Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by lambielspins, Jan 10, 2007.
Who do you believe rates higher all time right now between Agassi and Federer?
I think their careers are very close right now. In Agassi's favor:
-all 4 grand slams in his career unlike Federer
-more Masters events titles 17 to 12
-more tournament titles by quite alot
In Federer's favor
-1 more grand slam title then Agassi
-7 at Wimbledon and the U.S Open, only 3 for Agassi at those 2
-3 slams in a year twice, atleast 2 in a year three times for Feds, only 2 slams in a year once for Agassi, never 3 in a year
-3 year end event wins for Federer, only 1 for Agassi
-3 year end #1s for Federer, only 1 for Agassi
If Fed stopped playing right now it would be Agassi because of his career slam. Plus Agassi had that whole...um...Sampras problem.
I dont consider Sampras that much since Agassi only won 2 slams that Sampras even played or that were not French Opens during Sampras's prime, and he only beat Sampras head to head to win 1 of those 2. Sampras's prime was probably 93-99. Agassi won 94 U.S Open, 95 Australian Open, 99 French Open, and 99 U.S Open which Sampras pulled out of. Agassi beat Sampras to win the 95 Australian Open, did not play him to win the 94 U.S Open.
3 of his slam wins were Australian Opens after Sampras's prime, 1 a Wimbledon before Sampras's prime, 1 a French Open, 1 a U.S Open where Sampras did not play, and 1 a U.S open Sampras lost in the 4th round.
Agassi's success stretch in his long career will probably never be contested, not even Fed.
federer's career is far from over, so we should compare them once he retires
Hard to say. Federer=more dominant, Agassi of course with the Slam makes it hard to beat at this point of time. Rates higher? I'd say Federer because of the sheer dominance.
i voted agassi because he won all the slams, 60 career titles, and it is very close because of how dominant federer is, but its still agassi
obviously, most likely it will be federer as he's got a good 2-3 years left, then 2-3 more years when he'll be "around"
federer IS or WILL BE the greatest who has ever played the game. end of story.
Agassi was on the tour for 20 years, so WTF are you guys talking about? With Federer's numbers now, after 8 years on the tour, consider what they'll look like by 2010...or after 2007. He'll blow Agassi away (no easy feat), whether or not he wins a career slam. Guess you're not really happy to see this happening...now...as we speak.
Are you kidding? Agassi is not even in the same building as Fed.
i love these posts like this. show how little people on these forums know about tennis. federer is most likely gonna end up being the greatest but at this very moment in time aggasi has the better career. talk to me in a few years when federer surpases him then i will say that federer had a greater career.
I love posts like this. Shows how even a guy who thinks he can demean the general knowledge of the forum can still himself be clueless about tennis.
Fed already has more slams than Andre. This alone gives him the greater career, no doubt about it.
But then you have the fact that half of Andre's slams were Australian Opens (featuring victories over such typical AO finalists as Clement and Schuttler :roll: ), and his slam total loses a little more prestige.
Add to that the fact that he had to compile his lesser career over a length of time spanning more than twice as long, and he drops even farther behind.
Agassi couldn't carry Fed's jock, and the distance between them is just getting bigger and bigger.
Agassi: great player, but no Federer.
And... what is this? Who has Federer had to play against in slam finals that were sooo Great? Huh? Check Andre's head to head against these supposed greats that Federer has had to dismantle in finals... and factor in Andre's Age and who came up with him in his generation! Andre did more than hang with this crowd, he beat them(exception being Rafa)... sometimes more than half the time!
Agassi vs.- Scud 6-2, Safin 3-3, Roddick 5-1, Bags 1-0, Nadal 0-2
It's all subjective, but if Federer retired today, I'd put Agassi above him. Federer's stats are more impressive in some ways, Agassi's stats are more impressive in other ways, but Agassi went through the long haul of a couple decades. He stood across the net from almost every champion you have heard of. If Fed retired today he'd be known as the pu$$ and a wimp who ran away after Stepanek pushed him too hard in Kooyong.
