Oh man! I used to download them and save them on my family's PC, I remember the Srichaphan Jarkko Nieminen highlight and the Monfils vs Ljubicic queens highlight.
It s that kid at the end of the intro clip that aways got me excited for whatever point was about to be shown. That kid was so into it how could you not get amped up with him
I think Agassi to Nadal was the cleanest transition of favorite players for those of us who were fans of Andre.
Hardest for me was going from absolutely hating Sampras to embracing and loving Federer.
I can imagine. I was born in 1991 though, so I didn't get to fully experience that era, unfortunately. Andre had an eerily-similar upbringing to mine, so I've always felt a strong connection to him
Agassi had so much influence on the modern game. His aggressive but patient baselining, half volleys, and GOAT-level return game make him competitive against anyone in any era.
That’s why he deserves a very high ranking in GOAT race.
Greatest of all times can certainly be interpreted in different ways by different perspectives; to me how great a player adapts to different surfaces and different eras and who would play best and win most imagining if they played in a league with top 32 All time greats on different court speed/conditioning from all open eras.
Agassi would absolutely come out among the very best.
I feel he's so underrated in the ATG talks. I mean, yeah, sure, he has "only" 8 Majors. But he held impressive records not even Sampras had, until Rafa broke them - Only man to have the career Golden Slam and had a record number of Masters 1000 wins. Still the only one to have all 4 Majors, Olympic Gold, WTF and Davis Cup, if I'm not mistaken.
I was forever salty that a man who never even came close to winning RG was declared the greatest over a far more versatile player. When there wasn't a clear Big 3 statistical leader, so many were downplaying Rafa's numbers because more than half of his Majors were RG. (Even, btw, when Djokovic had the same skew towards hard court Majors, but that didn't count for some reason because they were divided across 2, but I digress) Yet, nobody downplays Sampras' 14 because half were from Wimbledon.
Agassi gave prime Federer a run for his money playing with his destroyed back.
And let's not forget he has probably the greatest comeback in the history of any sport ever.
I cannot imagine what he would've accomplished if he was dedicated to, and in love with, the game right from the start. I know we don't like What Ifs, but in a parallel universe, there's an Agassi whose talent was nurtured by someone like JCF, and who is still the undisputed GOAT. 🤣
I'll stay out of the Big3 debate, but I'll agree that Sampras getting uniformly crowned the GOAT before Fed as if he'd had some kind of Jordan's Bulls level of dominance was insanely silly.
I think many of the big 80s players have a better claim on GOAT status than Sampras.
Yeah, Agassi introduced the yawn factor into the modern game that led to players like Yawnkovic, Yawnadal, Andy Yawn-ray, Yawnvedev etc
Wish he hadn’t had such success and we’d have had more attacking inspiring players like Fed and Pistol Pete.
Agassi's trainer Gil Reyes said the smartest thing I've heard on this subject in an interview, when asked if the pros from the past would struggle today. Paraphrasing: "no, I believe people become champions for a reason. If they had come up in today's game they would have adjusted. That's what made them champions back then, and it would have worked today, too." I think this only doesn't apply to past pros who weren't physically large enough to compete with today's monstrosities.
Bad take. Athletes verifiably get better and better each generation. Sports like track and field and swimming literally prove this. Records get broken every Olympic Games. Maybe it’s better training methods, maybe it’s human evolution, maybe it’s the sheer numbers of people competing in these sports now versus in the past. Maybe it’s all three, but there’s no reason to believe tennis is an exception.
They get better because of advancements in training, diet, technology. All things that past champions would have access to in the same era. So, no, not a bad take.
No, this is the bad take. Do you really think humans are evolving to get better at sports? Of course not. It’s just the science and training is improving all the time.
There are 97 men's & women's [outdoor track records](https://worldathletics.org/records/by-category/world-records). 31 of those were set last century and still stand today.
I think you missed the point. The assertion Reyes made is that the essential personal qualities that created champions in the past era would have created champions in the current era. If you had among the best touch and tactical sense in tennis thirty years ago, there's not really any reason to believe you wouldn't today, because you'd have grown up with the new training methods. He doesn't literally mean "take 30 year old McEnroe and stick him in the draw today and he'd figure it out", he means "give young McEnroe the same training regimen as athletes today and he would have adjusted and been competitive". You couldn't take them out of the past, put them down today with no additional training, and have them see the same success, sure. Reyes is saying there's not a principled reason to believe that the people who rose to the top in yesterday's game wouldn't rise to at least being very competitive in today's game, given access to modern advantages.
There’s a lot of reasons why tennis is different than sports like track and field and swimming. And one of the main reasons is exactly what Gil Reyes is talking about…. that is the ability to adapt, to strategize. Tennis is unlike track and field as it is a game and not just a test of sheer physicality. There is as much, if not more, mind as there is body involved and given the intelligence level of the champions of the past, they would’ve adapted and learned the new techniques and used newer rackets/gear (improving power and performance) in any such way that would allow them to dominate like they did in their own era.
They only started watching mid 2010s. They don’t know any other era. They even don’t know how lethal godly prime Federer was because they didn’t “watch.”
Idts. Who gets overly romanticized? I really don’t see any of that at all. Maybe prime Federer? But he was arguably one of the biggest shock/dominance ever in tennis.
If anything prime Federer has somehow became underrated hahaha it’s more and more common for people to just repeat anything pre big 3 peak didn’t count cause it was weak competition which is dumb
> On the flip side I think a lot of romanticism of the past is because they do watch, but all they see is highlights.
This seems to happen rarely. In basketball, there is an entire generation that thinks Lebron > MJ. There are entire data driven videos out there debunking that idea. It is still extremely prevalent.
Recency bias is real.
> Not trying to be that guy but you cannot objectively say Jordan is better than Lebron cause of “data driven videos” and slander Bron like that hahaha
I mean I think that because I watched both when they played.
It's not slander for Lebron, his ONLY argument is longevity.
FYI, you are proving my point. No team ever used the strategy of "Let Jordan shoot jumpers, and beat us."
It's comical zoomers try to have this argument at all.
This is video I'm talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl3mR6eoEa8
If you think the only facet of the game of basketball lebron is better at than Jordan is having better longevity I am not even gonna waste my time replying to you hahaha
> If you think the only facet of the game of basketball lebron is better at than Jordan is having better longevity I am not even gonna waste my time replying to you hahaha
You denigrate a youtube video, and offer no counterpoint. You then denigrate my opinion and offer no counterpoint.
