The-Champ
Legend
Is Andre really a better returner than say...hewitt? safin? federer? what about Bruguera? these guys handled sampras' serve pretty well.
If Nadal-Federer played in the Agassi-Sampras Era...
- Thread starter GasquetGOAT
- Start date
Is Andre really a better returner than say...hewitt? safin? federer? what about Bruguera? these guys handled sampras' serve pretty well.
nfor304
Banned
the presence of agassi and sampras as well as a prime federer at every wimbledon, aus open and us open would greatly reduce nadal's chances of winning a slam at any of those events
nadal would not have beaten a prime sampras or agassi at this years us open imo or beaten a prime agassi or sampras at the 09 aus open. I dont think he would have beaten sampras at this years wimbledon, but he may still have won in his wimbledon 2008 form, but imagine if he had to face agassi or sampras in the semis before the final against federer. Also the aus open was on a slightly quicker surface in the 90s, early 2000s than it is on now.
agassi imo would be as tough a match up on clay to nadal as federer is. Nadal couldnt exploit the backhand and agassi is one of few guys who can go toe to toe with nadal from the baseline all day long. Agassi beat defending champ moya in his 1999 win and has had some good streaks on the surface through his career.
Probably the most similar player to agassi right now is nalbandian, who has given nadal plenty of trouble. Agassi is better in almost every aspect of the game than nalbandian imo....
nadal would not have beaten a prime sampras or agassi at this years us open imo or beaten a prime agassi or sampras at the 09 aus open. I dont think he would have beaten sampras at this years wimbledon, but he may still have won in his wimbledon 2008 form, but imagine if he had to face agassi or sampras in the semis before the final against federer. Also the aus open was on a slightly quicker surface in the 90s, early 2000s than it is on now.
agassi imo would be as tough a match up on clay to nadal as federer is. Nadal couldnt exploit the backhand and agassi is one of few guys who can go toe to toe with nadal from the baseline all day long. Agassi beat defending champ moya in his 1999 win and has had some good streaks on the surface through his career.
Probably the most similar player to agassi right now is nalbandian, who has given nadal plenty of trouble. Agassi is better in almost every aspect of the game than nalbandian imo....
Last edited:
The Black Reaper
Banned
Federer and Sampras would share Wimbledons and US Opens.
Federer, Agassi and Sampras would share AO. With Federer and Agassi winning the majority.
Kuerten would have 3 FO's. Nadal however would dominate.
Sorry Nadal fans. With Agassi, Sampras and Federer around I wouldn't see him win anything outside the FO. I wouldn't really back Agassi to win many slams either as he would not trouble Federer at all. Federer and Sampras would probably be on roughly the same amount of slams, with Federer doing better at FO than Sampras.
Federer, Agassi and Sampras would share AO. With Federer and Agassi winning the majority.
Kuerten would have 3 FO's. Nadal however would dominate.
Sorry Nadal fans. With Agassi, Sampras and Federer around I wouldn't see him win anything outside the FO. I wouldn't really back Agassi to win many slams either as he would not trouble Federer at all. Federer and Sampras would probably be on roughly the same amount of slams, with Federer doing better at FO than Sampras.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
That is the problem with many a TW member: their "knowledge" only covers this era, and show a shocking misunderstanding or complete ignorance of history, hence the boatload of moronic posts.
President
Legend
I think Federer would probably win the lions share of the AO and USO, and would be competetive at Wimbledon. If Nadal was injured or something during the course of their careers, then Federer would probably be the favorite for the French (he might be able to sneak one). Sampras would be the favorite at Wimbledon, although I do think prime Federer would be a very difficult match up for him. Federer is very good at returning the 1st serves of players like Roddick and Karlovic who arguably have equal or better 1st serves to Sampras. I'd say Federer wins the most slams, followed by Sampras and Nadal, followed by Agassi. Agassi would have a really tough time winning ANY slams..even at the AO he is outclassed by Federer.
GasquetGOAT
Hall of Fame
Awww did I hurt your little feelings?
Sampras assclown fanboy can't accept a little fact? lol What happened, happened. Sampras got beat at Wimbledon by a teenage Federer. Imagine what a prime Nadal could do to him...
GasquetGOAT
Hall of Fame
Good post. With Federer and Nadal in the scene I doubt Sampras would even win 1 AO although he would still be competitive at Wimbledon and USO, as long as he doesn't run into an in-form Nadal...
