Sampras/Agassi vs the Big 3 - matchups

Aabye5

Aabye5

G.O.A.T.
This has been done indirectly a few times, and we're nearing the point where this would be relegated to the 'Former Pros' section, but Djokovic still being active allows me to skirt that line.

Federer is the only one of the Big 3 to take on both Pete and Andre, and he had a winning h2h against both. Obviously, they were clearly on their way out during many of these matches, while Federer was gearing up towards his best years.

Nadal had the chance to play Andre twice, but it was towards the very end of Agassi's career.

Djokovic never had the chance to face either.

Overall, how do you think the best of the late 90s would fare against the best of the 2000s? You can consider prime/peak, etc., but the question is essentially "on a good day", how would the matchups pan out?
 
Fed beat both so that's an easy one. Peak for peak he beats both on all surfaces.

Same with djoker I assume as well. Rafa might struggle on grass with Pete.
 
Aabye5 said:
This has been done indirectly a few times, and we're nearing the point where this would be relegated to the 'Former Pros' section, but Djokovic still being active allows me to skirt that line.

Federer is the only one of the Big 3 to take on both Pete and Andre, and he had a winning h2h against both. Obviously, they were clearly on their way out during many of these matches, while Federer was gearing up towards his best years.

Nadal had the chance to play Andre twice, but it was towards the very end of Agassi's career.

Djokovic never had the chance to face either.

Overall, how do you think the best of the late 90s would fare against the best of the 2000s? You can consider prime/peak, etc., but the question is essentially "on a good day", how would the matchups pan out?
Click to expand...
Pretty good I think. The poly strings gave Agassi Rome title in 2002. He was 33 already. He said how much more spin he could impart.

Best match I think would be Sampras vs Djokovic on hc and Nadal vs Andre on hc.
 
It's hard to know how Djokovic would fare against them.

The Federer vs. Agassi rivalry saw Agassi win the first 3 matches, and then be 1 point away from winning their fourth match, before Federer won 8 matches in a row, to finish 8-3.

Nadal beat Agassi 6-3, 4-6, 6-2, in the 2005 Canadian Open final in Montreal. Nadal had a brilliant tournament, bossing with the serve and the rallies, and only losing serve twice in the entire tournament. Nadal, at only age 19, also showed a lot of wisdom beyond his years in the final, when Agassi was trying to play fast in the third set, trying to quicken Nadal up and looking to the umpire, but Nadal just slowed things down further as if to say to the 35-year-old veteran "You will play at my pace".

Strangely, Nadal was nowhere near as good at the 2005 US Open, as Nadal looked lackluster against two American wildcards in the first 2 rounds, before another American wildcard, Blake, beat Nadal well in 4 sets in the third round, while Agassi reached the final and lost to Federer. Interestingly, Toni was not in Montreal, and Francisco Roig coached Nadal there. Nadal was simply too passive at the 2005 US Open.

At 2006 Wimbledon, Nadal had just beaten Kendrick in the second round from 2 sets down. Nadal's reputation on grass was pretty low. A lot of people fancied Agassi's chances of beating Nadal. Instead, Nadal beat Agassi 7-6, 6-2, 6-4, with the second and third sets particularly impressive. Nadal's aura on grass then changed very quickly.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Pretty good I think. The poly strings gave Agassi Rome title in 2002. He was 33 already. He said how much more spin he could impart.

Best match I think would be Sampras vs Djokovic on hc and Nadal vs Andre on hc.
Click to expand...
Agassi was 32 when won the 2002 Italian Open in Rome without dropping a set ;)
 
Lleytonstation said:
Fed beat both so that's an easy one. Peak for peak he beats both on all surfaces.

Same with djoker I assume as well. Rafa might struggle on grass with Pete.
Click to expand...

No, I think Fed would struggle against Agassi (as he did early in his career). I think he would like the Pete matchup, but it would be close.

I think Sampras would like playing both Rafa and Novak, but he would probably like playing Novak more.

