Better at the Australian: Federer or Agassi?

[Michael Bluth]

With Federer having matched Andre's open era record of four Australian Open titles, this seems like a fun discussion to be having.

They each have four titles:

Andre: 1995(d. Sampras), 2000(d. Kafelnikov), 2001(d. Clement), and 2003(d. Schuettler).

Fed: 2004(d. Safin), 2006(d. Baghdatis), 2007(d. Gonzalez), and 2010(d. Murray)

Federer has one additional final: 2009(l. to Nadal), Andre has no runner-up finishes

Andre has two additional semifinals: 1996 (l. to Chang) and 2004 (l. to Safin). Federer has two as well: 2005(l. to Safin) and 2008(l. to Djokovic). Both times Federer lost in the semifinal he lost to the eventual champion, while both players who beat Andre went on to lose the final.

Here are the draws both of them had to go through to win their respective titles.

Agassi 1995:
1R: Stafford
2R: Golmard
3R: Rusedski
4R: Rafter
QF: Kafelnikov
SF: Krickstein
F: Sampras

2000:

1R: Puerta
2R: Schalken
3R: Zabaleta
4R: Phillippoussis
QF: Arazi
SF: Sampras
F: Kafelnikov

2001:

1R: Vanek
2R: Goldstein
3Rrinosil
4R: Ilie
QF: Martin
SF: Rafter
F: Clement

2003:

1R: Vahaly
2R: Lee
3R: Escude
4R: Coria
QF: Grosjean
SF: Ferreira
F: Schuettler

Now for Federer's draws

2004:

1R: Bogomolov Jr.
2R: Morrison
3R: Reid
4R: Hewitt
QF: Nalbandian
SF: Ferrero
F: Safin

2006:

1R: Istomin
2R: Mayer
3R: Mirnyi
4R: Haas
QF: Davydenko
SF: Kiefer
F: Baghdatis

2007:

1R: Phau
2R: Bjorkman
3R: Youzhny
4R: Djokovic
QF: Robredo
SF: Roddick
F: Gonzalez

2010:

1R: Andreev
2R: Hanescu
3R: Montanes
4R: Hewitt
QF: Davydenko
SF: Tsonga
F: Murray

My conclusion on the draws alone is that Federer's draws were tougher on average, but Agassi's 1995 draw is tougher than any of Federer's draws. Overall I'd say it's a tossup

What do you guys think? Who is the all-time king of Melbourne Park?

 

[GasquetGOAT]

2001(d. Clement), and 2003(d. Schuettler).

That says it all.

 

[viduka0101]

federer
look at some of the draws agassi had

 

[sdont]

Reading the OP, it's a no-brainer.

 

[esm]

dont forget AA's 4 AO slam wins spans over 2 decades....

 

[Michael Bluth]

In Andre's defense he did also have the toughest draw out of that eight in 1995.

However, I do agree that Federer's draws have been much tougher overall. His weakest draw, 2006, is leaps and bounds ahead of Andre's 2003(weakest) or 2001( second weakest). Federer's 2004, 2007 and 2010 draws were all very tough, and even 06 was fairly strong too: Haas would have one of his better years, Davydenko had his best year-end finish that year, and Baghdatis was playing the tennis of his life.

 

[NamRanger]

Federer. Agassi in 2000-2003 played incredibly weak opponents.

 

[djokovicgonzalez2010]

Clement? Schuttler?

 

[JennyS]

2001(d. Clement), and 2003(d. Schuettler).

That says it all.

Agreed. His 2003 draw may be the weakest in the open era.

 

[beernutz]

dont forget AA's 4 AO slam wins spans over 2 decades....

Er, so do Feds.

 

[davey25]

Federer hands down. Federer's 2006 draw was a weakish draw, but Agassi's draws in 2001 and 2003 were even moreso. His only tough opponent was Rafter who really isnt considering it was his only time ever past the round of 16 of the Aussie Open, and he still took Agassi to 5 and would have beaten him without the cramps. Agassi's only impressive wins over all 4 were an injured/ emotionally distressed Sampras twice and Kafelnikov twice. Agassi of course won 3 of his 4 titles there from 2000-2003 so no matter what anyone says that was his "prime" tennis, atleast on rebound ace, and 2005 only 2 years after that he was brutalized by Federer when they played.

