refecting on federer's career now his prime is over

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
I thought this was a very interesting post by The Truth in another Thread:

The Truth said:
Yes, I am. Check out his contemporaries who all left at the same time and the newbies he was gifted with. Now throw in all the mind influence of the commentators and voila! What healthy grand slam winners did Federer compete with during his reign?

Safin-knee injury, considered quitting
Hewitt-Chicken pox, never got back to form
Ferrero-See Hewitt
Roddick-Once his serve was exposed no longer a true threat to the field
Guga-surgeries
Haas-three surgeries
Canas-gone for several years due to trumped up charges
Nalbandian-in and out, who previously owned him

the rest of the field are newbies, five to seven years younger than Fed who are/were gaining experience.

Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Berdych, Gasquet, and others.

So who or what was Federer reigning over? A decapitated field. Simple as that

Now, three players are playing good tennis and Fed is in a crisis? Oh wait, mono, and even some of his staunchest fans are jumping ship. Where is the magic in that? I ain't the one smoking, dude!

You can add Coria and Gaudio to that list as they have both had mental breakdowns.(which probably explains how federer even got to a french open final)

You can also factor in the sameness of all the surfaces to explain his year round dominance.

Clay is much much faster, grass is waaaaaaay slower.


Any thoughts?

I'm just thinkning about this because, as with Sampras, all people are going to see when they look at federer in the last couple of years of his career is a guy with a weak backhand, over reliant on his serve and forehand, and not noticably more incredible than the rest of the field, and the commments will come that, ''federer wouldn't be top 20 if he played today etc...)
 

chair ump

Semi-Pro
Let's reserve judgment until year's end...I wonder how you'll feel if/when Fed wins his customary Wimbledon and US Open titles along with a smattering of other events...? Don't panic, the season is very young yet, and we have a long way to go.
 

ksbh

Banned
No we didn't. When Safin won AO 2005, he hadn't been to the semi-final of 4 straight grand slams (including a final in the last one) as Novak Djokovic has done. The suggestion that Safin could be a GOAT even in 2005 was laughable!

Novak Djokovic's arrival has made a huge differnce. Deal with it or just wait until the end of the year and see!

Didn't we say this in 2005 when he lost to Safin in the semis, and we proclaimed Safin the new GOAT?
 

saram

Legend
I had no idea that Roger's prime and career were over. I mean, isn't he the defending Wimbledon and US Open champion? Those that write off a great like Roger are just jumping on a bandwagon.
 
This is a laughable proposition. I wonder how old the OP might be?

If you know competitive tennis, you know Federer's skills are simply put, mind-boggling. Further, you also know it would be possible to find a litany of injuries, illnesses, personal tragedies, etc, etc, etc in EVERY era that MIGHT have influenced the strength of the field against whom the perceived 'best' of that particular time was called upon to compete. It does NOT change the reality that folks by the names of Tilden, Riggs, Laver, Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Edberg, and yes, FEDERER (to name but a few) were dominant forces in the game in their day.

I would also like to 'go out on a limb' and predict Fed's career is FAR from over..........stay tuned and prove me wrong if you can. ;)

CC
 

Wuornos

Professional
I thought this was a very interesting post by The Truth in another Thread:




You can add Coria and Gaudio to that list as they have both had mental breakdowns.(which probably explains how federer even got to a french open final)

You can also factor in the sameness of all the surfaces to explain his year round dominance.

Clay is much much faster, grass is waaaaaaay slower.


Any thoughts?

I'm just thinkning about this because, as with Sampras, all people are going to see when they look at federer in the last couple of years of his career is a guy with a weak backhand, over reliant on his serve and forehand, and not noticably more incredible than the rest of the field, and the commments will come that, ''federer wouldn't be top 20 if he played today etc...)
I can see where your coming from on this but I would just like to add a couple of thoughts of my own.

The first is comparatively minor and doedn't really impact on your argument at all. That is I think we are beinga little premature if we think Federer's prime is over. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but we haven't yet seen enough evidence to say that it is.

The second is that I would agree that to a certain extent Rogerer's competition has been limited but to compensate for that he has dominated more than other modern great over a long period. That fact in itself should balance the equation, and in my opinion, more than balances it in Federer's favour. Greatness = Opposition x Domination. In Federer's case the opposition was slightly down but the Domination more than compensated. Who else can we say has won so many majors within such a short timescale.

