Do people consider Agassi one dimensional?

[icedevil0289]

I'm only asking because I do see similarities between his playing style and nadal's playing style, and many people have said that nadal is a very one dimensional player and even now continue to say it. I was just wondering if people thought of Agassi as one dimensional as well. This is not a bashing thread, just curious.

 

[thalivest]

I guess it depends how you define one dimensional. If it being exclusively a baseliner than yeah he would definitely be. In some ways he is more versatile than Nadal, in other ways he could be considered even more one dimensional. I definitely dont think he volleyed any better than Nadal, in fact I am pretty sure he was worse and I saw him play many times. In the last 2 Wimbledon finals Nadal was volleying a well as Federer, Agassi would never have done that even in a single match. Nadal plays defense and offense almost equally well from the baseline, while Agassi is more catered towards only offense and was not particularly good when forced to play defense.

 

[GameSampras]

I'm only asking because I do see similarities between his playing style and nadal's playing style, and many people have said that nadal is a very one dimensional player and even now continue to say it. I was just wondering if people thought of Agassi as one dimensional as well. This is not a bashing thread, just curious.

They have some similiarities to their game. Both very good baseliners. Nadal more with the topspin and Agassi hitting the ball early and nice and flat. Nadal has to track more shots down. Agassi stood a bit inside the baseline ans dictating play while Nadal was more athletic.

I dont think Andre was that one dimensional. And even if he was. He won every slam there was. How many players in history can attest to that? 3 players in history?

 

[icedevil0289]

thanks guys. I was wondering partially because the reason I don't like rafa that much is because I feel his game is boring, but I really like Agassi, which I guess is hypocritcal and wierd. I just wanted to know the differences in their games.

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Even if he was, he is still one of my favorites of all time. The way he hit, the connection he had with the crowd, his attitude, his comeback. Amazing!

 

[obnoxious2]

Agassi took the ball extremely early and was the best returner of all time IMO. This enabled him to end points faster than nadal

 

[icedevil0289]

Even if he was, he is still one of my favorites of all time. The way he hit, the connection he had with the crowd, his attitude, his comeback. Amazing!

his attitude is one of the reasons I really like him. I've been watching some videos on youtube and I love his charisma.

 

[orangettecoleman]

They were both baseliners but that's about the extent of the similarity IMO. Agassi was a lot more aggressive about creating opportunities to hit winners, whereas Nadal is more about getting everything back and making zero unforced errors. Nadal usually will attempt a winner when it's a really high percentage shot or when he's under so much pressure that he doesn't have a choice but to attempt a winner or lose the point. It's why Nadal's winner count is usually lower than his opponent, even in matches he wins.

 

[flying24]

They were both baseliners but that's about the extent of the similarity IMO. Agassi was a lot more aggressive about creating opportunities to hit winners, whereas Nadal is more about getting everything back and making zero unforced errors. Nadal usually will attempt a winner when it's a really high percentage shot or when he's under so much pressure that he doesn't have a choice but to attempt a winner or lose the point. It's why Nadal's winner count is usually lower than his opponent, even in matches he wins.

Agassi's winner counts were low too. Any of his good opponents almost always had more winners than him, often by large margins. They often had more unforced errors though. Agassi in fact wasnt that effective at hitting winners. He was effective of drawing errors, but in a different way than Nadal. However it is one reason I dont think he would have ever done that well vs Nadal even if both were in their primes. To have any chance vs Nadal you need to dominate him by hitting alot of winners, and Agassi didnt really do this. He couldnt beat Nadal by drawing alot of errors, would never happen.

 

[DunlopDood]

I don't know how you can be one dimensional and win a career grand slam (on 4 different surfaces). I don't think it's possible especially in the 90's.

 

[scotus]

Agassi's winner counts were low too. Any of his good opponents almost always had more winners than him, often by large margins. They often had more unforced errors though. Agassi in fact wasnt that effective at hitting winners. He was effective of drawing errors, but in a different way than Nadal. However it is one reason I dont think he would have ever done that well vs Nadal even if both were in their primes. To have any chance vs Nadal you need to dominate him by hitting alot of winners, and Agassi didnt really do this. He couldnt beat Nadal by drawing alot of errors, would never happen.