Of course, there's no way in hell that's going to happen. I'm pretty certain that Federer is going to go down as the GOAT, until someone else comes along and we all jump off the bandwagon and start claiming that the new guy is way better than Federer.
??? A little confused. Fed may be the more dominant of the two, but Agassi has done more for the sport. So what do you mean by "rates higher all time"?
While Agassi is my favorite player of all, Tennis career wise Fed has already over taken Agassi when comparing the 2 in their 25th year of age. Also can't really compare these two since Fed is and always has been a consummate pro, plus he isn't done yet. Agassi on the other hand didn't really take his tennis seriously until later in his career, and he had this attitude that tennis is just something I do. As he put it "I'd rather miss out on some good tennis than good living".
Yeah...but it was also a mental block. Agassi was weak mentally for most of his career. He was the dominant player through most of 1995, he won pretty much every tournament over the summer, then he goes into the US Open final and Sampras beats him. Agassi later admitted that he was just burnt out after that, and he stopped trying. Come 1996, he has a pretty bad year except for the gold medal. 1997, drops to 141 in the world. 1998, starts his comeback, wins 5 titles but still isn't in form. 1999, he goes to 4 straight Slam finals and wins 3 of them. The way people talked about him in '99 and '00 was like how people talked about Sampras and how people talk about Federer. Since then, the depth in men's tennis has gotten higher and higher, and Agassi was meeting guys like Coria at the French Open who could take him out. Rafter took him out of the Wimbledon Semifinals a few times, both in 5 set epics. The second was 8-6 in the fifth, as I recall.
Then Federer comes along, and beats everyone, and suddenly everyone turns into mush and the quality of men's tennis goes down. Hewitt's gone, Roddick goes into a slump, Safin's gone, Nalbandian is a mental pea-brain...Agassi's still good enough to stay at the top of men's tennis while his back is intact and he's seeded #3 in the 2005 Masters Cup, but his injured ankle causes him to pull out.
There are a lot of "could have's" and "should have's" in Agassi's career. I think he's top 5 of all time material, but I think Federer and Sampras are better.
the agassi fans are dreaming. agassi was yearend #1 once(arguably then too), fed 3 times. fed has won the usopen and wimby back to back 3 times, agassi never, fed has had two of the greatest years in history. agassi's best year doesn't compare. and fed also owned agassi head to head.
funny thread. maybe the next could be what if fed had retired in 2005.
Federer may not have beaten legends in slam finals but very few of his opponents in slam finals are as weak as guys like Schuettler and Clement. Lets compare who they beat to win their slam finals from toughest to easiest, Agassi's on the left, Federer on the right, leaving out the middle toughest guy(#5)of Federer's 9 vs Agassi's 8 to create a balance:
1. 95 Australian Open Sampras>2004 Wimbledon final Roddick
2. 92 Wimbledon final Ivanisevic=2006 U.S Open final Roddick
3. 2000 Australian Open final Kafelnikov<2004 U.S Open final Hewitt
4. 1999 U.S Open final Martin<2005 Wimbledon final Roddick
5. 1999 French Open final Medvedev<2006 Wimbledon final Nadal
6. 94 U.S Open final Stitch<2004 Australian Open final Safin
7. 2002 Australian Open final Clement<2003 Wimbledon final Phillipousis
8. 2003 Australian Open final Schuettler<2006 Australian Open final Bhagdatis
Do you really dispute any of these? Except for Sampras in the 95 Australian Open being a better win then any of Fed's final wins so far, and Ivanisevic in the 92 Wimbledon final being about equal with a win over a confident Roddick in a Wimbledon or U.S Open final, all of Agassi's final wins are easier opponents then Fed's even if they arent legendary. Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin are better then the likes of Kafelnikov and Martin, since you are bringing up head to heads check out Hewitt's head to head with Kafelnikov alot of those when Hewitt was not yet a big time player. Nadal is a tougher surprise Wimbledon finalist, then Medvedev a surprise French Open finalist, it isnt even close who you would rather play in a slam final. Phillipousis on grass and Bhagdatis on hard courts are tougher final opponents then Clement or Schuettler by any definition.
