Sampras-Agassi 1999 YEC. UNREAL ATTACK. Sampras UNBEATABLE HERE

[GameSampras]

380pistol, GameSampras and helloworld I have some news for you three:

That is Sampras's wife. As you can tell he will never be interested in any of you. You might as well give up that fantasy you have and find a new obsession in your lives. Just some friendly advice.

Ohhhh look at that man.. Now thats what I call class.. Never thought that chick was hot. She did look good in Mortal Kombat though

 

[abmk]

And whos been so consistent and great in the Fed era? Roddick has been in the top 10 consecutively for years. Who else? But how much talent did this guy really have outside of his serve and FH which has gone MIA over the past few years? Blake? Didnt pete dispatch of him with ease this past week? How about Nalbandian? whats he ever done? Nadal? He wasnt threat outside of RG for quite a while and still fails to even make a final on HC slams. Nadal is still only consistent on this slow grass garbage that Wimbeldon is these days and dirtball French courts.

Nadal should be pretty darn happy he is allowed to stand 10 feet behind the baseline these days. That style of game on the faster courts, any great serve-volleyer would eat him alive

With the kind of passing shots nadal has, he would shake up the confidence and game of most of the SnVers . I don't think he would be as good as he is on the current grass, but you are grossly under-rating him.

and yes, rafa has been consistent and great in the federer era and yes he is a major threat on present grass, much more than any else was to pete during his reign .

you keep on talking about him failing to reach a HC slam final ( he's only 22) , but 'complain' or 'crib' when someone talks about pete failing to do so at the RG

 

[thalivest]

you keep on talking about him failing to reach a HC slam final ( he's only 22) , but 'complain' or 'crib' when someone talks about pete failing to do so at the RG

Nadal at only 22 has achieved way more on hard courts than Sampras ever did on clay. Yet you hear some lovesick Sampras fan(atic)s call Nadal a sucky hard court player or weak on hard courts, yet they vigorously defend Sampras as a quality clay courter. Talk about amusing double standards.

 

[380pistol]

Nadal at only 22 has achieved way more on hard courts than Sampras ever did on clay. Yet you hear some lovesick Sampras fan(atic)s call Nadal a sucky hard court player or weak on hard courts, yet they vigorously defend Sampras as a quality clay courter. Talk about amusing double standards.

Did you read what I said about nadal, or actually understand the context it was written in?? Did you bother to take the time to what it was isn response to??? Did I say Nadal was "sucky" hardcourt player?? Did I?? Insecurites beginning to show. What did I say about Sampras on clay, tell me???

No you're Nadal fanaticism just got the better of you, it's OK. You over felt yourself, you couldn't help yourself!!!

And you talk about Sampras fanatics, and elsewhere you talk about Federer fanatics. Now you're posting pics of Bridgette......

... heard of Xisca??? Have you???

 

[380pistol]

yet he had his 3rd highest winning % that year and he reached the Masters Cup finals which means he was in 'good' form( not exactly peak) in there. Overall it was a pretty decent year . End of story.

So he wet 1-1 vs "pretty decent" Agassi. Who did he proceed to go 7-0 against in 2004-05???

Yes, he held his nerves during Wim 1992 and goran didn't . How about the 1990 FO final that he lost to gomez then ?

just an example

Being mentally tough isn't only about playing crucial points well in certain matches ...

Its also about trying to as consistent as possible and raising ur game at the bigger events and on the bigger occasions.

He held his nerves and lost the pre 1999, he held and lost them post 1999, you're point would be???

It's about being consistet as possible and raising one's game tec., the please, enlighten me how Agassi did this so much better post 1999 than pre 1999???

 

[abmk]

So he wet 1-1 vs "pretty decent" Agassi. Who did he proceed to go 7-0 against in 2004-05???

It was 2-0 in 2003 , how do you call it 1-1 ?

He held his nerves and lost the pre 1999, he held and lost them post 1999, you're point would be???

It's about being consistet as possible and raising one's game tec., the please, enlighten me how Agassi did this so much better post 1999 than pre 1999???

Him losing more matches to competitiors he shouldn't have lost against more pre-99 doesn't suffice ? How about bowing out early at FO and wimbledon in 96 ?

 

[thalivest]

Him losing more matches to competitiors he shouldn't have lost against more pre-99 doesn't suffice ? How about bowing out early at FO and wimbledon in 96 ?

Here is Agassis slam record from 1993-1999 Australian Open to put it into perspective:

1993 Australian Open- DNP
1993 French Open- DNP
1993 Wimbledon- lost quarters to Sampras
1993 U.S Open- lost 1st round
1994 Australian Open- DNP
1994 French Open- lost 3rd round to Muster
1994 Wimbledon- lost 4th round to Martin
1994 U.S Open- won
1995 Australian Open- won
1995 French Open- lost quarters to Kafelnikov (straight sets)
1995 Wimbledon- lost semis to Becker
1995 U.S Open- lost final to Sampras
1996 Australian Open- lost semis to Chang (straight sets)
1996 French Open- lost 2nd round to Woodruff
1996 Wimbledon- lost 1st round to Flach
1996 U.S Open- lost semis to Chang (straight sets)
1997 Australian Open- DNP
1997 French Open- DNP
1997 Wimbledon- DNP
1997 U.S Open- lost 4th round to Rafter
1998 Australian Open- lost 4th round to Berasetegui
1998 French Open- lost 1st round to 18 year old Safin
1998 Wimbledon- lost 2nd round to 20 year old Haas
1998 U.S Open- lost 4th round to Kucera
1999 Australian Open- lost 4th round to Spadea

Very good in from 1994 U.S Open- 1995 U.S Open, his only true prime as a player when he wasnt already 29 or older. The rest, well it was what it was.

 

[380pistol]

It was 2-0 in 2003 , how do you call it 1-1 ?

I am so sorry.

So 2-0 vs "pretty decent" Agassi in 2003. You still haen't told me told me what the on e fed went 6-0 against in 2004-05 would be????

Him losing more matches to competitiors he shouldn't have lost against more pre-99 doesn't suffice ? How about bowing out early at FO and wimbledon in 96 ?

Wimbledon.....
-2002 Scrichapan
-2003 ACL knee'd out Philippoussis

French Open......
-2000 Kucera
-2004 Haehnel
-2005 Miemenen

US Open
-2000 Boetsch

So he had bad losses post 1999, and he played fewer slams. So I'm still waitng for you to explain to me how much mentaly tougher Agassi was post 1999 than he was pre 1999. And you said 1998-99. He lost to Spadea in Aus Open and Kucera in US Open in 1998.

