazing, but to go as far as to say agassi wouldn't be competitive against him and suggest it would be total domination is ridiculous.
Last edited:
M
Morrissey
Guest
Agassi won that French Open on luck. He was this close to losing in the second round to Clement. Was getting outplayed against Hrbaty in the SF until the rain delay and if it weren´t for Medvedev´s choke job up 2 sets to none Agassi would still not have won that FO. Without facing Guga, Rios or even Kafelnikov to boot. I must give Agassi alot of credit for defying the odds and winning a Wimbledon back in 1992 by beating Becker, McEnroe and Ivanisevic despite not having a grass court game and winning the French despite not having a clay court game either.
Last edited by a moderator:
Agassi could hit on the rise like few could. Okay, everybody knows that, but it also translates to Agassi had a phenomenal ability to cleanly hit back extreme topspin, extreme bounce shots from his opponents. That's the principal reason why Agassi-Fed matches were interesting for whole sets. Even against Fed's FH, Agassi could retrieve with a quality return.
It would have been really fun to see a magnificently fit and tennis strong Agassi against Nadal.
It would have been really fun to see a magnificently fit and tennis strong Agassi against Nadal.
M
Morrissey
Guest
Ok, I had time to think Drakulie. It would have been competitive.
But he wouldn´t have won.
But he wouldn´t have won.
Wrong
Wilander bageled him in the fifth at the french. That was a young full haired Agassi in 1987.
Wilander bageled him in the fifth at the french. That was a young full haired Agassi in 1987.
Last edited:
one of the dumbest posts of all-time. agassi last year was a shell of himself and was barely able to move on the court due to the sciatic nerve problem in his back. if you want to talk about a "past his prime" agassi then that would have been 2003-2005. also, agassi never played kuerten on clay, much less the french open. he also never played bruguera at the french.
federer/agassi (in his prime) would have been a great match on clay. agassi might not have beaten nadal on clay but he would have given him a serious run. he was a much cleaner striker of the ball than federer and could also take the ball earlier. he could also have handled the high topspin shots that federer can't.
Last edited:
ktownva
Semi-Pro
That was a green Agassi vs the best claycourter of the day. Your point?
Similar threads
- Poll
- NadalAgassi
- General Pro Player Discussion