Here you are talking about Gilbert- and post-Gilbert-Agassi. The winning-ugly Agassi who preferred grinding to hitting outright winners.

If you watch tapes of the young, Bollettieri-Agassi, you will see a whole lot of winners.

 

[scotus]

One thing I'd like to point out since Nadal is so known as the most physical player:

While Nadal is much quicker than Agassi, I think Agassi has more stamina than Nadal.

If you watch their first matchup, you can see Agassi running Nadal all over the place. Agassi was at the service line waiting to serve while Nadal was trying to buy more time sucking air.

The work of Agassi's trainer Gil Reyes is evident even in Verdasco's recent AO final against Nadal. I think Verdasco on that day was fitter than Nadal.

 

[TennezSport]

Nicely done........

They were both baseliners but that's about the extent of the similarity IMO. Agassi was a lot more aggressive about creating opportunities to hit winners, whereas Nadal is more about getting everything back and making zero unforced errors. Nadal usually will attempt a winner when it's a really high percentage shot or when he's under so much pressure that he doesn't have a choice but to attempt a winner or lose the point. It's why Nadal's winner count is usually lower than his opponent, even in matches he wins.

Nicely written and captures the basic elements of both players.

Atrain was a aggressive baseliner with incredible eye hand coordination and ability to take the ball on the rise. This allowed him to control the court and make his opponent run to cover the angles. Atrain believed in taking out his opponents legs and lungs, not wanting to run much himself. However if the opponent hits a short ball AA would come in on an easy approach to put away a easy volley.

Rafa's game on the other hand is based on clay court tactics of running everything down and forcing your opponent into an error. He will only go for a winner when forced into a do or die passing shot situation. However if the opponent hits a short ball Rafa will come in on an easy approach to put away a easy volley.

One thing that has always confused me is why people think being a one dimentional (1D) player is a bad thing. Conners, Borg (except at Wimbly), Wilander, Lendl and Chang were all 1D players, but exceptionally good at it. They made history by learning how to use their strengths to get past their oppenents weaknesses and Rafa is proving to be a master at this.

Multi dementional (MD) players like Sampras, Fed, Murray, Tsonga, etc. have more options and talents, but this can also get them in trouble in deciding when to use the right shot to win the point; too much to think about. Whereas 1D players are very clear of mind and game plan.

Cheers, TennezSport

 

[flying24]

Here you are talking about Gilbert- and post-Gilbert-Agassi. The winning-ugly Agassi who preferred grinding to hitting outright winners.

If you watch tapes of the young, Bollettieri-Agassi, you will see a whole lot of winners.

OK then I guess we could conclude Agassi would need to be coached by Bolletieri to stand a chance vs Nadal. Trying to play like he did in his later years would never work vs Nadal.

I also disagree on you in their first matchup. I thought Nadal pretty much dominated that match overall and Agassi had to play some unbelievable points to eke out the 2nd set than was so gassed out he was completely destroyed in the 3rd set. Granted I know that was and older Agassi but he was still one of the top on hard courts, and in hindsight Nadal was pretty much a joke of a hard court player compared to what he is now back in 2005.

 

[scotus]

OK then I guess we could conclude Agassi would need to be coached by Bolletieri to stand a chance vs Nadal. Trying to play like he did in his later years would never work vs Nadal.

I also disagree on you in their first matchup. I thought Nadal pretty much dominated that match overall and Agassi had to play some unbelievable points to eke out the 2nd set than was so gassed out he was completely destroyed in the 3rd set. Granted I know that was and older Agassi but he was still one of the top on hard courts, and in hindsight Nadal was pretty much a joke of a hard court player compared to what he is now back in 2005.

Agassi lost the match but was never "gassed out".

