Andre Agassi says In His Prime on grass sampras Would Beat Federer

SaintPetros

Professional
"Federer had a sweet run between Pete and Djokodal"...
And yet he won more titles than all of them, talking about grass or everything in total.

If we are talking about H2H matches, Djokodal have the style to trouble Federer in general, so I think they would have troubled him even on 90s grass to some degree (Djokovic more than Nadal). Sampras on the other hand had a style against which Federer has a matchup advantage. Serve-and-volley is inferior because it is gambling all the time. Federer on the other hand can strike with his first forehand after a good serve just as well as Sampras with the volley, but he also has the possibility to come back in a rallye if the serve was bad. Sampras would get passed then.

So Federer should win a big majority of matches. Peak-for-peak he is better and he also has the better longevity.

I also don’t really see how Federer gets broken, and he has the much better return again big serves. If Sampras reaches some tiebreaks, he could "steal" sets though, when Federer loses his nerves.

But peak Djokovic definitely would win Wimbledon in the 90s as well. Agassi showed that you can play from the baseline at 90s Wimbledon, and Djokovic is much better, especially in movement.
You just described the strategy that Sampras perfected to such a degree that it was named after him (Sampras set).
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Yeah I don't think so. If Agassi could win on 90's grass, Nadal and Djokovic certainly can.
They needed 5 sets to beat Fed on baseline friendly medium grass. On slick fast grass, it would be over in 3/4 sets. His serve& return combo on faster surfaces is too great. Djokovic could nab a couple of titles sure.
 

Thetouch

Semi-Pro
Yeah I don't think so. If Agassi could win on 90's grass, Nadal and Djokovic certainly can.
It doesn't work like that. There is a reason why Agassi was like the only baseliner to win Wimbledon between 1981 and 2001, until Hewitt won it in 2002. Djokovic and Nadal would have had better chances winning WB in the 70s or early 80s at best, aside from the early 00s and onwards. Agassi has experienced fast grass tennis against serve and volley players and unlike Djokovic and Nadal he is shorter and quicker as well, which is more beneficial for his reaction time in order to return a fast service. I assume Djokovic would have been more like a Lendl type of player in the 90s while Nadal would have been a clay specialist only, like every spaniard and southamerican player was back then.
 
Dude saved a match point against Corretja's serve by charging the net.
1996 USO QF? That was on Sampras's serve. He approached off the second shot and hit a drop volley winner. Corretja invited him to come forward with that mid-court return though. Not diminishing the epic feat but the Spaniard's conservative returns helped a bit.
 
It doesn't work like that. There is a reason why Agassi was like the only baseliner to win Wimbledon between 1981 and 2001, until Hewitt won it in 2002. Djokovic and Nadal would have had better chances winning WB in the 70s or early 80s at best, aside from the early 00s and onwards. Agassi has experienced fast grass tennis against serve and volley players and unlike Djokovic and Nadal he is shorter and quicker as well, which is more beneficial for his reaction time in order to return a fast service. I assume Djokovic would have been more like a Lendl type of player in the 90s while Nadal would have been a clay specialist only, like every spaniard and southamerican player was back then.
Agassi quicker than Djokodal? What? You mean return only I guess? Djokovic can still match him there. Nadal no, sure, but in today's conditions he can stay back and blast passing shots at net chargers with power that was not possible in the 90s.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
They needed 5 sets to beat Fed on baseline friendly medium grass. On slick fast grass, it would be over in 3/4 sets. His serve& return combo on faster surfaces is too great. Djokovic could nab a couple of titles sure.
Fed couldn't win Wimbledon until they slowed the grass down so we aren't sure that it would play out that way. Also you are forgetting to factor in Fed's weak mentality.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
It doesn't work like that. There is a reason why Agassi was like the only baseliner to win Wimbledon between 1981 and 2001, until Hewitt won it in 2002. Djokovic and Nadal would have had better chances winning WB in the 70s or early 80s at best, aside from the early 00s and onwards. Agassi has experienced fast grass tennis against serve and volley players and unlike Djokovic and Nadal he is shorter and quicker as well, which is more beneficial for his reaction time in order to return a fast service. I assume Djokovic would have been more like a Lendl type of player in the 90s while Nadal would have been a clay specialist only, like every spaniard and southamerican player was back then.
Agassi adapted his game that way on grass because they were the conditions he played in. Djokovic and Nadal would be more than capable of making those adjustments too. Fed might even be able to snatch a Wimby or two on the fast grass as opposed to the slower grass from 2003 onwards.
 
Fed couldn't win Wimbledon until they slowed the grass down so we aren't sure that it would play out that way. Also you are forgetting to factor in Fed's weak mentality.
The grass was slowed down in 2001. In what world was Federer supposed to win in 1999/2000 when he was 17/18? Sampras himself reached his first semi at 20.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
No way would Sampras lose a match after having match points on his serve. And this happened too many times for Federer. Even McEnroe called Sampras “cool as a cucumber”.
No way would Sampras be in the top 1000 at the age of 38 let alone be point away from winning Wimbledon. Sampras' mental skills are overrated. He played nobodies. I could be peak Borg if I played against 4-year old girls too.
 

mxmx

Professional
Agassi was a more aggressive and cleaner ballstriker than either.
Very very true. His shots were flatter, more powerful and harder to volley. On fast grass because of his short stature, balls bounce also more in his comfort zone than it would have been for Nadal or Djokovic. His grip also not as extreme and more suited to grass than the latter 2.

