old agassi vs peak roddick and hewitt

Who would you rate as a better Player? of course they both were more consistent but I think when Agassi was healthy his Level was rather similar.

For overlapping Peaks I would say 03-05 for roddick and 01-05 for Hewitt.

Agassi seemed to handle roddick rather well but struggled with Hewitt being down 4-3 in the h2h since 01.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Agassi played relatively few tournaments in 04-05, but when he was playing well he was pretty close to prime levels.
 

conway

Banned
I think all 3 of them were roughly the same level in 04-05. I think their matches in Cincinnati 2004 (tough 3 set wins for Agassi) and Agassi vs Roddick at Queens 2003, accurately reflected how they all compared at the time. In the event I were the one setting bettings odds before a match at the U.S Open between them I would set them relatively even.

I disagree Agassi was close to prime level. Agassi of 95, 99, late 94, 2000 Australian Open, 1990, 2001, and even 2002 was far superior to Agassi of 04-05. Agassi obviously had a disjointed prime and had many younger years he was also much worse than 04-05.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I think all 3 of them were roughly the same level in 04-05. I think their matches in Cincinnati 2004 (tough 3 set wins for Agassi) and Agassi vs Roddick at Queens 2003, accurately reflected how they all compared at the time. In the event I were the one setting bettings odds before a match at the U.S Open between them I would set them relatively even.

I disagree Agassi was close to prime level. Agassi of 95, 99, late 94, 2000 Australian Open, 1990, 2001, and even 2002 was far superior to Agassi of 04-05. Agassi obviously had a disjointed prime and had many younger years he was also much worse than 04-05.

He wasn't close to prime levels overall but his AO 04, USO 04, Marid 04 and Cincinnati 04 tournaments were close to or at prime levels IMO. I differentiate between prime and peak. He played some matches and tournaments in 2005 at a pretty high level too though he was clearly on the way down in 2005, still 4 of his 8 losses on hard court that year were to Federer. In both those years he was essentially only a force on hard courts.

I'd add Agassi of 2003 over 2001 in terms of prime level tennis.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I'd say that in terms of level, it went (between 2004-2005).
Federer.
Safin.
Agassi/Roddick/Hewitt.

Agassi, when on, played at a very high level, comparable to both Roddick and Hewitt.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Similar to how when Federer is on now he's on a level just below only Nadal and Djokovic.
 
I'd say that in terms of level, it went (between 2004-2005).
Federer.
Safin.
Agassi/Roddick/Hewitt.

Agassi, when on, played at a very high level, comparable to both Roddick and Hewitt.

but safin was even more inconsistent compared to old agassi. he never played a consistently high level for a whole season. even in his best seasons he always had some early round losses in slams.

I also think in the end agassi became somewhat of a HC specialist. especially at the US HCs he played very well but not so much at natural surfaces in the end.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Cinncinati 2004 was probably Agassi's best tennis, especially in the SF with Roddick. He barely made and error, moved well and hit the ball aggressively. I actually think his ground strokes were as good as they had ever been in 04-05. His serve was better too.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
but safin was even more inconsistent compared to old agassi. he never played a consistently high level for a whole season. even in his best seasons he always had some early round losses in slams.

I also think in the end agassi became somewhat of a HC specialist. especially at the US HCs he played very well but not so much at natural surfaces in the end.
Safin was more inconsistent than Agassi, but his best level was above his IMO during 2004-2005.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Doesn't Agassi have a 5-1 h2h over Roddick?


The defending champ PEAK Hewitt couldn't even beat 32 year old 2-3 year past prime Agassi at Flushing.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Doesn't Agassi have a 5-1 h2h over Roddick?


The defending champ PEAK Hewitt couldn't even beat 32 year old 2-3 year past prime Agassi at Flushing.

