Yea... It would be tough for Andre to be in top 4-5.. I mean Murray and Ferrer are just too good for him. ROFLMAO
Bottom line.. If you got a talentless MUG like Ferrer in the top 4. Andre is good enough to be top 1-2 EASY (especially with Fed old and Nadal out injured for a year)
Gimme a break
I don't know about that. He's got Djokovic to challenge him at the Australian, Nadal who he would never beat at the French (and if he did, Federer and Djokovic are still above him), and he'd most likely not be able to luck out and play a headcase like Goran in a Wimbledon final. It's likely he wouldn't win the career slam and possible he wouldn't win a single slam off hard court (although it's also possible he would). His success at the U.S. Open would probably increase, though. No one's been dominant there since Federer's begun to decline, so Agassi wouldn't run into a Sampras-caliber player time and time again like he did in his real career.
See the bold part below.
Apparently, Agassi has devoted his post tennis life to taking digs at Sampras under the guise of praising other players for their greatness.
I hear that he pays out of pocket to have subliminal messages inserted into tennis advertisements that attempt to rob Sampras of his glory.
Please put on your aluminum hats before it is too late.
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.
Djokovic looked pretty tired in the 5th set against Nadal last year. Nadal actually looked like he had more left in the tank than Djokovic, but he played like such a mug on huge points that it didn't matter. Djokovic was falling on his ass, praying to Jesus, and breathing really heavy after every point in the 5th set.
That 5th set at the USO was pretty poor from Djokovic also. Murray clearly outlasted him that day. I was not surprised, just look how tormented he is trying to hit (hideous) groundstrokes in windy conditions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CHQJko7xc4c#t=645s
So you agree?
Ok. Fair enough. Agassi is just promoting the future of the game. Such a noble man.
Agassi himself said, just a week ago, that he would have to fight to be #5 right now. And you guys are debating this? Why not just believe the player himself?
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.
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.
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.
I highly doubt Agassi would be as good as Nadal on grass. Nadal made five straight Wimbledon finals (of the ones he played).
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).
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).
Let's say that Agassi is in the prime of his career and that he's playing against the current top field. What rank would he be?
Personally, I can't see him getting past #4 in the world. The current top three (and Nadal, if he can be counted) seem like they've taken tennis to an entirely new level. Even though someone like Murray is definitely not a greater player than Agassi in that he's less accomplished, I think his level of tennis right now is better than anything Agassi could achieve.
What do you guys think?
You underrate Roddick and Hewitt by alot. Roddick beat Murray in 09 remember and has a winning h2h with Djokovic. They only "failed hard because they had to contend with prime Federer.
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.
Probably #2 behind Djokovic, if not even possibly #1. A really old Agassi was pushing peak Federer to the limit, so prime Agassi would be ranked above a quite old Federer IMO, as long as he wasnt in one of his slumps. Murray isnt really better than prime Agassi on any surface to this point, I guess fast hard courts, grass, and indoors they are reasonably close, while prime Agassi is way better on slower hard courts and clay both. Nadal hasnt played for 8 months, so he is automatically ranked lower by default. Prime Djokovic and prime Agassi are closely matched on all surfaces. Probably the 2 best ever on slow hard courts, and similar on clay, grass, faster hard courts, as far as playing levels.
I don't know about that. He's got Djokovic to challenge him at the Australian, Nadal who he would never beat at the French (and if he did, Federer and Djokovic are still above him), and he'd most likely not be able to luck out and play a headcase like Goran in a Wimbledon final. It's likely he wouldn't win the career slam and possible he wouldn't win a single slam off hard court (although it's also possible he would). His success at the U.S. Open would probably increase, though. No one's been dominant there since Federer's begun to decline, so Agassi wouldn't run into a Sampras-caliber player time and time again like he did in his real career.
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.
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..
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.