I feel like Agassi would struggle against both, but would have more wins against Rafa than Novak.

Why? The serve.
 
Put it in 90s tennis conditions I like Pete and agassis chances, nadal would still dominate clay, Roger would find a way to challenge with his game on all surfaces.

Novak who have to become more aggressive and front foot. He's essentially a less proactive agassi and it suits post 2000 slow courts slow heavy balls. He's good enough to adjust though, but he'd never be as dominant as a creator than a destroyer.

Slow courts novak dominates except vs nadal at Roland garros.

Peak pre mono federer would have been a good challenge for novak on the quicker of the post 2000 rubbish surfaces and conditions
 
ratherlosethanpush said:
Put it in 90s tennis conditions I like Pete and agassis chances, nadal would still dominate clay, Roger would find a way to challenge with his game on all surfaces.

Novak who have to become more aggressive and front foot. He's essentially a less proactive agassi and it suits post 2000 slow courts slow heavy balls. He's good enough to adjust though, but he'd never be as dominant as a creator than a destroyer.

Slow courts novak dominates except vs nadal at Roland garros.

Peak pre mono federer would have been a good challenge for novak on the quicker of the post 2000 rubbish surfaces and conditions
Click to expand...
Hewitt legitimately beat Sampras , albeit old Sampras by counter punching.

Nole doesn't need to change his game a lot. A bit fine. He went toe to toe with fed on fast courts of our times.
 
You really can’t compare guys who are 10-15 years apart who’s peaks were involved in completely different conditions along with racket technology but if I had to take a stab peak wise Sampras was superior on fast conditions to all of them by a reasonably healthy margin. Medium hards I would give the edge to Agassi over all of then if we are talking peak because 95 Agassi is king on those. . Clay obviously Nadal. Slow hards Djoker

the Big 3 also had access to all the medical crap that gave them longevity. They would have experienced a much more abrupt decline if they came before. There would be no 20 year long domination LOL.
 
Last edited:
AleYeah said:
@TheGoldenEra1990’s is absolutely right. If you could magically give everyone the same level of racquet/nutrition/medical opportunities, surely by inserting Peak Pete into the Big 3 equation you'd have yourself a Big 4. I think Agassi would do pretty well for himself, too.
Click to expand...
And same thing with Sinner of today. Let's not beat around the bush AT ALL. He has entered the stratosphere.

92% holding for entire season , the guy is 6'4"
 
nolefam_2024 said:
Hewitt legitimately beat Sampras , albeit old Sampras by counter punching.
Click to expand...
Sampras was post-peak when he lost to Safin in 2000 and to Federer and Hewitt in 2001, but he was not "old" by Big 3 standards. He was just older. Pete retired after the 2002 U.S. Open when he was barely 31. He made at least one slam final in all of his post-peak years (1998-2002) and won a slam in all but one of those years. Sampras never really had an "old" phase in his career. In fact, I think the desire to avoid playing when "old" was one of the reasons he abruptly quit. He didn't relish the prospect of becoming just another guy in the field. Being nondominant but still successful in his post-peak years was probably hard enough for him. No way would "old Sampras" have been able to tolerate the kind of punishment that, say, old Wawrinka has been receiving.
 
Aabye5 said:
This has been done indirectly a few times, and we're nearing the point where this would be relegated to the 'Former Pros' section, but Djokovic still being active allows me to skirt that line.

Federer is the only one of the Big 3 to take on both Pete and Andre, and he had a winning h2h against both. Obviously, they were clearly on their way out during many of these matches, while Federer was gearing up towards his best years.

Nadal had the chance to play Andre twice, but it was towards the very end of Agassi's career.

Djokovic never had the chance to face either.