JediMindTrick
Hall of Fame
Agassi wouldn't have won any slams because he had no weapons. Sampras would have won maybe a couple of Wimby and maybe an USO, because his SV style could give Federer and Rafa problems. The rest would be split between Rafa and Federer.
ksbh
Banned
No point discussing with a Fedophile that can't understand a simple point I made.
Now go back and watch the 2009 AO trophy presentation to get an idea of what Rafa can do to your hero! LOL!
Now go back and watch the 2009 AO trophy presentation to get an idea of what Rafa can do to your hero! LOL!
WTF???
Nadal would brutalize any version of Agassi on clay. He would demolish Andre very, very badly.
Agassi only would have slim chances in a super-fast clay court like Madrid.
thalivest
Banned
I actually think nfor304 could well be right that Agassi would be as tough an opponent for Nadal on clay as Federer. However that isnt saying much since Federer is not a tough oppponent for Nadal on clay. Nobody today is. Agassi would still never beat Nadal at the French Open, the same way Federer has not even come close to doing so. And considering Agassi would never be making as many finals against Nadal on clay as Federer is to play him so many times on clay as Federer has, he probably would never beat Nadal on clay anywhere. Agassi didnt even win a Masters title on clay until he was 32. So before his French Open title at age 29 which was won in ugly fashion very a cakewalk draw (basically Federer of 2009 multiplied by 2) he had won nothing even remotedly significant on clay. As for playing with Nadal from the baseline all day on most surfaces Agassi probably could but I doubt very much on clay. Nadal's heavy spin which is far more effective on clay than any other surface would be too much for Agassi to consistently handle off either side and their lateral movement on clay is on another planet from one another (well on any surface the movement heavily goes to Nadal anyway but even more on clay). Agassi couldnt even outplay Courier, Bruguera, Muster, or Kafelnikov from the baseline most times he met such players on clay, so I am not even going to imagine Nadal. And those were all guys Agassi could dominate from the baseline on a hard court, well except Courier of course.
As for prime Agassi on hard courts when was that? He was usually either in a slump or aged out of his prime. So if you are someone who cant beat prime Agassi on hard courts that just covers 1 or 2 years anyway, nothing much to worry about.
As for prime Agassi on hard courts when was that? He was usually either in a slump or aged out of his prime. So if you are someone who cant beat prime Agassi on hard courts that just covers 1 or 2 years anyway, nothing much to worry about.
Last edited:
thalivest
Banned
A fair point of course and I agree Agassi >>> Nalbandian who is the most overrated player on this forum. However Nalbandian has never played Nadal in a best of 5 set match anywhere. Nor has he ever played him on clay, grass, or even rebound ace. I would be willing to beat money Nalbandian would be destroyed on those surfaces (well atleast either clay or grass) everytime out, and would also be easily beaten by Nadal in any best of 5 set match on any of the 4 Grand Slam surfaces.
President of Serve/Volley
Semi-Pro
TheLoneWolf
Banned
HAHAHAHA. Fedophile. That must be the neologism of the decade. Brilliant, ksbh! From now on that might be my word of choice to describe *******s in the forum.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
What exactly is Agassi-Sampras era ?
ksbh
Banned
LOL, TLW! I think it was coined by Dedans Penthouse. He doesn't post much but I hope he's lurking around somewhere, a guy with an outrageous sense of humor!
HAHAHAHA. Fedophile. That must be the neologism of the decade. Brilliant, ksbh! From now on that might be my word of choice to describe *******s in the forum.
TheLoneWolf
Banned
Yes, I know Dedans. He is a serious bad boy.LOL, TLW! I think it was coined by Dedans Penthouse. He doesn't post much but I hope he's lurking around somewhere, a guy with an outrageous sense of humor!
Good to see you back in the forum!Didn't Federer win Hamburg '02?
abmk
Bionic Poster
bruguera ? absolutely !!!!
safin ? yeah, unless safin was absolutely in the zone ...
hewitt - close ...I'd give it to agassi because he sustained it for a longer amount of time
federer - again , close - I believe federer @ his peak was better at returning first serves and against bigger servers in general ...but agassi overall takes it
nfor304
Banned
abmk
Bionic Poster
but federer returns better . He has a clearly superior record to sampras as far as tie-breaks is concerned ... in grand slams, the difference is even more pronounced ....
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
Can someone define the Agassi-Sampras era for me?. Is it the early 90's, mid 90's, early 2000's or is it from 1989-2002?
What assumptions are people making when they say Nadal and federer are playing in that era?. oldequipment or new ?, surfaces?
