Laver,maybe? Despite his height even his serve was pretty good,his volleys were obviously sublime since he had so much succes on grass and to go toe-to-toe with someone as great as Rosewall on clay he had to have great groundies as well.But I do think Federer is a very complete player,his BH is a weakness against Nadal but otherwise Fed's BH is very good for point construction,he can create great angles with it,has a very good BH slice and his passing shots off that side are great as well.Fed's BH is not a winner machine(like say Kuerten's,Gasquet's or Korda's),but you'd be surprised how often does he use it to force a ball he can attack or put away with hs FH.
you talk of federer as being incomplete because he has a losing record on ONE surface to nadal and yet you consider the man, who at the peak of his carreer got a beatdown from a 41 year old gonzales as being complete ??
For me, Federer is the most complete player in the history of the game. Like Jack Kramer, I have never seen another player who could do so many things on a tennis court.oh, ok---just wanted to show that h2h has nothing to do with being complete
(i a previous post someone said that because he has a losing record to nadal, he's incomplete)
For me, Federer is the most complete player in the history of the game. Like Jack Kramer, I have never seen another player who could do so many things on a tennis court.
Have you ever come across Bollettieri's assessments below?
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...nt-to-be-the-greatest-player-ever-546216.html
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swissinfo.html?siteSect=15055&ne_id=7755996&type=realaudio
first of all - Happy Birthday ROTFLx100 (er .. ksbh)
You mean the guy who plays with TWO right hands. The lefty who is actually a rightie ?![]()
Oh and BTW. Happy birthday KSBH(Karolina Sprem's Backhand as Sentinel would say),all the best wishes from me.
I don't think Federer's backhand is the problem against Nadal on clay. This is a cliché and myth perpetuated on these boards. Even Federer's forehand finds it difficult to penetrate Nadal's defences on clay and we saw what Nadal did to Djokovic. You'll notice Federer can rally fine with Nadal, he is not overwhelmed at all, but Nadal is so consistent and moves so well it is difficult to get through him. His biggest weapon is his movement and retrieving ability. If he still had his strokes, but moved like almost any other player on clay, Federer would do significantly better against him.Laver,maybe? Despite his height even his serve was pretty good,his volleys were obviously sublime since he had so much succes on grass and to go toe-to-toe with someone as great as Rosewall on clay he had to have great groundies as well.But I do think Federer is a very complete player,his BH is a weakness against Nadal but otherwise Fed's BH is very good for point construction,he can create great angles with it,has a very good BH slice and his passing shots off that side are great as well.Fed's BH is not a winner machine(like say Kuerten's,Gasquet's or Korda's),but you'd be surprised how often does he use it to force a ball he can attack or put away with hs FH.
Hey KSBH! Happy Birthday! hope you have a great day.Zagor & Sentinel ... you 2 are the epitome of gentlemanliness!
Of all the people in the forum, including the Nadal fans, it's 2 Federer fans that wish me Happy B'day! Says a lot about you two. Much love & respects, dear fellow posters.
Agony ... that was a breathtaking array of backhands from Federer. Thanks for the link. Despite all the Federer-bashing that I engage in, I have admitted several times that he is a brilliant player par excellence!
However I'm yet to see a 'complete' tennis player with absolutely no weaknesses. Such a player would be unbeatable. Has Federer been unbeatable? Pretty much except against one player but that player has beaten Federer enough times on the biggest stages to convince me that Federer isn't complete. You know which player I'm referring to.
This may have already been said, but I think for Fed to be considered as the greatest of all time, he needs to be able to regain the number one ranking and prove that he can be knocked down and still climb back to the top. When he was on top, it was almost like there was no one that could challenge him. Now that he has some major competition at the top of the game, we will see where his heart truly is. To be the GOAT, he has to show some real fighting spirit.
\I don't think Federer's backhand is the problem against Nadal on clay. This is a cliché and myth perpetuated on these boards. Even Federer's forehand finds it difficult to penetrate Nadal's defences on clay and we saw what Nadal did to Djokovic. You'll notice Federer can rally fine with Nadal, he is not overwhelmed at all, but Nadal is so consistent and moves so well it is difficult to get through him. His biggest weapon is his movement and retrieving ability. If he still had his strokes, but moved like almost any other player on clay, Federer would do significantly better against him.
