Agassi vs Djokovic-Who will win?

[Fiji]

Djokovic, imo.

 

[90's Clay]

Sounds good except this was his break through year having won Wimbledon previous but nothing otherwise, BUT he won. This can be done with Agassi as well, Flushing meadows,
LOST 88 - Lendl
LOST 89 - Lendl
LOST 90 - Sampras (Seed 12 not the No.1 variatety)
LOST 91 - Kristen (Unseeded)
LOST 92 - Courier
LOST 93 - Enquist
94 - WON
LOST 95 - Samprass
LOST 96 - Chang
LOST 97 - Rafter
LOST 98 - Kucera
99 - WON
LOST 00 - Clement
LOST 01 - Sampras
LOST 02 - Sampras
LOST 03 - Ferrero
LOST 04 - Federer
LOST 05 - B Becker

So pulling one match out where he went with a newly arrived Federer does not look so good when you look at his hole career at on his best surface. Especially when you consider Connors took him to 5 in 89, OLD man, SICK man Connors nearly beat him in his break through year!

04-05 Fed was a much better player than damn near ANY Nole I have seen at Flushing. You are giving props to a guy who has only one title in Flushing to his name and has suffered several crushing defeats to older Fed (worse than 04-05 Fed) and Nadal (1-2 vs. Nadal there). If he can't handle Nadal at Flushing I fail to see how he would handle Agassi who was a much better player in Flushing for MOST Of his career than Nadal has been

And again we are talking 34-35 year old Agassi at Flushing. His peak Game for Flushing was already YEARS before that. 34-35 year old Agassi would get pistol whipped by the younger more athletic Agassi of some those 90s years like 95,99,01,02.

 

[PMChambers]

FTR, connors wasn't playing badly and certainly wasn't sick.

Connors was sick in the match. He went into the match sick so the referee refused to allow him a time out injury. They allowed the doctor to administer "minor" drugs on court which from the commentary was aspirin and some form of flat acidic soft drink. He got better over the game and in the end Agassi was lucky to beat an OLD Connors.

athletic Agassi of some those 90s years like 95,99,01,02.

Why not 96, 97, 98 & 00 Athletic Agassi, because he was spotty and all over the place. In 95 he finished 2nd ahead of Muster by less 300pt, Noel is better than Muster throughout his entire career. He would kill Agassi

Agassi end of year rankings.
1986 - 91 ; 1987 - 25 ; 1988 - 3 ; 1989 - 7 ; 1990 - 4 ; 1991 - 10 ; 1992 - 9 ; 1993 - 24 ; 1994 -2 ; 1995 - 2 ; 1996 - 8 ; 1997 - 110 ; 1998 - 6 ; 1999 - 1; 2000 - 6 ; 2001 - 3 ; 2002 - 2 ; 2003 - 4 ; 2004 - 8 ; 2005 - 8

If Agassi started when Djokovic started he would not have won a GS by now. His rankings would be much worse than they where during his era which where not great. Agassi failed to dominate his own period of prime time basically with a 2 year hot spell in 94 & 95.

In 94 he ended up with only 1 GS and 2 Masters, 1 Master RU & 1 Master QF, That pretty poor in today comp especially considering he only beat seeds No.4 & 9 in the world for USO. Stick was extremely erratic and fallen to 9th in the world by end of year. Agassi was a great opportunist.

Agassi basically waited out for Sampras retirement, his whole GS glory is based on Sampras declining and retiring. Djokovic would destroy him on every thing but grass. Even worst because Agassi never dominated his prime time most of his Clay court wins would have been nullified further impacting on his rankings.

I think comparing Berdych to Agassi is actually a closer match, but I think Berdych would have the better head to head especially when considering the loses Agassi had to some average baseline players, like Clemount, Chang, Kucera, etc.

Djokovic would be too fast, hit too hard and consistent, play to Agassi weakness, move Agassi around, and beat him probably 7/10 times. Agaassi liked a target and Djokovic would not give him one. Agassi is better against a Federer than a Djokovic or Nadal and even then he would not be able to go with Fed.

 

[tennis_pro]

Well that's just your opinion man.

 

[PMChambers]

And again we are talking 34-35 year old Agassi at Flushing. His peak Game for Flushing was already YEARS before that. 34-35 year old Agassi

So pick a year he would do well? What was his peak period? Which sequential three years did he do well? Please explain with an example what years he was a great player able to actually compete with Djokovic. His tendency is to lose to unseeded players or beat low seeds in the two finals!!! Stick ended up 9th by end of that year! Not really a top 4 was he.

