Federer at 25 FAR superior than Murray now

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

LOL wut? ... Agassi wasn't number 1 because Fed beat him? Fwhahahaha, no **** Agassi lost #1 because he didn't defend his AO title in 04 losing to SAFIN, not Federer. He then got knocked out in the first round of RG (again not losing to Fed) where he made the QF the year before. He was then absent at Wimbledon IIRC and in the USO, old crippled Agassi pushed peak indestructable Fed to the limit.

And Agassi did not say post 33 read the damn interview, he said when he was #1 at 33 he felt he was better player than when he was #1 at 25. When he lost to Fed at USO 04 he was 34 and a half and his body was on it's last legs.

lol, cluelessness at its finest ...

agassi was ranked #5 at the TMC in 2003 ... (behind roddick, ferrero, federer & coria ) ...he went back to #4 after the TMC

he lost his #1 ranking because ferrero beat him convincingly in USO 2003 in the semis ( from final in 2002 to semi in 2003 ), coria beat him @ RG and scud beat him @ wimbledon ...

yes , the very same ferrero whom you have near zero clue about how good he was becoming on HC

agassi played a good match but was thoroughly outplayed by ferrero ...

even if he had won the AO in 2004, he wouldn't have been #1, so the safin loss had nothing to do with it ...

here's the same post I made about ferrero in another thread :

Originally Posted by abmk

again, you have no clue about ferrero ....... how good he was becoming on HC at that time ...yes,he was still inconsistent, but when playing well, he was darn good

you actually 'believed' agassi when he said he was playing better at 33 in 2003 ranked 1 than at 25, right ? I don't agree with that, but well ferrero thoroughly outplayed him in the USO SF in 2003

he had 51 winners to 32 UEs ; agassi had 47 winners to 37 UEs

agassi didn't play a bad match at all, ferrero just plain outplayed him ... and this was vs agassi @ his home slam .... many of those BH DTLs from ferrero were downright brutal ....

he had beaten hewitt in the QF as well

in the match vs fed @ AO 2004 SF, sets 1 and 3 were fiercely competitive ....in fact fed was being outplayed till 4 all in the first .... just that fed was better on the big points ...even the second set where ferrero had a dip was way closer than the score of 6-1 suggests

yeah, again, you'll bring up his loss to guccione at sydney, but fact is ferrero beat 5 players better than guccione to reach the semi vs fed @ the AO ...

again, I didn't watch that match, but I can only speculate that a first round match vs a huge server in the zone was the fact that undid ferrero ...

he faced a big server in joachim johansson at the AO as well and beat him in 4 sets

[The_Order]

What you on about? I was right, Agassi didn't lose #1 because Fed beat him 8 times in a row like that other guy said.

As for Ferrero, he played nothing like his 03USO form when he beat Agassi compared to AO04.

You're flogging a dead horse trying desperately to prove Fed had it tougher than Novak to win his AO titles but you along with the other die hard *******s are the only ones who think this.

Every neutral tennis fan will tell you Novak had it tougher and still won 4 titles and will no doubt win at least one more.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

What you on about? I was right, Agassi didn't lose #1 because Fed beat him 8 times in a row like that other guy said.

As for Ferrero, he played nothing like his 03USO form when he beat Agassi compared to AO04.

You're flogging a dead horse trying desperately to prove Fed had it tougher than Novak to win his AO titles but you along with the other die hard *******s are the only ones who think this.

Every neutral tennis fan will tell you Novak had it tougher and still won 4 titles and will no doubt win at least one more.

you said

"Agassi wasn't number 1 because Fed beat him? Fwhahahaha, no **** Agassi lost #1 because he didn't defend his AO title in 04 losing to SAFIN, not Federer. He then got knocked out in the first round of RG (again not losing to Fed) where he made the QF the year before. He was then absent at Wimbledon IIRC and in the USO, old crippled Agassi pushed peak indestructable Fed to the limit. "

which is plain BS ...agassi didn't lose #1 because of anything what you stated , which is what I said ...

the guy who said agassi lost #1 because fed beat him 8 times in a row was also obviously wrong ...... what is funny is you contradicted that post of his with another bunch of clueless statements

again, you have absolutely no clue of what you're talking about regarding ferrero ....

ferrero was playing well @ the AO match vs fed as well ... only in the 2nd set, his form dipped a bit, but nowhere close to what the score of 6-1 indicates ...