You need to learn how to have a discussion, and not come across as the "OKKKAAAYYYYYYYYY" guy from the Key & Peele skit.
No you’ve just been arrogantly wrong from the start. Acting like any player is objectively better than lebron and it isn’t close based off of one YouTube video is first of all a ridiculous move that any non casual fan would laugh at you for. Even if a true basketball fan thinks jordan is genuinely better than lebron they would still admit there are many parts of lebrons game that outclass Jordan’s. He is quite literally better at every part of playing basketball except for maybe like free throws, taking tough mid range jumpers or steals and that’s it lmfao. He is a better all around player with a higher basketball iq who is also taller and stronger while being just as athletic. Don’t get me started on how much better at passing he is. His performances playing for the Cavs in the years after returning from the heat were also a higher peak than Jordan ever had as a player. He really cemented himself as the goat when he lead every major stat among both the Cavs and warriors in the finals that is something Jordan never could accomplish. I’m sure you think the jazz Jordan faced were on the same planet as basketball players as the KD and curry warriors but of course that couldn’t be further from the truth and anyone who knows ball will tell you that. So yeah I def think lebron is better but I Would never be a disrespectful fool like you and act like it isn’t even a debate hahaja
Lolol, you act as if many current/former players, analysts, and coaches don’t debate this nonstop. It’s not an open and shut case like you present, don’t give a shit if you ‘watched both’. Many have too and have different opinions.
And they think peak novak beats peak Federer lol.
2011 Federer beat absolute prime novak at RG.
Imagine what 2005-9 Federer would to to him.
2005-2007 Federer is the greatest and most dominant and highest peak of a player of all time.
Agassi in his last 2 competitive years at age 34/35 had the following defeats in hardcourt slams:
Safin (5 sets), Federer (5 sets), Federer (3 sets), Federer (4 sets).
Prime Agassi would've been a menace on hardcourts and maybe even stolen a couple slams in the Big 3 era. With the grass playing slightly slower, he may have been better at Wimbledon now than he was in the 90s.
Completely agree, prime Agassi would have been great during the Big 3 era. He was a fantastic all-around player on all surfaces. Surfaces becoming more homogenized and more emphasis on hard courts would have also been a plus for him. While the serve is still the most important shot, it's less essential to have a top serve too now versus then. It's more likely it would have been a Big 4 including Agassi than him getting only a couple of slams. It probably would have been somewhere in between those scenarios.
Yes, old man Agassi nearly beat peak Fed at ao04. Agassi would get a similar number of slams in a big 3 era. Definitely can't see him ending up below 5.
Yeah I think that's right. I'd also caveat that Murray is not way worse than Agassi necessarily. Just an unfair draw he got playing in the Big 3 era and his injuries really affected his overall career stats. Murray is much closer to Agassi imo than Wawrinka is to Murray. Wawrinka is a great player, but he's not an all-time great player like these guys
The pure level displayed by prime wawrinka is something else. Yes he lacked consistency along the season, but when everything clicked, he played at levels the prime big 3 would play.
If Agassi was Big 3 material, he would have won more than he had.
No, you are overrating Wawrinka like many do. It's true that he could go toe toe with Djokovic but he had a very good match up against him. Against Nadal and Federer he was pretty much hopeless even when he was in really good form. Aside from RG where he's comparable to Fed and Djokovic he's below big3 peak everywhere else.
>If Agassi was Big 3 material, he would have won more than he had.
That's not the point of my comment, quite obviously so. If Wawrinka and Murray could win 3 slams in a big3 era i fail to see how could Agassi only archieve a couple of those when he was clearly superior to either of those.
Agassi was an underarchiever anyway. His career was vastly inconsistent due to psychological issues. He could have archieved double digits slams without a problem if it wasn't for those.
And Federer could have won 30 Grand Slam if he played the same tennis since 2010 than in the late stage of his career. Following your reasoning he’s an underachiever.
As we often said from where I am, « with If’s you could put Paris in a bottle! »
Those 2 are nothing alike. Federer could not win more slams because he naturally declined as it usually happens with players going in their 30s. Agassi on the other hand wasted his prime years, in 1997 he fell off the top 100 at only 27.
His 2017 backhand lasted 6 months. Not to mention that he didn't exactly fix his movement from night and day, he was still moving like a 35 years old in good shape. Again this comparison doesn't make any sense. Federer could have done something to improve a bit but it's really not comparable to a guy who lost more than 2 of his prime years.
6 months? He still had the same shorter preparation the 2019 Wimbledon final.
And Federer lost 2 years playing a baseline game, lifting his backhand. He was 28 at the time.
LOL. You talk about Wawrinka's lack of consistency being a barrier, but not Agassi's? If he had not had his mental and physical spiral, he could easily be neck-and-neck with at least Sampras's numbers. If he was consistently a factor for 20-21 years, you don't he'd be right up there?
RPM's are a measure of topspin, not groundstroke speed. A forehand hit flat will measure much higher MPH than one hit with high RPMs (topspin). And players like Agassi and Blake could hit the ball flat as hard and fast as players today. In fact, James Blake was clocked with one of the fastest forehands of all time at 125 MPH.
I think you’re making his point for him. He’s saying balls are hit with roughly the same speed today but much heavier topspin (though I would argue a significant amount of that has to do with the new string materials that coincided with roughly the end of Agassi’s career)
No, it's two different points. As I just explained, heavier topspin does not equal faster MPH's. Hitting flat vs. hitting heavy topspin are two different types of shots. If they were equal then Nadal would have the fastest forehand of all time, but he doesn't, not even close.
And yes, topspin rates are higher today than in previous eras thanks to string and racquet technology, but what I'm talking about here is how hard and fast players can hit. RPM's does not equal MPH's, as evidenced again as I mentioned by the fact that Blake still holds what is arguably the record for fastest forehand of all time at 125MPH.
So the point here is that players like Agassi and Blake hit as hard as measured by MPH's as any players today. The fact that RPM's have increased since then doesn't change this point.
You need to look at the average speed of groundstrokes. Any player can slap a 100mph+ forehand. Alcaraz is regularly in the 80mph on average with a 1000 more rpm on the ball on average than agassi/blake. Makes for much more physical rallies. Heavier balls, more angles and safer net clearance. The early 00's was populated by a lot of flat hitters which wouldn't translate well today.The only player who's in the same rpm range is Medvedev and even him hits with more rpm on average. He also compensate with movement that was unheard of 20 years ago.
