Agassi: Federer vs. Sampras

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Marius_Hancu, Apr 1, 2005.

  1. Marius_Hancu

    Marius_Hancu G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    17,841
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    -----------
    this link has a SPOILER:
    http://www.nasdaq-100open.com/news/2005/interviews/0401c.html


    Q. In the ways that Roger can get out of a Love‑40 hold, like Pete did, seems like he's even got more tactical options than Pete ever did. I mean now you've had to play two of these geniuses.

    ANDRE AGASSI: Yeah.

    Q. Do you almost feel that Roger gives you less options because he can make the kind of adjustments not even Pete could make?

    ANDRE AGASSI: Well, I think the biggest distinction inside the lines that I feel playing Roger versus playing Pete is there were a lot of lapses with Pete. You could play a bad set and, you know, possibly get into a breaker with him. With Roger, there's just no relief, you know. In every department, you have to be concentrating and ready to go because he'll take advantage of you on any part of the court.

    That's not to say that Pete's upside wasn't just as spectacular, because Pete's ‑‑ when Pete missed a first serve, I still thought to myself, "God, just get this thing in play so you have a chance." With Roger, he misses a first serve, I'm thinking, "Okay, here we go."

    Q. It seems like Roger always wants to break. Pete wasn't necessarily breaking.

    ANDRE AGASSI: Yeah, I think Roger has a better return than Pete. I think Pete volleys better. I think Roger moves better, is better from the baseline. But Pete's serve was probably better.

    So, you know, you got ‑‑ I mean, I'm just assessing it inside the lines playing them. They pose different problems entirely, but Roger makes you do it from start to finish, and Pete made you do something incredibly special at a lot of given times.
    --------------
     
    #1
  2. ibemadskillzz

    ibemadskillzz Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    622
    agassi talked like federer is a better than sampras. Sampras would owned federer hands down.
     
    #2
  3. The tennis guy

    The tennis guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,625
    You talked like you know Pete and Roger better than Agassi who played both. Guess what, Federer beat Sampras on grass at Wimbledon. Why didn't Sampras own Roger there? I am sure you'll find excuse to explain away.

    I don't know who is better. All I can say is Pete even in his pinnacle never dominated the field the way Roger has in the past one year and half. I don't know if Roger will dominate how many years. No one can argue about how phenomenal good he is right now.
     
    #3
  4. grind

    grind New User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    67
    Sampras would not have "owned" Fed. Fed's got a better forehand, better serve, and most importantly, better footwork than anybody Sampras ever dominated. It's too bad Fed couldn't have matured in time to really play Pete in the same way McEnroe played Borg. The passing of that torch would have been something to see.
     
    #4
  5. no.1retrieverUK

    no.1retrieverUK New User

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    22
    No way has Federer got a better serve than Sampras. Im sick of these Sampras Federer comparisons but no way can i keep quiet about this. Right now I think Fed has by far the most effective serve on tour, but Sampras had the best serve of all time. How often do you see a second serve ace from federer?

    Federer does have a better backhand and return. But Sampras was equally good on the forehand side and and his net play would have been his major weapon against fed.

    I dont wanna criticise fed, great player, very classy guy, maybe one day he will deserve to be called the greatest of all time, but his serve will never be better that Sampras'.
     
    #5
  6. no.1retrieverUK

    no.1retrieverUK New User

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    22
    Sampras' athleticism also equalled that of Federer, im only 18 but i do think a lot of these guys saying Federer is king never saw Sampras at his peak or even in his last match in which he served 35 aces, 14 of them second serves.

    What about Wheaton, or Becker, players that were destroyed by Sampras, Courier even. Federer's serve was no better than Becker's and Wheaton had a better second serve.
     
    #6
  7. AClockWorkOrange

    AClockWorkOrange New User

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Messages:
    34
    I think Federer vs. Sampras when Pete was at his peak would be great matches. Alot of people think that pete couldnt break, but thats because he was so unbelievably strong on his service that he would coast on alot of service returns, or just go for it with a huge shot. But I have never seen anyone move more like a cat when he really wanted to break. Him playing Roger, like Safin, would be damn close and most likely go to alot of tie-breakers. Sampras' second serve was nuts-on good and when he was "on" he could be a one man show.
     
