How do Nadal and Agassi matchup

[davey25]

How do you feel the games of Andre Agassi and Rafael Nadal matchup if both were in their primes? Here is how I would see it:

Serve- I think Agassi has the better serve on hard courts. Not sure about on grass. Nadal has the better serve for clay.

Return of Serve- Agassi is better on every surface, including even clay.

Forehand- Nadal is clearly better on clay. Probably better on grass but hard to tell as they never played on the same kind of grass. Hard courts I would say Agassi.

Backhand- Acually pretty much the same as the forehand.

Net game- I would say Nadal on clay since his drop volleys are great and those are effective on clay. Dont know about the other surfaces, neither is that good a volleyer really.

Movement and overall defense- This is Nadal in a landslide

Passing shots- Both are great, Agassi was tested by more attackers than Nadal is.

Mental toughness- I would say Nadal wins this easily, even when Agassi is at his best.

Court positioning- Agassi has a big edge here. This hurts Nadal sometimes.

Ingangibles- I would say they both have different intangibles.


It is again looking more likely Nadal will surpass Agassi in slam titles won. He has already stolen away his Masters titles record. Will he match his career slam.

 

[President]

I think Agassi would probablybe a tough matchup for Nadal on hardcourts, considering his flat, penetrating groundstrokes and ability to take the ball early. He plays like Davydenko, but then again without Davy's exceptional movement. It's tough to say. On clay and grass Nadal has a clear edge.

Serve: Nadal-both had mediocre serves but Nadal's lefty serve throws off righty's

Return of Serve-Agassi, though this may be closer than you think. Nadal's return is very consistent, which might frustrate some players more than Agassi's more inconsistent bombs

Forehand-Nadal, on any surface other than fast hardcourt

Backhand-Agassi; its close but Agassi's backhand is phenomenal. Nadal's is great too, and he is capable of actually generating more power than Agassi, but doesn't seem to find the same angles Andre was able to

Net Game-Nadal; Rafa has a solid net game despite rarely coming to net. Very underrated touch player, probably a lot better in this department than Agassi

Movement-Nadal no contest

Passing Shots-Even; Nadal is tested by less net rushers so his pass seems better, but it's tough to call

Mental Toughness-Nadal no contest

Court Positioning-This is a strange category because they obviously have different games. Agassi had a tendency to play too far into the court, while Nadal has the opposite tendency. I guess Agassi has the edge though.

I'd say Nadal will almost certainly be remebered as the greater player by the end of his career. He has been much more consistent, mentally tough, and strong at a particular surface than Agassi was.

 

[jigar]

You guys said it all

 

[drakulie]

Forehand- Nadal is clearly better on clay. Probably better on grass but hard to tell as they never played on the same kind of grass. Hard courts I would say Agassi.

Backhand- Acually pretty much the same as the forehand.

Agassi's BH is the best ever. Nadal's is nowhere near close.

 

[decades]

Nadal on clay and grass agassi on hard courts....

 

[Nadalfan89]

Agassi's BH is the best ever. Nadal's is nowhere near close.

I'm going to have to agree with this. As much as I hate to say it, Agassi had a much better backhand than Nadal.

 

[Li Ching Yuen]

I have to say that Agassi has a very similar game to Davydenko's, which is BY FAR Nadal's nemesis as far as the tour goes.

Of course the two, Agassi and Davy have their own qualities that set them apart from each other but also similarities that visibly affect Nadal's game:

-BOTH wings are very strong, and can withstand pressure.
-The ability to change direction in rallies, absolutely vital in annihilating Nadal's game.
-Simply the ability to just put ANOTHER ball in play, just not hitting that UE that Nadal is customed to receive from the other player over the net, both these guys are players that on a good day, made you WORK for your win, and that sends a message and means quite a lot.
-reliable serves
-decent all-court game.

But of course there are also differencies:

-Andre had much more power from the baseline and he was not as dependent on movement as Davydenko is.
-Davydenko on the other hand moves much better than Agassi but can't generate as much power as Agassi, especially if we think about serve and return.

 

[vortex1]

Nadal would stomp Agassi on clay and grass. On HC it's a toss up, but I think Agassi would have the advantage.

 

[drakulie]

Nadal would stomp Agassi on clay and grass.