 

[Chadwixx]

Fed by a mile

 

[namelessone]

ROGER FEDERER. And this is coming from a Agassi fan.

 

[ClubHoUno]

Fed all the way.

Love Agassi, but wining over Clement and Schuettler says it all

 

[JennyS]

Looking at Agassi's 2003 draw, the tournament has come a long way since then. Every winner has had a tough opponent along the way and there have been two consecutive finals without a fluke finalist!

 

[Cyan]

Fed because he won it on Rebound Ace and on plexicushion, so more variety.

 

[Chadwixx]

Agreed. His 2003 draw may be the weakest in the open era.

Sampras still owns that title.

 

[drakulie]

agassi. He beat Sampras (14 time slam winner) twice enroute to two of his titles.

 

[zagor]

I still see Agassi as the king of the rebound ace.

 

[kishnabe]

Agassi on his prime on rebound ace will make mincemeat of Federer in his prime.

 

[IvanAndreevich]

Agassi on his prime on rebound ace will make mincemeat of Federer in his prime.

You mean like 6-1 6-0 6-3? :lol:

Agassi in his prime would to Federer in his prime on any court, sorry. Both are good players, but it's not a good match up for Agassi.

I can't say who is better against the FIELD, but I am pretty sure if they played each other, Fed would come out on top.

 

[davey25]

Agassi on his prime on rebound ace will make mincemeat of Federer in his prime.

ROTFL, yeah right. First of all what is Agassi's prime?

If it is from 1994 to 1999 then his "prime results" at the AO were:

1994- DNP
1995- champion
1996- smoked by Chang in semis
1997- DNP
1998- lost in 3rd round to Berasetegui
1999- lost in 4th round to Spadea

If it is anytime from 2000-2005 then:

2000- won after being lucky to escape defeat in 4 sets by an injured Sampras who would miss the next 5 weeks with the injury. Would be like someone losing or being points from losing to Nadal this year.

2001- won after barely surviving 5 setter with Rafter in semis, in Rafter's only ever appearance past the 4th round of this event which doesnt suit his kick serve or finesse attacking game at all. Rafter probably wins the match and title this year without cramps in the 4th set. In the final he beats Arnaud Clement.

2002- DNP

2003- won over fellow aging pro, the slam final-less Ferreira in the semis, then Rainer Schuettler in the final.

2004- lost to Safin in semis in 5 sets, after a weary Safin had already played a bunch of 5 setters in a row.

2005- waxed by Federer in quarters.


Agassi in his prime would never wax Federer on any surface. The best he would do is get an occasional win in 1994, 1995, and maybe 1999 on hard courts, and those few he did pick up would be hard fought indeed. How on earth would he wax Federer in Australia when during the his best year ever he lost to Vince Spadea at Australia, or during his best 12 year stretch of slam play ever he was points from losing to an injured Sampras and had a hard time beating Kafelnikov in the final.

 

[davey25]

agassi. He beat Sampras (14 time slam winner) twice enroute to two of his titles.

1995 and 2000 was certainly not the best Sampras. In 1995 he was struggling with the awful news about his coach and breaking down during his matches. 2000 he had the unfortuante injury. Federer would have beaten him both of those years too, and probably more easily than did Agassi. I actually think it is a bit of a fluke Agassi has more rebound ace titles than Sampras. I dont think he is a better hard court player than Sampras in reality on any kind of hard court. I also have no doubt Sampras playing his best beats Agassi at his best on rebound ace. The Sampras of 94 and 97 Australian Opens beats any Agassi that ever was at the Australian Open.

 

[OrangeOne]

You can only play the players who are put in front of you!

They've both won 4 AO titles on hardcourt. Let's see if Fed finishes on 5 or 6 for something definitive, but then, one would have to factor Andre skipping the AO for a few years in his immature stage!

 

[drakulie]

1995 and 2000 was certainly not the best Sampras. In 1995 he was struggling with the awful news about his coach and breaking down during his matches. 2000 he had the unfortuante injury.

