Agassi still greater than Nadal at this point

[selesvido]

I have browsed this forum for a few days and I see many of you now saying Nadal is now greater than Agassi. I totally disagree with that atleast at this point.

1 more slam does not overcome the huge tournament titles edge of Agassi. And Agassi missed out on so many additional slams by not playing the Australian Open for many years where has was unbeatable.

More importantly lets compare who is better on each surface:

Rebound ace- Agassi by far
Clay- Nadal by far

Grass- This is hard to say since they never played on the same grass. Agassi played on faster grass not as condusive to a baseliner, while Nadal got the luxury of playing on slower grass which is a dream to a baseliner especialy a clay court basliner like him. I believe if Agassi played on the same grass vs the same field as Nadal he would have done even better. If Nadal played on the same grass Agassi did against the same field Agassi did he would have done worse. So IMO it is Agassi but since we cant know lets call it a tie.

fast U.S Open style hard courts- Agassi
Indoors- Agassi of course, Nadal is hopeless here
Carpet- Just imagine Nadal on carpet when he struggles that much indoors. Yikes. Agassi by far of course.
Medium paced hard courts- Agassi

Nadal is hardly better on any surfaces. On clay and maybe grass, and probably not even grass. Agassi is better on rebound ace, regular paced hard courts, fast U.S open style hard courts, indoors, and carpet.


Agassi also had the better game. His groundstrokes are superior to Nadal off both wings. His serve and return of serve are both much better. And his passing shots and volleying are better. He also has better feel for the ball and court positioning. The only things Nadal does better is movement, overall defense, mental toughness, and arguably court smarts.

 

[Grass_for_cows]

why are you doing this selesvido

 

[TennisandMusic]

Nadal has more powerful strokes, better movement, faster speed, better fitness, a better serve, more majors, more masters, the same gold medal, and dominated Federer during Federer's prime.

Nadal has this after just turning 24. Agassi has less after retiring in his mid 30's.

Nadal is so much better than Agassi it's not even funny.

 

[esm]

you may have some good points - but im sure this thread will go in all sorts of directions in no time.

i'd pay good money to see the prime Agassi VS. prime Nadal playing on any surface - now that'd be cool to watch imo

 

[selesvido]

why are you doing this selesvido

Doing what? I just dont agree with the now prevailing consensus of many that Nadal is a greater player than Agassi. Why is he. He has 1 more slam but almost 20 fewer tour titles. He has the weaker game overall. He is the weaker player on most surfaces.

 

[Nadalfan89]

Did you just say Agassi had better passing shots, forehand and volleys and serve than Nadal? That's just funny.

 

[single_handed_champion]

:lol: Agassi was the first person to cause experts to complain that baseliners were winning Wimbledon. Also, Nadal has more Masters crowns. Finally, saying Agassi missed out on several AOs, what about all the RGs Rafa missed since he was born? That is 17-18 Slams right there. We could be talking 25 Slams right now.

 

[selesvido]

Nadal has more powerful strokes, better movement, faster speed, better fitness, a better serve, more majors, more masters, the same gold medal, and dominated Federer during Federer's prime.

Nadal has this after just turning 24. Agassi has less after retiring in his mid 30's.

Nadal is so much better than Agassi it's not even funny.

Agassi never got the chance to play prime Federer during Agassi's own prime. Agassi often went 4 to 5 sets with Federer as a gimpy old man with a bad back so how do you know he wouldnt have done just as well as Nadal had he been 25 instead of 35.

And Federer is just one player. Would Nadal have done as well vs Sampras as Agassi did?

Nadal does not have more powerful strokes. Agassi hit much harder and cleaner groundstrokes. That is why it was almost impossible to outhit Agassi from the baseline. However many have done so to Nadal even since he began to win big titles on all surfaces- Djokovic many times, Nalbandian, Murray several times, Del Potro multiple times.

 

[Nadalfan89]

Doing what? I just dont agree with the now prevailing consensus of many that Nadal is a greater player than Agassi. Why is he. He has 1 more slam but almost 20 fewer tour titles. He has the weaker game overall. He is the weaker player on most surfaces.

Nadal would destroy Agassi on grass. Wait....Nadal DID destroy Agassi on grass.

You can't compare a guy who has a golden grand slam at 24 to a guy who won the majority of his grand slams after 30. Grand Slams and master's series are all that matter. A player could win a thousand 250 and 500 events and it wouldn't mean **** if he didn't have a grand slam.

 

[Grass_for_cows]

Nadal would destroy Agassi on grass. Wait....Nadal DID destroy Agassi on grass.