He is very very underrated on this forum by kids who didn't really watch him play.
 

SaintPetros

Professional
1996 USO QF? That was on Sampras's serve. He approached off the second shot and hit a drop volley winner. Corretja invited him to come forward with that mid-court return though. Not diminishing the epic feat but the Spaniard's conservative returns helped a bit.
Well spotted. Corretja double faulted in his own serve on match point for Sampras.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Fed couldn't win Wimbledon until they slowed the grass down so we aren't sure that it would play out that way. Also you are forgetting to factor in Fed's weak mentality.
Halle plays faster and he dominated there. His prime game is perfect for BO5 at slick grass Wimbledon. Who’s gonna stop him? Roddick? Clay counter nadal? Djokovic who he has mostly owned on faster surfaces? (Dubai, Cincy, Shanghai)
 

Xavier G

Professional
If the grass was faster as in the 90's, Novak would not have five Wimbledons.
Fed would have done just fine in any era with his serve, footwork, RoS, forehand weaponry and net play when he comes in on the right shot.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
If the grass was faster as in the 90's, Novak would not have five Wimbledons.
Novak has as many Wilmbledons at Edberg and Becker combined - two of the purest grass-court players of the last 40 years.

If that doesn't put in perspective how tennis has been ruined by the homogenisation and slowing of surfaces, highlighted by the ridiculous conditions at this year's Wimbledon, then nothing will.

Not even joking, if I were Federer I'd get my agent to call Wimbledon in January and say "I'm not playing this year since you made it into a clay event last year. Enjoy your tournament - I'm going to play an exo that week." I guarantee they would fix their **** in no time. If Federer boycotted Wimbledon 10% of their revenue would evaporate and sponsors would be apoplectic.

He could be a one man union for the long-term good of the sport by helping get it back to a greater variety in surface speeds again.
 
Last edited:

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Novak has as many Wilmbledons at Edberg and Becker combined - two of the purest grass-court players of the last 40 years.

If that doesn't put in perspective how tennis has been ruined by the homogenisation and slowing of surfaces, highlighted by the ridiculous conditions at this year's Wimbledon, then nothing will.

Not even joking, if I were Federer I'd get my agent to call Wimbledon in January and say "I'm not playing this year since you made it into a clay event last year. Enjoy your tournament - I'm going to play an exo that week." I guarantee they would fix their **** in no time. If Federer boycotted Wimbledon 10% of their revenue would evaporate and sponsors would be apoplectic.

He could be a one man union for the long-term good of the sport by helping get it back to a greater variety in surface speeds again.
You are ridiculously butthurt in about every comment. Federer was one point away from winning the title on that slow court though wasn't he so the speed of it has no bearing on why that match didn't go his way. Also, your bias is shining through in saying Djokovic is only winning on grass because it is slower than Becker and Edberg. Anyone could make the same argument in regards to Federer since all his titles came on the slower 100% rye surface. Djokovic won 5 Wimbledons because he is good on the surface and your crying about it won't erase that fact or his titles.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Novak has as many Wilmbledons at Edberg and Becker combined - two of the purest grass-court players of the last 40 years.

If that doesn't put in perspective how tennis has been ruined by the homogenisation and slowing of surfaces, highlighted by the ridiculous conditions at this year's Wimbledon, then nothing will.

Not even joking, if I were Federer I'd get my agent to call Wimbledon in January and say "I'm not playing this year since you made it into a clay event last year. Enjoy your tournament - I'm going to play an exo that week." I guarantee they would fix their **** in no time. If Federer boycotted Wimbledon 10% of their revenue would evaporate and sponsors would be apoplectic.

He could be a one man union for the long-term good of the sport by helping get it back to a greater variety in surface speeds again.
Are you smoking grass?

It’s a reason why they made the grass slower, a good reason too. If you love Wimbledon as much as I do, literally moved there, you would have known why. What you are saying is absurd.
 

mxmx

Professional
Novak has as many Wilmbledons at Edberg and Becker combined - two of the purest grass-court players of the last 40 years.

If that doesn't put in perspective how tennis has been ruined by the homogenisation and slowing of surfaces, highlighted by the ridiculous conditions at this year's Wimbledon, then nothing will.

Not even joking, if I were Federer I'd get my agent to call Wimbledon in January and say "I'm not playing this year since you made it into a clay event last year. Enjoy your tournament - I'm going to play an exo that week." I guarantee they would fix their **** in no time. If Federer boycotted Wimbledon 10% of their revenue would evaporate and sponsors would be apoplectic.

He could be a one man union for the long-term good of the sport by helping get it back to a greater variety in surface speeds again.
Very good points ✅
 

Thetouch

Semi-Pro
Agassi adapted his game that way on grass because they were the conditions he played in.
Right. The thing about this types of debates is whether we put current players back in time and assume how they would do with their current style then or whether we put them back in time as teenagers and see how they would adapt to the circumstences over time, when they played tennis then (same question for older players if they were put in the current era).


