Agassi: Fedex is better than Sampras at his best

[a529612]

Q. Do you think Roger is even better than Sampras at his best, and he could maybe break one day the record of Sampras?

ANDRE AGASSI: Pete was great. I mean, no question. But there was a place to get to with Pete, you knew what you had to do. If you do it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger.

I think he's the best I've played against. But I also think the accomplishment of winning that many Slams requires a number of things, including a little bit of luck to make sure you're healthy, nothing goes wrong.

[BjornBorg]

Federer has the better backhand, is a little quicker on the court and has better finesse with his groundies. He can take pace off the ball better than Pete and mix it up better. His groundstrokes, while acknowleging that his backhand can occasionally go astray, are more consistent than Sampras.

Pete has the better serve and better serve and volley game. But Federer is the more talented overall.

[vijtkm]

well she need to try fasting,,,not tennis,,,,

[vijtkm]

sammpras was better,,,now he is history,,,,but federrer is also up there

[Kobble]

It is a pretty good analysis, but I think Agassi can get to Federer as he could Pete. I just think Federer is well suited to Agassi's strengths. Agassi hits flat, and Federer's game is great for picking up tough flat balls. I believe Carillo brought this up when she talked about how Nadal's(slower with more spin) shots give Federer more trouble when in a ralley. If you watch the match, the same thing worked for Agassi. When he took pace off and got the ball above Federer's arm pit, he didn't draw as many screaming winners from Fed. What actually happened was Roger began getting his ball higher up on Agassi, and Agassi took full advantage. I was extremely impressed by how well Agassi handled the high balls to the forehand, because most were winners, and I don't believe any were unforced errors. By the way, did anyone remember the 80 mph serve that Federer put into the net. Like Gilbert said, Jobu can't hit the curve. LOL. But seriously, Agassi has to play against his intuition to damage Roger. He has to increase his margin for error and attempt to move Federer around, but when he gets the high ball, crush it. It may sound overly simplified, but that is how Agassi won that second set and got off to an early lead in the fourth. Unfortunately, for some reason, he abandoned that strategy in the tie-break. He must have become tight or something, and felt like he needed quick points. In the end, I just hope Agassi doesn't hang it up yet, he is one of only a few people who can push Federer.

[sugmasterflex]

IIRC, after his loss in the final of the 2001 US Open, during the press conference, Sampras stated that Lleyton Hewitt was a better returner than Agassi. Now, Hewitt is a terrific returner, but he's not better than Andre. But for Sampras, it was right after the match, when the sting was still very fresh. It would be interesting to see what Agassi says in a couple of months when this loss is not fresh in his mind.

[gully]

There are different meanings of "best" at play here as indicated by Roger's and Andre's postmatch comments.

Andre's calling Roger the best means to him that Roger is playing, at this moment, the highest level of tennis Andre has competed against. Getting waxed as AA did for the last 30-45 minutes of the match will surely influence such a comment.

Roger's disclaiming himself as best means to him that he has not yet achieved the kinds of results of hist historical competitors, especially Pete, but for that matter, even Andre (though certainly he will, and possibly soon).

When people debate who is "the best" of all time, confusion between the two meanings (and various interpretations of both of those meanings) frequently accounts for the contentious debate between Sampras's supporters and Federer's. But while Roger may -- may -- be playing the the best tennis Andre has competed against, he has still quite a ways to go to rack up the career that Sampras did. Barring injury, ennui, or the unforeseen, he should be able to do it: the current crop of contenders just hasn't yet figured out a plan to stop him.

[rcetennis]

Unfortunately we'll never have the opportunity to know who would have actually won. I think the only argument that can be made for Sampras (other than all his grand slam titles) is that he played a game much different from what Federer faces today. Pete's S&V game of first strike tennis was much different from the pound'm into the ground mentality of today. Even Roddick, with his monster serve, stays back and tries to pound his opponent into submission. There are no Edbergs, Rafters or Beckers any longer. The closest thing to that today may be Taylor Dent..... and that is a stretch. Unless someone comes along that attacks Federer in a relentless manor, we'll never know how he might have stood up to Pistol Pete.

[Lee James]

This is an ageless discussion. Over dinner a couple of nights ago, a few of my teammates and I wondered who is better, Sampras or Federer. Some of the points we came up with were that if you consider Sampras to be the best, does Federer have to match or win more grand slams than Pete to be considered the new best? Also I think we're all waiting on Federer to face some adversity before outright naming him the best. Pete had so many close matches that he had to gut his way through such as the match against Corretja at the U.S. Open. I haven't really seen wether or not Federer has the heart of a champion much like Sampras did. Thats what really stood out in my mind as making Sampras the best. Federer is just breezing through at the moment, but hopefully a couple of guys like Marat who pushed him and one at the Aussie, can challenge him consistently so that we can really see what he is made of.

[laurie]

I'm quite interested with Agassi's comments.

He really had Federer on the run last night up until 4:2 in the third set. He was playing unbelievable matching Federer for forehand winners. Age caught up with Agassi in the end and he could not sustain his challenge. By the way, in forehand duels, Agassi always came out second best against Sampras.

In three US Open finals with Sampras, each time Agassi was down two sets to love in an hour. In 1995 and 2002, Agassi had to work incredibly hard just to make a match of it. In 1990, he got creamed in straight sets, getting broken 5 times and not breaking Sampras once.

So I just wonder why if Federer was at his best why Agassi broke him twice in the second set and once in the third and was so competitive for so long? Or has Agassi forgotten how good Sampras' best is as he hasn't played him for three years.

[dozu]

This is an ageless discussion. Over dinner a couple of nights ago, a few of my teammates and I wondered who is better, Sampras or Federer. Some of the points we came up with were that if you consider Sampras to be the best, does Federer have to match or win more grand slams than Pete to be considered the new best? Also I think we're all waiting on Federer to face some adversity before outright naming him the best. Pete had so many close matches that he had to gut his way through such as the match against Corretja at the U.S. Open. I haven't really seen wether or not Federer has the heart of a champion much like Sampras did. Thats what really stood out in my mind as making Sampras the best. Federer is just breezing through at the moment, but hopefully a couple of guys like Marat who pushed him and one at the Aussie, can challenge him consistently so that we can really see what he is made of.

Let me confess that I am a Federer supporter, and I want to say that what you pointed out here is exactly why Federer is by far better than Sampras. Sampras had to fight his heart out to gather those 14 trophies, while Federer with his total domination has been breezing through like you said.

Also, the fact that there are no more top tier S&Ver anymore, is not due to players somehow misteriously shying away from that style, but is due to the fact that S&Vers is a losing strategy based on how fast people can run, and how hard people can hit passing shots on the dead run off their back foot with a Babolat PD, and the likes of past greats like Edberg or Becker or Sampras will get killed in today's ATP tour.

[killer]

I think that Agassi's perspective is probably spot on; though he made the comments in his interview right after the match, he's got such a head for the sport as a whole, including his own place in its history that it seems unlikely he would expound on something that could have been an 'off the cuff' remark. He talked about Fed's game in detail, and rationalized quite well. The mention of a 'comfort zone' when playing against Pete that doesn't exist with Fed is probably the biggest sticking point.
To my mind, Agassi was playing great tennis this entire USO, and he didn't let up in the final at all- the level of play was so high. He played a guy against whom he couldn't make ANY errors; Fed made him come up with one perfect shot after another just to win a point. I think that kind of pressure didn't exist when he played Pete, particularly on AA's serve. AA may have had to return better against Pete, but he has to play his service games better against Fed.

[eric draven]

Being someone who watched Sampras throughout the 90's I'm a huge fan of his. But, even Pete admitted in an interview that Roger is a better player than he is and went on to say that his only "real" opponent is history. That being said the only thing we can look at is Roger's record at the end of his career.

I'm not convinced Roger has faced the challenges that Sampras faced to achieve those last titles of his career. Sampras' resume includes wins in the big matches over: Lendl, McEnroe, Becker, Chang, Courier, Agassi just to name a few. The grand slam titles that that group owns is an awesome number when you think about it. Roger has beaten: Roddick, Hewitt and Agassi as well as a litany of very talented players but we haven't seen a real threat to him yet and no other player outside of Agassi has a grand slam resume outside of two titles. (You can thank Sampras for a large part of that by the way).

Sampras overcame a number of issues outside of tennis in order to continue to win. A couple of tough personal relationships that ended during the prime of his career, the death of Gullikson, his coach and close personal friend, the blowout of his back in the late 90's. And let's not forget the blood condition that should have prevented him from being a world-class athlete to begin with. For Roger we have yet to see him touched by any prolonged adversity. I think we need to see a long career out of him before we start building the pedestal.

[Dedans Penthouse]

and the likes of past greats like Edberg or Becker or Sampras will get killed in today's ATP tour.
"Calling Doctor Moe!!....Doctor Larry!!....Doctor Curley!!!"




....."Game, set match: Mr. Coria defeats Mr. Sampras 3 sets to love; 6-2; 6-1; 6-1....thank you linespersons, ball kids...."



"Calling Doctor Moe!!....Doctor Larry!!....Doctor Curley!!!"

"Let me state that I'm a Federer supporter." Gee, REALLY????????

-- What the hell; run with it: don't let objectivity stand in your way.

[AAAA]

Also, the fact that there are no more top tier S&Ver anymore, is not due to players somehow misteriously shying away from that style, but is due to the fact that S&Vers is a losing strategy based on how fast people can run, and how hard people can hit passing shots on the dead run off their back foot with a Babolat PD, and the likes of past greats like Edberg or Becker or Sampras will get killed in today's ATP tour.

Don't forget to add most of the courts now have higher bounces than in the past so the volleys don't stay low and fast like in the past. That point strangly gets overlooked when people compare Federer's S&V game with the previous generations.

[AAAA]

I think that Agassi's perspective is probably spot on; though he made the comments in his interview right after the match, he's got such a head for the sport as a whole, including his own place in its history that it seems unlikely he would expound on something that could have been an 'off the cuff' remark. He talked about Fed's game in detail, and rationalized quite well. The mention of a 'comfort zone' when playing against Pete that doesn't exist with Fed is probably the biggest sticking point.
To my mind, Agassi was playing great tennis this entire USO, and he didn't let up in the final at all- the level of play was so high. He played a guy against whom he couldn't make ANY errors; Fed made him come up with one perfect shot after another just to win a point. I think that kind of pressure didn't exist when he played Pete, particularly on AA's serve. AA may have had to return better against Pete, but he has to play his service games better against Fed.

You nailed it..............(ten letters)

[kicker75]

I personally think Federer's A game is better than Sampras' A game. Fed can just do everything and Sampras' had some limitations (albeit not many)

...and if Federer wins a French (in addition to more GS titles), then I think that would confirm that his A game is better since simply stated, Pete never won one and could not win on clay. If that happens, you simply cannot say Sampras is a better player cause being the best tennis play IMO means you can win on all the surfaces tennis is played on.

