Late Federer like Late Agassi?

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Career-wise it's not comparable but in terms of Agassi's later years where after the age of 28, he went on to win his first French, a U.S. Open and 3 Aussie Open titles.

He was also still competitive well into his 30s, being ranked #1 at age 33. Winning his last title before turning 33 and making the U.S. Open Final at age 35.
 

mightyrick

Legend
I haven't seen Federer be able to shorten points enough. I think he can be successful on grass... but on other surfaces, he just hasn't been able to shorten the points enough.

The reason Agassi lasted so long at a high level is because the guy is the best corner-to-corner ballstriker ever off of both wings on any surface. Agassi could win matches standing in middle of the court repeatedly punching flat hard winners to either corner with either his backhand or his forehand.

Even at the end, when Agassi could barely walk because of his back, he would still have guys running like a crazy on the other side.

I see Federer being too weak on the backhand side to dictate from that side like he does on the FH side.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
I haven't seen Federer be able to shorten points enough. I think he can be successful on grass... but on other surfaces, he just hasn't been able to shorten the points enough.

The reason Agassi lasted so long at a high level is because the guy is the best corner-to-corner ballstriker ever off of both wings on any surface. Agassi could win matches standing in middle of the court repeatedly punching flat hard winners to either corner with either his backhand or his forehand.

Even at the end, when Agassi could barely walk because of his back, he would still have guys running like a crazy on the other side.

I see Federer being too weak on the backhand side to dictate from that side like he does on the FH side.


Fantastic assessment. That is exactly how Agassi was able to compete without moving much.

I will say however that I believe Federer is in better shape than Agassi was, leg wise.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I haven't seen Federer be able to shorten points enough. I think he can be successful on grass... but on other surfaces, he just hasn't been able to shorten the points enough.

The reason Agassi lasted so long at a high level is because the guy is the best corner-to-corner ballstriker ever off of both wings on any surface. Agassi could win matches standing in middle of the court repeatedly punching flat hard winners to either corner with either his backhand or his forehand.

Even at the end, when Agassi could barely walk because of his back, he would still have guys running like a crazy on the other side.

I see Federer being too weak on the backhand side to dictate from that side like he does on the FH side.

Federer can't even dictate off his forehand anymore. His serve and guile are what he's getting by on now.
 

Vcore89

Talk Tennis Guru
Guess, Federer must switch to a true S&V game to dictate the game and play it on his terms.
 

Charlemagne

Hall of Fame
Federer can't even dictate off his forehand anymore. His serve and guile are what he's getting by on now.

I'd totally agree. It's not just his backhand, now it's his forehand... I was kind of taken aback by how lackluster it looked against Stan.
 

mightyrick

Legend
I'd totally agree. It's not just his backhand, now it's his forehand... I was kind of taken aback by how lackluster it looked against Stan.

Yeah, I do agree that his ability to dictate from the FH side is weakening for sure. It isn't as bad as the backhand, but yes, it is definitely lessening.

You see a lot more players hitting to Federer's forehand now. They don't need to only repeatedly pound the backhand anymore.
 

frinton

Professional
Yeah, I do agree that his ability to dictate from the FH side is weakening for sure. It isn't as bad as the backhand, but yes, it is definitely lessening.

You see a lot more players hitting to Federer's forehand now. They don't need to only repeatedly pound the backhand anymore.

I think overall the new racket helped him to gain stability on the backhand side (topspin) and with the serve. Oh the down side, I think the new racket makes it more difficult to hit razor-sharp flat forehand winners, but he seems to get more spin on both wings. I am sure the racket is not the only reason, but it might have a bit of an impact.
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
Unless there's something Federer isn't telling us, he's in much better physical shape than Agassi, who was suffering serious back issues and had to take dangerous painkiller shots a few times a year just to walk. I'd make the comparison more to Connors, although I think Federer is also in much better shape than Connors was at his age.
 

Kerber_Lover

New User
Federer is in better shape than Agassi was in the twilight of his career and still has a good 3 or 4 years left in him yet to win tournaments indoors and on grass, even Wimbledon. He'll always be a threat while ever he's healthy and in decent physical condition.
 

OddJack

G.O.A.T.
Anacone said something interesting about late Fed and late Agassi.

He said Agassi was less happy but hungrier, Fed is happier and less hungry.

While commentating with Carillo during the French.
 