You mean the peak when he lost to,
LOST 88 - Lendl
LOST 89 - Lendl - Aging Lendl
LOST 90 - Sampras (Seed 12 not the No.1 variety)
LOST 91 - Kristen (Unseeded)
LOST 92 - Courier (Seeded 1)
LOST 93 - Enquist (Unseeded)
94 - WON (Beat Stick seeded 4th)
LOST 95 - Sampras (Seeded 2)
LOST 96 - Chang (Seeded 2)
LOST 97 - Rafter (Seeded 13)
LOST 98 - Kucera (Seeded 9)
99 - WON (Beat Martin Seeded 7)
LOST 00 - Clement (Unseeded)

 

[PMChambers]

During that period above, the only player who was better than Djokovic was Sampras and Lendl in 88, maybe 89 but that was pushing the end of his career.
So Agassi was mainly losing to players worse than Dvokovic and won two title against players no where near his level at the time.

 

[90's Clay]

So pick a year he would do well? What was his peak period? Which sequential three years did he do well? Please explain with an example what years he was a great player able to actually compete with Djokovic. His tendency is to lose to unseeded players or beat low seeds in the two finals!!! Stick ended up 9th by end of that year! Not really a top 4 was he.

You mean the peak when he lost to,
LOST 88 - Lendl
LOST 89 - Lendl - Aging Lendl
LOST 90 - Sampras (Seed 12 not the No.1 variety)
LOST 91 - Kristen (Unseeded)
LOST 92 - Courier (Seeded 1)
LOST 93 - Enquist (Unseeded)
94 - WON (Beat Stick seeded 4th)
LOST 95 - Sampras (Seeded 2)
LOST 96 - Chang (Seeded 2)
LOST 97 - Rafter (Seeded 13)
LOST 98 - Kucera (Seeded 9)
99 - WON (Beat Martin Seeded 7)
LOST 00 - Clement (Unseeded)

94,95,99,01 for example. Probably 2002 as well (beat Peak Flushing form Hewitt in 5). Unfortunately he ran into Sampras 4 of those 5 years. Agassi would have had as many USO titles as Fed/Sampras have now if he didn't run into Sampras zoning that many times.

Hell thats not even to mention, what if he didn't run into a prime Fed in 2004/2005 at the USO. There is another two USO titles Agassi EASILY win.

He had to deal with arguably the two greatest players ever at the USO during BOTH of their primes.

If anything, Agassi was extremely unlucky in that regard or else he could have been sitting on 7 USO titles

While Nole doesn't even have 2 to his name. Name another guy that would have beaten Agassi ANY of those years (95,01,02,,04, 05) if you saw how well he was playing then

 

[PMChambers]

Using Agassi peak which you say is 94 & 95, so 94, 95 & 96 as a three year trend I requested as 93 was poor so he'll look as good as he can

1994
Grand Slams
AO - Chose not to play!
FO - 2R Lost to Muster who then lost to Rafter on clay!
Wim - 4R lost Martin
USO - Won beating Stick finished 94 ranked 9th!

Masters
2 Win, 1 RU, 1 SF, 1 QF, 2 2R, 1 1R.
Loses
F Santoro, Sampras, Kafelnikov, Pescosolido, Ivanisevic
Wins
Stoltenberg, Rosset

1995
Grand Slams
AO - Won beating Sampras
FO - QF Lost Kafelnikov
Wim - SF lost Becker
USO - Final lost Sampras

Masters
2 Win, 1 RU, 1 QF, 1 3R

Loses
Sampras,
Wins
Sampras, Chang

1996
AO - SF losing to Chang
FO - 2R losing to Woodruff (Wood Who?)
Wim - 1R losing to Flach highest ranking 108 world???
USO - SF losing to Chang

Masters
2 Win, 2 QF, 1 3R, 1 2R

Loses
Sampras (Clay), Chang, Gustafsson
Wins
Ivanisevic, Chang

Over three years, two of which are meant to be Agassi prime,
GS
Won 2, RU 1, SF 3, QF 1, 4R 1, 3R 1, 2R 1, 1R 1
Masters
Win 6, RU 2, SF 1, QF 4

Other than Sampras at Wim and USO Djokovic would not have lost to any of these players and he would not have lost to Sampras on clay like Agassi did. Losses at GS to Flach and Woodruff are not receivable for Djokovic, he would also destroy Chang as he is a much better version of Chang, a faster, more powerful, bigger severing and harder hitting counter puncher but with the ability to go full aggression like 2011 AO against Nadal. If Agassi can't handle Chang at GS and Masters how could be handle Djokovic.

