Compare Federer vs. Agassi; SAMPRAS is in FIELD of HiS OWN

Tennis Dude · Nov 13, 2007

Often times, it seems like we all want to compare Fed with Sampras--even the media.

But I say, it may be a better, more correct analogous comparison Fed with Agassi. They are both top baseliners.

It's like when Agassi stormed onto the scene while Lendl was #1.

If you took Agassi & Fed together in their primes, who would win? Armed with the same technology of course. I would say that is tough, but I'd still go with Agassi.

Fed compared to Sampras? Answer: There really is non comparison.

Sampras trumps.

todd03blown · Nov 13, 2007

7yghhhkl;l;mm;m

35ft6 · Nov 13, 2007

Did you know that Fed beat Sampras?

caesar66 · Nov 13, 2007

Tennis Dude said:
Often times, it seems like we all want to compare Fed with Sampras--even the media.

But I say, it may be a better, more correct analogous comparison Fed with Agassi. They are both top baseliners.

It's like when Agassi stormed onto the scene while Lendl was #1.

If you took Agassi & Fed together in their primes, who would win? Armed with the same technology of course. I would say that is tough, but I'd still go with Agassi.

Fed compared to Sampras? Answer: There really is non comparison.

Sampras trumps.

Look at results if you need a reason to compare Federer to Sampras. The domination fed has over his field over time is much more in line with that of sampras than agassi, who never had the sort of domination Federer has. Both in their primes, I'd still say Federer over agassi.

FiveO · Nov 13, 2007

Yeah, no.

Three completely different entities IMO.

Sampras was dominant in the old school definition of dominant. Attempting to peak for the biggest events and playing for year end #1. Pacing. He played more of an all-court game early and then gravitated to much more s&v later.

Agassi was in and out. Up and down but when dedicated unbelievable at what he did. But, he had no options. He was a baseliner. There were no other options.

Federer redefined dominance in the men's pro game. No one. No one dominated in the way he has over so long a period of time. Only this year did he roll back to Sampras like dominance, whether he is consciously pacing now or not. He has every option in the book open to him and while lacking the out and out serving prowess of Sampras is a superior baseliner to him. He played more s&v earlier in his career but has found his comfort zone on all surfaces is at the baseline.

All are different in many different ways.

thalivest · Nov 14, 2007

Sampras or Agassi in their primes would probably crush Federer. Look at how much Roger struggled vs old geezer Agassi with a gimpy back at the 2004 and 2005 U.S Opens. Also look at how much he struggles with great clay courter Nadal at Wimbledon on grass. Sampras did everything better then Federer, better serves and volleys, better groundstrokes off both wings, more athletic and returned more solidly. Agassi had a weaker volley then Federer but was better in every other way too, more mobile, much better groundstrokes and returns, better serve and mentally much tougher.

HBK4life · Nov 14, 2007

I think it would depend on the surface and the weather conditions. In a war of attrition I'd take a 100% Agassi vs pretty much anyone.

Tennis Dude · Nov 14, 2007

Completely Agree: Sampras OR Agassi > Federer

thalivest said:
Sampras or Agassi in their primes would probably crush Federer. Look at how much Roger struggled vs old geezer Agassi with a gimpy back at the 2004 and 2005 U.S Opens. Also look at how much he struggles with great clay courter Nadal at Wimbledon on grass. Sampras did everything better then Federer, better serves and volleys, better groundstrokes off both wings, more athletic and returned more solidly. Agassi had a weaker volley then Federer but was better in every other way too, more mobile, much better groundstrokes and returns, better serve and mentally much tougher.

Yes. Agreed.

Agassi's prime is probably superior to Fed's prime. Look at Agassi's videos as a younger guy. He pounded the ball even before the ncode tech.

Agassi smothered it.

Then came Sampras. Volley King; Serve King; Forehand King; Baseline King.

Sampras was much more athletic than Fed.

Agassi prevails over Fed in each of their primes.

And with Sampras ........ no question. Sampras wins.

hyogen · Nov 14, 2007

yes, agreed. I like Agassi better, but Sampras had a bit more dominating style of play...could win those tie breakers easier, etc.and use his serve to get him out of serious trouble.

Both in their primes are greater than Federer. My dad watched Roddick for the first time yesterday....I showed him some highlights........

He was like...................what the heck? Why does he just defensively hit back to the middle all the time? Where are all the angle shots...why isn't he hitting down the lines or to the corners?

