PDA

View Full Version : A little something about Fed and Sampras slam wins.


GameSampras
08-11-2009, 11:31 AM
the list below, all their great victories are included, and beside this, the names of their opponents. The figure to the right is the # of slams won by their opponent in their career up to that point. So Roger beat Nadal at Wimbledon in 2007, and Nadal had 3 slam victories to his name at that point.

The # in brackets is the total # of slams accumulated by his opponents before the final. He beat Marat Safin (2 slams) and Juan Carlos Ferrero (1 slam).

The totals are only the # of slams won by their opponents at the date of their victories.

Bear in mind that Roger has one more slam victory than Pete. Make of this information what you will.

There maybe errors and if you notice any, please let me know



[B
Pete Sampras

1990 US Open Andre Agassi 0 (15)
1993 Wimbledon Jim Courier 4 (6)
1993 US Open Cedric Pioline 0 (1)
1994 Aus Open Todd Martin 0 (12)
1994 Wimbledon Goran Ivanisevic 0 (1)
1995 Wimbledon Boris Becker 5 (0)
1995 US Open Andre Agassi 3 (4)
1996 US Open Michael Chang 1 (0)
1997 Aus Open Carlos Moya 0 (1)
1997 Wimbledon Cedric Pioline 0 (6)
1998 Wimbledon Goran Ivanisevic 0 (0)
1999 Wimbledon Andre Agassi 4 (0)
2000 Wimbledon Pat Rafter 2 (0)
2002 US Open Andre Agassi 7 (0)


TOTAL 26 (45)



Roger Federer

2003 Wimbledon Mark Philippoussis 0 (0)
2004 Aus Open Marat Safin 1 (3)
2004 Wimbledon Andy Roddick 1 (2)
2004 US Open Lleyton Hewitt 2 (8)
2005 Wimbledon Andy Roddick 1 (3)
2005 US Open Andre Agassi 8 (2)
2006 Aus Open Marco Baghdatis 0 (0)
2006 Wimbledon Rafael Nadal 2 (0)
2006 US Open Andy Roddick 1 (0)
2007 Aus Open Fernando Gonzalez 0 (1)
2007 Wimbledon Rafael Nadal 3 (3)
2007 US Open Novak Djokovic 0 (1)
2008 US Open Andy Murray 0 (1)
2009 French Open Robin Soderling 0 (0)
2009 Wimbledon Andy Roddick 1 (0)


TOTAL 20 (23)

Agassifan
08-11-2009, 11:34 AM
when you win everything in sight, your opponents dont win any. simple. Such a credit to federer that he is millions of miles ahead of his competition

jamesblakefan#1
08-11-2009, 11:34 AM
GameSampras. :twisted:

フェデラー
08-11-2009, 11:35 AM
Federer won 15 slams in half the time it took pete to win 14.

Agassifan
08-11-2009, 11:37 AM
Federer won 15 slams in half the time it took pete to win 14.

fed and rafa cleaned it out the past few years. I dont think sampras in his prime would have had more than 5 slams to his name the past 5 years.

clayman2000
08-11-2009, 11:37 AM
Fail... if your trying to show Fed has easier competition you miss so many key aspects:

1) A win over John Mcenroe in 90 is not the same as a win over him in 84. Players change. Rankings at the time are a more accurate reflection of a players form

2)Sampras' wins were over 12 years. Federer's were over 7 years. This means that Sampras' competition had 5 more years worth of slams to win. Or in easier terms, Federer won his slams in 20 less majors than Sampras.

mandy01
08-11-2009, 11:37 AM
Great stats..Ridiculous dominance by both Roger and Sampras.And 14 is a huge number .Great job by both.Not easy to make the difficult look easy.

jamesblakefan#1
08-11-2009, 11:39 AM
You say you only bring up Pete in retaliation to all the times people bring him up in debate, then ONCE AGAIN start a thread trying to re-ignite another useless Sampras-Fed GOAT debate. It's like your life isn't complete unless this dumb debate is going on in some way shape or form GameSampras.

フェデラー
08-11-2009, 11:39 AM
Too bad Mr. Sampras had at most, 3 slam finals in a row. Where as Federer has the all time record of 10.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-11-2009, 11:40 AM
Federer won 15 slams in half the time it took pete to win 14.
Touchè!! Plain and simple.