You said it, I'm just asking you to explain it.

 

[drakulie]

.... and still no french open final high-light videos.

I thought you guys said sampras could easily take out the current players on tour on this surface??? :roll:


BTW, to the poster who said Fed's BH rivals Agassi's>>>>>>> you probably also think that a 3.5 could take a game off fed.

 

[bolo]

here's something for all you sampras haters:

They said Pete Sampras wasn't supposed to be a great clay court player. They said he would be the weak link for the United States in the 1995 Davis Cup finals against Russia.

Trouble is, they forgot to tell Pete Sampras.

Having won once in a dramatic singles match Friday and again as half of the U.S. doubles team Saturday, Sampras returned for a third straight match today with probably his best clay court performance ever. Powered by a virtually unreturnable serve, deft volleying and punishing forehands, he routed Russian ace Yevgeny Kafelnikov, 6-2, 6-4, 7-6 (7-4), leading the Americans to a 3-2 victory and their 31st Davis Cup championship since the tournament began in 1900.

"I've never seen better clay court tennis," U.S. captain Tom Gullikson said. "The combination of power and patience and precision serving. . . . It was flawless tennis."

Sampras, 24, the world's No. 1 player, was untouchable through two sets, then staved off a spirited challenge by Kafelnikov in the third. The victory, in just more than two hours, gave the United States its third point in the best-of-five-point final, clinching the Cup and making Jim Courier's subsequent loss to Andrei Chesnokov moot.

That was an amazing forehand day from sampras. I would love to see a compilation of all the forehand winners sampras hit in that clay court match. Highly recommended for sampras fans!

edited to add: especially the running forehand, he was on fire!

 

[abmk]

I am so sorry.

So 2-0 vs "pretty decent" Agassi in 2003. You still haen't told me told me what the on e fed went 6-0 against in 2004-05 would be????

One can't say he played at the same level in all the matches. Well enough in some of them and not so well in the others. Overall still decent.

Wimbledon.....
-2002 Scrichapan
-2003 ACL knee'd out Philippoussis

French Open......
-2000 Kucera
-2004 Haehnel
-2005 Miemenen

US Open
-2000 Boetsch

So he had bad losses post 1999, and he played fewer slams. So I'm still waitng for you to explain to me how much mentaly tougher Agassi was post 1999 than he was pre 1999. And you said 1998-99. He lost to Spadea in Aus Open and Kucera in US Open in 1998.

You said it, I'm just asking you to explain it.

I said the frequency was more earlier keeping in mind that pre-99 was supposed to be his physical 'prime'. Also I don't think the philipoussis one was a 'big' upset.

 

[abmk]

.

BTW, to the poster who said Fed's BH rivals Agassi's>>>>>>> you probably also think that a 3.5 could take a game off fed.

No, I didn't say federer's BH rivals agassi overall. Agassi's is definitely better.

I meant to say the gap is reduced quite a bit on the faster surfaces. (Might have gone a bit over-board in trying to say that ) . Agassi's is clearly better on the slower ones.

 

[DarkSephiroth]

The Sound of Pete's serve is intimidating. =D

 

[grafrules]

One silly thing is how every single Sampras thread has to involve Federer being brought up. It reminds me of how every Federer or Nadal thread in the main forum has to have the other brought up. There are alot other players who have existed in tennis other than Federer, Nadal, and Sampras.

 

[380pistol]

One can't say he played at the same level in all the matches. Well enough in some of them and not so well in the others. Overall still decent.

Again.. no answer. Agassi was "pretty decent" in 2003 according to you (depite losing to ACL kneed out P'sis, Gonzalez, Scheuttler, a gassed Ferrero, young Roddick (before his 1st slam) and David Ferrer), in his last 7 tournaments of 2003 before YEC.

So what would 2004-05 Agassi be?? Playing well at times, and not so much at others. Care to tell me when he was playing well and when he wasn't??

I said the frequency was more earlier keeping in mind that pre-99 was supposed to be his physical 'prime'. Also I don't think the philipoussis one was a 'big' upset.

You said Agassi became mentally tougher post 1998-99. I asked how, I said me matured personally and tennis wise. You posted bad losses and dips in playing level, I just showed those same things occerred post 1998-99. I'm just waiting to hear something compelling from you that shows Dre became mentally tougher post 1998-99.

 

[helloworld]

380pistol, GameSampras and helloworld I have some news for you three:

That is Sampras's wife. As you can tell he will never be interested in any of you. You might as well give up that fantasy you have and find a new obsession in your lives. Just some friendly advice.

Hey, I want that hot chick!! You guys don't get it do you? I'm not in love with Sampras or anything. I'm just stating the truth about Agassi and Sampras. It just happens to hurt some Fed lovers feelings. I'm sorry if the truth hurts. :-?

 

[abmk]

Again.. no answer. Agassi was "pretty decent" in 2003 according to you (depite losing to ACL kneed out P'sis, Gonzalez, Scheuttler, a gassed Ferrero, young Roddick (before his 1st slam) and David Ferrer), in his last 7 tournaments of 2003 before YEC.

I already said before the loss to scud wasn't such a big upset considering that he served really well that wimbledon.

Even though roddick had not yet won a slam, he was still good enough and that loss wasn't a big upset either.

Ferroro had a pretty good year in 2003 and was playing well, that wasn't a big upset either.

So what would 2004-05 Agassi be?? Playing well at times, and not so much at others. Care to tell me when he was playing well and when he wasn't??

No ... I can't be bothered telling ... It would be sufficient to say he was decent ( definitely not at his peak ) , but still good enough to remain in the top 10.

You said Agassi became mentally tougher post 1998-99. I asked how, I said me matured personally and tennis wise. You posted bad losses and dips in playing level, I just showed those same things occerred post 1998-99. I'm just waiting to hear something compelling from you that shows Dre became mentally tougher post 1998-99.

I said the frequency become lesser, sorry I can't sit down and list and calculate the % of bad losses before and after 98-99 for your sake..... that is something that is well known . And you also said he matured personally and tennis wise and I agreed with that , your point being ?

 

[austintennis2005]

.... and still no french open final high-light videos.

I thought you guys said sampras could easily take out the current players on tour on this surface??? :roll:


BTW, to the poster who said Fed's BH rivals Agassi's>>>>>>> you probably also think that a 3.5 could take a game off fed.