Agassi was playing prime tennis in that period. Much better than years like 1993, 1996, 1997 and 1998 - 4 of Pete's prime years :lol:
 
Safin was more inconsistent than Agassi, but his best level was above his IMO during 2004-2005.

maybe, but when was that level?

at the 05 AO certainly but apart from that safin played a lot of crap.

safin made a final in the 04 AO, then lost in the FO in round 4 and even in the first round in both wimby and the USO. 05 was even worse when he only finished 12th in the world ranking.

safin never reach 3 QFs in slams in a year and only reached two semis once (2002). safin never had a year without two first week losses in a slam.

safins peak level was great but he never could get it together for more than a tournament or 2.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
maybe, but when was that level?

at the 05 AO certainly but apart from that safin played a lot of crap.

safin made a final in the 04 AO, then lost in the FO in round 4 and even in the first round in both wimby and the USO. 05 was even worse when he only finished 12th in the world ranking.

safin never reach 3 QFs in slams in a year and only reached two semis once (2002). safin never had a year without two first week losses in a slam.

safins peak level was great but he never could get it together for more than a tournament or 2.

Safin had injuries in 2003 that affected his ranking, he had some tough draws running into Roddick and Federer early in IW and Dubai in early 2004.

He played great on the way to the final in 2004 but ran out of gas. He made the SF of Monte Carlo and lost to Nalbandian at the French in a tough match. He went away for a bit but was at his very best for the indoor swing winning back to back masters. His good form carried on until the AO after which he did his knee in and was never the same.

He was a bit injury prone and that was his main issue in 04-05.

He still put together a good season in 04 albeit an inconsistent one.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Doesn't Agassi have a 5-1 h2h over Roddick?


The defending champ PEAK Hewitt couldn't even beat 32 year old 2-3 year past prime Agassi at Flushing.
Agassi wasn't past his prime until 2004.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Agassi wasn't in his prime from 2002-2005. He was just still doing so well because the field was so pathetic.


Thats like saying Fed is still in his prime because hes bullying these ZEROS we got on tour coming up in the ranks like Raonic, Dimitrov, etc.


Agassi (from a pure result standpoint and level standpoint) prime ended in 2001.

His prime was 93-95, then a 2nd prime in 99-01.


Hell the slams Agassi did win like the 2003 Australian was a result of the WEAKEST draw a player can have
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Agassi wasn't in his prime from 2002-2005. He was just still doing so well because the field was so pathetic.


Thats like saying Fed is still in his prime because hes bullying these ZEROS we got on tour coming up in the ranks like Raonic, Dimitrov, etc.


Agassi (from a pure result standpoint and level standpoint) prime ended in 2001.

His prime was 93-95, then a 2nd prime in 99-01.


Hell the slams Agassi did win like the 2003 Australian was a result of the WEAKEST draw a player can have

You don't know your favorite era very well do you?

In 1993 Agassi made a QF and a 1R at the slams and had a wrist injury IIRC, he finished the year ranked 24 in the world.

In 1994 his game didn't come together until after Wimbledon, but the second half of the year was great.

In 2000 he won a single title - the AO. He finished the year #6. Both 2002 and 2003 were more consistent years with much higher win/loss records. Also many more titles and in the case of 2003 more big titles.
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
What year did Agassi start having his back troubles anyway? Also thought that with his exercise regimen changing his body type that his movement suffered somewhat.

Just looked at his record and his last good year was 2003.

In watching Agassi in his last few years you just got the impression he was like a former great race car that would heat up and stop if you drive it too far in a day.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Not sure when the back flared up exactly, I know it happened at the French Open in 2005 but not for the first time.

His movement wasn't bad, I don't think it was worse than say a Berdych or Del Potro of nowdays. It certainly had diminished though.
 

conway

Banned
You don't know your favorite era very well do you?

In 1993 Agassi made a QF and a 1R at the slams and had a wrist injury IIRC, he finished the year ranked 24 in the world.

In 1994 his game didn't come together until after Wimbledon, but the second half of the year was great.

In 2000 he won a single title - the AO. He finished the year #6. Both 2002 and 2003 were more consistent years with much higher win/loss records. Also many more titles and in the case of 2003 more big titles.

Agassi wasn't good in 1993 but he still would have won Wimbledon (probably) had he gotten past that 5 setter with Sampras. He lost 1st round of the U.S Open, very bad result, but a tough draw with Tomas Enqvist, a future Masters event winner and slam finalist on hard courts. It is hard to evaluate his play that year as being that bad, since he didn't even play that often, and that was the main reason for his year end ranking.