Regards

Tim
 

Otherside

Semi-Pro
This is a laughable proposition. I wonder how old the OP might be?

If you know competitive tennis, you know Federer's skills are simply put, mind-boggling. Further, you also know it would be possible to find a litany of injuries, illnesses, personal tragedies, etc, etc, etc in EVERY era that MIGHT have influenced the strength of the field against whom the perceived 'best' of that particular time was called upon to compete. It does NOT change the reality that folks by the names of Tilden, Riggs, Laver, Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Edberg, and yes, FEDERER (to name but a few) were dominant forces in the game in their day.

I would also like to 'go out on a limb' and predict Fed's career is FAR from over..........stay tuned and prove me wrong if you can. ;)

CC
good post! I still can't for my life understand all the bashing of Fed! He has put tennis back on the map and we have the best athlete for 4 straight years in our sport. He plays such beautiful tennis and is a great sportsman. He is the reason I started playing tennis again and our tennisteam gathers and watches his big matches.
All the players who has met both Pete and Fed agree that Fed is the better player and most agree that he is the greatest of all time playwise and soon on paper to.
I'm sure he will be back in great shape again!
 

PROTENNIS63

Hall of Fame
I'm sorry but "The Truth" does not like Federer. Why would he say good things about him? I said this a couple of days ago but will repeat it again. If there was no Fed, everyone would be screaming that the field is so tough between Nadal, Djoko, Roddick, Davydenko, Blake, Gonzales, etc. Roddick would have at least 3 more grand slams, Nadal would have at least 2 Wimbledons... but a person by the name of Federer came out one level above everyone and crushed them all. Now, he is growing older and the young guns are improving a lot. It does not mean, Fed is a bad player.

And please, have your own opinion!!!
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
I'm sorry but "The Truth" does not like Federer. Why would he say good things about him? I said this a couple of days ago but will repeat it again. If there was no Fed, everyone would be screaming that the field is so tough between Nadal, Djoko, Roddick, Davydenko, Blake, Gonzales, etc. Roddick would have at least 3 more grand slams, Nadal would have at least 2 Wimbledons... but a person by the name of Federer came out one level above everyone and crushed them all. Now, he is growing older and the young guns are improving a lot. It does not mean, Fed is a bad player.

And please, have your own opinion!!!
I don't like Federer. I make no apologies about it. And I've never said he was a bad player. All of my comments regarding Fed have to do with his character, and the field that he plays against. Examples of his contemporaries, the newbies, the meltdowns by others are readily available. I'm not making that up, I just see it with different eyes. Before Fed emerged the field was lost. Pete had left, Agassi was making his last run, and no clear leader had emerged. Federer stepped up to the plate and good on him. Had he not, the slams probably would have been split up between multiple winners like it has in times past. But, where we differ is that I do think he is in his prime. The newbies shouldn't be beating him yet. And Rafa has been doing it since he was a teenager, smack dab in the middle of his prime! So see, different strokes!
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
I thought this was a very interesting post by The Truth in another Thread:




You can add Coria and Gaudio to that list as they have both had mental breakdowns.(which probably explains how federer even got to a french open final)

You can also factor in the sameness of all the surfaces to explain his year round dominance.

Clay is much much faster, grass is waaaaaaay slower.


Any thoughts?

I'm just thinkning about this because, as with Sampras, all people are going to see when they look at federer in the last couple of years of his career is a guy with a weak backhand, over reliant on his serve and forehand, and not noticably more incredible than the rest of the field, and the commments will come that, ''federer wouldn't be top 20 if he played today etc...)
I thought about those two. Funny you should bring them up!
 

tricky

Hall of Fame
'm just thinkning about this because, as with Sampras, all people are going to see when they look at federer in the last couple of years of his career is a guy with a weak backhand, over reliant on his serve and forehand,
It depends on whether a dominant player immediately follows Federer after his retirement, or when he's clearly not a top contender for a GS anymore. If Federer's legacy is allowed 3-5 years to kinda sit on its own, then the evaluation of his talents will be much more favorable than they have been for Sampras, whom I think is kinda underrated here.