Tennis: Nadal's New Spin
By EBEN HARRELL / PARIS
Thursday, Jan. 08, 2009
All athletes develop their own mix of style and technique. But Nadal's peculiarity is quantifiable. San Francisco–based tennis researcher John Yandell has used video-capture technology to record the topspin of Nadal's forehand. He found that Nadal's shot rotates at an average of 3,200 times a minute. Andre Agassi, one of the game's great shotmakers, generated 1,900 rotations per minute in his prime, and current world No. 2 Roger Federer, whose forehand is considered among the game's best, generates 2,700. As U.S. Davis Cup captain Patrick McEnroe has said of Nadal, "His normal safe forehand is the toughest shot in the world."
Nadal will never lose certain aspects of what makes him so effective: his pugilist spirit, and the ability to impose his muscular game on more talented players. But so much of his success stems from his resistance to tradition that Toni's plan to make his charge more orthodox may dim Nadal's aura among fellow pros. When I asked the American player Andy Roddick about the changes, he couldn't believe that Nadal would voluntarily reduce the spin on his forehand. "One of the things that is difficult about facing [Nadal] is the extreme topspin he gets on the ball," Roddick told TIME. "If it's true, I don't think it would make him more effective."
Federer plays down talk of rivalry with Nadal
Posted on: Friday, 10 March 2006, 23:52 CST
"I think it would be impossible for anybody to dominate in the past two years the way Roger did," Agassi said.
"It's great to see that the one person that closes to him in the rankings is his most difficult matchup. Nadal can hit that one shot that everybody wishes they can hit against Roger and that's getting the ball up to his backhand side.
"It's isn't brain surgery. Nobody likes it up there. That's the only area that Roger doesn't hurt you with. So it's great to see a matchup that lends for a rivalry for a long time to come."
Hey KSBH! Happy Birthday! hope you have a great day.
Like I said, it's a factor, but I don't think the biggest. Even as we are, Federer has had many close matches with Nadal on clay and engaged in many extensive rallies. He has only beaten him once, but had the upper hand on many other occasions and may have got a few more wins if the imponderables had been a little different. We could just as easily hypothesize how well Federer would fair if we made Nadal a step slower, but with the same strokes. Give him the movement of Soderling or Roddick, even someone who likes clay like Robredo. Given Federer has been so close on many occasions in the past, this would be enough to make the difference.I would submit that if you took either one away from Nadal, either his tenacity/willingness or his singular ability off the fh side, he would fall back to the middle of the pack.
Trade his fh for AA's, Roddick's, Blake's, Gonzo's or whoever else, perhaps except for Fed's and Nadal starts to look a lot more like Ferrer, Davydenko, et al, and simplifies Fed's solution of him.
IMO everything is amplified because Nadal troubles Fed in this way. As AA said "It isn't brain surgery" no one likes the ball up there. When Nadal does it to anyone else he is merely "the better player" when he does it to Fed, the explanation, for some onlookers, I think NEEDS to be more complicated than that.
IMO its pretty straight forward.
5
Personally, I don't think the way to beat Nadal is to rush the net, look what happened in the last French Open final. Obviously it's good to mix it up, but I think you have to be prepared to do battle. Nadal loves to chase balls, so I think a good strategy would be to try and dictate from the baseline with patient but aggressive play. Get him to run more than you throughout the match, rather than looking for quick winners. Nadal is human and if you can get him to run more than you, you could outlast him. Naturally, for this you have to make sure you are as fit or fitter. We have seen Nadal when he is tired and he is much more manageable when this is the case. Federer, Mathieu, Hewitt, Davydenko, even Nieminen have demonstrated how you can pressure Nadal by playing aggressively from the baseline on clay, then you could change it up when it suited you.Nadal can do it while remaining well inside his own safety and comfort zone and his fh is a large part of it, in that its absolute safest target dovetails perfectly to the only spot where Fed can't hurt him.
So Nadal can outwait even Federer, stymie and frustrate him with that ability.
