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.