What assumptions are people making when they say Nadal and federer are playing in that era?. oldequipment or new ?, surfaces?
The-Champ
Legend
klementine
Hall of Fame
Have you ever watched Sampras or Agassi play?
How old are you?
I was 16 in 1995 and remember the kind of tennis being played.... it wasn't just Sampras/Agassi-- although they dominated....
-Stefan Edberg
-Boris Becker
-Michael Chang
-Jim Courier
-Thomas Muster
why why why
Banned
Nadalito would have ened up on career-high 4th place with couple of French Open worthless trophies.
achokshi99
Rookie
I am 32 going on 33, I grew up and played my tennis during that era as well. Edberg was towards the tail end of his career by 1995. When AA and PS had that phenomenal AO match, Edberg was basically out by 1996. Becker had a good run and was tough but his highest performing years if you go by GS titles were the late 80s and early 90s...Chang had great longevity in the mid 90s, was always in the mix on hard courts and clay. Muster did well on clay in the mid 90s but again, these were one surface types. Courier had a sick run from 91-93, then tailed off, sure always in the hunt.
-----
I am of the mindset that modern players in any sport take out greats in prior eras. Sampras looked like a jaguar on the court considering most players on the tour were not in the same league in terms of movement. Chang was a dart and by far much quicker than others but in today's era...these guys are just better athletes and better conditioned for every aspect of the game.
Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray...these guys are all blazing fast, prime Fed floats out there. Seriously, look at these matches, they are sustaining in many cases 15-25 shot rallies. I have a lot of respect for the 90s era, a guy like Chang for example u had to kill and shoot dead to beat him...but to me Nadal is like an even more superior versoin of Chang solely on his mental toughness.
Outside of Sampras, there were no legit top players that had monster serves. Krajicek, Goran I, Todd Martin, Greg R...sure, bomber serves but get it back and then assert your game over their second rate game vs the top notch players. Today, these guys can all regularly crank up 120-140 mph serves so the return game has had to evolve. I don't see how someone can dismiss the fact that these guys regularly have to be prepared to return serves in that range doesn't give them all a huge advantage in neutralizing PS's best weapon. The serve was the engine for Sampras, if that's neutralized, guys at the Fed/Nadal level would destroy him. He wouldn't have the stamina to go 15-25 shot rallies for a 5 setter and his return game against these guys, no way.
AA I feel the same way about. Think about it, Hewitt and Safin were getting into their prime years while Sampras was still a GS contender and could knock him out. Yet these guys in their prime were getting hammered by up and coming Fed (yes AO 2005 Safin won in a brutal 5 setter)...granted I think Safin could have been so much better than he was given his head game but still, I just don't see AA or PS in their prime hanging with these guys.
GasquetGOAT
Hall of Fame
No one here gives a crap about whatever point you were trying to make. have you seen anyone else replying to your post other than your assclown friend? lol...
and was that federer crying comment supposed to make me feel bad?you don't know the half of it. ok so we know what rafa could do to federer, imagine what rafa can do to sampras?lol
thalivest
Banned
Sampras is better equipped to play Nadal than Federer is, particularly considering the poor tactics Federer regularly employs vs Nadal. Although Federer has an excellent serve, Sampras has a far more dominant 1st and 2nd serve and he attacks. He would not get involved in 20 stroke baseline rallies trying to beat Nadal's forehand with his backhand as Federer does. And he would rip returns or come in off them (especialy Nadal's 2nd serve) rather than chip them back which is what Federer regularly does vs Nadal even though he shouldnt be.
wangs78
Legend
I think you are spot on, especially with respect to Agassi. He'd be lucky to get even one Slam playing against prime Fed, Nadal and Sampras.
I have Federer posters on my bedroom walls. When girls come over they see Fed's nose and they become very scared. Then they want me to hug them, and a few minutes later nature is taking its course. HEHEHEHEHE. I call it the Federer Grand Slam.
Funny you call women girls. How old are you 13 Mr Tennis?
TennisBatman
Semi-Pro
In a 10-year, 40-slam period, assuming no one else wins any slams:
Sampras
2 AO, 0 FO, 3 WM, 4 UO
Total: 9
Federer
4 AO, 1 FO, 4 WM, 4 UO
Total: 13
Agassi
1 AO, 1 FO, 0 WM, 0 UO
Total: 2
Nadal
3 AO, 8 FO, 3 WM, 2 UO
Total: 16
Sampras may look a bit weak here, but that's because his best slam was Wimbledon. I really think Nadal's defensive hitting would outpace Sampras's serve-and-volley game, and Nadal would come up with some great volleys and passing shots of his own to counter Sampras.