GameSampras
08-11-2009, 11:42 AM
You say you only bring up Pete in retaliation to all the times people bring him up in debate, then ONCE AGAIN start a thread trying to re-ignite another useless Sampras-Fed GOAT debate. It's like your life isn't complete unless this dumb debate is going on in some way shape or form GameSampras.

LOL. hey Im just bringing up some interesting statistics Mr. JamesBlakeFan. Calm down

President
08-11-2009, 11:42 AM
This is a poor comparison because, as clayman2000 said, past slams won does not mean a player's form at the time of the win is good.

A better study would be one which compared the ranking of the opponents at the time.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-11-2009, 11:43 AM
LOL. hey Im just bringing up some interesting statistics Mr. JamesBlakeFan. Calm down
I gotta ask you to this, cant think of anyone who ever did...How...many...slams...think carefully now, would Fed have won in Sampras era?? And vice versa?

GameSampras
08-11-2009, 11:46 AM
I gotta ask you to this, cant think of anyone who ever did...How...many...slams...think carefully now, would Fed have won in Sampras era??

With Sampras around? Not as many because they would be taking slams from each other.. And you still have quite a tough field in the early to mid 90s of other big threats still hanging around.

So the question is, Would Fed dominate the ENTiRE decade of the 90s that he is now? No he wouldnt. Wimbeldon would be no lock and neither would the USO as well where he has amassed the most slams.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-11-2009, 11:49 AM
With Sampras around? Not as many because they would be taking slams from each other.. And you still have quite a tough field in the early to mid 90s of other big threats still hanging around.

So the question is, Would Fed dominate the ENTiRE decade of the 90s that he is now? No he wouldnt. Wimbeldon would be no lock and neither would the USO as well where he has amassed the most slams.
Well, id say the same about Sampras in todays era! FO? Forget it, dont even bother travelling to Paris, AO? Forget that one to, sure you can come if you want to but youll never win, US Open? He would have a good chance...i admit. Wimbledon of today, uh uh, No.

President
08-11-2009, 11:50 AM
With Sampras around? Not as many because they would be taking slams from each other.. And you still have quite a tough field in the early to mid 90s of other big threats still hanging around.

So the question is, Would Fed dominate the ENTiRE decade of the 90s that he is now? No he wouldnt. Wimbeldon would be no lock and neither would the USO as well where he has amassed the most slams.

I agree that Federer would not have as many slams as he does now if he and Sampras were playing in the same era. Neither would Sampras. However, I think Federer would still have the most slams out of any player in the 90's. He is the most consistant player ever (21 straight Grand Slam Semis), and would still rack up quite a few. IMO more than Sampras.

Agassifan
08-11-2009, 11:53 AM
So the question is, Would Fed dominate the ENTiRE decade of the 90s that he is now? No he wouldnt. Wimbeldon would be no lock and neither would the USO as well where he has amassed the most slams.

In that case, fed would've won 8 french opens to make up

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-11-2009, 11:55 AM
In that case, fed would've won 8 french opens to make up
Id say Fed would have 4-5 FO, 3-4 Wimby, 3-4 US Open and 4-5 AO in the 90`s ! Thats would be AT LEAST 14 slams, and 18 as the most.

GameSampras
08-11-2009, 12:05 PM
Well, id say the same about Sampras in todays era! FO? Forget it, dont even bother travelling to Paris, AO? Forget that one to, sure you can come if you want to but youll never win, US Open? He would have a good chance...i admit. Wimbledon of today, uh uh, No.

Im sorry Im not saying he would grab his share of Wimbeldon or USO titles.. A few possibly.. But would he have amassed as many with Pete around at Wimbeldon, Such as 6 Wimbeldons already? Heck no.. And Than you have ANdre around at the AO and USO. Capable of winning a few both.. Something Nadal cant seem to do. Even reach a USO finals for there..


And we dont know about the French Open either.. I would think Fed would grab a few probably but mostly in the late 90s. But 6-8 ? LOL.. Come on now.. Fed isnt that good. And you still have Guga who came later, you got Muster, Bruguera, and Courier hanging around in the early to mid 90s.. Fed is no LUCK.. Nor would he see the cupcake French Open draws in the early 90s that he sees now either.