    #7
  8. ragnaROK

    ragnaROK Professional

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Messages:
    919
    Actually I don't know why people keep comparing the two other than their dominance of their sport. Pete would win all his service games and wait on a lazy break where you weren't as sharp on your service. Routine score for him would have been 6-4, 6-4, 6-4. In Roger's case, he actually returns very well and doesn't have the kind of serve Pete could rely on so he tries to take it to you every game. What I take from the last couple lines from the interview was that Roger makes you play amazing the whole match which is hard for even pros to do. Wheras with Pete you had raise your game tremendously on the big occasions, otherwise he'd leave you in the dust. Pete is all about the big points: the big break in a set, the small break in a tiebreaker, if you want to compete with Pete, you gotta win those crucial points in the match. Any one of the break points you give Roger is crucial, however as hard as it is to break Roger's serve, I would rather do that than try to break Pete.
     
    #8
  9. wildbill88AA

    wildbill88AA Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Messages:
    758
    sampras had a lot of lapses in his concentration? and he was #1 for 6 consecutive years? gosh, i must have missed something. :confused:there was a guy named ivan lendl that had pretty good groundies and pete schooled him. and i think andres judging pete over a 12 year period whereas hes only judging roger over only about a 20 month period.
     
    #9
  10. hyperwarrior

    hyperwarrior Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    887
    Fed had a better serve than Pete?? That's just wrong, if he had a better serve than Pete, he would have won more free points and gain more aces.
    I agree that Fed have a better footwork and maybe a better consistant forehand than Sampras.
     
    #10
  11. Vlad

    Vlad Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    1,437
    I think what Andre meant to say is that Roger is less forgiving during the match. When Andre is serving to Pete, most of the time Andre knows that he can hold, because he is simply better from the ground. When Andre plays Roger there is a sense of urgency in him to win every point because he knows one or two bad shots on his service game and he is down a set (exactly what happened in that first set). Pete was more difficult to break but at least with him, Andre knew that he can hold most of the time, while you get the sense that Roger can break ANY player at ANY time he wants to.
     
    #11
  12. serveboy

    serveboy Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    179
    I just watched the 1999 Wimbledon final between Pete and Agassi. Agassi was playing about as well as I have ever seen him play. The amazing thing is that not once did I think Agassi had a chance to win the match. What happened? Pete at the top of his game wins in 3 sets.

    I feel the same way watching Agassi play against Federer, but less so. Agassi still manages to bother Federer here and there on Federer's service games.

    Now to compare Pete and Federer, I believe that a fast hard court and on grass Pete wins 8 out of 10 times. Truth is it doesn't matter who Pete is playing on those surfaces. His game is all about winners; he plays against himself. On a clay-court I'd say Federer wins 8 or 9 out of 10 times. On a slow hard-court I give the edge to Federer winning 6 out of 10 times.

    It's all about the surfaces!
     
    #12
  13. RoddickSafin

    RoddickSafin Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Messages:
    200
    Federer can beat pete... as much as i hate to say it, he can. Simply look at henman vs federer. I know that henman is NO where near pete in terms of..well everything. But as the commentators said, Federer can create shots that no ones seen before. He can pass anyone at will and he can get the ball really really low, very tough for pete. I would give the edge to Federer but pete still winning some.
     
    #13
  14. lemurballs

    lemurballs New User

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Messages:
    98
    Unfortunately, we can't place both players, in their prime, together on a court. And then let them battle it out for 10-15 matches.
     
    #14
  15. Grimjack

    Grimjack Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,439
    That's two of you in this thread who have written indignant responses to a post that you misread. He didn't say Federer had a better serve than Pete. He said Federer had a better serve than anybody who Pete dominated, offering this as evidence as to why Pete would not "dominate" Fed, as an earlier post contended.
     
    #15
  16. edge

    edge Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    543
    Very, very interesting, but we won't settle it here. We'll just have to see the longevity if Roger's dominance to evaluate. Many have said the same about Venus at her dominant period however, it now looks like she will never win another slam even 'tho she is very young. Hard to think at that time that Venus was done for Slams by the time she was 18. She was fortunate to ink that $40 million deal with Reebok which has since expired. Although I do think that Sampras faced more diverse opponents in his time, Roger faces primarily baseliners. With his incomparable array of shots, Roger is very perplexing to the typically baseline who hits 85% forehands and is uncomfortable at net. Perhaps this explains his complete dominance during this period.
     