And I was like.....yep, without his serve his game would be very average....

Tennis Dude · Nov 14, 2007

Yes. That's Why FEDERER is Simply a BASELINER...like Lendl

hyogen said:
yes, agreed. I like Agassi better, but Sampras had a bit more dominating style of play...could win those tie breakers easier, etc.and use his serve to get him out of serious trouble.

Both in their primes are greater than Federer. My dad watched Roddick for the first time yesterday....I showed him some highlights........

He was like...................what the heck? Why does he just defensively hit back to the middle all the time? Where are all the angle shots...why isn't he hitting down the lines or to the corners?

And I was like.....yep, without his serve his game would be very average....

Yes. Again agreed.

That's why Fed is simply a good baseliner .. like Lendl.

But he's a solid baseliner, nevertheless.

Deleted member 21996 · Nov 14, 2007

Again the onedimensional tag to baseliners, as if serving and storming to the net every single time is not a one dimensional behavior too...

fastdunn · Nov 14, 2007

FiveO said:
Federer redefined dominance in the men's pro game. No one. No one dominated in the way he has over so long a period of time.

Very very true but I think it's also true that tennis never has been this much homogeneous since the time when tennis was mostly played on grass like 50's and 60's ?

Sampras' style dominance was a good fit in 90's when tennis was argueably the most polarized ever.

FiveO · Nov 14, 2007

fastdunn said:
Very very true but I think it's also true that tennis never has been this much homogeneous since the time when tennis was mostly played on grass like 50's and 60's ?

Sampras' style dominance was a good fit in 90's when tennis was argueably the most polarized ever.

I'm in agreement with you and probably should have worded it that no one has dominated his contemporaries the way Fed has for so long a period of time.

And yes the 90's were possibly the most polarized with the mid-70's into the mid 80's running a close second. S & V was the dominating in both who won and in terms of numbers on tour prior to the arrival of Connors and Borg even prior to the surface change at the Open.

stormholloway · Nov 14, 2007

There is a lot of confusion and nonsense in this thread. So little credit is given to Federer, probably because he just might be better than both Sampras and Agassi in their primes. What exactly can't Federer do?

Federer is, once more, a clear number one this year, with another 3 slam year. Before Federer, only Mats Wilander was able to win 3 in one year and that act more or less burnt him out. Federer, on the other hand, has won 3 in a year 3 different times, and has damn near won the grand slam twice.

What's being said is just ridiculous. I think Sampras, Agassi, and Federer all in their primes would make for awesome tennis, but to act like Sampras or Agassi would crush Federer is laughable. Agassi in his prime is amazing, and his career numbers don't indicate how good he was because the time he got his head together and his tennis ability peaked, he had lost a step due to age, but Federer in his prime is simply awe inspiring.

You people are crazy.

Tennis Dude · Nov 14, 2007

Disagree Stormholloway - Federer has NOT Proved Himself

stormholloway said:
There is a lot of confusion and nonsense in this thread. So little credit is given to Federer, probably because he just might be better than both Sampras and Agassi in their primes. What exactly can't Federer do?

Federer is, once more, a clear number one this year, with another 3 slam year. Before Federer, only Mats Wilander was able to win 3 in one year and that act more or less burnt him out. Federer, on the other hand, has won 3 in a year 3 different times, and has damn near won the grand slam twice.

What's being said is just ridiculous. I think Sampras, Agassi, and Federer all in their primes would make for awesome tennis, but to act like Sampras or Agassi would crush Federer is laughable. Agassi in his prime is amazing, and his career numbers don't indicate how good he was because the time he got his head together and his tennis ability peaked, he had lost a step due to age, but Federer in his prime is simply awe inspiring.

You people are crazy.

I disagree, stormholloway ... respectfully of course.

Agassi's career is complete. Sampras' career is complete. Federer's career is still in-the-works.

#1) Agassi won the entire Grand Slam (Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open, French Open).

Fed hasn't.

#2) Sampras won 14 Grand Slams.

Fed hasn't.

THEREFORE, Fed is good. But he's still hasn't proven himself. Hence, he's not the greatest. VERY VERY far from ever becoming the greatest. And if you think anything otherwise, at least RIGHT NOW, you're saying that it is EASY to win a Grand Slam. And it isn't.

Agassi has proven himself. Sampras has proven himself. Federer hasn't.