I mean, this is normal part of tennis history. Player dominates generation; next generation evolves from the lessons learned from that player, and then that player is no longer dominant. We've been speculating for years which players of this generation would become perennial challengers to Federer, and they've now arrived. And Djokovic coming to his own has only happened over barely a year. He too has a way to go before he reaches his prime.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
I just think it's interesting because the last time someone doninated like federer was laver, and it was a similar situation:

depleted field, ie: He was the only pro who wasn't too old, IE, lost his athletecism.The amatuers he was up against when the pros returned to grand slam competition weren't fit to clean his boots.

In reply to Wuornos, in terms of dominance, I believe Bjorn Borg's success in grand slam's is probably the equal of federer's?
 

PROTENNIS63

Hall of Fame
I don't like Federer. I make no apologies about it. And I've never said he was a bad player. All of my comments regarding Fed have to do with his character, and the field that he plays against. Examples of his contemporaries, the newbies, the meltdowns by others are readily available. I'm not making that up, I just see it with different eyes. Before Fed emerged the field was lost. Pete had left, Agassi was making his last run, and no clear leader had emerged. Federer stepped up to the plate and good on him. Had he not, the slams probably would have been split up between multiple winners like it has in times past. But, where we differ is that I do think he is in his prime. The newbies shouldn't be beating him yet. And Rafa has been doing it since he was a teenager, smack dab in the middle of his prime! So see, different strokes!
Rafe may have been a teenager and beating Fed, but he is a fantastic player. You cannot take that away from him. Like I said in my previous post, if Fed would not have been playing, the field would be similar to the Sampras era. Nadal, Roddick, Djoker, would all be battling for the grand slams. But just because Fed is one level up them, it does not mean the field of the ATP is weak. Oh yea, BTW, and I'm sure you know this, many fans and ex-players would agree that Fed is the greatest ever. Heck, Agassi said it himself... a person who has played with Sampras and other great players.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
Rafe may have been a teenager and beating Fed, but he is a fantastic player. You cannot take that away from him. Like I said in my previous post, if Fed would not have been playing, the field would be similar to the Sampras era. Nadal, Roddick, Djoker, would all be battling for the grand slams. But just because Fed is one level up them, it does not mean the field of the ATP is weak. Oh yea, BTW, and I'm sure you know this, many fans and ex-players would agree that Fed is the greatest ever. Heck, Agassi said it himself... a person who has played with Sampras and other great players.
I don't think Agassi ever said Federer is better than Sampras?

I remember him saying once that Sampras would just play slightly better than you, whether you were playing the best tennis of your life or the worst, but that federer was always trying to bagal you.
 

fastdunn

Legend
I think Federer is well into 2nd half of his career. Great players in the past often competed well against players of up to 10 or more year younger age. Currently emerging challenges are about 4-7 year younger. Federer is still very young at 26. Only uncertainty I have now regarding Roger is his mono situation. He said he's out of it but mono reportedly can reoccur and linger for 1-2 years. I am not convinced he is completely free from after-effects of mono..... Federer is not your normal tennis player. This one is special one. But if mono lingers, it can finish his career in a hurry. He is not a superman.
 
Last edited:

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Rafe may have been a teenager and beating Fed, but he is a fantastic player. You cannot take that away from him. Like I said in my previous post, if Fed would not have been playing, the field would be similar to the Sampras era. Nadal, Roddick, Djoker, would all be battling for the grand slams. But just because Fed is one level up them, it does not mean the field of the ATP is weak. Oh yea, BTW, and I'm sure you know this, many fans and ex-players would agree that Fed is the greatest ever. Heck, Agassi said it himself... a person who has played with Sampras and other great players.
Sampras played against healthy contemporaries. Rafter, Goran, Courier, Corretja, etc. were all around the same age and not fighting their own bodies. Bad example. How many slams would Pete have had if he had a field like Roger's, or Borg, or anyone else. Agassi was Pete's greatest rival. I'm sure he would want to give Pete props. I've always thought that illogical considering that until Agassi was over the hill he was handing Roger his butt on a platter consistently. It wasn't until Andre was in his 30's with a bad back that Roger finally began to beat him. On the basis of that alone, I don't believe Agassi being truthful! In his prime he would have killed Roger!
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
I don't think Agassi ever said Federer is better than Sampras?

