How many slams would Agassi have won if he had been a great volleyer?

[Nadalgaenger]

Watching a replay of Agassi/Edberg 1990 and am absolutely shocked at AA's poor volleying. Numerous easy volleys botched.

I haven't watched much "historical tennis" but if a guy can be this bad at the net and still win 8 slams, it makes me wonder how he might have done had he consistently worked on this and improved it.
Seems like it could have added more variety to a game that was clearly was one of the best baseline games of his day...

 

[Holmes]

He wasn't a poor volleyer at all, he was competent. He'd look like a modern day serve and volley great compared to the players today.

 

[Cashman]

Volleying in 1990 was a lot harder than volleying in 2020

 

[vandre]

he reportedly volleyed quite efficiently against wilander in the 88 french open semifinal: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...tats-for-1988-rg-semi-wilander-agassi.168798/
according to that thread, agassi had 22 volley winners against wilander, who was accustomed to facing jmac at the net so i don't think i'd say he was a poor volleyer.

 

[HBK4life]

Andre was 19 I believe here?? Maybe 20? Hitting volleys against Bob from Nebraska in the jrs vs Edberg GS champion is a bit different. I can serve and volley against a 3.5 and run them through. I try that at 4.5 plus? Nope. Andre volleys were fine.

 

[travlerajm]

Everyone looks bad at volleying when they play on the same court as Stefan Edberg.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Seems like it could have added more variety to a game that was clearly was one of the best baseline games of his day...

Andre was the greatest pure ballstriker ever until Djokovic came along. Because Andre's FH was so lethal some would argue he's slightly better in pure ballstriking. I was frustrated he didn't come to net much, but as he aged his volleys improved and he was more comfortable at net.

Power baseliners of that era didn't often change their style or seek variety. Agassi said his passing shots were just as effective as Pete's volleys. That was his mindset.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I think a serve closer to Sampras's calibre would have aided him more than great volleys. The only place volleys were sort of neccessary by then was grass and carpet, but he was the lone one who could be just as effective from the baseline, including dealing with the horrific bounces on grass that came with playing almost all your tennis from there. With a serve near Sampras he would have been almost unbeatable during his good periods, despite not having the volleying or athleticsm of Sampras.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

The trouble with questions like this is that they fail to appreciate how changing A can have consequent effects on B.

Agassi could have been a better volleyer if he changed his grip to something more Eastern, but his groundstrokes would have suffered as a result.
Agassi could have been a better volleyer if he wielded a more volley-friendly racquet than the 107" POG, but his groundstrokes would have suffered as a result.
Agassi could have been a better volleyer if, as a child, his Dad had forced him to stand at the net while "The Dragon" fired balls at him, but his groundstrokes would have suffered as a result.

Andre spent his formative years developing a fearsome baseline game, which proved capable of winning eight slams. I think if you make any changes to improve his forecourt skills, you're going to end up losing more than you gained. It's the same as the question "What if Andre had played the Australian Open in the late 1980s and early '90s?" He would have put more mileage on his young body, leaving himself perhaps unable to nab those three titles he did win when he was in his thirties.

 

[martinezownsclay]

The trouble with questions like this is that they fail to appreciate how changing A can have consequent effects on B, C, and D.

Agassi could have been a better volleyer if he changed his grip to something more Eastern, but his groundstrokes would have suffered as a result.
Agassi could have been a better volleyer if he wielded a more volley-friendly racquet than the 107" POG, but his groundstrokes would have suffered as a result.
Agassi could have been a better volleyer if, as a child, his Dad had forced him to stand at the net while "The Dragon" fired balls at him, but his groundstrokes would have suffered as a result.

Andre spent his formative years developing a fearsome baseline game, which proved capable of winning eight slams. I think if you make any changes to improve his forecourt skills, you're going to end up losing more than you gained. It's the same as the question "What if Andre had played the Australian Open in the late 1980s and early '90s?" He would have put more mileage on his young body, leaving himself perhaps unable to nab those three titles he did win when he was in his thirties.

Yes everything has a butterfly effect.

 

[urban]

Its obsolete, to create retroactively a fictional perfect player with better individual strokes. What if Sampras had played with a double-hander, what he did in his youth? Tilden was no great volleyer nor had he Budge's swinging backhand,, but his groundies were good enough, so that he dominated his era. Djokovic plays a bit a return game like Agassi with a better serve, but his volleys are so la la, and his overhead is pretty weak. Since the 90s,, players and especially coaches have forgotten the good volley technique, and zhe doublehnader makes it more difficult to excute the backhand volley. I cannot think instantly of a really great volleyer with a doublehander backhand, maybe the doubles specialist Frew McMillan.

 

[big ted]

ill be the first to answer the question i think he woulda won 8