Andre Agassi says In His Prime on grass sampras Would Beat Federer

Amy Foster

New User


Former world No. 1 tennis player and eight-time Grand Slam champion Andre Agassi
has never hesitated when singing the praises of Roger Federer. He has referred to the Swiss as the greatest of all time and recently said that Federer’s 2006 season and 2007 seasons was better than Novak Djokovic’s 2015 and 2016 season. However, in his new book which came out in November 2017 , Agassi suggests that Federer despite winning a record 20 grand slams may not be the toughest opponent in history. Andre is not denying that Federer is the most decorated and most successful Wimbledon champion in the History of the Gentleman's singles as he has now won more Wimbledon singles titles than any man in history with eight one and with Federer is looking favourite to win a magnificent ninth Wimbledon title next month. Agassi explained in his book last year which he corrected after Wimbledon Federer may not be the Greatest Male grass Courter. Andre said that fourteen-time Grand Slam winner Pete Sampras was the best opponent that he had ever faced. Andre believes that Sampras in his prime at Wimbledon would even be too tough for Roger Federer, illustrating that 1999 Wimbledon finals. A masterclass when Pete defeated Andre in straight sets. Sampras' victory over Agassi in the final is often cited as one of the greatest performances in a Wimbledon final. Fans always ask me about the best players in the history and now they ask me even more, maybe because I'm closer to one of them. The best I played on grass was Pete Sampras. Without any doubt he had the best serve and volleys between the players I faced and he was the best of the best. Discussing who would win in battles between legends is common practice, but fans like to cite the fact that Sampras and Federer actually played on the tour when neither was in their prime. Andre is well aware of this and does not think Federer’s win over Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 is evidence that he could have beaten Sampras in his prime on grass. “Fans ask me if Federer would have been able to beat Sampras. They played against only time and Federer won, but Sampras already had his best moment. You have to take account that grass court tennis begins with the only shot that does not depend by your opponent, the serve, and I think Pete Sampras has the best serve in the history.”While Sampras’ serve is mighty, so is Federer’s. Agassi played against a prime Federer in 2005 so he got to feel federer and Sampras in their prime but Andre is still quick to show respect to the Swiss maestro and other legends.“Federer is without any doubt the most successful male player seeing the Grand Slams and Wimbledon titles he has won , Murray and Djokovic Federer all time greats on grass with 13 Wimbledon titles between them Despite that success, could they have beaten Sampras in his prime?“But had they played against Sampras in Pete's best moment, they would have to had to have been able to return his serve and volley better to win? Despite commenting on Federer vs. Sampras,“I do not think you can make a comparison between different generations. No one played with Laver in amateur era but he made Calendar Grand Slam twice and he was the only to do it. He goes on to break down the entire idea of comparing players of different generations. Andre spoke of Bjorn Borg of You cannot say that Borg was not good as Federer on grass, despite Federer won eight titles and Borg only five because borg won with a smaller racket.He also commented on the comparisons between Rafael Nadal and Bjorn Borg at the French Open, suggesting that it is not a comparison that can or should be made. The American does not underestimate the fact that Federer has won more Grand Slam titles and Wimbledon titles than anyone else in the history of men's tennis. Yes, it is impossible to beat Federer most times in a Wimbledon final only Nadal and Djokovic have done that at there superhuman best but what would have happened if Federer and Sampras played at the same time in their prime ? Sampras Won Wimbledon seven times in a 8 year span and was undefeated in finals and from serve and volley I don't think how legendary Federer is on grass he would have not been able to do it and he made it five times in a row from 2003-2007. I played Federer at Us Open 2005 and he was outstanding , but I think that Sampras was the best because I could not touch ball on the return games. Federer in 2005 Us Open final against me did serve and volley well, while against Sampras you cannot start rally, and when you made it he was so agile that put on his forehand side and dominated you or went on the net and played volleys. Could Federer have evolved into an 8-time champion on serve and volley era You’ll never have an answer to that question. despite being the only male to have 8 singles titles at Wimbledon "I think one thing Roger doesn't see on grass that Sampras did is a true serve-and-volleyer ,apart from Roddick and Murray But i do think Sampras is the better grass court player in his era there was a lot of top grass court players and top serve and volley players Becker, Ivanisevic, stich, and top players like myself all these could win Wimbledon or did it Federer had only Roddick and Murray to contend with at Wimbledon Plus nadal was not at their best on grass when he beat him .someone that's willing to come in and put pressure on him, make him pass and return. With these big serves, I don't think anyone really scares him apart from Murray and Roddick I think Hewitt had he from 2003-2009 could have challenged him and he beat Federer in his prime in Halle by out serving and volleying him . I think Sampras game could have beaten federer. He would come in on both serves, put pressure on his backhand, and go from there "Do I think he could have beaten Roger in his prime? Sure. I don't think anyone could beat Sampras prime on grass that is illustrated by the fact he was 7-0 in finals . I felt he was unbeatable in the mid to late '90s. But he would be a tough guy to beat, especially when he is hitting 50 aces and volleys like he did at Wimbledon against me in 99 . he would have destroyed a 2006-2009 Federer on grass ."Roger has to be the most rounded player the world has ever seen. He is not only a brilliant baseline player, he is incredible at the forehand but his serve and volley are weaker last year he came to the net mo. I don't think any male player in the history of the game since the Open Era has ever had a year like Roger did in 2006 and 2007 or in 2017 at 36 Roger pretty much won the majority of his 8 Wimbledon's without his serve and volley ! He would have to rethink his entire game strategy against Sampras . Of course Roger has made seven consecutive finals at Wimbledon and won his sixth of them Sampras never did that but grass era was weaker . Winning Wimbledon at 35 going on 36 not losing a set was outstanding and no one can deny it but he did not face a top player on grass in the final cilic was not mentally or physically 100% and he won that championship by not facing novak or Andy, I think Federer has it very easy at Wimbledon in 2017 If Roger was the true grass court goat then how was not able to have annihilated Andy Roddick in straight sets at Wimbledon back in 29 like pete did to me in 99 against true serve and volley, For Federer to be better he needs to win 1 more Wimbledon and beat Djokovic and Murray.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
ok, firstly there's some cr*p in that