Agassi was happier in his later career. WTF is Annacone talking about? The guy went from doing crystal meth and wanting his career to be over to deciding he was gonna try as hard as he can and see what he could achieve with maximum effort.

Unless he's just saying Federer is a happier person than Agassi in general, but Agassi was hungrier than Federer at this stage.

Anyway, Federer's grass game is in utter shambles. It's been in severe decline since 2009 when Andy Roddick was killing him from the baseline, but now it's just abysmal by his standards. If he could somehow manage to pull this one out, by finding a way around Raonic and then having one big vintage match either against Dimitrov or Djokovic, I'd be over the moon, and he could finally rest and not have to worry about the fact that he has no baseline game on grass anymore.
 

Hollywood401k

Semi-Pro
Anacone said something interesting about late Fed and late Agassi.

He said Agassi was less happy but hungrier, Fed is happier and less hungry.

While commentating with Carillo during the French.
As much as Federer says otherwise, it sure looks apparent on court for 9/10 of his matches that he is far less motivated than he used to be.

He could've closed out Stan at Monte Carlo. Could've closed out Novak in Indian Wells. He just didn't seem like he cared that much. What's strange to me as a viewer is how he seems to hang in matches anyway (win or lose), without ever really seeming like he wants it. Like against Stan yesterday.
 

President

Legend
IMO Federer has become too obsessed with taking the ball early. That is the big reason why it seems that he has absolutely no power from the baseline now, he never gives himself any time to take real big cuts at the ball. That's how I see it, anyway. He still moves better than a guy like Wawrinka, let alone Berdych and Raonic. There can come a time when you start to take the ball TOO early, and I think Federer may be reaching that stage. Step back a few steps once in a while and take a nice crack at the ball Roger, you still have one of the best kinetic chains in tennis!
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
I haven't seen Federer be able to shorten points enough. I think he can be successful on grass... but on other surfaces, he just hasn't been able to shorten the points enough.

The reason Agassi lasted so long at a high level is because the guy is the best corner-to-corner ballstriker ever off of both wings on any surface. Agassi could win matches standing in middle of the court repeatedly punching flat hard winners to either corner with either his backhand or his forehand.

Even at the end, when Agassi could barely walk because of his back, he would still have guys running like a crazy on the other side.

I see Federer being too weak on the backhand side to dictate from that side like he does on the FH side.


Exactly! There's one match with Federer at the US Open where he breaks Federer while hardly moving from the centre of the court, because he can just put the ball anywhere from where he's standing.

Federer can't dictate off the backhand so he needs hismovement far more. Also these days with the likes of Nadal/Djokovic/Murray it's hard to play that level of defense. Plus court speeds not as fast.
 
IMO Federer has become too obsessed with taking the ball early. That is the big reason why it seems that he has absolutely no power from the baseline now, he never gives himself any time to take real big cuts at the ball. That's how I see it, anyway. He still moves better than a guy like Wawrinka, let alone Berdych and Raonic. There can come a time when you start to take the ball TOO early, and I think Federer may be reaching that stage. Step back a few steps once in a while and take a nice crack at the ball Roger, you still have one of the best kinetic chains in tennis!

That's a good point. His insistence on taking the ball early hasn't done him all that much good in recent years, I don't think. It especially puts pressure on his backhand, making it harder for him to be consistent.
 

mightyrick

Legend
Exactly! There's one match with Federer at the US Open where he breaks Federer while hardly moving from the centre of the court, because he can just put the ball anywhere from where he's standing.

I remember watching the 2004 US Open. Nobody was really expecting anything from him because everyone knew about his injuries. He had skipped Wimbledon in 2004 because of his back. The guy could barely walk.

I remember that match vividly. Even though Federer won that match in the 5th set... Federer had absolutely no answer for Agassi's ground game and return game. None. This is *prime* Federer against an injured, barely mobile Agassi returning after a layoff. The only reason Federer won that match was basically on points gifted to him by Agassi because he refused to run to get most balls and would not run to get a dropshot.

It was because of that match that I have always held that Agassi would dominate a H2H against Federer -- particular on fast/medium-fast surfaces. Federer would own Agassi on clay, though.

Another interesting thing. The only aggressive player to give Federer a real challenge in his prime was Nalbandian. Their H2H is 11-8 in favor of Federer. Nalbandian has LOTS of similarity to Agassi. Agassi was far better than Nalbandian, though. Since then, the only player to give Federer trouble (outside of Nadal) is Djokovic. Again... lots of similarities to Agassi... but Agassi a better ball striker and returner.

