Agassi Would Have Owned Nadal... Your Thoughts?

[wangs78]

I was thinking about this today and realized that Agassi (and I mean Agassi 2.0 when he was not having back issues) would have fared pretty well against Nadal. Agassi would not have had much trouble with Nadal's topspin from either wing, as he hit on the rise better than anyone, he had great directional control and would move Nadal left to right nonstop, and I just don't think Nadal has any particular weapon that would leave Agassi open. I'm not saying Agassi would have owned Nadal match after match, but in 10 matches, I could definitely see Agassi consistently giving Nadal trouble and winning 6-7 of those matches. Maybe.

Thoughts?

 

[djones]

Agassi might be better on hard-courts and indoor, but on clay and maybe grass as well, Nadal wins.

 

[Say Chi Sin Lo]

Agassi himself could have jump started Nadal's knee problems if he had the chance to play him a few more times . Remember, he was known to purposely punish opponents by making them run from corners to corners.

Ugh, I miss Agassi's sickening *THUD* sounds when he hits the ball.

 

[Eragon]

Yeah, I think he would have matched up really well against Nadal. Not sure about "owned", though, because Nadal is the better player in general. But would he have gotten the better of him? I think so.

 

[djones]

A 32 year old Agassi would probably do better against Nadal than Federer at 32.

 

[VoodooChild24]

I'm an Agassi fan but I don't think he will "own" Nadal. In Agassi's book he mentioned how he has a hard time dealing with the Nadal spin. He is not able to take it on the rise because the ball falls inside the serivce box. It would be interesting to see a young Agassi against Rafa.

 

[NatF]

Agassi might have beaten Nadal on hardcourts most of the time, but he wouldn't have owned him.

 

[Roger2003Wimbledon]

Davydenko

10 FSKs

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

looking at the good record of davydenko vs the nadal off clay......

 

[sureshs]

Never let facts get in the way.


R. Nadal A. Agassi
Win 2 0

 

[timnz]

My 2 Cents

Agassi might be better on hard-courts and indoor, but on clay and maybe grass as well, Nadal wins.

Depends what grass. Fast 1990's Grass at Wimbledon - Nadal would really struggle. I think in the 2000's grass Nadal would dominate.

Indoor Carpet - Agassi would win no problem

Indoor Hard - Harder for Agassi to win, but I think he would win

Clay - Nadal obviously - though Agassi's 2002 Italian Open was impressive.

Outdoor Hard - I think this would be fairly close. Agassi was great on slow outdoor hard - look at his record at the Australian Open and Miami.

 

[President]

looking at the good record of davydenko vs the nadal off clay......

Big factor in that is that Davydenko moves extremely well, about 10 times as well as Agassi..

 

[Say Chi Sin Lo]

Outdoor Hard - I think this would be fairly close. Agassi was great on slow outdoor hard - look at his record at the Australian Open and Miami.

Not if there's a hurricane nearby

Agassi would be licking his chops.

 

[Eragon]

Big factor in that is that Davydenko moves extremely well, about 10 times as well as Agassi..

But Agassi didn't have to move. I'm sure he wouldn't be that much better of a player even if you gave him Djokovic's movement. His game was to stand and deliver. All he did was stand at or near the center of the baseline and redirect the ball with power and depth.

 

[Eragon]

Never let facts get in the way.


R. Nadal A. Agassi
Win 2 0

Yeah, just like:

Rosol-Nadal : 1-0
Darcis-Nadal : 1-0

 

[jhhachamp]

I think peak Nadal would dominate peak Agassi on most courts. Agassi just simply is not the same level player Nadal is.

 

[President]

But Agassi didn't have to move. I'm sure he wouldn't be that much better of a player even if you gave him Djokovic's movement. His game was to stand and deliver. All he did was stand at or near the center of the baseline and redirect the ball with power and depth.

If he had Djokovic's movement, he would never have lost to Sampras. It was a huge factor in his issues with certain players, he didn't have an overpowering serve so he didn't start the rallies on his terms all too often. Better movement would have helped him a lot.

 

[MTF07]

I think peak Nadal would dominate peak Agassi on most courts. Agassi just simply is not the same level player Nadal is.

Um yeah, no.

 

[moonballs]

I'm an Agassi fan but I don't think he will "own" Nadal. In Agassi's book he mentioned how he has a hard time dealing with the Nadal spin. He is not able to take it on the rise because the ball falls inside the serivce box. It would be interesting to see a young Agassi against Rafa.

Taking the ball on the rise is about taking time and space away from your opponent while allowing yourself stand forward to the base line. If your opponent's ball falls inside the service line, then your purpose of hitting the ball on the rise is already achieved.

 

[Clarky21]

I think he would have. Nadal struggles badly with players who take the ball on rise and hit flat, taking his time away. Agassi would have beaten him more often than not, imo.