" "I think one thing Roger doesn't see on grass that Sampras did is a true serve-and-volleyer ,apart from Roddick and Murray But i do think Sampras is the better grass court player in his era there was a lot of top grass court players and top serve and volley players Becker, Ivanisevic, stich, and top players like myself all these could win Wimbledon or did it Federer had only Roddick and Murray to contend with at Wimbledon Plus nadal was not at their best on grass when he beat him .someone that's willing to come in and put pressure on him, make him pass and return. "

neither Roddick or Murray were Snvers
Nadal was at his best in Wim 07 final

"I played Federer at Us Open 2005 and he was outstanding , but I think that Sampras was the best because I could not touch ball on the return games. Federer in 2005 Us Open final against me did serve and volley well, while against Sampras you cannot start rally, and when you made it he was so agile that put on his forehand side and dominated you or went on the net and played volleys."

This part is hilarious because he's said before that he had nowhere to go with Federer. He could atleast target Pete's BH.

" he would have destroyed a 2006-2009 Federer on grass ."

LOL , clueless stuff

and secondly, cra*p way of posting ..ever heard of paragraphs ?

and finally : no link

how much of that stuff did you make up ?
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
I'm not buying Pete's claim. A green 19 year old Fed already beat 29 year old Pete on the old Wimbledon grass. Pete couldn't even beat that version of Fed. Now granted, Pete was slightly past his prime at age 29. But this version of Fed wasn't anywhere close to his best. The biggest difference between the two that I see was Fed's return of serve. Fed at his peak was incredible at returning serves on fast surfaces. And Pete reached 136 mph in that 2001 Wimbledon match. The announcers were amazed at Fed's ability to return serves. As great as Pete was on grass, he was no Sampras, IMHO. Also, Fed owns the longest winning streak on grass at 65 in a row. The next best is 41 by Borg, followed by 23 by Mac and Sampras. 65 wins in a row is massive. It took a peak performance by a future 17 slam champion to end this streak in 5 tough sets.

Of course the older guys are going to say how their generation was the best. Making statements like that only props Agassi up.