They played once on grass, and Agassi, although lost, hardly got stomped. To add, it was agassi's last wimbledon, when he could hardly move. In his prime, agassi would kick the snot out of nadal, especially on old grass, where nadal wouldn't stand a chance.

On hard courts, it would be more of the same. Only on clay does Nadal own agassi.

 

[davey25]

They played once on grass, and Agassi, although lost, hardly got stomped. To add, it was agassi's last wimbledon, when he could hardly move. In his prime, agassi would kick the snot out of nadal, especially on old grass, where nadal wouldn't stand a chance.

On hard courts, it would be more of the same. Only on clay does Nadal own agassi.

It was straight sets and only one set was close. That would qualify as a stomping. And in no way was the Nadal of 2006 on grass the same as the Nadal of 2008 or even 2007.

 

[davey25]

I have to say that Agassi has a very similar game to Davydenko's, which is BY FAR Nadal's nemesis as far as the tour goes.

Of course the two, Agassi and Davy have their own qualities that set them apart from each other but also similarities that visibly affect Nadal's game:

-BOTH wings are very strong, and can withstand pressure.
-The ability to change direction in rallies, absolutely vital in annihilating Nadal's game.
-Simply the ability to just put ANOTHER ball in play, just not hitting that UE that Nadal is customed to receive from the other player over the net, both these guys are players that on a good day, made you WORK for your win, and that sends a message and means quite a lot.
-reliable serves
-decent all-court game.

But of course there are also differencies:

-Andre had much more power from the baseline and he was not as dependent on movement as Davydenko is.
-Davydenko on the other hand moves much better than Agassi but can't generate as much power as Agassi, especially if we think about serve and return.

That all makes sense actually. I think Nadal would have a very hard time beating Agassi on hard courts if Agassi was in form (which many years he wasnt so subsequently Nadal would still get alot of wins anyway). Nadal would own Agassi on clay. Grass is really where the main debate would come. I think on carpet Agassi would really own Nadal, that would be an awful surface for Nadal probably.

 

[drakulie]

It was straight sets and only one set was close. That would qualify as a stomping. And in no way was the Nadal of 2006 on grass the same as the Nadal of 2008 or even 2007.

1. Agassi could barely walk, MUCH LESS MOVE. remember, this was his last wimbledon AS HE RETIRED DUE TO A BACK INJURY.
2. The first set went to a tie break.
3. the second set went 6-2.
4. the third set was decided by one break of serve.
5. Nadal made it to the finals.
6. That is hardly stomping on someone.
7. GO LEARN SOMETHING.

 

[Li Ching Yuen]

That all makes sense actually. I think Nadal would have a very hard time beating Agassi on hard courts if Agassi was in form (which many years he wasnt so subsequently Nadal would still get alot of wins anyway). Nadal would own Agassi on clay. Grass is really where the main debate would come. I think on carpet Agassi would really own Nadal, that would be an awful surface for Nadal probably.

Yeah, I mourn the absence of tournaments played on carpet. Mostly because of it's uniqueness. It's not only about serve, and just hitting hard. You need speed, amazing reflexes. You have only one shot to make the right move on indoor carpets and that is what truly impressed me. The fact that the player always had to be with at least one shot ahead of where the rally actually is, is so much better than the rather passive game we often witness today on MOST surfaces.

 

[egn]

It would be a very surface dependent rivalry. Agassi would take the hardcourts any day. He hits with pace, returns serve great and his solid backhand would have no problem dealing with Nadals forehand on every surface but possibly clay. (Even on clay it could probably deal with it just not as well.) Grass I want to give the edge to Agassi, just cause he hits more flat and a bit harder, but it could be interesting. However on clay Nadal would just dominate.

Li Chung Yien brings up a great point with Davydenko and I agree 100 percent.

I have to say that Agassi has a very similar game to Davydenko's, which is BY FAR Nadal's nemesis as far as the tour goes.

Of course the two, Agassi and Davy have their own qualities that set them apart from each other but also similarities that visibly affect Nadal's game:

-BOTH wings are very strong, and can withstand pressure.
-The ability to change direction in rallies, absolutely vital in annihilating Nadal's game.
-Simply the ability to just put ANOTHER ball in play, just not hitting that UE that Nadal is customed to receive from the other player over the net, both these guys are players that on a good day, made you WORK for your win, and that sends a message and means quite a lot.
-reliable serves
-decent all-court game.