You left out his head to heads vs Federer and Hewitt. I dont know what his exact head to head with Hewitt is but I believe Hewitt went 3-2 vs Agassi in 2001-2002 when Agassi was arguably still in his prime, and Hewitt was #1. Phillipousis and Bhagdatis are not among the top competitors of Federer by a long shot even though they played them in that 1 slam final. I wonder what Federer's head to head vs Clement and Schuettler would be if he played them even in his mid 30s, probably pretty darn good as well. Agassi's first 4 wins over Roddick were when he wasnt even a top 10 player yet, except the last one on clay-where Roddick is brutal, Andy might have been up to #9 at that point. Their final 2 meetings they split.
The key stat is years ranked No. 1. In his long and illustrious career, Agassi managed to finish only a single season as the best player in the world. Federer, on the other hand, has thoroughly dominated his contemporaries; he has three years at No. 1 under his belt, and is guaranteed to soon break the record for consecutive weeks in the top spot. Federer's achievements already put him in the GOAT discussion. As for Agassi, how can a guy be considered one of the best of all time if he couldn't even establish himself as the best player of his own era?
Agassi vs. Hewitt, 4-4. You might want to check the list of "nobodys" that Agassi round for round pounded through in each of his finals! Wimby '92, Christian Saceanu, Boris Becker, John McEroe, Ivanesivic... Aussie '95, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Krickstein, SAMPRAS... etc. You don't enter a tournament and automaticly enter the final.
Sampras and Federer are better than Agassi, but they don't blow him out of the water the least!
And another thing... One too many times, people try to undermine Agassi's Career grand slam. If it is so eassssssy to do... just you know, a drop in the bucket why are there only 5 people to have done it? Why haven't Fed, Sampras, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Connors, Courier, Chang and Wilander etc.........................done this?, If this is such an EASY! feat? Huh?
Because Roland Garros starts in just May.
I think both are great players and it is very hard to choose between them at this point. I started comparing their career until now, they both have things over the other at this point. It is funny how you can spin so many things different way, some people point out how dominant Federer is in such a short time as an advantage, others point out Agassi's longevity of success as a big advantage which obviously in a way makes Federer's success all compiled in such a short time a disadvantage. I would not discount the value of the career slam though, I pointed that out as one of Agassi's advantages for me at the start, I do think Fed will do that this year but of course that cant be considered, it hasnt happened yet.
If Federer's career, God forbid, ended today, I would still rank him ahead of Agassi. More slams, more time at #1, 3-1 edge in terms of ending the year at #1, etc.
Here's a parallel. I rank Borg ahead of Connors, despite the latter's edge in longevity and the fact that Connors won 3/4 slams as opposed to "only" 2/4 for Borg. This in spite of the fact that Connors has advantages over Borg in terms of time spent at #1 and end-of-year #1s that Agassi doesn't have over Federer.
connors, borg, mac didn't play all the slams, most years, for one thing. tennis is about being the best for the year, not slipping through a two week tournament once in a career.
That is true, but Connors tried many years of his prime 78-82 I believe to win the French Open and couldnt, McEnroe tried every year in his prime to win the French Open and couldnt, Borg tried every year period to win the U.S Open and couldnt. Federer of course has tried for years to win the French and couldnt. So Agassi's fit of winning the career slam still is an accomplishment compared to those guys who failed in many attempts in their primes to win a certain elusive slam.
A Slam is a slam! Umm... you should check his record there.........Slipping through!!??
I am a huge Agassi fan but Federer beats him here. Same time last year, I would have rated Agassi higher. Consider this, it took Agassi 20 years to win 8 Slams - Federer has already accomplished that in 8 years or so. Agassi won his Slams in a period spanning 11 years, Fed has won more in 3.5 years. Gradually Federer's bettering each Agassi feat. The only accomplishment Agassi has over Federer right now is the Career Slam, and of course his incredible longetivity. On the other hand, if it wasnt for Nadal Federer would have won the French twice. Agassi never had a stretch on clay as great as Federer's.
