Roddick was better during Federer's prime than Agassi was during Sampras'

[JennyS]

Agassi's Slam results from 1993 Wimbledon-1997 US Open

Slam titles: 2 (won one without facing Sampras)
Slam finals appearances: 3
Slam semis appearances: 6
Slam quarterfinals appearances: 8

total titles during this period: 15

Roddick's Slam results from 2003 Wimbledon-2007 US Open

Slam titles: 1 (won without facing Federer)
Slam finals appearances: 5
Slam semis appearances: 7
Slam quarterfinals appearances: 11

Total titles during this period: 16

 

[drakulie]

^^Very good logic.

I have always stated, Roddick has been as much of a rival for Fed as anyone else (murray, joker, nadal, etc), yet the clowns on this board only consider rivals as those who have winning records against fed.

 

[dropshot winner]

This thread could get ugly...

 

[darthpwner]

You're missing a critical part during Pete and Agassi's rivalry. Throughout 1995, they played 5 times and Agassi was the favorite in the US Open final because of his 26-0 win streak during the summer and he beat Pete in Australia and Canada. Just because Pete and Andre didn't play in grand slams as often doesnt mean roddick was better during federers prime. You also have Roddick's final apperances wrong. He had 4 during that period: 03 us open, 04 wimby, 05 wimby, and 06 us open

 

[GOATPARERA]

Agassi beat Sampras twice at the Australian Open. Hard to imagine Roddick ever beating Federer twice at a grand slam, let alone once LOL

 

[TMF]

Agassi beat Sampras twice at the Australian Open. Hard to imagine Roddick ever beating Federer twice at a grand slam, let alone once LOL

So what. Sampras is no Federer.

I don't think Andre can beat Federer at the AO anyway.

 

[helloworld]

So what. Sampras is no Federer.

I don't think Andre can beat Federer at the AO anyway.

Disagreed. If Nadal can beat Federer at AO, I'm sure prime Agassi will have his chances.

 

[grafselesfan]

Disagreed. If Nadal can beat Federer at AO, I'm sure prime Agassi will have his chances.

Nadal is a worse matchup for Federer than Agassi by far. Still given that Agassi in old age still sometimes took sets off a prime Federer I am pretty sure Agassi could hold his own and even come up with some wins on hard courts.

 

[NamRanger]

Nadal is a worse matchup for Federer than Agassi by far. Still given that Agassi in old age still sometimes took sets off a prime Federer I am pretty sure Agassi could hold his own and even come up with some wins on hard courts.

Prime Federer versus Prime Agassi? I seriously doubt it. Federer is even a worse match-up for Agassi than Pete was, and Pete already was an extremely bad match-up.



The only way Agassi could beat Federer was if he continually pounded Federer's backhand into submission. But, Agassi hits the ball flat and hard, something Federer would have an absolute field day with.

 

[FD3S]

Prime Federer versus Prime Agassi? I seriously doubt it. Federer is even a worse match-up for Agassi than Pete was, and Pete already was an extremely bad match-up.



The only way Agassi could beat Federer was if he continually pounded Federer's backhand into submission. But, Agassi hits the ball flat and hard, something Federer would have an absolute field day with.

This is very true - probably a major reason why Federer dealt with 03/04 Roddick relatively easily when everyone else (Hewitt aside) had problems with his power off the ground.

 

[quest01]

Agassi played Sampras a lot stronger then Roddick playing Federer. Federer literally ruined Roddick's career, if it wasn't for him, Roddick would have won at least 5 grand slams. Agassi in 1995 had nearly an identical record against Sampras and Agassi actually beat Sampras in a few grand slams unlike Roddicks record against Federer in slams.

Obviously Nadal has played Federer a lot stronger then Agassi, Federer has an 8-3 record against Agassi and Federer won the last 8 matches against him.

 

[Tsonga#1fan]

If Roddick can't close the deal by beating Federer at Wimbledon on grass, and he has had his chances, he won't ever beat Federer at a slam, at least when it means something.