You can't compare a guy who has a golden grand slam at 24 to a guy who won the majority of his grand slams after 30. Grand Slams and master's series are all that matter. A player could win a thousand 250 and 500 events and it wouldn't mean **** if he didn't have a grand slam.

Nadal does not have a grand slam.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Doing what? I just dont agree with the now prevailing consensus of many that Nadal is a greater player than Agassi. Why is he. He has 1 more slam but almost 20 fewer tour titles. He has the weaker game overall. He is the weaker player on most surfaces.

Agassi was the bigger hitter, and was almost as steady as Ralph. I give Agassi the nod on hard court, and Ralph the nod on clay. On grass, it's hard to say. Theoretically, Agassi would seem to be the more natural grass court player with his compact windup on both sides, more powerful and penetrating groundies, and his ability to hit so cleanly on the rise. But, Nadal's record at Wimbledon is better than Aggasi's. Maybe the level of Ralph's grass court competition - no Becker, Edberg, Sampras, et al., explains that. I'm just not prepared to make a decision one way or another at this point.

 

[selesvido]

Nadal would destroy Agassi on grass. Wait....Nadal DID destroy Agassi on grass.

You can't compare a guy who has a golden grand slam at 24 to a guy who won the majority of his grand slams after 30. Grand Slams and master's series are all that matter. A player could win a thousand 250 and 500 events and it wouldn't mean **** if he didn't have a grand slam.

So you are seriously talking about a match with a 36 year old Agassi who could barely walk in his final year on tour. Get real.

We have no idea how a prime Nadal and prime Agassi would stack up on grass. What we do know is the grass today is nothing like the grass Agassi played on. the grass Agassi played on favored the big servers and attackers. It was almost impossible to even play from the baseline unless you had Agassi's talent and timing. Todays grass makes it easy for the baseliner to dominate. And not to mention the grass court field in Agassi's day compared to today. Nadal faces Federer and who else on grass? Nothing. Agassi had to face Sampras (a greater grass courter than Federer), Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Edberg, Stich, Henman.

Even if you gave grass to Nadal though it wouldnt make any difference to my overall point. Nadal would now be better on clay and grass. Agassi better on rebound ace, medium paced hard courts, fast U.S Open style hard courts, indoors, or carpet. Tell me any of those 5 surfaces you think Nadal is better than Agassi on.

 

[nikdom]

Nadal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agassi

sorry.

 

[TennisBatman]

I can see Agassi performing at about the same level as Djokovic on hardcourt slams. In other words, a match between Agassi and Nadal at the AO or UO would look very similar to the UO final we saw earlier this week.

But once you start moving to grass, not to even mention clay, Agassi wouldn't even make a scratch against Nadal's record...

 

[selesvido]

Agassi was the bigger hitter, and was almost as steady as Ralph. I give Agassi the nod on hard court, and Ralph the nod on clay. On grass, it's hard to say. Theoretically, Agassi would seem to be the more natural grass court player with his compact windup on both sides, more powerful and penetrating groundies, and his ability to hit so cleanly on the rise. But, Nadal's record at Wimbledon is better than Aggasi's. Maybe the level of Ralph's grass court competition - no Becker, Edberg, Sampras, et al., explains that. I'm just not prepared to make a decision one way or another at this point.

I think that is an excellent accessment. However since there are many types of hard courts, and there are also in the indoor and carpet courts (well atleast there should be/used to be), wouldnt the overall surfaces edge clearly go to Agassi at this point then? I think it would.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Agassi never got the chance to play prime Federer during Agassi's own prime. Agassi often went 4 to 5 sets with Federer as a gimpy old man with a bad back so how do you know he wouldnt have done just as well as Nadal had he been 25 instead of 35.

And Federer is just one player. Would Nadal have done as well vs Sampras as Agassi did?

Nadal does not have more powerful strokes. Agassi hit much harder and cleaner groundstrokes. That is why it was almost impossible to outhit Agassi from the baseline. However many have done so to Nadal even since he began to win big titles on all surfaces- Djokovic many times, Nalbandian, Murray several times, Del Potro multiple times.

Nadal surely hit's a heavier ball than Agassi. Nadal is taller and stronger. When Nadal hits aggressive groundstrokes, I've personally never seen anything else like it in tennis, and I've seen all of this stuff in person.

You think Agassi did well against Sampras? :lol: What was their major H2H again? When it mattered Sampras spanked Agassi, except at the AO.

 

[Moose Malloy]

I think that is an excellent accessment

lol you wouldn't happen to be from Ontario?