[Kevin Patrick]

This is what Carlos Moya thinks:

ralph (boston, ma): was it harder to play sampras or federer?

Carlos Moya: (4:43 PM ET ) I would say -- it's different. I guess Sampras is more intimidated. He has an unbelievable serve, it was not easy to play with. Federer is not AS intimidating as Sampras, but he has all the shots. I think it's great, not only for the fans, but also for us the players -- it is a pleasure to watch him play.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=63778

[breakfast_of_champions]

people have short memories. now how long has it been since agassi played pete in his prime? 6-7 years? andre went 4 sets with pete in 2002 at the uso when pete was well beyond his prime, and andre was a younger man.

[@wright]

I like this quote that Agassi made before the match:

If you play well against Sampras, you lose 7-6, 6-4, if you play badly against him, you lose 7-6, 6-4. If you play well against Federer, you lose 7-6, 6-4. If you play badly against Federer, you lose 6-1,6-1.

[Stinkdyr]

yep, that sums it up. Agassi knows his place.

[35ft6]

IIRC, after his loss in the final of the 2001 US Open, during the press conference, Sampras stated that Lleyton Hewitt was a better returner than Agassi. Now, Hewitt is a terrific returner, but he's not better than Andre. But for Sampras, it was right after the match, when the sting was still very fresh. It would be interesting to see what Agassi says in a couple of months when this loss is not fresh in his mind.Come to his senses meaning he'll realize the political implications of saying this, and play coy.

Maybe right after a match is when a player will be the most honest. I've seen both of these guys play a lot, and the only edge Sampras has over Federer is his serve. Even if Federer wins 15 slams there's still going to be people who think Sampras is better just like there's still 70 year old guys out there who'll insist Laver was the best. Oh well.

[larrhall]

My response to this is simple - Federer is a better overall player than Pete was. That is something different than what would have happened had Fed-Prime met Pete-Prime. Of course, surface plays a role but at the USO I would pick Pete. Henman showed a year or so ago that this kind of attacking game bothers Fed, and with respect to Henman's game, Pete's was on a different order.

I would guess that if their primes had meshed/matched, Fed would have the better overall record and a few more Majors, but the head-to-head would have been very close.

[35ft6]

This is what Carlos Moya thinks:

ralph (boston, ma): was it harder to play sampras or federer?

Carlos Moya: (4:43 PM ET ) I would say -- it's different. I guess Sampras is more intimidated. He has an unbelievable serve, it was not easy to play with. Federer is not AS intimidating as Sampras, but he has all the shots. I think it's great, not only for the fans, but also for us the players -- it is a pleasure to watch him play.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=63778 But intimidation is something totally different. I head Ion Tiriac was intimidating. Carlos is like 10 years younger than Sampras and by the time they first started playing each other Sampras was already a living legend. Of course he's going to be more intimidating.

[35ft6]

My response to this is simple - Federer is a better overall player than Pete was. That is something different than what would have happened had Fed-Prime met Pete-Prime. Of course, surface plays a role but at the USO I would pick Pete. Henman showed a year or so ago that this kind of attacking game bothers Fed, and with respect to Henman's game, Pete's was on a different order. You mean the match Federer won 6-3, 6-4, 6-4? Federer hasn't lost a set to Henman in quite some time.

[35ft6]

I personally think Federer's A game is better than Sampras' A game. Fed can just do everything and Sampras' had some limitations (albeit not many) I actually think Sampras had some significant weaknesses, but that his strengths were SOOOO big that most of the time they simply didn't factor. His backhand was technically shaky. I would never dream of teaching somebody to hit a top spin backhand with a continental grip and a bent elbow the way Sampras did. Also, his forehand was a bazooka when it was on, but he hit it so flat that it was never really consistent, especially on clay. Again, on his beloved fast surfaces if he hit two of those flat forehands in a row, the point was pretty much over. Another weakness was his fitness. He had some sort of medical condition but whatever the reason, he was never world class in terms of endurance. Again, on fast surfaces it was almost a non-issue....and if Federer wins a French (in addition to more GS titles), then I think that would confirm that his A game is better since simply stated, Pete never won one and could not win on clay. If that happens, you simply cannot say Sampras is a better player cause being the best tennis play IMO means you can win on all the surfaces tennis is played on.Right on. If and when Federer wins the French, I personally feel these debates should end. At that point Federer becomes hands down superior to Sampras.

[callitout]

Fed's record this year and last is way better than Petes best year. So unless you think the players are worse now than 10-12 years ago its pretty hard to maintain Fed isnt more dominant. Fed lost to Nadal and Gasquet on clay, Safin on hard this year...thats it. He had match points in 2/3 of those matches. Geez, the guy is not far from having 1 loss this year. Really hard to argue that he's less dominant than Pete.

And btw most players like Agassi talk about how you have to improve just to keep up these days, so i doubt that the players of today are a whole lot worse than a few years ago.

[jukka1970]

sammpras was better,,,now he is history,,,,but federrer is also up there

Sampras was never better, and it's just a matter of a few years or more that Federer will get rid of the records held by Sampras.

[jukka1970]

Q. Do you think Roger is even better than Sampras at his best, and he could maybe break one day the record of Sampras?

***ANDRE AGASSI: Pete was great. I mean, no question. But there was a place to get to with Pete, you knew what you had to do. If you do it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger.***

I think he's the best I've played against. But I also think the accomplishment of winning that many Slams requires a number of things, including a little bit of luck to make sure you're healthy, nothing goes wrong.

Well there you have it, an answer from a pro that's been around for over 15 years, and he says Roger is better then Pete. I think that takes care of all the messages we've had asking who is better.

[serveboy]

God, that comment Agassi made really pissed me off. After hearing that, I lost some respect for him.

Agassi played the very best tennis he could muster at that the Wimbledon 1999 final and was destroyed by Sampras. Sampras dominated him from the baseline as well as from everywhere else.

Federer is incredible. Agassi was right about the lack of comfort when playing Roger, even when serving.

Pete would have that comfort zone. Roger would be like anyone else trying to break Pete's service game. He would be lucky to break Pete once.

Pete would do what he did against everyone else in trying to break Federer. Crush all returns and hope to string a couple of points together for the break.

It comes down to Pete's superior ability to hold versus Roger's superior ability to break. Holding is by definition easier than breaking so Pete has the edge no matter which way you look at it.

It would be a tough match, and no one is tougher than Pete. He wants it more than anyone else; that's why he's the record holder.

All credit to Federer, but Pete is Pete. He is the best.

[Kevin Patrick]

35ft6,
Moya is only 5 years younger than Sampras, not 10.

[35ft6]

And btw most players like Agassi talk about how you have to improve just to keep up these days, so i doubt that the players of today are a whole lot worse than a few years ago. Well there you have it, an answer from a pro that's been around for over 15 years, and he says Roger is better then Pete. I think that takes care of all the messages we've had asking who is better. None of this matters to the True Believer. Agassi doesn't know what he's talking about. The words of somebody considered by everybody to be thoughtful, who's been on the tour for 20 years, and has actually played Federer and Sampras on numerous occasions, is crap compared to the insights of the people watching the pro tennis on TV.

[FiveO]

If I may be so bold as to interpret Agassi's meaning.

I think Agassi is saying that with Sampras, he absolutely understood what Pete did. Should he catch onto his serve that day he was able to hold his ground and make it more an equal contest. But honestly, if Pete served well it was uphill all day. Sampras return game gave Agassi respites. Then Pete would hit two great returns be up 0-30 and get that one break he needed as he didn't need another.

Federer's game while more similar to Sampras than any other top guy today is constructed totally differently. Unlike Pete he doesn't regularly extricate himself from 0-30 or 15-30 points on his serve alone. Roger also doesn't provide an identifiable target often that Agassi can use a well timed one and done return to change momentum in Fed's service games. Roger is perfectly willing to grind, retrieve and wait til his offensive opportunity in the point. And Roger's return game is predicated on the same thing. Its constant pressure, all the time. Rarely does he give up easy holds to his competitors, when at his best.

Playing against Sampras to my mind is like playing third base. You do or you don't. An on Sampras and you don't get to play. You become rapt in holding which Pete's game allowed you to do more often than not. The point is over quickly either way. But you could stay close throughout the set. A kind of comfort zone in a way. Even in a loss. Get past that weapon and into the point and Agassi had a chance to win the point outright or gain the upper hand.

Federer's game is like smoke, there's no discernable point at which you can say you have the advantage. You get to play, but there is no one thing that gives you a "go to" advantage. There's no hump to overcome. A relentless psychological pressure in addition to the shotmaking.

Sampras=quick strike tennis, win or lose. Easy holds, few breaks, both ways. Coming down to one break of serve or a tie-break each set. Do or die.

Federer=Constant pressure. No easy holds. No where to go for a psychological "rest".

Different, but each effective in their own way.

[35ft6]

35ft6,
Moya is only 5 years younger than Sampras, not 10.My bad. Point still stands, though. They first played in Aussie finals in 1997, when Carlos was 21 and Sampras was at age 26, already the holder of 8 slam titles. Sampras might intimidate Carlos more than Federer, who's 5 years younger than him. Carlos is 1-3 against Sampras, and 0-6 against Federer btw, which might also work in favor of my "intimidation" is different from "level of play" argument.

[Chadwixx]

agassi says fed is better than sampras, and msg board ppl are telling him he is wrong, lol

welcome to lala land, what color is the sky in ur world?

[ACE of Hearts]

Roger would be Pete prime for prime, thats my opinion.Pete Sampras had a better serve but Roger's serve is not shabby.Pete Sampras in my mind,would lose against some of the players u see now.

[tennisToad]

Fedex did beat Pete @ Wimbledon... 8-)

/fuel to the fire
//let the flame war continue..

[Chadwixx]

Fedex did beat Pete @ Wimbledon... 8-)

/fuel to the fire
//let the flame war continue..

its been proven here many times that head to head meetings dont matter, lol

in the minds of sampras fans that match never took place, kinda like denial

[Kevin Patrick]

35ft6,
I don't quite understand your point. The fact that Moya who has actually beaten Sampras(on indoors no less) would say that Sampras is a more intimidating opponent than Federer(who he has never beaten) says volumes. Like you say, he has actually played both players unlike anyone on this board.
It seems silly that you use age/experience as a way of justifying Sampras' wins over Moya. Is that the only reason Sampras beat anyone in 1997? Because he was a living legend? Federer is as much a living legend today.