IMO it has become compounded by the fact that Fed, who had clearly demonstrated his ability to transition to and play from the net earlier in his career has allowed those abilities to atrophy during his period of dominance.
His approach game has deteriorated. Too many of his approaches are hit with excessive topspin and are poorly directed often landing nearer the service line than the baseline and well inside the sideline.
Fed also appears to be in a quandry now as to where to go with the approach v. Nadal. It isn't automatic anymore, he doesn't commit to the shot as he once had, and it almost seems he is trying to "outguess" Nadal, predicating his direction choice on where Nadal will break to. Fed also hasn't/doesn't do it often enough to make the "dtl line 90% of the time" approach axiom, work for him in terms of percentages.
Nadal's fh and his ability to get it up on Fed's bh with the safest margin for error, whether brimming with confidence or when tight is a huge factor in this match-up.
5
At the risk of this exchange going circular, you cite the example of trading Nadal's court coverage for other's without that ability. That premise cuts both ways, except that you have living examples to draw from. Firstly slower guys without that weapon don't truly trouble Fed. Slower guys with another weapon, right handers with very strong dtl the bh's, i.e. a sharp Safin and Nalbandian, oth, do.
There are also very fast, tenacious grinders out there, i.e. Ferrer, Davydenko, who lack that ability to get the ball up on Fed's bh side, who don't trouble him.
So, again, take Nadal's fh away, exchange for anyone but Fed's and Nadal becomes an ordinary player. It's why his opponents mention it and IMO the biggest element which separates Nadal from the "run of the mill" pack. Nadal has that weapon and he is what he is, but without it he would most likely be just that, a pack member, looking up.
5
When you get down to it, if you took any number of things away from Nadal or any other player for that matter, beating them would become an easier proposition. It's a combination of things which make Nadal difficult, but to isolate the forehand as the one thing or main thing, I don't believe is accurate. Federer is always in the rallies, he just struggles to push through Nadal on clay, then runs out of patience. I mean, you can see some of the troubles he has encountered against other great movers/retrievers like Simon, Canas and Murray, and this is on hardcourt. On clay it will be even worse because Nadal's movement and poise seem to only improve on that surface, while Federer will be losing half a step because of the lack of traction. Then he has to deal with the fact his serve and strokes penetrate less and so you have the match-up falling more into Nadal's lap.At the risk of this exchange going circular, you cite the example of trading Nadal's court coverage for other's without that ability. That premise cuts both ways, except that you have living examples to draw from. Firstly slower guys without that weapon don't truly trouble Fed. Slower guys with another weapon, right handers with very strong dtl the bh's, i.e. a sharp Safin and Nalbandian, oth, do.
There are also very fast, tenacious grinders out there, i.e. Ferrer, Davydenko, who lack that ability to get the ball up on Fed's bh side, who don't trouble him.
So, again, take Nadal's fh away, exchange for anyone but Fed's and Nadal becomes an ordinary player. It's why his opponents mention it and IMO the biggest element which separates Nadal from the "run of the mill" pack. Nadal has that weapon and he is what he is, but without it he would most likely be just that, a pack member, looking up.
5
Nalbandian is certainly not slow(he's actually deceptively fast)and Safin is something like 2-9 against Federer and in his one sole slam victory against Federer he had to save a MP so don't think he's the best example.Better example than Safin would be Murray IMO.
When you get down to it, if you took any number of things away from Nadal or any other player for that matter, beating them would become an easier proposition. It's a combination of things which make Nadal difficult, but to isolate the forehand as the one thing or main thing, I don't believe is accurate. Federer is always in the rallies, he just struggles to push through Nadal on clay, then runs out of patience. I mean, you can see some of the troubles he has encountered against other great movers/retrievers like Simon, Canas and Murray, and this is on hardcourt. On clay it will be even worse because Nadal's movement and poise seem to only improve on that surface, while Federer will be losing half a step because of the lack of traction. Then he has to deal with the fact his serve and strokes penetrate less and so you have the match-up falling more into Nadal's lap.