Sampras
2 AO, 0 FO, 3 WM, 4 UO
Total: 9
Federer
4 AO, 1 FO, 4 WM, 4 UO
Total: 13
Agassi
1 AO, 1 FO, 0 WM, 0 UO
Total: 2
Nadal
3 AO, 8 FO, 3 WM, 2 UO
Total: 16
Sampras may look a bit weak here, but that's because his best slam was Wimbledon. I really think Nadal's defensive hitting would outpace Sampras's serve-and-volley game, and Nadal would come up with some great volleys and passing shots of his own to counter Sampras.
klementine
Hall of Fame
Ok... we're about the same age... have watched pretty much the same tennis.
I did not mean to sound accusative or spiteful in my text.... I just have a problem comprehending how Sampras and Agassi would not 'hang' or compete in today's era.
All things being equal... You either throw away the faster courts that Sampras/Agassi played on or you take away the full poly-hybrid string jobs that Federer/Nadal use...
Granted that Agassi used (among the first I believe) polys and federer still hybrids with gut... But the giant cuts that today's players are taking at the ball would be impossible without poly strings.
So many retired players rave. They wish that this variety of polys and co-polys would have been available in their era.
It is a detail... but at the professional level (of anything, not just tennis) it's the details that make or break you.
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
Yeah, Lendl says he can hit shots now that he couldn't think of hitting in his prime...because the angle was just not possible with Gut
TheLoneWolf
Banned
Hey Zoidberg,
Anybody with half a brain cell would understand I was making a joke. I guess that was just too much to ask from you.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
Sampras is 4-5 against Lleton Hewitt.
Sampras is 1-2 against Andy Roddick.
Sampras is 3-4 against Marat Safin.
Hewitt, Roddick, Safin records against Roger federer is well known. [Roddick is 2-19,Hewitt is 8-17,Safin is 2-10].
Ofcourse Sampras is 0-1 against Federer in their lone match kind of along that trend.
(Sampras-Agassi is 20-14 and Agassi is 3-8 against Federer)
Atleast for me they are clearly indicative of what happens if Roger Federer played in Agassi-Sampras Era assuming current conditions that Roger federer is playing under.
Sampras is 1-2 against Andy Roddick.
Sampras is 3-4 against Marat Safin.
Hewitt, Roddick, Safin records against Roger federer is well known. [Roddick is 2-19,Hewitt is 8-17,Safin is 2-10].
Ofcourse Sampras is 0-1 against Federer in their lone match kind of along that trend.
(Sampras-Agassi is 20-14 and Agassi is 3-8 against Federer)
Atleast for me they are clearly indicative of what happens if Roger Federer played in Agassi-Sampras Era assuming current conditions that Roger federer is playing under.
TheLoneWolf
Banned
Anybody whose username has the words Gasquet and GOAT in it has a big chance of being brain damaged.
Suit yourself, you freak. Why don't you start a petition on behalf of Gasquet to change the color of the tennis court lines from white to something else? Seeing so many white lines around must surely make Gasquet nervous. LOL.
GasquetGOAT. LMFAO.
GasquetGOAT
Hall of Fame
so thelonewolf username is better, how? sounds pretty stupid to me. just another freak with a keyboard hiding behind a moniter...
and the whitelines joke is that all you have got? u seems use it a lot, its getting bit old though.. should come up with something new, dumbass.
learn to read and stick to the topic you sampras assclowns. read the first post again, if you got nothing useful to say then do us a favor, get the **** ***.
GasquetGOAT
Hall of Fame
Good post. Don't forget Nadal's record against Agassi (and of course Federer), granted Agassi was not young when he played those matches against Nadal but I wouldn't think the result would be much different if they were both at their primes.
GasquetGOAT
Hall of Fame
maybe it's because no one gets your dumbass jokes? ever think about that? LMAO>..
slice serve ace
Rookie
Federer is 2-4 against Rafter.
Federer is 1-3 against Enquist.
Federer is 2-4 against Kafelnikov.
Rafter, Kafelnikov, Enquist records against Sampras are
4-12
2-11
2-9
So what? All Federer losses are 2002 or older, and all Sampras losses against Rod/Hew/Saf are after Wimbledon 2000, except one.
Federer is 1-3 against Enquist.
Federer is 2-4 against Kafelnikov.