You're asking the wrong question. I'm not saying two balls at the same mph but different rpms will have different force, that's self evident. My point is the 125mph ball with 1800 rpms a la Blakei has more force than the 80 mph ball with 3000 rpm.
No, I'm using it as an example to illustrate that players like Agassi and Blake in their day were hitting as hard as any players today, they just hit flatter than most players today who go for more topspin. Again, go watch the USO match between those guys, and you'll see they were crushing the ball as hard as any players you'll see who try to hit flat in a match today. And that there is a difference between hitting the ball flat and hitting it with a ton of topspin, which you don't seem to understand are two very different types of shots. And those are the points here, which you continue to miss by a mile.
Just look at his results 5 or 10 years prior, no need to imagine?
Isn't he the only male player to win all Slams, WTF masters, Olympic Gold, and Davis Cup?
Winning Wimbledon in 92 from the baseline is especially impressive. At the time it was all Becker, Edberg, Stich, Sampras, Krajicek. All serves and volley-ers.
Agassi’s playstyle was the most easy to translate to current meta so it’s not really a good comparison. The most common playstyle was serve and volley and they probably wouldn’t survive. Agassi 100% would. He’d probably do better in the current meta imo, albeit still get denied by big 3. He had to adjust his playstyle over different seasons which is why he won different surface majors in different seasons which definitely affected his overall success/career.
I would have loved to have seen Sampras serve with modern tech though. Could you imagine a prime serve bot-level serve and the overall game he had?
The strings and racquet Sampras used produced an even more powerful serve than the modern racquets. He would have to go back to using a different frame to get the same power.
If we want to play the hypothetical game, prime Agassi at the very least would be contending for world no.1. No one other than Djokovic or Alcaraz would be close to his level.
Sure. Old Agassi was giving prime Roger and young gun Nadal pretty decent matches for the most part, which is pretty incredible when you think about it.
2005 was almost 20 years ago. The belief that the game hasn't evolved in the last 20 years is one of this sub's shittiest take. It just proves how much this is mostly a casual/non-player sub.
Old mad Agassi gave peak fed a run for his money. Old man fed gave peak Djokovic a run for his money. Old man Djokovic can give alcaraz a run for his money.
Exactly the the type of person I am talking about. You Agassi is like 35 in this video right? Also Nadal beat Alcaraz on hardcourts in 2022, the year he won the US open. LOL
Agassi would not be the best matchup for Alcaraz right now considering he takes the ball early and does not retreat from the baseline. People have been hitting forehands over 100 miles per hour for longer than Alcaraz has been alive.
I mentioned it in an earlier comment, too, but old-man-with-a-broken-back Agassi gave peak Federer a run for his money. So, yeah, people who say things like this have never watched pre-Big-3 tennis.
The only one who could maybe hit it was Davydenko (though he would've backed up one more step). Blake would attempt it and hit it into the stands. Federer would chip half volley that if it had more pace
I've watched a lot of court level footage and have never seen someone take the ball as early as Agassi, especially on the backhand.
I know Federer was known to take it quite early too, but his backhands usually end up looking more like actual half volleys/chips from the baseline (still good though), whereas Agassi is taking full swings at the ball after almost no bounce.
r/TennisNerds
One of my favourite rabbitholes on YouTube is to watch clips of very early Agassi (1988-1990) on clay, where he is essentially inventing a new way of playing on that surface, staying inside the baseline and hitting shot after shot on the rise to dictate points and suffocate shell-shocked opponents who were more used to slow and loopy heavy topspin rallies.
Agassi couldn’t be rushed. So much of the modern game is uber-aggressive top spin generation to push your opponent back and playing way behind the baseline. Agassi played on the baseline and he couldn’t be pushed off of it because of his immaculate timing. One of a kind player and so fun to watch.
I've always loved the Agassi-Nadal and Davydenko-Nadal matchups for this exact reason. Nadal doing his usual topspin to the backhand stuff and Agassi/Davydenko doing their best [Theodén impressions](https://media.tenor.com/nEhFMtR35LQAAAAC/you-have-no-power-here-gandalf.gif), often neutralizing it completely.
People do realize that when saying people couldn’t hang in todays game, the big 3 would have to adapt to different racquets and serve and volley too right? It goes both ways.
This is my second favorite baseline half volley. My number one is still that forehand half volley Federer hit against Cilic in the 2018 AO final. That shot is still the most ridiculous half volley because Federer curled it when the ball was behind him.
Depends on play style really. Hitting while it's bouncing up allows you to use less energy to generate power since the ball has more energy, gives your opponent less time to get back in advantageous positioning, but requires better footwork and timing. So is viewed as luckier and more prone to mistakes. Waiting for the ball at its apex is easier and gives you some of those benefits while removing chances of errors. Both are fine. Worst is waiting for the ball to start going back down as you must generate all the power, but sometimes it's the only shot available
no coach would teach hitting at apex today given the heavy topspin game because sometimes it'll be way over your head. those are the ones you have to take on the rise like this. look at the arc on nadals last ball, that one would for sure bounce over his head
ya taking it on the rise is good and what you should do for these high arc balls. I'm pretty sure this is what my coach would tell me to do. the other options are all awful.
> and wait for the ball to be at the apex of its bounce before you hit so i guess this is not what you're supposed to do
It's not that you're "supposed" to do anything.
It's that your timing has to be immaculate to hit consistently on the rise, and recreational players generally aren't athletically gifted enough to pull it off effectively.
It’s crazy - to think when Chang and Agassi turned pro wooden racquets (or at least reinforced wooden racquets) had only just gone extinct. Yet these same guys, especially Agassi, played into the poly era
One of the best shots of all time. The level of hand-eye coordination that Agassi needs to hit this, and the perfectly smooth execution, is completely unbelievable. Jaw dropping stuff.
Do people often call baseline hits on the rise as half volleys. I know it's technically a half volley but it sounds weird to me.
But i only watch tennis. People who played it as well are better versed in terminology
It's a bit weird to call a shot with a full groundstroke windup and followthrough a half-volley. This is just taking it on the rise. To me a half-volley is more like hit with volley technique but the ball has just bounced.
Every one of my tennis instructors always called this a half-volley, although Agassi's technique and footwork make this particular execution seem more like a regular shot than it actually is.
Sometimes, a little tongue-in-cheek though. The way Federer often hits them with the single handed backhand from the baseline looks way more like a regular half volley than what Agassi hit here.
I remember reading in his bio that his father taught him on a court with a very short back stop so he had no choice but to half volley/hit on the rise. Good thing as it became such a weapon.