I actually think Nalbandian is excellent in the movement/anticipation department, as well as being an all-round great player and Safin is a good player in his own right too, both however have lost most of their recent encounters with Federer. Nalbandian has lost 10 of the last 13 meetings and Safin is 2-9 down overall. Ferrer and Davydenko, while good movers, move no way near as well as Nadal, especially on clay and don't play with his consistency or margin for error. Players with almost 'mediocre' groundstrokes however, but with great retrieving ability, like Murray, Simon and Canas, have been able to try Federer's patience with their defence and ultimately win, on hardcourt no less. This to me seems to be Federer's biggest challenge with Nadal on clay.
"Slower" as in slower than Nadal.
We're discussing a guy who has given Fed fits on everything since his arrival on tour, not just the last 12 months where Simon and Murray got all or the bulk of their wins. Canas is another guy on the list of dtl bh weapons, similar to those of a hobbled Kuerten that routined Fed at RG in 2004.
As far as the critique of how to beat Nadal, attacking in that manner is not the blueprint for every player v. Rafa, but there is a long enough track record between Fed and Nadal to identify the fact that Nadal's singular ability to continually pound the ball up and away to Fed's bh as the deciding factor and it is less likely that Fed will improve his all ready very good bh, so I don't know what you suggest he do. Fed isn't being pinned there by Nadal's court coverage he is being pinned there by the ball Nadal hits. No one else can do that to Fed, actually no one else can do that, period.
Other than that we'll have to agree to disagree.
5
good points but i would also add to the bolded part that noboy defends or retrieves as well as nadal. not canas, not murray, hewitt etc
nadal can hit winners from defensive positions that nobody else in the world can.
so its two things. nadal can turn an advantage in a rally for federer to a neutral one through his left fh by hitting fed's bh high.
second is that nadal can defend and pass federer from almost anywhere.
Yes but they still remain opinions,an educated opinions since they come from former or current players but it's not like pros can't make mistakes.I also heard players like Andre Agassi,Jim Courier,Kramer,Rios,Bruguera,Wilander(the biggest flip flopper),Henman,Safin,Roddick etc. say Fed is best ever or similar,I even remember Mcenroe saying before FO 2006 that if Fed wins it,he's the GOAT.I will find you the links of the ones I read on internet later if you want.But while I respect their opinion(s)I can still from my own.I think both Federer and Sampras are obviously amazing players(although as I said I'll wait before Fed is completely done with his career before comparing them as I think that's fair)but I'm personally most impressed by Borg's achievements,the guy went from winning clay by grinding people down to playing serve and volley at Wimbledon.Back then those surfaces were complete polar opposites(unlike now)so that was the ultimate test of player's adaptability and nobody passed that test as well as Borg.To holds such dominating records like 5 Wimbledons in a row and 6 overall FOs on such opposite surfaces is nothing short of spectacular for me so I personally put him above both Sampras and Federer(for nowsince Fed isn't done yet but I dout that'll change in the future).Sure he didn't win USO but he reached 4 finals there and lost to some of the best USO players ever in Jimbo and Mcenroe,that's a great resume in your worst slam as far as I'm concerned.Another blemish(sp?) on his career is that he also retired early but what most people here don't seem realize is that Borg was an early bloomer and won a major each year since 1974-1981,that's some solid period of playing at a very high level.Maybe slightly off topic but since we're talking about GOATs,Borg's the one for me.
Well Pete could have some trouble in early rounds at slams even during his peak years and then raise it up a notch when he played better players,I remember he pushed by that crazy German fellow in 1995 in the first round(Kaarsten Braasch) but then again the last time before that he got pushed to five sets in Wimbledon was back in '98 against Goran so I guess it was telling that Sampras wasn't the same.As for the bolded part,I think they both played well.It's was a quality match and the one I still watch from time to time(it was nice to see Fed serve and volley)bit as I said no matter how much we argue whether Fed was closer to his prime or Sampras,bottom line is that:
a)Neither player was in his prime.
b)One match is too small of a sample to conclide how a whole potential rivalry between 2 GOAT candidates would go.
c)It wasn't changing of the guard(like how it is apparently seen by a lot of people here,wrongly IMO)since Fed didn't win Wimbledon till 2003.
Frankly,I think that for the reasons stated above,that match is somewhat overrated although it was still a high-quality match IMO,both of them served great and had good winner to error ratio.So it was a good match but as I said not really the changing of the guard so I think some people give that match too much importance.