To anyone with over 10,000 posts on here: It's called a LIFE, GET ONE!

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Just total domination by Sampras.. I challenge anyone to think of a player who can deal with Pete playing like this. He made Andre's return game look like kiddie crap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu-xE3r5fZ8

No player could withstand this onslaught of agressive attack from Pete. No way no how. And this Andre playing his arguably best tennis ever. Just fresh off the US OPEN championship in 99

Roger who?

Yea Im not sure if I ever seen Pete play the way he did one time in his career that was greater than how he performed at Wimbeldon and at the YEC in 99. For Andre who is arguably the best returner in the game, playing probably his best tennis in his career in 99 looked very irrelevant. The only thing stopping pete from being Number for 7 years was an injury. He was never really OVERTAKEN and to be honest he could have had 8 years of number 1 after the 2000 season. He was number 1 after the US OPEN 2000 but got married and didnt play after the 2000 US OPEN.

Of course Agassi did get pete back at the australian in 2000. Agassi was just unreal at on that surface. You would be hardpressed to find a player who could beat andre there at his peak. Not many could thats for sure. I dont even know if the 07 roger at australia could have. The one who didnt even drop a set.

Contradictory much?

 

[380pistol]

I already said before the loss to scud wasn't such a big upset considering that he served really well that wimbledon.

Even though roddick had not yet won a slam, he was still good enough and that loss wasn't a big upset either.

Ferroro had a pretty good year in 2003 and was playing well, that wasn't a big upset either.

P'sis was rk 48 and coming off ACL surgey. Agassi was 6-1 lifetime coming him and his only loss was when he ranked in the 100's. Ferrero had a very good year in 2003, but in the US Open he had to play 4 or 5 matches in 5-7 days or whatever it was due to the rain. Why was he so gassed in the final.

So your equating Fed's 2 wins over Agassi (one which Agassi held a match point in) to P'sis, Gonzalez, Scheuttler, a gassed Ferrero, young Roddick (before his 1st slam) and David Ferrer??? Cuz the did the exact same thing Roger did.

No ... I can't be bothered telling ... It would be sufficient to say he was decent ( definitely not at his peak ) , but still good enough to remain in the top 10.

Can't bother??? Gotta run from the truth?? Well Agassi....
2004 - from Miami to Toronto went 5-6!!!!
2005 - the only top 10 player he beat was Gaudio (twice on hards) and Coria (on hard), damn near crawled out of RG, missed Wimbledon (for the 2nd straight year), and pulled out of Cincy a week before US Open.

Avoid it, but we know what it is.

I said the frequency become lesser, sorry I can't sit down and list and calculate the % of bad losses before and after 98-99 for your sake..... that is something that is well known . And you also said he matured personally and tennis wise and I agreed with that , your point being ?

You said something, if you can't come up with something of substance to support your claim then don't bother me with it. I don't have a point as you're the one who said he became mentally tougher post 98-99, I said how?? And so far you've come up with air.

 

[NamRanger]

Anything GameSampras is unreliable. He has zero credibility. The quotes below are evidence to it

Rafa's name was allegedly on the list of Fuentes' clients. Several European newspapers who have seen names on the list say Nadal's name is on there.

Fuentes himself admitted to working with all sorts of athletes - cycling, track and field, soccer, and tennis. He is upset that only the cyclists seem to be getting named. As you said, only 50 or so names have been released, it is ridiculous that there has not been more of an investigation into this.

The Spanish government and courts have tried to sweep it under the rug, and none of the international doping authorities or the WADA have been able to get them to release the full list to them. That only makes it more suspicious to me that Nadal's name IS on the list - why else have they been so adamant in hiding what is in the 600-page document (which allegedly lists all the names)?

Busted. You're terrible at coming up with your own ideas. Word for word, copy and paste.


http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2008/...are-here-to-stay-but-rafael-nadal-deserved-b/


Comment #3

 

[NamRanger]

Anyone who thinks a prime Agassi would have beaten a prime Federer more than maybe 2 out of 10 times is seriously on something.



This highlight reel pretty much says it all :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWQZ306dqw



Usually highlight reels are not good sources of evidence. But when you can come up with that many highlights in a match that lasted less than 2 hours, you know it was a total exhibition show.




Agassi has three things over Federer on the backhand :

1. A better driving backhand
2. More consistent
3. Better at attacking the serve off this side. Not necessarily better at returning.


Federer has these over Agassi on the backhand :

1. Can hit winners at will in defensive positions
2. Has every shot known to man off this side, topspin, flat, slice, lob, etc.
3. Can create angles just as well as Agassi, and in some cases, even better ones.
4. Sets up points better from this side than Agassi; Agassi normally bludgeons you with his backhand.
5. Far better defensively on this side than Agassi. Can slice to get back into the point, hit winners in defensive positions, hit great lobs, etc.
6. Gets more balls into play on the return.



I would take Federer's backhand during his "prime" any day of the week.




Sampras v. Federer 2001 Wimbledon

Sevice Statistics
Aces 26 25
Double Faults 9 6
1st Serve Percentage 69% (132/189) 62% (113/181)
1st Serve Points Won 76% (101/132) 82% (93/113)
2nd Serve Points Won 45% (26/57) 51% (35/68 )
Break Points Saved 78% (11/14) 81% (9/11)
Service Games Played 29 29


Statistics on Return
1st Return Points Won 17% (20/113) 23% (31/132)
2nd Return Points Won 48% (33/68 ) 54% (31/57)
Break Points Won 18% (2/11) 21% (3/14)
Return Games Played 29 29


Statistics on Points
Total Service Points Won 67% (127/189) 70% (128/181)
Total Return Points Won 29% (53/181) 32% (62/189)
Total Points Won 48% (180/370) 51% (190/370)





Sampras v. Agassi 1999 Wimbledon


Sevice Statistics
Aces 16 5
Double Faults 5 6
1st Serve Percentage 66% (76/114) 44% (49/109)
1st Serve Points Won 89% (68/76) 75% (37/49)
2nd Serve Points Won 39% (15/38 ) 45% (27/60)
Break Points Saved 100% (4/4) 66% (6/9)
Service Games Played 16 15


Statistics on Return
1st Return Points Won 24% (12/49) 10% (8/76)
2nd Return Points Won 55% (33/60) 60% (23/38 )
Break Points Won 33% (3/9) 0% (0/4)
Return Games Played 15 16


Statistics on Points
Total Service Points Won 72% (83/114) 58% (64/109)
Total Return Points Won 41% (45/109) 27% (31/114)
Total Points Won 57% (128/223) 42% (95/223)




I bolded the parts I compared. Sampras was clearly not the player he was in 2001, however, he was still playing at a very high level of tennis during this time. Also, the Sampras serve has really never been affected by age. The serve has always been there; it is the rest of his game that degraded. Statistically, Sampras served far better than he did against Federer than he did against Agassi. A much higher first serve percentage over 5 sets, and fewer double faults if you average out faults per set. He also won more 2nd serve points than he did against Agassi.