Djokovic and Nadal would be more than capable of making those adjustments too.
From a current point of view yes, they would but I highly doubt that, if they had been born in say 1970. The way spanish players were trained in the 80s and 90s would suggest that Nadal would have become a player similar to the styles of the Sanchez family, Moya, Costa, Bruguera and Berasategui. The way tennis changed after 2000 to a physically stronger baseline game, benefitted Nadal more than it would have in the 90s. Assuming Djokovic would have been a baseliner as well, I don't see him being much successful in Wimbledon either, unless he pulls off something similar to Agassi but that would still be a one time only thing.



Agassi quicker than Djokodal? What? You mean return only I guess?
Yes, return and reaction time. Also because of Andre's shorter size it was easier for him to take the ball early and still hit it hard. I doubt a guy like Novak, who is 6'3 would be able to do what Agassi did on fast grass, let alone playing longer rallies, that Djokovic preferes. Like I said Agassi was an exceptional winner in WB.

Djokovic can still match him there. Nadal no, sure, but in today's conditions he can stay back and blast passing shots at net chargers with power that was not possible in the 90s.
Today, sure both would but 20 years ago, I doubt they could.


And btw, just compare the French Open from 1990-99 to Wimbledon from 1990-99, it was a perfect illustration of contrast styles. Stich was the only serve and volley player to even make it to a French Open final in the 90s, whereas Courier and Agassi were the only baseliners doing the same in Wimbledon with Agassi winning one. The AO and US Open were more balanced, with a slight advantage for baseliners in Melbourne and S&V players in Flushing Meadows. It was basically a perfect time for any style.
 

Heuristic

Hall of Fame
Why did he not annihilate Roddick in 09?? Because he was passed his prime and played a bad match.

anybody watching the match can see that, besides Agassi.
 
Yes, return and reaction time. Also because of Andre's shorter size it was easier for him to take the ball early and still hit it hard. I doubt a guy like Novak, who is 6'3 would be able to do what Agassi did on fast grass, let alone playing longer rallies, that Djokovic preferes. Like I said Agassi was an exceptional winner in WB.

And btw, just compare the French Open from 1990-99 to Wimbledon from 1990-99, it was a perfect illustration of contrast styles. Stich was the only serve and volley player to even make it to a French Open final in the 90s, whereas Courier and Agassi were the only baseliners doing the same in Wimbledon with Agassi winning one. The AO and US Open were more balanced, with a slight advantage for baseliners in Melbourne and S&V players in Flushing Meadows. It was basically a perfect time for any style.
I note that whenever Agassi was in good form, he did well at Wimbledon: 1992 W, 1993 QF five-set loss to PETE, 1995 SF choke to Becker, 1999 F to zoning PETE, 2000 and 01 SF five set losses to Rafter, both winnable if he played a few big points better. If, like Djokovic, he was fully committed throughout his career and better at handing in-match adversity, I see a lot more semis and finals with Sampras stopping him. So this is about one man by the name of PETE Sampras hoarding all Wimbys. If Djokovic were copied 20 years into the past, into alternative 90s where everything was the same except PETE didn't exist, I could see multiple Wimbledons for him, like I see them for hypothetical fully-focused Agassi without Sampras.
 

Thetouch

Semi-Pro
I note that whenever Agassi was in good form, he did well at Wimbledon: 1992 W, 1993 QF five-set loss to PETE, 1995 SF choke to Becker, 1999 F to zoning PETE, 2000 and 01 SF five set losses to Rafter, both winnable if he played a few big points better. If, like Djokovic, he was fully committed throughout his career and better at handing in-match adversity, I see a lot more semis and finals with Sampras stopping him. So this is about one man by the name of PETE Sampras hoarding all Wimbys.
Sure, but you could say the same thing about any other player whose name wasn't Sampras. They all had their ups and downs and weren't always focussing on tennis. Give Becker Djokovic's hard working attitude and he ends up with at least 5 Wimbledon titles himself.

If Djokovic were copied 20 years into the past, into alternative 90s where everything was the same except PETE didn't exist, I could see multiple Wimbledons for him, like I see them for hypothetical fully-focused Agassi without Sampras.
Sampras was the king of Wimbledon then but you would still have to go through Becker, Goran, Edberg, Rafter, Stich or Krajicek, no matter whether they were in form or not, they were hard to beat in London, more so for baseliners. Becker has beaten Lendl 3 times in Wimbledon, who I think was comparable to Novak now, he has a 1:1 record against Agassi and has never lost to any baseliner other than him (I can't remember what Doohan's style was in 87 lol). I mean it's one thing beating one of these guys but it's another thing going through 2 or 3 of them, which Agassi only was capable of doing once.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Right. The thing about this types of debates is whether we put current players back in time and assume how they would do with their current style then or whether we put them back in time as teenagers and see how they would adapt to the circumstences over time, when they played tennis then (same question for older players if they were put in the current era).




From a current point of view yes, they would but I highly doubt that, if they had been born in say 1970. The way spanish players were trained in the 80s and 90s would suggest that Nadal would have become a player similar to the styles of the Sanchez family, Moya, Costa, Bruguera and Berasategui. The way tennis changed after 2000 to a physically stronger baseline game, benefitted Nadal more than it would have in the 90s. Assuming Djokovic would have been a baseliner as well, I don't see him being much successful in Wimbledon either, unless he pulls off something similar to Agassi but that would still be a one time only thing.





