Would Federer beat primeAgassi? 2004Fed needed 5 sets, 2005Fed 4 sets (lost a 6-2set)

[nadal2012uso2013ao]

Interesting how, in contrast to Sampras' USO ownership over PRIME Agassi, Federer struggled against 34 and 35-year-old Agassi at the US Open, even after Agassi had played 3 five-setters (IN PAIN) to reach the 2005 final.

Even the very OLD version of Sampras managed to beat Agassi in 4 sets. Meanwhile, prime Federer didn't have it easy-

2005 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Federer, Roger
6-3, 2-6, 7-6(1), 6-1

2004 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard Q Federer, Roger
6-3, 2-6, 7-5, 3-6, 6-3

2001 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard R16 Agassi, Andre
6-1, 6-2, 6-4

Sampras vs Agassi:

2002 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Sampras, Pete
6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4

2001 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard Q Sampras, Pete
6-7(7), 7-6(2), 7-6(2), 7-6(5)

1995 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Sampras, Pete
6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5

1990 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Sampras, Pete
6-4, 6-3, 6-2

 

[Federer20042006]

Ownership...and then you show 3 out of 4 matches with Agassi/Sampras that were a tight 4 sets.

Nice.

 

[nadal2012uso2013ao]

1995 was PRIME Agassi.

Federer needed 4 and 5 sets to beat 2004-2005 Agassi.

How many sets would Federer need to beat PRIME Agassi?

 

[Zarfot Z]

Interesting how you dub a thread on Roger Federer's 290 weeks at number 1 'useless', then immediately proceed to post one of the most pointless and irrelevant threads in TW history.

 

[nadal2012uso2013ao]

PRIME Sampras needed 3 and 4 sets to beat PRIME Agassi.

OLD Sampras needed 4 sets to beat PRIME Agassi.

PRIME Federer needed 4 and 5 sets to beat OLD Agassi.

So again, how many sets would PRIME Federer need to beat PRIME Agassi?

 

[Feather]

PRIME Sampras needed 3 and 4 sets to beat PRIME Agassi.

OLD Sampras needed 4 sets to beat PRIME Agassi.

PRIME Federer needed 4 and 5 sets to beat OLD Agassi.

So again, how many sets would PRIME Federer need to beat PRIME Agassi?

How many posts PRIME NSK needs to get banned?
How many accounts does PRIME NSK have in this forum?

 

[nadal2012uso2013ao]

Interesting how you dub a thread on Roger Federer's 290 weeks at number 1 'useless', then immediately proceed to post one of the most pointless and irrelevant threads in TW history.

Care to provide the link? I don't recall even opening that thread.

 

[Zarfot Z]

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=435104

'MariaRafael', one of your alt accounts, posted on that thread.

 

[nadal2012uso2013ao]

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=435104

'MariaRafael', one of your alt accounts, posted on that thread.

Ah, I see your confusion now. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Agassi had a game that matched up better against Federer. Simple as that.

 

[RF-17-GOAT]

Would nadal be able to play uso2012 and ao2013?

 

[TennisTalkGuru]

What about #100 Rosol's ownership of PRIME Nadal?

 

[nadal2012uso2013ao]

What about #100 Rosol's ownership of PRIME Nadal?

Give it time. Soderling beat Nadal at Roland Garros in far more comprehensive fashion (4 sets) and then lost their next 2 meetings at Roland Garros (and didn't even win a set).

 

[zagor]

1995 was PRIME Agassi.

So Agassis' prime consisted of one whole year, genius NSK, even for your high standards.

Federer needed 4 and 5 sets to beat 2004-2005 Agassi.

And he'd very likely need less sets to beat 1993, 1996, 1997 and 1998 Agassi for example.

Agassi won 5 out of his 8 slams after the age if 29+ , his career trajectory is rather unique, I'd argue he never even had a real prime other tennis greats did.

How many sets would Federer need to beat PRIME Agassi?

You mean 1995 Agassi? I'd favour him over Fed in that year actually, 1995 USO Agassi would have been extremely tough to beat for even peak Fed.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

What about #100 Rosol's ownership of PRIME Nadal?

5 sets isn't ownership. What about #28 Gustavo Kuerten's ownership of PRIME Federer, 6-4 6-4 6-4 (Federer didn't even win a set)?

 

[TennisTalkGuru]

5 sets isn't ownership. What about #28 Gustavo Kuerten's ownership of PRIME Federer, 6-4 6-4 6-4 (Federer didn't even win a set)?

But Kuerten is a former multi-slam winner. Rosol is #100 nobody.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

But Kuerten is a former multi-slam winner. Rosol is #100 nobody.

But ranked #28. Juan Carlos Ferrero is also a former slam winner (and US Open finalist), but it's still a big shock if he were to beat Nadal in a slam.

 

[TennisTalkGuru]

But ranked #28. Juan Carlos Ferrero is also a former slam winner (and US Open finalist), but it's still a big shock if he were to beat Nadal in a slam.

28 is much higher ranked than 100.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

28 is much higher ranked than 100.

6-4 6-4 6-4 is much worse than 6-7 6-4 6-4 2-6 6-4.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

OP.

No matter what reasoning one gives to you, you will continue with your agenda, so why don't you tell us, that Federer will be owned by Agassi, Sampras, McEnroe, Lendl etc, etc and be done with it?

We already agree to disagree with the BS you spew all the time, so it is not necessary to sidestep the point you are trying to make. Nobody takes you seriously.

 

[TMF]

nadal2012uso2013ao + 6-1 6-3 6-0 = ignore list

 

[mightyrick]

OP.

No matter what reasoning one gives to you, you will continue with your agenda, so why don't you tell us, that Federer will be owned by Agassi, Sampras, McEnroe, Lendl etc, etc and be done with it?

