Andre vs. Andy. Who wins?

OK here's the head to head history for the two.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=A092&oId=MC10

Surprise, surprise it's 0-0 since they never actually met. Andre's been kind enough to suggest he wouldn't have won so many slams if Andy had been around. So let's imagine that we can transport Andy back to 1995 when Agassi was 25 and say they were both the same age. Andre beat Sampras at the Aussie Open (in 4 sets according to wiki and it was his third slam titles following earlier Wimbledon and US Open ones).

So hard court tennis with Andre, Pete and Andy as the top 3 in the world. Let's say Andy dispatched Pete in the semis (that wouldn't have been such a shock as Pete was actually coming to terms with the illness of his close friend Tim Gullikson at the time).

Both counterpunchers with not much to choose between them on return on serve. Andy will get more free points on his serve though as Andre's isn't as strong. Lots and lots of baseline rallies with Andre's mental strength no doubt often showing through. On the other hand Andy's variety of shots including drops shots to bring Agassi forward could pay divdends (as long as he doesn't overuse it). Could be a marathon classic 5 set thriller.

Question is - who wins?

It is unfair to suggest that Andy Murray would have won Grand Slams had he played in Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi's era of the 1990's as the surfaces back then were different than they are now.

gbnut yes I agree but it was Andre who kindly suggested Andy might have won some of his slams not me!

Don't think the surfaces have changed that much (if at all) from the mid 90s but the quality of the top 3 have no doubt pushed Andy in his efforts to improve his game.

I don't agree with OP.

1. Andre was not a counterpuncher, Murray is. Andre was aggressive from the get-go.

2. Andre won 8 slams across all surfaces - during the career of Sampras.

3. Murray has not won slams against a similar player to Sampras, i.e. Federer.

4. Andre pushed Federer harder at USO05 at 35 years old than Murray has at any age in a slam.

5. Andre had a much stronger 2nd serve, FH, BH and especially return of serve.

6. Andre was much much tougher mentally.

Sorry but there's just no comparison between these 2 for me.

newballs wrote:... Question is - who wins? ...

Andre Agassi

newballs wrote:OK here's the head to head history for the two.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=A092&oId=MC10

Surprise, surprise it's 0-0 since they never actually met. Andre's been kind enough to suggest he wouldn't have won so many slams if Andy had been around. So let's imagine that we can transport Andy back to 1995 when Agassi was 25 and say they were both the same age. Andre beat Sampras at the Aussie Open (in 4 sets according to wiki and it was his third slam titles following earlier Wimbledon and US Open ones).

So hard court tennis with Andre, Pete and Andy as the top 3 in the world. Let's say Andy dispatched Pete in the semis (that wouldn't have been such a shock as Pete was actually coming to terms with the illness of his close friend Tim Gullikson at the time).

Both counterpunchers with not much to choose between them on return on serve. Andy will get more free points on his serve though as Andre's isn't as strong. Lots and lots of baseline rallies with Andre's mental strength no doubt often showing through. On the other hand Andy's variety of shots including drops shots to bring Agassi forward could pay divdends (as long as he doesn't overuse it). Could be a marathon classic 5 set thriller.

Question is - who wins?

I really don't think Agassi was a counterpuncher on any level. He was out and out aggressive, stood well into the court and hit the ball on the rise to take the opponents time away. If the two met and Agassi was in good form i think he would grind Murray out and makes him look relatively weak. Agassi took a bit of time in his career to improve his serve and ultimately it was very effective (more so than Murray's) as a complete package. I think Agassi was simply being nice to Murray by saying he would have less slams and Murray not slamless if they had played in the same time. Ultimately Murray's big match issues would still be there and post-Brad Gilbert Agassi had a much better ability to accept the odd bad shot than he had previously. Murray still seems to lack this ability. Agassi effectively had three career winds and each time, for me, he had added to his game, which allowed him to evolve with it. Ultimately Agassi won a career slam on the 4 surfaces when they were at their most diverse and so it stands out for me among others.

if they came up together I'm sure Andy Murray would score some wins over Andre, but it would be like 15-7 over a career to Andre

Agassi - can you imagine the pressure he'd put Murray's serve under?

Andy might win h2h against Agassi and Sampras but will no way win 8 GS like Andre Agassi did let alone what Pete Sampras achieved.

The problem with Murray is at his best he can beat most and he is kinda guy who will punish a top player badly when they don't play their best, when the top guys play their best he at times comes with no answer but bows and leaves.

Yes winning against Fed in the first 2 slams was a difficult considering Fed's experience in slams, but in 2011 finals against Nole he should have won but he didn't at that time Nole was not even riding on the big match streaks indeed all started for him from AO 2011, it could have been similar for Murray had he won 2011 AO but the fact is he didnt and its only gonna get difficult for him from here on.