Yes, return and reaction time. Also because of Andre's shorter size it was easier for him to take the ball early and still hit it hard. I doubt a guy like Novak, who is 6'3 would be able to do what Agassi did on fast grass, let alone playing longer rallies, that Djokovic preferes. Like I said Agassi was an exceptional winner in WB.



Today, sure both would but 20 years ago, I doubt they could.


And btw, just compare the French Open from 1990-99 to Wimbledon from 1990-99, it was a perfect illustration of contrast styles. Stich was the only serve and volley player to even make it to a French Open final in the 90s, whereas Courier and Agassi were the only baseliners doing the same in Wimbledon with Agassi winning one. The AO and US Open were more balanced, with a slight advantage for baseliners in Melbourne and S&V players in Flushing Meadows. It was basically a perfect time for any style.
You are forgetting two very key elements. Djokovic is a better player than Agassi on every surface and Djokovic is a better athlete, which is what grass rewards. Djokovic is far better than Agassi at returning huge first serves which is what he would have needed a lot on the older grass, and he also is a better returner on grass period. Agassi made his living off destroying second serves but he is not in Djokovic' league in dealing with the first serve so that part about Djokovic not having the reaction time of him is make believe.
 
Last edited:

Thetouch

Semi-Pro
Djokovic is a better player than Agassi on every surface
When has he ever played on fast grass/courts like Agassi has?

Djokovic is far better than Agassi at returning huge first serves which is what he would have needed a lot on the older grass, and he also is a better returner on grass period.
Again, when has je ever returned the serves of Ivanisevic, Sampras and Becker on fast grass?

Agassi made his living off destroying second serves but he is not in Djokovic' league in dealing with the first serve so that part about Djokovic not having the reaction time of him is make believe.
So in your oppinion a 6'3 guy would be better suited to return a huge serve on fast grass, when the ball bounces much less higher, while your way of swinging the racquet in order to return the serve would take even longer when you are that tall?
 
Sampras was the king of Wimbledon then but you would still have to go through Becker, Goran, Edberg, Rafter, Stich or Krajicek, no matter whether they were in form or not, they were hard to beat in London, more so for baseliners. Becker has beaten Lendl 3 times in Wimbledon, who I think was comparable to Novak now, he has a 1:1 record against Agassi and has never lost to any baseliner other than him (I can't remember what Doohan's style was in 87 lol). I mean it's one thing beating one of these guys but it's another thing going through 2 or 3 of them, which Agassi only was capable of doing once.
Let me cite Sampras's QF+ opponents:
1992 - Stich, Ivanisevic (lost)
1993 - Agassi, Becker, Courier
1994 - Chang (lol), Martin, Ivanisevic
1995 - Matsuoka, Ivanisevic, Becker
1996 - Krajicek (lost)
1997 - Becker (shadow), Woodbridge (lel), Pioline
1998 - can't recall, Henman, Ivanisevic
1999 - Retirepoussis, Henman, Agassi
2000 - Gambill, Voltchkov (LOL), Rafter

Edberg cannot be found, Stich just once, Krajicek just once. Edberg declined after 1992, Stich and Krajicek had a great peak but lower consistency. Ivanisevic was a headcase so I don't believe in him beating prime Djokovic anywhere even if his base level is better in given conditions.

You mentioned Lendl yourself, whose Wimbledon matches against Becker, as I discovered, were actually closer than the scoreline would indicate, but Becker was much better at converting opportunities while Lendl struggled to hold to leads. He forced himself forward but was never quite comfortable and kept making subpar volleys in pressure moments, so I thought. Djokovic is not a natural either but I believe should do better than Lendl, who probably should've opted for a larger racquet as was possible. I think Djokovic is clutcher than Lendl overall, he would look less confident on faster grass but again still better. I wouldn't expect him to win 5 wimbledons in that time, but 3 don't seem surprising.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
When has he ever played on fast grass/courts like Agassi has?



Again, when has je ever returned the serves of Ivanisevic, Sampras and Becker on fast grass?



So in your oppinion a 6'3 guy would be better suited to return a huge serve on fast grass, when the ball bounces much less higher, while your way of swinging the racquet in order to return the serve would take even longer when you are that tall?
We've seen him play on faster courts though like Shanghai, Dubai and this recent AO though right? Agassi wasn't as good on that surface as Djokovic and very rarely beat Sampras in faster conditions. Slower hardcourt was his strength. Djokovic is a chameleon in ways Agassi never was where he is great in every court condtion.

Djokovic has been returning Raonic, Isner and Roddick who are all in the top 4 in serving the Open Era. He is statistically the best in return points against the top 4 servers in the Open Era on faster surfaces with Murray right there with him. What more proof do you need to see how he would deal big serves?

I'm not going by what I think. I'm going by what the stats say and what the results say. His 6'3 frame makes him a better returner, not worse, and his reach is so much better than Agassi's because of it. Indoor conditions have a lower bounce and he is very successful there. This Wimbledon was a lower bounce and he won it. We've seen enough to know he would be very formidable in any condtions.
 

Thetouch

Semi-Pro
We've seen him play on faster courts though like Shanghai, Dubai and this recent AO though right?
Right but I said fast courts, not just faster courts. Djokovic has never played on fast grass, which was what were talking about.