    #16
  17. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    That's true Grimjack. He said Fed had a better serve than anybody Pete dominated. Of course....that's an equally asinine statement. Sampras scalped more big/great servers than any dominant player has ever had to face.
     
    #17
  18. uNIVERSE mAN

    uNIVERSE mAN Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Messages:
    331
    That's not what he said! Can you read properly? He said he's got better weapons than ANYONE Sampras DOMINATED.

    Damn people.
     
    #18
  19. uNIVERSE mAN

    uNIVERSE mAN Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Messages:
    331
    Oh great, another guy that pulls numbers out of his arse.
     
    #19
  20. Aykhan Mammadov

    Aykhan Mammadov Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,673
    Location:
    Baku, Azerbaijan
    Definetly, definetly, FED is the most talented player I ever seen. He is much more talented than Pete, Agassi. I don't enjoy Pete's matches watching again and again. I enjoy Fed's matches. He is Genious of tennis. I want him to stay at the top as long as possible, say 10-15 years. I'm just wondering is it possible to beat Pete's record of 14 Grand slams ? I wish Fed do this.
     
    #20
  21. fedex27

    fedex27 Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Messages:
    972
    can all of you stop pete this federer that. federer beat pete and both are amongst the greatest ever. pete in his prime? maybe
     
    #21
  22. bertrevert

    bertrevert Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,327
    Location:
    Syd, Oz
    Let's go back to the quote.

    AA asseses their differences. In no way does he say once and for all that this player is better than that player. He's not comparing records. He's not quoting stats. He's talking about what goes on "between the lines". This thread just goes off comparing the two individuals in total. AA isn't doing that.

    He says who seems better and in which department they seemed better.

    And what does he say about what goes on between the lines? Fed's barrage is about options and multiple choices. I think we can muse that AA finds Fed a more variable opponent with maximum focus throughout the match. Whereas Pete has lapses and lulls in which you had to scramble to get back on (the) board.

    If there is one sure sign that tennis might be entering a period ofgreater interest again, with less reliance on the serve, and more multi-dimensional - then surely Federer is the harbinger of that.
     
    #22
  23. ibemadskillzz

    ibemadskillzz Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    622
    I think if pete keeps coming up to the net like he does, roger will get intimated and will not do much. Pete would probably eat up all the balls.
     
    #23
  24. eagl214

    eagl214 New User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    Messages:
    15
    Warning-these are all my opinion so dont hate.... appreciate

    Forehand- edge goes to sampras, but its really close
    Backhand- gotta gived this one to fed he has a great backhand
    Serve- Sampras, but fed's is used more to star a point out well than to end it with an ace
    Volley- Sampras
    Mental Game- Federer has one of if the best ever
    Footwork- Federer has the best ever
    Fitness- Im giving this one a tie both were incredibly atheletic

    and the winner is Sampras, but remember Federer is only 23.....
     
    #24
  25. tom-selleck

    tom-selleck Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    965
    ....

    two questions regarding sampras vs. federer comparison....

    and these aren't rhetorical.... i don't know the answer.

    what was sampras' record at french open? i know he didn't win but what were his results???

    and how many U.S. opens did sampras win??

    those are probably the two things i would compare them on.... as wimbledon is so specialized and both will have won it tons of times.

    if federer can win FO and another 6-7 slams (frankly, i'd say that's a layup if his health is o.k.), i'd say he's easy as greatest ever.
     
    #25
  26. |SLICER|

    |SLICER| New User

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Messages:
    54
    Call me in 5 years and if Fed is still #1, we can talk....
     
    #26
  27. hyperwarrior

    hyperwarrior Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    887
    All right...I apologize, I read too fast.
     
    #27
  28. ChiefAce

    ChiefAce Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    757
    Hewitt was 2-1 lifetime versus Pete on grass (Pete's best surface), but Roger who is miles ahead of Hewitt would struggle against Pete? Laughable. Roger would get so many returns back and make Pete make so many half volleys that Raja would be guaranteed a break a set at least. Roger is a great returner, he reads the Roddick serve like pretty much nobody on the tour can, he would read the Sampras serve and be all over it (especially second serves). He is a better shot maker than Hewitt and is just as good with his feet and has surgical precision on passing shots.