[Dedans Penthouse]

agassi says fed is better than sampras, and msg board ppl are telling him he is wrong, lol
Agassi also made a lifetime vow to Brooke Shields and talked his way into bed with the cross-eyed, crusty Barbara Steisand.

Moral of story: if words were birds, he'd be covered in white.

[dunlo]

I think Agassi s memory is fading.
Sampras' best was maybe 10m years ago.

[35ft6]

35ft6,
I don't quite understand your point. The fact that Moya who has actually beaten Sampras(on indoors no less) would say that Sampras is a more intimidating opponent than Federer(who he has never beaten) says volumes. Like you say, he has actually played both players unlike anyone on this board.
It seems silly that you use age/experience as a way of justifying Sampras' wins over Moya. Is that the only reason Sampras beat anyone in 1997? Because he was a living legend? Federer is as much a living legend today. My point is simple. Somebody posted Carlos' comment I assume in response to the Agassi comment somebody posted. Whereas Agassi's comment was clearly about level of play, Carlos said something about intimidation, which can be interpreted in several different ways. Playing somebody older than you, somebody you may have looked up to growing up (when Sampras won his first US Open, Carlos was 14) is probably more "intimidating" than playing somebody that you didn't grow up looking up to, who didn't have 8 grand slam titles when you first played them, and is younger than you.

[35ft6]

Agassi also made a lifetime vow to Brooke Shields and talked his way into bed with the cross-eyed, crusty Barbara Steisand.Worst TW ad hominem ever.

[urban]

I think, you made a valid point, FiveO. More interesting than the 'who is greater' question seems to be the winning formula of Federer. He looks like a new type of fast court player. It's not really an allcourt game, because Fed very seldom comes to the net, and his volley against Hewitt was poor. Other aggressive baseliner attacked more with flat strokes: Lendl hit his hard serve and followed it up with big forehands from side to side. Agassi played directly on the baseline with hard returns and groundies to press the opponent out of court. Federer, however, doesn't make much with his return, but he brings almost all serves back. Then he looks calmly for an opening with his fantastic forehand. He puts immense pressure on Agassi or Hewitt, who without big or dangerous slice serves are fighting for every point on their own serves. It's an astounding mixture of defensive play and groundstroke attack.

[ACE of Hearts]

Just look at the winners in the game, Roger just killed Agassi in terms of winners.

[Kevin Patrick]

35ft6, Did you read the entire post? The question was "who was tougher to play?"
Moya answered "Sampras was more intimidating." I dont think Moya had any hidden meanings in that answer.
Level of play, intimidating, whatever. It was a simple question, & Moya chose Sampras.

[Rob_C]

God, that comment Agassi made really pissed me off. After hearing that, I lost some respect for him.

Agassi played the very best tennis he could muster at that the Wimbledon 1999 final and was destroyed by Sampras. Sampras dominated him from the baseline as well as from everywhere else.

Federer is incredible. Agassi was right about the lack of comfort when playing Roger, even when serving.

Pete would have that comfort zone. Roger would be like anyone else trying to break Pete's service game. He would be lucky to break Pete once.

Pete would do what he did against everyone else in trying to break Federer. Crush all returns and hope to string a couple of points together for the break.

It comes down to Pete's superior ability to hold versus Roger's superior ability to break. Holding is by definition easier than breaking so Pete has the edge no matter which way you look at it.

It would be a tough match, and no one is tougher than Pete. He wants it more than anyone else; that's why he's the record holder.

All credit to Federer, but Pete is Pete. He is the best.

Sampras didn't destroy Agassi at Wimby '99, that match went 3 sets, but they were 3 tight sets.

Also, you are aware that Fed beat Sampras at Wimby '01 right??

[larrhall]

The fact that Andre is on tour twenty years doesn't make his perceptions perfect. Sampras also believes that the match he played to beat Agassi at the '02 Open was his best ever. I would say based on his level and that of Andre in that match, that Pete was wrong. Certainly matches he played against Becker in ATP championships in the late 90s, as well as his Wimby match against Agassi in '99 seemed to show a higher level.

Andre is also assuming, as John McEnroe apparently believes, that he - the Andre of today - is the same Andre that played Pete in '02 or earlier. With great credit to his amazing level and stamina, I am pretty sure that the Andre of '99-01 had a bit more stamina and strength. He has done great things to keep his level close to what it was then. But as with Pete's confidence that he was at his best in '02, this is most likely a bit of a loss of memory combined with emotion. Sampras apparently wanted to leave the game thinking he was at his peak. He wasn't.

[Kevin Patrick]

Rob_C,
did you see the '99 W Final? Regardless of score, that match wasn't close at all. Agassi remarked afterwards, that he felt like the one break point he had in the 1st set was the only chance he had of winning that match. After that it was a no contest.

ACE of Hearts,
Federer made 69 winners yesterday. Sampras had 80+ against Agassi in the '02 US Open final.

[Galactus]

This analysis alone answers and concludes the 'The Great Pete v Roger Debate'.
It doesn't matter whether you're a tennis genius or a hardcore supporter, this guy has played Sampras 34 times from 1989 through to 2002 and concludes that Federer is the superior tennis player.

How more conclusive can you be??????????

[35ft6]

35ft6, Did you read the entire post? The question was "who was tougher to play?"
Moya answered "Sampras was more intimidating." I dont think Moya had any hidden meanings in that answer.
Level of play, intimidating, whatever. It was a simple question, & Moya chose Sampras. Yeah, I read the whole post. And my interpretation is (in my mind anyway) more plausible especially in consideration of the fact that Moya is 1-3 versus Sampras, and 0-6 against Federer. That would be Serena-like for Moya to suggest that a person he's never beaten is not as good as somebody he's batting .250 against.

[35ft6]

The fact that Andre is on tour twenty years doesn't make his perceptions perfect.Nobody is saying it's perfect. But I don't understand how people can so readily dismiss the statements of a thoughtful man who's been on the tour for 20 years, and has played Federer and Sampras several times.

If people have an odd way of recollecting things, then that should apply to TW posters as well. If Agassi's memory of Sampras might be flawed, then ditto for TW posters. So the tie-breaker might be the fact that Agassi has been on the tour for 20 years, and blah blah blah.

His words should be taken seriously even if they go against the beliefs your cherish.

[Kevin Patrick]

Is it really that simple? So Moya has beaten Sampras & not beaten Federer. I don't see why his opinion of who was better is any less valid than Agassi's.
It just shows how great a player Sampras was for Moya to say that. And what a great win it was for Moya to get(which incidently was at the Masters Cup '97. During all of Sampras' 5 wins at that event, he lost a match in the round robin. So it wasn't it exactly the most important match for Sampras)

Moya didn't say that Federer 'wasn't as good' as Sampras, just tougher to play against. And Agassi didn't exactly say that Federer was better, just that he lost by different margins if he didn't play well.


Moya: "He has an unbelievable serve, it was not easy to play with."

[larrhall]

Actually, thirty five six, I don't cherish my beliefs about pros' games. I take Andre's opinions seriously, and enjoy reading his comments. He is really an interesting guy. I simply disagree with him...or, rather, I agree and disagree with him - Federer IS a better player than Pete was. Federer would not necessarily beat Pete because of it. The matchup is one that would have favored Pete - favored him enough so he could have won probably half the time against Roger.

[Gary Britt]

Fedex did beat Pete @ Wimbledon... 8-)

/fuel to the fire
//let the flame war continue..

So did Richard Krajcek. Fed has lost to some less than spectacular opponents at Wimbledon and elsewhere in his career. It happens.

Several people have mentioned Pete's serve as being better than Fed's, and clearly it was. Pete's volleys and serve and volley combination were better than Fed's also. Pete's anticipation at the net was better than Fed's. Fed has better backhand, and in many ways a better forehand.

If Fed wins a grand slam or wins the French and a significant number of slams, say 10 or more for his career, then I'd say Fed will have accomplished enough to rival Pete's career even if he never beat Pete's 14 slams.

Who would win Pete or Fed, prime to prime. I would love to watch and find out.

Gary

[Kaptain Karl]

I am largely "in line" with gully's post #7.

... does Federer have to match or win more grand slams than Pete to be considered the new best?Too difficult to say. You'd also have to factor in "quality of opposition." As Andre is the "common denominator," even Andre will say he's playing better today, than 12 years ago.

Also I think we're all waiting on Federer to face some adversity before outright naming him the best.You mean like losing his Coach to death, like Pete did? That already happened to Roger....

Pete had so many close matches that he had to gut his way through.... I haven't really seen wether or not Federer has the heart of a champion much like Sampras did. Thats what really stood out in my mind as making Sampras the best. Federer is just breezing through at the moment ... I cannot disagree more strongly. For me a measure of "greatness" is demonstrated when you find ways to fight -- and maybe even WIN -- when you are NOT playing at the top of your game. [Pete -vs- Courier, when Pete was overcome with the emotion of losing Gullikson, his Coach ... Roger stretching Marat to 5 sets in the AO Final, when he clearly was "off" ... Roger beating Andre in four, in this USO, when Roger wasn't on his "A game" again....]

He really had Federer on the run last night up until 4:2 in the third set. He was playing unbelievable ...We saw that differently. I saw Andre playing really well and staying with Roger, who was NOT playing really well (for him). In the 5th set, Roger started playing "more" like "Roger" ... and Andre couldn't stay with him.

In three US Open finals with Sampras ... But Andre even acknowledges he's playing better tennis NOW ... than he was THEN.

So I just wonder why if Federer was at his best why Agassi broke him twice in the second set and once in the third and was so competitive for so long? See above. Roger wasn't "at his best." In fact, one of the keys to Roger's "greatness" was in how he managed to win this Major ... while rarely (consistently) playing in the form we've come to expect from him.

- KK

[tennisToad]

stole this from another post...

http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Sampras.html

pretty awesome! so Pete is barely in the lead at this stage in comparision history!!

[tennisToad]

So did Richard Krajcek. Fed has lost to some less than spectacular opponents at Wimbledon and elsewhere in his career. It happens.


Gary

yeah but Krajcek married a playboy bunny!!! and was a one court performer..and we aren't comparing those guys to these guys!!

[AngeloDS]

I wonder what drives Federer to win really. Sampras dedicated his life, and led a pretty unnormal social life. On the other hand, Federer doesn't seem as dedicated as Sampras and lives a pretty normal social life. Yet, he's still plays amazingly.

[Spencer]

Agassi went five sets with Ginepri and Blake. While these guys are great players, Agassi is clearly not what he used to be. He also feels so dejected by losing perhaps his last US Open on 9/11 in front of his crowd that he needs to find a justification for why he choked in the 4th set which is "I didn't choke, Roger is just too good, the best of all time".