 

[ruerooo]

I was thinking about this today and realized that Agassi (and I mean Agassi 2.0 when he was not having back issues) would have fared pretty well against Nadal. Agassi would not have had much trouble with Nadal's topspin from either wing, as he hit on the rise better than anyone, he had great directional control and would move Nadal left to right nonstop, and I just don't think Nadal has any particular weapon that would leave Agassi open. I'm not saying Agassi would have owned Nadal match after match, but in 10 matches, I could definitely see Agassi consistently giving Nadal trouble and winning 6-7 of those matches. Maybe.

Thoughts?

I love Andre.

That said, Rafa beat him in the Rogers Cup final in 2005 and in the 3rd round of Wimbledon in 2006 (the year he made his first Wimbledon final against Roger).

I think it would be a pretty even match.

 

[Bender]

Taking the ball on the rise is about taking time and space away from your opponent while allowing yourself stand forward to the base line. If your opponent's ball falls inside the service line, then your purpose of hitting the ball on the rise is already achieved.

Yes but you're forgetting that that means Agassi will have to hit outside his striking zone, unless he plays in no man's land or stand further behind the baseline, neither of which are optimal for him given his movement.

 

[90's Clay]

90s conditions- Agassi owns Nadal on everything but clay

2000s conditions- Agassi owns Nadal on everything except clay and grass.

Either era, Agassi has the advantage over Rafa overall

 

[Tennis_Monk]

90s conditions- Agassi owns Nadal on everything but clay

2000s conditions- Agassi owns Nadal on everything except clay and grass.

Either era, Agassi has the advantage over Rafa overall

Yet some how Nadal leads 2-0 in H2H.
Obviously it wasnt Prime conditions for Agassi but some consideration has to be given to the fact that they both played and there was some real data.

In my book, current conditions, Nadal would have a sizeable lead in all conditions. In the 90's , i could care less.

 

[bullfan]

90s conditions- Agassi owns Nadal on everything but clay

2000s conditions- Agassi owns Nadal on everything except clay and grass.

Either era, Agassi has the advantage over Rafa overall

I'm not sure about that. One thing about Nadal is his ability to adapt. No one thought he could win on grass, and no one thought he could win on hardcourts.

Nadal may very well have modified his game to the times and players.

 

[90's Clay]

Yet some how Nadal leads 2-0 in H2H.
Obviously it wasnt Prime conditions for Agassi but some consideration has to be given to the fact that they both played and there was some real data.

In my book, current conditions, Nadal would have a sizeable lead in all conditions. In the 90's , i could care less.

And how old was Agassi when they played?? Yea.. Agassi was older than Fed when he played Nadal. Nadal is something like 16 years younger than Agassi. They played when Andre was 35-36 years of age and already with a bad back and severely slowed down.. Thats ancient for tennis


I would hope Nadal would win those matches..

 

[90's Clay]

I'm not sure about that. One thing about Nadal is his ability to adapt. No one thought he could win on grass, and no one thought he could win on hardcourts.

Nadal may very well have modified his game to the times and players.

Nadal does have the ability to adapt of course.. But Agassi was the EPITOME of adaptability.

He won on every surface during the most polarized conditions in the history of the game. Nadal would have NEVER sniffed that if he played under 90s conditions

Hell Nadal would be lucky to even get out of the first week at slams like Wimbledon and the USO back in the 90s

 

[Rob_C]

I love Andre.

That said, Rafa beat him in the Rogers Cup final in 2005 and in the 3rd round of Wimbledon in 2006 (the year he made his first Wimbledon final against Roger).

I think it would be a pretty even match.

There was about a 15 yr age difference at the time they played, wasn't there. Agassi was 35 in summer 2005, with a bad back, Rafa was 19?? Maybe just turned 20??

Definitely think Agassi would have fared well against a young Nadal who didn't have much of a serve early on. Plus, the Nadal strategy of hitting high balls to the rightie's backhand wouldn't have been as successful as it is against people with weaker backhands.

 

[Morj]

its not as simple as saying "agassi's a great ball striker" so he beats nadal. Nadal is an excellent shotmaker, and can track down balls and turn defense to offense like nobody agassi's ever played.

Nadals not so one-dimensional that he loses to anyone that can hit on the rise. Fed is almost as good a ball-striker as Agassi and we all know the Fed-Nadal story. Djokovic takes the ball early and has an excellent backhand and solid forehand just like Agassi. But that alone isn't enough, Djokovic's ridiculous movement is necessary as well to beat Nadal, which Agassi didnt have. Same thing with Davydenko, a great ballstriker that also moves well, which is why he matches up well with Nadal. Agassi doesnt have the movement to dominate Nadal.

 

[bullfan]

There was about a 15 yr age difference at the time they played, wasn't there. Agassi was 35 in summer 2005, with a bad back, Rafa was 19?? Maybe just turned 20??