At that elite level, it is all about matchup. And the only guys who gave Agassi trouble were high-level serve-and-volleyers.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
I remember that match vividly. Even though Federer won that match in the 5th set... Federer had absolutely no answer for Agassi's ground game and return game. None. This is *prime* Federer against an injured, barely mobile Agassi returning after a layoff. The only reason Federer won that match was basically on points gifted to him by Agassi because he refused to run to get most balls and would not run to get a dropshot.

That's some pretty tendentious recall. Agassi "gifted" Federer enough points to win three sets? Also, that match was famously played in tremendous wind.

From 2003 through 2005, Federer defeated Agassi eight times in a row. Four of those wins were in straight sets. That's a lot of gifting. How the heck did Fed beat Agassi 6-3 6-0 6-4 in the 2003 WTF with "no answer" to Andre's ground game? I'd hate to see how many bagels and breadsticks Andre would have eaten if Fed had known what he was doing.
 
I remember watching the 2004 US Open. Nobody was really expecting anything from him because everyone knew about his injuries. He had skipped Wimbledon in 2004 because of his back. The guy could barely walk.

I remember that match vividly. Even though Federer won that match in the 5th set... Federer had absolutely no answer for Agassi's ground game and return game. None. This is *prime* Federer against an injured, barely mobile Agassi returning after a layoff. The only reason Federer won that match was basically on points gifted to him by Agassi because he refused to run to get most balls and would not run to get a dropshot.

It was because of that match that I have always held that Agassi would dominate a H2H against Federer -- particular on fast/medium-fast surfaces. Federer would own Agassi on clay, though.

Another interesting thing. The only aggressive player to give Federer a real challenge in his prime was Nalbandian. Their H2H is 11-8 in favor of Federer. Nalbandian has LOTS of similarity to Agassi. Agassi was far better than Nalbandian, though. Since then, the only player to give Federer trouble (outside of Nadal) is Djokovic. Again... lots of similarities to Agassi... but Agassi a better ball striker and returner.

At that elite level, it is all about matchup. And the only guys who gave Agassi trouble were high-level serve-and-volleyers.

Agassi could never run. When is he going to rack up a dominant H2H - when he was worried about the wig coming off his head, or when he was doing crystal meth?

As for no one expecting anything from Agassi at the 04 US Open...he'd just won Cincinnati.
 
Last edited:

Devilito

Legend
Agassi hit a WAY bigger ball than Federer does currently. That's the difference. With age, Fed has lost a lot of his power and weapons compared with Andre. Sure back in 2004 2005 when Fed was beating Agassi, his ground game was HUGE. Hitting winners from anywhere on the court and using Andre's power against him. He's completely lost that in his current form and regularly gets out-hit from the back. Andre arguably hit bigger later on in his career to make up for lesser movement. Which makes sense. The older you get, the more you need your power as you lose your reflexes, speed etc. Fed unfortunately is losing his power which isn't good for his longevity at the top. He's just lucky the current era is so weak so he's able to maintain his place in the top 5.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I remember watching the 2004 US Open. Nobody was really expecting anything from him because everyone knew about his injuries. He had skipped Wimbledon in 2004 because of his back. The guy could barely walk.

this is utter load of BULLSH*T

agassi won cincy just before the US Open beating hewitt and roddick back to back

I remember that match vividly. Even though Federer won that match in the 5th set... Federer had absolutely no answer for Agassi's ground game and return game. None. This is *prime* Federer against an injured, barely mobile Agassi returning after a layoff. The only reason Federer won that match was basically on points gifted to him by Agassi because he refused to run to get most balls and would not run to get a dropshot.

It was because of that match that I have always held that Agassi would dominate a H2H against Federer -- particular on fast/medium-fast surfaces. Federer would own Agassi on clay, though.

federer clearly had the edge off the ground vs agassi in that USO 04 match. the one and only reason it went to 5 was because of the terribly windy conditions.

agassi's movement was absolutely fine. You need a pair of glasses and or a good memory refresh

IAnother interesting thing. The only aggressive player to give Federer a real challenge in his prime was Nalbandian. Their H2H is 11-8 in favor of Federer. Nalbandian has LOTS of similarity to Agassi. Agassi was far better than Nalbandian, though. Since then, the only player to give Federer trouble (outside of Nadal) is Djokovic. Again... lots of similarities to Agassi... but Agassi a better ball striker and returner.