 

[kishnabe]

If Roddick can't close the deal by beating Federer at Wimbledon on grass, and he has had his chances, he won't ever beat Federer at a slam, at least when it means something.

I hope you're wrong. I need to see Federer lose once to Roddick in the Semi's or Final's of a slam.

 

[TMF]

Nadal is a worse matchup for Federer than Agassi by far. Still given that Agassi in old age still sometimes took sets off a prime Federer I am pretty sure Agassi could hold his own and even come up with some wins on hard courts.

Winning a set don’t mean nothing b/c Andre never beat prime Federer anyway(0-8). No other player can ever beat Andre 8 straight times in his career. What Federer managed to that is not unsual b/c he did it to Gonzo, Hewitt, Davydenko, Roddick and co. Andre would be an underdog in all 4 GS against Federer. However, that’s not the case going against Pete.

 

[grafselesfan]

Winning a set don’t mean nothing b/c Andre never beat prime Federer anyway(0-8). No other player can ever beat Andre 8 straight times in his career. What Federer managed to that is not unsual b/c he did it to Gonzo, Hewitt, Davydenko, Roddick and co. Andre would be an underdog in all 4 GS against Federer. However, that’s not the case going against Pete.

While Agassi's eventual record ended up better in Australia than Pete's, I would take the Pete of the 94 and 97 Australian Open over the Andre of any Australian Open. I also dont recall people thinking Pete was the underdog there. In 2000 for example when Agassi won it took one of the best matches of his life and he was still down a mini break late in the 4th set tiebreaker and on the verge of defeat. People were picking Pete to win and it was a huge win for Agassi, one of his biggest ever. In 95 Pete was flat emotionally for obvious reasons so it wasnt surprising Agassi won that one.

The only place I think Pete was really an underdog to Agassi was at the French.

Roger beating even an old Agassi 8 straight times is very impressive no doubt. However if Agassi can come so close to winning matches like their 2004 U.S Open match, their 2004 Indian Wells match, their RR of the 2003 TMC, to a lesser degree the 2005 U.S Open, even in his mid 30s with a bad back, it isnt unreasonable to think he could score some wins with both in their primes. He wouldnt have the winning head to head like Nadal does of course, but he would have some victories. I doubt very much he would be a Roddick or a Hewitt for Federer.

 

[Anaconda]

Look, the only reason Roddick has failed countless times against Federer is because Federer always plays great. JMDP and Djokovic played Federer serving below 50% and shankin' forehands everywhere.

 

[TheChosenOne]

LOL.. And Roddick has a medicore 1-5 h2h vs Mid 30s passed his prime Andre. Roddick was NOT a better rival to Fed as Andre was to Pete. Unless u want to count Roddick's measily 2-19 h2h vs Roger. Thats pathetic for a former Number in Roddick anyway you look at it. Pete was 20-14 over Andre. Roddick can even get 3 wins over Fed in a 5-6 year span

 

[TheChosenOne]

I dont care how consistent Roddick has been in terms of making deep runs. He hasnt won the big one in going on 7 years.

 

[TheChosenOne]

Look, the only reason Roddick has failed countless times against Federer is because Federer always plays great. JMDP and Djokovic played Federer serving below 50% and shankin' forehands everywhere.

Fed hasnt always played great against Roddick. There were a few matches there where Roddick could have actually grabbed. A couple of those wimbeldon and a USO. But again he has too many holes in his game

 

[Anaconda]

Fed hasnt always played great against Roddick. There were a few matches there where Roddick could have actually grabbed. A couple of those wimbeldon and a USO. But again he has too many holes in his game

Name me a grand slam match where Federer has played below very good?

 

[TheChosenOne]

Name me a grand slam match where Federer has played below very good?

Federer has had off days.. He hasnt supreme better than everyone else 24/7. There would be days where Andre would be playing better than federer and take advantage. Agassi is better player than Roddick, You dont think Agassi could manage a few slams wins off of Roger (even today when Federer is not what he used to be 3-4 years ago and more error proned) and more grab more than 2 matches out of 21? Thats nonsense.