In 1994 Agassi actually played quite well all year. He took Sampras to the limit in the Miami final, which he had some big wins to make. He started the year unseeded at all events, and got some very tough draws. He lost to Tomas Muster in 5 sets in the 3rd round of the French, and could have made a very deep run otherwise. He lost to Todd Martin in a tough 5 setter in the 3rd or 4th round of Wimbledon, and would have made the semis otherwise. He finally got some breaks in draws, and the string of big wins he needed in the second half of the year, but he was always playing well upon his return to the tour after over half a year away.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Agassi wasn't in his prime from 2002-2005. He was just still doing so well because the field was so pathetic.


Thats like saying Fed is still in his prime because hes bullying these ZEROS we got on tour coming up in the ranks like Raonic, Dimitrov, etc.


Agassi (from a pure result standpoint and level standpoint) prime ended in 2001.

His prime was 93-95, then a 2nd prime in 99-01.


Hell the slams Agassi did win like the 2003 Australian was a result of the WEAKEST draw a player can have
No comparison to today. Agassi was in his prime until 2004 and performed better in a stronger era (stronger than 98-00). His numbers, everything about his career points towards this.

So Agassi wasn't in his prime when he won Wimbledon to you in '92? Of course he was in his PRIME to you when he was at his PEAK in '95. That is his best performance out of everything, so that is why it is his peak. Even Sampras was in his prime until 2000, and the same people who were beating Agassi regularly (Hewitt, Safin) were dismantling Sampras. Even as a teenager during '99 Queens 18 year old Hewitt almost beat Sampras, the final set went to a tiebreak that Sampras just squeezed out of. Are you going to tell me Sampras wasn't in his prime at the time?

Just face it, Agassi played Hewitt during one of his prime stretches (99-03 or 04) and was behind in the H2H against him after 2001. That isn't due to Agassi being worse, it is because Hewitt got much better. Agassi did get worse in 2004, that much I agree with, but to say the insane things you have (that Agassi only had a 4 year prime out of his 20 year career) shows you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
And please save me the trouble of debunking the "weak era" nonsense in 2002. I've already made a thread that has shown Hewitt at one point had as many points as Agassi and Sampras did during their best years. Hewitt is not as good as them but writing him off as "weak" just because he beat your favorites and lost to Federer is wrong.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Also the fact that you compared Raonic, Dimitrov and Nishikori to Hewitt just shows how biased you must be. At the same age, Hewitt was a 2 time GS winner, 2 time YEC winner and a former #1.
 

big ted

Legend
Agassi wasn't good in 1993 but he still would have won Wimbledon (probably) had he gotten past that 5 setter with Sampras. He lost 1st round of the U.S Open, very bad result, but a tough draw with Tomas Enqvist, a future Masters event winner and slam finalist on hard courts. It is hard to evaluate his play that year as being that bad, since he didn't even play that often, and that was the main reason for his year end ranking.

In 1994 Agassi actually played quite well all year. He took Sampras to the limit in the Miami final, which he had some big wins to make. He started the year unseeded at all events, and got some very tough draws. He lost to Tomas Muster in 5 sets in the 3rd round of the French, and could have made a very deep run otherwise. He lost to Todd Martin in a tough 5 setter in the 3rd or 4th round of Wimbledon, and would have made the semis otherwise. He finally got some breaks in draws, and the string of big wins he needed in the second half of the year, but he was always playing well upon his return to the tour after over half a year away.


'93 was a transitional year for andre, I think that is the year that his coach bollieterri dumped him and then he also had a wrist injury he was trying to play with and altered his serve because of it. I think he eventually had surgery on it at the end of the year.

in 94 he started to really have great results because of brad gilbert coaching him, his surgery healed, and he was in shape again.
 
No comparison to today. Agassi was in his prime until 2004 and performed better in a stronger era (stronger than 98-00). His numbers, everything about his career points towards this.

So Agassi wasn't in his prime when he won Wimbledon to you in '92? Of course he was in his PRIME to you when he was at his PEAK in '95. That is his best performance out of everything, so that is why it is his peak. Even Sampras was in his prime until 2000, and the same people who were beating Agassi regularly (Hewitt, Safin) were dismantling Sampras. Even as a teenager during '99 Queens 18 year old Hewitt almost beat Sampras, the final set went to a tiebreak that Sampras just squeezed out of. Are you going to tell me Sampras wasn't in his prime at the time?