    And for all this talk of Raja not facing attacking players............well when was the last time he actually lost to a serve volley player? It was Henman over a year ago, and he has absolutely destroyed Henman since that loss. Sure some serve volley guys have made it close like Karlovic, Ancic, Mirnyi, and Henman but they don't beat Roger. So to me the serve volley attacking thing is pure myth at this point. It might make the scoreline closer, but it still doesn't get the job done. Roger can just turn it up another notch when he really needs to. When was the last time Sampras beat Agassi 7 consecutive times? Oh yeah...........never. When was the last time Hewitt lost 7 consecutive matches to anyone? Raja, and in the last 4 matches Hewitt hasn't taken a set off him.


    The only way to beat Raja is make him play 5 sets in the middle of the outback and play out of your mind only to have the best player falter because of fatigue.

    To me the total grandslams is just a roadblock in the way, Raja is playing the best tennis any human being has ever played...........period.

    Serve: Sampras, but only because of the speed spin ratio. IMO people give Sampras too much cred for this though, Pete rarely if ever averaged 110mph per second serve or anything crazy like that. In his dominance in the mid 90's in fact Pete barely ever went for second serves that fast, returners just weren't as good so he didn't have to juice it up as much at that time. As the years went on and returners were getting better Pete would try to gas it up a bit more on the second, but those who think he routinely averaged 110mph on the second have bad memories.

    Forehand: Federer is more consistant and has much better angles, his forehand is less likely to sail because it has more margin and it's much tougher to read. Pete was pretty much a lock to go crosscourt with his runner, but Raja has better disguise by a mile you can't read it.

    Backhand: Federer has a better slice, better topspin ripper and thats all you really need to say.

    Volley: Maybe a marginal edge to Sampras, but what made Pete seem like such a great volley player was his serve. His serve allowed him to have many easy put away volleys (not against Hewitt though). Raja to me has better feel and is still getting better at the net, Pete struggled big time against both Hewitt and Safin when they put those returns low at his feet. Pete was great at making the routine volleys.

    Return of serve: No doubt Roger on this one. He puts so many more back in play and seems to break his opponents whenever he wants.

    Footspeed/court coverage: No contest here, Federer by a mile and he is probably second or third right now on tour behind Nadal and possibly Hewitt.

    Overall: Federer has a better overall game that is much more well rounded with no weaknesses. It was proven that the Sampras serve wasn't unbreakable by both Hewitt and Safin. The return of serve was one of the downfalls of Sampras as tour players have gotten even better with the increased serve speeds. Pete dropping serves in between 120mph-134mph is average on tour these days, guys see that kind of heat from almost everyone. Even Coria a defensive clay court player can hit it 120mph in a match.

    Pete up to this point was the best ever probably, but Federer does things Pete could never do. His shot making, footspeed and willingness to fight for every game and point is where he really outshines Pete. Pete couldn't afford to go for one lazy break a match against Fed per set because Fed would be all over his serve and would make Pete work hard to hold.

    In the same Summer of 2001 that Fed beat Pete at Wimby Andre thrashed Fed at the 2001 US Open 6-1, 6-2, 6-4. In that last 4 years Fed has elevated his game to a level Agassi can't touch, and if Pete was still playing today the same would apply to him.

    Agassi has hinted more than once that he thinks Fed is better than Pete ever was in between the lines, but I think his rivalry with Pete and respect prevents him from flat out saying it.

    I bet when he gets spanked by Raja and is at home with Steffi both of them talk about how rediculous Fed is and how Pete wouldn't have been able to touch him. Some things are better left said behind closed doors........
     
    #28
  29. TheRed

    TheRed Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,188
    Nice analysis Chieface but I disagree on your assessment of Pete's serve. It wasn't simply that he hit his serve so hard w/ so much spin, Pete's serve was great because he had pinpoint control and perfect disguise. Footspeed wise...people forget now how fast Pete was. Problem is he was so smooth moving (just like Roger), he didn't seem fast; furthermore, we tend to remember him later on in his career. However, I agree as probably most ppl on this board does, that Roger has a better overall game.
     
    #29
  30. Rob_C

    Rob_C Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,692
    I think Federer is clearly better than Sampras at this point, based on the fact that he did beat Sampras at Wimbledon, breaking his streak, he's way better on clay, has a way better backhand.

    Plus, his return is better. He beat Roddick twice at Wimby, the past two years, plus Scud. He's 8-1 against Roddick lifetime, which proves he can handle big serves.