I remember him saying once that Sampras would just play slightly better than you, whether you were playing the best tennis of your life or the worst, but that federer was always trying to bagal you.
To be fair, Agassi has consistently changed his opinion over the years. There's tons of quotes of him saying Sampras, then Fed, the Sampras over and over. Agassi's word is the last word I would believe!
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Federer, Roger 8-3 Agassi, Andre

1

8-Aug-81 29-Apr-70

Basel, Switzerland Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Oberwil, Switzerland Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

6'1'' (185 cm) 5'11'' (180 cm)

177 lbs (80 kg) 177 lbs (80 kg)

Right-handed Right-handed

1998 1986

8/3 0/0

0 0

53 60

$39,160,588 $31,152,975








ATP, Davis Cup and Grand Slam Main Draw Results


2005 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Federer 6-3 2-6 7-6(1) 6-1
Stats
2005 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard S Federer 6-4 6-3
Stats
2005 Dubai
U.A.E. Hard S Federer 6-3 6-1
Stats
2005 Australian Open
Australia Hard Q Federer 6-3 6-4 6-4
Stats
2004 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard Q Federer 6-3 2-6 7-5 3-6 6-3
Stats
2004 Indian Wells AMS
California, USA Hard S Federer 4-6 6-3 6-4
Stats
2003 Tennis Masters Cup
Houston, TX, USA Hard F Federer 6-3 6-0 6-4
Stats
2003 Tennis Masters Cup
Houston, TX, USA Hard RR Federer 6-7(3) 6-3 7-6(7)
Stats
2002 Miami TMS
FL, U.S.A. Hard F Agassi 6-3 6-3 3-6 6-4
Stats
2001 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard R16 Agassi 6-1 6-2 6-4
Stats
1998 Basel
Switzerland Hard R32 Agassi 6-3 6-2
Stats

Agassi takes the first three handily.

Fed takes his first in 2002. Agassi is now 32 years old, but it's a battle. The older Andre gets, the easier it becomes for Fed, but the results speak for themselves.

So, you want me to believe Agassi actually believes this guy is better than Pete when he could beat Roger past his own prime? Yet, in his own prime Pete was routining Agassi to the point where newspapers proclaimed the biggest joke was that it was a rivalry? Sorry, Pete beat Agassi up and down the courts when they were both in their primes. That's the true mark. Declaring Roger great at 35 with a bad back simply isn't plausible!
 

hyogen

Hall of Fame
Federer, Roger 8-3 Agassi, Andre

1

8-Aug-81 29-Apr-70

Basel, Switzerland Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Oberwil, Switzerland Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

6'1'' (185 cm) 5'11'' (180 cm)

177 lbs (80 kg) 177 lbs (80 kg)

Right-handed Right-handed

1998 1986

8/3 0/0

0 0

53 60

$39,160,588 $31,152,975








ATP, Davis Cup and Grand Slam Main Draw Results


2005 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Federer 6-3 2-6 7-6(1) 6-1
Stats
2005 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard S Federer 6-4 6-3
Stats
2005 Dubai
U.A.E. Hard S Federer 6-3 6-1
Stats
2005 Australian Open
Australia Hard Q Federer 6-3 6-4 6-4
Stats
2004 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard Q Federer 6-3 2-6 7-5 3-6 6-3
Stats
2004 Indian Wells AMS
California, USA Hard S Federer 4-6 6-3 6-4
Stats
2003 Tennis Masters Cup
Houston, TX, USA Hard F Federer 6-3 6-0 6-4
Stats
2003 Tennis Masters Cup
Houston, TX, USA Hard RR Federer 6-7(3) 6-3 7-6(7)
Stats
2002 Miami TMS
FL, U.S.A. Hard F Agassi 6-3 6-3 3-6 6-4
Stats
2001 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard R16 Agassi 6-1 6-2 6-4
Stats
1998 Basel
Switzerland Hard R32 Agassi 6-3 6-2
Stats

Agassi takes the first three handily.

