Prime Agassi could have beaten Federer at Wimbledon?

[anointedone]

I wouldn't say Goran is a mental midget. It's not exactly easy to topple one of the greatest players of all time, especially on his best surface where he won 7 slams. Yes, Goran could have won Wimbledon more then once, but it definitely wasn't because he choked.

I see what you are saying, but I would say Goran arguably lost due to nerves in the 92 final, 95 semis, and 98 final vs Sampras. Alot of people forget the 95 semis, but he dominated that match in many ways but messed up often on the big points to allow Sampras to scrape by. Everyone remembers the 92 and 98 final, the 98 final even more obviously then the 92 was a failure of nerve.

Goran should have won Wimbledon more then once, even with the competition he faced, given the opportunities he had in matches.

 

[NamRanger]

I see what you are saying, but I would say Goran arguably lost due to nerves in the 92 final, 95 semis, and 98 final vs Sampras. Alot of people forget the 95 semis, but he dominated that match in many ways but messed up often on the big points to allow Sampras to scrape by. Everyone remembers the 92 and 98 final, the 98 final even more obviously then the 92 was a failure of nerve.

Goran should have won Wimbledon more then once, even with the competition he faced, given the opportunities he had in matches.

Well, it's true. Goran wasn't exactly Nadal in the mental department. However, you can't say that Goran choked, because he was the only one outside of two other guys who could consistently challenge Sampras at Wimbledon (the infamous Richard Krajicek, who only met Sampras once at Wimbledon, and Patrick Rafter, who just wasn't good enough to beat Sampras, but could give him a run for his money).


Could Goran have made better decisions at some points during those matches? Sure, but we can say that about anyone. Federer could have won the French Open or at least gotten closer had he not choked on those massive amount of BPs. Roddick could have beaten Djokovic in 5 if he didn't massively choke on his serve at the USO. Federer choked against Safin in that 4th set TB with a dumb between the leg shot.


Just because you make a few poor mental decisions doesn't mean you didn't play as well as you could. Sure, Goran made a few mistakes. But it wasn't like he tanked the match and was like "I GIVE UP". He tried hard to win. Just made one too many mistakes.

 

[Morrissey]

I see what you are saying, but I would say Goran arguably lost due to nerves in the 92 final, 95 semis, and 98 final vs Sampras. Alot of people forget the 95 semis, but he dominated that match in many ways but messed up often on the big points to allow Sampras to scrape by. Everyone remembers the 92 and 98 final, the 98 final even more obviously then the 92 was a failure of nerve.

Goran should have won Wimbledon more then once, even with the competition he faced, given the opportunities he had in matches.

I agree. Goran was not a mental giant in any way possible. He was too crazy or nervous to come up big until 2001. But anyone would agree that Goran should have won at least 2 Wimby´s in the 1990´s. Krajicek snuck one in there in 96.

 

[Morrissey]

Well, it's true. Goran wasn't exactly Nadal in the mental department. However, you can't say that Goran choked, because he was the only one outside of two other guys who could consistently challenge Sampras at Wimbledon (the infamous Richard Krajicek, who only met Sampras once at Wimbledon, and Patrick Rafter, who just wasn't good enough to beat Sampras, but could give him a run for his money).

Just because you make a few poor mental decisions doesn't mean you didn't play as well as you could. Sure, Goran made a few mistakes. But it wasn't like he tanked the match and was like "I GIVE UP". He tried hard to win. Just made one too many mistakes.

You can´t say Goran didn´t blow that match in 1998. He had set point and a second serve in that second set tiebreak and netted a very makeable backhand (which was his best shot from the baseline). I´m not asking for him to be like Nadal mentally, but even Fed at 18 kept it together in his only match with Sampras.

 

[NamRanger]

I agree. Goran was not a mental giant in any way possible. He was too crazy or nervous to come up big until 2001. But anyone would agree that Goran should have one at least 2 Wimby´s in the 1990´s. Krajicek snuck one in there in 96.

He should have had one at least, maybe 2. It's arguable about 2, as it wasn't like Sampras was like "hey, I'm just gonna roll over and let you win" like some players do today (i.e. Djokovic when he's in full tank mode).

 

[Morrissey]

He should have had one at least, maybe 2. It's arguable about 2, as it wasn't like Sampras was like "hey, I'm just gonna roll over and let you win" like some players do today (i.e. Djokovic when he's in full tank mode).

At least 2 in the 90´s. Even Sampras said that was the best serve he ever faced. That lefty serve on grass? Killer. He actually said something like that it was better than his own. That´s high praise. That kind of praise deserves 2 Wimby titles in the 90´s.