Just face it, Agassi played Hewitt during one of his prime stretches (99-03 or 04) and was behind in the H2H against him after 2001. That isn't due to Agassi being worse, it is because Hewitt got much better. Agassi did get worse in 2004, that much I agree with, but to say the insane things you have (that Agassi only had a 4 year prime out of his 20 year career) shows you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

so you are saying that agassi was still in his prime at the ages 33-34?

IMO those 01-03 years were quite weak in their level. hewitts best year was in 2002 but this is also a very bad year for tennis.

fed had yet to arrive and sampras was gone. roddick was just coming up but other than those not much talent was around. In 03 it started to get slightly better better 00-02 were really weak years to more (like a transitional period from pete to roger). wasn't haas ranked number 2 in the world at one point in 2002?

could it be that agassi was actually better in the mid to late 90s but just overshadowed by pete? IMO andre could handle weaker number 1 players like hewitt or roddick but not all time greats like sampras or federer.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
so you are saying that agassi was still in his prime at the ages 33-34?

IMO those 01-03 years were quite weak in their level. hewitts best year was in 2002 but this is also a very bad year for tennis.

fed had yet to arrive and sampras was gone. roddick was just coming up but other than those not much talent was around. In 03 it started to get slightly better better 00-02 were really weak years to more (like a transitional period from pete to roger). wasn't haas ranked number 2 in the world at one point in 2002?

could it be that agassi was actually better in the mid to late 90s but just overshadowed by pete? IMO andre could handle weaker number 1 players like hewitt or roddick but not all time greats like sampras or federer.
Haas being #2 shouldn't indicate anything. Ferrer has been #3 in this era, will people say it's weak due to that?

Federer also wasn't "yet to arrive", he ended 2002 within the top 10, actually bordering on the top 5. He was a good player, even then. Just wasn't right at his prime yet.

Agassi was still in his prime up until the start of 2004. It is shown in his results (and the only year(s) Sampras "overshadowed" Agassi was '94 and maybe 95). Age is just a number in the case of Agassi, since he spent most of his prime AWAY from the game in the 90s, especially '97. He made up for this with prime level tennis from '99 until at least late 2003, perhaps even early 2004.

Sampras obviously wouldn't be able to handle Hewitt well prime for prime, Roddick yes, but I'm going to put Safin (when he was on) in the same category as Hewitt here. I believe, even prime for prime, Hewitt would beat Sampras a fair amount of the time IMO. Federer is a completely different player to Sampras (not a net rusher at all, at least not after 2003 which was incidentally when he stopped having trouble with Hewitt). Sampras would keep coming to the net, would keep giving balls to Hewitt that allow him to dictate play from the baseline, I.E; passing him when he comes to the net. I'm not saying Sampras is worse than Hewitt or Safin, but they would trouble him more than they did Federer IMO.

Same deal with Agassi, I believe he'd have more problems with Hewitt and Safin than he would with Roddick, even prime for prime (which is what happened with Safin and Hewitt). Hewitt beat Agassi in '98 as a 16 year old kid, don't forget. Prime for prime it wouldn't be a domination by any stretch.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
so you are saying that agassi was still in his prime at the ages 33-34?

IMO those 01-03 years were quite weak in their level. hewitts best year was in 2002 but this is also a very bad year for tennis.

fed had yet to arrive and sampras was gone. roddick was just coming up but other than those not much talent was around. In 03 it started to get slightly better better 00-02 were really weak years to more (like a transitional period from pete to roger). wasn't haas ranked number 2 in the world at one point in 2002?

could it be that agassi was actually better in the mid to late 90s but just overshadowed by pete? IMO andre could handle weaker number 1 players like hewitt or roddick but not all time greats like sampras or federer.

Good post.I agree that the late 90's, early 00's were weaker. And it is only reasonable to assume that Agassi could play at higher level in his younger years, but didn't met as much success because of better overall competition.

However I think that in the case of Agassi, commitment to the game is a lot more important than physical prime, therefor it is also reasonable to assume that a older, but also more committed Agassi wasn't as far from his best than trolls like 90's clay claim he was.

