If Sampras and Agassi were at their best today, what would the rankings be?

Question

I think Roger, Pete, Andre, Rafa, and Djokovic are the most talented players to come along in the past 15 years. Unfortunately, we will never get to see Pete and Andre at their best go up against Roger, Rafa, and Nole. If they were at their best, what do you think the rankings would look like? They would certainly be very close together because there is so litttle separating them talent wise. Other than Rafa on clay, I think anyone could win on a given day. What do you think?

Answer 1

might be ups and down on 1 and 2 sampras and roger...but i thing in know if they are on the same era they would not earn 14 and 12 grandslams each....but if they are on the same age and prime of career i would say pete will dominate roger....huh i just remember how the young sampras is playing....

Answer 2

Sampras and Federer are the best to ever play the game (minus rod laver) they would switch off being 1 and 2

       Pete would dominate the grass court season and Fed would would dominate the majority of the hard court season, nadal would dominate clay, and agassi will have his licks every now and then

1-2. Pete and Roger

3Agassi

4Rafa

Djokovic does NOT belong with these guys, way too early to tell

Answer 3

My rankings list would look like this:

1. Federer

2. Sampras

3. Nadal

4. Djokovic

5. Agassi

Answer 4

i think that federer is by far the most talented player to ever step foot on the court. i think that he would blow pete and andre away, even if they were at their best. but that would be a very interesting matchup to watch. i wish there was some way to see them play at their best against the fed express.

Answer 5

Well, hard to say. Consider this:

- Agassi is the only man to ever win all four Majors on the way they are played today, on three different surfaces. Others have won them all before, but not on diff surfaces.

- Sampras had a forearm the size of your calves. He strung his racquets at 65-70 lbs, which is not even in the same universe as Federer, who plays in the low 50lbs range. In this sense, Sampras was more like a Rafa, with big power. Although he did have fluid mechanics similar to Roger's.

- Sampras had a weak backhand. In today's all-court games, this may have been a major weakness.

- Rafa works so hard to stay on top, many wonder how long his career can last. In fact, his body is already plagued with injuries on his soles of his feet, bad knees etc... Djoko and Fed would seem, in this sense, to be closer to greatness than Rafa is.

Answer 6

Considering that courts today are slower than the 90s, I would rank Pete in the top 5, but not #1 or 2. I'd say

1. Roger

2. Rafa

3. Andre

4. Pete

5. Novak

Answer 7

1-2. sampras/federer

3. rafa

4. andre

5. novak

Answer 8

1.federer

2.sampras

3.nadal

4.Agassi

5.djokovic

6.davydenko

Answer 9

I would say  its still Roger on top followed by Sampras, Nadal and Agassi...this would be the best rankings we will ever have...

Answer 10

1-Sampras

2-Federer

3-Agassi

4-Djokovic

5-Nadal

Answer 11

Very hard to say but they would definitely be near the top. Unfortunately, Federer only played Sampras once. They both played excellently for five sets but, given that neither man was at the height of his game, you can't read much into it. He did play Agassi a few times, but all of their most recent matches came as Andre's career was winding down. Nadal never faced Sampras and only faced an out of form Agassi a couple of times. And, to my knowledge, Djokovic never played either. As they were of different eras, it is impossible to say how their games would match up. All that can be said is that Sampras, Agassi, and Federer are all all-time greats. Nadal is getting there too and he's already one of the best ever on clay. Djokovic could join the elite but it's way too early to say. His win in Melbourne was very impressive, but the mark of a true great is producing that form over the long haul. I don't doubt he can do it but lets give him some time to develop. But you're right, I think they would all make things very tough for eachother.

Answer 12

The majority of tournaments are played on hardcourts. The players listed are better on harcourt than Nadal which would mean it would be tough for him to make the semis and finals of major hardcourt events as he does today. That, in my opinion puts him at #5

5. Nadal

Djokovic poses a threat to all the players on most surfaces but it's early in his career and he's lacking the longevity of the others. At this stage in his career I think he'd play them them tough but would lose more than he wins. That puts him at #4

4. Djokovic

In match ups Agassi would give these guys  fits on all surfaces but Agassi's ranking was all over the place even during his prime. I actually think he'd be ranked lower than both Djokovic and Nadal but I give him the benefit of the doubt because he's won the career slam.

3. Agassi

One of the keys to Federer's success is he had no real rival on fast surfaces before Djokovic came along. Agassi would rival him at the Australian and US hardcourts while Sampras would cut into his US open and Wimbledon hold. If he's not dominating at those places or on clay, I think that would greatly affect his ranking, confidence, and overall slam total.

2. Federer

Sampras won the US Open way past his prime, he gave Federer a h**l of a match at Wimbledon (past his prime), and he played consistently well throughout his career. He also beat and challenged Federer in that exhibition they played recently. In his prime I think he'd be too much for Federer, who's always struggled against serve and volley players. Sampras' serve, skills, and consistency would keep him ahead of all challengers.

1. Sampras

Answer 13

today's tennis has improved immensely and become very competitive --- that i think agassi and sampras will not even make it to the top 10!

andrew agassi has no discipline, he is overrated and a fluke. peter sampras has no brains, he just fires away with aces, just like andy roderick.

i would rank sampras at #11. while agassi will be #19, just a bit below hewwit.

Answer 14

No offense, but this type of theoretical question is simply unanswerable. There are so many variables at play. One thing is for sure, if all of the players you mentioned were playing at their best today #1 and #2 would be either Roger Federer and/or Pete Sampras. They have the most complete games which would afford them the best results in EVERY surface. Nadal and Djokovic usually are burning out after Wimbledon. If any of those two win the US Open, I will be very surprised. The last two years Djokovic has complained of being "exhausted" by August. The tennis season is long and arduous. One thing that separates Federer and Sampras from the rest is their incredible consistency and ability to remain injury-free throughout their careers.

Answer 15

I would put Sampras at #1.  His serve and volley game would prevent Roger from getting to his comfort zone close at the net, as a result, when those two would play, Roger would have to play defensively.  Although I do think that Roger would be able to beat Pete every once in a while, overall, I think Pete would have the advantage.  In fact, I think Agassi would also give Federer a run for his money.  Agassi's style of play was not unlike that of Nadal, but his shots were a lot more precise.  And let's face it, Federer was 22 the first time he was able to beat Agassi, after losing to Andre 3 times in a row.  After these three I would put Nadal and Djokovic, although there I have a hard time deciding on the order.  I think Djokovic has more potential than Nadal, but has yet to show consistency enough to stay at the top long-term.

In general, I think the biggest factor for the top three players will be the mental strength.  If Federer had to play against Sampras and Agassi at their best, he would not be able to build the same aura of invincibility, which is something he has enjoyed for the last several years.  That is why I don't think he'd be at the top of the rankings.