Agassi wasn't as good on that surface as Djokovic and very rarely beat Sampras in faster conditions. Slower hardcourt was his strength. Djokovic is a chameleon in ways Agassi never was where he is great in every court condtion.
I am not suggesting Agassi is the better player overall or anything like that. And losing to Sampras on fast courts doesn't mean Agassi is worse than Djokovic on fast courts since Novak has never played these 90s courts anyway.

Djokovic has been returning Raonic, Isner and Roddick who are all in the top 4 in serving the Open Era. He is statistically the best in return points against the top 4 servers in the Open Era on faster surfaces with Murray right there with him. What more proof do you need to see how he would deal big serves?
I wasn't discounting Djokovic's overall returning skills by any means but we were talking about 90s grass on Wimbledon. I guess it's a difference returning Isner's serve at the current grass than doing it against Goran in the 90s. I know Isner and Karlovic are monsters but Karlovic has played the same amount of Wimbledon tournaments as Goran has, yet guess who was the alltime record holder in hitting aces in Wimbledon? Ivanisevic held the record for the most aces ever at Wimbledon, until Roger finally broke it this year, after playing 20 years with 5 more WB tournaments than Goran and Federer isn't bad at serving either. Roddick is 4th behind Sampras.

This Wimbledon was a lower bounce and he won it. We've seen enough to know he would be very formidable in any condtions.
We saw long rallies this WImbledon because the surface was still very slow compared to the 90s, that's my point.



Let me cite Sampras's QF+ opponents:
1992 - Stich, Ivanisevic (lost)
1993 - Agassi, Becker, Courier
1994 - Chang (lol), Martin, Ivanisevic
1995 - Matsuoka, Ivanisevic, Becker
1996 - Krajicek (lost)
1997 - Becker (shadow), Woodbridge (lel), Pioline
1998 - can't recall, Henman, Ivanisevic
1999 - Retirepoussis, Henman, Agassi
2000 - Gambill, Voltchkov (LOL), Rafter

Edberg cannot be found, Stich just once, Krajicek just once. Edberg declined after 1992, Stich and Krajicek had a great peak but lower consistency. Ivanisevic was a headcase so I don't believe in him beating prime Djokovic anywhere even if his base level is better in given conditions.
Edberg cannot be found because he first won Wimbledon in 1990 against Becker, then lost to Stich in 91, who then beat Becker. He also lost to Ivanisevic in 92, who went on to beat Sampras before losing to Agassi. Or in 93 Edberg lost to Courier who then lost to Sampras. Stich lost to Becker in a 5 set QF who then lost to Sampras and Stich lost to Krajicek in 96 who then beat Sampras. Krajicek himself lost to Agassi in 93 and to Henman in 97 who then lost to Stich. Krajicek lost to Goran in the 98 Semis, who then lost to Sampras. This basically illustrates what I said, the competition was so tight, especially amongst S&V players that chances were low that one player would have a run through beating many players in a row and since Djokovic is not a S&V player and therefore fast grass not his prefered surface, I can't see him succeeding there except for 1 time maybe.

You mentioned Lendl yourself, whose Wimbledon matches against Becker, as I discovered, were actually closer than the scoreline would indicate, but Becker was much better at converting opportunities while Lendl struggled to hold to leads. He forced himself forward but was never quite comfortable and kept making subpar volleys in pressure moments, so I thought. Djokovic is not a natural either but I believe should do better than Lendl, who probably should've opted for a larger racquet as was possible. I think Djokovic is clutcher than Lendl overall, he would look less confident on faster grass but again still better. I wouldn't expect him to win 5 wimbledons in that time, but 3 don't seem surprising.
Fair enough.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Right but I said fast courts, not just faster courts. Djokovic has never played on fast grass, which was what were talking about.



I am not suggesting Agassi is the better player overall or anything like that. And losing to Sampras on fast courts doesn't mean Agassi is worse than Djokovic on fast courts since Novak has never played these 90s courts anyway.



I wasn't discounting Djokovic's overall returning skills by any means but we were talking about 90s grass on Wimbledon. I guess it's a difference returning Isner's serve at the current grass than doing it against Goran in the 90s. I know Isner and Karlovic are monsters but Karlovic has played the same amount of Wimbledon tournaments as Goran has, yet guess who was the alltime record holder in hitting aces in Wimbledon? Ivanisevic held the record for the most aces ever at Wimbledon, until Roger finally broke it this year, after playing 20 years with 5 more WB tournaments than Goran and Federer isn't bad at serving either. Roddick is 4th behind Sampras.



We saw long rallies this WImbledon because the surface was still very slow compared to the 90s, that's my point.





Edberg cannot be found because he first won Wimbledon in 1990 against Becker, then lost to Stich in 91, who then beat Becker. He also lost to Ivanisevic in 92, who went on to beat Sampras before losing to Agassi. Or in 93 Edberg lost to Courier who then lost to Sampras. Stich lost to Becker in a 5 set QF who then lost to Sampras and Stich lost to Krajicek in 96 who then beat Sampras. Krajicek himself lost to Agassi in 93 and to Henman in 97 who then lost to Stich. Krajicek lost to Goran in the 98 Semis, who then lost to Sampras. This basically illustrates what I said, the competition was so tight, especially amongst S&V players that chances were low that one player would have a run through beating many players in a row and since Djokovic is not a S&V player and therefore fast grass not his prefered surface, I can't see him succeeding there except for 1 time maybe.