At the end Agassi performed as well in the 00's that he did in the the early 90's and late 90's, and in all case he benefitted from somehow weaker field to win most of his slams (Medvedev, Stich, Martin, Clément, etc.).
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Agassi wasn't good in 1993 but he still would have won Wimbledon (probably) had he gotten past that 5 setter with Sampras. He lost 1st round of the U.S Open, very bad result, but a tough draw with Tomas Enqvist, a future Masters event winner and slam finalist on hard courts. It is hard to evaluate his play that year as being that bad, since he didn't even play that often, and that was the main reason for his year end ranking.

I think Courier would of beaten Agassi at Wimbledon, he matched up well with him. Enqvist was a very good player but he was still a long ways from his prime, I haven't watched the match so I can't really judge but losing to a guy who ended the year ranked 59 is not the mark of a prime Agassi. He was clearly better at the USO in 02-05 than he was in 1993.

He played the same number of tournaments in 1993 as he did in 04-05, he just had worse results. It can't of been a prime year for Agassi as he played few tournaments and the ones he did play didn't yield good results.

In 1994 Agassi actually played quite well all year. He took Sampras to the limit in the Miami final, which he had some big wins to make. He started the year unseeded at all events, and got some very tough draws. He lost to Tomas Muster in 5 sets in the 3rd round of the French, and could have made a very deep run otherwise. He lost to Todd Martin in a tough 5 setter in the 3rd or 4th round of Wimbledon, and would have made the semis otherwise. He finally got some breaks in draws, and the string of big wins he needed in the second half of the year, but he was always playing well upon his return to the tour after over half a year away.

Points taken on this. Perhaps I underrated the early part of 1994 a bit, but I maintain that his form certainly picked up going into the USO.
 

FedLIKEnot

Professional
Thats like saying Fed is still in his prime because hes bullying these ZEROS we got on tour coming up in the ranks like Raonic, Dimitrov, etc.

Zeros like top 10 players. Yea you're right zeros are ALWAYS in the top 10.

Smh, cause we usually think similarly.
 

big ted

Legend
wasnt Agassi 15lbs overweight for '93 Wimbledon? im surprised he made it as far as he did that year and wouldn't have put him as a real contender.
 

conway

Banned
He was overweight at Wimbledon but he was also the only one to come close to beating Sampras. Based on that I would say he was a contender. Furthermore if he beat Sampras who would he lose to? Becker who he was in the midst of an 8 match winning streak against. Courier who yes he was in the midst of a 6 match losing streak to, but it is Courier on grass (and they never played on grass).

BTW I am convinced Sabratha must be Hewitt's mom.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Zeros like top 10 players. Yea you're right zeros are ALWAYS in the top 10.

Smh, cause we usually think similarly.


The fact they are in the top 10 speaks volumes. Dimitrov is very talented but more erratic than even Tsonga which says it all.

Raonic is probably one of the LEAST talented top 10 players in history. If not thee worst top 10 player in history which he may very well be.

Then you got Dolgopolov, and the rest of the inept bums who couldn't win their way out of a paper bag who are already in their 20s and should have started winning (if they were gonna win), and old man Ferrer near the top.

Hell Wawrinka never even did anything until recently which makes no sense unless its the weakness of the talent coming up in today's field.

The same reason why Agassi stayed relevant into his mid 30s, despite a bad back and being 10 plus years older than the rest of the field, is the same reason why Fed is staying relevant despite a decline in every facet of his game... Crapola coming up in the next generation of players
 
Last edited:

90's Clay

Banned
No comparison to today. Agassi was in his prime until 2004 and performed better in a stronger era (stronger than 98-00). His numbers, everything about his career points towards this.

So Agassi wasn't in his prime when he won Wimbledon to you in '92? Of course he was in his PRIME to you when he was at his PEAK in '95. That is his best performance out of everything, so that is why it is his peak. Even Sampras was in his prime until 2000, and the same people who were beating Agassi regularly (Hewitt, Safin) were dismantling Sampras. Even as a teenager during '99 Queens 18 year old Hewitt almost beat Sampras, the final set went to a tiebreak that Sampras just squeezed out of. Are you going to tell me Sampras wasn't in his prime at the time?