We already agree to disagree with the BS you spew all the time, so it is not necessary to sidestep the point you are trying to make. Nobody takes you seriously.

I think there's little argument that prime Agassi would at least split H2H against prime Federer. I think it is even more likely that prime Agassi would dominate H2H against prime Nadal. Nadal's game was built around trying to hit to the right-handed opponent's backhand and draw errors or weak replies. Agassi crushed way too many people who have tried that tactic against him.

This is where bad matchups become interesting. While I think prime Agassi would dominate prime-Nadal, I also think prime Nadal would dominate prime Sampras. Sampras and Federer actually have very similar games. Sampras with a weaker backhand but a better serve. Agassi with a decent serve, but far better backhand than both. Yet Sampras was successful against Agassi (20-14 H2H) because of his serve, how well he could hit on the run, and his net play.

I would have loved to see all of these guys play during the same prime era.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

nadal2012uso2013ao + 6-1 6-3 6-0 = ignore list

They both are on mine.

But the title of the thread shows his (usual) intention, so I couldn't miss the chance to tell him what I (and the majority of the posters) think of him.

:twisted:

 

[fed_rulz]

Interesting how, in contrast to Sampras' USO ownership over PRIME Agassi, Federer struggled against 34 and 35-year-old Agassi at the US Open, even after Agassi had played 3 five-setters (IN PAIN) to reach the 2005 final.

Even the very OLD version of Sampras managed to beat Agassi in 4 sets. Meanwhile, prime Federer didn't have it easy-

2005 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Federer, Roger
6-3, 2-6, 7-6(1), 6-1

2004 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard Q Federer, Roger
6-3, 2-6, 7-5, 3-6, 6-3

2001 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard R16 Agassi, Andre
6-1, 6-2, 6-4

Sampras vs Agassi:

2002 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Sampras, Pete
6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4

2001 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard Q Sampras, Pete
6-7(7), 7-6(2), 7-6(2), 7-6(5)

1995 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Sampras, Pete
6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5

1990 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Sampras, Pete
6-4, 6-3, 6-2

Good analysis.

consider the timeline:

baby Federer beat off-prime Sampras -- 2001 (July)
off-prime sampras beat Agassi -- 2001 (Aug), 2002 (April , Aug)
Federer hits his prime in 2003
Agassi from 2004 onwards, gives Federer very tough matches.

Note: the only unknown here is Agassi's peak/prime level before 2004. Based on the evidence that you've provided (Agassi vs Sampras), it is evident that Agassi hit his prime starting from 2004 onwards. So Sampras was beating an off-prime Agassi all the while? Better, he's beaten peak/prime Sampras many times.

To conclude (based on YOUR evidence): Federer > Agassi > Sampras ??
Is that what you're trying to say?

 

[TMF]

They both are on mine.

But the title of the thread shows his (usual) intention, so I couldn't miss the chance to tell him what I (and the majority of the posters) think of him.

:twisted:

Yeah, obviously he's trolling as usual just going by the title. I'm sure there's a lot of gibberish posts coming from both of them.


After Agassi lost to Fed 8 straight times, he said "He's[Federer] the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to go". Agassi pretty much conceded that Federer is better than him.

 

[TennisTalkGuru]

6-4 6-4 6-4 is much worse than 6-7 6-4 6-4 2-6 6-4.

Not really. In both cases you simply get a 1 added to the loss column. But to lose to a much lower ranked player shows you are intrinsically lacking skill to beat all comers.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Overall Federer is the stronger player and would probably have a big H2H lead based on winning almost all encounters on grass, clay, or carpet (maybe Agassi would have a fighting chance on clay). However on hard courts both in their primes it would be 50-50 really. Also hilarious how ****s love to claim if a 27 or older Federer does anything it proves he would never lose a match in his prime to any of todays players, but a 34 or 35 year old Agassi pushing prime Federer so hard, many times over, means nothing.

 

[RF_fan]

PRIME Sampras needed 3 and 4 sets to beat PRIME Agassi.

OLD Sampras needed 4 sets to beat PRIME Agassi.

PRIME Federer needed 4 and 5 sets to beat OLD Agassi.

So again, how many sets would PRIME Federer need to beat PRIME Agassi?

What makes you think it was Fed's goal to beat Agassi in straight sets at 2005 USO final? He was probably very confident he could beat him so he relaxed a little and made it more entertaining for the crowd. And 6:1 in 4th set should tell you something.

 

[ktid]

Agassi was a weird one his "prime" was very scattered 1994-1995 and 1999-2000 were his best years and he was even #1 at 33 years old, so its hard to judge

 

[tennis_pro]

Overall Federer is the stronger player and would probably have a big H2H lead based on winning almost all encounters on grass, clay, or carpet (maybe Agassi would have a fighting chance on clay). However on hard courts both in their primes it would be 50-50 really. Also hilarious how ****s love to claim if a 27 or older Federer does anything it proves he would never lose a match in his prime to any of todays players, but a 34 or 35 year old Agassi pushing prime Federer so hard, many times over, means nothing.

The real problem with Agassi is that we can't really say for sure what was his prime. He played well in his late teens/early 20's only to be playing poorly for almost 2 years in 1993-1994. Then when we thought he was at his peak it only lasted 9 months or so and after losing the US final to Sampras he wasn't a factor for another 3 years. While I don't think 2004 US Open Agassi was at his best, he played better at that tournament than in at least half of the US Opens he entered in his career.

 

[Federer20042006]

The fact remains, Agassi didn't take the game seriously until he was past his prime. In his prime...he was an underachiever.

Who knows what would have happened had 97 and prior Agassi taken the game seriously. That guy may have been in the discussion with Federer for GOAT status.