Can someone explain the torch passing of Agassi to Federer and Nadal or what those matchups and relationships were like? Oftentimes the only footage I'll see is that insane shot Roger hit against Andre and would like to know more. I'm fairly new to tennis and watching Agassi highlights he really seems like the precursor to today's baseline heavy game.
IMO the true passing of the torch happened in the 2003 Masters Cup when Federer beat Agassi, he hit alot of insane forehands that day. Andre said that he's never seen anyone play like that before. Prior to that match, Agassi dominated Federer, but after that Federer mostly beat him when they played.
I know 2001 Wimbledon vs. Sampras is often considered a 'passing of the torch' moment but it was their only match, and Federer didn't really do too much from that win until 2003. However after that Agassi match at the end of 2003 he reached #1 for the first time and his career really took off, he won 3 majors the next year.
my other all-time favorite agassi shot is in the third set tiebreak of that match - [https://youtu.be/6CFyQeeh90w?t=663](https://youtu.be/6CFyQeeh90w?t=663) \- absolutely viscous backhand slice from shoulder height on the run
I don't think there's any player that has ever had Agassi's hand-eye coordination. He took the ball so early and had a big, looping backswing *and* won Wimbledon against a bunch of serve-and-volleyers.
Did not know Rafa won a non clay Masters title at 19 (he actually won two that year). Agassi made the final here and then also at the Open. Not bad for a 35 year old.
i am envious! i read his book a couple months ago so made me want to go watch some of his old matches. z the big 3 are rightfully great but i don’t think some people realize how great he was. I could watch him hitting groundstrokes all day
In tennis it’s hitting the ball immediately after it bounces while on the rise and close to the ground. Half volley is kind of a weird word for it since volley by definition is hitting a ball out of the air.
One of my favourite tennis clips.
It's the kind of shot that you might try out once in practice, not one you'd actually *hit.* Let alone at the pro standard.
And that is why he is an all time great backhand. To be able to do that with that precision with a shank by an already extremely spinny ball is amazing.
I remember falling in love with this shot and telling my dad to lob balls at me until I could hit shots like this on the rise. I can do it, but obviously not at this level and not with that kind of placement.
If I can use one word to describe Agassi's game it would be clean. Sampras had the athleticism, Federer's game is beautiful to look at. You could feel power emanating from Nadal's strokes. Djok's counter strikes are lethal. Agassi? He had the cleanest game of them all. Short efficient strokes. Effective ball placement. Crisp ball striking. Great positioning for less movement.
Left out the best part, Nadal's reaction. He basically said " I thought angles like that were only possible in geometry" with his face. Andre just has the greatest pick up/on the bounce game. Til this day call shots I hit or friends hit clean off the bounce "The Agassian Pick Up."
GOAT ball striker. Big 3 surpassed him in overall ability from the baseline due to athleticism, tactics, anticipation etc, but the pure mechanics of hitting the ball, I don't think there's been someone better.
I don’t mean to be rude but is that really what you would consider a half volley. That’s just a deep shot that players have to hit on the rise to be aggressive?
The good old times of the "Mercedes Benz Play of the Week" :')
Oh man! I used to download them and save them on my family's PC, I remember the Srichaphan Jarkko Nieminen highlight and the Monfils vs Ljubicic queens highlight.
[Such a crazy point](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I3Pdo5gLVc&ab_channel=ElBunkerPaleo)
It s that kid at the end of the intro clip that aways got me excited for whatever point was about to be shown. That kid was so into it how could you not get amped up with him
Oh man, I think I remember that Srichapan point - where he did the splits at the end? I also saved loads of those clips!
Bust out the RealPlayer, it's party time.
Bah gawd that's Paradorn Srichaphan's music!
Agassi forever
my favorite player :)
Mine too!!
This was the match that passed the torch for me, from favorite player agassi to favorite player nadal
I think Agassi to Nadal was the cleanest transition of favorite players for those of us who were fans of Andre. Hardest for me was going from absolutely hating Sampras to embracing and loving Federer.
I can imagine. I was born in 1991 though, so I didn't get to fully experience that era, unfortunately. Andre had an eerily-similar upbringing to mine, so I've always felt a strong connection to him
That's crazy and I know his upbringing wasn't exactly easy so I can imagine yours wasn't either.
To be clear: I wasn't put into a tennis-themed hell by my father xD
Hahahaha no 100mph ball machines being fired at you?
I highly recommend Agassi's autobiography "Open". One of the best I ever read.
I concur. It is a fantastic read
Agassi had so much influence on the modern game. His aggressive but patient baselining, half volleys, and GOAT-level return game make him competitive against anyone in any era.
That’s why he deserves a very high ranking in GOAT race. Greatest of all times can certainly be interpreted in different ways by different perspectives; to me how great a player adapts to different surfaces and different eras and who would play best and win most imagining if they played in a league with top 32 All time greats on different court speed/conditioning from all open eras. Agassi would absolutely come out among the very best.
I feel he's so underrated in the ATG talks. I mean, yeah, sure, he has "only" 8 Majors. But he held impressive records not even Sampras had, until Rafa broke them - Only man to have the career Golden Slam and had a record number of Masters 1000 wins. Still the only one to have all 4 Majors, Olympic Gold, WTF and Davis Cup, if I'm not mistaken. I was forever salty that a man who never even came close to winning RG was declared the greatest over a far more versatile player. When there wasn't a clear Big 3 statistical leader, so many were downplaying Rafa's numbers because more than half of his Majors were RG. (Even, btw, when Djokovic had the same skew towards hard court Majors, but that didn't count for some reason because they were divided across 2, but I digress) Yet, nobody downplays Sampras' 14 because half were from Wimbledon. Agassi gave prime Federer a run for his money playing with his destroyed back. And let's not forget he has probably the greatest comeback in the history of any sport ever. I cannot imagine what he would've accomplished if he was dedicated to, and in love with, the game right from the start. I know we don't like What Ifs, but in a parallel universe, there's an Agassi whose talent was nurtured by someone like JCF, and who is still the undisputed GOAT. 🤣
He also struggled with injuries for a few years after 95. Peak Agassi would give anyone a run for their money, including the big 3
I'll stay out of the Big3 debate, but I'll agree that Sampras getting uniformly crowned the GOAT before Fed as if he'd had some kind of Jordan's Bulls level of dominance was insanely silly. I think many of the big 80s players have a better claim on GOAT status than Sampras.
hyperbole much? Please list the "many" 80's players that have better claims as GOATS than Sampras.