But of course there are also differencies:

-Andre had much more power from the baseline and he was not as dependent on movement as Davydenko is.
-Davydenko on the other hand moves much better than Agassi but can't generate as much power as Agassi, especially if we think about serve and return.

Davydenko although not as great as Agassi is in a way a poor man's version of Agassi (with a bit extra speed) and it causes issues for Nadal. Nadal has notably struggled with guys who can smack the ball hard and flat when taking it on the rise. When Blake was on he too could hurt Nadal, same goes for Nalbandian. After Gilbert took a hold of Agassi he made him into an amazing wall type player. Every single ball came back. That would cause Nadal a huge issue and although on clay not really bother him on surfaces like hardcourts where he is more prone to make errors might be a problem. I also am starting to think a good flat two hander is the worst thing for Nadal. I wonder how a prime Safin would do against Nadal.

However although I think Agassi would be a bad match up either way the rivalry I feel would not be overly exciting. As I don't think on hardcourts Nadal would ever be able to do much damage to Agassi and I don't think on clay Agassi would ever do much damage to Nadal. Grass would be interesting to an extent. However I feel Agassi's flat strokes would just work better on grass as the topspin shots wont sit as high on clay and he could probably smack a couple huge winners due to his compact strokes.

 

[davey25]

1. Agassi could barely walk, MUCH LESS MOVE. remember, this was his last wimbledon AS HE RETIRED DUE TO A BACK INJURY.
2. The first set went to a tie break.
3. the second set went 6-2.
4. the third set was decided by one break of serve.
5. Nadal made it to the finals.
6. That is hardly stomping on someone.
7. GO LEARN SOMETHING.

On any planet other than the one you are on when you win 7-6, 6-2, 6-4 and have a big edge in all the stats- many more winners, many fewer unforced errors, many more points won, serving stats, you stomped someone. And I am well aware Agassi was at the end of his career and nowhere near his prime but Nadal also was at a whole other level on grass in the following years to what he was in 2006. In 2006 he was still a baby on grass and made the final due to the really weak grass court field at the time. He nearly lost to Robert Kendrick, someone he would beat in under 2 hours in his prime on grass.

 

[davey25]

Yeah, I mourn the absence of tournaments played on carpet. Mostly because of it's uniqueness. It's not only about serve, and just hitting hard. You need speed, amazing reflexes. You have only one shot to make the right move on indoor carpets and that is what truly impressed me. The fact that the player always had to be with at least one shot ahead of where the rally actually is, is so much better than the rather passive game we often witness today on MOST surfaces.

Yeah I miss carpet alot too! I hate how the tour is making all the surfaces slower and more similar. Carpet was a very unique surface from all the others, and it provided some of the most exciting matches on tour when it was still around.

 

[abmk]

probably:

9-1 on clay to nadal
6-4 on grass to nadal
7-3 on HC to agassi
8-2 on carpet/indoor to agassi

Those who are comparing davydenko to agassi - are forgetting a key point - davydenko is a GREAT mover, agassi is not. There are a lot of points where davydenko uses his movement to defend and then turn it into offense ... Not that agassi wouldn't be a tough matchup for nadal on HC, but this is a key difference !

 

[egn]

Yeah I miss carpet alot too! I hate how the tour is making all the surfaces slower and more similar. Carpet was a very unique surface from all the others, and it provided some of the most exciting matches on tour when it was still around.

Carpet was also great cause not one type of player would ever dominate, baseliners like Ivan could thrive and serve and volley guys like Becker. Muster did pretty well on carpet, it was just a surface that had tons of competition in it. I understand the injury risk, but it was the major surface in the 80s and nobody was complaining then..

 

[egn]

probably:

9-1 on clay to nadal
6-4 on grass to nadal
7-3 on HC to agassi
8-2 on carpet/indoor to agassi

Those who are comparing davydenko to agassi - are forgetting a key point - davydenko is a GREAT mover, agassi is not. There are a lot of points where davydenko uses his movement to defend and then turn it into offense ... Not that agassi wouldn't be a tough matchup for nadal on HC, but this is a key difference !

I agree the movement is a key difference, however where he loses in movement I think he can make up for in sheer shotmaking ability. Agassi could probably come up with a few more winners than Davy can.

 

[abmk]

the agassi nadal match in wimby 2006 doesn't prove anything really. Why bother arguing about it ?