Federer is an awesome player. I give it to him. And to all those who like him. He's an excellent baseliner. His volleys are very good, but not good enough for us or anyone of us to compare his volleys with any other s&v'ers like Sampras, Edberg, Becker, MacEnroe ... not even close.

Fed's great. But not that good, yet. He's still in-the-works.

Tennis_Bum · Nov 14, 2007

Here comes a blog from a pimp very soon.

I can sense it.

caesar66 · Nov 14, 2007

Tennis Dude said:
I disagree, stormholloway ... respectfully of course.

Agassi's career is complete. Sampras' career is complete. Federer's career is still in-the-works.

#1) Agassi won the entire Grand Slam (Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open, French Open).

Fed hasn't.

#2) Sampras won 14 Grand Slams.

Fed hasn't.

THEREFORE, Fed is good. But he's still hasn't proven himself. Hence, he's not the greatest. VERY VERY far from ever becoming the greatest. And if you think anything otherwise, at least RIGHT NOW, you're saying that it is EASY to win a Grand Slam. And it isn't.

Agassi has proven himself. Sampras has proven himself. Federer hasn't.

Federer is an awesome player. I give it to him. And to all those who like him. He's an excellent baseliner. His volleys are very good, but not good enough for us or anyone of us to compare his volleys with any other s&v'ers like Sampras, Edberg, Becker, MacEnroe ... not even close.

Fed's great. But not that good, yet. He's still in-the-works.

How is he "Very very far from ever becoming the greatest"? He's made the finals of all four grandslams (twice at the french no less), which sampras did not do. He's won more grand slams than agassi. Based on these two, he's at least as good as both, rather than not as good as both. He should (even sampras agrees) tie or break sampras' grandslam record, and if you consider sampras better than fed based on that requirement, it might not be there much longer. What else does fed have to do that makes him soooo far away from being as good as pete (who you think is the greatest, so by your logic, to be the greatest he has to be as good as pete).

fastdunn · Nov 14, 2007

FiveO said:
I'm in agreement with you and probably should have worded it that no one has dominated his contemporaries the way Fed has for so long a period of time.

And yes the 90's were possibly the most polarized with the mid-70's into the mid 80's running a close second. S & V was the dominating in both who won and in terms of numbers on tour prior to the arrival of Connors and Borg even prior to the surface change at the Open.

I would like to also add that current ATP is more top-player friendly than past.
For example, although probably not a major factor,

1. There is no bonus point when lower ranked player beat higher ranked player. (In 90's ranking system with the bonus points, Nadal's points would be much closer to Federer's. Also up-and-coming young players would rise more rapidly into top ranking with 90's ranking system).

2. They are now seeding 32 players compared to 16 players in the past.
Roger is more likely to play familiar players in 2nd week of slams.
Not just Roger. 3 out of top 4 players would frequently make semi's.
ATP deliberatedly made slams' 2nd week more predictable.

hoodjem · Nov 14, 2007

Tennis Dude said:
#1) Agassi won the entire Grand Slam (Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open, French Open).

Let's not rewrite history. Only two men in tennis history have won a Grand Slam in singles. And neither is Agassi.

Agassi achieved a "career slam." It is, I believe, a fairly new designation invented by Mary Carillo or similar ilk. It was invented probably just for Agassi to acknowledge something he did not come close to achieving in one single year. The "career slam" took him seven years: 1992-1999.

Tennis_Bum · Nov 14, 2007

caesar66 said:
How is he "Very very far from ever becoming the greatest"? He's made the finals of all four grandslams (twice at the french no less), which sampras did not do. He's won more grand slams than agassi. Based on these two, he's at least as good as both, rather than not as good as both. He should (even sampras agrees) tie or break sampras' grandslam record, and if you consider sampras better than fed based on that requirement, it might not be there much longer. What else does fed have to do that makes him soooo far away from being as good as pete (who you think is the greatest, so by your logic, to be the greatest he has to be as good as pete).

You can't argue with an idiot. To me, Fed, doesn't have to prove anything. He knows what he has accomplished. Those idiots said he has to win FO to prove something. Well, let's see if he does it. But if he doesn't, that doesn't make him a lesser player. There are always idiots out there who think they know so much about tennis and pay money to write blogs and pimp it as much as they can.

shwetty[tennis]balls · Nov 14, 2007

Even Agassi aknowledges Federer the better player than he. I would say that Federer is certainly more in a line of comparison with Sampras.

stormholloway · Nov 14, 2007

Tennis Dude said:
I disagree, stormholloway ... respectfully of course.