Fed sees alot of success in the 90s without Sampras.. But with both around neither see as much success as they would without the other. And we dont know how Roger would matchup either with various players either

edberg505
08-11-2009, 12:06 PM
With Sampras around? Not as many because they would be taking slams from each other.. And you still have quite a tough field in the early to mid 90s of other big threats still hanging around.

So the question is, Would Fed dominate the ENTiRE decade of the 90s that he is now? No he wouldnt. Wimbeldon would be no lock and neither would the USO as well where he has amassed the most slams.

LOL, there is not one single objective bone in your Sampras loving body is there?

President
08-11-2009, 12:13 PM
Im sorry Im not saying he would grab his share of Wimbeldon or USO titles.. A few possibly.. But would he have amassed as many with Pete around at Wimbeldon, Such as 6 Wimbeldons already? Heck no.. And Than you have ANdre around at the AO and USO. Capable of winning a few both.. Something Nadal cant seem to do. Even reach a USO finals for there..



Pete wouldn't have 7 Wimbledon titles either if Federer were playing in the same era. As for the USO or AO, sorry..but I don't see Agassi as a significant threat to Federer at hardcourt slams. Yes, he was a great player, but Federer is just a bad matchup for him. He would be humiliated.


And we dont know about the French Open either.. I would think Fed would grab a few probably but mostly in the late 90s. But 6-8 ? LOL.. Come on now.. Fed isnt that good. And you still have Guga who came later, you got Muster, Bruguera, and Courier hanging around in the early to mid 90s.. Fed is no LUCK.. Nor would he see the cupcake French Open draws in the early 90s that he sees now either.


Federer may not be a greater claycourt player than those guys (in terms of achievements), but I have no doubt that he is a better one. Roger Federer is a player of a class far above the likes of those guys. I think he would win at least 3-4 FO were he to play in the 90's.

drakulie
08-11-2009, 12:52 PM
There maybe errors and if you notice any, please let me know



Yeah, between 1990 and 2002 (sampras era), there were 52 total slams played.

Between 2003-2009 (federer era) there have been 27 slams played. That's a total of 25 less slams played, and yet Federer has already eclipsed Sampras.

Lesson over.

edberg505
08-11-2009, 12:58 PM
Yeah, between 1990 and 2002 (sampras era), there were 52 total slams played.

Between 2003-2009 (federer era) there have been 27 slams played. That's a total of 25 less slams played, and yet Federer has already eclipsed Sampras.

Lesson over.

LMAO, yeah that pretty much sums it up.

zagor
08-11-2009, 01:01 PM
the list below, all their great victories are included, and beside this, the names of their opponents. The figure to the right is the # of slams won by their opponent in their career up to that point. So Roger beat Nadal at Wimbledon in 2007, and Nadal had 3 slam victories to his name at that point.

The # in brackets is the total # of slams accumulated by his opponents before the final. He beat Marat Safin (2 slams) and Juan Carlos Ferrero (1 slam).

The totals are only the # of slams won by their opponents at the date of their victories.

Bear in mind that Roger has one more slam victory than Pete. Make of this information what you will.

There maybe errors and if you notice any, please let me know



[B
Pete Sampras

1990 US Open Andre Agassi 0 (15)
1993 Wimbledon Jim Courier 4 (6)
1993 US Open Cedric Pioline 0 (1)
1994 Aus Open Todd Martin 0 (12)
1994 Wimbledon Goran Ivanisevic 0 (1)
1995 Wimbledon Boris Becker 5 (0)
1995 US Open Andre Agassi 3 (4)
1996 US Open Michael Chang 1 (0)
1997 Aus Open Carlos Moya 0 (1)
1997 Wimbledon Cedric Pioline 0 (6)
1998 Wimbledon Goran Ivanisevic 0 (0)
1999 Wimbledon Andre Agassi 4 (0)
2000 Wimbledon Pat Rafter 2 (0)
2002 US Open Andre Agassi 7 (0)


TOTAL 26 (45)



Roger Federer

2003 Wimbledon Mark Philippoussis 0 (0)
2004 Aus Open Marat Safin 1 (3)
2004 Wimbledon Andy Roddick 1 (2)
2004 US Open Lleyton Hewitt 2 (8)
2005 Wimbledon Andy Roddick 1 (3)
2005 US Open Andre Agassi 8 (2)
2006 Aus Open Marco Baghdatis 0 (0)
2006 Wimbledon Rafael Nadal 2 (0)
2006 US Open Andy Roddick 1 (0)
2007 Aus Open Fernando Gonzalez 0 (1)
2007 Wimbledon Rafael Nadal 3 (3)
2007 US Open Novak Djokovic 0 (1)
2008 US Open Andy Murray 0 (1)
2009 French Open Robin Soderling 0 (0)
2009 Wimbledon Andy Roddick 1 (0)