Definitely think Agassi would have fared well against a young Nadal who didn't have much of a serve early on. Plus, the Nadal strategy of hitting high balls to the rightie's backhand wouldn't have been as successful as it is against people with weaker backhands.

Nadal obviously targeted Feds game. I think he would have made similar adjustments to others games as well, it's his style.

 

[The_Order]

Yeah, just like:

Rosol-Nadal : 1-0
Darcis-Nadal : 1-0

Incorrect. Nadal has defeated Darcis in the past.

 

[Murrayfan31]

Agassi is undersized. Thus the high ball will probably bother him.

 

[Eragon]

Incorrect. Nadal has defeated Darcis in the past.

All right, just Rosol then :twisted:

 

[coolschreiber]

its not as simple as saying "agassi's a great ball striker" so he beats nadal. Nadal is an excellent shotmaker, and can track down balls and turn defense to offense like nobody agassi's ever played.

Nadals not so one-dimensional that he loses to anyone that can hit on the rise. Fed is almost as good a ball-striker as Agassi and we all know the Fed-Nadal story. Djokovic takes the ball early and has an excellent backhand and solid forehand just like Agassi. But that alone isn't enough, Djokovic's ridiculous movement is necessary as well to beat Nadal, which Agassi didnt have. Same thing with Davydenko, a great ballstriker that also moves well, which is why he matches up well with Nadal. Agassi doesnt have the movement to dominate Nadal.

+1... Just look at how much trouble Djokovic has been having lately. He takes the ball early too and has excellent movement. Nadal adapts better than most people think. In 2011 Nadal was trying to open up the court by hitting angles and Djokovic turned the tables by changing the direction of the ball. But Nadal adapted by hitting straight at Djokovic and not giving him any angles forcing Djokovic to go for tougher shots with lesser margins. But again I'm not underestimating peak Agassi's ability to take the ball early and move his opponents around. All I'm saying is - Nadal adapts better than most people think. So I think Nadal would have gained the upper hand if they faced each other in their peaks. Nadals offensive ability is nothing to sneeze at either , let alone defense.

 

[adil1972]

you can not compare players from two different eras

 

[coolschreiber]

Oh and forgot about the heavy topspin. His opponents return his shots but it really really wears people down as the match progresses. The returns land shorter and shorter. And Rafa immediately takes control of the point on a short ball.

 

[timnz]

Age

Yet some how Nadal leads 2-0 in H2H.
Obviously it wasnt Prime conditions for Agassi but some consideration has to be given to the fact that they both played and there was some real data.

In my book, current conditions, Nadal would have a sizeable lead in all conditions. In the 90's , i could care less.

Come now. Agassi was 35 and 36 years old in those matches. Do you think Nadal at that age will be performing as well as at his peak?

Re. Conditions. The current conditions in tennis are an aberation. For most of tennis history we have had fast and slow court tennis. Now fast court tennis has disappeared and we only have slow and medium. Hence, playing conditions that were more inline with the total tennis history (90's much closer to this), would be a more fair comparison.

 

[martini1]

If Andre can take all these high bouncing balls on the rise and really early, hit them back flat like somebody mentioned, I think Andre may have a game here.
The problem may be Rafa doing drop shots to bring Andre to the net. Rafa hustles better at net.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

On clay Nadal wouldn't give a chance to Agassi. On hard court, Nadal could win some matches but overall Agassi would clearly dominate here. Peak Nadal is impressive, but he hasn't been able to play at his best level here, while Agassi did. On current grass I really don't know.

Overall I agree with Coolschreiber (cool moniker). It takes more than negating the match-up advantage Nadal have against most player to beat him.

 

[Federer20042006]

Old Agassi certainly showed flashes against prime Nadal in Montreal 2005. It looked like he was gonna win that one for a while, then Nadal stepped it up.

So Federer wasn't alone with having trouble with Old Agassi when he was in his prime.

Course, here's where the Nadal fans go, "but Nadal was just a teeeeeenagerrrrr...a poor French Open champion, 4 masters series winning, world #2 teeeeeeeenagerrrr."

 

[Blocker]

Never let facts get in the way.


R. Nadal A. Agassi
Win 2 0

Correction:

Nadal 2

Cripple 0

Nadal versus Agassi however would be something altogether different.

 

[vernonbc]

+1... Just look at how much trouble Djokovic has been having lately. He takes the ball early too and has excellent movement. Nadal adapts better than most people think. In 2011 Nadal was trying to open up the court by hitting angles and Djokovic turned the tables by changing the direction of the ball. But Nadal adapted by hitting straight at Djokovic and not giving him any angles forcing Djokovic to go for tougher shots with lesser margins. But again I'm not underestimating peak Agassi's ability to take the ball early and move his opponents around. All I'm saying is - Nadal adapts better than most people think. So I think Nadal would have gained the upper hand if they faced each other in their peaks. Nadals offensive ability is nothing to sneeze at either , let alone defense.

