Agassi: Federer vs. Sampras

[Marius_Hancu]

-----------
this link has a SPOILER:
http://www.nasdaq-100open.com/news/2...ews/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.
--------------

[ibemadskillzz]

agassi talked like federer is a better than sampras. Sampras would owned federer hands down.

[The tennis guy]

Originally Posted by ibemadskillzz

agassi talked like federer is a better than sampras. Sampras would owned federer hands down.

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.

[grind]

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.

[no.1retrieverUK]

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'.

[no.1retrieverUK]

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.

[hyperwarrior]

Originally Posted by grind

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.

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.

[Vlad]

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.

[Grimjack]

Originally Posted by hyperwarrior

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.

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.

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by Grimjack

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.

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.

[fedex27]

can all of you stop pete this federer that. federer beat pete and both are amongst the greatest ever. pete in his prime? maybe

[uNIVERSE mAN]

Originally Posted by hyperwarrior

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.

That's not what he said! Can you read properly? He said he's got better weapons than ANYONE Sampras DOMINATED.

Damn people.

[hyperwarrior]

Originally Posted by uNIVERSE mAN

That's not what he said! Can you read properly? He said he's got better weapons than ANYONE Sampras DOMINATED.

Damn people.

All right...I apologize, I read too fast.

[ChiefAce]

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........

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by grind

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.

Errrr, what?

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by grind

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.

Originally Posted by dangalak

Errrr, what?

hth. 10chars

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

hth. 10chars

Ivanisevic. Becker.

[AClockWorkOrange]

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.

[ragnaROK]

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.

[wildbill88AA]

sampras had a lot of lapses in his concentration? and he was #1 for 6 consecutive years? gosh, i must have missed something. 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.