I'm sorry, but when I see Agassi get that look of desperation in his eyes and he starts to speed up every point, I know it's over. It's the same look he had when Pete used to dominate him. (The number's don't tell the true tale. Pete was never in any trouble beating Agassi) While Federer turned it up a notch in the 4th, Andre just lost his resolve completely. Andre is one of the greats, but I still remember how he would use to have a 2 sets lead over Becker and Boris would come straight back to beat him 3 straight sets. This musta happened like more than 3 times.

If you guys read the transcript of what Federer says after the match, it gives you incredible insight into what Federer thinks of Sampras and what he thinks of Agassi. Read his statements carefully and one wonders if Federer himselves believes he better than Pete.

I think that if Federer/Sampras were in the same era, neither would have so many grand slams. But Sampras would still have more.

[sugmasterflex]

Come to his senses meaning he'll realize the political implications of saying this, and play coy.

Maybe right after a match is when a player will be the most honest. I've seen both of these guys play a lot, and the only edge Sampras has over Federer is his serve. Even if Federer wins 15 slams there's still going to be people who think Sampras is better just like there's still 70 year old guys out there who'll insist Laver was the best. Oh well.


So, you think Hewitt is a better returner than Agassi and Fed has better volleys than Sampras?

[araghava]

One of the things that separated Roger from Pete is the range of strokes he has in his arsenal.

e.g. yesterday till the 3rd set tie-breaker Roger was using a sliced backhand return. Its almost as though he was keeping the topspin return in reserve just in case he needed it later. When the tie break came, he unleashed 2 topspin backhand returns and Andre couldn't respond.

[Silky Sampras]

Federer does not face nearly as many styles of play as Sampras did. It isn't that the serve and volley is any less effective than it used to be, it's just that it's a far more difficult style to perfect than baseline bashing. Federer's chip backhand returns would be handled easily by a good volleyer; at least it would force him to try to go over the return. Agassi, or anyone else for that matter, can't exploit this.

Take nothing away from Fed; he's got total domination of the game right now. But no one can beat him from the baseline, and that's all anyone does these days.

[ACE of Hearts]

I dont buy that Volley crap, Federer would adjust to that, problem is that he doesnt need to right now, if someone does it, he will adjust.

[ACE of Hearts]

Also, i think some of the players in his era where very overrated.I think some of the guys that played now would beat them, i mean Pioline, Goran was another choker, who else, Chang was a midget.Becker was losing steam.

[dozu]

Come to his senses meaning he'll realize the political implications of saying this, and play coy.

Maybe right after a match is when a player will be the most honest. I've seen both of these guys play a lot, and the only edge Sampras has over Federer is his serve. Even if Federer wins 15 slams there's still going to be people who think Sampras is better just like there's still 70 year old guys out there who'll insist Laver was the best. Oh well.

I think Hewitt, Safin and Federer are all better returners than Agassi... Agassi is good in a sense that he is a very pure striker of the ball, (the mirror image on the WTA side would be Davenport), but comparing the 3 I mentioned above, Agassi is limited in his ancipation, read, footspeed and reach to the ball, that's why through out his career he could not deal with Sampras' serve.. I still remember the year Safin beat Sampras in the USO final, and I was saying to myself "this guy reads the serve and get to the serve much better than Agassi does".

[Chadwixx]

Also, i think some of the players in his era where very overrated.I think some of the guys that played now would beat them, i mean Pioline, Goran was another choker, who else, Chang was a midget.Becker was losing steam.

dont forget about the legendary todd martin

[tennisToad]

Chang was a midget.


Hey screw you he's my height!!!

[35ft6]

So, you think Hewitt is a better returner than Agassi and Fed has better volleys than Sampras? No, but it seems like people are dismissing comments they don't happen to agree in, and outside of that context it seems rather arbitrary the way they go about calling into question things they disagree with.

For example, it was RIGHT after a match, so they must not be thinking straight. But, of course, if Sampras had said Agassi was the stronger returner, the people who think Agassi is a better returner would never say "I agree with what Sampras said after the match, but I wonder if he was thinking straight considering he had just finished a tough match."

There's no underlying consistency. If a pro agrees with them, they cite that as proof. If a pro disagrees, they question whether the pro knows what he's talking about. It's so ad hoc.

Anyway, Hewitt won 5 of their last six meetings, so maybe Sampras is right. Maybe when it came to returning HIS SERVE for some reason Hewitt could read it better than Agassi.

[35ft6]

If you want to see what I'm saying above in action, read this post. Nothing against Spencer, but he seems to be dismissing Agassi's explicit comments, then goes on to suggest that the implications of Federer's comments are what's really insightful. How he comes up with this ruling I don't know, but I'd have to think they betray a personal bias.Agassi went five sets with Ginepri and Blake. While these guys are great players, Agassi is clearly not what he used to be. He also feels so dejected by losing perhaps his last US Open on 9/11 in front of his crowd that he needs to find a justification for why he choked in the 4th set which is "I didn't choke, Roger is just too good, the best of all time".

I'm sorry, but when I see Agassi get that look of desperation in his eyes and he starts to speed up every point, I know it's over. It's the same look he had when Pete used to dominate him. (The number's don't tell the true tale. Pete was never in any trouble beating Agassi) While Federer turned it up a notch in the 4th, Andre just lost his resolve completely. Andre is one of the greats, but I still remember how he would use to have a 2 sets lead over Becker and Boris would come straight back to beat him 3 straight sets. This musta happened like more than 3 times.

If you guys read the transcript of what Federer says after the match, it gives you incredible insight into what Federer thinks of Sampras and what he thinks of Agassi. Read his statements carefully and one wonders if Federer himselves believes he better than Pete.

I think that if Federer/Sampras were in the same era, neither would have so many grand slams. But Sampras would still have more. So if you lose a match, you say crazy stuff. But if you win a match, clearly you must be speaking the truth. I don't get it. Either way they're just opinions. If this is true, though, I'm going to watch closely and see if this logic is applied to other post match interviews. Loser = questionable comments. Winner = insight. Got it.

[antontd]

Everyone(including Agass) is subjective. Look at the stats. Sampras still has the lead.


BTW anyone who compares generations is wasting his/her breath. Federer is a product of Sampras’ generation - an evolution of the game. He should be better. (I’m not saying that he is). Make Jordan at his peak to play Carter/McGrady/Bryant/James and he wouldn’t be the greatest. But would they be so good if they were born 15 years earlier?

[35ft6]

Federer does not face nearly as many styles of play as Sampras did. It isn't that the serve and volley is any less effective than it used to be, it's just that it's a far more difficult style to perfect than baseline bashing. Of course, it's less effective. Not to say it's totally ineffectual, but people are hitting returns a lot harder now than they were pre-1980's when serve and volley was the default style of play. Passing shots are struck with more precision and also more power, so even if they get their racket on it it's tough to control. There will always be exceptions (Rafter and Sampras being the two most notable recent examples), but for the most part I think pro tennis operates in the same way evolution does, survival of the fittest. If there's less serve and volley being played, it's because in general it's less effective in today's game, or something else came along that's more effective even if it's less beautiful. Mostly, huge serve then waiting for the short reply and hitting a groundstroke. With the speed at which returns come back, it's a reasonable adjustment.

[joe sch]

IIRC, after his loss in the final of the 2001 US Open, during the press conference, Sampras stated that Lleyton Hewitt was a better returner than Agassi. Now, Hewitt is a terrific returner, but he's not better than Andre. But for Sampras, it was right after the match, when the sting was still very fresh. It would be interesting to see what Agassi says in a couple of months when this loss is not fresh in his mind.
This is very true. The agony of defeat is very painful, especially right after the match.
Pete usually did enough to win matches, which is basically what Roger did yesterday.
He basically knocked out Andre in the 3rd set TB and AA never recovered.

[kenuston]

He also cheats like Mary Pierce by taking injury time-outs and pretending to barf when he's losing.

The guy has no class. No endurance and he shaves his eyebrows.

[Gary Britt]

I still remember the year Safin beat Sampras in the USO final, and I was saying to myself "this guy reads the serve and get to the serve much better than Agassi does".

You should have been saying to yourself:

"Wow this guy Safin is playing way the heck over his head. He isn't anywhere near this good, but boy is he playing the perfect match. I hope he doesn't wake up before the match is over."

After that match Safin woke up, and hasn't been to sleep like that ever again.

Gary

[arosen]

Roger would be like anyone else trying to break Pete's service game. He would be lucky to break Pete once.

Pete would do what he did against everyone else in trying to break Federer. Crush all returns and hope to string a couple of points together for the break.

It comes down to Pete's superior ability to hold versus Roger's superior ability to break. Holding is by definition easier than breaking so Pete has the edge no matter which way you look at it.

It would be a tough match, and no one is tougher than Pete. He wants it more than anyone else; that's why he's the record holder.
All credit to Federer, but Pete is Pete. He is the best.

Yeah, that seems to be the argument of all the people that are still in love with Pete Sampras. Sampras is gone. Get over it. He is not the best anymore. The guy who played them all said as much. Federer kicked Sampras's ass when they played at Sampras's beloved Wimbledon with Pete feeling healthy and hitting his awesome shots. Bam. Gone was Sampras. Fed wasn't even as good at that time as he is now. Federer is the best tennis player that ever existed. Get used to this simple fact. Noone ever won 2 back-to-back Wimby-US Opens or 23 straight finals, if statistics is what makes a tennis player greatest ever for you.

[Gary Britt]

Noone ever won 2 back-to-back Wimby-US Opens or 23 straight finals, if statistics is what makes a tennis player greatest ever for you.


The statement above is incorrect.

Gary

[alan-n]

It is correct in the open / professional era of tennis... which is a much higher level than the level back when pro's weren't allowed to play in many tournaments. The records that matter in tennis history are during the open / professional tennis era where the level of play and competition are the highest.

[LudaKrisKG]

It's impossible to compare to two
They played at different times in there prime and against different competion
Over Federer might be the better player because he has the ability to dominate on Clay
Not just that, but the game has evelved and the technologies in tennis has made great strides

[big ted]

federer has beaten agassi now 8 times in a row and sampras never did that. now the question is was agassi a better player before with sampras or is he pretty much the same. i think he played as good a match as he ever has in the us open finals against fed and in the qtrs against blake. for agassi not to be able to beat federer even once in 8 tries says something to me.

[tennisgeek]

Look, Agassi at 35 is nowhere as good as Agassi at 29, although he would like to have you believe so. Just as Jimbo at 39 was not as close as Jimbo in 1974 although he got to the US Open final at 39. That's just facts. Yes, Fed is a great player but he is vulnerable to Sampras in his prime as a S&V player. In fact that is the only type of player that can beat him on the hardcourt. Pete's serve was just to big for Fed's Backhand chip return. No, I do not think Fed could continually past Pete on his backhand side. Fed beat a Sampras that was in his twilight. At their primies, Pete's big power game would have beaten Fed's finesse game. Pete dominated Agassi's return game, how would Fed have returned better?