Agassi said much the same thing in an interview, said about the match in Montreal that he started to get the hang of Rafa's spins and shots and got some control over the match and it took Rafa hardly any time at all to subtly change up his strategy and counter what Agassi was doing. He said that Rafa doesn't get nearly enough credit for his tennis smarts and that he was far more than just brute strength and a great runner.

 

[moonballs]

Yes but you're forgetting that that means Agassi will have to hit outside his striking zone, unless he plays in no man's land or stand further behind the baseline, neither of which are optimal for him given his movement.

Why can't he hit the shoulder height ball back from right around base line? Hitting the ball early is much harder than hitting it at the top of the trajectory or on the way down. Besides Andri is pretty good at finishing the point in the NML.

I don't think rally balls ending inside service box is ever the good answer to any problems.

 

[monfed]

He would've owned Ralph on non-clay surfaces.

 

[TennisCJC]

Yea, Agassi is the type of player that would give Nadal fits and I think a prime Agassi would win on all surfaces other than clay.

Agassi is like Davydenko but kick up a couple of notches - Agassi serves better, hits harder and takes the ball earlier than even Davydenko. Davydenko gave Nadal fits.

Agassi is also a lot like Djokovic as Agassi and Djoko both have great returns, great 2 HBHs and the ability to take the ball early. Prime Agassi had a very solid serve.

I don't think Nadal's serve would hurt Agassi and I think Agassi could handle the high looper to the backhand. And, I think Agassi was the best at standing in and taking the ball early and would control the rallies. My view is Agassi would have about a 70% success rate against Nadal.

 

[Morj]

Yea, Agassi is the type of player that would give Nadal fits and I think a prime Agassi would win on all surfaces other than clay.

Agassi is like Davydenko but kick up a couple of notches - Agassi serves better, hits harder and takes the ball earlier than even Davydenko. Davydenko gave Nadal fits.

Agassi is also a lot like Djokovic as Agassi and Djoko both have great returns, great 2 HBHs and the ability to take the ball early. Prime Agassi had a very solid serve.

I don't think Nadal's serve would hurt Agassi and I think Agassi could handle the high looper to the backhand. And, I think Agassi was the best at standing in and taking the ball early and would control the rallies. My view is Agassi would have about a 70% success rate against Nadal.

ok this is getting silly. Agassi would have the same success rate against Nadal as he had against Michael Chang? Is this a joke?

Nadal's not a one-trick pony, he's one of the greatest players of all time; just because agassi's a great ballstriker doesn't mean he would dominate. Why not listen to what Agassi actually says instead of making up statistics. When he's personally stated that Nadal's spin gives him trouble, in his book and in interviews, then I dont see where people are getting the idea that this would be a one-sided domination.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

ok this is getting silly. Agassi would have the same success rate against Nadal as he had against Michael Chang? Is this a joke?

Nadal's not a one-trick pony, he's one of the greatest players of all time; just because agassi's a great ballstriker doesn't mean he would dominate. Why not listen to what Agassi actually says instead of making up statistics. When he's personally stated that Nadal's spin gives him trouble, in his book and in interviews, then I dont see where people are getting the idea that this would be a one-sided domination.

I agree that Nadal is underrated but you can't give too much credit to Agassi, who talked of what he felt playing Nadal when quiet old. Beside, Agassi isn't greedy with praise for the current top players.

Agassi could certainly do better if he was in a better physical shape. Although it is clear that it's not enough to bring a player who theorically can negate Nadal's playing pattern to beat him.

 

[martini1]

So basically Andre needs to be at 2011 Djoker level to beat Rafa comfortably on most of the surfaces. On RG I wonder if Andre can out run Rafa (being such a big court and all).

 

[jhhachamp]

I think he would have. Nadal struggles badly with players who take the ball on rise and hit flat, taking his time away. Agassi would have beaten him more often than not, imo.

At times he has, but look at how he turned the tables around on Berdych and began completely dominating him on all surfaces after losing to him many times earlier in his career on hard courts.

 

[Morj]

Much is being made of the Davydenko argument. Lets look at Agassi's record against similar players to Nadal: He won 70% of his matches against Michael Chang. This is against a player that is pure defense. Back in the days that courts were faster, yet Agassi still couldnt just blow Chang off the court all the time. Then look at his record vs Leyton Hewitt: 4-4. Not much "domination" going on there either.

Now how exactly would Agassi "dominate" Nadal, a player who has superior shotmaking, fire power, and athleticism than those purely defensive players? So what if Agassi can handle Nadal's spin? Nadal's defensive skills alone would make him a tough match for Agassi. Add in Nadal's ability to turn defense to offense and its clear that this would be at least an even matchup.