Some observations I had from the Agassi/Federer final.
People have been saying that Agassi was playing his best tennis and was an improved player in recent years. I disagree. By their late teens, most tennis players have fully developed their primary foundation and technical skills for the rest of their careers. Let’s say that Agassi started playing tennis at age 10, he would have 25 years of experience playing tennis. 25 Years! To say that he took his game to another level during the last 5 years of the career in his early 30’s would be ridiculous.
In the final, Agassi played as he always had, great ground strokes, average rarely used volley skills, and a serve that totally broke down. This was the exact same Agassi that lost to Sampras 4 times at the majors throughout their careers, only now he was much older and slower. While I would say that Agassi has held up very well, he surely is not playing better than he did in the 90’s where he racked up 5 of his 8 major championships. He also has not won a major since early 2003 and had just come back for his herniated disc problems. Let’s not forget that older players, like cars, carry with them all the body ailments and depreciation of years of grinding, tearing, and scaring of tendons/ligaments that occurs throughout a tennis season. Older players have had many more wrist, elbow, shoulder, knee conditions and surgeries than younger guys.
That said, I noticed that with the exception of being completely out served, 35 year old Agassi was able to match Federer stroke for stroke from the baseline. During his prime Sampras often won his rallies against Agassi when they exchanged from the back. This tells me that Sampras in his prime would have had absolutely no problems competing in baseline rallies with Federer. Which leads me to my next point.
Federer is a more complete player than Sampras. I hear this all the time but can anyone explain this to me? Sampras had mastered the serve no one denies this, however he also had every other shot in his repertoire. Forget his S/V and even his serve, Sampras had arguably the best baseline game in the 90’s. His forehand was devastating and his running forehand was probably the best of all time. His backhand slice was very reliable and his topspin backhand was also very formidable, he just didn’t chose to use it much because it was a lower percentage shot. Sampras’ true talent was the way he used his unbelievable touch and reflexes. He could meet blistering service returns with ease, picking up half-volleys in the air, besting the toughest passers in the game at the net, and placing oh so delicate drop volleys just out of reach of this opponents. His topspin lob was a great weapon, and his overhead smash? Forget about it. Not only does he not let it drop first, he jumped in the air to meet the ball, something you rarely ever seen. Talk about pure athleticism! This all while playing an assortment of players who played much more varied styles then they do today.
Federer also has a complete game. He has no weaknesses and has better serve/volley skills than most in today's game. However, when you watch Federer it’s always forehand, backhand, forehand, winner. Repeat Ad Nauseum? No, I enjoy watching Federer’s brilliance, but he was not a more complete player than Sampras.
People have been saying that Agassi was playing his best tennis and was an improved player in recent years. I disagree. By their late teens, most tennis players have fully developed their primary foundation and technical skills for the rest of their careers. Let’s say that Agassi started playing tennis at age 10, he would have 25 years of experience playing tennis. 25 Years! To say that he took his game to another level during the last 5 years of the career in his early 30’s would be ridiculous.
In the final, Agassi played as he always had, great ground strokes, average rarely used volley skills, and a serve that totally broke down. This was the exact same Agassi that lost to Sampras 4 times at the majors throughout their careers, only now he was much older and slower. While I would say that Agassi has held up very well, he surely is not playing better than he did in the 90’s where he racked up 5 of his 8 major championships. He also has not won a major since early 2003 and had just come back for his herniated disc problems. Let’s not forget that older players, like cars, carry with them all the body ailments and depreciation of years of grinding, tearing, and scaring of tendons/ligaments that occurs throughout a tennis season. Older players have had many more wrist, elbow, shoulder, knee conditions and surgeries than younger guys.
That said, I noticed that with the exception of being completely out served, 35 year old Agassi was able to match Federer stroke for stroke from the baseline. During his prime Sampras often won his rallies against Agassi when they exchanged from the back. This tells me that Sampras in his prime would have had absolutely no problems competing in baseline rallies with Federer. Which leads me to my next point.
Federer is a more complete player than Sampras. I hear this all the time but can anyone explain this to me? Sampras had mastered the serve no one denies this, however he also had every other shot in his repertoire. Forget his S/V and even his serve, Sampras had arguably the best baseline game in the 90’s. His forehand was devastating and his running forehand was probably the best of all time. His backhand slice was very reliable and his topspin backhand was also very formidable, he just didn’t chose to use it much because it was a lower percentage shot. Sampras’ true talent was the way he used his unbelievable touch and reflexes. He could meet blistering service returns with ease, picking up half-volleys in the air, besting the toughest passers in the game at the net, and placing oh so delicate drop volleys just out of reach of this opponents. His topspin lob was a great weapon, and his overhead smash? Forget about it. Not only does he not let it drop first, he jumped in the air to meet the ball, something you rarely ever seen. Talk about pure athleticism! This all while playing an assortment of players who played much more varied styles then they do today.
Federer also has a complete game. He has no weaknesses and has better serve/volley skills than most in today's game. However, when you watch Federer it’s always forehand, backhand, forehand, winner. Repeat Ad Nauseum? No, I enjoy watching Federer’s brilliance, but he was not a more complete player than Sampras.