What are you saying? Where did Fed run away..? He won the match.
Interesting comparison this. If Federer's career ended today though I would have to give it to Agassi. 60 singles tournaments, career golden Grand Slam and 17 MS out does one more GS. In terms of dominance Federer has the obvious lead, and he will likely only extend this over coming years. Right now though Agassi has it. I think the career slam is crucial for Roger if he really wants to get ahead of the field in the GOAT arguement
Fed having one more slam title does not in any way outweigh ALL of AA's accomplishments in their respective careers.
One can't compare their careers because of all the variables involved. Agassi has the better career right now because it's over, book closed, a great player and ambassador for the game and we don't know where Fed will wind up. Maybe he's on steroids and will get banned from the sport or has a partially bionic right arm (Terminator 4 :-o ) or be part of a plot to blow up the French Open
Barry Bonds used to be alot of peoples favorite...
Hopefully, someone will remember to re-post this thread after Fed retires and we can do a round 2.
I hope you are not insinuating Saceanu, McEnroe 92 version, Rafter 95 version, or Krickstein are particularly tough people to play in the final rounds to win a Grand Slam.
Ok then how about compare the people Federer beat from quarters to final to win his 9 slams to the people Agassi beat from quarters to final to win his 8 slams, from toughest to easiest. I will leave out the 5th toughest as that is the middle ground of bringing 8 out of 9 of Federers compared to all 8 of Agassi's. Agassi's will be on the right, Federer's on the left:
Agassi's #1 toughest vs Federers #1 toughest. Wimbledon 1992-Becker quarters, way-past-prime McEnroe semis, Ivanisevic final > Wimbledon 2004-Hewitt quarters, Grosjean semis, Roddick final. Agassi had tougher quarterfinal opponent, semifinal and final pretty close.
Agassi's #2 toughest vs Federer's #2 toughest Australian Open 1995-Kafelnikov quarters, Krickstein semis, Sampras finals = Wimbledon 2005-Gonzalez quarters, Hewitt semis, Roddick finals. Agassi had the tougher quarterfinal opponent, Federer by far the tougher semifinal opponent, Agassi the tougher final opponent but not by as much considering Sampras was on rebound ace and Roddick was on grass.
Agassi's #3 toughest vs Federer's #3 toughest Australian Open 2000-Arazi quarters, Sampras semis, Kafelnikov finals = U.S Open 2004-aging Agassi quarters, Henman semis, Hewitt finals. Federer had the tougher quarterfinal opponent, Agassi much tougher semifinal opponent, Federer tougher final opponent.
Agassi's #4 toughest vs Federer's #4 toughest U.S Open 1999-Escude quarters, Kafelnikov semis, Martin finals < Wimbledon 2003-Schalken quarters, Roddick semis, Phillipousis finals. Federer had the tougher quarterfinal opponent by a bit, Federer had the tougher semifinal opponent, final opponent about equal.
Federer's #5 toughest U.S Open 2006
Agassi's #5 toughest vs Federer's #6 toughest U.S Open 1994-Muster quarters, Martin semis, Stich finals < U.S Open 2005-Nalbandian quarters, Hewitt semis, aging Agassi finals. Federer had the tougher quarterfinal, semifinal, and final opponents here. Even an old Agassi is a tougher opponent in a U.S Open final then Stich.
Agassi's #6 toughest vs Federer's #7 toughest Australian Open 2001-Martin quarters, Rafter semis, Clement finals < Australian Open 2004-Nalbandian quarters, Ferrero semis, Safin finals. The quarterfinal is similar. Since this was the only year Rafter made it past the 4th round on rebound ace, and Ferrero was in his prime and had reached the U.S Open final semifinal is also similar. Federer's final opponent by far tougher.
