Is andre agassi more versatile than sampras/federer/rafael nadalogram?

[PollyBallGirl]

Pretty sure sir andre won the 4 slams when surfaces were more different to each other than they are today. Not saying federer/nadal couldn't have done it. Just that they never could prove it because they were not in the big differences era. And i think he was more versatile than pete sampras. Because i know pete sampras could volley but really sir andre made up for it by playing so close to baseline and come forward in other ways and by doing his game on clay when sampras could not.

Sir andre i think is the best all-surface player in tennis ever. He won wimbledon in 1992 when it was faster than ever has been since. He made wimbledon semis later and only lost because rafter was so great. I saw both wimbledon semis on dvd and sir andre was really unlucky and looked just as good as rafter and might have beat goran in the final because he did in 1992.

Sir andre lost 2 french open finals and then won it with his 3rd event. And on hardcourt he was the best australian open player ever winning it 4 times, and also won 2 us opens and lots of finals too.

 

[drakulie]

Yes, AA was able to transcend his game to a higher level more consistently, and over a long period of time than many of his contemporaries.

 

[AlpineCadet]

He def. had that extra mile churning in him, since he's blessed with such amazing DNA. Such a great athlete he was.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Wtf is up with that STUPID nickname you have for Rafa? At least most of them are funny, have a point, or are at least catchy. Please come up with something better.

 

[netlets]

Fed would have more titles than he has now if the courts weren't slowed down to benefit the grinders. Wimbledon is a joke it's so slow with balls that have been opened early to boot!

 

[jokinla]

Good point, but I'd still say Fed could have won on all 4 back when they were actually different, not quite as certain about Nadal, but certainly possible.