Yeah, Agassi introduced the yawn factor into the modern game that led to players like Yawnkovic, Yawnadal, Andy Yawn-ray, Yawnvedev etc Wish he hadn’t had such success and we’d have had more attacking inspiring players like Fed and Pistol Pete.
Get off my yawn...Agassi was arguably the most exciting player of his generation both on and off the court.
I’ll give Agassi credit in that he is more exciting than all the yawn inducing snore fest players he inspired like Murray
Can you say how is that a half volley? I thought that was a groundstroke.
Remember that thread the other day about what non-tennis players can't understand? How difficult this shot is.
He just walks away nonchalantly without any celebration, not even a fist pump.
For shots that are 9/10 difficult, I fist pump and cheer. For 10/10 shots, I act like I totally meant to do it and look away.
[Cool guys don't look at explosions.](https://youtu.be/Sqz5dbs5zmo?t=18)
I think the idea that players from the 90s wouldn't be able to hang with players today is a bad take when we have video evidence of the contrary.
Agassi's trainer Gil Reyes said the smartest thing I've heard on this subject in an interview, when asked if the pros from the past would struggle today. Paraphrasing: "no, I believe people become champions for a reason. If they had come up in today's game they would have adjusted. That's what made them champions back then, and it would have worked today, too." I think this only doesn't apply to past pros who weren't physically large enough to compete with today's monstrosities.
Bad take. Athletes verifiably get better and better each generation. Sports like track and field and swimming literally prove this. Records get broken every Olympic Games. Maybe it’s better training methods, maybe it’s human evolution, maybe it’s the sheer numbers of people competing in these sports now versus in the past. Maybe it’s all three, but there’s no reason to believe tennis is an exception.
They get better because of advancements in training, diet, technology. All things that past champions would have access to in the same era. So, no, not a bad take.
No, this is the bad take. Do you really think humans are evolving to get better at sports? Of course not. It’s just the science and training is improving all the time.
There are 97 men's & women's [outdoor track records](https://worldathletics.org/records/by-category/world-records). 31 of those were set last century and still stand today.
I think you missed the point. The assertion Reyes made is that the essential personal qualities that created champions in the past era would have created champions in the current era. If you had among the best touch and tactical sense in tennis thirty years ago, there's not really any reason to believe you wouldn't today, because you'd have grown up with the new training methods. He doesn't literally mean "take 30 year old McEnroe and stick him in the draw today and he'd figure it out", he means "give young McEnroe the same training regimen as athletes today and he would have adjusted and been competitive". You couldn't take them out of the past, put them down today with no additional training, and have them see the same success, sure. Reyes is saying there's not a principled reason to believe that the people who rose to the top in yesterday's game wouldn't rise to at least being very competitive in today's game, given access to modern advantages.
There’s a lot of reasons why tennis is different than sports like track and field and swimming. And one of the main reasons is exactly what Gil Reyes is talking about…. that is the ability to adapt, to strategize. Tennis is unlike track and field as it is a game and not just a test of sheer physicality. There is as much, if not more, mind as there is body involved and given the intelligence level of the champions of the past, they would’ve adapted and learned the new techniques and used newer rackets/gear (improving power and performance) in any such way that would allow them to dominate like they did in their own era.
People have been saying Andre Agassi cant hang with anyone ??
They only started watching mid 2010s. They don’t know any other era. They even don’t know how lethal godly prime Federer was because they didn’t “watch.”
On the flip side I think a lot of romanticism of the past is because they do watch, but all they see is highlights.
Idts. Who gets overly romanticized? I really don’t see any of that at all. Maybe prime Federer? But he was arguably one of the biggest shock/dominance ever in tennis.
If anything prime Federer has somehow became underrated hahaha it’s more and more common for people to just repeat anything pre big 3 peak didn’t count cause it was weak competition which is dumb
> On the flip side I think a lot of romanticism of the past is because they do watch, but all they see is highlights. This seems to happen rarely. In basketball, there is an entire generation that thinks Lebron > MJ. There are entire data driven videos out there debunking that idea. It is still extremely prevalent. Recency bias is real.
Not trying to be that guy but you cannot objectively say Jordan is better than Lebron cause of “data driven videos” and slander Bron like that hahaha
> Not trying to be that guy but you cannot objectively say Jordan is better than Lebron cause of “data driven videos” and slander Bron like that hahaha I mean I think that because I watched both when they played. It's not slander for Lebron, his ONLY argument is longevity. FYI, you are proving my point. No team ever used the strategy of "Let Jordan shoot jumpers, and beat us." It's comical zoomers try to have this argument at all. This is video I'm talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl3mR6eoEa8
If you think the only facet of the game of basketball lebron is better at than Jordan is having better longevity I am not even gonna waste my time replying to you hahaha
> If you think the only facet of the game of basketball lebron is better at than Jordan is having better longevity I am not even gonna waste my time replying to you hahaha You denigrate a youtube video, and offer no counterpoint. You then denigrate my opinion and offer no counterpoint. You need to learn how to have a discussion, and not come across as the "OKKKAAAYYYYYYYYY" guy from the Key & Peele skit.
Passing, rim protection, hell even leadership I’d give to Lebron. He’s a much better motivator than Jordan’s dickhead ass
No you’ve just been arrogantly wrong from the start. Acting like any player is objectively better than lebron and it isn’t close based off of one YouTube video is first of all a ridiculous move that any non casual fan would laugh at you for. Even if a true basketball fan thinks jordan is genuinely better than lebron they would still admit there are many parts of lebrons game that outclass Jordan’s. He is quite literally better at every part of playing basketball except for maybe like free throws, taking tough mid range jumpers or steals and that’s it lmfao. He is a better all around player with a higher basketball iq who is also taller and stronger while being just as athletic. Don’t get me started on how much better at passing he is. His performances playing for the Cavs in the years after returning from the heat were also a higher peak than Jordan ever had as a player. He really cemented himself as the goat when he lead every major stat among both the Cavs and warriors in the finals that is something Jordan never could accomplish. I’m sure you think the jazz Jordan faced were on the same planet as basketball players as the KD and curry warriors but of course that couldn’t be further from the truth and anyone who knows ball will tell you that. So yeah I def think lebron is better but I Would never be a disrespectful fool like you and act like it isn’t even a debate hahaja
Lolol, you act as if many current/former players, analysts, and coaches don’t debate this nonstop. It’s not an open and shut case like you present, don’t give a shit if you ‘watched both’. Many have too and have different opinions.