Just face it, Agassi played Hewitt during one of his prime stretches (99-03 or 04) and was behind in the H2H against him after 2001. That isn't due to Agassi being worse, it is because Hewitt got much better. Agassi did get worse in 2004, that much I agree with, but to say the insane things you have (that Agassi only had a 4 year prime out of his 20 year career) shows you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.


Agassi was a slowed down version of himself in 03-05 that he was from 99-01. But even then he was still superior to the likes of far less talented players like Hewitt, Roddick,. Years like 1999 he was a big favorite to win on all surfaces that year when he made his comeback by reaching the finals or winning The french, Wimbledon, USO, and making the finals of the YEC. Agassi of 2003 wasn't doing that. :?


Hewitt beating late career Sampras at a non-slam event is not a huge revelation as Sampras usually didn't take non slams seriously (especially late in his career). 2000 was not Pete's prime anymore either. 1999 was the end of Pete's prime. Some will argue even 1998.

I look at level, court, movement, and what they are accomplishing to determine "prime". And the fact is, Agassi was nowhere near in 2003 what he was from 1999-2001.

The weakness of the field at the time enabled Agassi probably helped Agassi to stay relevant longer than he should have been once he began slowing down and with a bad back.

Anyways, Never head of a 33-35 year old in their "prime" in tennis either (at least in the last 30-40 years) ROFLMAO.


Early-mid 30s is generally when players begin to transition from the sport and onto retirement much less say they are at "prime level"

Fed can stay on near the top I'm sure for a few more years because its looking to be as bleak as ever for the future of men's tennis how no one in their 20s has stepped up yet.

Thus why old Brokeback million miles on his body Nadal, Past Peak Joker, old man Fed stay relevant still. Their talent helps of course, but that shouldn't offset their bodies slowing and breaking down nor what SHOULD Be alot depth and talent coming up in the field.

People don't talk about the weakness of the men's field from this new generation of players (Raonic, Dolgopolov, Dimitrov, Young etc) for no reason
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Agassi was a slowed down version of himself in 03-05 that he was from 99-01. But even then he was still superior to the likes of far less talented players like Hewitt, Roddick,. Years like 1999 he was a big favorite to win on all surfaces that year when he made his comeback by reaching the finals or winning The french, Wimbledon, USO, and making the finals of the YEC. Agassi of 2003 wasn't doing that. :?


Hewitt beating late career Sampras at a non-slam event is not a huge relegation as Sampras usually didn't take non slams seriously (especially late in his career). 2000 was not Pete's prime anymore either. 1999 was the end of Pete's prime. Some will argue even 1998.

I look at level, court, movement, and what they are accomplishing to determine "prime". And the fact is, Agassi was nowhere near in 2003 what he was from 1999-2001.

The weakness of the field at the time enabled Agassi probably helped Agassi to stay relevant longer than he should have been once he began slowing down and with a bad back.

Anyways, Never head of a 33-35 year old in their "prime" in tennis either (at least in the last 30-40 years) ROFLMAO.


Early-mid 30s is generally when players begin to transition from the sport and onto retirement much less say they are at "prime level"

Fed can stay on near the top I'm sure for a few more years because its looking to be as bleak as ever for the future of men's tennis how no one in their 20s has stepped up yet.

Thus why old Brokeback million miles on his body Nadal, Past Peak Joker, old man Fed stay relevant still. Their talent helps of course, but that shouldn't offset their bodies slowing and breaking down nor what SHOULD Be alot depth and talent coming up in the field.

People don't talk about the weakness of the men's field from this new generation of players (Raonic, Dolgopolov, Dimitrov, Young etc) for no reason
"Far less talented players like Hewitt and Roddick". Agassi is more talented than them both, probably moreso Roddick than Hewitt, but to say it's that extreme of a gap is a joke. Hewitt as a 16-year old beat Agassi (washed up Agassi, but it is beside the point) and he was not in his 30s at the point either. Agassi actually played better from 1999-2003 because he was more committed to the sport, he actually enjoyed playing tennis and he was against stiffer competition (don't tell me the likes of Pioline and Stich are on the same level as even Hewitt or Roddick). In 2002, Agassi had one of his most successful seasons ever without even playing at the Australian Open. He didn't win a slam but he had consistent results pretty much everywhere. I take this as his prime level because of the competition he faced, the fact that his ranking didn't suffer much at all (compared to his stints in '93 and '97) and he was actually the second best player of the whole season.