Agassi's career is complete. Sampras' career is complete. Federer's career is still in-the-works.

By "still in the works" you mean he hasn't retired? So what?

#1) Agassi won the entire Grand Slam (Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open, French Open).

Fed hasn't.

Agassi never had to deal with such a dominant clay court player as Rafael Nadal. This has nothing to do with Roger's ability. Federer has met Nadal in the last 3 French Opens.

#2) Sampras won 14 Grand Slams.

Fed hasn't.

Again, so what? He's been more dominant than Sampras and has won nearly as many slams in far fewer years. What does this number have to do with ability? Rod Laver said that he didn't even think of total slams at the time he was playing.

THEREFORE, Fed is good. But he's still hasn't proven himself. Hence, he's not the greatest. VERY VERY far from ever becoming the greatest. And if you think anything otherwise, at least RIGHT NOW, you're saying that it is EASY to win a Grand Slam. And it isn't.

You are talking out of your ass. Federer has won 3 of the 4 slams in a calendar year 3 different times. Sampras never once even won 3 of 4 in a single year. Federer's reign is far more dominant than Sampras'. What does winning a couple extra slams and beating Sampras' record have to do with ABILITY?

Agassi has proven himself. Sampras has proven himself. Federer hasn't.

Federer is an awesome player. I give it to him. And to all those who like him. He's an excellent baseliner. His volleys are very good, but not good enough for us or anyone of us to compare his volleys with any other s&v'ers like Sampras, Edberg, Becker, MacEnroe ... not even close.

Fed's great. But not that good, yet. He's still in-the-works.

So lemme get this straight... 12 slams in a span of 5 years and he hasn't proven himself? He had one of the single most dominant years of all times, losing maybe 3 matches. Even after all this, you say he's not that good yet?

Sometimes I wonder if anyone is even watching tennis. This is the biggest load of BS I've read in a while.

Tennis Dude · Nov 14, 2007

THere you have it.

fastdunn said:
I would like to also add that current ATP is more top-player friendly than past.
For example, although probably not a major factor,

1. There is no bonus point when lower ranked player beat higher ranked player. (In 90's ranking system with the bonus points, Nadal's points would be much closer to Federer's. Also up-and-coming young players would rise more rapidly into top ranking with 90's ranking system).

2. They are now seeding 32 players compared to 16 players in the past.
Roger is more likely to play familiar players in 2nd week of slams.
Not just Roger. 3 out of top 4 players would frequently make semi's.
ATP deliberatedly made slams' 2nd week more predictable.

Yes, fastdunn. There you have it.

Perhaps, this is why Fed is enjoying the top #1 limelight for so long.

superman1 · Nov 14, 2007

At this point, Federer is way above Agassi, but consider what would happen if Federer fades away quickly and doesn't last until he's 30. Then I think a lot of people would reconsider putting him so far above Agassi. In terms of their peak baseline play, Federer is superior, but not by much. What really separates Fed is his serve.

caesar66 · Nov 14, 2007

superman1 said:
At this point, Federer is way above Agassi, but consider what would happen if Federer fades away quickly and doesn't last until he's 30. Then I think a lot of people would reconsider putting him so far above Agassi. In terms of their peak baseline play, Federer is superior, but not by much. What really separates Fed is his serve.

and net ability as well

Tennis_Bum · Nov 14, 2007

superman1 said:
At this point, Federer is way above Agassi, but consider what would happen if Federer fades away quickly and doesn't last until he's 30. Then I think a lot of people would reconsider putting him so far above Agassi. In terms of their peak baseline play, Federer is superior, but not by much. What really separates Fed is his serve.

You can throw footwork in there too. Fed has more variety than Agassi. Even if Fed fades away quickly or if he retires before reaching 30, that doesn't take away of what he accomplished period. He would be one hell of a player. I say Agassi lasted very long simply because he was goofing off most of his junior years. Actually, Agassi himself said the same thing. He said that if he was playing much more seriously and training a lot harder early on of his career, he would have burned out a lot sooner.

The guy who really lasted long was Jimmy Connors. He played until he was 39 years old. I know the older generations lasted until they were mid forty but that still was quite impressive for Connors. Not a point of debate, just marvel at how long Connors lasted.

lambielspins · Nov 14, 2007

caesar66 said:
and net ability as well

I am a Federer fan but net play is not a big part of his game at all. It is a complete myth he is this all court genuis. He is predominantly a baseliner like many other past all time greats, just one of the best. superman1 is right that he relies on his baseline play and his serve, as well as his ability to read and return big servers.

lambielspins · Nov 14, 2007

superman1 said:
At this point, Federer is way above Agassi, but consider what would happen if Federer fades away quickly and doesn't last until he's 30. Then I think a lot of people would reconsider putting him so far above Agassi. In terms of their peak baseline play, Federer is superior, but not by much. What really separates Fed is his serve.