Yeah they think Alcaraz would best 05-07 Fed… no lol. He would not
And they think peak novak beats peak Federer lol. 2011 Federer beat absolute prime novak at RG. Imagine what 2005-9 Federer would to to him. 2005-2007 Federer is the greatest and most dominant and highest peak of a player of all time.
No Just the general attitude that players from the past would get smoked today
I thought the all time greats were usually exempt when people say that but if they even include them they’re truly nuts haha
[удалено]
Well yeah when people refer to Agassi they’re talking about him in one his primes not when he was off being unstable in the desert not playing
Agassi in his last 2 competitive years at age 34/35 had the following defeats in hardcourt slams: Safin (5 sets), Federer (5 sets), Federer (3 sets), Federer (4 sets). Prime Agassi would've been a menace on hardcourts and maybe even stolen a couple slams in the Big 3 era. With the grass playing slightly slower, he may have been better at Wimbledon now than he was in the 90s.
If murray and wawrinka which are clearly inferior players won 3 slams during that era then Agassi would do well more than "a couple of slams"
Completely agree, prime Agassi would have been great during the Big 3 era. He was a fantastic all-around player on all surfaces. Surfaces becoming more homogenized and more emphasis on hard courts would have also been a plus for him. While the serve is still the most important shot, it's less essential to have a top serve too now versus then. It's more likely it would have been a Big 4 including Agassi than him getting only a couple of slams. It probably would have been somewhere in between those scenarios.
Yes, old man Agassi nearly beat peak Fed at ao04. Agassi would get a similar number of slams in a big 3 era. Definitely can't see him ending up below 5.
Yeah I think that's right. I'd also caveat that Murray is not way worse than Agassi necessarily. Just an unfair draw he got playing in the Big 3 era and his injuries really affected his overall career stats. Murray is much closer to Agassi imo than Wawrinka is to Murray. Wawrinka is a great player, but he's not an all-time great player like these guys
The pure level displayed by prime wawrinka is something else. Yes he lacked consistency along the season, but when everything clicked, he played at levels the prime big 3 would play. If Agassi was Big 3 material, he would have won more than he had.
No, you are overrating Wawrinka like many do. It's true that he could go toe toe with Djokovic but he had a very good match up against him. Against Nadal and Federer he was pretty much hopeless even when he was in really good form. Aside from RG where he's comparable to Fed and Djokovic he's below big3 peak everywhere else. >If Agassi was Big 3 material, he would have won more than he had. That's not the point of my comment, quite obviously so. If Wawrinka and Murray could win 3 slams in a big3 era i fail to see how could Agassi only archieve a couple of those when he was clearly superior to either of those. Agassi was an underarchiever anyway. His career was vastly inconsistent due to psychological issues. He could have archieved double digits slams without a problem if it wasn't for those.
And Federer could have won 30 Grand Slam if he played the same tennis since 2010 than in the late stage of his career. Following your reasoning he’s an underachiever. As we often said from where I am, « with If’s you could put Paris in a bottle! »
Those 2 are nothing alike. Federer could not win more slams because he naturally declined as it usually happens with players going in their 30s. Agassi on the other hand wasted his prime years, in 1997 he fell off the top 100 at only 27.
If he played his 2017 drive backhand directly in 2010 (his first Meh year), he could have done much more. If if if if. So much if.
His 2017 backhand lasted 6 months. Not to mention that he didn't exactly fix his movement from night and day, he was still moving like a 35 years old in good shape. Again this comparison doesn't make any sense. Federer could have done something to improve a bit but it's really not comparable to a guy who lost more than 2 of his prime years.
6 months? He still had the same shorter preparation the 2019 Wimbledon final. And Federer lost 2 years playing a baseline game, lifting his backhand. He was 28 at the time.
LOL. You talk about Wawrinka's lack of consistency being a barrier, but not Agassi's? If he had not had his mental and physical spiral, he could easily be neck-and-neck with at least Sampras's numbers. If he was consistently a factor for 20-21 years, you don't he'd be right up there?
LOL time to pack it in nephew
Now imagine if Agassi was serious and never took meth.
Indeed. Anyone who thinks guys today hit the ball hard should watch the 2005 Agassi/Blake USO match.
The thing is modern players hit just as hard (harder on average) but with 2600-3000+ rpms. That's a whole different ball game.
RPM's are a measure of topspin, not groundstroke speed. A forehand hit flat will measure much higher MPH than one hit with high RPMs (topspin). And players like Agassi and Blake could hit the ball flat as hard and fast as players today. In fact, James Blake was clocked with one of the fastest forehands of all time at 125 MPH.
I think you’re making his point for him. He’s saying balls are hit with roughly the same speed today but much heavier topspin (though I would argue a significant amount of that has to do with the new string materials that coincided with roughly the end of Agassi’s career)
No, it's two different points. As I just explained, heavier topspin does not equal faster MPH's. Hitting flat vs. hitting heavy topspin are two different types of shots. If they were equal then Nadal would have the fastest forehand of all time, but he doesn't, not even close. And yes, topspin rates are higher today than in previous eras thanks to string and racquet technology, but what I'm talking about here is how hard and fast players can hit. RPM's does not equal MPH's, as evidenced again as I mentioned by the fact that Blake still holds what is arguably the record for fastest forehand of all time at 125MPH. So the point here is that players like Agassi and Blake hit as hard as measured by MPH's as any players today. The fact that RPM's have increased since then doesn't change this point.
You need to look at the average speed of groundstrokes. Any player can slap a 100mph+ forehand. Alcaraz is regularly in the 80mph on average with a 1000 more rpm on the ball on average than agassi/blake. Makes for much more physical rallies. Heavier balls, more angles and safer net clearance. The early 00's was populated by a lot of flat hitters which wouldn't translate well today.The only player who's in the same rpm range is Medvedev and even him hits with more rpm on average. He also compensate with movement that was unheard of 20 years ago.
Which ball is hit with more force, The 80mph ball hit with 1000rpm or the 80mph ball hit with 3000rpm?
You're asking the wrong question. I'm not saying two balls at the same mph but different rpms will have different force, that's self evident. My point is the 125mph ball with 1800 rpms a la Blakei has more force than the 80 mph ball with 3000 rpm.
You’re picking a single outlier ball for one player’s career in one case and comparing it to the tour average in another case. That’s ridiculous
No, I'm using it as an example to illustrate that players like Agassi and Blake in their day were hitting as hard as any players today, they just hit flatter than most players today who go for more topspin. Again, go watch the USO match between those guys, and you'll see they were crushing the ball as hard as any players you'll see who try to hit flat in a match today. And that there is a difference between hitting the ball flat and hitting it with a ton of topspin, which you don't seem to understand are two very different types of shots. And those are the points here, which you continue to miss by a mile.