Rafter, Kafelnikov, Enquist records against Sampras are
4-12
2-11
2-9
So what? All Federer losses are 2002 or older, and all Sampras losses against Rod/Hew/Saf are after Wimbledon 2000, except one.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
I am assuming this is probably in response to my post above.
Like i said in that post. I drew my conclusions based on what i percieved from the stats i posted. You are free to draw whichever conclusions you feel appropriate.
You can include or exclude whatever results as you please.
In fact this forum can conclude that Sampras can bagel Nadal on Clay OR Federer will never win one slam if he played when Agassi-Sampras are playing.
Nothing is surprising or out of realm. Logic isnt a strong suite around these parts of internet.
TheLoneWolf
Banned
You need to go back to Elementary School to learn basic spelling and grammar, you goof. Make sure not to emulate your idol and sniff that chalk dust from the blackboard though. LOL.
TheLoneWolf
Banned
Yes, maybe I should stop posting targeting intelligent people and start posting with people like you in mind. You sad excuse for a moron...
TheLoneWolf
Banned
I have the feeling a prime Sampras would smoke a prime Federer, except on clay. Why? Simply because whatever Sampras lacks in relative elegance compared to Fed he makes up with raw efficiency in the surfaces which are considered Federer's best. Just think about it (and I say this only to those that don't have a dried turd for a brain. Hint: That goes for you, GasquetGOAT.) ****, it's hard not to laugh while typing your username. LOL!!!!!!!!
Grass_for_cows
Semi-Pro
I think Lonewolf needs friends.
TheLoneWolf
Banned
As for you, who needs friends when you have willing sheep?
Sampras & Agassi are better
No one mentionned these vital facts.
Agassi is the ONLY player the stand well within the baseline and hit almost every shot. This would give Nadal a ton of trouble. He wouldn't have time to wind up with those heavy top spin strokes as much. He'd be rushed. He'd make more errors. Agassi hit the ball hard and VERY early. On top of that, Agassi angle the ball off the court and would torture Nadal on hard courts (US Open) and grass I believe. Not only would he make him run a lot, but he'd hit outright winners after making Nadal run for 4 or 5 or 6 shots. Just like Djokovic did during that 11 point run on Nadal during the final of the US Open last week. Agassi would do that (after a couple of more set up shots) over and over to Nadal. Now I'm talking Agassi when he was playing his top game where he didn't give up and fought for every point. That Agassi is better than Nadal...Agassi if 4 sets. Perhaps on clay Nadal would get too many shots back and push Agassi with more unforced errors so most of the time I'd favor Nadal on clay (but not all) and Agassi on US Open Courts, grass and Aust. Open.
Nadal could not deal with Sampras' serve...he'd virtually never lose it. Also, the points would be short even on Nadals serve as Sampras would not get into long ralleys the (dumb) way Federer does..he'd go for big shots and lose a lot of those points on Nadal's serve...but at least once per set he'd make a few big shots and threaten to break. At Us Open style courts, grass and Aus Open, Sampras wins on average 6-4, 6-4, 6-4. On clay the reverse happens and Nadal wins in straight sets.
Federer and Nadal with more majors than anyone because the game is not as DEEP today...so they only have each other to contend with and a little bit of Djokovic. Back in the 90's Sampras and Agassi had Ivanesevic who on any given day could play like the best tennis player ever...Marit Safin who has more talent and could play as well as any tennis player ever...you had Boris Becker...top 10 of all time who could also give anyone trouble at times...you had Hewitt who for 2 years was tough as nails...you had Lendl at the end of his career who was a work out king and tough. You see Sampras and Agassi had a deeper tour to contend with and that's why you don't see them piling up the grand slams like Nadal and Fed.
Lastly Federer is super talented and at his best and Sampras best I see it going 7-6 in every set...very close...BUT, Federer is not as smart a player...he doesn't come to net much anymore...nearly as much as he should...so he ralleys from the baseline valiantly against guys like Nadal and Djokovic and wins sometimes and loses sometimes...if he used his full Talent and brain, he'd be up at the net agains them far more...serve and volley and not let Nadal exhaust you in a baseline ralley every point. If Fed played smart and up to his potential he'd beat Nadal far more than Nadal beating him...so that takes Fed down a notch in my book.