There are different ways to look at it. Agassi's longevity is a great plus, but when you think of his longevity you also recall his inconsistency which is a drawback.

caesar66 · Nov 14, 2007

lambielspins said:
I am a Federer fan but net play is not a big part of his game at all. It is a complete myth he is this all court genuis. He is predominantly a baseliner like many other past all time greats, just one of the best. superman1 is right that he relies on his baseline play and his serve, as well as his ability to read and return big servers.

i'm just saying its better than andre's

Tennis Dude · Nov 14, 2007

Yes, agreed

lambielspins said:
I am a Federer fan but net play is not a big part of his game at all. It is a complete myth he is this all court genuis. He is predominantly a baseliner like many other past all time greats, just one of the best. superman1 is right that he relies on his baseline play and his serve, as well as his ability to read and return big servers.

Yes, agreed. This is why Fed has not proved himself at net, yet. He's only proved himself as the world #1. He's proved himself at net only on selective occasions, but far from even hinting or thinking about initiating an anlysis of his net game. He doesn't do it enough, and so his tennis play doesn't quite merit the volley analysis as it would with his baseline play.

To say that Fed is a great volleyer, makes Becker and Edberg look like they just volley all the time just for the sake of doing it. No.

Becker and Edberg volley, and volley well. They volleyed all the time. Fed on the other hand is a baseliner, so we can really look into his volleys, other than those seldom times he does come to the net.

With Agassi, I think Agassi had a much better baseline game than Fed in both their primes.

Just go look at some of the videos. Agassi literally punishes the ball. Literally. I don't think anyone can really touch that.

I didn't really know, but I checked the stats, and Agassi and Sampras truly did have a rivalry all the way till the end. It's not like Hewitt and Fed, where Hewitt would win all the time at the beginning only later to have Fed win a string of matches. Agassi contended with the greatest ever to play the game--Sampras. And Agassi beat Sampras over and out and on and off.

Agassi's baseline game in his prime was superb.

caesar66 · Nov 14, 2007

Tennis Dude said:
Yes, agreed. This is why Fed has not proved himself at net, yet. He's only proved himself as the world #1. He's proved himself at net only on selective occasions, but far from even hinting or thinking about initiating an anlysis of his net game. He doesn't do it enough, and so his tennis play doesn't quite merit the volley analysis as it would with his baseline play.

To say that Fed is a great volleyer, makes Becker and Edberg look like they just volley all the time just for the sake of doing it. No.

Becker and Edberg volley, and volley well. They volleyed all the time. Fed on the other hand is a baseliner, so we can really look into his volleys, other than those seldom times he does come to the net.

With Agassi, I think Agassi had a much better baseline game than Fed in both their primes.

Just go look at some of the videos. Agassi literally punishes the ball. Literally. I don't think anyone can really touch that.

I didn't really know, but I checked the stats, and Agassi and Sampras truly did have a rivalry all the way till the end. It's not like Hewitt and Fed, where Hewitt would win all the time at the beginning only later to have Fed win a string of matches. Agassi contended with the greatest ever to play the game--Sampras. And Agassi beat Sampras over and out and on and off.

Agassi's baseline game in his prime was superb.

Great baselining isnt about punishing the ball; Federer has great variety in his baseline game so he doesnt have to punish the ball. Think about it, the only spin work agassi did at the baseline was the occasional drop shot. Federer hits the ball plenty hard (I've seen him play in person), but he doesnt just rely on power, he uses variety. Federer's early days were mainly serve and volley, and if you see footage from then you'll see how adept he was. Just watch the Samp/Fed match and you'll see his volley potential, and he wasn't even at his prime. He's said in interviews that he is proud of his serve and volley background because he has that as an option. Most of the time he doesn't have to use it, but he's been around for 10 years as a pro, we've had enough time to see Fed's volleys in that time, and he's proven himself at net. Just because he doesn't go to net all the time now doesn't mean he isn't adept at net and hasn't shown it.
Also, don't compare agassi/sampras to fed/hewitt. Agassi and hewitt aren't in the same league, hewitt is nowhere near the opponent to fed that agassi was to sampras, and that point has nothing to do with what we're talking about