However, Federer managed to break Sampras 3 times. He also won more points on the Sampras 1st serve (a key stat to beating Sampras). Total, he won more points than Agassi did on the Sampras serve. This shows you that a pre-prime Federer returned the Sampras serve far better than a PRIME Agassi did (during a period of time that Sampras was not playing that well).



Not only that, for those who believe somehow Agassi's serve is even comparable to Federer's need to get some glasses. A well before prime Federer aced Sampras 25 times, one less than Sampras' total count, while only serving at 62%. Agassi only managed 5 aces with a poor 1st serve percentage of 44%. He won 51% of his 2nd serve points compared to Agassi's paltry 45%. He also saved 81% of his breakpoints compared to Agassi's 66%.



It is very obvious that Federer in 2001 was FAR before his prime, and Sampras was MUCH closer to his (He made a SF that year at the Australian Open, would make a final at the USO, and later next year would win the USO). Agassi in 99 couldn't even touch Samrpas. A rookie Federer had FAR superior statistics in the returning and serving department than Agassi.


Agassi has almost no chance of beating a prime Federer. Sorry Agassi fans, that's the truth.

 

[tennis-hero]

w[/url]
I would take Federer's backhand during his "prime" any day of the week.

Can't agree with that.

during Fed's prime years (05,06?- take your pick)

Nadal exploited and violated Fed's Backhand in ways he would never have been able to against Andre

On the Pete Andre Forehand poll- someone made a good point, Andre didn't have to rely on his forehand (which was awesome anyway) because his backhand side was just as strong.

During Fed's prime, the only way to beat him was to exploit his backhand.

in 06 (probably his best year) Rafa beat him 4 times... and at that time Rafa did not have the mental edge he has now.

 

[NamRanger]

Can't agree with that.

during Fed's prime years (05,06?- take your pick)

Nadal exploited and violated Fed's Backhand in ways he would never have been able to against Andre

On the Pete Andre Forehand poll- someone made a good point, Andre didn't have to rely on his forehand (which was awesome anyway) because his backhand side was just as strong.

During Fed's prime, the only way to beat him was to exploit his backhand.

in 06 (probably his best year) Rafa beat him 4 times... and at that time Rafa did not have the mental edge he has now.

Only Nadal could exploit Federer's backhand during Federer's prime. No one else. That also only happened on clay, nowhere else.



I would still take Federer's backhand simply due to the sheer variety. Andre ran into problematic match-ups against players who could get around the brute force of his backhand (i.e. Federer and Nadal).



And yes, Nadal can abuse Andre's backhand. Mainly the side spin which stretches Andre out extremely wide. This happened in Montreal, where Nadal would stretch Andre out wide to the backhand, and hit into the open forehand court.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U6LVNPpDxw



People seem to believe Andre could have just hit Nadal's forehand back like it was nothing. In reality, not many guys out there are capable of hitting that thing back with authority. Andre was not a good enough of a mover to track Nadal's wide forehand down and still have time to put something on the ball. That is where Nadal takes advantage of Agassi, which he did in the above video.

 

[helloworld]

Only Nadal could exploit Federer's backhand during Federer's prime. No one else. That also only happened on clay, nowhere else.



I would still take Federer's backhand simply due to the sheer variety. Andre ran into problematic match-ups against players who could get around the brute force of his backhand (i.e. Federer and Nadal).



And yes, Nadal can abuse Andre's backhand. Mainly the side spin which stretches Andre out extremely wide. This happened in Montreal, where Nadal would stretch Andre out wide to the backhand, and hit into the open forehand court.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U6LVNPpDxw



People seem to believe Andre could have just hit Nadal's forehand back like it was nothing. In reality, not many guys out there are capable of hitting that thing back with authority. Andre was not a good enough of a mover to track Nadal's wide forehand down and still have time to put something on the ball. That is where Nadal takes advantage of Agassi, which he did in the above video.

Montreal 2005? Didn't Andre retired in 2006? I hate it when people try to bring up 35 year-old Andre against a much fresher and younger opponent. What is clearly seen in this match is a 35 year-old Andre going to go toe-to-toe against a young and fresh Nadal. Agassi in his younger days does not move like that. He was pretty fast. Not the fastest, but definitely fast enough. Why do people keep bringing up these 35 year-old vs younger and fresher opponents? Let's see how Nadal will play at the age of 30, let alone 35.

 

[abmk]

P'sis was rk 48 and coming off ACL surgey. Agassi was 6-1 lifetime coming him and his only loss was when he ranked in the 100's. Ferrero had a very good year in 2003, but in the US Open he had to play 4 or 5 matches in 5-7 days or whatever it was due to the rain. Why was he so gassed in the final.

So your equating Fed's 2 wins over Agassi (one which Agassi held a match point in) to P'sis, Gonzalez, Scheuttler, a gassed Ferrero, young Roddick (before his 1st slam) and David Ferrer??? Cuz the did the exact same thing Roger did.

Did anyone one of them 'bagel' agassi when he was in good enough 'form' to reach the Master Cup finals ?

Agassi losing to Roddick at Queens is not exactly an upset ..*yawn* just because he hadn't won a slam by that time doesn't mean he wasn't playing good then, he was ranked no 7 then and the match was extremely close and it was on grass and not clay !

Funny how you raise scud's operation , when he was fit enough after surgery and serving very well throughout the tournament , but federer's injury before shanghai masters 2005 is not 'considered', also the fact that he was indeed affected by it and took a medical time-out ! talk about double standards

Can't bother??? Gotta run from the truth?? Well Agassi....
2004 - from Miami to Toronto went 5-6!!!!
2005 - the only top 10 player he beat was Gaudio (twice on hards) and Coria (on hard), damn near crawled out of RG, missed Wimbledon (for the 2nd straight year), and pulled out of Cincy a week before US Open.