Djokovic 2010, 2011 & 2012
2010
Grand Slams
AO - QF lose Tsonga
FO - QF loss Meizer
Wim - SF loss Berdych
USO - RU loss Nadal

Masters
SF 3, QF 2, 4R 1, 3R 1, 2R 1
Loses
Ljubicic, Rochus, Verdasco 2x, Federer, Roddick, Llodra
This was a very poor Masters year for Noal, his worst since his 2nd professional year.

2011
Grand Slams
AO - Win against Murray
FO - SF loss Federer
Wim - Win against Nadal
USO - Win against Nadal

Masters
Win 5, RU 1, QF 1

Loses
Murray and retired injured, Tsonga on clay
Wins in finals
Nadal 4x, Fish 1

2012
AO - Win against Nadal
FO - RU loss Nadal
Wim - SF loss Federer
USO - RU loss Murray

Masters
Win 3, RU 3, SF 1, QF 1, 2R 1

Loses
Isner, Nadal 2x, Tiparevic, Federer, Querrey
Wins in finals
Murray 2x, Gasquet 1

Over three years, two of which are meant to be Agassi prime,
GS

Agassi
Won 2, RU 1, SF 3, QF 1, 4R 1, 3R 1, 2R 1, 1R 1
Masters
Win 6, RU 2, SF 1, QF 4

Djokovic
GS
Win 4, RU 3, SF 3, QF 2
Masters
Win 8, RU 4, SF 4, QF 4, 4R 1, 3R 1, 2R 2

Djokovic only lost to a player outside top 10 in Grand Slam once. He had to play Nadal and Federer which he is close to head to head. Murray, Berdych and Tsonga are also better than the players Agassi played and lost against.

You can go through other periods of Agassi and Djokovic and you'll find similar results, worst still if you pick anything before 94 it will be so one sided as to be a joke.
Agassi has nothing on Djokovic. You're memories of him must be heavily clouded as I remember him either as an extremely erratic player capably of pulling great sets out but rarely full matches and not tournaments through most of his career or an old smarter player who everyone here said is not the real great Agassi of 94 & 95. either way Djokovic would have beaten Agassi 7or8/10 during his career, but probably unlikely to meet often as he'd rearly get past Nadal, Federer, Berdych and Tsonga. His best match up of the current group would be Murray but then Agassi would blow that with impatiens and metal instability.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Djokovic is greater then Andre Agassi. He played in a more difficult era with two of the greatest players of all time with another 4+ great super consistent players in the wings. Djokovic might be like Agassi, getting the majority of his GS when his main challengers in this case RF & Rafa retire or start breaking down.

Djokovic
GS - 6 wins, 6 RU, 9 SF

Agassi
GS - 7 wins, 7 RU, 11 SF

By the end of 2015 Djokovic should have another 2 wins, 2 RU & 2 SF.

Hmm

 

[TheNachoMan]

Gluten Novak vs Meth Agassi would be an interesting matchup

 

[USO]

Andre Agassi was the second best in his era while Novak Djokovic is the third best in his era. Therefore Agassi > Djokovic.

It’s all mathematics so you don’t need to reply. There is really nothing to debate, what I wrote is a fact not an opinion.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Andre Agassi was the second best in his era while Novak Djokovic is the third best in his era.

Therefore Agassi > Djokovic.

Novak won the most slams in the 2010s decade and had the most weeks at #1. Try harder

 

[VashTheStampede]

I remember Agassi himself saying that Djokovic is better because although they both have excellent groundstrokes and returns, Djokovic moves and defends much better. Of course, Andre could have just been being humble, but I think his point does make sense.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Its so hard to compare because 20-30 years is a BIG difference in conditions and racket technology

Medium-fast courts, Agassi would conquer because of his ability to the take ball early and dictate play from neutral court. Slow Courts, Djoker would reign supreme. It would be a pretty even rivalry like Nadal/Djoker was. These conditions, Djoker would obviously dominate, but in 90s-early 2000s conditions Agassi would dominate Djoker. Agassi was a better faster conditions player while djoker is better on the slow surfaces because of his movement/speed/stamina.