I would agree since Lendl was a late bloomer that he was closer to his peak in 1990 than Sampras was in 2001 but then again Sampras was playing better in USO 1990 than Fed in Wimbledon 2001 as Pete went on to win tournament and Fed lost in quarters.But you're right about Lendl,he reached 8 USO finals in a row up until that point so Pete cut Lendl streak there but on the other hand Fed also cut Pete's streak of 4 Wimbledons in a row(and had Borg thank him).It happens even to all-time greats at some point as they get older,they get knocked out by fearless talented young guns,that's just the nature of the sport.
Well I never argued that Pete was in his prime,especially in 2001 and 2002.His prime was in 1993-1997 but even in 1999-2002 he could still put "some" great performances in majors(which were all he gave a damn at that point,hardly blame him for that),especially in 1999(which actually could have been a much better year if he didn't injure himself during a training with Kuerten,he was in very good form heading into USO that year) and 2000 when it took some great performances from both Agassi and Safin to stop him at AO and USO respectively and when he won Wimbledon on one leg so to speak,at FO he lost early that year but Pete never got around to being a contender there anyway(might have if Tim stayed alive but that's another topic).I still consider USO QF between Sampras and Agassi 2001 to have been one of the best matches I've ever seen but no week-in,week-out Sampras wasn't the same player he was in 1993-1997,few people will argue that.As any great champion,he could still play great in some matches,but normally as players get older those great performances became rarer and rarer,that's the way things work.Time affects even the greatest champions.
Yes,I'm fully aware of injuries Sampras had that year,especially the one that forced him to miss USO,the back injury he sustained while practicing with Kuerten but hey not all was bad,he did meet Bridget during that break) so some good came from that atleast.But regadless those 2 performances against Agassi in that year(Wimbledon and TMC final)were still the best I've ever seen Sampras play(along with some others like DC '97 against Rafter and TMC final against Becker in '96,maybe even '96 USO final against Chang).Mind you,I mean those 2 matches,not the whole year obviously.
At the risk of this exchange going circular, you cite the example of trading Nadal's court coverage for other's without that ability. That premise cuts both ways, except that you have living examples to draw from. Firstly slower guys without that weapon don't truly trouble Fed. Slower guys with another weapon, right handers with very strong dtl the bh's, i.e. a sharp Safin and Nalbandian, oth, do.
There are also very fast, tenacious grinders out there, i.e. Ferrer, Davydenko, who lack that ability to get the ball up on Fed's bh side, who don't trouble him.
So, again, take Nadal's fh away, exchange for anyone but Fed's and Nadal becomes an ordinary player. It's why his opponents mention it and IMO the biggest element which separates Nadal from the "run of the mill" pack. Nadal has that weapon and he is what he is, but without it he would most likely be just that, a pack member, looking up.
5
Consitency. Nadal is too consisent. Federer's game is built on shot making, artistry, while Rafa is built to last.
Yes, we'll have to agree to differ. I personally feel Federer has been good from the baseline in most of their clay encounters. I never really got the impression he was under duress, just that Nadal was the better mover on clay and the better player on that surface generally. Sure he targets the backhand, especially on the serve, but Federer has always been in those matches, apart from the last time they played when he tried to attack more. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how things progress."Slower" as in slower than Nadal.
We're discussing a guy who has given Fed fits on everything since his arrival on tour, not just the last 12 months where Simon and Murray got all or the bulk of their wins. Canas is another guy on the list of dtl bh weapons, similar to those of a hobbled Kuerten that routined Fed at RG in 2004.
As far as the critique of how to beat Nadal, attacking in that manner is not the blueprint for every player v. Rafa, but there is a long enough track record between Fed and Nadal to identify the fact that Nadal's singular ability to continually pound the ball up and away to Fed's bh as the deciding factor and it is less likely that Fed will improve his all ready very good bh, so I don't know what you suggest he do. Fed isn't being pinned there by Nadal's court coverage he is being pinned there by the ball Nadal hits. No one else can do that to Fed, actually no one else can do that, period.
Other than that we'll have to agree to disagree.