Avoid it, but we know what it is.

You said something, if you can't come up with something of substance to support your claim then don't bother me with it. I don't have a point as you're the one who said he became mentally tougher post 98-99, I said how?? And so far you've come up with air.

Running from the truth ? the truth according to you being ? that agassi tanked more matches after 1998-99 than before it ? he was more mature before ? I already said in the term 'mentally tough', I also considered maturity as a factor !

And yes injuries did affect him in 2004-05. However there is no denying that he gave it his all at AO and USO in both those years.

 

[abmk]

Montreal 2005? Didn't Andre retired in 2006? I hate it when people try to bring up 35 year-old Andre against a much fresher and younger opponent. What is clearly seen in this match is a 35 year-old Andre going to go toe-to-toe against a young and fresh Nadal. Agassi in his younger days does not move like that. He was pretty fast. Not the fastest, but definitely fast enough. Why do people keep bringing up these 35 year-old vs younger and fresher opponents? Let's see how Nadal will play at the age of 30, let alone 35.

Agassi at 34-35 wasn't as fast as before .However even at his prime, he moved *clearly* slower when compared to nadal, so namranger's point is still valid ..

 

[krosero]

Sampras v. Agassi 1999 Wimbledon


Sevice Statistics
Aces 16 5
Double Faults 5 6
1st Serve Percentage 66% (76/114) 44% (49/109)
1st Serve Points Won 89% (68/76) 75% (37/49)
2nd Serve Points Won 39% (15/38 ) 45% (27/60)
Break Points Saved 100% (4/4) 66% (6/9)
Service Games Played 16 15


Statistics on Return
1st Return Points Won 24% (12/49) 10% (8/76)
2nd Return Points Won 55% (33/60) 60% (23/38 )
Break Points Won 33% (3/9) 0% (0/4)
Return Games Played 15 16


Statistics on Points
Total Service Points Won 72% (83/114) 58% (64/109)
Total Return Points Won 41% (45/109) 27% (31/114)
Total Points Won 57% (128/223) 42% (95/223)

These ATP stats are incorrect, see http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=2758325#post2758325. Basically what's happening (it happens a lot in ATP stats for the '90s) is that the ATP counted all the aces and double-faults twice. So every line has a problem, not just the Total Points Won but for example, a player's return points. Roughly, Sampras' service points are inflated while Agassi's return points are reduced; and the converse is true, but not by the same margins, because Agassi served only 5 aces; counting them twice doesn't result in much change.

See also: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=2812426#post2812426.

 

[julesb]

Montreal 2005? Didn't Andre retired in 2006?

Didn't Andre retired? LOL! Also Nadal was nowhere near his prime in 2005 either, and it was on his worst surface and Agassi's best, and Agassi still got whipped badly. Now crawl back under your rock or return to your Sampras shrine.

 

[380pistol]

Federer and Agassi, THE REAL........


Federer is a better player than Agassi, but I'll give my take on why.

Roger has the serve advantage, but when people say "much" better I don't know. Agassi was not going to dominate anyone with his serve but used it to set him up points on his terms and protected it very well. Look at his % of serve games won always very high.

Agassi is the better returner.... period!!! When it it comes to the abiltiy of returning the serve Agassi is the best ever (Connors may have an arguement). Federer has been effective in breaking his opponents moreso due to his overall game being superior to Dre, not his abilty to return the serve. A lot of times Fed just blocks balls, even floats them back and then tries to get in a rally, where the rest of his game can take over, not necessarily the return. Agassi is known to damage servers, with his return, put servers on the defensive, him go on the offence all from the reurning posuion. Agassi may get aced a lot, but that's by design rather than ability to return. Agassi made it a point to stand on the baseline and attack the server, and put on as much pressure on them. He seemed willing to give the aces to do so. Agassi could step back and be a more passive returner, get aced less... but would that make him better or more effective???

Gorundstrokes. Agassi. I think Federer's best stroke (forehand) gets the edge on Agassi best one (backhand), but in terms of sheer groundstrokes (both wings) I go with Dre. To simplify if one compiled a list of best forehands and backhands, only one would make the list of both, and it's not Federer.
http://tennis.com/features/greatests...aspx?id=108752
Forehand
http://tennis.com/features/greatests...aspx?id=108756
Backhand

From the baseline Agassi is better at taking the ball earlier and dictating play, while Federer is better at defending and neutralizing his opponents. Where Federer gets the nod to me, is he is better at dictating play than Andre is defending and neutralizing his opponents.

Also Roger's ability to transition from defense to offense gives him a great advantage over Agassi.

Roger is simply better at net. While Agassi is adeuqaute and Federer is not among the greatest volleyers or has a net game to rival them, he's defintely more than adequate.

Federer moves better, may be a bit quicker, but his anticipation is what helps him. Agassi is faster than a lot realize. If you go back to his long hair days (and even mid 90's semi bald days), he was one of the fastest players on tour. The problem Agassi was never moving that much (unless he was playing Sampras), he was moving his opponents.

Just my take.

 

[helloworld]

Federer has these over Agassi on the backhand :

1. Can hit winners at will in defensive positions (I rarely see that against Nadal. Even if Nadal floats the ball to his backhand, he often shanks it or just couldn't hit winners from that side)
2. Has every shot known to man off this side, topspin, flat, slice, lob, etc. ( Doesn't seem like it helps at all against Nadal)
3. Can create angles just as well as Agassi, and in some cases, even better ones. (Agassi can as well, with even more consistency)
4. Sets up points better from this side than Agassi; Agassi normally bludgeons you with his backhand. (This statement is a joke. Andre is the best at setting up points using his backhand)
5. Far better defensively on this side than Agassi. Can slice to get back into the point, hit winners in defensive positions, hit great lobs, etc. (Ok, that's the only thing Fed is better at on the backhand side, being defensive)
6. Gets more balls into play on the return. (You mean weak and floating balls that great volleyers can take advantage of right?)

You do realize that Fed's backhand is the weakest part of his game, right? You can prefer it for its good looking, but it's not nearly as effective as Andre's. Not even close.

 

[NamRanger]

These ATP stats are incorrect, see http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=2758325#post2758325. Basically what's happening (it happens a lot in ATP stats for the '90s) is that the ATP counted all the aces and double-faults twice. So every line has a problem, not just the Total Points Won but for example, a player's return points. Roughly, Sampras' service points are inflated while Agassi's return points are reduced; and the converse is true, but not by the same margins, because Agassi served only 5 aces; counting them twice doesn't result in much change.