Fair enough.
Agassi played on carpet for most of his career. His winning percentage was 64.3%. Djokovic played a limited amount of matches on it at a very young age, at least 5 years ahead of his peak, and his winning percentage was 69.2%. It's easy to see that Djokovic would have done better in those types of conditions. He won 5 Wimbledons on rye grass which is still grass by the way so clearly he would have been more dangerous than Agassi. I don't see how this is that complicated.

But all 90s courts weren't fast. It was just more polarized: fast and slow. Agassi never beat Sampras in a Slam in faster conditions. It would be a serious stretch to expect Djokovic, a much better athlete, to fare as bad as that.

The fact is that Djokovic is a better returner on grass and he is much better at returning 1st serves on med and fast courts. He would do better than Agassi in that aspect not worst. He would be much more dangerous than Agassi as well because of that and his athleticism.
 
Agassi played on carpet for most of his career. His winning percentage was 64.3%. Djokovic played a limited amount of matches on it at a very young age, at least 5 years ahead of his peak, and his winning percentage was 69.2%. It's easy to see that Djokovic would have done better in those types of conditions. He won 5 Wimbledons on rye grass which is still grass by the way so clearly he would have been more dangerous than Agassi. I don't see how this is that complicated.

But all 90s courts weren't fast. It was just more polarized: fast and slow. Agassi never beat Sampras in a Slam in faster conditions. It would be a serious stretch to expect Djokovic, a much better athlete, to fare as bad as that.

The fact is that Djokovic is a better returner on grass and he is much better at returning 1st serves on med and fast courts. He would do better than Agassi in that aspect not worst. He would be much more dangerous than Agassi as well because of that and his athleticism.
Djokovic could do well in a Samprasless landscape. Sampras himself is the ultimate rock and a strong favourite in his prime at 90s Wimbledon/USO against anyone in this era except Federer - and still a decent favourite against Fed I think. Ain't gonna scare him with anything.
 

Nole_King

Rookie
You must be kidding. Becker was on his way back to the top again in 1996, he was clearly getting better and better since 1994, which you can see the most in Wimbledon. In 94 he was ok, not good but competitive. In 95 he was way better, playing 4 hours against Pioline and then that victory over Agassi after being down and then at least winning a set against Sampras in the final. Everebody who says he was washed up in 1995, has definitely no clue and never seen tennis then. By early 1996, I remember him beating Sampras in a match prior to the AO, like 6:1 in the last set and Sampras himself said he had never seen Becker as focused and good as this time and claimed him a big favorite to win the AO, which he eventually did. There is a reason why Agassi claimed he tanked the match against Chang in the semis, in order to not face Becker. Becker had already started to get Agassi's number after Wimbledon 95, he was very unlucky losing to Agassi in the US Open semis (first two sets in tie-break each) and almost pulled another Wimbledon victory again when he was 1:4 down in the third and still won the set 6:4. He just lost the match because of one weak 2nd serve at 4:5 in the 4th set. Becker went on winning Queens against Edberg right before WImbledon 96, which he hadn't won in years, only to get injured in WB. I have said it many times, I would have bet money on Becker winning WImbledon 1996, no matter whether he faced Sampras or Krajicek. The fact that he was able to come back after 3 months of not playing and winning 4 more tournaments, while beating Sampras 2 or 3 times on his way and then losing that masters final in 5 sets, tells you the whole Becker story in these 2 years. Agassi basically tanked another match against Sampras in the Masters RR that year and then withdrew from facing Becker again. Becker declined in 1997 because he lost the desire to work as hard as he did in the recent years after that injury but in no way was he washed up in 1995 and especially not in 96. He was probably a better player than he had ever been in 1996.



Federer has played five 5 set finals against Roddick and Djokal of who he won only 2. He struggled already against Roddick and Nadal in 2007 and 09, who are not even close to be considered real grass court players, especially when we are comparing 90s grass. Djokovic isn't a classic grass player either, despite his 5 titles. So in which world is Federer better on grass than Sampras, at least when we consider the time Sampras competed, when Roger was struggling and losing already against non-grass players? Overall Federer has 1 more WB title and is therefore more successful but for people to claim Federer would have dominated WB in the 90s, which was Pete's prefered fast grass surface, when he lost to guys on his prefered slower grass court in the 00s and 10s, is just ridiculous. lol

I was a huge Becker fan and hence I followed him closely. You said Becker was competitive in Wim 94. After struggling against lesser players he lost in straight sets to Goran with only exciting thing he did in that match being two diving volleys. So no he wasn't competitive for me in 94.

In 95, he struggled against a nobody like Pioline and then was almost done in the SF. I said earlier, he changed his approach against Agassi in SF when he realized his typical grass game was being taken for breakfast by Agassi. It was a great tactical battle that he won. So no @ Wimbledon 1995 he was still way below his peak grass game that took him to 3 consecutive finals at Wimbledon. After Wimbledon 95 he lost again to Sampras, twice, in straight sets on indoor carpet.