Fed takes his first in 2002. Agassi is now 32 years old, but it's a battle. The older Andre gets, the easier it becomes for Fed, but the results speak for themselves.

So, you want me to believe Agassi actually believes this guy is better than Pete when he could beat Roger past his own prime? Yet, in his own prime Pete was routining Agassi to the point where newspapers proclaimed the biggest joke was that it was a rivalry? Sorry, Pete beat Agassi up and down the courts when they were both in their primes. That's the true mark. Declaring Roger great at 35 with a bad back simply isn't plausible!

wth? pete didn't beat Agassi up and down the courts. look up their win loss ratio...it's actually pretty close to 1:1............... like 20:16? cannot be called dominance by Pete.

as long as Pete and Federer never win the French, which is equally as important as Wimbledon, there will always be room for someone to be better than they ever were.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
wth? pete didn't beat Agassi up and down the courts. look up their win loss ratio...it's actually pretty close to 1:1............... like 20:16? cannot be called dominance by Pete.

as long as Pete and Federer never win the French, which is equally as important as Wimbledon, there will always be room for someone to be better than they ever were.
The early parts of their careers, in their primes, Pete beat Agassi up and down the courts. In their grand slam finals Pete won, I think 3 of 4. As they aged Andre finally started to get some wins. Google it.
 

hyogen

Hall of Fame
The early parts of their careers, in their primes, Pete beat Agassi up and down the courts. In their grand slam finals Pete won, I think 3 of 4. As they aged Andre finally started to get some wins. Google it.
so? they're roughly the same age and Agassi showed longer longevity. could pete win a slam in his 30s? agassi was frickin 35 by the time he quit. his career was plagued also by personal issues including relationship with brook shields...
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
this thread has turned into fed bashing, which was certainly not my attention, I want to take an objective look at his career.

Let's try and stay on track.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
wth? pete didn't beat Agassi up and down the courts. look up their win loss ratio...it's actually pretty close to 1:1............... like 20:16? cannot be called dominance by Pete.

as long as Pete and Federer never win the French, which is equally as important as Wimbledon, there will always be room for someone to be better than they ever were.
Sorry, grand slam finals was 4 out of 5 for Sampras (which was the year he came back from the herniated disc and didn't play the Open). It took Agassi his entire career to get one grand slam final from Pete. I guess the sportswriters went crazy because at different points Andre would go long stretches without winning a match from Pete. This happened several times until age became the great equalizer. The h2h is 20-14. I guess he didn't wipe the court with him, my bad!


2002 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Sampras 6-3 6-4 5-7 6-4
Stats
2002 Houston
TX, U.S.A. Clay S Sampras 6-1 7-5
Stats
2001 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard Q Sampras 6-7(7) 7-6(2) 7-6(2) 7-6(5)
Stats
2001 Los Angeles
CA, U.S.A. Hard F Agassi 6-4 6-2
Stats
2001 Indian Wells TMS
California, USA Hard F Agassi 7-6(5) 7-5 6-1
Stats
2000 Australian Open
Australia Hard S Agassi 6-4 3-6 6-7(0) 7-6(5) 6-1
Stats
1999 Singles Championship
Germany Hard F Sampras 6-1 7-5 6-4
Stats
1999 Singles Championship
Germany Hard RR Agassi 6-2 6-2
Stats
1999 Cincinnati
OH, U.S.A. Hard S Sampras 7-6(7) 6-4
Stats
1999 Los Angeles
CA, U.S.A. Hard F Sampras 7-6(3) 7-6(1)
Stats
1999 Wimbledon
England Grass F Sampras 6-3 6-4 7-5
Stats
1998 Montreal / Toronto
Toronto, Canada Hard Q Agassi 6-7(5) 6-1 6-2
Stats
1998 Monte Carlo
Monaco Clay R32 Sampras 6-4 7-5
Stats
1998 San Jose
CA, U.S.A. Hard F Agassi 6-2 6-4
Stats
1996 Singles Championship
Germany Carpet RR Sampras 6-2 6-1
Stats
1996 Stuttgart Indoor
Germany Carpet Q Sampras 6-4 6-1
Stats
1996 San Jose
CA, U.S.A. Hard F Sampras 6-2 6-3
Stats
1995 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Sampras 6-4 6-3 4-6 7-5
Stats
1995 Montreal / Toronto
Montreal, Canada Hard F Agassi 3-6 6-2 6-3
Stats
1995 Key Biscayne
FL, U.S.A. Hard F Agassi 3-6 6-2 7-6(3)
Stats
1995 Indian Wells
CA, U.S.A. Hard F Sampras 7-5 6-3 7-5
Stats
1995 Australian Open
Australia Hard F Agassi 4-6 6-1 7-6(6) 6-4
Stats
1994 Singles Championship
Germany Carpet S Sampras 4-6 7-6(5) 6-3
Stats
1994 Paris Indoor
France Carpet Q Agassi 7-6(6) 7-5
Stats
1994 Osaka
Japan Hard S Sampras 6-3 6-1
Stats
1994 Key Biscayne
FL, U.S.A. Hard F Sampras 5-7 6-3 6-3
Stats
1993 Wimbledon
England Grass Q Sampras 6-2 6-2 3-6 3-6 6-4
Stats
1992 Roland Garros
France Clay Q Agassi 7-6(6) 6-2 6-1
Stats
1992 Atlanta
GA, U.S.A. Clay F Agassi 7-5 6-4
Stats
1991 Singles Championship
Germany Carpet RR Sampras 6-3 1-6 6-3
Stats
1990 Singles Championship
Germany Carpet RR Agassi 6-4 6-2
1990 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Sampras 6-4 6-3 6-2
1990 Philadelphia
PA, U.S.A. Carpet R16 Sampras 5-7 7-5 RET
1989 Rome
Italy Clay R32 Agassi 6-2 6-1
 