[jukka1970]

None of this matters to the True Believer. Agassi doesn't know what he's talking about. The words of somebody considered by everybody to be thoughtful, who's been on the tour for 20 years, and has actually played Federer and Sampras on numerous occasions, is crap compared to the insights of the people watching the pro tennis on TV.

Actually it does matter, considering Agassi is the professional who's been out there hitting the balls playing the matches, and knows both Sampras and Federer. Oh please, Agassi doesn't know what he's talking about?, you've got to be kidding, and what, you do? I see, so a professional tennis player who knows both players, has played them both on numerous occasions, who's been around 2 decades doesn't know what he's talking about. One word, whatever. Sorry, but it seems more realistic, that you're the one that doesn't know what you're talking about.

[FiveO]

This stuff slays me. I personally think both Fed and Sampras are two of the greatest. But the Fed fans questioning the level of Sampras' competition in majors either didn't see it or won't read it. For perspective in Sampras 14 major wins:

'90 US Open:
R4- Muster-(6 seed; future #1 and winner of 1 major)
QF- Lendl-(3 seed-needs no intro)
SF- McEnroe-(John, needs no intro)
F- Agassi-finished the year at #3 one spot above Sampras

'93 Wimbledon:
QF- Agassi (8 seed; won here in '92)
SF- Becker (needs no intro either; see slouches and has beens post regarding whether Boris was done or not)
F- Courier (3 seed; former #1, 4 majors, 2 on hards, and a very good fast court player. No? Re-check his results.)

'93 US Open: second weakest draw IMO
QF- Chang (7 seed)
SF- Volkov
F- Pioline (15 seed)

'94 Aussie Open
R2- Kafelnikov (future 2 time slam winner '96 RG/'99 AO)
R4- Lendl (15 seed at that time)
SF- Courier (3 seed and 4 majors and 2 time champ on this surface)
F- Martin (7 seed meaning he was a solid top ten player leading into the AO)

'94 Wimbledon
QF- Chang (10 seed)
SF- Martin (6 seed)
F- Ivanisevic (4 seed, would win 1 major, I guess this is where the "choking" begins.)

'95 Wimbledon
R2- Henman
R4- Rusedski
SF- Ivanisevic (4 seed)
F- Becker (3 seed)

'95 US Open
R3- Flipper
R4- Martin (15 seed)
SF- Courier (14 seed)
F- Agassi (1 seed, at 25, had won everything that summer and he's better today right?)

'96 US Open
R4- Flipper
QF- Corretja
SF- Ivanisevic
F- Chang (2 seed, 1 major win, if "the midget" won this match would have reached #1)

'97 Aussie (the surface was slowed to crawl this year)
QF- Costa (10 seed, 1 major)
SF- Muster (5 seed, 1 major; former #1)
F- Moya (future #1 and winner of 1 major)

'97 Wimbledon:
R4- Korda (16 seed, would win AO the next year)
QF- Becker (8 seed; This was the match where Becker told Sampras it was his last Wimbledon, telling the press later that Pete owned the place)
F- Pioline

'98 Wimbledon
QF- Flipper
SF- Henman (12 seed)
F- Ivanisevic (14 seed, must be something about his game and grass)

'99 Wimbledon
QF- Flipper (7 seed)
SF- Henman (6 seed)
F- Agassi (4 seed)

'00 Wimbledon
The weakest draw. Fortunate because there was enough pressure on Sampras as this one was to break Emmo's career major record.

F- Rafter (12 seed, two time major champ)

'02 US Open
R3- Rusedski (33 seed)
R4- Haas (3 seed)
QF- Roddick (The "better serving" 11 seed who would win his only major here the next year. Pete won in straights btw)
SF- Schalken (yeah I know but the 24 seed)
F- Agassi (6 seed)

Its not just who you beat in a final.

[jukka1970]

God, that comment Agassi made really pissed me off. After hearing that, I lost some respect for him.

Agassi played the very best tennis he could muster at that the Wimbledon 1999 final and was destroyed by Sampras. Sampras dominated him from the baseline as well as from everywhere else.

Federer is incredible. Agassi was right about the lack of comfort when playing Roger, even when serving.

Pete would have that comfort zone. Roger would be like anyone else trying to break Pete's service game. He would be lucky to break Pete once.

Pete would do what he did against everyone else in trying to break Federer. Crush all returns and hope to string a couple of points together for the break.

It comes down to Pete's superior ability to hold versus Roger's superior ability to break. Holding is by definition easier than breaking so Pete has the edge no matter which way you look at it.

It would be a tough match, and no one is tougher than Pete. He wants it more than anyone else; that's why he's the record holder.

All credit to Federer, but Pete is Pete. He is the best.

Well in a few years it'll be a joy to change the is in the last sentence to the word was. The only reason Sampras has 14 majors is because of his serve, he had plenty of weaknesses. On top of that, he really never had a rival at the top of their game. I'd even say that about Agassi, he's played better in the last 5 years then he did his first 15. Courier was retiring, Edberg and Becker were on they way out. Safin, Federer, Hewitt hadn't reached their potential. Face it, he was around at the right time for his game. But in a few years all of this won't matter as Federer changes the record books.

[FiveO]

The slouches refered to above:

Pioline: Absolutely a third tier guy but not a nobody. He was seeded 15 at the '93 Open; streak player, got up for majors. That floater nobody wanted. Cedric in majors reached:
7 QF's; 4 SF's at least 1 semi on all three surfaces at the majors; 2 Finals-Losing to Pete each time. Pete eliminated him from one other major and was 3-0 in majors against Pioline. Not a bad third tier guy.

Martin: Very injury prone. Played well in big matches; majors/davis cup. No?
Todd in majors reached:
10 QF's; 4 semis and 2 finals- Losing to Pete once. Pete eliminated Todd from six majors in all losing only once.

Chang: Reached #2. 1 major. Pete was 4 and 1 v. Chang in majors alone.
Michael reached in majors alone:
7 SF's; 3 Finals; Winning Roland Garros.

Ivanisevic: Nuts. Very injury prone. With one major. Was #1 in aces most of 10 years and if not, was then #2. Always one of the favorites on grass. Pete beat him in 4 majors losing once. Goran in majors reached:
7 SF's; 4 Finals; 1 Championship 2001 Wimbledon where he beat, in order:

R3 Roddick
R4 Rusedski
QF Safin
SF Henman
F Rafter

...people forget.


Becker: Done? 1996-Won five titles including his sixth Grand Slam title at the Australian Open (d. Chang)...Withdrew from the French Open because of a torn thigh muscle in his right leg...Came back at the Queen's Club in London and won his seventh career grasscourt title (d. Edberg)...In 3rd RD match at Wimbledon, suffered a partial tear of the ulnar extensor tendon in his right wrist against Godwin...Missed 10 weeks and returned Sept. 9 in Bucharest...Showed no signs of injury at the Mercedes Super 9 stop in Stuttgart where he defeated Rusedski, Enqvist, Gustafsson and Chang before beating No. 1 Sampras in five sets...Qualified for his sixth ATP Tour World Championship in seven years and advanced to his fourth final in five years, losing in an epic five-set (four-hour) match to Sampras.

Courier: 4 majors on two surfaces finals on all three. Yeah he sucked. Pete de-throned him and then kept a foot on his throat. Pete owned him 16-4 overall; 6-2 at the majors.

[35ft6]

Actually it does matter, considering Agassi is the professional who's been out there hitting the balls playing the matches, and knows both Sampras and Federer. Oh please, Agassi doesn't know what he's talking about?, you've got to be kidding, and what, you do? I see, so a professional tennis player who knows both players, has played them both on numerous occasions, who's been around 2 decades doesn't know what he's talking about. One word, whatever. Sorry, but it seems more realistic, that you're the one that doesn't know what you're talking about.I was being sarcastic. I think we agree on this one.

[35ft6]

It's impossible to compare to two
They played at different times in there prime and against different competion
Maybe that's true. And there's always one or two people who point this out in every thread comparing two players of different times, but comparing Sampras to Federer is not as goofy as comparing Coria to Bill Tilden, or Boris Becker to Rod Laver.

They actually played each other once. And there are still quite a few people on tour who's played both of them.

It's a much slippier proposition to compare their records. That's when time and context really makes things difficult. But as far was who's flat out the better player (which is a different discussion than "greatest of all time" where it's more about the records...) I think there's enough evidence out there to make the debate practical.

[Kaptain Karl]

About once a month dozu comes out with a completely outlandish statement. For the September entry...

I think Hewitt, Safin and Federer are all better returners than Agassi...

Ridiculous!!!

- KK

[Bhagi Katbamna]

You have to respect what Andre said.

On the other hand, wouldn't it look like sour grapes after a match loss against fed if AA said, Fed is great but I think Pete was as good or better?

[@wright]

These arguments lead to nowhere. Why are we even hashing this out, it all boils down to whether you like Sampras or Federer better.

[Marius_Hancu]

These arguments lead to nowhere. Why are we even hashing this out, it all boils down to whether you like Sampras or Federer better.

I have to agree.

[LendlFan]

There are different meanings of "best" at play here as indicated by Roger's and Andre's postmatch comments.

Andre's calling Roger the best means to him that Roger is playing, at this moment, the highest level of tennis Andre has competed against. Getting waxed as AA did for the last 30-45 minutes of the match will surely influence such a comment.

Roger's disclaiming himself as best means to him that he has not yet achieved the kinds of results of hist historical competitors, especially Pete, but for that matter, even Andre (though certainly he will, and possibly soon).

When people debate who is "the best" of all time, confusion between the two meanings (and various interpretations of both of those meanings) frequently accounts for the contentious debate between Sampras's supporters and Federer's. But while Roger may -- may -- be playing the the best tennis Andre has competed against, he has still quite a ways to go to rack up the career that Sampras did. Barring injury, ennui, or the unforeseen, he should be able to do it: the current crop of contenders just hasn't yet figured out a plan to stop him.


I agree with your thoughts.. The Best of All Times debate always gets me crazy since there are so many factors to consider. Like number of titles versus number of Slam titles. Which surface they were most successful on.
Singles versus doubles titles, etc. I am of the belief that Steffi Graf was the best female Singles Player based solely upon her accomplishments and not necessarily on her style of play. Also since she did what she did against 3 different generations of opponents starting with Martina and Chris.

When Rodger calls it a day, then I will look at his accomplishments and decide if I think he is best but for now, Pete Sampras is the King and for that matter, Andre Agassi's accomplishments are better than Rodger's. And so was Ivan Lendl's accomplishments better than Rodger's having won everything except Wimbledon and making it to 8 consecutive us open finals and 3 Wimbledon finals. Meaning that he wasn't bad on grass, just not good enough to win it. Although Lendl did win Queens at a time when S&V was big in the sport beating Becker at his prime in the Finals.