FedForGOAT · Nov 14, 2007

caesar66 said:
Great baselining isnt about punishing the ball; Federer has great variety in his baseline game so he doesnt have to punish the ball. Think about it, the only spin work agassi did at the baseline was the occasional drop shot. Federer hits the ball plenty hard (I've seen him play in person), but he doesnt just rely on power, he uses variety. Federer's early days were mainly serve and volley, and if you see footage from then you'll see how adept he was. Just watch the Samp/Fed match and you'll see his volley potential, and he wasn't even at his prime. He's said in interviews that he is proud of his serve and volley background because he has that as an option. Most of the time he doesn't have to use it, but he's been around for 10 years as a pro, we've had enough time to see Fed's volleys in that time, and he's proven himself at net. Just because he doesn't go to net all the time now doesn't mean he isn't adept at net and hasn't shown it.
Also, don't compare agassi/sampras to fed/hewitt. Agassi and hewitt aren't in the same league, hewitt is nowhere near the opponent to fed that agassi was to sampras, and that point has nothing to do with what we're talking about

I agree. Fed has sublime volleys, especially the bh.

Swissv2 · Nov 14, 2007

Somebody stop this troll.

stormholloway · Nov 14, 2007

Umm, Federer won Wimbledon serve and volleying.

This truly is trollish behavior on TennisDude's part. You know jack **** about tennis. That's all that needs to be said.

hyogen · Nov 14, 2007

wow he hasn't advertised his blog on this thread yet.... what's going on? or have i missed it....

downdaline · Nov 15, 2007

hyogen said:
wow he hasn't advertised his blog on this thread yet.... what's going on? or have i missed it....

U didnt miss anything. Someone mentioned it before u did and so he went and started the "What's This Blog Talking About?" thread to try and throw us off.

Really cute.............

CEvertFan · Nov 15, 2007

Federer is a better, more dominant player than both Agassi and Sampras, even if he retired tomorrow.

Being a pure serve/volleyer doesn't automatically make you a greater player than a baseliner. Total Grand Slam titles isn't an automatic indicator of greatness, or Roy Emerson with his 12 majors would have been considered the best ever (which he wasn't) until Sampras broke the record. Federer is a very good net player but he is more comfortable at the baseline. However, he knows that if he needs to come to net that he has it within himself to do so and that is the definition of an all court player.

The ONLY thing that might give prime Federer trouble if he played a prime Sampras would be Pete's serve, which gave EVERYONE fits, including Agassi who is considered to have one of the best returns of serve in the game EVER. If Federer could handle the Sampras serve that would also considerably help Roger to prevent Pete from coming to net so much and he would then win hands down. Agassi would give him a fight from the baseline but Federer's superior footspeed and variety would allow him to prevail. What Federer does better than almost anyone else that I've ever seen play is his ability to force his opponents out of their comfort zone, and he would do the same thing to both prime Agassi and prime Sampras.

People complain about how Fed is slipping and he's no longer dominating, but his 3 Slams and his finalist showing at the French again this year prove otherwise. In order for one of the other top men (most likely Nadal if his body can hold up) to move up to the #1 ranking, Federer will HAVE to have slipped past his prime. I just don't see anyone else taking the #1 ranking until he does. Federer's dominance of the men's tour is unprecedented, and I don't think that people appreciate what an extremely difficult task that really is. This isn't the women's tour where comparable domination is much more commonplace among the very best women players of all time ie Navratilova, Evert, Graf, Court etc.

Tennis_Bum · Nov 15, 2007

caesar66 said:
Great baselining isnt about punishing the ball; Federer has great variety in his baseline game so he doesnt have to punish the ball. Think about it, the only spin work agassi did at the baseline was the occasional drop shot. Federer hits the ball plenty hard (I've seen him play in person), but he doesnt just rely on power, he uses variety. Federer's early days were mainly serve and volley, and if you see footage from then you'll see how adept he was. Just watch the Samp/Fed match and you'll see his volley potential, and he wasn't even at his prime. He's said in interviews that he is proud of his serve and volley background because he has that as an option. Most of the time he doesn't have to use it, but he's been around for 10 years as a pro, we've had enough time to see Fed's volleys in that time, and he's proven himself at net. Just because he doesn't go to net all the time now doesn't mean he isn't adept at net and hasn't shown it.
Also, don't compare agassi/sampras to fed/hewitt. Agassi and hewitt aren't in the same league, hewitt is nowhere near the opponent to fed that agassi was to sampras, and that point has nothing to do with what we're talking about