5
Well said. Many don't understand Nadal will always trouble Roger regardless off surface, much in the same way Agassi into his mid 30's was playing Roger tough.
380pistols
I found this comment rather odd. Built to last? Federer's Shot making is not gonna last?
You appear to be clinging to Nadal hoping he will save your guy Pete.
Everything about Federer has last longer so far, and I bet he'll last longer in history also. More than either Nadal or Sampras, like it or not.
Agassi from 2003-2005 ages 33-35 went 0-8 vs Federer, was just destroyed in half of those matches, and sets won were 20-5 in Federer's favor. If that is "playing someone tough" I would hate to see what a one sided battle is. I guess you think Roddick and Hewitt were playing Federer tough from 2003-2005 too, they had about the same success as the older Agassi had vs Federer after all, well maybe they did a bit better since they each actually got a win.
Federer destroyed Agassi in half of those matches. But those half came in.....
-November 2003
-January 2005
-March 2005
-April 2005
3 of those 4 came when Agassi was appraching his 35th b-day. Keep in mind Federer didn't beat Agassi until very late 2003. So lets's not say 2003 loosely, as if it happened in early in 2003. It was November 2003!!! The other 4 were.....
-7-6 in the 3rd (9-7 in the tie breaker, Dre had a match point)
-6-4 in the 3rd (Federer broke at 4-4)
-5 sets over 2 days
-Agassi led 3-6,6-2,4-2 30-0
Say what you say this was not the best of Agassi at 33-35, he back problems in the 2005 US Open encounter, and after the 3 beatdowns Roger gave Agassi in 2005, Dre ended up crawling out of the French Open and missing Wimbledon.
And do you (or anyone consider).....
-that from Miami 2004 (after losing to Roger in Indian Wells SF) to Canada 2004 Agassi went 5-6???
-that in 2005 the only vicories he had over top 10 players were 2 over Gaudio and one over Coria, all on hard???
So what Agassi was Federer really getting??? Yet he struggled 50% of the time.
As far as Roddick.....
From November 2003 to September 2005 (the time where Fed went 8-0) vs Agassi Roger went.....
-6-0 vs Andy
-won 14 of 15 sets
Hewitt (Nov 2003 - Sept 2005), well Federer went....
-9-0
-won 24 of 27 sets
-Lleyton ate 5 bagels
So Agassi won 5 sets in his 8 matches (24 sets) while Roddick/Hewitt won a combined 4 sets in 15 matches (42 sets).
Roddick and Hewitt were far closer to their primes an physical playing peaks than Agassi was during this time. Outside of the 2004 Wimbledon final Roddick/Hewitt didn't really push Federer or really threaten him. 1 of 15. Yet on 4 distinctive occasion Agass at 33+ gave Roger all he could handle.
So the Agassi - Roddick/Hewitt is clearly not an accurate one, as it shows Roddick and Hewitt did not have the "same success as the older Agassi had vs Federer".
And what win did Roddick or Hewitt have over Federer from November 2003 to September 2005???
To start with, in order to be considered GOAT, he needs to win 2 Grand Slams before we even start talking. He currently has 0 Grand Slams. I know he has won some majors but before it can be said he won a Grand Slam he needs all 4 in a calendar year. Rod Laver is so far out in front as the GOAT, no further discussion is warranted. 2 Grand Slams years apart.
It's not a slight on Roger, it's just match up thing. I tried to explain this regarding Federer/Agassi, but of course, most are blinded and or don't listen.
You are just a fountain of information 380 Pistol. LOL. Way to put things into perspective. Thats my biggest problem with alot of people especially Fed fans who want to look back at the past with the Rosey tinted-Fed Glasses on.. Not very objective when you look at the situation with Andre. Fed's wins were AFTER Andre's 33rd birthday. If the roles were reversed and Roger was 33 and older, then what.
Looking back.. Agassi was the only player outside of Nadal, Nalbandian at times, definitely not the slams and Safin at the Australia who gave Fed more problems than the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Blake etc ever did. This was way passed his prime, injured Andre as well. Thats speaks volumes IMO
Beat Nadal at this year's AusO.After all discussion in this forum about if Federer is or is not the GOAT.