At that elite level, it is all about matchup. And the only guys who gave Agassi trouble were high-level serve-and-volleyers.

load of BS ..

nalbandian was 5-0 up vs pre-peak federer. Then when federer hit his peak ( from YEC 2003 onwards ) he went 11-3 vs him.

agassi also struggled vs courier in his prime years.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I remember watching the 2004 US Open. Nobody was really expecting anything from him because everyone knew about his injuries. He had skipped Wimbledon in 2004 because of his back. The guy could barely walk.

I remember that match vividly. Even though Federer won that match in the 5th set... Federer had absolutely no answer for Agassi's ground game and return game. None. This is *prime* Federer against an injured, barely mobile Agassi returning after a layoff. The only reason Federer won that match was basically on points gifted to him by Agassi because he refused to run to get most balls and would not run to get a dropshot.

It was because of that match that I have always held that Agassi would dominate a H2H against Federer -- particular on fast/medium-fast surfaces. Federer would own Agassi on clay, though.

Another interesting thing. The only aggressive player to give Federer a real challenge in his prime was Nalbandian. Their H2H is 11-8 in favor of Federer. Nalbandian has LOTS of similarity to Agassi. Agassi was far better than Nalbandian, though. Since then, the only player to give Federer trouble (outside of Nadal) is Djokovic. Again... lots of similarities to Agassi... but Agassi a better ball striker and returner.

At that elite level, it is all about matchup. And the only guys who gave Agassi trouble were high-level serve-and-volleyers.
What about when Hewitt beat Agassi as a 16 year old boy? He didn't serve and volley at all, he was strictly a baseliner. Don't tell me Agassi was out of his prime from 98-02 either.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
That's some pretty tendentious recall. Agassi "gifted" Federer enough points to win three sets? Also, that match was famously played in tremendous wind.

From 2003 through 2005, Federer defeated Agassi eight times in a row. Four of those wins were in straight sets. That's a lot of gifting. How the heck did Fed beat Agassi 6-3 6-0 6-4 in the 2003 WTF with "no answer" to Andre's ground game? I'd hate to see how many bagels and breadsticks Andre would have eaten if Fed had known what he was doing.

yeah. federer just absolutely blasted agassi off court in 03 YEC final and agassi ended 2003 ranked #4. I don't think agassi's had a worse defeat tbh when in good shape.
 

mightyrick

Legend
this is utter load of BULLSH*T

agassi won cincy just before the US Open beating hewitt and roddick back to back

Cry a little more. Agassi's win at Cincy was no indication of anything in terms of the US Open. Agassi's health was in great question. You never knew if he was going to be able to move/serve or basically be crippled in any given match. Especially after skipping Wimbledon.


federer clearly had the edge off the ground vs agassi in that USO 04 match. the one and only reason it went to 5 was because of the terribly windy conditions.

agassi's movement was absolutely fine. You need a pair of glasses and or a good memory refresh

No he didn't. No it wasn't. No I don't.

nalbandian was 5-0 up vs pre-peak federer. Then when federer hit his peak ( from YEC 2003 onwards ) he went 11-3 vs him.

Um, excuse me. They are the same age. This is pre-peak Nalbandian against pre-peak Federer.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Federer made 56 UE's to Agassi's 39 and yet it was Agassi who was gifting it to Federer?

Agassi simply handled the wind better that match, and if you actually watch matches when Agassi was in form in his later years you could see that despite his age he could move pretty well.

He was certainly not hindered in that stretch when he won Cincy playing peak level tennis versus Roddick/Hewitt and when he took Federer to 5 at the USO.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Agassi was in better shape than Connors due to the absent years.

He was an anomaly in tennis and not a usual 34-35 year old.
 

mightyrick

Legend
Federer made 56 UE's to Agassi's 39 and yet it was Agassi who was gifting it to Federer?

Agassi simply handled the wind better that match, and if you actually watch matches when Agassi was in form in his later years you could see that despite his age he could move pretty well.

He was certainly not hindered in that stretch when he won Cincy playing peak level tennis versus Roddick/Hewitt and when he took Federer to 5 at the USO.

The point is this. If a past-prime, old Agassi takes prime Federer to 5 at the USO at the end of his career... Agassi is certainly going to do better if he were in his prime. That is the entire point.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
The point is this. If a past-prime, old Agassi takes prime Federer to 5 at the USO at the end of his career... Agassi is certainly going to do better if he were in his prime. That is the entire point.