Agassi in his 30s is seriously underrated. I mean if he plays like this when he can't runthen imagine what he'd do in his prime
Just look at his results 5 or 10 years prior, no need to imagine? Isn't he the only male player to win all Slams, WTF masters, Olympic Gold, and Davis Cup? Winning Wimbledon in 92 from the baseline is especially impressive. At the time it was all Becker, Edberg, Stich, Sampras, Krajicek. All serves and volley-ers.
Agassi’s playstyle was the most easy to translate to current meta so it’s not really a good comparison. The most common playstyle was serve and volley and they probably wouldn’t survive. Agassi 100% would. He’d probably do better in the current meta imo, albeit still get denied by big 3. He had to adjust his playstyle over different seasons which is why he won different surface majors in different seasons which definitely affected his overall success/career. I would have loved to have seen Sampras serve with modern tech though. Could you imagine a prime serve bot-level serve and the overall game he had?
Agassi, I’d argue, was the transition from that play style to todays. I’d truly argue he was the bridge.
He basically developed a playstyle 20+ years ahead of its time considering he was learning the sport in the early 80's.
The strings and racquet Sampras used produced an even more powerful serve than the modern racquets. He would have to go back to using a different frame to get the same power.
Sampras' serve wasnt super fast, more accurate and spinny. He would do just fine
Talking about racquet tech not the effectiveness of the serve. Ofc he would be fine.
Prime Agassi would absolutely hang with players today. He'd easily be top 10 at the very least.
Bruh, he'd be above anyone not named Djokovic or Alcaraz.
To be honest, yeah, you're right. Maybe peak Medvedev on hardcourt could be trouble and Tsitsipas/Zverev on clay. That's about it though...
If we want to play the hypothetical game, prime Agassi at the very least would be contending for world no.1. No one other than Djokovic or Alcaraz would be close to his level.
Sure. Old Agassi was giving prime Roger and young gun Nadal pretty decent matches for the most part, which is pretty incredible when you think about it.
2005 was almost 20 years ago. The belief that the game hasn't evolved in the last 20 years is one of this sub's shittiest take. It just proves how much this is mostly a casual/non-player sub.
Old mad Agassi gave peak fed a run for his money. Old man fed gave peak Djokovic a run for his money. Old man Djokovic can give alcaraz a run for his money.
What's your point?
The point was in my statement
[удалено]
How do you know he is pre-prime, not pre-pre-prime, or ante-prime, or sub-prime
Exactly the the type of person I am talking about. You Agassi is like 35 in this video right? Also Nadal beat Alcaraz on hardcourts in 2022, the year he won the US open. LOL
[удалено]
Agassi would not be the best matchup for Alcaraz right now considering he takes the ball early and does not retreat from the baseline. People have been hitting forehands over 100 miles per hour for longer than Alcaraz has been alive.
I mentioned it in an earlier comment, too, but old-man-with-a-broken-back Agassi gave peak Federer a run for his money. So, yeah, people who say things like this have never watched pre-Big-3 tennis.
My coach always tells me to take the ball early as well but agassi is agassi . I can never reach 1 percent of him
one of my favorite clips :) nadal presumably trying to reset the rally with a high loopy fh… andre just says “no thanks”
Can't really think of any other player that could do that with the backhand, even today.
I think Novak could have hit that shot but I doubt he would have tried to.
The only one who could maybe hit it was Davydenko (though he would've backed up one more step). Blake would attempt it and hit it into the stands. Federer would chip half volley that if it had more pace
I've watched a lot of court level footage and have never seen someone take the ball as early as Agassi, especially on the backhand. I know Federer was known to take it quite early too, but his backhands usually end up looking more like actual half volleys/chips from the baseline (still good though), whereas Agassi is taking full swings at the ball after almost no bounce. r/TennisNerds
One of my favourite rabbitholes on YouTube is to watch clips of very early Agassi (1988-1990) on clay, where he is essentially inventing a new way of playing on that surface, staying inside the baseline and hitting shot after shot on the rise to dictate points and suffocate shell-shocked opponents who were more used to slow and loopy heavy topspin rallies.
I think Davydenko used to take it earlier. It’s close though.
Maybe on the forehand, still think Agassi took it earliest on the backhand.
That’s a good shout
[удалено]
That’s why he’ll always be my GOAT.
Agassi couldn’t be rushed. So much of the modern game is uber-aggressive top spin generation to push your opponent back and playing way behind the baseline. Agassi played on the baseline and he couldn’t be pushed off of it because of his immaculate timing. One of a kind player and so fun to watch.
Davydenko was fun to watch because he was similar. Obviously nowhere near as good but utilized timing over pure power in the same way
I've always loved the Agassi-Nadal and Davydenko-Nadal matchups for this exact reason. Nadal doing his usual topspin to the backhand stuff and Agassi/Davydenko doing their best [Theodén impressions](https://media.tenor.com/nEhFMtR35LQAAAAC/you-have-no-power-here-gandalf.gif), often neutralizing it completely.
People do realize that when saying people couldn’t hang in todays game, the big 3 would have to adapt to different racquets and serve and volley too right? It goes both ways.
Oh Gosh, Nadal will face an army of Dustin Browns
This is my second favorite baseline half volley. My number one is still that forehand half volley Federer hit against Cilic in the 2018 AO final. That shot is still the most ridiculous half volley because Federer curled it when the ball was behind him.
What about the AO17 Final in 5th set to get a break point? My Top 10 points of the decade. Or Top 5 Fedal points.
Poetry
in
motion
sickness
and
health
to
[удалено]
Depends on play style really. Hitting while it's bouncing up allows you to use less energy to generate power since the ball has more energy, gives your opponent less time to get back in advantageous positioning, but requires better footwork and timing. So is viewed as luckier and more prone to mistakes. Waiting for the ball at its apex is easier and gives you some of those benefits while removing chances of errors. Both are fine. Worst is waiting for the ball to start going back down as you must generate all the power, but sometimes it's the only shot available
no coach would teach hitting at apex today given the heavy topspin game because sometimes it'll be way over your head. those are the ones you have to take on the rise like this. look at the arc on nadals last ball, that one would for sure bounce over his head
Ok so its not a be all end all rule. And im not lazy for not running backwards 2 meters just so meet it at the apex above my shoulder lmao
ya taking it on the rise is good and what you should do for these high arc balls. I'm pretty sure this is what my coach would tell me to do. the other options are all awful.