 

[decades]

agassi did have a "prime". and according to his book, it involved crystal meth? prime agassi isn't beating Nadal. Of course you can contort history dramatically and say "what if" a prime Agassi did not let himself go, what if he did not take illicit drugs? But that opens up a can of worms.

 

[Semi-Pro]

Their is no question prime Agassi would give Nadal a reaaally tough time, but based on career results/achievements Nadal is ahead of him now.

 

[selesvido]

Nadal surely hit's a heavier ball than Agassi. Nadal is taller and stronger. When Nadal hits aggressive groundstrokes, I've personally never seen anything else like it in tennis, and I've seen all of this stuff in person.

You think Agassi did well against Sampras? :lol: What was their major H2H again? When it mattered Sampras spanked Agassi, except at the AO.

Agassi didnt do that great against Sampras but he did better than I personally believe Nadal would have. Agassi never lost to Sampras at the Australian or French Opens. Sampras never lost to Agassi at Wimbledon or the U.S Open. Seems pretty even to me.

I dont think Nadal would be 2-0 vs Sampras at the Australian Open. Just look at how in his prime he was killed by Tsonga and Murray there. Yeah Nadal probably has a heavier ball with the combination of pace and all the spin. However his balls on hard courts often fall too short and when they do with the topspin they sit up waiting to be clobbered. And Nadal is nowhere near the returner Agassi is so if Agassi couldnt break Sampras on faster court what do you think Nadal would be like returning that serve except on clay. Nadal also doesnt play as close to the baseline or take the ball as early as Nadal, leaving him vurnerable to an attacking player. He is just unfortunate there are no good attacking players today at all. Everyone is a baseliner.

 

[decades]

Nadal would destroy Agassi on grass. Wait....Nadal DID destroy Agassi on grass.

You can't compare a guy who has a golden grand slam at 24 to a guy who won the majority of his grand slams after 30. Grand Slams and master's series are all that matter. A player could win a thousand 250 and 500 events and it wouldn't mean **** if he didn't have a grand slam.

agassi won only one slam Over the age of 30. He won one at 30 and three at 29.

 

[Ledigs]

fast U.S Open style hard courts- Agassi
Indoors- Agassi of course, Nadal is hopeless here
Carpet- Just imagine Nadal on carpet when he struggles that much indoors. Yikes. Agassi by far of course.
Medium paced hard courts- Agassi

Nadal is hardly better on any surfaces. On clay and maybe grass, and probably not even grass. Agassi is better on rebound ace, regular paced hard courts, fast U.S open style hard courts, indoors, and carpet.

Agassi also had the better game. His groundstrokes are superior to Nadal off both wings. His serve and return of serve are both much better. And his passing shots and volleying are better. He also has better feel for the ball and court positioning. The only things Nadal does better is movement, overall defense, mental toughness, and arguably court smarts.

All of this is completely subjective. How do you know that Agassi had the better game? How do you know he'd win on hard courts??

 

[selesvido]

agassi won only one slam Over the age of 30. He won one at 30 and one at 29.

That is correct. Agassi won 1 slam at 30 and 1 at 32. So 6 of his 8 slams were in his 20s, and only 1 of his 8 were past the age of 30. This "prime Agassi at 35" is nonsense.

 

[decades]

That is correct. Agassi won 1 slam at 30 and 1 at 32. So 6 of his 8 slams were in his 20s, and only 1 of his 8 were past the age of 30. This "prime Agassi at 35" is nonsense.

and those who are counting on Fed doing an "agassi" and winning slams well into his 30s, better check the record again. the game is much more physical now than it was then and there are more big hitters and good young players around today than there were then.

 

[selesvido]

All of this is completely subjective. How do you know that Agassi had the better game? How do you know he'd win on hard courts??

Just watch the two play. Agassi had better groundstrokes off both forehand and backhand. OK the forehand is debateable. The backhand is clearly Agassi, you dont dispute that do you. The forehand I would go with Agassi since Nadal's forehand sit up to be attacked too often on hard courts. And the serve is clearly Agassi better and the return of serve even more. And Agassi was better at the net than Nadal who is a poor volleyer. And Agassi had better court positioning, overall timing, and passed or well or better than Nadal considering all the attackers he faced.

 

[Ledigs]

Just watch the two play. Agassi had better groundstrokes off both forehand and backhand. OK the forehand is debateable. The backhand is clearly Agassi, you dont dispute that do you. The forehand I would go with Agassi since Nadal's forehand sit up to be attacked too often on hard courts. And the serve is clearly Agassi better and the return of serve even more. And Agassi was better at the net than Nadal who is a poor volleyer. And Agassi had better court positioning, overall timing, and passed or well or better than Nadal considering all the attackers he faced.