I suggested tennisdude to watch that match between Fed/Sampras long time ago but I am sure he didn't watch it. He just likes to write irrelevant topics and make ridiculous comparison to try to try to prove his point about Fed or about Sampras. Fed is one heck of a player. People will always debate about who's the greatest. Frankly, I don't care. I just know that guy can play serious tennis. And when Fed lost a match, man, people jumped so fast to make comments about how his game had slipped, how he lost his edge, how he would benefit if he had a coach, etc. Tennis is such a long season and Fed plays around 70 matches or so a year, from Jan to November. He's going to lose matches. But if he goes to final of GS and was leading 2 sets to love, like John Mcenroe did to Lendl in Paris, or Roddick did to Gasquet at Wimbledon, and so on, and lost that match then I wouldn't mind the criticisms. But that had not happened yet. Why people are so quick to shoot him. He's not superman, but he's fun to watch. I don't know enough players, from past generations, such as woody, steel, graphite, to judge them against Fed to know who is the best. I agree with someone said about GS. Just because you have so many, that doesn't make you a great player. Just because you play serve and volley, that doesn't make your game superior to others. Tennis is not about serve and volley. You got to play and exploit your opponent's weaknesses, play with the conditions and environment. Pete and his fans can't seriously believe that he can play that game today. He would get passed a lot a the net if he tried. If you watch the Sampras vs. Agassi matches at the US Open, Sampras didn't serve and volley a whole lot.

I am still waiting for the advertisement of that famous blog.

hyogen · Nov 15, 2007

hmm Tennis Bum.... you are sounding kinda like you're one and the same person as Tennis Dude. Even the name is pretty much the same. You're now indirectly advertising the blog...

anyone agree with me? lol..... That is pretty sad he's the same guy...

Tennis_Bum · Nov 15, 2007

hyogen said:
hmm Tennis Bum.... you are sounding kinda like you're one and the same person as Tennis Dude. Even the name is pretty much the same. You're now indirectly advertising the blog...

anyone agree with me? lol..... That is pretty sad he's the same guy...

No man, read other threads and see for yourself about how others and I shoot him down for enshrining Sampras and for writing that he thinks Sampras still can win Wimbledon and US Open. You are pretty sad to think of me that way. May be you are tennisdue yourself.

I preempt him from pimping the blog, but I am sure he will advertise it somewhere else. If you read the writing carefully, you will notice markedly different opinion about what I think of Sampras's game vs what he thinks and how I backed up my point with factual information versus his what-if scenarios.

fastdunn · Nov 15, 2007

superman1 said:
What really separates Fed is his serve.

This is so true. Fed's serve can work almost like Sampras' although Fed's can go off at certain times. Sometimes I wonder which is Fed's biggest weapon, forehand or serve ? Well, forehand is much more basic weapon but his serve seems to make huge difference in huge moments like slam finals.....

tricky · Nov 15, 2007

Well, forehand is much more basic weapon but his serve seems to make huge difference in huge moments like slam finals.....

His serve has been better, but it was a liability pre-Wimbledon. His 1st service percentage could be atrocious for whole sets. I think, for example, Joker has a better, more Sampras-esque serve. Federer has more sidespin on his serve than Sampras, and he uses that to hit the sidelines. For that reason, it doesn't kick out quite like Sampras could. Both guys are impossible to read.

I'm not sure there's really a valid base of comparison between Federer and Agassi. Their approach to the game was so different, and their shots were really different as well. Federer hits a much heavier ball than Agassi of the FH side, the spin rate is something like twice what Agassi produces on average. However, Agassi's FH was so solid that he could hit back flat shots, spinny shots, whatever, very clean, something Federer doesn't do. In terms of topspin BH, Federer has perhaps the best crosscourt shot in the game, but he doesn't have a DTL shot quite like Agassi. Federer uses two kinds of slices to screw with his opponent's vertical measurement, whereas Agassi didn't really need to because he wanted to dictate from the lateral plane.

hyogen · Nov 15, 2007

Tennis_Bum said:
No man, read other threads and see for yourself about how others and I shoot him down for enshrining Sampras and for writing that he thinks Sampras still can win Wimbledon and US Open. You are pretty sad to think of me that way. May be you are tennisdue yourself.