[The tennis guy]

Sampras overcame a number of issues outside of tennis in order to continue to win. A couple of tough personal relationships that ended during the prime of his career, the death of Gullikson, his coach and close personal friend, the blowout of his back in the late 90's. And let's not forget the blood condition that should have prevented him from being a world-class athlete to begin with. For Roger we have yet to see him touched by any prolonged adversity. I think we need to see a long career out of him before we start building the pedestal.

You just didn't know. Federer's coach got killed in a car accident. It set Federer back at least a year. Then he hooked up with Peter L.

[ACE of Hearts]

When Roger wins Roland Garros twice, it wont be a debate, which i think he will do.

[The tennis guy]

I'm quite interested with Agassi's comments.

He really had Federer on the run last night up until 4:2 in the third set. He was playing unbelievable matching Federer for forehand winners. Age caught up with Agassi in the end and he could not sustain his challenge. By the way, in forehand duels, Agassi always came out second best against Sampras.

In three US Open finals with Sampras, each time Agassi was down two sets to love in an hour. In 1995 and 2002, Agassi had to work incredibly hard just to make a match of it. In 1990, he got creamed in straight sets, getting broken 5 times and not breaking Sampras once.

So I just wonder why if Federer was at his best why Agassi broke him twice in the second set and once in the third and was so competitive for so long? Or has Agassi forgotten how good Sampras' best is as he hasn't played him for three years.

I just don't think those types of match to match comparison works. To me, Agassi moved better in this particular match than he ever did. I don't think Agassi meant to compare this particular match to his matches against Sampras.

This is the first time Agassi came out to say Federer is better. He used to go around the question. However, I have posted before, many other players who have played both Sampras and Federer came out to say Federer was better for quite some time.

It is difficult for people who are watching to say on surface who is better unless you play them.

[Kevin Patrick]

Agassi played great, but don't think he 'moved better than he ever did." He's 35. When he was in his early 20s, he was one of the fastest guys on tour. Was just watching the '94 Candian Open final. Stolle & Drysdale agreed that he was the 2nd fastest guy on tour (after Chang)

[spinbalz]

About once a month dozu comes out with a completely outlandish statement. For the September entry...

Originally Posted by Dozu
I think Hewitt, Safin and Federer are all better returners than Agassi...


Ridiculous!!!

- KK

What about this one :

I'd say if Guga is at his peak today, .... ... and if the hardcourt is a mutual surface for them, it would be a very close match up.

So that makes already 2 for this month... :)

[callitout]

When Roger wins Roland Garros twice, it wont be a debate, which i think he will do.
When Fed gets 10 gs and wins RG once there wont be much of a debate--twice would be unbelievable but also unlikely. Total GS just depends how long he stays healthy; Fed should be able to take Wimbledon for a sting like Sampras--say 6/7 if not 7/7

[morten]

We will never see Edberg or Rafter against Roger, what a shame. A pure s/v player(no,not Henman) would cause him trouble i think.

[Gary Britt]

It is correct in the open / professional era of tennis... which is a much higher level than the level back when pro's weren't allowed to play in many tournaments. The records that matter in tennis history are during the open / professional tennis era where the level of play and competition are the highest.

I guess Laver's first grand slam in 1963 doesn't mean much then or Budge's the first and original grand slam in the 1930's.

Competition is deeper and better since the open era. That's true in all other sports as well, most of which didn't have open versus closed era's.

Regardless the poster didn't qualify his statement as "hasn't been done in last 40 years" so his statement was and is incorrect.

Gary

[Dedans Penthouse]

Agassi also made a lifetime vow to Brooke Shields and talked his way into bed with the cross-eyed, crusty Barbara Steisand.

Moral of story: if words were birds, he'd be covered in white.
Worst TW ad hominem ever.
Worst?! Hardly. lol. First off, I figured the "tongue-in-cheek" absurd tone was pretty obvious....but then again, maybe given the "passions" involved in these Fed/Pete "cheerleader" type of threads, people do get emotional/testy where tongue-in-cheek loses it's face value. These threads often morph into "my dad can beat up your dad!" type rants.

Federer wins a major and it's not enough to laud Roger on his most recent accomplishment; NO, instead (within minutes) the Fed-o-phile choir feel the irresistable NEED to bleat from the mountaintops to no one (and everyone) in particular: "ROGER IS WAY BETTER THAN THAT SAMPRAS GUY!"

Look, I respect the "who's better?" arguments between well-schooled fans of tennis....but these posts are mostly "cheerleader" in nature that ultimately seek to "rub Sampras' fans nose in dirt" which, in my humbo' opinion is Snooze-city...z--z-z-z-z-z.

At first, I thought my "he (Agassi) talked his way into bed with Barbara Streisand" comment was what you considered THE "worst" ad hominem.....but, as you referred to it as a "TW ad hominem," then I guess you took the phrase "he (Agassi) talked his way into bed with Barbara Streisand" seriously. My bad (smirk!).

[The tennis guy]

Agassi played great, but don't think he 'moved better than he ever did." He's 35. When he was in his early 20s, he was one of the fastest guys on tour. Was just watching the '94 Candian Open final. Stolle & Drysdale agreed that he was the 2nd fastest guy on tour (after Chang)
Agassi was quick, but never fast. He was never second fastest guy on tour. He certainly was no where near as fast as Chang and Sampras - Stolle & Drysdale were full of themselves.

[The tennis guy]

I agree with Lendl on this one. It is extremely difficult to say who is better by watching them playing against other people.

Q. Roger Federer, from what you've seen in degree of difficulty to play against, can you compare and contrast some of the people you played against?

IVAN LENDL: No. Because if you wanted to do that, you would have to be on the court against him to feel that ball. It's very easy to sit back and say, well, you could have done this, you could have done that. Unless you have been on that court and feel how that balls feels coming to you off the serve, off the forehand, how low the backhand stays and how hard it is to recognize where he is going with the shots, you should really not be making those comparisons.

[sugmasterflex]

I just don't think those types of match to match comparison works. To me, Agassi moved better in this particular match than he ever did.

The AA who is 35, who had 3 five-setters in a row, w/ a vulnerable back, playing the final w/ no days off after the semis. Agassi moved well (better than expected), but not better than his younger days. Yet, this AA still had a lead in the match at 4-2 in the third set (something he never had in any of his three finals w/ Sampras). The finals where Agassi was more in his prime. Yet, somehow Federer is better than Sampras.


However, I have posted before, many other players who have played both Sampras and Federer came out to say Federer was better for quite some time.


Maybe b/c Sampras' prime ended 7 years ago and Federer is fresh in their minds w/ Fed kicking their rear end week in and week out.

[The tennis guy]

The AA who is 35, who had 3 five-setters in a row, w/ a vulnerable back, playing the final w/ no days off after the semis. Agassi moved well (better than expected), but not better than his younger days. Yet, this AA still had a lead in the match at 4-2 in the third set (something he never had in any of his three finals w/ Sampras). The finals where Agassi was more in his prime. Yet, somehow Federer is better than Sampras.



Maybe b/c Sampras' prime ended 7 years ago and Federer is fresh in their minds w/ Fed kicking their rear end week in and week out.

I never said Federer is better than Sampras. I just don't think people who didn't play against them can say who is better by just watching. The answer if there is any has to come from players who have played both multiple times. You can't say one way or the other by one single match. It seems like that is what you are saying from one match. I didn't.

[The tennis guy]

The finals where Agassi was more in his prime.

To me Agassi plays better than many years ago. Similar with Hewitt and Roddick. They both feel they are playing better now than when they were No. 1 even though they are not as succesful record wise as they were then. I agree with their own assessment.

[whistleway]

You just didn't know. Federer's coach got killed in a car accident. It set Federer back at least a year. Then he hooked up with Peter L.

PL was coaching before Peter Carter tragically died in 2002.

[The tennis guy]

Maybe b/c Sampras' prime ended 7 years ago and Federer is fresh in their minds w/ Fed kicking their rear end week in and week out.


Yeah right, every player doesn't remember how well Sampras played, except you. I just don't buy that.

[sugmasterflex]

I never said Federer is better than Sampras. I just don't think people who didn't play against them can say who is better by just watching. The answer if there is any has to come from players who have played both multiple times. You can't say one way or the other by one single match. It seems like that is what you are saying from one match. I didn't.


If Federer had lost to the 35 year old Agassi, what would people be saying? Even though it was just one match? In his three matches against Sampras, he was beaten soundly. But he played better against Federer at a more advanced age. AA's logic doesn't follow, that's what I'm saying.

[sugmasterflex]

Yeah right, every player doesn't remember how well Sampras played, except you. I just don't buy that.


Hey, there are a lot of fans that don't recall.

[sugmasterflex]

To me Agassi plays better than many years ago. Similar with Hewitt and Roddick. They both feel they are playing better now than when they were No. 1 even though they are not as succesful record wise as they were then. I agree with their own assessment.

A few years ago Hewitt and Roddick were still reaching their prime. Agassi was already in his prime. Big difference.

[LendlFan]

I think Rodger is much better all around than Pete except for his net play.

Andre knew his serve was coming DTL and still couldn't get a racquet on it. Rodger need only become effecient at the net and look out .. he will be unstopable for a long time. On Pete's best day he couldn't rally BH to BH like FedEx can and people are saying his BH is weak.

Heck I pray to God every night for a weak BH like that. Also, Rodger puts rallies together very well although I was amazed at how many times Andre was able to get FedEx on the defense.

But as we've seen Rodger on D is still a dangerous place for his opponents because he can turn a D into a O with one blast DTL.

[The tennis guy]

If Federer had lost to the 35 year old Agassi, what would people be saying? Even though it was just one match? In his three matches against Sampras, he was beaten soundly. But he played better against Federer at a more advanced age. AA's logic doesn't follow, that's what I'm saying.

It doesn't matter what everyone would say. For the first 3 sets, I felt Agassi played as well as he ever had.

I just don't believe Agassi's answer was based on one particular match. This is what you are getting into, just the matches at US Open finals between Federer, Agassi, and Sampras and Agassi count in overall assessment.

[The tennis guy]

Hey, there are a lot of fans that don't recall.

That's why I wouldn't count on their opinions on who is better, Sampras or Federer.

[@wright]

"Heck I pray to God every night for a weak BH like that."

Teeheehee, I don't know why this is funny, but it just is, and so true.

[sugmasterflex]

I just don't believe Agassi's answer was based on one particular match.



Then why not say this after any of the last 7 times he lost to Federer?

[The tennis guy]

Then why not say this after any of the last 7 times he lost to Federer?