OK agreed Agassi was more of an aggressive baseliner but he still had the tools to play a more defensive game like Murray (unless my memory is poor on that one). So I was really basing that one on his ability to wear down opponents to win the point as he invariably able to do even late in his career.

I kinda see where Agassi is coming from, but kinda don't. I agree Murray has the game that could have denied Andre some slams, but he has the game which could deny the current top 3 slams. The fact is he doesn't bring that game when it matters.

On paper you'd say a great 5 set match with Andre winning. But that's assuming Murray brings his game. The fact is that apart from Melborne against Nocak he hasn't brought his best in these slam matches for a long time.

So whilst it might be a classic, it also might be straight sets for Andre. Depends which Murray shows up.

Murray would have won a slam in another era, if Thomas Johansson can win the 2002 Australian Open, put Murray in that tournament he wins it probably. Put Murray in the 2003 US Open he could have won that, put Murray in the 98/99 Australian Opens he probably wins them. We will never know, but if he's reaching grand slam finals with Novak, Roger and Rafa around you have to be realistic and say he would have one at least one of those above

CAS wrote:Murray would have won a slam in another era, if Thomas Johansson can win the 2002 Australian Open, put Murray in that tournament he wins it probably. ...

How did Thomas Johansson win the Australian Open in 2002? Who did he beat and were there any tennis players not competing?

Andre wins!

I could see them having a real ugly dogfight on clay...

Australian 2002: Would Andy Murray been able to beat ...
Pete Sampras
Marat Safin
Goran Ivanišević
Roger Federer
Andy Roddick
Thomas Johansson
Carlos Moyà
Thomas Enqvist
Lleyton Hewitt
Gustavo Kuerten
Yevgeny Kafelnikov ...

Noore Staat it depends what age you put Murray in if we are being hypothetical, at his age right now I think he beats everyone in that draw, of course the thought of beating Sampras feels farfetched but the American was not his dominant best in 2002 and never liked The Aussie open a great deal, Federer is just 20 I think Hewitt would be his toughest test but he didn't win it that year so you would have to feel Murray would have won, no?

Henman Bill wrote:Andre wins!

I could see them having a real ugly dogfight on clay...

in clay andre will beat him hands down, come on HB.

I can't really say CAS Marat Safin got to the final, knocking out Sampras in the process. I don't really know enough about how the game has changed (racquet technology and strings) to compare the two on equal terms back in 2002. Also Murray wouldn't have got away with the extra time he takes between points - it wasn't really part of the culture of tennis in them days. That was something ushered in by Nadal I believe.

Sure he would be competitive in other eras - like he is in todays era, but a proper comparison requires a whole set of factoids that are not at my disposal. It is said that Murray gets jittery at the highest level and it seems to me that in the past many of the characters were quite solid in that department.

ps if we go by the principle that modern tennis players are more knowledgeable in terms of diets and oxygen tents etc, and more professional in terms of their training and gym work - then yes most likely he would have won a slam in most other eras. However, I don't know how we would factor in the changes in technology and culture (time between points after excessive toweling etc).

I suppose we could also say that players like Tsonga and Berdych might have also won slams if they had been playing in another era.

it just brings up the weak era debate once again, if people say Federer now has tougher competition i.e Murray, but that token they are also saying Murray would have won some slams in Federer's peak years. (which I dont believe, Federer made the field look average, only have to look at players like Haas, Ferrer, Melzer in 2010 which disputes it)

I like to think he would have won slams, but I am also a firm believer if you are good enough you will win one, Lendl had Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Wilander, Edberg and he still one slams, they all did. Maybe its just the consistency of the top 3 that is preventing Murray to sneak out a win

Andre takes this 9/10 matches.

As long as Murray remains motivated and keeps up his effort he will "surely" win a slam. He has shown he can get very close to Djokovic at the AO2012 semi-final, Federer is lacking in the stamina nowadays, and Nadal is not "super great" on the hard courts. There are no new Nadals/Djokovic/Federers on the horizon from below - so Murray by sticking around and continuing to work hard will eventually win one - in the next three years.

He was indeed very, very close to Djokovic at this year's AO. Djoker sure knew he had been in a titanic battle and was mightily relieved to pull through it, especially when you think just how desperate he was to keep the career Slam on track. Plus, Andy in fact took almost as many games from Djoker in that semi as did Rafa in the Final (22 v 25).

I'm with you NS in believing that he still has every chance to capture that elusive Slam.

On the specific of Sampras back in 2002, and just what might or might have been had Murray been around at the time : Let's not forget that Sampras was routinely losing (and in some big tournies) to all & sundry by that stage, a whole host of players ranked well below 50.

So it's far from far fetched (sorry... ) to suppose that Murray would have been able to see him off .....

But that's the past and we are where we are (at least I think so ....)