See also: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=2812426#post2812426.

Even if that is true (which it appears to be), that still doesn't mean that Federer didn't return far better against the Sampras serve. You can tell that the percentages were clearly all in favor of Federer by a significant amount.

 

[NamRanger]

You do realize that Fed's backhand is the weakest part of his game, right? You can prefer it for its good looking, but it's not nearly as effective as Andre's. Not even close.

Again, only Nadal can take advantage of a prime Federer's backhand. Who else did again? Uh, Safin when he was literally playing at a level that not many people could reach.



You think Nadal's balls are weak and loopy? Why don't you go out there and try hitting those balls?



Federer puts more balls in on the return than Agassi. Agassi attacks 2nd serves better. Federer has a more well rounded game with more variety. He has a bigger forehand by far, and his backhand is not too far behind Agassi's. He is a more versatile player than Agassi, period.



Federer cannot drive as well as Agassi, nor attack the return of serve as well as Agassi on the backhand side, but he does a plethora of things far better than Agassi does on the backhand side. In my opinion, this trumps Agassi's BH.




Also, being the "weakest" and "weak" are two totally different things. Federer's backhand may be the "weakest" part of his game (which it is not, that would be his netgame), however, that does not mean it is weak. Federer won 13 slams primarily playing from the baseline, dominating with both his forehand and backhand. You can't say his backhand is "weak" if he did that.

 

[NamRanger]

Montreal 2005? Didn't Andre retired in 2006? I hate it when people try to bring up 35 year-old Andre against a much fresher and younger opponent. What is clearly seen in this match is a 35 year-old Andre going to go toe-to-toe against a young and fresh Nadal. Agassi in his younger days does not move like that. He was pretty fast. Not the fastest, but definitely fast enough. Why do people keep bringing up these 35 year-old vs younger and fresher opponents? Let's see how Nadal will play at the age of 30, let alone 35.

Didn't you say Nadal sucked on HCs and Agassi at 35 was still one of the best HC players out there?



You clearly missed the match, because Nadal was dictating play in the 1st set, barely lost the 2nd set, and pretty much dominated the 3rd set easily. Agassi never had time to set his feet in order to attack the Nadal forehand. Nadal was running Agassi raggid with both topspin and flat forehands all over the place.



Of course Nadal won't be as good as Agassi at 30. He didn't waste about 5 years of his prime wasting away eating cheeseburgers and going through a divorce.

 

[krosero]

Even if that is true (which it appears to be), that still doesn't mean that Federer didn't return far better against the Sampras serve. You can tell that the percentages were clearly all in favor of Federer by a significant amount.

One problem with a stat like return points won, however, is that you're measuring the entire points, not just the return. Essentially you're measuring all of a person's game, and dividing it into service and return games -- which is fine, but it's not really the same as the serve alone, or the return alone.

And what you've got here is essentially a comparison between Federer and Agassi on grass. No one here is putting Agassi above Federer on grass or even saying they're equal. All the talk has been about Fed and Agassi facing off at the USO. Grass is not Andre's best surface by a long shot.

There is a way to isolate the return, by counting the times that Sampras got an ace or drew a return error from his opponent. Sampras' loss to Federer was about twice as long as the '99 W final: 60 games vs. 31. And in the long match Sampras happens to have just about twice as many serves that did not come back, as compared to the W final: 85 vs. 43.

From that stat alone there is no statistical difference between Federer and Agassi's returns -- on grass, against Sampras, in these two matches.

(The numbers I'm using for the long match are here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=204111.)

Even that is not a perfect stat, because Sampras was coming in behind second serves more than Federer. Sometimes I think a player can draw a return error just by forcing the issue with serve-and-volley; a serve that might otherwise be very returnable will be returned out or into the tape because the returner needed to do something more with the ball. It's easier to keep your return errors down if the server stays back.

And Agassi has better numbers against the Sampras serve in their 5-set quarterfinal in '93. That one was 44 games long, and Sampras hit only 52 serves that were aces or otherwise did not come back.

The remarkable thing is that Agassi was dusted in straights in '99, yet he still has some good numbers. He drew more return errors than Sampras in that match (31 to 27). According to a boxscore in the press, his success on second serve was slightly higher than Pete's: 50% to 49%. It was nearly as high as Federer's 51% (according to the ATP, whose stats for that match look okay).

Even the incorrect figure that the ATP gave Agassi on second serve -- 45%, which you called "paltry" -- is the equal of Pete's figure in the much closer '01 match.

 

[abmk]

Federer and Agassi, THE REAL........


Federer is a better player than Agassi, but I'll give my take on why.

Roger has the serve advantage, but when people say "much" better I don't know. Agassi was not going to dominate anyone with his serve but used it to set him up points on his terms and protected it very well. Look at his % of serve games won always very high.

Agassi is the better returner.... period!!! When it it comes to the abiltiy of returning the serve Agassi is the best ever (Connors may have an arguement). Federer has been effective in breaking his opponents moreso due to his overall game being superior to Dre, not his abilty to return the serve. A lot of times Fed just blocks balls, even floats them back and then tries to get in a rally, where the rest of his game can take over, not necessarily the return.

federer's serve >>> agassi's serve .There shouldn't even be any argument on this really.

Just because nadal has a high % of return games won doesn't mean his serve comes anywhere close to the likes of federer/djokovic/murray ( inspite of the improvement in his serve ). Agassi's serve is clearly better than nadal's, but still my point holds.

There's not too much of a difference in the quality of their return game.

Gorundstrokes. Agassi. I think Federer's best stroke (forehand) gets the edge on Agassi best one (backhand), but in terms of sheer groundstrokes (both wings) I go with Dre. To simplify if one compiled a list of best forehands and backhands, only one would make the list of both, and it's not Federer.


From the baseline Agassi is better at taking the ball earlier and dictating play, while Federer is better at defending and neutralizing his opponents. Where Federer gets the nod to me, is he is better at dictating play than Andre is defending and neutralizing his opponents.

Also Roger's ability to transition from defense to offense gives him a great advantage over Agassi.

IMHO , federer > Agassi ( in terms of groundstrokes) simply because his forehand is MUCH more lethal and his backhand though not as good overall, can be as good as agassi's on the faster surfaces .

