Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Beast of Majorca, Feb 7, 2013.
#3 and perpetually threatening to break higher.
Top 5 for sure...he's got that killer backhand w/sharp angles...but today's players are quicker and stronger than players 20 years ago...
Exactly. A really really old Agassi was giving peak Federer all he could handle. So why wouldnt a prime Agassi be able to be ranked above a really old Federer, a good 3 years or more past the end of his prime, and a good 7 years or so now past his peak. Nadal doesnt even factor into the current rankings as he has played something like 3 matches in 8 months (yet has only dropped to #5, and it took World #4 Ferrer over 7 months in a 12 month rolling system of absolutely no tennis for Nadal to overtake him, what does that say about the current ATP, lol!). Murray is not better than prime Agassi, not yet anyway. That leaves only Djokovic as a threat to a prime and in form Agassi to be ranked above.
With Federer past his prime and except for this past Wimbledon generally sucking on grass since 2009 (and even at this past Wimbledon he was lucky for it not to turn into another disaester with a loss to Benneteau had Benneteau not choked) prime Agassi would have real chances at Wimbledon each year. He would be just as strong as Nadal had he ever gotten to play on todays slowed grass, and in his prime he is definitely a better grass courter than Djokovic or Murray.
Andre loved a target and he thrived in the 90s when people came in and played more hit/miss aggressive tennis. The people that constantly gave him more trouble were baseline grinders or other aggressive baseliners. Courier owned him, Hewitt, Rios, Muster, Safin, etc. So while I’m a HUGE Andre fan, the players at the top today would be the ones that would give him the most amount of trouble. He’d do well against guys like Berdych, Tsonga, Delpo etc. In his prime he could still beat any of the top 4 but not consistently and would be a give / take battle. Top 5 would shuffle around quite a bit due to result cannibalization at big events.
So you agree?
Ok. Fair enough. Agassi is just promoting the future of the game. Such a noble man.
Hmm good points, although he didnt have much trouble with Chang (the ultimate grinder), Kafelnikov (an excellent offensive and defensive baseliner), Ferrero and Moya (agressive baseliners and also speedy defenders). He played Hewitt and Safin mostly old and past his prime, although Safin on his best day can beat anyone, period. Muster he only had trouble with on clay. He seemed to have more trouble with baseliners who had stronger forehands than backhands, but guys like Murray and Djokovic have stronger backhands than forehands.
God, I can't stand seeing Djokovic win a point like that. It's borderline sickening.
Prime Agassi? I say number 2 or 3 perhaps. Prime Agassi for me is better than Murray currently is, also a bit better than old Federer generally (Nadal has been forced down to 5 through not playing) but the only issue is consistancy. Agassi wasn't that consistant in majors even in his best years. Only 2 years (1995 and 2001) did he progress beyond the 4th round of all 4 majors. So though prime Agassi would be potentially the best player in the world, dunno if he could keep that level up enough to be number one. But he could probably get to 3 or 2 by winning a slam and some masters.
There is no need to take Agassi at his word necessarily, as even he can't be sure how he would fare if he were in his prime right now. There is something to be admired about a player who is willing to give away the spotlight instead of keeping quiet with the exception of some bitter muttering that ends up coming out every now and then.
The hyping of current players is something that always happens. When their times are over, they will be compared to players like Agassi and Sampras more objectively, and the new players will be overhyped. You should be used to it by now.
Dude, come on. Agassi made Baghdatis into a tennis immortal in his book, just to make himself look like more of a hero. Surely, Agassi has no agenda.
Look at what is in bold, my friend. Are you kidding me? Are you setting me up? The guy who lied his way out of a failed drug test. The guy who wore a wig on court. Yes. We certainly should take anything he says at face value. You have convinced me. I believe him. I believe in him.
Now, if you want to talk about his tennis game, that's a different story.
Exactly. As much as I am a big Agassi fan, especialy as a player, but anyone who read his book (and anyone who disputes this obviously didnt read it or is apparently blind) knows he has a chip on his shoulder about the players of his generation the size of whole of Europe, and that he has agendas coming out of his ass every which way. So that being said ANYTHING he says regarding players of his own generation (himself included) and players of today should be taken with a huge grain of salt, and anything that sounds like BS to just about everyone should be dismissed as such.
NadalDramaQueen, i don't think I've interacted with you on this board before, but you obviously have knowledge of the game of tennis, you seem intelligent and it looks like you have strong convictions on certain issues. In this instance, I couldn't disagree with you more. But it probably has more to do with my issues with the way Agassi has conducted himself. Maybe that is just getting in the way. I will leave it at that.
That being said, I think he could compete favorably with prime Murray and Nadal on HC.
I don't think the slow courts of today would match Agassi's flat hitting and aggressive style of play. He would just make to many errors trying to get the ball past the fleet footed big four. Defense is too much a part of today's game as well as Agassi's only true weakness.
I too think he would be near the top if he was in his prime today. Provided that he was focused, of course.
Prime Agassi would be competing with Djokovic for #1 spot. It is ridiculous to assume that prime Agassi is at a level of Murray.
I highly doubt Agassi would be as good as Nadal on grass. Nadal made five straight Wimbledon finals (of the ones he played). I would say Murray's a better grass court player as well. He's won three grass court titles already compared to Andre's one, and I'm sure he'll win at least one Wimbledon in the future. Djokovic might be a bit weaker than Agassi on the surface, but he'd still have a shot at taking him out. In any case, Agassi would certainly have his chances against Murray and Djokovic but he would be lucky to beat Nadal or Federer at Wimbledon, and most likely he would have to beat at least two of the four to do it, which is an even bigger ask. I think if Agassi was the same age as Djokovic and Murray, he'd win maybe one Wimbledon in his career, like his actual career.