According to you what need to do Federer to be considered with out any doubt the GOAT?.
Regards.
Yeah, the USO final '04 was pretty impressive.look at him go in the Blake match at the USO-06
Hewitt final USO -04
Thats all I need to see to give him the GOAT title. Its a thing of beauty to watch him on court, the level he can play at is in my mind unmatched and the estetchics makes it unreal.
I'd like to shake his hand and thank him for some of the shots he has made over the year=)
Peter
Yeah, the USO final '04 was pretty impressive.
What was Hewitt back then? Top 5?
Federer beat Hewitt like he stole something from him...
LOL @ blinded and or don't listen !If federer is in the zone, there isn't too much that agassi can do against him since he hits flat , right into federer's strike zone. Which is one of the reasons why I think agassi said that there was nowhere to go against federer when he was on or something similar to that.
Only if federer is slightly off, then only the UE count from federer would increase and agassi would have more chances. Agassi is NOT a bad matchup for federer.
Agassi from 2003-2005 ages 33-35 went 0-8 vs Federer, was just destroyed in half of those matches, and sets won were 20-5 in Federer's favor. If that is "playing someone tough" I would hate to see what a one sided battle is. I guess you think Roddick and Hewitt were playing Federer tough from 2003-2005 too, they had about the same success as the older Agassi had vs Federer after all, well maybe they did a bit better since they each actually got a win.
Federer destroyed Agassi in half of those matches. But those half came in.....
-November 2003
-January 2005
-March 2005
-April 2005
3 of those 4 came when Agassi was appraching his 35th b-day. Keep in mind Federer didn't beat Agassi until very late 2003. So lets's not say 2003 loosely, as if it happened in early in 2003. It was November 2003!!! The other 4 were.....
-7-6 in the 3rd (9-7 in the tie breaker, Dre had a match point)
-6-4 in the 3rd (Federer broke at 4-4)
-5 sets over 2 days
-Agassi led 3-6,6-2,4-2 30-0
Say what you say this was not the best of Agassi at 33-35, he back problems in the 2005 US Open encounter, and after the 3 beatdowns Roger gave Agassi in 2005, Dre ended up crawling out of the French Open and missing Wimbledon.
And do you (or anyone consider).....
-that from Miami 2004 (after losing to Roger in Indian Wells SF) to Canada 2004 Agassi went 5-6???
-that in 2005 the only vicories he had over top 10 players were 2 over Gaudio and one over Coria, all on hard???
So what Agassi was Federer really getting??? Yet he struggled 50% of the time.
As far as Roddick.....
From November 2003 to September 2005 (the time where Fed went 8-0) vs Agassi Roger went.....
-6-0 vs Andy
-won 14 of 15 sets
Hewitt (Nov 2003 - Sept 2005), well Federer went....
-9-0
-won 24 of 27 sets
-Lleyton ate 5 bagels
So Agassi won 5 sets in his 8 matches (24 sets) while Roddick/Hewitt won a combined 4 sets in 15 matches (42 sets).
Roddick and Hewitt were far closer to their primes an physical playing peaks than Agassi was during this time. Outside of the 2004 Wimbledon final Roddick/Hewitt didn't really push Federer or really threaten him. 1 of 15. Yet on 4 distinctive occasion Agass at 33+ gave Roger all he could handle.
So the Agassi - Roddick/Hewitt is clearly not an accurate one, as it shows Roddick and Hewitt did not have the "same success as the older Agassi had vs Federer".
And what win did Roddick or Hewitt have over Federer from November 2003 to September 2005???
You are just a fountain of information 380 Pistol. LOL. Way to put things into perspective. Thats my biggest problem with alot of people especially Fed fans who want to look back at the past with the Rosey tinted-Fed Glasses on.. Not very objective when you look at the situation with Andre. Fed's wins were AFTER Andre's 33rd birthday. If the roles were reversed and Roger was 33 and older, then what.
Looking back.. Agassi was the only player outside of Nadal, Nalbandian at times, definitely not the slams and Safin at the Australia who gave Fed more problems than the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Blake etc ever did. This was way passed his prime, injured Andre as well. Thats speaks volumes IMO