Federer moves better, may be a bit quicker, but his anticipation is what helps him. Agassi is faster than a lot realize. If you go back to his long hair days (and even mid 90's semi bald days), he was one of the fastest players on tour. The problem Agassi was never moving that much (unless he was playing Sampras), he was moving his opponents.

Just my take.

no, he's not. Federer's moves FAR better than agassi, federer's movement would be in the top 5 in history, agassi's wouldn't even be in the top 50 !

 

[abmk]

typos:

nadal has a high % of serve* games won

federer's backhand is not as good as agassi's* overall

 

[luckyboy1300]

Even if that is true (which it appears to be), that still doesn't mean that Federer didn't return far better against the Sampras serve. You can tell that the percentages were clearly all in favor of Federer by a significant amount.

it was really amazing that in the deciding game in the 5th set sampras got all of his first serves in and still only managed to score 1 point in his service game.

 

[380pistol]

Again, only Nadal can take advantage of a prime Federer's backhand. Who else did again? Uh, Safin when he was literally playing at a level that not many people could reach.

Who else???

Gasquet 2005 Monte Carlo QF
Hewitt 2005 US Open SF - 4 winners, 25 unforced
Agassi 2005 US Open F - 5 winners, 26 unforced
Nalbandian 2005 YEC F/2006 Rome QF/2006 French Open SF
Ljubicic 2006 Key Biscayne F - 4 winners, 21 unforced
Berdych 2006 Halle
Haas 2007 Aus Open 4th
Davydenko 2007 Aus Open QF
Kiefer 2007 Aus Open F
Volandri 2007 Rome

Just to name few. A lot of the #'s on his backhand don't look good at times.
Murray 2006 Cincinnati/2008 Dubai

Federer puts more balls in on the return than Agassi. Agassi attacks 2nd serves better. Federer has a more well rounded game with more variety. He has a bigger forehand by far, and his backhand is not too far behind Agassi's. He is a more versatile player than Agassi, period.

That's by design. Agassi could be a more defensive returner like Roger, but how effective would that be when Sampras, Becker, Rafter, Ivanisevic are coming in behind it??? Federer can block returns back at let the rest of his game do the work, while Agassi needed to be agressive when returning.

Federer's game is more rounded than Agassi, but a bigger forehand by far??? He has the better forehand of the two, but Agassi's was damn effective, and so big that when Gilbert took over coaching Dre in 1994, he had to get him to tone it down and play more percentage tennis.

Agassi's backhand has bigger edge on Roger's than Roger's forehand on Dre's. And he is ore versatile than Agassi.

Also, being the "weakest" and "weak" are two totally different things. Federer's backhand may be the "weakest" part of his game (which it is not, that would be his netgame), however, that does not mean it is weak. Federer won 13 slams primarily playing from the baseline, dominating with both his forehand and backhand. You can't say his backhand is "weak" if he did that.

Federer's backhand is not weak, it certainly isn't. But if you can attack it consistently and agressively, it can break down and spray errors.

 

[380pistol]

federer's serve >>> agassi's serve .There shouldn't even be any argument on this really.

Just because nadal has a high % of return games won doesn't mean his serve comes anywhere close to the likes of federer/djokovic/murray ( inspite of the improvement in his serve ). Agassi's serve is clearly better than nadal's, but still my point holds.

What is the point of serving in tennis?? To hold serve!!!!!

If Roger's return is so great and Nadal's serve so subpar why did....

A) Nadal hold 29 of 30 service games in 2008 Wimbledon final vs Roger's vaunted return???

B) Nadal(after being broken in his opening serve game on 2007 Wimbledon final) hold serve 22 straight games, where Roger was barely getting any break chances???

Federer has the better serve, I said that (can you stop jocking Roger long enough to see what's posted???), and actually read what I said regarding their respective serves.

There's not too much of a difference in the quality of their return game.

I took the return as a stroke inisolation. What did I say about "the return" and "return game"???

IMHO , federer > Agassi ( in terms of groundstrokes) simply because his forehand is MUCH more lethal and his backhand though not as good overall, can be as good as agassi's on the faster surfaces .

OK. But Agassi has a bigger edge on the forehand than Roger does on the backhand. Like I said if you compiled a list of the greatest forehands and backhands, only one would make the list of both.... and it's not Roger.

http://tennis.com/features/greatests...aspx?id=108752
Forehand
http://tennis.com/features/greatests...aspx?id=108756
Backhand

Read the shortlists. Who's on both (forehand and backhand) and who isn't???

no, he's not. Federer's moves FAR better than agassi, federer's movement would be in the top 5 in history, agassi's wouldn't even be in the top 50 !

Top 5 mover??? Borg, Chang, Rafter, Nadal and Hewitt. Roger's a great mover but on footspeed alone he's behind Sampras, Blake, and probably some others.

Agass not top 50??? LOL. At one point (in his younger days) Agassi was the fastest goy on tour behind Chang.

 

[abmk]

What is the point of serving in tennis?? To hold serve!!!!!

If Roger's return is so great and Nadal's serve so subpar why did....

A) Nadal hold 29 of 30 service games in 2008 Wimbledon final vs Roger's vaunted return???

B) Nadal(after being broken in his opening serve game on 2007 Wimbledon final) hold serve 22 straight games, where Roger was barely getting any break chances???

Federer has the better serve, I said that (can you stop jocking Roger long enough to see what's posted???), and actually read what I said regarding their respective serves.

That is because nadal is so good from the baseline , duh !

nadal has the 4th( joint) highest % of service games won this year. Does that mean he is the 4th or 5th best server now ?

http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/matchfacts/

I took the return as a stroke inisolation. What did I say about "the return" and "return game"???

Insert what u wrote for the serve here and apply the same logic , i.e break of serve instead of holding serve. Talk of double standards .....

Just federer's returns are not much behind agassi's either. If agassi punished the 2nd serves most, he did get aced quite a lot. On the other hand, federer is one of the toughest to ace .

OK. But Agassi has a bigger edge on the forehand than Roger does on the backhand. Like I said if you compiled a list of the greatest forehands and backhands, only one would make the list of both.... and it's not Roger.

http://tennis.com/features/greatests...aspx?id=108752
Forehand
http://tennis.com/features/greatests...aspx?id=108756
Backhand

Read the shortlists. Who's on both (forehand and backhand) and who isn't???

your urls don't work.

And I think the gap b/w fed's forehand and agassi's is greater than the other way as far as their backhands are concerned. U want to think otherwise , fine !