I'd be curious to see what guys like Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick would say Agassi's claim.
 

Sport

Legend
I'm not buying Pete's claim. A green 19 year old Fed already beat 29 year old Pete on the old Wimbledon grass. Pete couldn't even beat that version of Fed. Now granted, Pete was slightly past his prime at age 29.
Pete was one month away from turning 30, not at his absolute peak. He also had a general weak physical condition, so his physical decline was faster than other players. Also, Federer won Wimbledon just 2 years later, it's not like he was bad on grass either. But still an impressive victory from Roger, Pete was the defending champion.

Problem is... you can't draw conclusions from a single match, specially when it was a close 5 sets match that could have gone either way. The sample size is too little. It's like a traveller who spends one rainy day in Egypt and one sunny day in Scotland and concludes that Egypt has a colder climate than Scotland.
 

Mr Feeny

Hall of Fame
Pete was one month away from turning 30, not at his absolute peak. He also had a general weak physical condition, so his physical decline was faster than other players. Also, Federer won Wimbledon just 2 years later, it's not like he was bad on grass either. But still an impressive victory from Roger, Pete was the defending champion.

Problem is... you can't draw conclusions from a single match, specially when it was a close 5 sets match that could have gone either way. The sample size is too little. It's like a traveller who spends one rainy day in Egypt and one sunny day in Scotland and concludes that Egypt has a colder climate than Scotland.
Sampras was 29 and on a 4 year winning streak. Federer was a 19 year old baby who was 2 years removed from breaking through.
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
Pete was playing very well when they met at wimbledon. He just choked at 5-6, dumped overhead into net and missed two easy volleys.
 

Sport

Legend
Federer grass win percentage: 87.5%
Sampras grass win percentage 83.47%

Federer grass titles: 18
Sampras grass titles: 10

Federer Wimbledon titles: 8
Sampras Wimbledon titles: 7

I'd back the GOAT against the glorified servebot every time!
Sampras had a short career so the total amount of grass titles is irrelevant, we are talking about peak Pete.
 

Adv. Edberg

Hall of Fame
Agassi’s right though. Sampras would beat Federer in 7/10 Wimbledon matches if they’re both at their prime. 19 year old Fed was more in his prime than Sampras was at 30. Its a shame Fed didn’t play in the 80s and 90s but then again, if he did he would struggle to get ahold of many slams in that strong era and wouldn’t be in goat discussions at all probably.

Edberg, Becker and Sampras would share Wimbledon with him. Clay would be impossible. And HC would be tricky too with all the ATGs from that era.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
I think this was translated which is why it is so confusing to read. I do agree with some of this though and have said it years ago and will say it again. Sampras to me is the greatest grass court player I have ever seen. To only get broken 4 times in a Wimbledon final is just out of this world and he did win Wimbledon 7/8 times. No one has touched that record quite yet. Federer has more titles and the only one that is close to Sampras overall in dominance and skill on the surface, but Sampras was lethal. Federer, Djokovic, Murray and Nadal would have had a lot of trouble dealing with him especially on a faster type of grass. He would win more than lose against any of them in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
I think this was translated which is why it is so confusing to read. I do agree with some of this though and have said it years ago and will say it again. Sampras is to me is the greatest grass court player I have ever seen. To only get broken 4 times in a Wimbledon final is just out of this world and he did win Wimbledon 7/8 times. No one has not touched that record quite yet. Federer has more titles and the only one that is close to Sampras overall in dominance and skill on the surface, but Sampras was lethal. Federer, Djokovic, Murray and Nadal would have had a lot of trouble dealing with him especially on a faster type of grass. He would win more than lose against any of them in my opinion.
The king of fast grass.
 

Wander

Professional
Agassi’s right though. Sampras would beat Federer in 7/10 Wimbledon matches if they’re both at their prime. 19 year old Fed was more in his prime than Sampras was at 30. Its a shame Fed didn’t play in the 80s and 90s but then again, if he did he would struggle to get ahold of many slams in that strong era and wouldn’t be in goat discussions at all probably.

