PDA

View Full Version : Agassi on Differences Between Roger & Pete


sseemiller
02-28-2004, 05:00 PM
Andre gave an two-part interview for Inside Tennis. I just got the second part, and he talks about the differences in playing Pete and Roger, and the differences in their games.

I know we love to debate that here, but I think the best proof is what their opponents say. So I'll type up this bit for you. I highly recommend the whole interview, though:

IT: Do you get excited about what Federer could achieve?

AA: You look at everybody's potential when you see their weapons, and he certainly has great potential. You always leave room for the competitor's heart and spirit. Sometimes that accomplishes incredible things. Other times, it keeps you from reaching your potential. His potential is big, no question. His serve is very accurate. He is close to the lines. He never misses, leav ing it in your strike zone. He's a real good target server. He hits lines. Pete's serve was better than Roger's, but Roger moves better than Pete. Roger is much better off the ground and also better off the return, but he doesn't volley as well. So how do you rate how that's gonna play out? He's very explosive, has great hands. Great hand speed, feel, movement, all-court game. He can play from the back and beat the best, and he can serve-volley and take certain players out of the equation by coming forward. He has a game that can get around a lot of different types of players, and that's what's required to win a lot of Slams. One thing I know for sure, if there's an edge off my game, if I'm not moving, if I'm not able to reach for balls, there's no chance when you're out there.

Rabbit
02-28-2004, 06:07 PM
Well, just to be in the same ballpark as a 14 GS winner is not bad at all. The real test will be how Federer applies his talent and how he long he can maintain that level of play. Sampras' effort was single-minded for so many years. He had the same type of determination that Connors, Lendl, and Borg had. Will Federer have that kind of drive or will he be like Agassi and McEnroe, up one year, down the next? Only time will tell, but I think we'll all have fun watching him in the mean time.

JRW
02-28-2004, 07:31 PM
I agree 100%

sseemiller
02-28-2004, 07:37 PM
And if I may, I also typed up for my Nadal site this bit from Inside Tennis about Nadal. I wouldn't bother posting it here, except that I think Todd Martin's comments are interesting. I hadn't heard this from him before.

The other guys named in the article, titled "Who's Got Next? These Young Phenoms Have Top-20 Stuff," are Ginepri, J. "Pim-Pim" Johansson, Tomas Berdych, Mario Ancic and Richard Gasquet. No surprises there. *lol*

The women are: Maria Sharapova, Dinara Safina, Tatiana Golovin, Ashley Harkleroad, Karolina Sprem and Aniko Kapros.

Here's the Nadal bit:

From Inside Tennis, March 2004:

Rafael Nadal
Age: 17
Height: 6'0"
Weight: 165

Jan '03 Rankings: No. 235
Feb. '04 Rankings: No. 40

Asked for his pick of the litter among the young guns, Todd Martin wasted little time: "Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal," he told IT. "He's incredibly special from an athletic, skills, mental toughness and enjoyment standpoint. Every time he walks on court it looks like there's no other place he'd rather be. That's a great gift."

Fellow countryman Carlos Moya also sang his praises, saying that Nadal is one of the best young players he's ever seen and a no-doubt Top-10 performer.

Nadal doesn't appear burdened by the hype. Although he seems to have a natural affinity for the dirt, he refuses to be typecast as a one-surface wonder. He reached the third round at Wimbledon last year and more recently played the role of Davis Cup hero when his fifth and deciding rubber gave the visiting Spaniards a 3-2 win over the Czechs on carpet. "He's got his best shot on clay, but if he works on his serve, he'll play great on every court," Martin said. If that doesn't work, he might have a job as a running back in the NFL. He's built like a Mack truck."

jun
02-28-2004, 11:05 PM
That's the first thing that struck my mind as well.."Heart"
Sampras didn't show much emotion, and looked tired a lot of times. But he was so determined, enjoyed dominating and winning. I am not sure how Roger is going to respon in near future. The guy literally can do everything...

Bhagi Katbamna
02-29-2004, 08:09 AM
Not to mention that Pete did it while having Thallasemia.

@wright
02-29-2004, 08:27 AM
I've always thought Federer was better off the ground than Pete, and now I consider it fact, but it seems so insignificant when you factor in the intangibles that Pete had.

PureCarlosMoyaDrive
02-29-2004, 05:40 PM
Not to mention that Pete did it while having Thallasemia.

What is that?

Roger is better off the ground, but Pete's forehand would still be considered better in my point of view.

Young Pete
03-01-2004, 02:12 AM
:D

chad shaver
03-01-2004, 08:58 AM
Thalassemia is a genetic blood disorder. People with Thalassemia disease are not able to make enough hemoglobin, which causes severe anemia. Hemoglobin is found in red blood cells and carries oxygen to all parts of the body. When there is not enough hemoglobin in the red blood cells, oxygen cannot get to all parts of the body. Organs then become starved for oxygen and
are unable to function properly.