I preempt him from pimping the blog, but I am sure he will advertise it somewhere else. If you read the writing carefully, you will notice markedly different opinion about what I think of Sampras's game vs what he thinks and how I backed up my point with factual information versus his what-if scenarios.

lol...tennis bum is sounding more like tennis dude again... creating controversy over his blog and tennis dude

Tennis_Bum · Nov 15, 2007

hyogen said:
lol...tennis bum is sounding more like tennis dude again... creating controversy over his blog and tennis dude

LOL, you are an idiot. But if it's fun for you, then it's okay with me as long as you know you are an idiot that likes to LOL.

Fries-N-Gravy · Nov 15, 2007

federer is similar to sampras in terms of the 1 2 punch kind of game. sampras liked to serve big and then volley away the return. federer prefers that he gets a short return so he can put it away with a forehand. agassi either went for an ace or was ready to grind out a rally to win it.

agassi was pretty unique. he had solid groundstrokes and kind of invented the modern return game. while he never had a dominating serve he did his best to use it as a weapon or at least try to keep his opponent back whether it was with spin or gambling with power on his 1st serve.

i'd say agassi and federer has similar ground games in terms of using their opponents power and using angles with agassi using a little more emphasis on power and federer more with the change of speed/spin. sampras didn't seem to like long rallies and went for overpowering his opponents with his flat forehand. you could tell sampras' forehand was the pain of agassi. i always used to root for agassi but when he got in a forehand rally with sampras i knew he was going to get owned.

in terms of return they are both good but with different approaches. while federer pretty much just blocks the ball back deep most of the time, agassi went for a little more on the return and many times went for a return winner, which saved him quite a few times. sampras had enough confidence in his serve that he'd go for winners on the returns.

A.Davidson · Nov 15, 2007

The "career slam" took him seven years: 1992-1999.

True.

However, despite the implications of it as being something for a weaker player who scrounged where he could, doesn't it more brightly illuminate the fact that Agassi played an incredibly consistent game for more years than most players play period?

Don't knock Agassi - that would be the same as calling Nadal a weakling because he couldn't win on surfaces besides clay. In both cases, these guys played against truly phenomenal competition. That shouldn't take away from their accomplishments.

For the record, I personally believe that if Sampras, Federer, and Agassi were to all play each other in a controlled environment (surface, age, technology, etc.), Sampras would win because he could dictate with his serve and players of the 2000's (Federer included) are becoming increasingly uncomfortable when FORCED to net, rather than coming in. Short volleys by Sampras would be winners for the most part.

Agassi certainly shouldn't be underestimated either.

federerfanatic · Nov 15, 2007

A.Davidson said:
However, despite the implications of it as being something for a weaker player who scrounged where he could, doesn't it more brightly illuminate the fact that Agassi played an incredibly consistent game for more years than most players play period?

Agassi consistent over the years!?!? :lol: Sorry but while Agassi is alot of very good things, consistent over the years, especialy that 1992-1999 period where he managed to put together the career slam, is not one of them.

veritech · Nov 15, 2007

how can sampras be considered the undisputed greatest if he has only won 2 titles on clay throughout his whole ~12 year career?

don't get me wrong, sampras is one of my favorites and one of the greats to play the game. but calling him the absolute greatest would only be plausible if clay wasn't a surface.

stormholloway · Nov 15, 2007

Federer is basically a hybrid of Sampras and Agassi. He has all of their strengths, and few, if any, of their weaknesses.

zagor · Nov 15, 2007

federerfanatic said:
Agassi consistent over the years!?!? :lol: Sorry but while Agassi is alot of very good things, consistent over the years, especialy that 1992-1999 period where he managed to put together the career slam, is not one of them.

Agreed,IMO the only years in th 90's where Agassi played within his ability were 1995 and 1999.I'm really surprised when people here constantly say "Agassi in his prime",IMO he never reached his prime.When he finally fully dedicated himself to tennis from 1999-2005 he was already old by tennis standards and in what should have been his prime years he had other interests.

Compare Federer vs. Agassi; SAMPRAS is in FIELD of HiS OWN

Banned

Rookie

Legend

Professional

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Deleted member 21996

Guest

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Banned

Professional

Professional

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Rookie

Legend

Banned

Legend

Professional

Professional

Banned

Banned

Professional

Banned

Professional

Professional

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Professional

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Banned

Hall of Fame

Legend

Bionic Poster

Similar threads