Edberg, Becker and Sampras would share Wimbledon with him. Clay would be impossible. And HC would be tricky too with all the ATGs from that era.
Useless, baseless speculation.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I think this was translated which is why it is so confusing to read. I do agree with some of this though and have said it years ago and will say it again. Sampras to me is the greatest grass court player I have ever seen. To only get broken 4 times in a Wimbledon final is just out of this world and he did win Wimbledon 7/8 times. No one has touched that record quite yet. Federer has more titles and the only one that is close to Sampras overall in dominance and skill on the surface, but Sampras was lethal. Federer, Djokovic, Murray and Nadal would have had a lot of trouble dealing with him especially on a faster type of grass. He would win more than lose against any of them in my opinion.
Lumping Federer together with Nadal, Djokovic and Murray on grass? o_O
 

Tennisanity

Legend
I think this was translated which is why it is so confusing to read. I do agree with some of this though and have said it years ago and will say it again. Sampras to me is the greatest grass court player I have ever seen. To only get broken 4 times in a Wimbledon final is just out of this world and he did win Wimbledon 7/8 times. No one has touched that record quite yet. Federer has more titles and the only one that is close to Sampras overall in dominance and skill on the surface, but Sampras was lethal. Federer, Djokovic, Murray and Nadal would have had a lot of trouble dealing with him especially on a faster type of grass. He would win more than lose against any of them in my opinion.
Baby Fed beat defending champ Pete on faster grass.
 

droliver

Professional
Federer has been objectively the best grass court player in the history of the ATP tour by some margin now. If both players had good serving days, I think it's a lot more likely Federer gets more looks at breaking Sampras' serve games then Sampras does.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Of course not. I am comparing all the multiple Wimbledon champs of this era with Sampras.
For me I'd rate it;

Peak: Slight edge Federer
Prime: Edge Sampras
Career: Big edge Federer

I'd back Federer to edge a slim majority in a small peak for peak window of say 4 year, I'd back Sampras in an 8 or so year prime period and across a 15-20 year career I'd pick Federer - this is purely h2h.
 

davced1

Professional
Andre never played Roger on grass so how can he be so sure? I think the Sampras vs Federer match in 2001 should settle the debate. Both where about three years from their primes. They played on the old fast Wimbledon grass and they even wielded the same stick at the time. It was close but Roger won.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
For me I'd rate it;

Peak: Slight edge Federer
Prime: Edge Sampras
Career: Big edge Federer

I'd back Federer to edge a slim majority in a small peak for peak window of say 4 year, I'd back Sampras in an 8 or so year prime period and across a 15-20 year career I'd pick Federer - this is purely h2h.
I could see your reasons for a peak or prime comparison but career you have big edge Federer? I don't know about that. I would only say slight edge. Sampras winning 7/8 times and being broken only 4 times in a final can compete with Federer winning it 8 times and being broken 19 times in his 1st 7 finals. I would say peak to Sampras and prime to Federer since he had a longer span of playing at a high level. Peak wise, I would back Sampras over anyone.
 
ok, firstly there's some cr*p in that

" "I think one thing Roger doesn't see on grass that Sampras did is a true serve-and-volleyer ,apart from Roddick and Murray But i do think Sampras is the better grass court player in his era there was a lot of top grass court players and top serve and volley players Becker, Ivanisevic, stich, and top players like myself all these could win Wimbledon or did it Federer had only Roddick and Murray to contend with at Wimbledon Plus nadal was not at their best on grass when he beat him .someone that's willing to come in and put pressure on him, make him pass and return. "

neither Roddick or Murray were Snvers
Nadal was at his best in Wim 07 final

"I played Federer at Us Open 2005 and he was outstanding , but I think that Sampras was the best because I could not touch ball on the return games. Federer in 2005 Us Open final against me did serve and volley well, while against Sampras you cannot start rally, and when you made it he was so agile that put on his forehand side and dominated you or went on the net and played volleys."

This part is hilarious because he's said before that he had nowhere to go with Federer. He could atleast target Pete's BH.

" he would have destroyed a 2006-2009 Federer on grass ."

LOL , clueless stuff

and secondly, cra*p way of posting ..ever heard of paragraphs ?

and finally : no link

how much of that stuff did you make up ?

My sources are much more accurate. RIP @Red Rick

 
Top