I already realize that everyone of Sampras' losses in his career had to do with something about him not being at his "best".

Do you realize that every time Sampras beat Agassi in a final, Agassi had a cold?

 

[davey25]

I already realize that everyone of Sampras' losses in his career had to do with something about him not being at his "best".

Do you realize that every time Sampras beat Agassi in a final, Agassi had a cold?

What I do realize is Agassi likes to invent injuries for excuses for his losses to Sampras, such as the supposably busted ribs before the 95 U.S Open final which nobody ever heard of mysteriously until his book came out, and certainly nobody who saw him play that years final could see any signs of.

 

[zagor]

You can only play the players who are put in front of you!

They've both won 4 AO titles on hardcourt. Let's see if Fed finishes on 5 or 6 for something definitive, but then, one would have to factor Andre skipping the AO for a few years in his immature stage!

True,he started playing AO at 25 and still ended up winning 4,quite impressive.

 

[drakulie]

What I do realize is Agassi likes to invent injuries

Hmmm, so does sampras. You didn't know this?

 

[anointedone]

Let's see if Fed finishes on 5 or 6 for something definitive, but then, one would have to factor Andre skipping the AO for a few years in his immature stage!

You would not need to factor that in nor should you. There isnt any year Agassi missed that he was likely to win.

1986-1987- LOL!

1988-1989- not ready to win a slam yet and Lendl and Wilander owned him back then anyway.

1990-1991- choked in all his slam finals those years vs seemingly lesser opponents, yet was somehow going to beat Lendl or Edberg? Dont think so. He had a good shot if he played Becker only due to the matchup issues, but he likely has to beat 2 of those back to back which is unlikely.

1992-1993- Courier who owned Australia these years also owned Agassi these years.

1997- year end #122. Also didnt he supposably have an injury (he supposably had an injury almost all year this year, who cares anyway, either way he was a write off this year).

2002- this time he was injured. Injuries are part of the game.

2006- about as much chance this year as he would have had in 1986.

Agassi absolutely should not get some additional credit for years he chose to skip the event, which was foolish on his part anyway. This was not the 70s when the Aussie wasnt a fully regarded slam in most peoples eyes. Plus there isnt even a strong likelihood of him winning any of the years he missed, certainly not enough he deserves any benefit of doubt.

 

[davey25]

Hmmm, so does sampras. You didn't know this?

Name me one fabricated injury by Sampras?

 

[drakulie]

Name me one fabricated injury by Sampras?

I already told you all of his losses are due to him not being at his "best". You just chose to pick two matches out of his entire career.

 

[davey25]

I already told you all of his losses are due to him not being at his "best". You just chose to pick two matches out of his entire career.

Sampras has played matches in his career where he played his best and lost. Neither of those matches were at the Australian Open vs Agassi. You are not at your best when you are playing with an injury that forces you to play the next 5 weeks and according to your interview might have had to default the final had you won. Nor when you just learnt your coach and close friend is soon to be dead and are breaking down during matches and even going to 5 sets with relative nobodies.

So again please give me a match where Sampras fabricated an injury.

 

[surfvland]

agassi. He beat Sampras (14 time slam winner) twice enroute to two of his titles.

Dream on...Dream on.

 

[davey25]

Here is how the games of Federer and Agassi matchup:

First serve- Federer of course
Second serve- Again Federer easy
Forehand- Federer clearly
Backhand- Agassi, but Federer's variety off this side would bother Agassi and did bother him in their matches.
Return of serve- Agassi overall, though Federer is a better defensive return than Agassi
Volleys- Federer
Overhead- Federer
Movement- Federer easily
Overall defense- All Federer
Mental game- Federer
Strategy- Agassi was good here when with Gilbert or Cahill. Still Federer.
Passing shots- Agassi
Court positioning- equal, both were superb here

Federer has Agassi beat hands down as a player. Is there anything that different about rebound ace that would change the matchup? I doubt it.