 

[davey25]

the agassi nadal match in wimby 2006 doesn't prove anything really. Why bother arguing about it ?

I agree it doesnt. It is pointless either way really. It would have only been meaningful if Agassi had actually been close which he wasnt. I wasnt the one who brought it up.

 

[davey25]

Carpet was also great cause not one type of player would ever dominate, baseliners like Ivan could thrive and serve and volley guys like Becker. Muster did pretty well on carpet, it was just a surface that had tons of competition in it. I understand the injury risk, but it was the major surface in the 80s and nobody was complaining then..

Yeah nobody could just say it was a serving contest since you had great servers doing well, great serve and volleyers including ones without overpowering serves like Henman, you had power baseliners, you even had some clay court baseliners. One year you had a Moya-Corretja final, two years before that Becker-Sampras. And the outdoor hard courts which monopolize most of the tour today are an even bigger injury risk if anything.

 

[egn]

Yeah nobody could just say it was a serving contest since you had great servers doing well, great serve and volleyers including ones without overpowering serves like Henman, you had power baseliners, you even had some clay court baseliners. One year you had a Moya-Corretja final, two years before that Becker-Sampras. And the outdoor hard courts which monopolize most of the tour today are an even bigger injury risk if anything.

Yea sigh, Shanghai although is a nice venue its a slower hardcourt and just kills what used to be a fast indoor season. The fast tennis on indoor hardcourts and carpet was always great to watch. You would get some phenomenal shotmaking and see some players with great games thrive. I.E Nalbandian, Safin and Davy as of late.

Carpet provides the diversity and unpredictably that the tour needs. In a good way.

 

[drakulie]

In 2006 he was still a baby on grass and made the final due to the really weak grass court field at the time.

Yeah, of course it was a weak field. :roll:

He didn't stomp anyone, and should be ashamed he was taken to a tie break by an old man who could barely walk. I hate to think what AA would do to him if he was in his prime.

Go back to your thread where you yap about how sampras dominated AA from the baseline. :roll:

Seriously, go learn something.

 

[egn]

Yeah, of course it was a weak field. :roll:

34 year old Jonas Bjorkman made the semis that year....it was a tad bit weak..mostly due to Roddick magically being MIA that year.

 

[drakulie]

34 year old Jonas Bjorkman made the semis that year....it was a tad bit weak..mostly due to Roddick magically being MIA that year.

I understand. anytime someone is arguing about a tournament, they need the field to be "weak" in order to prove their argument.

Let me try it>>>>>>>>

Nadal has only won all his French Open titles because the rest of the field sucks on clay, and is "weak". :roll:

one more thing, Roddick played in the 2006 wimbledon. He lost to andy murray.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

I'm going to have to agree with this. As much as I hate to say it, Agassi had a much better backhand than Nadal.

I dont call it better. yes, Andre's backhand is something most people would die for, However there is one particular aspect of Nadal's backhand that is just so great. I am talking about Backhand cross court shot , especially the angled one where he gets his natural Right hand involved.

That shot got him out of trouble many a times and that alone sometimes worth the rest of the parts.

 

[egn]

I understand. anytime someone is arguing about a tournament, they need the field to be "weak" in order to prove their argument.

Let me try it>>>>>>>>

Nadal has only won all his French Open titles because the rest of the field sucks on clay, and is "weak". :roll:

one more thing, Roddick played in the 2006 wimbledon. He lost to andy murray.

I know he played MIA as in he just magically sucked. He went from two time finalist to just playing awful in 06.

 

[drakulie]

I know he played MIA as in he just magically sucked. He went from two time finalist to just playing awful in 06.

I undertand. His opponents were just lucky, as the sun was in Roddicks eyes that year.

 

[okdude1992]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZVz_GP_aac
great match imo

i think nadal plays a similar game to agassi (wearing the opponent down) but does a better job at it, albeit in a different way (spin as opposed to flat and pace) The defense and speed of nadal is by far superior to agassi and that gives him an advantage

however prime nadal vs agassi, 10 meetings on every surface, i predict would be:
clay: nadal 10-0
grass: nadal 7-3
slow hard: even 5-5
fast hard: agassi 6-4 maybe 7-3

 

[egn]

I undertand. His opponents were just lucky, as the sun was in Roddicks eyes that year.