It was in end of 1996 when Becker won two (consecutive) of his three indoor matches against Sampras that Sampras remarked he was the best "indoor" player he played against. And he never breadsticked Sampras in 95/96.

And Federer not only has 1 more title but has been runners up on 4 occasions. Won Wimbledon 5 consecutive times. So in achievement column he is above Sampras.

I agree with when you talk about 90s grass. If Agassi had said that Sampras would have the upper hand if Federer had to be transported back to play on 90s grass against him, it would be true. But bring Sampras of 90s on this grass and Federer will slay him. Also looking at how Federer continuously redefined his game, nothing suggests that he would not have adapted to 90s grass if that would have continued. He played S&V at earlier Wimbledons. Frankly, It could have been a toss up between him and Sampras.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic could do well in a Samprasless landscape. Sampras himself is the ultimate rock and a strong favourite in his prime at 90s Wimbledon/USO against anyone in this era except Federer - and still a decent favourite against Fed I think. Ain't gonna scare him with anything.
Oh I would say Sampras would be a favorite over Djokovic and a slight favorite over Federer in his element. Djokovic doesn't have a winning record against Sampras in fast courts but I think he and Federer would beat Sampras in Slams on faster courts. He wouldn't go 6-0 or so against them like he did against Agassi.
 

Thetouch

Semi-Pro
Agassi played on carpet for most of his career. His winning percentage was 64.3%. Djokovic played a limited amount of matches on it at a very young age, at least 5 years ahead of his peak, and his winning percentage was 69.2%. It's easy to see that Djokovic would have done better in those types of conditions.
That doesn't prove anything since winning % don't tell the whole story. Did Djokovoc face Becker, Stich, Goran and Sampras on fast carpet? Wo did he beat?

He won 5 Wimbledons on rye grass which is still grass by the way so clearly he would have been more dangerous than Agassi. I don't see how this is that complicated.
Because it's still not the same grass we are talking about. Djokovic is undoubtely more successful on (modern) grass overall.

But all 90s courts weren't fast. It was just more polarized: fast and slow. Agassi never beat Sampras in a Slam in faster conditions. It would be a serious stretch to expect Djokovic, a much better athlete, to fare as bad as that.
Aside from all the surface talk, are you assuming Djokovic wouldn't have gone through his choking period in the 90s against mental giants like Sampras or Becker? It took him years to get past his demons in the late 00s and early 10s. If you are assuming every player playing his peak tennis for a whole decade on fast grass/courts in Wimbledon, then it's even more complicated because that means you would have to deal with the strong versions of all S&V players I mentioned as well and that would be even worse for Djokokiv imo. I am not talking about Djokovic's era though, that may be a different story. I am sure Sampras and Becker would be baseliners these days as well, no doubt.

The fact is that Djokovic is a better returner on grass and he is much better at returning 1st serves on med and fast courts. He would do better than Agassi in that aspect not worst. He would be much more dangerous than Agassi as well because of that and his athleticism.
This is pure speculation. All we know is that Agassi has played on fast and slower grass and courts, while Djokovic has not, especially not in Wimbledon.

Here is one more example to illustrate the difference of 90s grass: 1995 WB Semi: Sampras vs Ivanisevic - 5 set match. Sampras won it in around 2.5 hours. In the 2nd set, which Goran won, Sampras couldn't win a single point on Goran's service! And I don't think anybody could argue about Sampras's returning skills either.
 
Oh I would say Sampras would be a favorite over Djokovic and a slight favorite over Federer in his element. Djokovic doesn't have a winning record against Sampras in fast courts but I think he and Federer would beat Sampras in Slams on faster courts. He wouldn't go 6-0 or so against them like he did against Agassi.
The thing is, their record has a strange sample size since Agassi played Sampras three times outside of prime and lost them all (0-3 at the USO), that's the really damning result. 0-3 against prime Sampras isn't bad considering two of those came at Wimbledon, and Agassi has 3-0 at AO/RG. Those USO meetings were mentally disappointing from him though.
 
Becker was a 'mental giant' much the same way Djokovic is: full of confidence at his best, but attackable when he's struggling at any point. Depends on when you face them.
 
Sampras was 29 and on a 4 year winning streak. Federer was a 19 year old baby who was 2 years removed from breaking through.
Sampras was literally the number one seed who had won four straight wimbledon's and went to the US Open finals the next tournament he was anything but washed up.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
That doesn't prove anything since winning % don't tell the whole story. Did Djokovoc face Becker, Stich, Goran and Sampras on fast carpet? Wo did he beat?



Because it's still not the same grass we are talking about. Djokovic is undoubtely more successful on (modern) grass overall.



Aside from all the surface talk, are you assuming Djokovic wouldn't have gone through his choking period in the 90s against mental giants like Sampras or Becker? It took him years to get past his demons in the late 00s and early 10s. If you are assuming every player playing his peak tennis for a whole decade on fast grass/courts in Wimbledon, then it's even more complicated because that means you would have to deal with the strong versions of all S&V players I mentioned as well and that would be even worse for Djokokiv imo. I am not talking about Djokovic's era though, that may be a different story. I am sure Sampras and Becker would be baseliners these days as well, no doubt.



