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.

[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.

[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.

[serveboy]

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!

[RoddickSafin]

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.

[lemurballs]

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.

[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.

[edge]

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.

[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.

[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.

[uNIVERSE mAN]

Originally Posted by serveboy

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!

Oh great, another guy that pulls numbers out of his arse.

[Aykhan Mammadov]

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.