Top 5 mover??? Borg, Chang, Rafter, Nadal and Hewitt. Roger's a great mover but on footspeed alone he's behind Sampras, Blake, and probably some others.

Nadal isn't that great a mover on HCs, he's arguably the best on clay and pretty good on grass though . Hewitt is (or rather was) faster, but I would rate their movements ( including the anticipation part) at the same level. Same with chang .

Agass not top 50??? LOL. At one point (in his younger days) Agassi was the fastest goy on tour behind Chang.

Don't think so . Agassi was never that quick. Prove what you said .

 

[abmk]

Just how quick was agassi even when he was younger ? Definitely not quick. A video to illustrate my point .

The 1990 FO final :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyWLtpYsen8

There are(/were) loads of players who move much better.

 

[abmk]

yeah, got that site ...

Movement: Roger Federer

http://tennis.com/features/greatestshots/greatestshots.aspx?id=108832

So much for federer's movement not even being in the top 5. ha ha

P.S. I repeat federer's backhand not being in the list does not mean it is far inferior to agassi's. Agassi's is better, but not by a big margin.

 

[anointedone]

Agass not top 50??? LOL. At one point (in his younger days) Agassi was the fastest goy on tour behind Chang.

That statement alone proves you know nothing about what you are talking about. By the way who is Agass and what is a goy.

 

[JoshDragon]

Just how quick was agassi even when he was younger ? Definitely not quick. A video to illustrate my point .

The 1990 FO final :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyWLtpYsen8

There are(/were) loads of players who move much better.

Andre's hair looks so weird. :lol:

 

[grafrules]

Just how quick was agassi even when he was younger ? Definitely not quick. A video to illustrate my point .

The 1990 FO final :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyWLtpYsen8

There are(/were) loads of players who move much better.

Agassi was never more than a "good" mover if you want to be generous. Yeah he was quicker than when he was alot older but never even close to one of the best. He was never a top 20 mover even in his own time, at any point in his career.

 

[bet]

The wind did help agassi quite a bit on that occasion ! Federer would've had it easier otherwise.

I'll never figure out why people buy into these myths. One person says it and then...well I guess it's easier than thinking it through. Agassi is much better i the wind than most players but Federer WON that match in the wind. The quality of the tennis was higher in the first part of the match and they were still neck and neck during that part.

 

[bet]

That statement alone proves you know nothing about what you are talking about. By the way who is Agass and what is a goy.

NO. Incorrect. Agassi was widely acknowledged as being in the next tier down in speed behind Chang. He wasn't NUMBER TWO explicitly but other than Chang, he was acknowledged as one of the quickest, particularly in 1987-1989. This continued until 1991 when he became very bulky (possibly his bulkiest - acknowledged even by him a few months later) and clearly slowed down.

It is absolutely true though only people with discerning eyes would necessarily see it as other aspects of young Agassi overhadowed it. Agassi was never as "athletic" as Nadal and Chang but both his hands and feet were incredibly quick. People who openly acknowledged it include Carillo, Stolle, PANCHO SEGURA(a brilliant analyst) and many others.

 

[380pistol]

That statement alone proves you know nothing about what you are talking about. By the way who is Agass and what is a goy.

NO. Incorrect. Agassi was widely acknowledged as being in the next tier down in speed behind Chang. He wasn't NUMBER TWO explicitly but other than Chang, he was acknowledged as one of the quickest, particularly in 1987-1989. This continued until 1991 when he became very bulky (possibly his bulkiest - acknowledged even by him a few months later) and clearly slowed down.

It is absolutely true though only people with discerning eyes would necessarily see it as other aspects of young Agassi overhadowed it. Agassi was never as "athletic" as Nadal and Chang but both his hands and feet were incredibly quick. People who openly acknowledged it include Carillo, Stolle, PANCHO SEGURA(a brilliant analyst) and many others.

Thanks for saving me the hassle. I mean watch Agassi vs Chang 1994 US Open. You're right Agassi was never in the upper echelon when it came to athleticism, but was quick in his own right.

These guys see 33 plus Dre and assume that was what he was in his younger days.

 

[380pistol]

That is because nadal is so good from the baseline , duh !

nadal has the 4th( joint) highest % of service games won this year. Does that mean he is the 4th or 5th best server now ?

http://www.atptennis.com/en/players/matchfacts/

Define a RETURN and a RETURN GAME???

Insert what u wrote for the serve here and apply the same logic , i.e break of serve instead of holding serve. Talk of double standards .....

Just federer's returns are not much behind agassi's either. If agassi punished the 2nd serves most, he did get aced quite a lot. On the other hand, federer is one of the toughest to ace .

Double standards?? You don't even read what you post!!!!!

"federer's returns"??? Back to the original question.....

Define a RETURN and a RETURN GAME???

So being tough to ace = having a great return. Tes RETURN (which you don't seem to grasp).

your urls don't work.

And I think the gap b/w fed's forehand and agassi's is greater than the other way as far as their backhands are concerned. U want to think otherwise , fine !

Well I'll summarize... Agassi made the both forehand and backhand shortlists, and Federer just the forhand.

If you think Federer's gap on the forehand is greater than Agassi's gap on the backhand, all I can do is laugh. Agassi made the forehand list (and would by the genral consensus), Roger didn't make the backhand list.... care to explain why???

Nadal isn't that great a mover on HCs, he's arguably the best on clay and pretty good on grass though . Hewitt is (or rather was) faster, but I would rate their movements ( including the anticipation part) at the same level. Same with chang .

For someone who jocks Roger so hard it's laughable that you don't even know the nuances of his game. One of Federer's greatest attributes is his anticipation. Anicipation is mental, not physical, so how can you equate that with movement???

Chang/Hewitt/Nadal, quicker than Federer, better defenders than Fed, and cover the court better. Roger trumps them in he may not defend as well but can do more (Nadal has an arguement) from a defensive position. His abilty to go from defense to offense, change the swing in apoint are some of his strenghts, not strictly his movement.

Does Fed move on clay like Nadal, Bruguera, Borg, Wilander even Guga??? Nadal moves well on hardcourts, it's his game and body not holding up which hurts him, not his movement.

Don't think so . Agassi was never that quick. Prove what you said .

Go look back at young Agassi. Prove what I said... at one point Agassi was considered the fastest in the game behind Chang. During the 1994 ATP World Champ SF vs Sampras what was said about Agassi's speed on ESPN???? Ok then be quiet.