I don't know why your so defensive it was a werid year on grass with a weak group of semifinalists. Nobody is doubt Nadal as a great grass court player who clearly proved it over the next two years..so whats the deal? 2006 was a weak grass court year.

 

[drakulie]

2006 was a weak grass court year.

so was 2007, 2008, 2009, and will be this year. same goes for the last 6 years at the FO. weak fields.

 

[egn]

so was 2007, 2008, 2009, and will be this year. same goes for the last 6 years at the FO. weak fields.

Never said that....sigh :-?

 

[drakulie]

Never said that....sigh :-?

so only the years and matches **YOU** pick can be "weak"?? Like I said earlier, anytime someone wants to make their point about a player or tournament, they throw out the "weak field" argument.

 

[egn]

so only the years and matches **YOU** pick can be "weak"?? Like I said earlier, anytime someone wants to make their point about a player or tournament, they throw out the "weak field" argument.

I understand your point I'm just agreeing with davey25 as wimbledon 06 was weak but not because I'm trying to make an argument. Cause you just look at the players who went deep and who was playing. Thats the reasoning at least by me agreeing with him. Seeing a 34 year old doubles specialist make the semi finals after being nearly 10 years past his best singles ranking and his days of a top 10 singles just seems to be a bit weird. Especially since Bjorkman was just doing the same thing he had been doing for the past few years and Fed kind of exposed that by beating him something crazy like 6-2, 6-0, 6-2 if I recall.

 

[drakulie]

Seeing a 34 year old doubles specialist make the semi finals after being nearly 10 years past his best singles ranking and his days of a top 10 singles just seems to be a bit weird.

and seeing a guy who was nearly cripple take a guy who made the finals to a tie break speaks volumes.

But I agree, the entire history of tennis tournaments have all been weak fields. If only they would let us hacks who play recreationally play, we would show them what real tennis is about. I mean, I could have taken a set off Nadal easy in the 2008 FO finals after he beat up that weak ass player 6-1, 6-3, 6-0. But again, we have to endure these weak draws. oh well.

 

[sir_shanks_alot]

Agassi was a great returner, but he was also aced often. He was never a great mover, like nearly everyone out there today. Today is baseline tennis and thats why players with exceptional movement and defense are so successful.

What Agassi hit he would pound and put Nadal under pressure or win the point outright. Grass would be interesting. Clay would be ugly. Agree, one match doesn't mean much. I think Nadal and Federer are probably the two best players to have ever played the game.

 

[Leelord337]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZVz_GP_aac
great match imo

i think nadal plays a similar game to agassi (wearing the opponent down) but does a better job at it, albeit in a different way (spin as opposed to flat and pace) The defense and speed of nadal is by far superior to agassi and that gives him an advantage

however prime nadal vs agassi, 10 meetings on every surface, i predict would be:
clay: nadal 10-0
grass: nadal 7-3
slow hard: even 5-5
fast hard: agassi 6-4 maybe 7-3

good stuff, i liked the match b/w nalby 'n agassi here

 

[Spider]

Nadal is clearly leagues above Agassi on clay and will win each match on this surface.

On grass, Nadal will enter as the favorite each time and will end up winning most of their encounters.

On hard courts, Agassi in his prime would win most of their matches on fast hard courts and Nadal will have slight advantage on slow hard courts.

 

[World Beater]

Nadal pretty much everywhere. I think it would be even on carpet indoors though.

Nadal just gets too many balls and contrary to popular belief, agassi has tons of trouble returning nadal's serve. agassi even stated it as much saying he had to actually stand further back to get a crack the serve because of the action on the ball.

Nadal's high ball does indeed bother agassi quite a bit. Watch the match in canada and you will see that agassi hit many routine bhs out because he found it tough to control the ball. agassi called nadal's ball the "meanest" he's ever faced.

agassi will have to play high risk tennis to take nadal out and be on his game. Because nadal is way more athletic, can play outstanding defense and has a higher percentage attacking game than agassi.

 

[World Beater]

34 year old Jonas Bjorkman made the semis that year....it was a tad bit weak..mostly due to Roddick magically being MIA that year.

why is age the barometer for weakness???

i will tell you what is worse...

bastl taking out an out of prime sampras at wimbledon. why? bastl himself was a journeyman and not a young gun.

you want more???

how about voltchkov making the SF and losing to sampras. pioline making the finals!!!

bjorkman though older was still quality. the guy was #4 in the sampras era after all when the giants on grass supposedly played.

kafelnikov making the semifinal at wimbledon. call me when davydenko makes a semi at wimbledon.

