Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Nadalgaenger, May 15, 2013.
What about against the field?
I'd back peak Agassi on both kinds of HC and obviously indoors.
Slight edge to Nadal for his ATG forehand and mobility.
Agassi is one of the best ever at the Australian Open. He certainly has the edge over peak Nadal on slower hard courts, Nadal who is 1-3 in Australian Open finals and couldnt even win finals vs Djokovic and Federer from a break up in the 5th sets. I dont know if Nadal is even better on slower outdoor hard courts to medium to faster ones (or what constitute those in todays game). The tennis he played the 2010 and 2013 U.S Opens, and even Beijing 2008 and summer of 2013 is probably better than I ever saw him play at the Australian Open or Miami, best of which was probably the 2009 Australian Open I guess. He isnt that great on slower hard courts as some seem to think.
Grass is impossible to compare since they didnt play on the same type of grass. Nadal of 2006-2011 is clearly superior to any Agassi on the rye grass he got to play on then Agassi ever was on the fast grass he had to play on, but Agassi could probably be as good or better on the rye grass of today, but we will never know. Although Agassi would have never had a long stretch he was as consistently good on grass or any surface as Nadal was on grass from 2006-2011 even if he had gotten to play on todays slower rye grass.
Basically the mythical peak Agassi would probably compare decently on anything but clay, but Nadal is a far more consistent player than Agassi ever was in general.
I think Sampras would have destroyed Nadal in straight sets on 90's grass and probably wins in 4 sets on today's grass. For hard court slow - Nadal in 4-5 sets 7/10 times.
Hard Court Fast- Sampras SV would slowly strangle Nadals baseline skills immediately and would win in 4 sets 7/10 times. For clay Nadal 95% in straight sets Hows that?.
Nadal wins on slow to med hard !!!
Why always the hyperbole ? There is nothing in Nadals career, game or mentality that suggests that any player would be able to consistently "destroy" him, particularily in Bo5 matches!
Good question. It's annoying.
PS: BTW, Bo5 is not destroying by definition.
Separate names with a comma.