This is pure speculation. All we know is that Agassi has played on fast and slower grass and courts, while Djokovic has not, especially not in Wimbledon.

Here is one more example to illustrate the difference of 90s grass: 1995 WB Semi: Sampras vs Ivanisevic - 5 set match. Sampras won it in around 2.5 hours. In the 2nd set, which Goran won, Sampras couldn't win a single point on Goran's service! And I don't think anybody could argue about Sampras's returning skills either.
It does tell something. It tell that across all matches on carpet, it was Agassi's worse surface and his winning percentage wasn't particularly impressive. He didn't play Becker, Stich and Sampras in every match so I have no idea what this has to do with it. He lost to plenty of players on it who weren't at their level.

What does Djokovic's choking period when he was 21 or 22 have to do with anything? We are talking about Djokovic at his peak against the players and conditions of that era.

How is it speculation? Why don't you go look at the stats and see what I am talking about. Did Djokovic not win 4 Shanghai titles on 43 or so CPI? Djokovic's 1st serve returning stats exceed that of Agassi's on grass, all hardcourts and clay, so all three of these surfaces. It is not speculation to say he would have dealt with the 1st serve return on faster surfaces better than Agassi. Also, Djokovic has the superior serve, clearly, which you are not adding into the equation.

Let's not try to draw parallels with how Djokovic would return serve based on Sampras. Djokovic is far better at it.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
The thing is, their record has a strange sample size since Agassi played Sampras three times outside of prime and lost them all (0-3 at the USO), that's the really damning result. 0-3 against prime Sampras isn't bad considering two of those came at Wimbledon, and Agassi has 3-0 at AO/RG. Those USO meetings were mentally disappointing from him though.
I feel like he should have beaten Sampras in 95 at the USO. He was the better player at that point in time and are lost. I understand the grass losses though.
 

Thetouch

Semi-Pro
I was a huge Becker fan and hence I followed him closely. You said Becker was competitive in Wim 94. After struggling against lesser players he lost in straight sets to Goran with only exciting thing he did in that match being two diving volleys. So no he wasn't competitive for me in 94.
I meant competitive in the way that he reached the semis, after not playing any slam since the US Open 93. He didn't play that good though.
In 95, he struggled against a nobody like Pioline and then was almost done in the SF. I said earlier, he changed his approach against Agassi in SF when he realized his typical grass game was being taken for breakfast by Agassi. It was a great tactical battle that he won. So no @ Wimbledon 1995 he was still way below his peak grass game that took him to 3 consecutive finals at Wimbledon. After Wimbledon 95 he lost again to Sampras, twice, in straight sets on indoor carpet.
I already adressed Becker here in one of my previous posts. Imo Becker was getting better and was about to peak in 96, had he not gotten injured. I compare his year of 1996 to that of Sampras in 1999. Both had to deal with injuries, both won the only Slam they played and both had a great year ending run (or in Sampra's case late summer first).

So in achievement column he is above Sampras.
No arguments on my part

I agree with when you talk about 90s grass. If Agassi had said that Sampras would have the upper hand if Federer had to be transported back to play on 90s grass against him, it would be true. But bring Sampras of 90s on this grass and Federer will slay him. Also looking at how Federer continuously redefined his game, nothing suggests that he would not have adapted to 90s grass if that would have continued. He played S&V at earlier Wimbledons. Frankly, It could have been a toss up between him and Sampras.
I agree with it, except for one thing that I like to mention and I already adressed regarding Djokovic himself: Federer has gone through his mental midget period in his career as well, like many players have. Now the 90s are short, compared to the past 17 or 18 years that Roger has been on top. But if Federer played in the same time Sampras did, say late 80s to early 2000s, then chances are he would have gone through the same periods of "choking" moments he did against Djokovic and Nadal at times. So either way it's not easy to determine whether Federer would have been able to split all the titles with Sampras in WB or other slams. Wimbledon was already packed with high class players then, now put Federer in the mix and it's just not predictable at all.
 

Thetouch

Semi-Pro
It does tell something. It tell that across all matches on carpet, it was Agassi's worse surface and his winning percentage wasn't particularly impressive. He didn't play Becker, Stich and Sampras in every match so I have no idea what this has to do with it. He lost to plenty of players on it who weren't at their level.
It means that he played better players on carpet than Djokovc did.

What does Djokovic's choking period when he was 21 or 22 have to do with anything? We are talking about Djokovic at his peak against the players and conditions of that era.
I already adressed that. If Djokovic needs a couple of years to get past his demons he is not winning much anyway and if EVERY player is playing his peak tennis, especially the S&V players on fast grass, then I don't see him winning anything at all.
How is it speculation? Why don't you go look at the stats and see what I am talking about. Did Djokovic not win 4 Shanghai titles on 43 or so CPI? Djokovic's 1st serve returning stats exceed that of Agassi's on grass, all hardcourts and clay, so all three of these surfaces. It is not speculation to say he would have dealt with the 1st serve return on faster surfaces better than Agassi. Also, Djokovic has the superior serve, clearly, which you are not adding into the equation.
Well I am not going to repeat myself again. Stats don't mean much without context, without the competition factor, the difference in surface etc. Again like I said, Djokovic is the better player overall and way more successful. But as for Wimbledon in the 90s? I don't even see him winning one title at all.
 
Top