If Blake had beat Agassi...

[Golden]

...would he have gone on to the finals of the 2005 US Open? Also, would he have won against Federer had he made it to the finals? He was playing sublime against Agassi in the first and second sets. I only ask this because Agassi was able to take a set off of Federer, and he had a chance to go up a break in the third set. Andre was also practically a crippled old man in that match.

I don't know much about Ginepri, other than the fact that he had a miracle run to the semis the same year.

What do you think?

 

[Relinquis]

Federer would have destroyed him... imo

it's not the best match-up for blake.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

I don't think so.

I also wouldn't give blake the final either. Ginepri could have stopped him.

 

[NatF]

...would he have gone on to the finals of the 2005 US Open? Also, would he have won against Federer had he made it to the finals? He was playing sublime against Agassi in the first and second sets. I only ask this because Agassi was able to take a set off of Federer, and he had a chance to go up a break in the third set. Andre was also practically a crippled old man in that match.

I don't know much about Ginepri, other than the fact that he had a miracle run to the semis the same year.

What do you think?

Don't buy into the "Andre was cripple" at the US Open 2005. He moved ok during the match until the last set and he was hitting his groundstrokes really well.

Federer would have beaten Blake in 4 sets at most.

 

[Cormorant]

Blake had the quality to reach the final that year, but little of the composure needed to make use of his full potential. Even if he had toppled Andre in the QF, Blake would most likely have lost the mental battle with his other compatriot in the last four. Ginepri had put in the toughest run of all four semi-finalists in 2005, and when the USO was over he seemed destined to join Roddick in the top 10.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Also, would he have won against Federer had he made it to the finals?

No offense, but isnt this kind of a stupid question to ask. Blake would have had about as much chance to beat Federer in a slam final as say Vera Zvonareva had to beat Serena Williams the time she reached the Wimbledon final vs her.

He probably would have made the final but it isnt a certainty. Ginepri was playing his best ever tennis around then, and also took Agassi to 5 sets in the semis. He was part of Blake's U.S rat pack of guys about the same age, who had all been in the shadows of Roddick (this was a whole year before Blake's rise to #4 in the World) so he would have in no way been intimidated by Blake. The final was the best one with Agassi in it, both Ginepri and Blake vs Federer would have likely produced crappy finals.

 

[magnut]

Ginepri Would have taken him out in the semis. He was very match tough that year and played smart. Blake would have done what he always did in big match situations.....go for low percentage shots....hang the head....feel sorry for himself etc. etc. He is just a mentally weak player.

 

[kishnabe]

He would lose in straights to Federer in the final.

Better Agassi played....so Agassi can say that quote about Federer being the best he played.

 

[Gonzalito17]

Good question. I think Blake would have finaled and it would have changed him as a player. It would have been a big monkey off his back and would have gained him a lot of respect form other players which is an immeasurable asset and advantage. That was Blake's match and moment, I love Agassi but have kind of hated a little part of him for winning that match, that damn old bald greedy ******* : )

WOuld have been a beautiful moment to see Blake win that then march on to the finals.

 

[flymeng]

This is one of the matches which left me wondering what it could have done to Blake's career. He played awesome during the first 2 sets but could not sustained the high quality of play. It almost felt like he let Agassi win out of respect when they shook hands. If Blake had won and was able to play like the first 2 sets for the entire match, he would have beaten Ginepri and lost to Federer in 4 sets in the finals. I don't think it would have made a big difference with Blake's career due to his style of play, all offense and no defense.

 

[Cup8489]

Federer didn't play terribly great in the final; he made a lot of errors off his backhand wing, and we all know how close the first set of his match with blake was in 2006. A blake coming off an Agassi win of that magnitude would give Ginepri major trouble (especially as Blake's addtional speed would've given ginepri fits), and even Federer could've been pushed hard. It would've been an awesome match I think, either way, like the 2006 QF was.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Blake was #6 in the World I believe at the time of the 2006 U.S Open. He had been in a Masters final, and he was the #1 ranked American over Andy Roddick at that moment. He had alot of confidence by then. 2005 is a whole other ballgame. He was having a good tournament, but he wasnt a top player yet.

 

[70後]

Final yes, defeat Fed = no. Fed had Blake figured out very early on indeed. Blake has only one gear, go for broke FLAT OUT NITRO! While that is a spectacular shotmaking style, when it is on, it is not very good at down shifting.