TOTAL 20 (23)

Bear in mind that Fed won his 15th slam at the age of 28 while Pete won his 14th at the age of 31,that's quite a difference(3 years with this year not even finished yet and Fed being a favourite at USO).So given the fact that Fed has time to rack up a few more slams(how much more exactly is anyone's guess right now)saying Fed has only one more slam victory than Pete isn't really that conclusive since Fed's career isn't finished yet and the fact is that Sampras had 12 at the same age Fed has 15 slams.

In my opinion this comparison should be made when Fed finishes his career so we see with exactly how many slams he ends up with and we also have to wait for some of the guys he beat in slams finish their career.For all we know Murray and Novak may end up with 3-4 slams each,Delpo might win 2-3,Nadal might win 10-12,heck even Roddick might get one more etc. etc. You get my point.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-11-2009, 01:20 PM
Yeah, between 1990 and 2002 (sampras era), there were 52 total slams played.

Between 2003-2009 (federer era) there have been 27 slams played. That's a total of 25 less slams played, and yet Federer has already eclipsed Sampras.

Lesson over.
Couldnt possibly agree more.

egn
08-11-2009, 08:17 PM
Delete......

lawrence
08-11-2009, 08:33 PM
you can argue all you want, but in the end, 15 is always going to be a higher number than 14.

Lifted
08-11-2009, 08:50 PM
Yeah, between 1990 and 2002 (sampras era), there were 52 total slams played.

Between 2003-2009 (federer era) there have been 27 slams played. That's a total of 25 less slams played, and yet Federer has already eclipsed Sampras.

Lesson over.

Oh mamma, ouch. :oops:

JeMar
08-11-2009, 08:50 PM
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

What an objective and scientific sample list.

hankash
08-11-2009, 09:00 PM
Another person trying to prove Sampras is better than Fed? Get back to me after Federer wins 20 slams.

NamRanger
08-11-2009, 09:03 PM
With Sampras around? Not as many because they would be taking slams from each other.. And you still have quite a tough field in the early to mid 90s of other big threats still hanging around.

So the question is, Would Fed dominate the ENTiRE decade of the 90s that he is now? No he wouldnt. Wimbeldon would be no lock and neither would the USO as well where he has amassed the most slams.



Federer in the late 90s would amass tons of slams. Probably more so than now. So yes, he'd have fewer slams in the early 90s, but late into the 90s when everyone is generally weak from about 97-99, Federer could easily steal nearly every slam.

JeMar
08-11-2009, 09:04 PM
Moreover, Federer's greatest matches almost always resulted in a quick demolition of the opponent. See Roddick, Aus Open 200...7, I think?

Sampras' best matches weren't always such quick affairs.

egn
08-11-2009, 09:07 PM
[B
Pete Sampras

1990 US Open Andre Agassi 0 (15)
1993 Wimbledon Jim Courier 4 (6)
1993 US Open Cedric Pioline 0 (1)
1994 Aus Open Todd Martin 0 (12)
1994 Wimbledon Goran Ivanisevic 0 (1)
1995 Wimbledon Boris Becker 5 (0)
1995 US Open Andre Agassi 3 (4)
1996 US Open Michael Chang 1 (0)
1997 Aus Open Carlos Moya 0 (1)
1997 Wimbledon Cedric Pioline 0 (6)
1998 Wimbledon Goran Ivanisevic 0 (0)
1999 Wimbledon Andre Agassi 4 (0)
2000 Wimbledon Pat Rafter 2 (0)
2002 US Open Andre Agassi 7 (0)


TOTAL 26 (45)



Lets look into the highly inflated ones..1990 and 1994 which are really blowing this list apart.

In 1994 the count takes into account 8 slams from a far past his prime Ivan Lendl. Ivan Lendl who would reitre that year and finish rank 54 who had not seen a slam semi since US Open 1991...Game be a little real sure that adds to the total but that really inflates it.