 

[Third Serve]

They are both elite players in terms of forehands, backhands, and returns. Where Djokovic ultimately wins out is the serve, movement, and defense.

 

[GabeT]

Its so hard to compare because 20-30 years is a BIG difference in conditions.

Medium-fast courts, Agassi would conquer because of his ability to the take ball early and dictate play from neutral court. Slow Courts, Djoker would reign supreme. It would be a pretty even rivalry like Nadal/Djoker was. These conditions, Djoker would obviously dominate, but in 90s-early 2000s conditions Agassi would dominate Djoker

But if Novak (or any other player for that matter) has to play under 90s conditions they would train for that. We can see how Novak has changed his game over the years, including improving his serve, and fast courts are probably his favorite right now.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

They are both elite players in terms of forehands, backhands, and returns. Where Djokovic ultimately wins out is the serve, movement, and defense.

On slow courts sure.. On medium to fast courts, No.. Djoker's speed and stamina is neutralized. Mediume/Fast courts are about aggressiveness and dictating play and controlling the court

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

But if Novak (or any other player for that matter) has to play under 90s conditions they would train for that. We can see how Novak has changed his game over the years, including improving his serve, and fast courts are probably his favorite right now.

Agassi was arguably the greatest return of serve player of all time (or one of them) , so as improved as Djoker's serve became, He still aint no Sampras on the Serve so Hes gonna have his issues holding serve against Andre.

 

[President]

On slow courts sure.. On medium to fast courts, No.. Djoker's speed and stamina is neutralized. Mediume/Fast courts are about aggressiveness and dictating play and controlling the court

And serve, where Djokovic has a big edge over Agassi.

 

[HBK4life]

It’s a different game now. Too hard to compare. Better question might be who would do better vs the other in each players own era. I’d say Agassi would be maybe .500 or a bit better vs ND in the 90s. And today I think ND would beat Andre 90% of the time because the game is much more about movement instead of shot making.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

And serve, where Djokovic has a big edge over Agassi.

Not big enough. Agassi generally handled Pete/Roger's serve ok (most of the time) so Djoker isn't that big of an edge since he's clearly inferior to those two in the service dept.. If Andre can handle Pete, Fed's Roddick's serve, he can handle Djoker's serve. . LOL. Djoker has him on slow conditions. Agassi has him on Medium/fast courts

 

[GabeT]

Andre Agassi was the second best in his era while Novak Djokovic is the third best in his era. Therefore Agassi > Djokovic.

It’s all mathematics so you don’t need to reply. There is really nothing to debate, what I wrote is a fact not an opinion.

Novak has the record for weeks at #1, co record for YE1, winning H2h against the other two, ahead of Federer on slams won at the same age and only 1 behind Nadal at the same age. And he’s the third best?

do you never get tired of trolling the same thing over and over and then disappearing when he wins another slam?

 

[GabeT]

Agassi was arguably the greatest return of serve player of all time (or one of them) , so as improved as Djoker's serve became, He still aint no Sampras on the Serve so Hes gonna have his issues holding serve against Andre.

Sure but Novak is at least Andre’s equal on ROS but has a better serve. Also Novak has shown an ability to adapt over and over and improve his game when many thought he was down for

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Sure but Novak is at least Andre’s equal on ROS but has a better serve. Also Novak has shown an ability to adapt over and over and improve his game when many thought he was down for

Djoker isn't playing on the type of conditions that Andre did. Agassi was the one of the few (Maybe the only one?) baseliners at the time that won Wimbledon when it was a nightmare for a baseliner. I don't consider "djoker's adaptation" even remotely on par to Andre's in that regard. Djoker doesn't play on fast grand slam surfaces. And never has. When he did close to that (Wimbledon 2012) we saw what happened. Djoker plays a game that is conducive to his style of play. Slow grinding courts.

Ive always said Andre is the ONLY Player with the "true Grandslam" Fed/Djokovic/Nadal play on homogenized conditions. Easier to adapt. Laver doesn't even compare. He didn't win a slam on hards. Agassi has the ultimate diversified prize

 

[GabeT]

Djoker isn't playing on the type of conditions that Andre did. Agassi was the one of the few (Maybe the only one?) baseliners at the time that won Wimbledon when it was a nightmare for a baseliner. I don't consider "djoker's adaptation" even remotely on par to Andre's in that regard. Djoker doesn't play on fast grand slam surfaces. And never has. When he did close to that (Wimbledon 2012) we saw what happened. Djoker plays a game that is conducive to his style of play. Slow grinding courts.