Agree on Blake's chances to beat Fed in 2005 were probably like Vera vs Serena @ Wimbledon, but Blake's WTA counterpart wouldn't be a Vera, more like a Kvitova type, despite she having a slam, also seems to have absolutely no down gear at all. Of course, Kvitova on Centre court, playing on grass, and indoors with roof closed, (indoors grass court ) she the supposed indoor and grass beast, also lost in straight sets to Serena....

 

[underground]

Blake wouldn't have won because it would have been his 1st major final and Fed would have pretty much owned whoever was across the net regardless of opponent at that time.

 

[Andres]

I'm failing to see the logic in here.
You say Agassi was a crippled old man and even took a Federer a set off in their match, and then saying had Blake beaten Agassi, he could've taken Fed out, as Agassi was, as stated, old and crippled.

Yet this crippled old man beat Blake. Circular logic. Dont see the point. Blake couldn't even beat the old crippled man who took a set off Fed. How is that a blast on Agassi¿

 

[bjk]

Blake was up a break at like 5-4, something like that, right? And if you watch the match, he celebrates the break like he won the match. That was his problem right there.

 

[ollinger]

See the film "Sliding Doors" (late 1990s). Regardless of whether the central character makes the train or misses it and catches the next one, it all turns out the same in the end.

 

[Golden]

I'm failing to see the logic in here.
You say Agassi was a crippled old man and even took a Federer a set off in their match, and then saying had Blake beaten Agassi, he could've taken Fed out, as Agassi was, as stated, old and crippled.

Yet this crippled old man beat Blake. Circular logic. Dont see the point. Blake couldn't even beat the old crippled man who took a set off Fed. How is that a blast on Agassi¿

I wasn't saying Agassi was crippled in the match against Blake. :neutral: I'm implying that Blake could've won it, yet was mentally weak and choked the match away.

 

[spinovic]

As dominant as Federer was from 2004-07, I think its a major stretch to think any "what if" scenario would have resulted in him losing a slam.

The one non-clay he didn't win in that span was 2005 Oz where he lost one of the greatest matches in tennis history to Marat Safin - 7-5, 4-6, 7-5, 6-7(6), 7-9. We all know Safin was capable of some sublime tennis when at his best.

Is it possible Blake could have done it? Sure. He's always been the type of guy who goes for his shots, and when he's one, he looks unstoppable. Just watch the first two sets of the 2005 QF vs. Agassi. But, Agassi managed to find his way into the match and eventually pulled it out. Translate that to Federer, who by the 2005 US Open was a 5-time slam winner, 3-time Wimbledon champion and defending US Open champion. He was supremely confident.

Blake would not have rattled him, IMO, even with a fast start like he had in the Agassi match, nor do I think Blake could have sustained the necessary level to win 3 of 5 sets against Federer in a slam final. I don't think Blake was as talented as Safin, or capable of reaching the level of Safin's best, and it took something special for him to win in "overtime" in Australia that year.

JMO

Anything can happen, but it would have took something really special from Blake to pull it off. The chances of it happening would have been miniscule.

The most likely result would have been a straight set Federer win, or at best, a 4 setter.

 

[spinovic]

I disagree that Blake choked the match away. I thought it was a great match with some great shot-making. Both guys were going for it and in the end, Agassi was just a little bit better over the course of the match. He made some great shots late in the fifth to break back and then again in the TB to ultimately win.

I can't remember the exact scores, but the shot Agassi finished with was very close to the line and Blake had a similar shot earlier in the TB that he just missed long. One of those misses, I believe was on the two points when he had two serves for the match up 5-4. He ended up losing both points (which I'm sure some will call choking). Yet he saves MP on Agassi's next serve to stay in the match. Millimeters here and there may have decided the match.

 

[bjk]

There was a ton of symbolism in the match. Blake was hot, he had won a few tournaments that summer. Agassi was at the end of his career. It was a moment to pass the torch between US generations. As it turned out, a lame Agassi lost to Fed in an anti-climactic semi, and Blake had a nice but unspectacular career.

 

[cork_screw]

The best thing about Talk Tennis is there are so many moronic threads posting questions that people can answer on their own and most of the time they are obvious answers to "no duh" questions.

You're asking if Blake who is 1-10 against federer would have had a chance against Fed? Is that not the stupidiest question? I say this a million times, but really THINK BEFORE YOU WRITE. Other people who can think are having an aneurysm reading stupidity here.