I don't know. He said it in subtle term before, so I wouldn't count him as one sure vote. Maybe he felt the same way I felt that he played in this one match (first 3 sets) as well as he ever played. Hewitt, who didn't say it one way or the other after his lost to Federer at the final last year, but started to give the vote to Federer this year.

[sugmasterflex]

I don't know. He said it in subtle term before, so I wouldn't count him as one sure vote. Maybe he felt the same way I felt that he played in this one match (first 3 sets) as well as he ever played. Hewitt, who didn't say it one way or the other after his lost to Federer at the final last year, but started to give the vote to Federer this year.



Agassi has lost to Fed 8 straight times. Hewitt has lost to Federer 7 straight times, I think. Kinda clouds your judgement a bit.

[bee65n]

A more rational explanation would be that they both lost to Federer that many consecutive times simply because he is the best.

[LendlFan]

A more rational explanation would be that they both lost to Federer that many consecutive times simply because he is the best.


Well at least one could agree 'Better' than they are at this moment. But again, I contend that we have to wait until a few years have gone by and see how many Slam titles, US Open Series Titles and Master's Titles he has to his name. Pete's record is still far and away outstanding and Rodger (not wanting to take anything away from him) has not yet had that level of accomplishment.

He hasn't even equaled Lendl's accomplishments thus far .. so we're all talking speculation on what may occur. I'm thinking he will prove his worthiness but the jury is still out.

Andre Agassi is playing with cortazone shots in his back, plus he's 35 yrs old plus he just came off 4 - 5 Set Matches. Take away all of these things and we might be praising his victory given what he brought out 50% of the match.

[martin]

I don't believe Agassi is much less than when he played against Sampras otherwise he wouldn't have reached the final. Now Agassi has beaten Sampras many times but against Federer he has lost 8 straight times.
I've seen Sampras play and he has a great forehand and serve but his backhand is average. I think that is what Agassi means. Sampras had a weakness in his game and Federer doesn't.

[supremebeing]

The Fed has the ability to crank up his level of play to levels unprecidented in the sport. It seems strainge, but he often seems tobe idling along, doing nothing special. Than wam, he is hoisting the trophy. I think in head to head, Pete wouild be just another one of guys Roger beat up on in the finals.

[35ft6]

These arguments lead to nowhere. Why are we even hashing this out, it all boils down to whether you like Sampras or Federer better. Personally, that's not what it boils down to for me. I like Sampras and Federer nearly equally. I like Rios and Guga way more than either, but that's not going to get me saying that they're better than Pete and Roger.

[35ft6]

A more rational explanation would be that they both lost to Federer that many consecutive times simply because he is the best. Yeah, this whole 'of course they think he's better, they lost to him 10 times in a row!" argument, as this that proves they're full of crap, is puzzling. I remember Kafelnikov calling Pete the greatest, but now I have to wonder if he was just making himself feel better for having lost to Sampras. In fact, every guy who thinks Pete is the greatest who has a losing record against him, their testimonies need to be thrown out. It's inadmissible according to the logic that TW has established.

Of course, the opposite would make even LESS sense. If Agassi said Federer was the greatest after having beaten him for the 8th time in a row, Pete supporters would be calling Agassi deluded for that as well.

Agassi has always been one of Pete's biggest supporters and admirer's. For him to say Federer is the better player really means something. I don't think he would just blurt that out in the heat of the moment. In fact, I haven't seen Agassi blurt out something stupid in an interview for a long time. When he's asked a dumb question he doesn't want to answer ('when are you going to retire?) he always has a gracious, diplomatic reply. Just saying, he's not a guy who's going to get cornered into saying something he doesn't mean, and I especially think he's given this Federer/Sampras thing a lot of thought considering how much his own history is tied into the Sampras mystique. I don't think he'd be frivolous about topic. I have a feeling if he didn't say this right AFTER the match, and instead a few weeks later, the Pete supporters would suggest he had a lot of time to think about it and found a way to spin his loss.

[LendlFan]

The Fed has the ability to crank up his level of play to levels unprecidented in the sport. It seems strainge, but he often seems tobe idling along, doing nothing special. Than wam, he is hoisting the trophy. I think in head to head, Pete wouild be just another one of guys Roger beat up on in the finals.

You are probably correct ... but I can't forget that often in both sides ATP & WTA someone comes along that raises the bar. Then people catch up and that player begins to have difficulty winning matches. It happened with Roddick it could have happened with Mark Phillopousus (sp) but his ground game stunk.
Happened with the Williams Sisters in that the other girls couldn't find an answer to their power until now.

I'm thinking a year from now, the scope of the ATP will look a lot different. Because an easy equation to conceive is
'If one person can do it .. another can & will'

[jukka1970]

I was being sarcastic. I think we agree on this one.

My fault, I apologize. I must have focused to hard on the first 2 sentences, I now see the sarcasm.

[LendlFan]

Personally, that's not what it boils down to for me. I like Sampras and Federer nearly equally. I like Rios and Guga way more than either, but that's not going to get me saying that they're better than Pete and Roger.

AGREED !!! I was going to say what about us that like both of them?

[35ft6]

My fault, I apologize. I must have focused to hard on the first 2 sentences, I now see the sarcasm. No problem.

If we can't take Agassi's word for it, then I guess we'll never know. I mean he's played Pete several times. He's known him since Pete was a junior. He was there at the beginning of Pete's career, and at the VERY end. And Agassi's known for being a thoughtful person who truly understands the game of tennis. His throw away comments about tennis strategy are incredibly insightful. He truly understands the game. And he's 35 with a family and a foundation he cares about, a life outside of tennis, and his legacy is secure. He really has nothing to gain by lying or being glib about Federer's greatness.

We're not talking about a 23 year old upstart calling Federer the greatest. We're talking about Agassi, the guy who's been around for 20 years, and the one pro I desperately hope becomes a commentator after retiring. But I'm sure he won't, because he has a life. And the fact that he has a life makes his comments more credible to me. This is a guy who has a family and his foundation to give him perspective. He's not some punk shooting off his mouth.

Whatever. If we're to dismiss Agassi's comments, and the one match Federer and Sampras actually played, then I guess this conversation is like discussing if Han Solo had frost bite in Return of the Jedi.

[Kaptain Karl]

The paralell I see between both Pete and Roger is ... they each seem(ed) to win -- even when NOT on his "A Game."

I don't believe Roger played *well* for most of the US Open. He finally came close to "being Roger" the last set and one-half of the Final.

I've gained more respect for Pete since reviewing his matches. I have great respect for Roger's nearly "weakness-free" game.

I like 'em both.

- KK

[GuyClinch]

You can never really answer these debates..

First off. Federer has a ways to go before he matches Pete's records. I don't think you can assume that he will remain injury free or that someone new won't come along and find a way to beat him.

Secondly, you guys forget the ability for players to ADAPT. Look at the women's tour for example. It used to be that Serena and Venus were on track to smash all records and just dominate the game to some absurd level. But the tour players have caught up and can now "out Serena" Serena.

Likewise on the pro tour we will have to see how the guys eventually respond to his dominance. When your #1 like Pete was and Federer is you become a marked man. Guys will plan their whole games around beating you - because they idolized you when they grew up. It's a challenge that won't play itself out for years.

Pete

[ps 6.0]

I like this quote that Agassi made before the match:

If you play well against Sampras, you lose 7-6, 6-4, if you play badly against him, you lose 7-6, 6-4. If you play well against Federer, you lose 7-6, 6-4. If you play badly against Federer, you lose 6-1,6-1.

Right that may be true, but Sampras was Sampras. His game wasn't to pound his opponent the entire match... Sampras played "efficient" tennis as they called it. He served easy games, and he'd cruise then he'd find an opening. Once that opening came around he played 100% then when he got the break, he'd cruise again. He ended playing more points but less grunt-work. The box scores were misleading... just because you lose 7-6, 6-4 it doesn't mean that you were close.

[35ft6]

Right that may be true, but Sampras was Sampras. His game wasn't to pound his opponent the entire match... Sampras played "efficient" tennis as they called it. He served easy games, and he'd cruise then he'd find an opening. Once that opening came around he played 100% then when he got the break, he'd cruise again. He ended playing more points but less grunt-work. The box scores were misleading... just because you lose 7-6, 6-4 it doesn't mean that you were close. I think what you said is Agassi's point.

[@wright]

"If we can't take Agassi's word for it, then I guess we'll never know. I mean he's played Pete several times. He's known him since Pete was a junior. He was there at the beginning of Pete's career, and at the VERY end. And Agassi's known for being a thoughtful person who truly understands the game of tennis. His throw away comments about tennis strategy are incredibly insightful. He truly understands the game. And he's 35 with a family and a foundation he cares about, a life outside of tennis, and his legacy is secure. He really has nothing to gain by lying or being glib about Federer's greatness.

We're not talking about a 23 year old upstart calling Federer the greatest. We're talking about Agassi, the guy who's been around for 20 years, and the one pro I desperately hope becomes a commentator after retiring. But I'm sure he won't, because he has a life. And the fact that he has a life makes his comments more credible to me. This is a guy who has a family and his foundation to give him perspective. He's not some punk shooting off his mouth.

Whatever. If we're to dismiss Agassi's comments, and the one match Federer and Sampras actually played, then I guess this conversation is like discussing if Han Solo had frost bite in Return of the Jedi."

This is the best post in the thread. It says it all. No one is being objective here, there is not enough evidence one way or the other, plus one side's evidence is being thrown out altogether by the other side. I hope no one is getting their feathers ruffled about this. Arguing about whether Pete or Roger is greater is stupid, because even if you win, you're still retarded.

[dozu]

technical aspects aside, Federer is contributing so much to the sport, and setting a great role model for the kids.

Off the court, he gives hours and hours of interview to the media, and when he has chance, signs for the fans as many as possible. Sampras didn't do as much, instead mostly he was a "loner" and concentrate on his own stuff.

On the court, Federer displays a consistent temperment, a great example for the juniors to follow, whether he is winning or losing. Sampras was not the same... when he faced weaker opps, he does this in-your-face sky overhead, 90% of which was totally unnecessary as he could easily do a conventional overhead and win the point. when he is losing, he displays that sorry-ass attitude like vomitting/crying that totally threw off his opps, Courier and Corretja included. I don't deny Sampras is a great player, but it's this kind of on-court display that made me almost a Sampras hater. ok, i know i know, he couldn't have faked that vomit, but that interupted the normal flow of the match, and was in violation of the 25-second rule if that rule was enforced strictly. So to me, he wouldn't have won at least 2 of his 14 GS, if not for the use of some strange body fluids other than sweat.

l totally agree with Dick Enberg when he said (about Federer) that it's great for the sport when the number one player is such a good guy.