The wind made that match the error fest it ended up being. Federer wasn't playing very well. Considering the wind Agassi was playing prime level stuff that match.

I do think Agassi playing his best tennis is going to be a match for basically anyone on hard courts though. But I don't think he has the advantage over Federer.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
The point is this. If a past-prime, old Agassi takes prime Federer to 5 at the USO at the end of his career... Agassi is certainly going to do better if he were in his prime. That is the entire point.

Thing is, how many titles did Agassi win in his physical prime?
 

mightyrick

Legend
Thing is, how many titles did Agassi win in his physical prime?

Let's be clear what I'm referring to. I do not think Agassi, in any scenario, could have a better career than Federer. Not possible. In any scenario, a prime Federer crushes the field much more than prime Agassi.

I'm only talking in a H2H. I do not see Federer being able to be successful in a H2H against prime Agassi.

However, from a career and consistency perspective... there is no question that Federer would far, far exceed Agassi.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
Let's be clear what I'm referring to. I do not think Agassi, in any scenario, could have a better career than Federer. Not possible. In any scenario, a prime Federer crushes the field much more than prime Agassi.

I'm only talking in a H2H. I do not see Federer being able to be successful in a H2H against prime Agassi.

However, from a career and consistency perspective... there is no question that Federer would far, far exceed Agassi.

I think on grass Federer would always beat Agassi.

When it comes to hard courts, Federer has strong claim to greatest on that surface but sure Agassi could push him there.

Then we have clay and Federer would more than likely mop the floor with Andre.

We're talking 5 set Grand Slams here.

Let's say they met at all the Slams in 4 seasons. Agassi would maybe win 1-3 Aussie/U.S. Opens, maybe, and maybe one on Clay, big maybe.


NOW, if we're talking 3 set hard court matches, sure Agassi could take Federer blow for blow.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
I remember watching the 2004 US Open. Nobody was really expecting anything from him because everyone knew about his injuries. He had skipped Wimbledon in 2004 because of his back. The guy could barely walk.

I remember that match vividly. Even though Federer won that match in the 5th set... Federer had absolutely no answer for Agassi's ground game and return game. None. This is *prime* Federer against an injured, barely mobile Agassi returning after a layoff. The only reason Federer won that match was basically on points gifted to him by Agassi because he refused to run to get most balls and would not run to get a dropshot.

It was because of that match that I have always held that Agassi would dominate a H2H against Federer -- particular on fast/medium-fast surfaces. Federer would own Agassi on clay, though.

Another interesting thing. The only aggressive player to give Federer a real challenge in his prime was Nalbandian. Their H2H is 11-8 in favor of Federer. Nalbandian has LOTS of similarity to Agassi. Agassi was far better than Nalbandian, though. Since then, the only player to give Federer trouble (outside of Nadal) is Djokovic. Again... lots of similarities to Agassi... but Agassi a better ball striker and returner.

At that elite level, it is all about matchup. And the only guys who gave Agassi trouble were high-level serve-and-volleyers.

IIRC the Federer-Agassi 2004 US QF was very windy and could have gone either way.

I dispute that Agassi would have dominated Federer on fast surfaces though. Witness the 2005 US F for instance - Agassi played lights out for a set and a half, then Fed raised it to another level and won in 4. Admittedly Agassi was 35 at that stage, but doubtful he would have dominated Fed even if 10 years younger.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
IIRC the Federer-Agassi 2004 US QF was very windy and could have gone either way.

I dispute that Agassi would have dominated Federer on fast surfaces though. Witness the 2005 US F for instance - Agassi played lights out for a set and a half, then Fed raised it to another level and won in 4. Admittedly Agassi was 35 at that stage, but doubtful he would have dominated Fed even if 10 years younger.

The stats and quality of that match were about equal with the 1995 final.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Saying Agassi would have dominated Federer is like saying Murray would have dominated Sampras.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Saying Agassi would have dominated Federer is like saying Murray would have dominated Sampras.

Agassi is an 8 time slam champion with 6 on HC only 3 off Federer. Not the same thing at all.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
If your point is that Agassi compared to Sampras on fast HC was about the same as Agassi compared to Federer on fast HC, then I agree with you.

I'm saying Agassi was still playing excellent tennis at the USO in his later years. But yes he would not be favored against Federer overall on hards.
 
Top