    Hewitt, who at one point, was the only person to ever have a winning record against Agassi, Sampras, Roddick, & Federer simultaneously, who beat Sampras two years in a row on grass at Queens club, who's 5-4 against Sampras doesnt have a prayer aganist Federer right now, neither does Agassi, nor Roddick really. The only people it seems have a chance right now are Safin & Ljubicic.

    later
     
    #30
  31. no.1retrieverUK

    no.1retrieverUK New User

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    22
    What about Sampras' heart? His determination?

    If Federer was overmatched I cant imagine him putting up a huge fight, to some degree he chocked against Safin and last year at the French has was beaten before he walked on court.

    Sampras V Corretja in the davis cup on clay? Heroism
     
    #31
  32. westside

    westside Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,770
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    i think that sampras would be able to beat federer but not easily. Sampras is easily a much better player on grass but federer would put up a good fight on hard and clay courts.

    P.S im sick of people saying that federer is posibly the best player of all time
     
    #32
  33. stefano7007

    stefano7007 New User

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Messages:
    17
    Sampras better than Federer

    Pete was at the end of his career...he was wasted physically and mentally...I wouldnt conisder Federer beating Sampras at wimbledon such a remarkable feat considering pete's age.

    As for your second comment I would say that you really need to reflect for a few minutes and think about the quality and personality of current tennis players versus those when pete played...think about it. Federer is given no real challenge...it's all a bunch of baseliners all playing the same way. when pete played he had to face all kinds of styles...from baseliners to net players! Think!!
     
    #33
  34. AAAA

    AAAA Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,389
    We saw he much heart and determination he had in over 12 years at the French Open. He for sure dug real deep on a surface that didn't suite his natural style.
     
    #34
  35. 35ft6

    35ft6 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,557
    About those lulls in Pete's concentration, that was intentional. Pete would coast to 6-4, 6-3 victories, exerting very little effort. The match was much less close than the score would suggest.

    He basically only cared about holding serve, which he did almost effortlessly, until about 3-3 or 4-4, at which point he would try harder for 2 or 3 points, just enough to break, after which he would resume coasting again until 3-3 or 4-4 in the second set. Repeat.

    Sampras' serve was better than Federer's. It was heavier, more deceptive, and more consistently destructive. His volleys were negligibly better. In every other department, though, Federer is better. Really, Sampras' whole game was predicated on the serve. Not really true with Federer. He's like a kung fun master who has learned and mastered every style, and could switch fighting style at will. Sampras had only one style.

    Yeah, it's too bad we can't see them battle during their primes, but it's not like they didn't play.
     
    #35
  36. Russell Finch

    Russell Finch Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2004
    Messages:
    188
    This was especially true at Wimbledon where he hardly ever seemed to break serve in the first 6 games of the set. He would suddenly start looking much more interested on return games at the end of a set, nick one break and serve it out. So economical.
     
    #36
  37. sarpmas

    sarpmas Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    229
    Sorry to bring this thread up again. You said it yourself, Sampras usually coast through effortlessly until 3-3 or 4-4, then BANG! He raises a notch and goes for a break, and more importantly, he is ABLE to get his break most of the time and he is NOT serving for it! He did not win the break by serving, so how did he get the break? Totally disagree that Sampras's game is predicated on the serve and he is definitely not one style only.
     
    #37
  38. FEDisanAlien

    FEDisanAlien Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Messages:
    101
    What do you smoke?
     
    #38
  39. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,373
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Oh the grandpa, not even 30, Sampras. He should've brought a cane for that match against baby Federer.
     
    #39
  40. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17,373
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    7 years later now and Federer is still winning majors, ranked 1st and broke every Sampras record without trying. How little you guys knew back then.
     
    #40
  41. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,546
    epic bump and response to that quote lol. bravo
     
    #41
  42. AnotherTennisProdigy

    AnotherTennisProdigy Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Messages:
    892
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    LOL I was reading this and didn't realize the date was 7 years ago.

    haha, well played.
     
    #42
  43. dangalak

    dangalak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    608
    Errrr, what? :confused: :?
     
    #43
  44. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,622
    hth. 10chars
     
    #44
  45. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,525
    Pete didn't need to "always want to break" because it was so difficult to break him. Pete just needed that one break.
     
    #45
  46. dangalak

    dangalak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    608
    Ivanisevic. Becker. :confused:
     
    #46

Share This Page