Ive always said Andre is the ONLY Player with the "true Grandslam" Fed/Djokovic/Nadal play on homogenized conditions. Easier to adapt. Laver doesn't even compare. He didn't win a slam on hards. Agassi has the ultimate diversified prize

Racket and string technology also changed. surfaces became slower because the ball can be hit harder and with more precision.
the point is that Novak, like the other Big3, are once in a lifetime type of players due to their natural talent as well as their ability to adapt. Agassi, good as he was, wasn’t at the same level, as he himself has said.

 

[Kralingen]

I don’t think Djokovic is beating Sampras too many times on the fast Wimbledon or US Open courts.. but IMO he would have taken more of the opportunities in slams than Agassi did. Agassi did have physical limitations (5’10” at best, quick but not incredibly flexible, weaker serve) that Djokovic, who is probably the most flexible and well conditioned athlete on tour would be able to overcome. Sampras himself said that while he always felt he could get a serve or shot by Agassi, Djokovic would be a different story.

I believe him, even with the faster courts Djokovic was faster, more flexible, and had a much larger radius than Agassi which helps ROS and would make him a tougher opponent. And while peak Agassi in 95-96 and again in 99-00 was one of the best ball striking players ever at that point, Djokovic has had remarkable consistency and mental discipline as his calling card nearly every single tournament in the past 10 years. We can make hypotheticals all we want, but Djokovic’s focus and mental strength have not been called into question as much as Agassi’s were during their respective primes.

Agassi doesn’t deserve any disrespect in this thread though, and he had the talent level on par with any player today. Career GS, in an era of big serves and fast points as a returning focused baseliner is an incredible achievement. He hit the ball on the rise better than anyone else. Still I feel Djokovic’s athleticism and mental strength makes this comparison clear.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

Sampras will be there when Djoker becomes the ultimate GOAT in 3-4 years (With all records). Teacher/Student celebration. thats the final chapter in the GOAT book. Should be fun. Its fun to play the "what ifs" but at the end of the day, its all just a what if. Agassi/Djoker are about 20 years apart. LOL.

 

[USO]

Novak has the record for weeks at #1, co record for YE1, winning H2h against the other two, ahead of Federer on slams won at the same age and only 1 behind Nadal at the same age. And he’s the third best?

do you never get tired of trolling the same thing over and over and then disappearing when he wins another slam?

The best, yet he never won a slam in straight sets in his life? Never won any tournament 10 times? Never won a slam 4 or 5 consecutive times? Never won a set against Kyrgios? Third in slams in his own era? Disqualified in a slam? A hardcourt specialist who has won the biggest hardcourt tournament in the world only 3 times? So good this Djokovic.

Fedal > Djokovic. Never forget.

 

[GabeT]

The best, yet he never won a slam in straight sets in his life? Never won any tournament 10 times? Never won a slam 4 or 5 consecutive times? Never won a set against Kyrgios? Third in slams in his own era? Disqualified in a slam? A hardcourt specialist who has won the biggest hardcourt tournament in the world only 3 times? So good this Djokovic.

Fedal > Djokovic. Never forget.

You are going to run away again once Novak has another big win, aren’t you?

 

[USO]

You are going to run away again once Novak has another big win, aren’t you?

I already answered that question, I got temporarily banned since you and your fellow Djokovic fans report everything I post that you don’t like while you are content to repeat things like 40-15 and Clay specialist. I don’t run away and never will. And most importantly I’m not a crybaby.

 

[TheNachoMan]

The best, yet he never won a slam in straight sets in his life? Never won any tournament 10 times? Never won a slam 4 or 5 consecutive times? Never won a set against Kyrgios? Third in slams in his own era? Disqualified in a slam? A hardcourt specialist who has won the biggest hardcourt tournament in the world only 3 times? So good this Djokovic.

Fedal > Djokovic. Never forget.