[@wright]

"when he faced weaker opps, he does this in-your-face sky overhead, 90% of which was totally unnecessary as he could easily do a conventional overhead and win the point. when he is losing, he displays that sorry-ass attitude like vomitting/crying that totally threw off his opps"

This is hilarious. I can just picture Pete crying a little to throw off his opponent's rhythm after Pete goes down a break. LMAO

Ed - put your fireproof underwear on, you just said that tennis has evolved, a big no-no to the past-worshipping traditionalists on the board. hehe

[federerhoogenbandfan]

Some of things I am reading from both sides are just ridiculous.

First of all a certain renowned Sampras fanatic saying that Agassi was matching Federer forehand winner for forehand winner until 4-2 up in the 3rd set is hogwash, and that Sampras used to dominate Agassi in the forehand rallies is as well. Federer had over twice the number of forehand winners as Agassi for the match, even at the point when he was down 4-2 in the 3rd set, the excessive number of backhand errors he was making was the biggest reason the match was close at that point, until Federer found his backhand in the 3rd set tiebreaker and 4th sets that is. Secondly Sampras did not dominate Agassi for the overall whole of a match in any way in baseline exchanges when Agassi was playing well, at best he won an even share of forehand rallies and lost the vast majority all the backhand rallies, in most of the matches, in years Agassi was a top 5 player; his serve and net game, along with his mental strength and athleticsm are the main reasons he won alot of their matchups however.

On the other hand some others saying Agassi was moving better than ever is also completely untrue. That is one area he cant possability be as strong as 10 years ago(94-95) . That being said he was never the second-fastest player on tour, behind Michael Chang even in his prime. His movement was very good once, but never one of the very best.

[The tennis guy]

Again, comparison between Federer vs Agassi, Sampras vs Agassi in US Open final is not equal comparison. Sampras is an American, Federer isn't. You can't discount the different environments those matches were played. Federer played more cautious than usual against Agassi in this hostile environment.

[Thunder]

I don't believe Agassi is much less than when he played against Sampras otherwise he wouldn't have reached the final. .

He is.

AA is not going to say he is not bcause of pride. Andre's convincing himself that FED has to the best because he is constantly being defeated by FED. IT GIVES HIM MOTIVATION AND WE CANNOT BLAME ANDRE FOR THIS.

Agassi in his heydey would be at the level of the 2nd set for the whole match, constant pressure.

[Ray Wong]

Why someone here so certainly that Fed is better than Pete in their prime. Fed has advantage in some aspect and Pete has others, although they play a match in their best performance, I don't think Pete will lose in straight three sets like someone said, it will be a very exciting match.
I like both, but everyone have their weakness, Fed & Pete also.

[Speedy_tennis]

IIRC, after his loss in the final of the 2001 US Open, during the press conference, Sampras stated that Lleyton Hewitt was a better returner than Agassi. Now, Hewitt is a terrific returner, but he's not better than Andre. But for Sampras, it was right after the match, when the sting was still very fresh. It would be interesting to see what Agassi says in a couple of months when this loss is not fresh in his mind.

I agree with this, is the same thing, like 2001

[Kaptain Karl]

Secondly, you guys forget the ability for players to ADAPT. Look at the women's tour for example. It used to be that Serena and Venus were on track to smash all records and just dominate the game to some absurd level. But the tour players have caught up and can now "out Serena" Serena."Maybe...." Serena's lack of training, practice and fitness surely contributed to her crumble.

- KK

[laurie]

A well known Federer fanatic seems to have to change his "stage" name every few months to cover his aggressive behaviour. Bit of chicken perhaps? He started out well with his new name, been quite civil but now as Rabbit pointed out last month, he's back to his bad behaviour again.

I feel I contributed to this guy changing his name last time because I had him cornered. I'm prepared to do it all over again. In fact, it will be a pleasure.

Certainly a wolf in sheeps clothing.

[Rabbit]

A well known Federer fanatic seems to have to change his "stage" name every few months to cover his aggressive behaviour. Bit of chicken perhaps? He started out well with his new name, been quite civil but now as Rabbit pointed out last month, he's back to his bad behaviour again.

I feel I contributed to this guy changing his name last time because I had him cornered. I'm prepared to do it all over again. In fact, it will be a pleasure.

Certainly a wolf in sheeps clothing.

I'm glad someone else saw the same thing I did. The guy is a loon.

[laurie]

Rabbit, but no only that. I have too much wit for this guy. I will take him to the cleaners if he rubs me up the wrong way. I'll be monitoring him.

[Rabbit]

Laurie, if I were wearing a hat, I'd take it off in your honor.

[@wright]

Not to ask you to name names, but who are you talking about?

[lude popper]

I'd hate to see Federer beat Pete's record because it seems like Pete's life rotates around his tennis accomplishments. If he no longer had the image of "Best Player Ever", I think he would be miserable. Sampras is very image conscious.

[fastdunn]

I like this quote that Agassi made before the match:

If you play well against Sampras, you lose 7-6, 6-4, if you play badly against him, you lose 7-6, 6-4. If you play well against Federer, you lose 7-6, 6-4. If you play badly against Federer, you lose 6-1,6-1.

Does this mean Sampras is better or Federer is better ?

The score is Sampras' call no matter how well you play. You'll lose.
You can improve your score against Federer or maybe beat him
if you play insanely good. But you won't be able to play that good.

[drexeler]

Does this mean Sampras is better or Federer is better ?

The score is Sampras' call no matter how well you play. You'll lose.
You can improve your score against Federer or maybe beat him
if you play insanely good. But you won't be able to play that good.

I think he means that there is much more pressure to hold your own service game when playing Federer. Both Pete & Fed can hold their games equally well, but you better be on against Fed or you will get broken and the score will be 6-1, whereas against Pete you can relax during your service games, and still take it to a tie-break.

He expanded on this quite a bit during his interview after the USO final. He said that something to the effect that Fed is a player against whom you hold serve to go up 1-0, and you feel a sigh of relief (i.e. holding a game is an achievement against Fed); also on your serve you are up 30-0, but lose the next point to make it 30-15, and the pressure in that situation is much worse than against any other player; and every shot has a sense of urgency, there is no relaxation point or safety zone etc. Basically, he described playing against Fed as a mental torture.

[laurie]

Not to ask you to name names, but who are you talking about?

You'll soon find out if this fool raises his ugly head above the table and makes any more smartass comments. As John McEnroe says, it will be fun to watch, by the time I'm finished with him.

[Kaptain Karl]

laurie & Rabbit - What ARE you two talking about???

- KK

[@wright]

I think they are talking about you, Kaptain.

[0.2RatedPlayer]

laurie & Rabbit - What ARE you two talking about???

- KK

theyre talking about how hoogenbandfan switches out of his name and bandwagons whenever federer does good. in addition, they think that he has other screenames for this msgboard that he posts under.

[Kaptain Karl]

Why would someone go through all that time and effort to ... congratulate themselves on a "Good post, KK!"????

Geez! Get a life...
_____________

@wright - For all I know, they could be talking about me. I get confused easily. But I kinda like all those voices in my head, you know....

- KK

[35ft6]

I'd hate to see Federer beat Pete's record because it seems like Pete's life rotates around his tennis accomplishments. If he no longer had the image of "Best Player Ever", I think he would be miserable. Sampras is very image conscious. I think you're right. But maybe having kids and a family is preparing him to accept the perhaps inevitable day when even the most hardcore Sampras worshipper has to grudgingly admit that Federer is better.

[sarpmas]

Do we really need to have a flat out winner between these 2 greats, and along the way disparages the other like some 10 year old 'my dad beats your dad' juvenile? If only we can appreciate both of them objectively...

As a tennis fan, I thought this hypothetical matchup will be the most amazing matchup possible. I used to fantasized about the matchup between Sampras and Laver or Borg or Gonzalez or any other best ever candidates, but now, Sampras against Federer at their prime is my ultimate fantasy. Imagine, Sampras's relentless aggression versus Federer's brilliant shotmaking, I'm beginning to think that it is even a more intriguing matchup than Sampras Agassi contrasting SV vs baseline play! For me, undoubtedly, these two will push each other to a level that may be out of this world!

Anywhere, back to the original question. What do you think Agassi's answer will be if someone ask him how will he fare if he is playing Federer at his prime? Let's not forget Agassi has repeatedly mentioned that Sampras always brought out the best in him and vice versa. Has Federer brought out the best in Agassi?

As a diehard Sampras fan, I'm not afraid to admit Federer has a better overall skill. But in this ultimate matchup, there can be no clear winner! Let's just say 50-50, shall we?

[Marius_Hancu]

one thing I know: Fed has beaten AA with his own weapons in the last matches, thus AA would be inclined to favor him wrt Pete in such comparisons, at least for showing that the his own baseline style is superior to SV.

or paying Pete back at least in such interviews.

this is small talk.

the big talk is the 3 victories Pete had against him in finals at his top.

[laurie]

theyre talking about how hoogenbandfan switches out of his name and bandwagons whenever federer does good. in addition, they think that he has other screenames for this msgboard that he posts under.

You are spot on. Now that everyone knows this, I'm waiting for him.

[teedub]

I don't believe Agassi is much less than when he played against Sampras otherwise he wouldn't have reached the final. Now Agassi has beaten Sampras many times but against Federer he has lost 8 straight times.
I've seen Sampras play and he has a great forehand and serve but his backhand is average. I think that is what Agassi means. Sampras had a weakness in his game and Federer doesn't.

When was the last time it took Agassi 25 sets to reach the final of the USO? Give you a clue...the answer starts with an 'n'. Matter of fact, when was the last time Andre played a total of 29 sets in any major? I'm not sure, but my guess also starts with an 'n'.

Anyways, I feel the same you do about Sampras and Fed's ground games. Sampras' forehand was great and so is Federer's but the backhand sets them apart. Although I wouldn't call Pete's backhand a weakness during his prime, it was never the weapon Fed's is. The one thing that stands out the most is Federer is able to do much more with his backhand on the run.

[35ft6]

I'm guessing "n" stands for "November," but that really doesn't make any sense.

[teedub]

I worded that awkwardly, because I'm asking for a time and frankly, never isn't a time =).

[35ft6]

^ I was being an idiot. I knew what you meant. I'm bored and there's little activity on any boards.

[ssuHeartsRivald]

I'm full loaded about kinds of this thread. anyone has more interesting one?

[teedub]

^ I was being an idiot. I knew what you meant. I'm bored and there's little activity on any boards.

Yeah, I figured you were just teasin' so I decided to clear that up.

And to the above post yes I'm kind of sick of seeing this topic come up. A few hours after the final I read the post-match interviews and I saw what Andre said and I knew that quote was going to surface on this board anyways...sh*t's inevitable.