hyogen

Hall of Fame
The h2h is 20-14. I guess he didn't wipe the court with him, my bad!

i see what you're saying, but thanks for admitting this :D unless you're being sarcastic you bastid -_-

BeHappy sorry for getting off track...but i must squeeze one more tid bit--Agassi was the only man to win all 4 slams on all 4 distinct surfaces AND the olympic gold medal. a record that will stay for much longer than Federers' 12 slams or even Sampras' 14 slams.

love,

Agassi fanboy
 
L

laurie

Guest
wth? pete didn't beat Agassi up and down the courts. look up their win loss ratio...it's actually pretty close to 1:1............... like 20:16? cannot be called dominance by Pete.

as long as Pete and Federer never win the French, which is equally as important as Wimbledon, there will always be room for someone to be better than they ever were.
They knew eachother since they were 8 and nine years old - they were American, there was pride at stake. Federer is 11 years younger than Agassi - there is no comparison! Of course you would expect Federer to have the better head to head in the end.

It was 20-14 to Sampras - quite comprehensive. Plus Agassi got beat downs at the 1990 US Open final, 1999 Wimbledon final, 1996 San Jose final, 1999 ATP final. Sampras beat up on Agassi much more than the other way round in their meetings over the years.

In fact, these beat downs have stayed with Agassi to the extent that they make an impact on some of his statements.
 
L

laurie

Guest
Sampras won the US Open when he was 31, beating Agassi in the final. As far as I'm aware, sampras and Rosewall are the only players to win slams in their teens, in their twenties and in their 30s.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
i see what you're saying, but thanks for admitting this :D unless you're being sarcastic you bastid -_-

BeHappy sorry for getting off track...but i must squeeze one more tid bit--Agassi was the only man to win all 4 slams on all 4 distinct surfaces AND the olympic gold medal. a record that will stay for much longer than Federers' 12 slams or even Sampras' 14 slams.

love,

Agassi fanboy
I don't have to waste my time being sarcastic to you or anyone else. Didn't know you were a name caller. That's too much for me. Always a better way to have a difference of opinion!
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
They knew eachother since they were 8 and nine years old - they were American, there was pride at stake. Federer is 11 years younger than Agassi - there is no comparison! Of course you would expect Federer to have the better head to head in the end.

It was 20-14 to Sampras - quite comprehensive. Plus Agassi got beat downs at the 1990 US Open final, 1999 Wimbledon final, 1996 San Jose final, 1999 ATP final. Sampras beat up on Agassi much more than the other way round in their meetings over the years.