Overall, how do you think the best of the late 90s would fare against the best of the 2000s? You can consider prime/peak, etc., but the question is essentially "on a good day", how would the matchups pan out?
Click to expand...
I remember Agassi's account of one of his late-career matches against Federer. He explains that he is overwhelmed by Federer's level of play, and this doesn't seem to have anything to do with the fact that he himself is at the end of his career. Rather, he seems to be realizing that he's up against a stronger player than he's ever faced before. Take this with a grain of salt, as I can't remember exactly what terms Agassi uses, but I think it was in his biography.
I find this kind of comparison always a little bizarre, because to me, it's very obvious that players improve technically and physically over the generations (not to mention the evolution of equipment especially the rise of poly strings at the time).
The same goes in just about every sport, although it's even more obvious in disciplines such as athletics. Of course, this doesn't take anything away from previous generations. I don't think the pure performance comparison is really relevant.
 
AleYeah said:
Whether folks are a fan or not, there's no denying that elite is elite. Sinner had an outrageous 2024.
Click to expand...
Add him in late 2000s to spice things up. I would have added Carlos as well but let me wait until he crosses 10000 pts.

Sinner would legit remove Murray from big 4 :)
 
You really have to state the tech era? The huge difference is in poly, do the players have access to poly? Sampras never used poly, his game was not set up for it. Agassi got big benefits with poly, prior he used Kevlar/Aramaid. Take poly away from Big 3 and their games change. Federer's success occur not long after switching to poly. Nadal game and racquet is based on poly. Djok like wise.
Sampras does not benefit from poly era as much as Agassi and the big 3 games are based upon poly including racquet tech, prioritisation of shot development, etc.
 
AleYeah said:
@TheGoldenEra1990’s is absolutely right. If you could magically give everyone the same level of racquet/nutrition/medical opportunities, surely by inserting Peak Pete into the Big 3 equation you'd have yourself a Big 4. I think Agassi would do pretty well for himself, too.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think there would big 5. And what a glorious decade of tennis it would be.
 
JMR said:
Sampras was post-peak when he lost to Safin in 2000 and to Federer and Hewitt in 2001, but he was not "old" by Big 3 standards. He was just older. Pete retired after the 2002 U.S. Open when he was barely 31. He made at least one slam final in all of his post-peak years (1998-2002) and won a slam in all but one of those years. Sampras never really had an "old" phase in his career. In fact, I think the desire to avoid playing when "old" was one of the reasons he abruptly quit. He didn't relish the prospect of becoming just another guy in the field. Being nondominant but still successful in his post-peak years was probably hard enough for him. No way would "old Sampras" have been able to tolerate the kind of punishment that, say, old Wawrinka has been receiving.
Click to expand...

Hmm...he was "old" by the standards of the day. It wasn't that strange to retire around 31. Agassi was considered ancient when he retired.
 
Aabye5 said:
Hmm...he was "old" by the standards of the day. It wasn't that strange to retire around 31.
Click to expand...

Those are two separate issues. Being ready to retire at 31 because of diminished effectiveness in one's post-peak years is not the same as being "old." 2002 wasn't the Dark Ages. Lots of guys retired later than Sampras, at the point where they really were "old" in the tennis sense, because they were willing to make the necessary compromises to keep playing. Sampras wasn't.

Aabye5 said:
Agassi was considered ancient when he retired.
Click to expand...
Agassi was 36 -- a whole tennis generation beyond Pete's retirement age. That's why he was truly "old" for a tennis player but Sampras was not. And Agassi wasn't unique anyway. Connors played into his early 40s, as did Rosewall. Laver kept going until his late 30s. Lendl quit at 34. Ashe played until he was 36.

I would say that "old" in an absolute sense for a male tennis player, as opposed to merely "older" or "clearly well post-peak," kicks in around 34-35.
 
metsman said:
Sampras would be a godawful matchup for Joe, that much is obvious if you've watched any tennis over the last 15 years. Nadal would not enjoy facing him either.
Click to expand...
Nadal vs. Sampras depends on how long the rallies are. If Nadal makes the rallies last, he is going to win.
 
JMR said:
Those are two separate issues. Being ready to retire at 31 because of diminished effectiveness in one's post-peak years is not the same as being "old." 2002 wasn't the Dark Ages. Lots of guys retired later than Sampras, at the point where they really were "old" in the tennis sense, because they were willing to make the necessary compromises to keep playing. Sampras wasn't.