You're forgetting movement, tactics etc.

 

[TennisBatman]

Nadal would get too many passing shots against Agassi for him to handle, I'm afraid.

Agassi had power, I'll give you that, but if we saw him in today's matches, I'm afraid he would let too many of Nadal's shots get by.

 

[namelessone]

Agassi would have been a bad matchup for Rafa but as both Agassi/Nadal fan I have to say that Rafa is above Agassi, sorry Andre but that's the way it is.

Both have golden career slams. But Rafa did it at 24.
Rafa has 9 slams, Agassi has 8. Rafa will probably improve this stat.
Rafa looked to improve his game and stay relevant, Andre fell off the map for a big chunk of his career.
Rafa dominated his rival, Andre didn't.
Andre has more accumulated weeks at nr.1(101) versus Rafa's 76 but Rafa will surely pass Andre here as well.

Andre is above Rafa in YEC wins, he has one, Rafa has 0.

The scary bit is that Rafa can improve on those numbers whereas Andre has retired for quite some time. This is matchup I would have loved to see.

 

[!<-_->!]

You're all forgetting the key point... it's cause Agassi is an American and America is far greater than the entire world.

I kid, I kid.

Hopefully I don't get flamed for that attempt at a joke.

 

[selesvido]

Sampras is harder to dominate than Federer. He was much more explosive and he didnt get scared of tough competition the way Federer does.

 

[selesvido]

People say Nadal has more Masters. Well he only has 1 more right now and the TMC is bigger than a Masters. So combining the two Nadal is slightly ahead there. Nadal's edge is 1 more slam.

 

[woodrow1029]

Sampras is harder to dominate than Federer. He was much more explosive and he didnt get scared of tough competition the way Federer does.

Wow. With comments like that, you will fit in just great here!

 

[Nadalfan89]

Agassi's serve was utterly mediocre. You cannot compare his serve to Nadal's. Roddick blasts a 140mph serve and Federer returns it with the flick of his wrist. Nadal hits a 115mph slice out wide and Federer struggles to get a racket on it.

I don't know what your criteria is for a good serve, but Agassi doesn't lead in any of my criteria.

 

[Nadalfan89]

Sampras is harder to dominate than Federer. He was much more explosive and he didnt get scared of tough competition the way Federer does.

You are officially not worth my time after that. Good day.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Wow. With comments like that, you will fit in just great here!

Woodrow, you should look for my "interesting ad" thread in this subforum.

 

[woodrow1029]

Woodrow, you should look for my "interesting ad" thread in this subforum.

LOL. Love it! Thanks for directing my attention away from this trash thread started by a stupid OP (I wonder which previously banned user he/she is anyway) to something funny.

 

[statto]

If you look at the Nadal/Lendl thread you'll see that I have great respect for Agassi's game, but there is no way he can be positively compared with Nadal at this point. Look at the numbers:

They both have a career golden slam.
They both have an olympic gold in singles.

Nadal has one more slam.
Agassi has one more YEC.
Nadal has one more master.
Agassi has 19 more tournament wins not counting the above.

Agassi played 340 tournaments to achieve that. Nadal has played 136 tournaments. Therefore while Nadal's total number of wins is lower that Agassi's, his success rate is massively higher.

Essentially we should ask ourselves, would Agassi be willing to swap his 19 victories at at ATP500 and ATP250 level for an extra slam? The answer would most probably be yes, and would definitely be yes if you told him he could continue to play for several years with the possibility of winning many more tournaments.

The problem in your reasoning is that you're over-valuing the smaller tournaments. The same reasoning would place Lendl and Connors above Borg and Sampras.

 

[nikdom]

Ask Agassi - he'll tell you who is greater. He seems to think the world of Nadal.

 

[angiebaby]

why are you doing this selesvido

I'm sorry but this cracked me up.:mrgreen:

 

[willshot]

Nadal would destroy agassi far worst than he does fed. overpower

 

[single_handed_champion]

Agassi fed off pace i.e. low hard balls he redirected by taking them on the rise. If you think he would do the same with the insane topspin and bounce of Rafa's balls, think again. It is MUCH harder to take a ball that is kicking up high, on the rise, besides Rafa creates great angles and mixes up the depth of his shots, when playing well.

Why do you think everyone struggles with the lefty slice serve while they return flat bombs with ease?