He beat Murray in straights at AO 2011 and 2016, Nadal in straights at AO 2019, Anderson in straights at Wimbledon 2018 and Delpo in straights at USO 2018.
Never won a tournament 10 times? Well that could change next year. And the fact he nearly has as many titles as Nadal despite this shows how versatile he is
He’s first in slams in his own era. You’re counting the 2000s decade when he was a baby

 

[USO]

He beat Murray in straights at AO 2011 and 2016, Nadal in straights at AO 2019, Anderson in straights at Wimbledon 2018 and Delpo in straights at USO 2018.
Never won a tournament 10 times? Well that could change next year. And the fact he nearly has as many titles as Nadal despite this shows how versatile he is
He’s first in slams in his own era. You’re counting the 2000s decade when he was a baby

Djokovic never won a slam in straight sets I’m not talking about a slam match. Every slam he’s won he lost sets along the way while players like Fedal and Borg have won many slams in straight sets from beginning to end. He’s 3rd in this slam race 20-20-18 please stop making excuses for him.

Agassi was only 2nd best in his era not 3rd best.

 

[GabeT]

I already answered that question, I got temporarily banned since you and your fellow Djokovic fans report everything I post that you don’t like while you are content to repeat things like 40-15 and Clay specialist. I don’t run away and never will. And most importantly I’m not a crybaby.

Lol, you were comfortably posting in the Rome final thread, gloating when Nadal won the first set. And then you disappeared during the 6-1 set loss and didn’t post again until it was clear Nadal had won.

Always the same pattern with you and your “alter egos”

 

[NoleFam]

Djokovic never won a slam in straight sets I’m not talking about a slam match. Every slam he’s won he lost sets along the way while players like Fedal and Borg have won many slams in straight sets from beginning to end. He’s 3rd in this slam race 20-20-18 please stop making excuses for him.

Agassi was only 2nd best in his era not 3rd best.

As I said in your must be now banned thread a couple of days ago, Laver, the most influential champion of the OE, never won a Slam without losing a set either which shows how irrelevant that is. What do you think is better? Never losing a set in a Slam or holding them all at the same time like Laver and Djokovic did? It's not even close. Yea Agassi with less than half the Slams of Djokovic was 2nd best of his era? So what?

 

[NoleFam]

You are going to run away again once Novak has another big win, aren’t you?

Yes.

 

[USO]

@GabeT and @NoleFam Stop gushing over Djokovic it’s getting embarrassing. You defend him in everything, he’s married move on with your life.

 

[Third Serve]

@GabeT and @NoleFam Stop gushing over Djokovic it’s getting embarrassing. You defend him in everything, he’s married move on with your life.

So says the Fedal shipper.

 

[NoleFam]

@GabeT and @NoleFam Stop gushing over Djokovic it’s getting embarrassing. You defend him in everything, he’s married move on with your life.

You saying someone else is embarrassing? LOL. We defend him from pure trolling, which is what you are master of. Yea Djokovic is married but the ironic thing is, you're the one who acts like the jilted lover. Can't let go of Djoko can you?

 

[BeatlesFan]

Sure but Novak is at least Andre’s equal on ROS but has a better serve.

Agassi returned on incredibly fast carpet, super slick grass and very quick HC's. Novak never returned serve on any of those surfaces, so we can only say Andre is the greatest returner of his era, Connors of his and Novak of his era. But most will argue what Andre was returning on was much, much more difficult. His reaction time was far less on a far more demanding surface. Especially when he returned serve while stradling the baseline. We'll never know how well Novak could return on carpet since he never contested a single match on that surface in his professional career.

 

[GabeT]

Agassi returned on incredibly fast carpet, super slick grass and very quick HC's. Novak never returned serve on any of those surfaces, so we can only say Andre is the greatest returner of his era, Connors of his and Novak of his era. But most will argue what Andre was returning on was much, much more difficult. His reaction time was far less on a far more demanding surface. Especially when he returned serve while stradling the baseline. We'll never know how well Novak could return on carpet since he never contested a single match on that surface in his professional career.

Well this is all made up time travel tennis so we’d have to decide what surface this hypothetical match would be played in, what string and racquet technology they use, and whether each player has years to adjust to the conditions they never grew up with

 

[SonnyT]

The 3rd best player in the years in which they won most of their slams: Courier for Agassi; Federer for Djokovic!

There's no comparison at all! Djokovic has been mostly the top dog since '11, above 2 ATG's in Federer and Nadal. Agassi was always dominated by his lone ATG competitor, Sampras! And Federer is at least on the same level as Sampras!

After '11, Federer wasn't prime, but still top notch! Good enough that he might've won 10 slams in the 10's, without Djokovic!

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Andre Agassi is greater then Djokovic. He played in a more difficult era with faster courts.

Bump

 

[Holmes]

Andre gets him in New York, goes out like a hero in Melbourne. London and Paris go to Nole quite clearly.