In fact, these beat downs have stayed with Agassi to the extent that they make an impact on some of his statements.
You said it much better!
 

hyogen

Hall of Fame
I don't have to waste my time being sarcastic to you or anyone else. Didn't know you were a name caller. That's too much for me. Always a better way to have a difference of opinion!
hmm... i guess i have the time to waste to be sarcastic...hopefully you realized this when i said bastid and the funny face.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
No we didn't. When Safin won AO 2005, he hadn't been to the semi-final of 4 straight grand slams (including a final in the last one) as Novak Djokovic has done. The suggestion that Safin could be a GOAT even in 2005 was laughable!

Novak Djokovic's arrival has made a huge differnce. Deal with it or just wait until the end of the year and see!


Yea, you definitely weren't around then. Safin was proclaimed the GOAT so many times after he beat Federer, it was ridiculous. Everyone said Federer's prime was over, then he proceeded to win both Indian Wells and Miami.
 
Last edited:
L

laurie

Guest
Laurie
Did you get any reply to your letter to Simon Barnes?
I certainly did! Within 24 hours! 24 hours of me writing an open letter to him and copying the letter on tennis Warehouse and BBc forum. He wasn't too happy about it.

Ironic considering that he was more than happy to freely express his opinion - when I freely expressed my opinion on what he wrote, he didn't like it.

Just goes to show doesn't it? I'm sure I made him think twice about making pronouncements again.

The sort of silly pronouncements that are made on Tennis Warehouse on a daily basis.
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
I certainly did! Within 24 hours! 24 hours of me writing an open letter to him and copying the letter on tennis Warehouse and BBc forum. He wasn't too happy about it.

Ironic considering that he was more than happy to freely express his opinion - when I freely expressed my opinion on what he wrote, he didn't like it.

Just goes to show doesn't it? I'm sure I made him think twice about making pronouncements again.

The sort of silly pronouncements that are made on Tennis Warehouse on a daily basis.
Well done for calling him on that!

Do you you have a link to his reply or did you not post it in the original thread?
 
L

laurie

Guest
Well done for calling him on that!

Do you you have a link to his reply or did you not post it in the original thread?
It was a private reply from Simon sent to my email address at the time.

Anyway, goodnight.
 

Otherside

Semi-Pro
wth? pete didn't beat Agassi up and down the courts. look up their win loss ratio...it's actually pretty close to 1:1............... like 20:16? cannot be called dominance by Pete.

as long as Pete and Federer never win the French, which is equally as important as Wimbledon, there will always be room for someone to be better than they ever were.
How can a sane person compare Fed and Pete claywise? Fed is a better claycourter than everyone accept for nadal. He plays amazing claycourt tennis, slides great!
Sampras couldn't move on clay, if the conditions were perfect he could win some matches, 1 semi vs Feds 2 finals and 1 semi, all losses to Nadal is such a huge difference!

Agassi wise he has said Fed is the better man. he commentated Fed-Roddick in the usopen quarters last year. One of the things he said is that with Fed there's just nowhere to go. With Pete you always had the backhand to go to no matter how great he played. Not possible when Fed is on.

He also said That o normal player maybe has 1 thing he's best at in the world. Fed has 5!
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
How can a sane person compare Fed and Pete claywise? Fed is a better claycourter than everyone accept for nadal. He plays amazing claycourt tennis, slides great!
Sampras couldn't move on clay, if the conditions were perfect he could win some matches, 1 semi vs Feds 2 finals and 1 semi, all losses to Nadal is such a huge difference!

Agassi wise he has said Fed is the better man. he commentated Fed-Roddick in the usopen quarters last year. One of the things he said is that with Fed there's just nowhere to go. With Pete you always had the backhand to go to no matter how great he played. Not possible when Fed is on.

He also said That o normal player maybe has 1 thing he's best at in the world. Fed has 5!
Pete killed agassi with his backhand up til about 1998, and again in 1999, I don't know what he's talking about.

As far as clay goes, Coria and Gaudio and Kuerten are way better clay courters than federer.Physical and mental injuries took care of them, which is why it's such a mismatch in the finals when he plays Nadal.
 
Last edited:

Otherside

Semi-Pro
Pete killed agassi with his backhand up til about 1998, and again in 1999, I don't know what he's talking about.
he probably means that feds backhand is way better than Pete's?