And in Agassi's case, he didn't "transition" away from the sport until 2004 when he played less tournaments and his back began really acting up. It's a joke to be saying that Agassi was transitioning away from the sport while he was making slam finals and winning them, even in his early 30s.

Federer can stay on top because he's simply a better player than the guys below him. That's the be all and end all of it. I do agree that the competition today is rather weak (Raonic in a slam SF says it all) but it cannot be compared to the time period where Hewitt was beating Sampras and Agassi.

For the record, Sampras was in his prime until 2000. Sampras even said he played his best tennis ever at '99 Wimbledon, just after his close shave with Hewitt. And of course Sampras would be trying in these events, they are warm up events for the slams. That's the whole point, to get himself into form for the bigger tournaments. It shouldn't be an excuse anyways, if Sampras is so far ahead of Hewitt he should have beaten him by a score of say, 6-3, 6-4, but the match was much closer than that and Hewitt actually had chances of beating Sampras as an 18-year old kid.

Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are all still relevant because they are just that much better than the field. Heck, Nadal can still win at Roland Garros despite being past his prime and struggling to move on court. Out of these guys, Djokovic is the only one playing prime level tennis and it's most likely why he's on top. With a peak Federer and Nadal around, I doubt he would be ranked as high as he is (unless he's at 2011 level).
 

timnz

Legend
2004 really?

Agassi wasn't past his prime until 2004.

I think he had a prime even into 2005 (when he made a US open final). He was number 1 in the world in September of 2003 - you don't come out of your prime only 3 or 4 months after being number 1
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I think he had a prime even into 2005 (when he made a US open final). He was number 1 in the world in September of 2003 - you don't come out of your prime only 3 or 4 months after being number 1
I don't know, Agassi's loss to Marat Safin at the 2004 Australian Open (even though Safin would win the tournament the next year, his form was not as good) showed that he was slowing down some.

His run to the USO final in 2005 wasn't that impressive in my opinion, he had Ginepri in the SFs (his lone SF slam run) and even against him it was not a clear cut win. It was his lash hurrah so to speak.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I don't know, Agassi's loss to Marat Safin at the 2004 Australian Open (even though Safin would win the tournament the next year, his form was not as good) showed that he was slowing down some.

His run to the USO final in 2005 wasn't that impressive in my opinion, he had Ginepri in the SFs (his lone SF slam run) and even against him it was not a clear cut win. It was his lash hurrah so to speak.

Safin was playing great tennis at the AO in 2004. Almost as good as 2005 especially in that match with Agassi.

At the USO 2005, Agassi was great in the Blake match and for the first 3 sets of the final. I feel he was conserving energy at times which extended the matches.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Safin was playing great tennis at the AO in 2004. Almost as good as 2005 especially in that match with Agassi.

At the USO 2005, Agassi was great in the Blake match and for the first 3 sets of the final. I feel he was conserving energy at times which extended the matches.
Safin played great tennis at the AO in 2004, but I still feel that his level wasn't quite what it was in 2005. It was very close, yes, but it wasn't the same. Still a fantastic match by all means and Agassi wasn't playing bad tennis at all, but I don't feel he was playing as well as he did during his other years at the AO. That Safin would have still beaten Agassi in his other years though IMO.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Safin played great tennis at the AO in 2004, but I still feel that his level wasn't quite what it was in 2005. It was very close, yes, but it wasn't the same. Still a fantastic match by all means and Agassi wasn't playing bad tennis at all, but I don't feel he was playing as well as he did during his other years at the AO. That Safin would have still beaten Agassi in his other years though IMO.

I think there was a feeling Agassi was slightly undercooked coming into that match because his QF (Grosjean) retired very early on. He was still striking the ball brilliantly though.
 