 

[tennis-hero]

Which explains why they both have the same amount of Wimbledon titles.

you can't be serious with that reply

Emerson has 12

is he better then Borg?

thats not going into the surface change.

 

[NamRanger]

At least 2 in the 90´s. Even Sampras said that was the best serve he ever faced. That lefty serve on grass? Killer. He actually said something like that it was better than his own. That´s high praise. That kind of praise deserves 2 Wimby titles in the 90´s.

His game wasn't complete though. And Sampras was slightly more clutch then Goran when it came to clutch serving. Goran was pretty good at it, but Sampras has no equal though.


Sampras has everything, while Goran has the one big huge weapon. The better player won in each match. This is like saying Federer should have won the Rome final against Nadal, should have won the French Open in 2007 if he converted on some of those break points, etc. etc. etc. Bottom line, Sampras was the better player that day. It wasn't because Goran didn't play to the best of his ability, he just isn't as good as Sampras.

 

[Morrissey]

you can't be serious with that reply

Emerson has 12

is he better then Borg?

thats not going into the surface change.

You could cause a serious mutiny in here if Fed gets 15 slams and say he´s better than Sampras. So? In the end, the numbers are what counts. If Nadal wins Wimby again next year, would you concede that he´s better than Goran then? Or will you still keep that ship floating?

 

[tennis-hero]

You could cause a serious mutiny in here if Fed gets 15 slams and say he´s better than Sampras. So? In the end, the numbers are what counts.

In the former player section, if you dare challenge the great budge/Tilden/Rosewall/Laver you face similar mutinies

i guess personal bias has to factor into everything

 

[anointedone]

I agree. Goran was not a mental giant in any way possible. He was too crazy or nervous to come up big until 2001. But anyone would agree that Goran should have won at least 2 Wimby´s in the 1990´s. Krajicek snuck one in there in 96.

That 96 Wimbledon even more personifies what we are talking about. As great as Krajicek was playing that Wimbledon, Goran has a great record against him (unlike Sampras vs Richard) so it was still a huge opportunity for him once the famous upset just finished while his own quarterfinal match was still going on. He ends up losing to Jason Stoltenberg!?!?

 

[Morrissey]

His game wasn't complete though. And Sampras was slightly more clutch then Goran when it came to clutch serving. Goran was pretty good at it, but Sampras has no equal though.


Sampras has everything, while Goran has the one big huge weapon. The better player won in each match. This is like saying Federer should have won the Rome final against Nadal, should have won the French Open in 2007 if he converted on some of those break points, etc. etc. etc. Bottom line, Sampras was the better player that day. It wasn't because Goran didn't play to the best of his ability, he just isn't as good as Sampras.

True, but back in the 90´s you could still do well at Wimbledon with one good weapon unlike today. Remember all those annual apprearances that Alexander Popp had during all those Wimby´s? He never did anything outside of Wimby. You could say Krajicek wasn´t complete either but he kept his cool and stayed strong mentally when he beat Sampras in 1996. But Krajicek was not a good mover, he only moved well moving forward, but not sideways and he almost always sliced his backhand too. I would say Goran had a better game than Krajicek. But Krajicek was calm under pressure while Goran went off the wall.

 

[anointedone]

True, but back in the 90´s you could still do well at Wimbledon with one good weapon unlike today. Remember all those annual apprearances that Alexander Popp had during all those Wimby´s? He never did anything outside of Wimby. You could say Krajicek wasn´t complete either but he kept his cool and stayed strong mentally when he beat Sampras in 1996. But Krajicek was not a good mover, he only moved well moving forward, but not sideways and he almost always sliced his backhand too. I would say Goran had a better game than Krajicek. But Krajicek was calm under pressure while Goran went off the wall.

Krajicek had no return of serve, horrible lateral movement, and a very weak backhand generally speaking. He only volleyed well on high volleys when he didnt have to bend since he wasnt that agile or athletic. So yeah this does show the importance of the serve on grass, and if you have an amazing serve anything is possible even vs an opponent who also has an amazing serve and a much better overall game.

Like you say Goran has a much better overall game then Krajicek. Much better groundies, especialy off the backhand, much better return of serve, alot more athletic, Richard volleys better I think but that is it. Of course Pete is the man on grass, but if Richard could pull that upset once almost entirely because of his great serve it certainly wasnt impossible for Goran to do.