Lets be EVEN MORE investigative 1990 US Open...7 of those comes from McEnroe who was beyond streaky. He hit a huge run going into the tournament but was nothing like his 84 self. Not to mention 1989 was the biggest fluke every when McEnroe managed to finish top 4, but seriously McEnroe was far from his form when he won those 7 clams. Actually he had not won a grand slam in 6 YEARS!

What is more interesting is both of those years he faced an opponenet who won no slams whatsoever. That just shows that the multi slam winners at the point in time were not the best. Sampras in 1990 had no slams to his name and in 1994 had only 3 to his name compared to the guys in the field who went down like McEnroe (7), Lendl ( 8), Edberg (4+6), Wilander (7) and so on and so forth. The multislam winners were not the best players anymore and were starting to fade.

However the same logic can easily be applied to Fed..here comes ******* screaming! As Agassi 2005 was not really the same as he had been years past he had not won a slam since 2003 Aus Open..he was playing a bit better than Lendl and was probably far closer to his best than McEnroe was but the case can be made he was not really nearly as strong. Which kills 8 from Fed putting him at a dismal 12. Its all in how you look at the situation.

Frankly as good an indicator as slams are they really don't show much.

For example take a look at Kafelnikov 1996 French Open on this scale
Stitch 1 (7)
That looks impressive..too bad those 7 come from Pistol Pete and not the great claycourters. It looks more impressive than Wilander 1983
Vilas 4 (0) but if you ask anyone Wilander 1983 was the far more impressive run.

The numbers can all be played with..besides this must make Nadal GOAT

French Open 2005 Puerta 0 (4)
French Open 2006 Federer 7 (2)
French Open 2007 Federer 10 (3)
French Open 2008 Federer 12 (1)
Wimbledon 2008 Federer 12 (0)
Australian Open 2009 13 (0)

In six slams he looks far ahead of them...at least in finals his totals are
54 (10)

However this shows the field is top heavy and I think that is what needs to be taken into account in the Federer era. THe field was extremely top heavy. One man was so far ahead that the others could not grab slams. Also there was 20 less slams played between the time Fed won his 15 to Sampras winning his 14..it is hard to compare. Sampras won his 1st slam out of his era nad his last slam out of his era and notice the ones later in his era have lower numbers. THe players at the start who had the slams were old and exiting, most past prime like Lendl, McEnroe and it was a transition period. Control passed from Edberg to Courier to Sampras and Sampras finally stepped up and took control. Once Sampras took control the only slams really being won by others was the French Open. Agassi won most of his slams after Sampras was out of his peak and he was probably the biggest slam winner in the Sampras era...by this of course he won 2...(3 if we count French Open 1999) as the Sampras era. THe next biggest winner was Brug and Kafelnikov and both of them won at least half (Brug all) their slams on the slam Sampras was not much of a threat at. The era weakened once Sampras took control. The only difference was Sampras won his first slam in the end of another era. Had Federer won say won of the US opens like Hewitt or Safin did it would be a whole different story and his numbers would sky rocket closer to Sampras..however he did not, because he bloomed late. It's odd how much closer the numbers are without that 1990 US Open..26 (30) to 20 (23). Those are really close, the difference is a player in both collumns.

I am not saying discredit players for winning against slam champions, but I think it needs some sort of weight. There is a lot more than totals. There is no difference in counting a players future won slams then a players previous won slams becuase that could not reflect their given level of play at anytime. McEnroe was playing like no 7 slam winner in 1990 or Lendl like an 8 slam winner in 1994 and for example Nadal in 2007 was playing intense high level tennis and probably better than Lendl in 1994 yet Nadal had only 3 slams and Lendl had 8. Given point in time might not be refelected by slams won. It is more complicated than that, it is not just black and white.

World Beater
08-11-2009, 09:11 PM
funny stuff. how can u compare a 12 yr period to a 6yr period in favor of sampras.

Cup8489
08-11-2009, 09:17 PM
15 > 14

Fin.

NamRanger
08-11-2009, 09:36 PM
Lol at Agassi not at his best from 2003-2005. Agassi wins USO 2004 and 2005 without Federer there.

egn
08-11-2009, 09:56 PM
Lol at Agassi not at his best from 2003-2005. Agassi wins USO 2004 and 2005 without Federer there.