What would he do when they played even in Agassi's prime. The serve difference is much bigger than the return of serve one, so Federer would return Agassi's serve better than vice versa, and Federer would get more free points on serve than vice versa. In the rallies if Agassi went forehand he would get outgunned, if he went backhand he still often had trouble with Federer's slice it seemed, and if they started moving each other around Federer's movement and defense are light years superior and would win out even with how well Agassi moves the ball around. If it comes to a battle of wills or wits, Federer wins out in either. Federer could finish some points at the net, Agassi would not. People can say they had some competitive matches when Agassi was "past his prime" but then again what is an Agassi prime. Also in those matches with Agassi past his prime he mostly relied on Federer going through an off funk to even get a set or hang in, when Federer didnt have those he generally rolled through, so even a much improved younger Agassi would have a hard time coming out on top more than once in awhile.

 

[Lion King]

Agassi on his prime on rebound ace will make mincemeat of Federer in his prime.

You've got to be kidding?
Anyway, both are great players and each had to beat the guy on the other side of the net 7 times. It's not just who you beat in terms of their ranking but also how you do it and how well they play and how tough the match-up is for you. Beating Sampras may be easier for you than some guy in the top 100 if that guy has the game you're uncomfortable with.

 

[drakulie]

Sampras has played matches in his career where he played his best and lost.

Prove it.

He has never lost a match when he was at his best. Every loss, according to you, has been because of some mama-boys excuse.

 

[IvanAndreevich]

Here is how the games of Federer and Agassi matchup:

First serve- Federer of course
Second serve- Again Federer easy
Forehand- Federer clearly
Backhand- Agassi, but Federer's variety off this side would bother Agassi and did bother him in their matches.
Return of serve- Agassi overall, though Federer is a better defensive return than Agassi
Volleys- Federer
Overhead- Federer
Movement- Federer easily
Overall defense- All Federer
Mental game- Federer
Strategy- Agassi was good here when with Gilbert or Cahill. Still Federer.
Passing shots- Agassi
Court positioning- equal, both were superb here

Federer has Agassi beat hands down as a player. Is there anything that different about rebound ace that would change the matchup? I doubt it.

What would he do when they played even in Agassi's prime. The serve difference is much bigger than the return of serve one, so Federer would return Agassi's serve better than vice versa, and Federer would get more free points on serve than vice versa. In the rallies if Agassi went forehand he would get outgunned, if he went backhand he still often had trouble with Federer's slice it seemed, and if they started moving each other around Federer's movement and defense are light years superior and would win out even with how well Agassi moves the ball around. If it comes to a battle of wills or wits, Federer wins out in either. Federer could finish some points at the net, Agassi would not. People can say they had some competitive matches when Agassi was "past his prime" but then again what is an Agassi prime. Also in those matches with Agassi past his prime he mostly relied on Federer going through an off funk to even get a set or hang in, when Federer didnt have those he generally rolled through, so even a much improved younger Agassi would have a hard time coming out on top more than once in awhile.

Agree about everything, but the overhead. Agassi's overhead was amazing.

 

[drakulie]

Here is how the games of Federer and Agassi matchup:

First serve- Federer of course
Second serve- Again Federer easy
Forehand- Federer clearly
Backhand- Agassi, but Federer's variety off this side would bother Agassi and did bother him in their matches.
Return of serve- Agassi overall, though Federer is a better defensive return than Agassi
Volleys- Federer
Overhead- Federer
Movement- Federer easily
Overall defense- All Federer
Mental game- Federer
Strategy- Agassi was good here when with Gilbert or Cahill. Still Federer.
Passing shots- Agassi
Court positioning- equal, both were superb here

That's amazing. Here is how Fed and DelPotro match up:

First serve- Federer
Second serve- Federer
Forehand- Federer
Backhand- Federer
Return of serve- Federer
Volleys- Federer
Overhead- Federer
Movement- Federer
Overall defense- Federer
Mental game- Federer
Strategy- Federer
Passing shots- Federer
Court positioning- Federer

and yet Fed lost to DelPotro at the US Open last year.

amazing, huh?

 

[IvanAndreevich]

That's amazing. Here is how Fed and DelPotro match up:

First serve- Federer
Second serve- Federer
Forehand- Federer
Backhand- Federer
Return of serve- Federer
Volleys- Federer
Overhead- Federer
Movement- Federer
Overall defense- Federer
Mental game- Federer
Strategy- Federer
Passing shots- Federer
Court positioning- Federer

and yet Fed lost to DelPotro at the US Open last year.

amazing, huh?