I don't remember a Reyes-trained Agassi tiring at all. Yes, his sciatica could be aggrevated and cause him too much pain, but even at his final US Open, it was his younger opponents like Baghdatis and Gasquet who were cramping against Andre.

Was Andre in pain, yes. But that's from the pains of sciatica. He was still the supremely trained athlete.

 

[CyBorg]

Nadal is very multidimensional. He's the complete opposite of one-dimensional.

Federer tends to be referred to as multi-dimensional, because of his arsenal of weapons, but his thinking process is the antithesis of this. He always does the same thing whenever he faces Nadal. Whereas Nadal is the one to constantly improvise and think of new things.

I guess it is kind of sweet that Nadal is beating up on Roger after Roger was the one to label Nadal as one-dimensional. That one stuck.

 

[flying24]

Agassi lost the match but was never "gassed out".

I don't remember a Reyes-trained Agassi tiring at all. Yes, his sciatica could be aggrevated and cause him too much pain, but even at his final US Open, it was his younger opponents like Baghdatis and Gasquet who were cramping against Andre.

Was Andre in pain, yes. But that's from the pains of sciatica. He was still the supremely trained athlete.

We will have to disagree. I felt watching it Agassi was completely spent by the 3rd set. You are free to disagree but do you think the extremely one-sided 3rd set score was just a coincidence. The players you cited in Baghdatis and Gasquet are nothing resembling Nadal, they are two players known for their poor work ethic and very poor fitness in general.

 

[scotus]

We will have to disagree. I felt watching it Agassi was completely spent by the 3rd set. You are free to disagree but do you think the extremely one-sided 3rd set score was just a coincidence. The players you cited in Baghdatis and Gasquet are nothing resembling Nadal, they are two players known for their poor work ethic and very poor fitness in general.

Sure, we must agree to disagree. Andre was outplayed by Nadal in the final set as Nadal raised the level of his game and Andre failed to adjust. But this does not necessarily mean Andre ran out of gas. If you go back to the match and listen to the commentators they agree with me that it was the young Nadal who was sucking air.

Do you think when Andre plays Federer competitively for the first few sets only to be dominated in the last that he has run out of gas? It is just that Fed has another level to ascend to whereas Andre does not.

 

[drakulie]

yes, they are both one-dimensional. People could sugar coat it as much as they want, but at the end of the day, they are both pure-baseliners.

 

[zagor]

Yes I do consider Agassi to be one dimensional player,but that doesn't take away from the fact that he's one of the best all-surface players of all time,his game worked great on anything from clay to any kind of HC,grass,carpet,anything.He's the best pure ballstriker I've ever seen.

Agassi's winner counts were low too. Any of his good opponents almost always had more winners than him, often by large margins. They often had more unforced errors though. Agassi in fact wasnt that effective at hitting winners. He was effective of drawing errors, but in a different way than Nadal. However it is one reason I dont think he would have ever done that well vs Nadal even if both were in their primes. To have any chance vs Nadal you need to dominate him by hitting alot of winners, and Agassi didnt really do this. He couldnt beat Nadal by drawing alot of errors, would never happen.

I don't know about that,Davydenko for me plays similar to Agassi and he definitely had some success against Nadal.Also Agassi played differently in his earlier years than in 1999-2006(which is the period most people remember).He was more agressive and going for much more off ground,had a flashier game.It wasn't until later in his career when he started to play much more high percentage and conservative tennis.

 

[snvplayer]

Agassi was one dimensional in a sense that he really hugged baseline.
He rarely came to the net to pressure the other guy, rather if he came to the net, it was guaranteed that he was going to get an easy volley.

Agassi is more multi-dimensional than Nadal in a sense that he had a lot more options with his strokes. Agassi could play flat, spin, angle, deep, and short. So his game probably involved a lot more thinking and breaking down the other guy's weakness.

 

[Giggs The Red Devil]

Lendl did. “A forehand and a haircut”. But that was when Agassi was younger (and had hair).