 

[nippurr]

Just watch the two play. Agassi had better groundstrokes off both forehand and backhand. OK the forehand is debateable. The backhand is clearly Agassi, you dont dispute that do you. The forehand I would go with Agassi since Nadal's forehand sit up to be attacked too often on hard courts. And the serve is clearly Agassi better and the return of serve even more. And Agassi was better at the net than Nadal who is a poor volleyer. And Agassi had better court positioning, overall timing, and passed or well or better than Nadal considering all the attackers he faced.

With Andre in the ad court receiving serve Rafa's serve out wide would be so high over Andre's head Andre would be able to hit overhead returns. ~GiGGle~

 

[nippurr]

~GiGGle~ Backhand overhead returns.

 

[willshot]

~GiGGle~ Backhand overhead returns.

giggle also... plus agassi is not fast enough for Nadal. On top of that, Agassi doesn't have the big serve to hurt Rafa either. bad match. end of story.

 

[Start da Game]

I have browsed this forum for a few days and I see many of you now saying Nadal is now greater than Agassi. I totally disagree with that atleast at this point.

1 more slam does not overcome the huge tournament titles edge of Agassi. And Agassi missed out on so many additional slams by not playing the Australian Open for many years where has was unbeatable.

More importantly lets compare who is better on each surface:

Rebound ace- Agassi by far
Clay- Nadal by far

Grass- This is hard to say since they never played on the same grass. Agassi played on faster grass not as condusive to a baseliner, while Nadal got the luxury of playing on slower grass which is a dream to a baseliner especialy a clay court basliner like him. I believe if Agassi played on the same grass vs the same field as Nadal he would have done even better. If Nadal played on the same grass Agassi did against the same field Agassi did he would have done worse. So IMO it is Agassi but since we cant know lets call it a tie.

fast U.S Open style hard courts- Agassi
Indoors- Agassi of course, Nadal is hopeless here
Carpet- Just imagine Nadal on carpet when he struggles that much indoors. Yikes. Agassi by far of course.
Medium paced hard courts- Agassi

Nadal is hardly better on any surfaces. On clay and maybe grass, and probably not even grass. Agassi is better on rebound ace, regular paced hard courts, fast U.S open style hard courts, indoors, and carpet.


Agassi also had the better game. His groundstrokes are superior to Nadal off both wings. His serve and return of serve are both much better. And his passing shots and volleying are better. He also has better feel for the ball and court positioning. The only things Nadal does better is movement, overall defense, mental toughness, and arguably court smarts.

i was preparing a 3 paragraph explanation to disprove your argument until i saw that line........

 

[Kunohara]

Look, I cant stand Nadal, but you have to be pretty dumb to think Agassi > Nadal.

 

[sureshs]

Agassi also had the better game. His groundstrokes are superior to Nadal off both wings. His serve and return of serve are both much better. And his passing shots and volleying are better. He also has better feel for the ball and court positioning. The only things Nadal does better is movement, overall defense, mental toughness, and arguably court smarts.

Agassi lost to Federer and Nadal, and Federer has lost to Nadal convincingly.

How can Agassi have the better game (even considering his age at the time of playing Fed and Nadal)?

 

[Big Dave]

Its a tough call. I think agassi is a better pure ball striker, while Nadal is superior athletically...and mentally. They played in different times, with different surfaces, opponents, development methods, etc. I guess we'll never really know who was better. Sure, Rafa has achieved much more, and in much shorter time, but that doesnt tell the whole story. It's pretty close to call, but i think a 1995 agassi would stack up well against a 2010 nadal...talk about a rumble.

 

[Retra]

Sampras is harder to dominate than Federer. He was much more explosive and he didnt get scared of tough competition the way Federer does.

 

[President]

Agassi was the bigger hitter, and was almost as steady as Ralph. I give Agassi the nod on hard court, and Ralph the nod on clay. On grass, it's hard to say. Theoretically, Agassi would seem to be the more natural grass court player with his compact windup on both sides, more powerful and penetrating groundies, and his ability to hit so cleanly on the rise. But, Nadal's record at Wimbledon is better than Aggasi's. Maybe the level of Ralph's grass court competition - no Becker, Edberg, Sampras, et al., explains that. I'm just not prepared to make a decision one way or another at this point.

Agassi was not even close to as consistent as "Ralph", mainly because of his movement. I'd say Nadal is the better grass player due to his much better athleticism and (since 2010) serve. Agassi would probably win the lion's share of matches on HC, but I hope you agree that their HC H2H would be MUCH closer than the clay H2H. I would be surprised if Agassi could even win more than 1 match against Nadal on clay if they played 10 times.