Agassi's #7 toughest vs Federer's #8 toughest French Open 1999-Filippini quarters, Hrbaty semis, Medvedev finals < Wimbledon 2006-Ancic quarters, Bjorkman semis, Nadal finals. Federer had the much tougher quarterfinal opponent, Agassi slightly tougher semifinal opponent, Federer much tougher final opponent.
Agassi's #8 toughest vs Federer's #9 toughest Australian Open 2003-Grosjean quarters, Ferreira semis, Schuettler finals < Australian Open 2006-Davydenko quarters, Kiefer semis, Bhagdatis finals. The quarterfinal opponents were similiar, Federers's semifinal opponent slightly tougher, Federer's finals opponent clearly tougher.
So unless you dispute any of these Federer had the tougher quarterfinal-final draw to win slams 5 times, Agassi only 1 time, and about equal 2 times, when you take Federer's 9 vs Agassi's 8 from toughest to easiest, leaving out Federer's middle toughest(#5)to even out the comparision.
Agassi's much tougher competition to win slams escapes me I am afraid. If you disagree with any of comparisions of who had tougher quarterfinal-final competition to win their slams, order to order, then point out which one is wrong in your view, and explain why.
Who is Federer? so Andre
He ONLY beat "chokers"?? Guess that doesn't say much about Sampras. If Agassi was only able to beat "chokers", then who did Sampras beat?? Agassi?, who only beat "chokers"?
If the the Career Slam is no "big deal" then why didn't Sampras, who was so awesome do it?
The career Grand Slam is an impressive accomplishment, but it does not automaticaly put somebody who did that as better then a player who did not. So what are you saying, that Agassi, Perry, Laver, Budge, and Emerson are automaticaly the 5 best ever since they did the career Slam, and are automaticaly over Tilden, Federer, Sampras, Borg, and the others who did not?
cap, why don't you go back and read post 37, then my reply. You will find the answer to your question.
Its hard to make this decision as to what Fed has achieved so far and to ignore what he may achieve i the future but from what I have got from this forum it seems to me as though the top3 greatest players ever are Sampras, Federer and Laver. What order they go in is anyones opinion but I dont see Andre's name in there anyway.
How can you compare someone who just retired to someone still playing at their peak? Not understanding this juvi thread I guess.
Wasnt Medvedev a claycourt specialist? IMO Medvedev on clay > Nadal on grass. And I am taking into consideration Nadal's heart of a champion.
I think that sums things up nicely.Agassi was great but not in Federer's class.The more apt question would be between Sampras and Federer,who is greater?That question will take more time to play itself out.
Federer because he owns, he killed Sampras on grass.
This is a ridulous statment even from a new user. Federer beat a past prime Sampras in 5 close sets. He didnt kill Sampras, metaphorically or literally.
Dude, that 'past prime' Sampras WAS the #1 seed that year, you know.
Anyway, this argument is silly cos Fed plays at an otherwordly level we've never seen before. I'm quite sure he'd handily beat any player who's ever picked up a racquet.
Sampras was taken to 5 sets by Bogdanovic, of all people, in the previous round. Sampras retired from tennis the next year. Sampras only got the no.1 seeding because Wimbledon do seedings on grass tournament results over the last 2 years as well as ranking, Sampras's ranking was not number 1. Anyway Sampras was past peak when he won Wimbledon in 2000 against Rafter. If you watched Sampras's matches you would know.
Sampras wasnt in his prime but Federer was further from his prime then Sampras. Sampras would reach the finals of the 2001 U.S Open, might have won the 2002 Australian Open had he not lost 7-6 in the 4th to eventual final round choker Safin, and won the 2002 U.S Open. Federer would lose in the 4th round of 4 of his next 7 slams, and 1st round of 3 of his next 7 slams. So who was further from their prime, Sampras who would final or win the next 2 U.S Opens, or Federer who would split 4th and 1st round losses at his next 7 slams? Federer still won an extremely close match of course.
Separate names with a comma.