Lastly Fed does not play the big points and tight matches very well. Fed is the best front runner ever in the game...put him in a competitive situation...he cracks..or better yet, plays just ok...Sampras plays better..he cracks 125mph 2nd serves at the tightest moments...true champion....and delivers mostly. Agassi too, he played tight matches very strongly...Fed seems to go away and make errors...look at match point in the open this year vs Djokovic....horrible..dumps an easy forehand into the net. Kudoos to Djokovic, when he had match points against him...he played like Agassi and Sampras on those points.
Some say maybe Fed is bored or doesn't care as much...but truly, I've never seen him play a super tight match at his normally super high level of tennis.
So in my book, Sampras is #1 of all time, no doubt...he'd beat Fed in 4 or 5 tight sets and perform better under pressure in tight situations which WOULD happen against Sampras. Fed is #2...Agassi 3....and Nadal 4. Agassi and Nadal is a close matchup I grant that. The same as Sampras - Fed, but the older generation is just a notch better.
No one mentionned these vital facts.
Agassi is the ONLY player the stand well within the baseline and hit almost every shot. This would give Nadal a ton of trouble. He wouldn't have time to wind up with those heavy top spin strokes as much. He'd be rushed. He'd make more errors. Agassi hit the ball hard and VERY early. On top of that, Agassi angle the ball off the court and would torture Nadal on hard courts (US Open) and grass I believe. Not only would he make him run a lot, but he'd hit outright winners after making Nadal run for 4 or 5 or 6 shots. Just like Djokovic did during that 11 point run on Nadal during the final of the US Open last week. Agassi would do that (after a couple of more set up shots) over and over to Nadal. Now I'm talking Agassi when he was playing his top game where he didn't give up and fought for every point. That Agassi is better than Nadal...Agassi if 4 sets. Perhaps on clay Nadal would get too many shots back and push Agassi with more unforced errors so most of the time I'd favor Nadal on clay (but not all) and Agassi on US Open Courts, grass and Aust. Open.
Nadal could not deal with Sampras' serve...he'd virtually never lose it. Also, the points would be short even on Nadals serve as Sampras would not get into long ralleys the (dumb) way Federer does..he'd go for big shots and lose a lot of those points on Nadal's serve...but at least once per set he'd make a few big shots and threaten to break. At Us Open style courts, grass and Aus Open, Sampras wins on average 6-4, 6-4, 6-4. On clay the reverse happens and Nadal wins in straight sets.
Federer and Nadal with more majors than anyone because the game is not as DEEP today...so they only have each other to contend with and a little bit of Djokovic. Back in the 90's Sampras and Agassi had Ivanesevic who on any given day could play like the best tennis player ever...Marit Safin who has more talent and could play as well as any tennis player ever...you had Boris Becker...top 10 of all time who could also give anyone trouble at times...you had Hewitt who for 2 years was tough as nails...you had Lendl at the end of his career who was a work out king and tough. You see Sampras and Agassi had a deeper tour to contend with and that's why you don't see them piling up the grand slams like Nadal and Fed.
Lastly Federer is super talented and at his best and Sampras best I see it going 7-6 in every set...very close...BUT, Federer is not as smart a player...he doesn't come to net much anymore...nearly as much as he should...so he ralleys from the baseline valiantly against guys like Nadal and Djokovic and wins sometimes and loses sometimes...if he used his full Talent and brain, he'd be up at the net agains them far more...serve and volley and not let Nadal exhaust you in a baseline ralley every point. If Fed played smart and up to his potential he'd beat Nadal far more than Nadal beating him...so that takes Fed down a notch in my book.
Lastly Fed does not play the big points and tight matches very well. Fed is the best front runner ever in the game...put him in a competitive situation...he cracks..or better yet, plays just ok...Sampras plays better..he cracks 125mph 2nd serves at the tightest moments...true champion....and delivers mostly. Agassi too, he played tight matches very strongly...Fed seems to go away and make errors...look at match point in the open this year vs Djokovic....horrible..dumps an easy forehand into the net. Kudoos to Djokovic, when he had match points against him...he played like Agassi and Sampras on those points.
Some say maybe Fed is bored or doesn't care as much...but truly, I've never seen him play a super tight match at his normally super high level of tennis.
So in my book, Sampras is #1 of all time, no doubt...he'd beat Fed in 4 or 5 tight sets and perform better under pressure in tight situations which WOULD happen against Sampras. Fed is #2...Agassi 3....and Nadal 4. Agassi and Nadal is a close matchup I grant that. The same as Sampras - Fed, but the older generation is just a notch better.
Grass_for_cows
Semi-Pro
If he hit almost every shot, how come Agassi was on the other end of basically every occasion someone set a record for number of aces?
Similar threads