CAS wrote:Noore Staat it depends what age you put Murray in if we are being hypothetical, at his age right now I think he beats everyone in that draw, of course the thought of beating Sampras feels farfetched but the American was not his dominant best in 2002 and never liked The Aussie open a great deal, Federer is just 20 I think Hewitt would be his toughest test but he didn't win it that year so you would have to feel Murray would have won, no?

Lags I explained that in my post, I fail to see your point?

I was pretty much in agreement with you CAS, so no worries on this one.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself particularly well.

Marat Safin and Lleyton Hewitt stick out in that draw, but Safgin struggled badly in the final but a peak Hewitt against Murray may have slipped him up

4. Andre pushed Federer harder at USO05 at 35 years old than Murray has at any age in a slam.

--------

THis is part of the reason why I don't believe the argument of Murray winning slams in any other era. The way he's exited his last 20 or so slams suggests to me the man isn't quite good enough at slam level not someone who is oh so unlucky to be born at the wrong time.

I actually think Agassi is being kind to Murray, afterall what has he got to gain by turning off the UK fans by poking holes in Murray's game?

lydian wrote:I don't agree with OP.

1. Andre was not a counterpuncher, Murray is. Andre was aggressive from the get-go.

2. Andre won 8 slams across all surfaces - during the career of Sampras.

3. Murray has not won slams against a similar player to Sampras, i.e. Federer.

4. Andre pushed Federer harder at USO05 at 35 years old than Murray has at any age in a slam.

5. Andre had a much stronger 2nd serve, FH, BH and especially return of serve.

6. Andre was much much tougher mentally.

Sorry but there's just no comparison between these 2 for me.

I think Agassi would probably edge a H2H with Murray but a few points on this:

1. Andre's first three slam finals were all against players ranked 7 or lower in the world, none of whom had won grand slam titles at the time he faced them. Despite that, he still lost all three. He then got another chance, again against a player outside the top 5 in the world playing in his first slam final, which he managed to win. I think we can probably agree that if Murray had four slam final chances against players ranked 7 or below, he might have at least won one by now. Had he managed to win one, then perhaps the nerves which definitely inhibit his performances in grand slam semi-finals/finals would be much less prevalent. At the moment, he appears too driven by the sole pursuit of that one slam title and my view is that it is significantly hindering his play.

2. Agassi generally didn't have to go through Pete to win his slams. Indeed, in Pete's peak years he only made it past the QF in around half the slams he played, losing to players like Yzaga and Korda. Andre himself was also rather up and down. Of course, in today's tennis, you more or less have to go through two of the top 3 to win any slam. Of course, you have to beat who is in front of you but it's generally easier to play players in latter rounds of slams who haven't been there/seen it/done it before.

3. Agassi played a phenomenal first set in 05. He came out swinging with nothing to lose. Fed, in contrast, was a bit inhibited playing against such a crowd favourite. Agassi would have been a very tough match for Fed at his peak. Of course, Murray is a very tough match for Fed at his peak. Judging Murray's performances against Fed on two occasions where he has under-performed (see point 1 above) is a bit pointless (note he should still have won one set in the second of those finals).

4. My memory is that Andre's second serve wasn't great. Indeed, his first serve was fairly attackable for the majority of his career. Generally, it was about the same as someone like Ferrer now. I've no doubt that there would be a lot of breaks in a match between two of the all-time great returrners. Andre clearly had the better FH. Backhands were fairly similar, with Murray edging the slice and transition game. Andre would actually find it easier against Murray on today's courts than on the quicker ones in the 90s.

5. Andre also struggled to deal with the pressure of trying to win a slam until he actually did manage to edge one. He still remained a bit up and down even after that until he was about Murray's age now. After that, sure he was mentally strong. The one area I would agree he was much stronger throughout his career was putting opponents away. Agassi rarely had dips. If he got ahead he would crush opponents. Murray, in contrast, can lose focus and give opponents hope.

In summary, Andre was a phenomenal player and a legend. However, on the faster courts of the 90s, I'd have thought Murray (assuming he would have developed slightly differently as a player as a result) would have been able to compete with him. Andre with the edge on slower courts, with Murray having a better chance on the faster courts.

Andre.

Not even worth a discussion. He would bully Murray from the baseline, taking the bally early, creating wicked angles and sending the hapless Scot scurrying all over the place in ultra defensive mode.

A better discussion would be who would win between Andre and Novak, especially on the slower HC's



emancipator

Andre would beat him up badly in 3 or 4 sets. So what? What if Andy murray played the draw that found Petr Korda or Thomas Johannson winning slams? Still the best player to never win a slam in my money by a country mile. I would probably rate him better than most, not all of the guys that have won one or two slams.

There would be a lot of breaks of serve. In a 5 set match, I bet there would be atleast 12 breaks of serve (8-4 to Agassi).