Check this site: http://thalassemia.com/what_is_thal.html

@wright
03-01-2004, 09:00 AM
So is it fair to say Pete Sampras didn't reach his potential? LMAO. What an underachiever, too bad he wasn't healthy, he could have REALLY made a splash in pro tennis.

chad shaver
03-01-2004, 10:14 AM
He may have picked up another Australian and US Open, IMO. I remember he was sick for the finals of the US Open and for the semis of the Australian. The whole coulda shoulda woulda stuff....you just never know, but I think it's a possibility.

PureCarlosMoyaDrive
03-01-2004, 05:12 PM
So basically his endurance and full speed were never fully realized? Wow, maybe he coulda stayed a force on tour for a few extra years if not for this. Then what, 16 slams? Maybe, the French?

Seany
10-14-2009, 03:46 PM
Genius Andre

fantom
10-15-2009, 03:01 AM
..........

GasquetGOAT
10-15-2009, 09:08 AM
Andre gave an two-part interview for Inside Tennis. I just got the second part, and he talks about the differences in playing Pete and Roger, and the differences in their games.

I know we love to debate that here, but I think the best proof is what their opponents say. So I'll type up this bit for you. I highly recommend the whole interview, though:

IT: Do you get excited about what Federer could achieve?

AA: You look at everybody's potential when you see their weapons, and he certainly has great potential. You always leave room for the competitor's heart and spirit. Sometimes that accomplishes incredible things. Other times, it keeps you from reaching your potential. His potential is big, no question. His serve is very accurate. He is close to the lines. He never misses, leav ing it in your strike zone. He's a real good target server. He hits lines.[/B]

Pete's serve was better than Roger's, but Roger moves better than Pete. Roger is much better off the ground and also better off the return, but he doesn't volley as well. [/B]So how do you rate how that's gonna play out?

He's very explosive, has great hands. Great hand speed, feel, movement, all-court game. He can play from the back and beat the best, and he can serve-volley and take certain players out of the equation by coming forward.

He has a game that can get around a lot of different types of players, and that's what's required to win a lot of Slams.[/B] One thing I know for sure, if there's an edge off my game, if I'm not moving, if I'm not able to reach for balls, there's no chance when you're out there.

Andre...Andre.....;)

mandy01
10-15-2009, 09:13 AM
LOL..people bumping years old threads :lol:

AAAA
10-15-2009, 09:19 AM
Andre gave an two-part interview for Inside Tennis. I just got the second part, and he talks about the differences in playing Pete and Roger, and the differences in their games.

I know we love to debate that here, but I think the best proof is what their opponents say. So I'll type up this bit for you. I highly recommend the whole interview, though:

IT: Do you get excited about what Federer could achieve?

AA: You look at everybody's potential when you see their weapons, and he certainly has great potential. You always leave room for the competitor's heart and spirit. Sometimes that accomplishes incredible things. Other times, it keeps you from reaching your potential. His potential is big, no question. His serve is very accurate. He is close to the lines. He never misses, leav ing it in your strike zone. He's a real good target server. He hits lines. Pete's serve was better than Roger's, but Roger moves better than Pete. Roger is much better off the ground and also better off the return, but he doesn't volley as well. So how do you rate how that's gonna play out? He's very explosive, has great hands. Great hand speed, feel, movement, all-court game. He can play from the back and beat the best, and he can serve-volley and take certain players out of the equation by coming forward. He has a game that can get around a lot of different types of players, and that's what's required to win a lot of Slams. One thing I know for sure, if there's an edge off my game, if I'm not moving, if I'm not able to reach for balls, there's no chance when you're out there.

There it is in a nutshell why Federer became so great. Shall we call Andre the 'smartest great player'?

TMF
10-15-2009, 09:25 AM
The interview was actually done in Texas 2003 where Roger won the Master Cup....

http://www.asapsports.mobi/interview/172.html

morten
10-16-2009, 12:23 AM
Agassi liked playing attacking players, no wonder he thinks Fed is harder to face. Bruguera, Moya etc have all said Pete was better...

World Beater
10-16-2009, 10:26 AM
Agassi liked playing attacking players, no wonder he thinks Fed is harder to face. Bruguera, Moya etc have all said Pete was better...

http://www.thehindu.com/2006/04/02/stories/2006040208611700.htm

Actually no.

Federer is 10x better than sampras according to sergi.

morten
10-16-2009, 10:34 AM
ok then it must have been Kuerten.. A pity Fed will never face a great s&v player.. :(

TMF
10-16-2009, 10:55 AM
ok then it must have been Kuerten.. A pity Fed will never face a great s&v player.. :(

You are wrong again. Federer did play a great s/v player in 2001 SW19.

1. you are wrong about Bruguera
2. you are wrong about Fed facing a great s/v player
3. ??????????

You want to try for a hat trick?

morten
10-16-2009, 11:42 AM
Ha ha, well i was wrong about Bruguera, but IMO Fed sure is lucky not to face true s&v players on a regular basis(or at all...) True Pete attacks the net and Fed was great that day, but i really miss s&v tennis and i think it could bother Fed more.

jamesblakefan#1
10-16-2009, 11:47 AM
And if I may, I also typed up for my Nadal site this bit from Inside Tennis about Nadal. I wouldn't bother posting it here, except that I think Todd Martin's comments are interesting. I hadn't heard this from him before.