 

[Rabbit]

I think the difference between Agassi and Nads is that Agassi won through more pure offense while Nads wins through pure defense. From strictly a development standpoint, I think Nads will be more faceted than Agassi. But, Agassi brought a boat load of charisma to the court where Nads brings that Muster-like intensity taken to the next level. Muster was single-minded, Nads combines that with OCD which is just kinda weird.

Agassi was more about bringing it to his oppnent wearing them down with, as Gilbert noted, an 8 - 10 ball rally side to side controlling the center of the court. Nads would've been the guy running side to side. From Nads' standpoint, he's fit enough to run them all down and make Agassi hit winners. Agassi wins through beating his opponent up and Nads wins through attrition.

 

[flying24]

I don't know about that,Davydenko for me plays similar to Agassi and he definitely had some success against Nadal.Also Agassi played differently in his earlier years than in 1999-2006(which is the period most people remember).He was more agressive and going for much more off ground,had a flashier game.It wasn't until later in his career when he started to play much more high percentage and conservative tennis.

I dont consider Davydenko that successful vs Nadal. He beat him once when he was playing the tournament of his life, and when Nadal hadnt become a champion calibre hard court player yet. No other wins if you discount the mindmatch injury retirement (which with Nadal is always legitimate).

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

thanks guys. I was wondering partially because the reason I don't like rafa that much is because I feel his game is boring, but I really like Agassi, which I guess is hypocritcal and wierd. I just wanted to know the differences in their games.

NO..they are very different i will explain.

Agassi can return very aggressively....nadal...i don't know...I haven't seen him return aggressively yet..)has nadal hit a return winner)

Agassi takes the ball on the rise and can hit quite flat...

Nadal has a different grip and can put humungous amounts of spin on the ball.

Both do have great bh's but agassi took it on the rise, whereas nadal is more
orthodox standing back.

Agassi has a better serve, sorry nadal fans, especially the 98-03 dre.

ndal does not win points with his serve, andre did if you consider hiting
a deuce serve out wide to open the court for inside out winner.

How many points has nadal won after 3 hits

not to bash nadal...he's a great player...but he wins thru baseline slugfest.

back to OP...i don't consider andre odmnsional...watch scud 2000 matches.

 

[Rabbit]

NO..they are very different i will explain.

Agassi can return very aggressively....nadal...i don't know...I haven't seen him return aggressively yet..)has nadal hit a return winner)

You haven't watched Nads much. He's hit plenty of return winners.

Agassi takes the ball on the rise and can hit quite flat...

Nadal has a different grip and can put humungous amounts of spin on the ball.

Both do have great bh's but agassi took it on the rise, whereas nadal is more
orthodox standing back.

OK.

Agassi has a better serve, sorry nadal fans, especially the 98-03 dre.

ndal does not win points with his serve, andre did if you consider hiting
a deuce serve out wide to open the court for inside out winner.

Agassi may have had a more varied serve, but I don't know that I'd call it necessarily better. Nads has found a formula that works and he's sticking with it until someone can beat him. I call that smart tennis....borderline OCD at times, but smart nonetheless.

Nads seems to live by the old adage "Never change a winning game, but always change a losing one."

How many points has nadal won after 3 hits

Be careful here. Gilbert's "plan" for revamping Agassi's game in combination with Reyes' training was for Agassi to get his opponent involved in 8 - 10 ball rallies where Agassi controlled the center of the court. Agassi, when pulled from the middle, wasn't the fastest guy on tour even in his prime. Agassi was very much about consistency and wearing his guy down...through a different means than Nads, but still wearing him down.

not to bash nadal...he's a great player...but he wins thru baseline slugfest.

Sorry, but both were true baseliners. I don't remember Agassi coming to net (other than the handshake) on a regular basis. Agassi lived and died on the baseline.

There's zero wrong with that, but to proclaim Agassi as an all-courter just isn't accurate.

back to OP...i don't consider andre odmnsional...watch scud 2000 matches.[/quote]