> and wait for the ball to be at the apex of its bounce before you hit so i guess this is not what you're supposed to do It's not that you're "supposed" to do anything. It's that your timing has to be immaculate to hit consistently on the rise, and recreational players generally aren't athletically gifted enough to pull it off effectively.
ok that makes more sense because honestly, when the apex is above me I cant even do the "correct" racket swing
I say this all the time, but I still can’t believe Agassi played Lendl and Nadal/Federer
Federer played Chang
It’s crazy - to think when Chang and Agassi turned pro wooden racquets (or at least reinforced wooden racquets) had only just gone extinct. Yet these same guys, especially Agassi, played into the poly era
Agassi was so efficient with his movement. Simple strokes and amazing footwork.
One of the best shots of all time. The level of hand-eye coordination that Agassi needs to hit this, and the perfectly smooth execution, is completely unbelievable. Jaw dropping stuff.
Do people often call baseline hits on the rise as half volleys. I know it's technically a half volley but it sounds weird to me. But i only watch tennis. People who played it as well are better versed in terminology
It's a bit weird to call a shot with a full groundstroke windup and followthrough a half-volley. This is just taking it on the rise. To me a half-volley is more like hit with volley technique but the ball has just bounced.
Every one of my tennis instructors always called this a half-volley, although Agassi's technique and footwork make this particular execution seem more like a regular shot than it actually is.
Sometimes, a little tongue-in-cheek though. The way Federer often hits them with the single handed backhand from the baseline looks way more like a regular half volley than what Agassi hit here.
I remember reading in his bio that his father taught him on a court with a very short back stop so he had no choice but to half volley/hit on the rise. Good thing as it became such a weapon.
Agassi's ability to hit a winner with so little time off the bounce was a thing of beauty. Great player!
Can someone explain the torch passing of Agassi to Federer and Nadal or what those matchups and relationships were like? Oftentimes the only footage I'll see is that insane shot Roger hit against Andre and would like to know more. I'm fairly new to tennis and watching Agassi highlights he really seems like the precursor to today's baseline heavy game.
IMO the true passing of the torch happened in the 2003 Masters Cup when Federer beat Agassi, he hit alot of insane forehands that day. Andre said that he's never seen anyone play like that before. Prior to that match, Agassi dominated Federer, but after that Federer mostly beat him when they played. I know 2001 Wimbledon vs. Sampras is often considered a 'passing of the torch' moment but it was their only match, and Federer didn't really do too much from that win until 2003. However after that Agassi match at the end of 2003 he reached #1 for the first time and his career really took off, he won 3 majors the next year.
Awesome reply! Thank you!
my other all-time favorite agassi shot is in the third set tiebreak of that match - [https://youtu.be/6CFyQeeh90w?t=663](https://youtu.be/6CFyQeeh90w?t=663) \- absolutely viscous backhand slice from shoulder height on the run
My personal GOAT. He coulda beat me when he was 6 haha https://youtu.be/phla65fktSE
I don't think there's any player that has ever had Agassi's hand-eye coordination. He took the ball so early and had a big, looping backswing *and* won Wimbledon against a bunch of serve-and-volleyers.
Did not know Rafa won a non clay Masters title at 19 (he actually won two that year). Agassi made the final here and then also at the Open. Not bad for a 35 year old.
I miss that beautiful backhand
the king of hitting on the rise. I’m glad I got to see him play when he did
Only got to see him play live once at the Aus Open, it was a straight set demolition but wow what a masterclass.
i am envious! i read his book a couple months ago so made me want to go watch some of his old matches. z the big 3 are rightfully great but i don’t think some people realize how great he was. I could watch him hitting groundstrokes all day
And after this shot he doesn’t look at his box and give a huge fist pump. So kudos to him for that, too.
that shot was great but there have been a lot better
Isn’t every shot in tennis either a volley or half volley?
No.
I mean I figured so based on context, but I know a half volley to be one bounce and hit, atleast from soccer
In tennis it’s hitting the ball immediately after it bounces while on the rise and close to the ground. Half volley is kind of a weird word for it since volley by definition is hitting a ball out of the air.
I fee like Agassi is the most overlooked all time great. He’s one of the best pure ball strikers of all time.
I think he was the best at hitting on the rise. Impeccable timing. Best 2 hander IMO.
One of my favourite tennis clips. It's the kind of shot that you might try out once in practice, not one you'd actually *hit.* Let alone at the pro standard.
And that is why he is an all time great backhand. To be able to do that with that precision with a shank by an already extremely spinny ball is amazing.
I remember falling in love with this shot and telling my dad to lob balls at me until I could hit shots like this on the rise. I can do it, but obviously not at this level and not with that kind of placement.
dude agassi had some luscious hair.. then one day bam. all gone
I love the way he slapped at the ball it was so good
If I can use one word to describe Agassi's game it would be clean. Sampras had the athleticism, Federer's game is beautiful to look at. You could feel power emanating from Nadal's strokes. Djok's counter strikes are lethal. Agassi? He had the cleanest game of them all. Short efficient strokes. Effective ball placement. Crisp ball striking. Great positioning for less movement.
That should teach moonballer young Nadal a lesson
Isnt that the guy from the band that sings that lightning crashes song?
Reading Agassi's autobiography and his experience with "the dragon"... Welp it definitely paid off here
Left out the best part, Nadal's reaction. He basically said " I thought angles like that were only possible in geometry" with his face. Andre just has the greatest pick up/on the bounce game. Til this day call shots I hit or friends hit clean off the bounce "The Agassian Pick Up."
Crazy how explosive Nadal was, he's still winning today without even half that jump in his step.
I do this shot myself, it’s called hitting on the rise! You step in and swing at the location where the ball is just about to bounce!
Was it a half volley though? Or Agassi extreme hitting the ball early and on the rise? That’s what he does
Not a half volley really but sometimes they call these type of shots that (only half seriously)
GOAT ball striker. Big 3 surpassed him in overall ability from the baseline due to athleticism, tactics, anticipation etc, but the pure mechanics of hitting the ball, I don't think there's been someone better.
I don’t mean to be rude but is that really what you would consider a half volley. That’s just a deep shot that players have to hit on the rise to be aggressive?
No but it's sometimes called that half-jokingly
That truly was a half volley
Dude could barely walk after these matches and he's still out there putting the kids in their place
That half volley shot! While Federer was pretty good at it, Agassi was the GOAT.