 

[IvanAndreevich]

Name me a grand slam match where Federer has played below very good?

Lots. But his crappy level is still good enough to beat anyone out of the Top 5.

 

[TMF]

LOL.. And Roddick has a medicore 1-5 h2h vs Mid 30s passed his prime Andre. Roddick was NOT a better rival to Fed as Andre was to Pete. Unless u want to count Roddick's measily 2-19 h2h vs Roger. Thats pathetic for a former Number in Roddick anyway you look at it. Pete was 20-14 over Andre. Roddick can even get 3 wins over Fed in a 5-6 year span

I think Fed would do better than 20-14 against Andre, and I don’t think Pete can come close to 19-2 against Roddick. No way.

 

[Anaconda]

Federer has had off days.. He hasnt supreme better than everyone else 24/7. There would be days where Andre would be playing better than federer and take advantage. Agassi is better player than Roddick, You dont think Agassi could manage a few slams wins off of Roger (even today when Federer is not what he used to be 3-4 years ago and more error proned) and more grab more than 2 matches out of 21? Thats nonsense.

Name a match when Federer has had 'off days' against Roddick in slams?

 

[Anaconda]

I think Fed would do better than 20-14 against Andre, and I don’t think Pete can come close to 19-2 against Roddick. No way.

ROFL!!! Roddick has already got 2 wins against Sampras.

 

[TMF]

ROFL!!! Roddick has already got 2 wins against Sampras.

And it's possible for Andy to do better than 14-20 against Pete during their prime.

 

[GOATPARERA]

Agassi took a US OPEN FINAL set 6-2 over Federer in 2005, and then Agassi got up a break in the 3rd set. And then had nothing left after playing 3 FIVE SETTERS that week. Agassi 1999 would have beat him

 

[lawrence]

I think Fed would do better than 20-14 against Andre, and I don’t think Pete can come close to 19-2 against Roddick. No way.

This sums up my thoughts. While there may be slight differences due to match ups and game styles, I generally have to agree that there's no way I could imagine Pete doing 19-2 against Roddick, and also believe that Fed would DOMINATE AA's game.

 

[GOATPARERA]

I can't imagine Roddick being able to break Sampras serve, seems absolutely impossible, so maybe Sampras 21-0 v Roddick is most likely.

 

[Anaconda]

I can't imagine Roddick being able to break Sampras serve, seems absolutely impossible, so maybe Sampras 21-0 v Roddick is most likely.

You are a foolish one; Roddick leads Sampras on H2H

 

[grafselesfan]

And it's possible for Andy to do better than 14-20 against Pete during their prime.

LOL that is laughable. Can you name me one single aspect of the game Roddick is better than Sampras in.

 

[grafselesfan]

You are a foolish one; Roddick leads Sampras on H2H

When Pete was in the twilight of his career and less than half the player he used to be. Yet in their biggest match Pete still destroyed the much younger Roddick, when Pete hadnt won a tournament in over 2 years and had dropped out of the top 15 in the rankings.

 

[Anaconda]

When Pete was in the twilight of his career and less than half the player he used to be. Yet in their biggest match Pete still destroyed the much younger Roddick, when Pete hadnt won a tournament in over 2 years and had dropped out of the top 15 in the rankings.

No, Pete wasn't in his twilight years as he was still winning slams. I think Roddick was injured when they met in the US open.

 

[zagor]

And it's possible for Andy to do better than 14-20 against Pete during their prime.

No,just no.I would bet he would do better against prime Pete than Prime Fed but that ain't saying much.I really doubt he'd get 10 wins against prime Pete.

When Pete was in the twilight of his career and less than half the player he used to be. Yet in their biggest match Pete still destroyed the much younger Roddick, when Pete hadnt won a tournament in over 2 years and had dropped out of the top 15 in the rankings.

To be fair,2002 was not yet Roddick's prime either and he was carrying an inury in USO that year which nobody ever mentions.I just find it funny that in general not just when it comes to Pete we always excuse losses of tennis legends(Fed,Pete,Nadal) with injuries and various other reasons but we very rarely do that for guys like Roddick.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

And it's possible for Andy to do better than 14-20 against Pete during their prime.