That's why these comparisons are dumb. Obviously they compare some supposed "best" :lol: On the USO final specifically:
First serve- Del Potro (Fed's was 50%)
Second serve- Federer
Forehand- Del Potro (Fed went 1.5 sets without hitting a FH winner)
Backhand- Tie
Return of serve- Federer
Volleys- Federer
Overhead- Federer
Movement- Federer
Overall defense- Federer
Mental game- Federer
Strategy- Del Potro (Federer played way too passive and went to DP's FH too much)
Passing shots- Federer
Court positioning- Federer

 

[davey25]

That's amazing. Here is how Fed and DelPotro match up:

First serve- Federer
Second serve- Federer
Forehand- Federer
Backhand- Federer
Return of serve- Federer
Volleys- Federer
Overhead- Federer
Movement- Federer
Overall defense- Federer
Mental game- Federer
Strategy- Federer
Passing shots- Federer
Court positioning- Federer

and yet Fed lost to DelPotro at the US Open last year.

amazing, huh?

Federer does not have a better backhand than Del Potro, and Del Potro has a bigger 1st serve. Anyway nobody sane is saying Del Potro is now a better decoturf player than Federer or the favorite next time they play in a slam on hard courts.

 

[kishnabe]

ROTFL, yeah right. First of all what is Agassi's prime?

If it is from 1994 to 1999 then his "prime results" at the AO were:

1994- DNP
1995- champion
1996- smoked by Chang in semis
1997- DNP
1998- lost in 3rd round to Berasetegui
1999- lost in 4th round to Spadea

If it is anytime from 2000-2005 then:

2000- won after being lucky to escape defeat in 4 sets by an injured Sampras who would miss the next 5 weeks with the injury. Would be like someone losing or being points from losing to Nadal this year.

2001- won after barely surviving 5 setter with Rafter in semis, in Rafter's only ever appearance past the 4th round of this event which doesnt suit his kick serve or finesse attacking game at all. Rafter probably wins the match and title this year without cramps in the 4th set. In the final he beats Arnaud Clement.

2002- DNP

2003- won over fellow aging pro, the slam final-less Ferreira in the semis, then Rainer Schuettler in the final.

2004- lost to Safin in semis in 5 sets, after a weary Safin had already played a bunch of 5 setters in a row.

2005- waxed by Federer in quarters.


Agassi in his prime would never wax Federer on any surface. The best he would do is get an occasional win in 1994, 1995, and maybe 1999 on hard courts, and those few he did pick up would be hard fought indeed. How on earth would he wax Federer in Australia when during the his best year ever he lost to Vince Spadea at Australia, or during his best 12 year stretch of slam play ever he was points from losing to an injured Sampras and had a hard time beating Kafelnikov in the final.

Yes I know federer would destroy Agassi, but I was a little biased since Agassi was my favourite player when I was 5 years old. When he beat Sampras at the Aussie open in 1995, I thought that Agassi is the best player...and I was very happy likish. In a way seeing many of Agassi matches on the Aussie surface in 1995 and 1996, it sorta led me to this time to believe he can beat anyone on that surface. Then again they never played each other in their primes on that surface. We will never know till some person creates a virtual simulator of evety tennis professional strengths from the 60's to the present to fight each other on diff surfaces. Some variables being constant for fair results. Fed had won 4 Aussie and maybe even more in the future but you know this thread has a lot of trash that is based on bias or patrioism. Andre is the best and in a way a hard this to admit that Federer would beat him in the aussies. Definetly on Wimby and US open Federer has the cake,.

 

[C++ Primer]

Federer
10 chars

 

[abmk]

federer

10 chars

 

[abmk]

I still see Agassi as the king of the rebound ace.

but question was about the Aussie open which should include plexicushion for fed as well ...

 

[iamke55]

agassi. He beat Sampras (14 time slam winner) twice enroute to two of his titles.

If the number of slams won by your opponent matters, then Nadal's 6 slams must be worth more than Federer's 16.

 

[velkov]

agassi for sure. we should count APPEARANCES on the event !!