Tommy Haas:

Q. Roger Federer currently has 12 Grand Slam titles, just two behind Pete Sampras. You’ve played against both. Can you compare them at all?

Tommy Haas: I’m pretty much going to have to go with what Andre Agassi said. It’s like when you’re playing Pete and you’re not playing maybe your best tennis, you’re still going to lose a little tight, 6-4, 6-4. Pete is only going to break you once in each set. That one time is enough to win the match for him. But if you’re playing Roger [and] you’re not playing that well, it looks like you’re going to lose pretty much 6-1, 6-1 or maybe even get a bagel ... but Pete definitely goes down in my eyes as probably having the best serve, especially second serve, ever.

Fabrice Santoto:

FABRICE SANTORO: I'd love to play him once again. I'd love to.

Q. Because why, in particular?

FABRICE SANTORO: Because it's so beautiful, what he's doing. I mean, you can't imagine. I hit sometimes the best shot. I mean, in the past three weeks, I played very well.

I mean, I beat some good guys. I beat very tall guys, the American Isner, two days ago in straight sets, and I was playing very well. Last week I beat three guys. One was James Blake, which is one of the best players in the world.

In November I beat Roddick. I beat Djokovic. I mean, I'm able to play some good tennis against the top guys.

But today I feel like he's coming from somewhere else. I mean, I tried a few things. I mean, you can say that maybe I could hit stronger, maybe I can... But when you look a little bit at the stats, I missed four balls, four unforced errors in the match I did. He did 58 winners in 58 minutes almost (laughter).

So I served quite good. I was moving well. I was fit physically. I was hitting the ball well. And I won three games, so it's not much (smiling).

Q. Is this a frustrating feeling or is it just like, Just two or three guys can beat him?

FABRICE SANTORO: On hard court, indoor or grass, not many guys can do that bad with me. Not many guys. Maybe the only one, I think.

I'm looking for an article when bjorkman compared Pete and Fed, anyone who has it?
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
how is haas saying he's better than Sampras?

He just said that Fed goes all out all the time and Sampras just played within himself.
 

emerckx53

Semi-Pro
No we didn't. When Safin won AO 2005, he hadn't been to the semi-final of 4 straight grand slams (including a final in the last one) as Novak Djokovic has done. The suggestion that Safin could be a GOAT even in 2005 was laughable!

Novak Djokovic's arrival has made a huge differnce. Deal with it or just wait until the end of the year and see!
Novak who? Don't you need to win a Grand Slam final first before you are crowned? greatness is judged by wins and results and not "potential" sort of like Juan Montoya was the proclaimed fastest driver in F1 at one time...but wait he never won a WDC.....Schumacher? 7 WDC's and hair away from 9. Same deal with the Joker....
 

frontline

New User
I believe Federer was the smartest player ever in tennis history, hes got so many weapons and some are totally unheard off. But now, i feel that he had changed his game either getting older or bored, or watever. Time for new guys to take over federer. Personally i dun think Federer can win another GS, not this year, well, not until he can get back the form and style of play he used to have.
 

David L

Hall of Fame
I thought this was a very interesting post by The Truth in another Thread:




You can add Coria and Gaudio to that list as they have both had mental breakdowns.(which probably explains how federer even got to a french open final)

You can also factor in the sameness of all the surfaces to explain his year round dominance.

Clay is much much faster, grass is waaaaaaay slower.


Any thoughts?

I'm just thinkning about this because, as with Sampras, all people are going to see when they look at federer in the last couple of years of his career is a guy with a weak backhand, over reliant on his serve and forehand, and not noticably more incredible than the rest of the field, and the commments will come that, ''federer wouldn't be top 20 if he played today etc...)
It's all very well saying these things after Federer has dominated for so long, but does anyone remember what John McEnroe was saying in 2005?

"Depth may put Sampras record beyond Federer"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/sport/2005/07/03/stmcen03.xml
 

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
^^^^^^^^^^

John McEnroe says a lot of things...

He was wrong about Safin and he was wrong about Roddick.He obviously didn't see him play before Wimbledon and didn't realise how much his gamer had atrophied and he sucked.
 
Top