You are clueless. Pete has a healthy h2h leads over Agassi, Courier, Becker, Goran etc, who are all better players than Roddick.

 

[zagor]

You are a foolish one; Roddick leads Sampras on H2H

He played Sampras when the guy was almost 29-30.

 

[darthpwner]

Agassi beat Sampras twice at the Australian Open. Hard to imagine Roddick ever beating Federer twice at a grand slam, let alone once LOL

Agassi won all their matches in Australia and France, while Pete won all Wimbledon and US Open matches

 

[darthpwner]

This thread is ridiculous. The only players nowadays that are comparable to Sampras and Agassi or Federer and Nadal. Both prime Sampras and Agassi would pwn their h2h with Roddick.

 

[drakulie]

^^^^ Roddick has a winning record against, Sampras (2-1).

 

[darthpwner]

^^^^ Roddick has a winning record against, Sampras (2-1).

I know, but if they faced in off in their prime especially at Wimbledon, I think Pete would win a great majority of their matches because Roddick's game is straightforward. Pete stated in his autobiography that he felt his game matched up well against Andy. His s&v would take away Roddick's time which he especially needs to hit a good shot.

 

[Anaconda]

This thread is ridiculous. The only players nowadays that are comparable to Sampras and Agassi or Federer and Nadal. Both prime Sampras and Agassi would pwn their h2h with Roddick.

Agassi was a tough matchup for Roddick but don't forget than Agassi played his tennis when he was older (IMO). Sampras has been owned by many players of this decade - Federer/Hewitt/Safin.

 

[darthpwner]

Agassi was a tough matchup for Roddick but don't forget than Agassi played his tennis when he was older (IMO). Sampras has been owned by many players of this decade - Federer/Hewitt/Safin.

Federer and Safin would have done well against Pete in his prime. Hewitt though would have been more like Michael Chang for Pete. He'd win a lot of matches against Pete, but Pete would have the winning h2h

 

[dropshot winner]

What most people forget is that Agassi was a 3-slam winner until 1999, a lucky hewitt if you will.

He won 5 of his 8 slams after Sampras' peak.

 

[drakulie]

I know, but if they faced in off in their prime especially at Wimbledon, I think Pete would win a great majority of their matches because Roddick's game is straightforward. Pete stated in his autobiography that he felt his game matched up well against Andy. His s&v would take away Roddick's time which he especially needs to hit a good shot.

although I don't necessarliy dispute this, Roddick was hardly in his prime when he played Pete.

 

[drakulie]

What most people forget is that Agassi was a 3-slam winner until 1999, a lucky hewitt if you will.

He won 5 of his 8 slams after Sampras' peak.

so then, how many slams did sampras win when Andre wasn't at his peak?? 2??

 

[bruce38]

Agassi and Sampras are in a league lower than Fed and Nadal.

 

[TMF]

LOL that is laughable. Can you name me one single aspect of the game Roddick is better than Sampras in.

Comparing their game strenght is one thing, but FACTS are much more credible. What is their h2h record?

 

[dropshot winner]

so then, how many slams did sampras win when Andre wasn't at his peak?? 2??

Hard to say as Agassi had no real peak, but a number around 7-12 can't be too far away.

 

[Matt H.]

Agassi was a tough matchup for Roddick but don't forget than Agassi played his tennis when he was older (IMO). Sampras has been owned by many players of this decade - Federer/Hewitt/Safin.

when you say owned, are you referring as a total head-to-head or a one match basis?

Everyone points to the '00 US Open final in watch Safin tagged Sampras pretty good. They seem to forget though that Sampras immediately beat Safin 6-3 6-2 at the Masters Cup Finals and then again beat Safin in the 2001 US Open semi's.

 

[drakulie]

Hard to say as Agassi had no real peak, but a number around 7-12 can't be too far away.

sorry, but your math doesn't add up.