The other guys named in the article, titled "Who's Got Next? These Young Phenoms Have Top-20 Stuff," are Ginepri, J. "Pim-Pim" Johansson, Tomas Berdych, Mario Ancic and Richard Gasquet. No surprises there. *lol*

The women are: Maria Sharapova, Dinara Safina, Tatiana Golovin, Ashley Harkleroad, Karolina Sprem and Aniko Kapros.

Here's the Nadal bit:

From Inside Tennis, March 2004:

Rafael Nadal
Age: 17
Height: 6'0"
Weight: 165

Jan '03 Rankings: No. 235
Feb. '04 Rankings: No. 40

Asked for his pick of the litter among the young guns, Todd Martin wasted little time: "Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal," he told IT. "He's incredibly special from an athletic, skills, mental toughness and enjoyment standpoint. Every time he walks on court it looks like there's no other place he'd rather be. That's a great gift."

Fellow countryman Carlos Moya also sang his praises, saying that Nadal is one of the best young players he's ever seen and a no-doubt Top-10 performer.

Nadal doesn't appear burdened by the hype. Although he seems to have a natural affinity for the dirt, he refuses to be typecast as a one-surface wonder. He reached the third round at Wimbledon last year and more recently played the role of Davis Cup hero when his fifth and deciding rubber gave the visiting Spaniards a 3-2 win over the Czechs on carpet. "He's got his best shot on clay, but if he works on his serve, he'll play great on every court," Martin said. If that doesn't work, he might have a job as a running back in the NFL. He's built like a Mack truck."

Great foresight there.

EtePras
10-16-2009, 11:51 AM
http://www.thehindu.com/2006/04/02/stories/2006040208611700.htm

Actually no.

Federer is 10x better than sampras according to sergi.

And this was when Federer only had a few slams, so he's closer to 50x better than Sampras now.

World Beater
10-16-2009, 01:12 PM
Ha ha, well i was wrong about Bruguera, but IMO Fed sure is lucky not to face true s&v players on a regular basis(or at all...) True Pete attacks the net and Fed was great that day, but i really miss s&v tennis and i think it could bother Fed more.

pete was lucky he didn't have to deal with this generation's better returners, slower surface, more athletic players etc.

i mean it goes both ways. but to each their own. pete was great in his era - that is what counts.

morten
10-16-2009, 01:54 PM
pete was lucky he didn't have to deal with this generation's better returners, slower surface, more athletic players etc.

i mean it goes both ways. but to each their own. pete was great in his era - that is what counts.

if not for polystrings(for brainless bashing with little talent or variety) Pete and the more pure netplayers would beat this generation pretty easy...

Steve132
10-16-2009, 10:53 PM
if not for polystrings(for brainless bashing with little talent or variety) Pete and the more pure netplayers would beat this generation pretty easy...

How do you know this?

morten
10-16-2009, 11:29 PM
How do you know this?

polystrings lets you take big cuts at the ball, and the ball dips in, on returns this is a big advantage, but none for the netplayer and touchshots. Today you can win using only a few strokes(topspin both sides) in matches, variety is gone, strongest, fittest wins... boring when 97% play like this. 50% would have been ok, then we could have interresting matchups too... Today it is like tabletennis on a court.

Polvorin
10-17-2009, 02:32 AM
Agassi liked playing attacking players, no wonder he thinks Fed is harder to face. Bruguera, Moya etc have all said Pete was better...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryFnIAbcgQ :oops:

Carlos Moya on Federer's 2004: "I can't see anybody better than him in a one year period. I played Sampras two times when he was at his best...Agassi...but, I think he is even better than them."

The funny thing is, this wasn't even his best year and he'd only won 4 slams at this point. Everybody was already saying that he was the greatest...and time would prove them right.

David L
10-17-2009, 03:04 AM
Ha ha, well i was wrong about Bruguera, but IMO Fed sure is lucky not to face true s&v players on a regular basis(or at all...) True Pete attacks the net and Fed was great that day, but i really miss s&v tennis and i think it could bother Fed more.
I keep hearing this from some on this board, but there is nothing to back it up. Federer has done well against serve and volleyers, especially after becoming No.1. He has been able to handle the likes of Philippoussis, Stepanek, Karlovic, Feliciano Lopez, Ancic, Henman etc. quite comfortably. He has also been able to despatch numerous serve and volleyers from Sampras’ generation, long before he became as good as he is now; namely Krajicek 2-0, Ivanisevic 2-0, Sampras 1-0, Todd Martin 1-0, Wayne Arthurs 2-0, Rusedski 4-1, Bjokman 5-0. There really is nothing to support this notion that Federer or this generation of players would struggle with serve and volley players any more than they do baseliners. If anything, the evidence seems to suggest that serve and volley players would struggle with this generation of players. The no.1 serve and volleyer of the modern game, Sampras, was beaten on numerous occasions, in total, by the likes of Gonzalez, Mathieu, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Federer, Haas etc. Today's players are more than well equipped to handle serve and volleyers. Sampras would definitely have found it tougher to play that game in this era than in his. The high quality returning in today’s game would have seen to that.