That said, he'd definitely get his time at number one. I think NLBwell put it best. He'd be up there with Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, and Murray trading the top rankings back and forth.
i think djokovic, nadal and federer are all mentally tougher than him. also he used beat players by wearing them down and i dont think he could do that against those 3. he would have to be better than what he was in his prime to be in the mix with them imo..
Nadal got to play on slow baseliner friendly grass. Agassi got to play on slick lightning fast grass, with nasty and unpredictable bounches which are nightmarish for a baseliner, vs a slew of monsterous servers and serve and volleyers whose serves, slices, and shots zoomed low along the old slick grass. Of course we have to say Nadal is better than Agassi on grass, since Nadal was much better and more accomplished on todays slow grass he was blessed to get to play on than Agassi was on the old fast grass he played on. However would Nadal have been better than Agassi either had both played in the 90s on the old grass, or had both played today on todays slowed baseliner friendly grass? While we will never be able to prove it, it is quite likely Agassi would have been atleast as strong as Nadal on either one (or in the case of the 90s grass Nadal been atleast as weak, relatively speaking, as Agassi).
Well, it's pretty much impossible to know how Agassi would perform in his peak on slower grass. We do know that he never did well at Wimbledon from 2002 onward (even as he still had some success on hard courts at that age) and that grass is not all about the bounce. Djokovic should love the court speed and bounce at Wimbledon but his movement simply doesn't work as well on grass. The same could happen to Agassi, even if his skill set looks like it should match up well to the speed and bounce of the court. And even if he were better on slow grass than fast grass, I still highly doubt he'd make five straight finals on the surface.
I'd say #3 or #4 if we're talking about today's conditions. Djokovic and Murray are roughly on par with his ROS. Djokovic hits very well off both wings as Agassi did. The problem is, even at his peak, Andre was never a very good defender. He was very quick early on in his career, but just lacked defensive instincts. On the slower surfaces of today, he would have to try and hit through these guys a lot, and I don't see it happening enough to challenge for the top spot. If it was the quicker surfaces of the 90s, however, it would be a different story.
Grass rewards athleticism, footwork, touch, and the ability to make quick adjustments, no matter WHAT the speed of the surface. All of these things Nadal is FAR better at than Agassi, there's a reason he is such a good grass courter compared to players like Djokovic or Ferrer, he has a natural ability on the surface that is hugely underrated. There is absolutely no way Agassi, with his lackluster athleticism and overall physical ability would ever be as good as Nadal on today's grass. Nadal is just an inherently much better player on natural surfaces than Andre ever was.
how much meth we talkin?
hewitt and roddick more often lost to other players than they did to federer in grand slams.
AO: L Schüttler
FO: sargsian (really?)
FO: mutis (who?)
USO: pim pim
FO: andreev (1st round like many years)
20 slams, 19 losses 6 against fed
AO: el eynaoui
W: Dr. ivo
AO: safin (champ)
FO: not start?
FO: nadal (ok)
USO: roddick (ok)
FO: nadal (twice is bad)
20 slams, 20 losses, 5 fed
yes they were both hurt by fed but not close to the amount that murray and early djokovic were hurt by fedal. the current top 4 are beating the field way more than hewitt and roddick ever did.
Don't get me wrong hewitt and roddick were great players and about the same level as old agassi but prime agassi was in a different league.
Hewitt and Roddick would never have been 10 time Grand Slam champions, I just meant they could easily have 5 a piece if Fed wasn't around. Obviously they didn't have the consistancy like the current top 4 to go deep in every single tournament. Likewise Agassi is way above them too although he wasn't as consistant as the current top 4 either. I meant that their peak play which Federer often dismantled wasn't so low that Murray or Djokovic could scoff at them.
The 1998-1999, 27-28 year old physical Agassi coupled with the 2003-2006, 32-35 year old mental Agassi would be a serious contender for the ATP Number 1 spot today and could possibly dominate it. Go Agassi!
This pretty much.
You can point to similar reasons why Agassi shouldn't have won Wimbledon and the French Open when he did win them. However, he did win them.
yeah, only thing is agassi's RoS is clearly better than nadal's and that in itself is a huge thing on grass ....agassi handled low bounces at wimbledon fairly well ....he'd find it much easier to get into a rhythm on today's grass ....
Big Ted, I think you make a very good point. Agassi was a talent, long before he was a champion. He tended to choke in big matches. Even when he was at the top of his game he had issues dealing with pressure. After he lost to Sampras in the '95 US Open, he was psychologically damaged as a player. I respect the fact that he was able to pull himself back into the top 5, win 5 more Slams and showed the discipline to play percentage tennis for the remainder of his career.
Obviously, Federer and Nadal are unique talents that really can't be compared to any players in history. On the other hand, Djokovic and Murray are not too far removed(with a slightly more evolved game) from Kafelnikov and Safin. Agassi did have success against those players, but it took a while for him to figure out a pattern to beat them. He couldn't outhit them, they were too big and strong. Djokovic and Murray are big, strong effective baseliners, but they move much better than Kafelnikov or Safin. Add that to the fact that they are probably mentally stronger than Agassi, and you have a daunting task for the bald 1.
As I have stated before, I think prime Agassi would have his best chance for success against Nadal and Murray on HC.
I would agree with that, President. That's a pretty bold statement, but I think it is probably true. While Nadal might not be able to exploit Agassi's BH the way he has Fed's, I think he would pull Agassi off the court with his angles and spin. As you said, Nadal just moves and controls the ball better on natural surfaces. Agassi could take the ball earlier and hit a harder return. However, Nadal defends so well and Agassi would not be able to attack Nadal's serve easily. Agassi had unreal hand eye coordination and super quick hands, but his movement and inability to cover the court would be problems against Nadal.
Separate names with a comma.