He wasn't. Hewitt could have easily taken those two titles. Especially 2005. 2004 Agassi has a good chance, but I think Hewitt could have beaten him and he probably wouldn't blow nearly as many break points. Besides Agassi's best was 94-96, 99-03...but 03 he started to fade and his abosulte best was 99 and then 95..2005 was not his best..he was really good but not nearly as dangerous as he was 2 or 3 years previous.

NamRanger
08-11-2009, 10:03 PM
He wasn't. Hewitt could have easily taken those two titles. Especially 2005. 2004 Agassi has a good chance, but I think Hewitt could have beaten him and he probably wouldn't blow nearly as many break points. Besides Agassi's best was 94-96, 99-03...but 03 he started to fade and his abosulte best was 99 and then 95..2005 was not his best..he was really good but not nearly as dangerous as he was 2 or 3 years previous.



Agassi in 04 was red hot off a victory in Cincinnati where he beat both Roddick and Hewitt, the two best HC players that year outside of Federer. The QF that he and Federer played was essentially the De Facto final. No, I honestly think Hewitt doesn't beat Agassi here.


05 Hewitt has a shot, but he is not playing as well as he was in 04 either (his level of play IMO was higher in 04, at the USO at least), so it's a crap shot, but I think Agassi wins here still. He displayed a very high level of tennis that I think Hewitt would have been unable to match.

egn
08-11-2009, 10:13 PM
Agassi in 04 was red hot off a victory in Cincinnati where he beat both Roddick and Hewitt, the two best HC players that year outside of Federer. The QF that he and Federer played was essentially the De Facto final. No, I honestly think Hewitt doesn't beat Agassi here.


05 Hewitt has a shot, but he is not playing as well as he was in 04 either (his level of play IMO was higher in 04, at the USO at least), so it's a crap shot, but I think Agassi wins here still. He displayed a very high level of tennis that I think Hewitt would have been unable to match.

I agree 04 Agassi probably wins but 05 Hewitt looked far better agianst Fed outside of the tiebreak. Agassi also showed his age and ran out of gas. I don't think Agassi could win in straights and therefore I think Hewitt could wear him down in the end. I honestly felt Hewitt was better in 05 as he was doing a lot more damage to Federer at least..and Fed was not playing much worse. Hewitt looked good in 05 US Open and I think he would have been very determined to win that slam and if he could make it long I think it would have been in the bag for him.

NamRanger
08-11-2009, 10:17 PM
I agree 04 Agassi probably wins but 05 Hewitt looked far better agianst Fed outside of the tiebreak. Agassi also showed his age and ran out of gas. I don't think Agassi could win in straights and therefore I think Hewitt could wear him down in the end. I honestly felt Hewitt was better in 05 as he was doing a lot more damage to Federer at least..and Fed was not playing much worse. Hewitt looked good in 05 US Open and I think he would have been very determined to win that slam and if he could make it long I think it would have been in the bag for him.


Hewitt looked really bad for the most part of that USO actually. He was taken to 5 by Dent and Niemenen, and actually was in big trouble against both of them (down 2 sets to 1). Hewitt did manage to steal a set off Federer, but I think that mainly came from the fact that Federer made like 20+ errors off the backhand that set.

egn
08-11-2009, 10:33 PM
Hewitt looked really bad for the most part of that USO actually. He was taken to 5 by Dent and Niemenen, and actually was in big trouble against both of them (down 2 sets to 1). Hewitt did manage to steal a set off Federer, but I think that mainly came from the fact that Federer made like 20+ errors off the backhand that set.

Didn't Agassi get taken to 5 though by Blake and Ginerpi as well they both were definitely not at their best.

hewittboy
08-11-2009, 10:58 PM
Hewitt would have won the U.S opens in 2004 and 2005 both without Federer. You cant look at the matches with Federer since Federer is a horrible matchup for Hewitt, and Federer typically plays a bit off whenever he plays an American player in front of a rowdy crowd. Anyway the semifinal in 2005 with Hewitt-Federer was even closer than the Federer-Agassi final. Hewitt had done reasonably well vs Agassi their whole careers, I think the head to head is 4-4 and they began playing when Hewitt was only 16 and Agassi was still in his 20s. At that point Agassi was old so in a best 3 of 5, Hewitt would have worn Agassi out eventually. The 2002 U.S Open semis was one of Hewitt's worst big match performances ever and Agassi still had a tough time beating him.