 

[Morrissey]

I´m glad Wimby is what it is today. Back then you could be like Karlovic and possibly win Wimby. Goran and Krajicek weren´t very good outside their serves and they hold titles. But that´s for another thread.

 

[anointedone]

Yeah and Roscoe Tanner almost won Wimbledon one year on that fast grass, ugh! The Sampras-
Ivanisevic final in 94 was probably the most boring Wimbledon final I can recall as well.

 

[NamRanger]

Yeah and Roscoe Tanner almost won Wimbledon one year on that fast grass, ugh! The Sampras-
Ivanisevic final in 94 was probably the most boring Wimbledon final I can recall as well.

Eh, that's arguable. That kind of match would have been boring even on clay.

 

[anointedone]

Eh, that's arguable. That kind of match would have been boring even on clay.

True, and remember it followed the all time snoozer French Open final between Bruguera and Berasetegui. Before the the all-gentlemans Australian Open final between Sampras and Martin. Despite the quality of the players being high, the nature of the matchups that ended up happening made it one of the most boring years for mens tennis until AA made his resurgence that summer and added some excitement to the precedings again.

 

[NamRanger]

True, and remember it followed the all time snoozer French Open final between Bruguera and Berasetegui. Before the the all-gentlemans Australian Open final between Sampras and Martin. Despite the quality of the players being high, the nature of the matchups that ended up happening made it one of the most boring years for mens tennis until AA made his resurgence that summer and added some excitement to the precedings again.

LOL, oh yes. The great Bruguera and Berasetegui final. What a snoozer. "URAAAAGH! URAAAAAAGH! URAAAAAAAAAGH URAAAAAAAAAAGH! URAAAAAAGH" All that screaming and all you see is a bunch of moon balls the entire match.

 

[edmondsm]

You may be forgetting that Nadal has been Federer's equal on grass the last two years.

Yeah, but Federer got 3 Wimbledon's before that, and all said, has a much better grass court resume then Nadal. So until that changes, I still say that Agassi would have had an easier time beating Nadal on grass then Federer. And I don't think that's unreasonable. That stuff about the wheelchair was a joke.

 

[TheTruth]

Actually Nadal could yank the forehand crosscourt so far that he could force Agassi to take one hand off the backhand. Heck, he could also hit the shot with so much spin and the height of the ball would be out of Agassi´s comfort zone. He couldn´t even beat Ferrero on clay and he´s not even half the player Nadal is on clay. Agassi never liked having to hit on the run. Nadal spreads the ball around the court very well, even on defense. Agassi was only effective whacking shots from the middle of the court. You stretch him wide and his shots lacked any sting. Just ask Sampras, even Courier who owned him.

Excellent summation!

 

[Deleted member 21996]

im absolutely in love with the fact that all these "prime agassi vs ......." are popping upa nd people are so eager to compare both Fad and Nadal with him...

makes me wonder why the so called choker, untalented\talent waster (delete the undesired), onedimensional grandfather is still the barometer for tennis performance...

but, hey!... i still live in the nineties or atleast i am acused by some...:twisted:

 

[Cenc]

Agassi could beat Federer from a wheelchair, the same way Nadal could beat Agassi from a wheelchair.

thats why fed has 21 against nadal on grass

 

[Cenc]

imo fed is way better grasscourter than agassi, even though agassi from 99 was also excellent on grass
92 not bad either
however i would still bet on fed if they played (both in their primes)
lets say fed wins 7 out of 10 matches
on hard i would say the opposite

 

[navratilovafan]

im absolutely in love with the fact that all these "prime agassi vs ......." are popping upa nd people are so eager to compare both Fad and Nadal with him...

makes me wonder why the so called choker, untalented\talent waster (delete the undesired), onedimensional grandfather is still the barometer for tennis performance...

but, hey!... i still live in the nineties or atleast i am acused by some...:twisted:

Never mind that the threads are only started by renowned trolls of this forum.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Never mind that the threads are only started by renowned trolls of this forum.

that make my point even more so...

thee should be some rules about these "reply" threads. my proposal is: you do one reply thread and you win a one way ticket to Banville!

 

[vtmike]

Agassi has proven that he can definitely win Wimbledon in '92. Do you think PEAK Agassi could have beaten Federer at Wimbledon...?


Haw Haw! :twisted:

No because Federer is a better grass courter than Agassi (maybe 1 or 2 out of 10 times max).......but I know that a prime Agassi could have kicked Nadal's big butt on all surfaces except clay......hell even Graf would kick rafa's butt a few times on hard courts....Haw Haw