Agassi was 36 -- a whole tennis generation beyond Pete's retirement age. That's why he was truly "old" for a tennis player but Sampras was not. And Agassi wasn't unique anyway. Connors played into his early 40s, as did Rosewall. Laver kept going until his late 30s. Lendl quit at 34. Ashe played until he was 36.

I would say that "old" in an absolute sense for a male tennis player, as opposed to merely "older" or "clearly well post-peak," kicks in around 34-35.
Click to expand...
The Rosewall-Laver era was different, i.e. a lot more on grass and wooden racquets with pure gut strings. Connors was the big case of playing when old in an era of more hardcourt play and more power in the game, Agassi to a lesser extent.
 
Rosstour said:
With two Slams and a PED scandal, he's on the level of B3 + Pete? Ok sir. Glad to see you're keeping calm
Click to expand...

You can say PED a 1000 times.

Yes with 2 slams at 22 and 23 just starting , he has shown B3 level talent. Let's not show our own insecurity. He will likely chase down Agassi and end up near Sampras in slam count.
 
nolefam_2024 said:
You can say PED a 1000 times.

Yes with 2 slams at 22 and 23 just starting , he has shown B3 level talent. Let's not show our own insecurity. He will likely chase down Agassi and end up near Sampras in slam count.
Click to expand...

What am I insecure about?

I'm not the one trying to defend a doper
 
Mustard said:
The Rosewall-Laver era was different, i.e. a lot more on grass and wooden racquets with pure gut strings. Connors was the big case of playing when old in an era of more hardcourt play and more power in the game, Agassi to a lesser extent.
Click to expand...
I don't think we want to define the Open Era as consisting of an initial epoch in which many top players played well into their 30s, and a current epoch in which many top players are playing well into their 30s, with an anomalous period sandwiched in between in which a player was already "old" at 31.

Sampras was not old when he quit. He was just no longer dominant.
 
JMR said:
Those are two separate issues. Being ready to retire at 31 because of diminished effectiveness in one's post-peak years is not the same as being "old." 2002 wasn't the Dark Ages. Lots of guys retired later than Sampras, at the point where they really were "old" in the tennis sense, because they were willing to make the necessary compromises to keep playing. Sampras wasn't.


Agassi was 36 -- a whole tennis generation beyond Pete's retirement age. That's why he was truly "old" for a tennis player but Sampras was not. And Agassi wasn't unique anyway. Connors played into his early 40s, as did Rosewall. Laver kept going until his late 30s. Lendl quit at 34. Ashe played until he was 36.

I would say that "old" in an absolute sense for a male tennis player, as opposed to merely "older" or "clearly well post-peak," kicks in around 34-35.
Click to expand...

Don't bring Laver into a conversation about Agassi's age. It's a ludicrous comparison.

Sampras was pretty average. Agassi was ancient. There were not a lot of players at that time playing at his age, especially at the top level.
 
JMR said:
I don't think we want to define the Open Era as consisting of an initial epoch in which many top players played well into their 30s, and a current epoch in which many top players are playing well into their 30s, with an anomalous period sandwiched in between in which a player was already "old" at 31.

Sampras was not old when he quit. He was just no longer dominant.
Click to expand...

Yes, we should.

You had club tennis, then you had athletic tennis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Grunge123
Good and bad Matchups for the big 4?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Grunge123
Grunge123
N
  • Poll Poll
Which of the following matchups would make for the best match in Big 3 era?
Replies
7
Views
356
MadariKatu
M
L
The infamous bad matchups for "The Big Four".
Replies
13
Views
2K
burn1986
burn1986
granddog29
Break down your career summaries of each of the 6 "big 4" matchups
Replies
10
Views
1K
robert.s
R
Aabye5
Match-ups and the Big 3
2
Replies
65
Views
1K
Aabye5
Aabye5
Back
Top