 

[World Beater]

How do you feel the games of Andre Agassi and Rafael Nadal matchup if both were in their primes? Here is how I would see it:

Serve- I think Agassi has the better serve on hard courts. Not sure about on grass. Nadal has the better serve for clay.

Return of Serve- Agassi is better on every surface, including even clay.Forehand- Nadal is clearly better on clay. Probably better on grass but hard to tell as they never played on the same kind of grass. Hard courts I would say Agassi.

Backhand- Acually pretty much the same as the forehand.

Net game- I would say Nadal on clay since his drop volleys are great and those are effective on clay. Dont know about the other surfaces, neither is that good a volleyer really.

Movement and overall defense- This is Nadal in a landslide

Passing shots- Both are great, Agassi was tested by more attackers than Nadal is.

Mental toughness- I would say Nadal wins this easily, even when Agassi is at his best.

Court positioning- Agassi has a big edge here. This hurts Nadal sometimes.

Ingangibles- I would say they both have different intangibles.


It is again looking more likely Nadal will surpass Agassi in slam titles won. He has already stolen away his Masters titles record. Will he match his career slam.

all the bolded ones are wrong.

 

[Mikael]

I think the 2005 Montreal final was a good match and a good indication of how things would unfold between Agassi and Nadal, at least on slowish hardcourts. 90s Agassi with the huge groundstrokes and the more reckless tennis would have a much better chance against Nadal than methodical, percentage tennis Agassi from the 00s.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Yeah, I mourn the absence of tournaments played on carpet. Mostly because of it's uniqueness. It's not only about serve, and just hitting hard. You need speed, amazing reflexes. You have only one shot to make the right move on indoor carpets and that is what truly impressed me. The fact that the player always had to be with at least one shot ahead of where the rally actually is, is so much better than the rather passive game we often witness today on MOST surfaces.

i totally agree.

it's really sad that carpet is not used anymore...
and as some :roll: complain about too much hardcourt, wouldn't it be a good alternative, as it's probably less "traumatising" for the joints ?

Nadal pretty much everywhere. I think it would be even on carpet indoors though.

agassi would kill nadal on carpet, where nadal's biggest weapon, his huge topspin, wouldn't work much.

 

[drakulie]

Nadal pretty much everywhere. I think it would be even on carpet indoors though.

Nadal just gets too many balls and contrary to popular belief, agassi has tons of trouble returning nadal's serve. agassi even stated it as much saying he had to actually stand further back to get a crack the serve because of the action on the ball.

Where you guys get this stuff is unbelievable. Makes one wonder if you have watched, or even played the game.

Agassi had a winning record against Ivanisevic (lefty), who is arguably one of the best servers of all time. He beat him on grass and carpet, and you think he would have trouble with Nadal's 80-90 mph slice serve??? LMAO.

 

[TennisFan008]

Nightmare matchup for Nadal.

 

[aldeayeah]

Where you guys get this stuff is unbelievable. Makes one wonder if you have watched, or even played the game.

Agassi had a winning record against Ivanisevic (lefty), who is arguably one of the best servers of all time. He beat him on grass and carpet, and you think he would have trouble with Nadal's 80-90 mph slice serve??? LMAO.

The part with Agassi having problems with Nadal's serve is straight from the horse's mouth.

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/15/sports/sp-newswire15

Also, Brad Gilbert:

“He [Nadal] won Canada [against Agassi] on what I thought was the fastest hard court I had seen in 10 years"

On paper, Agassi should be able to defeat Nadal consistently on hard courts, but in reality, I think it'd be very close.

 

[drakulie]

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you considered a crippled Agassi in his prime. :roll: Get real. Agassi in his prime, who is one of, if not the greatest returner ever, has absolutely zero problems with nadal's mediocre serve.

 

[Chadwixx]

You sound like azzuri or gamesampras (davey) with this prime talk drak

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=A092

Nadal owned him :twisted:

 

[aldeayeah]

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you considered a crippled Agassi in his prime. :roll: Get real. Agassi in his prime, who is one of, if not the greatest returner ever, has absolutely zero problems with nadal's mediocre serve.

Crippled Agassi made it to USO finals like a month after that.