Last edited:
"Far less talented players like Hewitt and Roddick". Agassi is more talented than them both, probably moreso Roddick than Hewitt, but to say it's that extreme of a gap is a joke. Hewitt as a 16-year old beat Agassi (washed up Agassi, but it is beside the point) and he was not in his 30s at the point either. Agassi actually played better from 1999-2003 because he was more committed to the sport, he actually enjoyed playing tennis and he was against stiffer competition (don't tell me the likes of Pioline and Stich are on the same level as even Hewitt or Roddick). In 2002, Agassi had one of his most successful seasons ever without even playing at the Australian Open. He didn't win a slam but he had consistent results pretty much everywhere. I take this as his prime level because of the competition he faced, the fact that his ranking didn't suffer much at all (compared to his stints in '93 and '97) and he was actually the second best player of the whole season.

And in Agassi's case, he didn't "transition" away from the sport until 2004 when he played less tournaments and his back began really acting up. It's a joke to be saying that Agassi was transitioning away from the sport while he was making slam finals and winning them, even in his early 30s.

Federer can stay on top because he's simply a better player than the guys below him. That's the be all and end all of it. I do agree that the competition today is rather weak (Raonic in a slam SF says it all) but it cannot be compared to the time period where Hewitt was beating Sampras and Agassi.

For the record, Sampras was in his prime until 2000. Sampras even said he played his best tennis ever at '99 Wimbledon, just after his close shave with Hewitt. And of course Sampras would be trying in these events, they are warm up events for the slams. That's the whole point, to get himself into form for the bigger tournaments. It shouldn't be an excuse anyways, if Sampras is so far ahead of Hewitt he should have beaten him by a score of say, 6-3, 6-4, but the match was much closer than that and Hewitt actually had chances of beating Sampras as an 18-year old kid.

Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are all still relevant because they are just that much better than the field. Heck, Nadal can still win at Roland Garros despite being past his prime and struggling to move on court. Out of these guys, Djokovic is the only one playing prime level tennis and it's most likely why he's on top. With a peak Federer and Nadal around, I doubt he would be ranked as high as he is (unless he's at 2011 level).

was sampras really still in his prime in 99 or even 98?

in the late 90s he still won majors but he started to lose more too (twice against rafter in the USO for example). he also won less smaller tournaments and lost the number 1 temporarily to guys like rios (98), moya, kafelnikov, rafter and agassi.

I think by 98 or at latest in 99 (when agassi clearly had a better season than him) sampras was starting to decline. he could still win some majors but wasn't as consistent at the top anymore.

I would say pete was at his best from about 93-97.
 
Last edited:
I think he had a prime even into 2005 (when he made a US open final). He was number 1 in the world in September of 2003 - you don't come out of your prime only 3 or 4 months after being number 1

does that mean federer was in his prime in 2012 when he became number 1?

agassi was still very good in 02/03 for his age but don't you think him becoming number 1 has more to do with his opponents (fed already good but not quite as good yet and pete gone) than with him being in his peak?

do you think 03 agassi would have been number 1 in 97 when pete was still in his peak?
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
was sampras really still in his prime in 99 or even 98?

in the late 90s he still won majors but he started to lose more too (twice against rafter in the USO for example). he also won less smaller tournaments and lost the number 1 temporarily to guys like rios (98), moya, kafelnikov, rafter and agassi.

I think by 98 or at latest in 99 (when agassi clearly had a better season than him) sampras was starting to decline. he could still win some majors but wasn't as consistent at the top anymore.

I would say pete was at his best from about 93-97.
Sampras himself has said he played some of his best tennis at Wimbledon in '99, in my opinion that says it all. He was definitely out of his prime after 2000 though; that is when I noticed a clear decline in his ability.

I noticed a decline in Agassi's ability in 2004, which is why I say he was no longer in his prime after that period. I don't think his competition was any worse than Ivanisevic, Rafter, Chang or Kafelnikov. Hewitt is a better player than all of them, which is why he posed more of a threat to Agassi than they did (Chang also gave Aggasi trouble in '96, but this was during one of his down periods).

Sampras was no longer around, sure, but in '99 was Sampras stopping him at the USO? No, but he was playing great tennis; Sampras was also still stopping Agassi at the USO in '02, showing he was still clearly a threat and not completely off the scene yet. On the other side of the coin, Federer wasn't "yet to emerge" as he was already a steady top 10 player, Master's winner and multiple slam quarter-finalist. It was clear during his match with Hewitt at the 2002 YEC that he was close to putting together the pieces and not far off his prime.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top