djokovic is a very good returner who is extremely consistent, IMHO safin was a better returner than djokovic, when he brought his 'A' game. he could crush more winners off the return than djokovic and had a more powerful return. Ofcourse, the greatest returner is Agassi.
@Melshae10 this surface is heavily influenced by the climate, Hewitt said you would play in Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne and it felt like a completely different court each time, one would be super slow and another would be as fast as the American hard courts. Plus it also used to result in ankle injuries because the surface would actually melt sometimes, typical Australian weather. I know this is true because my school had a court with this surface and there were places where it had melted.
@BenKey4 because the did not want roger to win and want Rafa/Joker to win LOL The slow court really favaourable to both of them because of their doblebackhand.Balls bounce a bit higher and its difficult for someone who has onehandbackhand like Roger.They also want "epic" loooong game which they thought fan love that type of game.For me its not the type of game that i like that tennis show to us now.Monotonous+no variety of shot like S&V
It's unfortunate that for Andre he persevered through Sampras' career and was only able to win one Australian Open title before Federer's rise to dominance, and then that window was slammed shut. Federer delivered some serious body blows to Andre in 2005, and essentially retired him although he hang around until the USO in '06 just to be dramatic.
In..credible. Audacious and an absolute whirlwind of tennis virtuosity. Those were the days, I'm afraid. Still, let's see what Roger has in store for in in 2012.
They slow down Melbourne, New York and Wimbledon...which plays in Nadal s and Djokovic s hands if it comes to 1on1 against Federer.
Even the US Open are listed on ATP homepage today as "medium fast".
If it would be like 10-20 years ago, Nadal would still be Nr. 1 on clay and winning Paris...Djokovic could beat Federer in Melbourne...but Federer would be Nr. 1 in Wimbledon and New York.
@NDoraku grass isn't 'fast' specifically, it can be both fast and slow. They had two grass courts at my school and you'd be amazed how much the speed varied, on a given day one court might play quite fast and the other very very slow and even have a surprisingly consistent bounce, its a lot more respondent to the weather than a hardcourt. Even then Wimbledon has always used slazenger which is known as a ball significantly slower than the Wilson balls used in New York and Melbourne.
this was one of feds best matches ever i wud say, i remember it, he didnt give agassi a look in on his serve, and it looks like his footwork is way better than it is now. I think the levels gone up now and feds gone down a bit although he is still capable of winning gs every now n then
@3timeMVPNash he is better than anybody, excepting nalbandian in his prime (look masters final 2005 in shangai and madrid and paris 2007) or backwards (ao 2003 or us open 2003) and many more.
@3timeMVPNash Head to head, I will argue that when Nalbandian was on, he could beat just about anybody. Problem is, he can't keep it up. He's not a better player than Roger overall, but he could beat him, on just about any surface. He's a hell of a player, and one of the few that has as much talent as a Roger or Rafa. A bit of a waste, really. He never really had a prime, just his on days when he was better than anyone else, even fed at his best.
@3timeMVPNash You have to argue that nadal does have an extreme amount of talent, as he has incredible timing to be able to contact so well the way he swings, as well as having natural physical abilities. The rest was hard work. However I will say he definitely isn't as talented as roger or david.
@purgatory13z At the WTF, he struggled with the quickness of the court and he needs a lot of time to set up his FH. No doubt he has tremendous athletic abilities, but if all the surfaces weren't more or less the same now he would struggle a lot to play on the fast surfaces of the past.
@Luchon20092109 federer was injured in that masters, and was blowing away nalbandian 2sets to love. he couldnt end the match in that third set and nalbandian won in five. Even Federer was serving for the match at 6-5 and 30-0, so nothing to do with nalbandian being more talented.
@3timeMVPNash if that's so, then why is it that during Roger's prime, that being 2004-2007, he never ONCE managed to beat Nadal at Roland Garros, despite being afforded three chances in that time?
@imavaughanstar Clay is Rafa's best surface and he is the greatest player to ever play on clay. Not really that hard. Besides, I was talking about fast courts, not slow courts.
@3timeMVPNash lol not really that hard? Of course, you must have won a couple of French Opens yourself in your spare time outside of being the world's biggest shithead (check that on urban dictionary, definitions 2, 3 and 4 seem to describe you perfectly). The court is no excuse. Borg won Wimbledon five times, even though every S&V player he would have come across would have had a massive advantage given the nature of the surface. Besides, prime Sampras could have beaten prime Federer.
@imavaughanstar Bjorn Borg came to net MUCH more than any of the players in today's era do. And let's really not get started on the Sampras/Federer debate. The eras are different and it would all depend on the playing surface. But either way, prime Federer was the greatest player to EVER play, so even on a 90's Wimbledon court he could have beaten Pete.
@3timeMVPNash still haven't explained why Federer should be called the greatest of all time when he couldn't beat one guy on one day of the year on three successive occasions during his prime. Surely just once he could have beaten him if he really was the greatest ever. Sampras and McEnroe both have stated that they still have the most confidence in Nadal breaking Federer's record of 16 ie. the race is still on. Do you believe your knowledge of tennis supersedes theirs dipshit?
@imavaughanstar Nadal won't break Fed's GS record, probably because he doesn't have 5-6 more great years in him. He is already declining mentally and physically at 25.
@3timeMVPNash lol he just won his sixth Frenchie and your telling us he's in decline? When the only man standing in his way of yet another stellar three slam season has been Djokovic? For all you know Aus open final might be the two of them next year, and Rafa may once again tip the scales in his favour. No doubt he'll make use of offseason training to improve his game (like he did in 2009-2009) even more so that he can exploit the weaknesses in Djokovic's when they next meet.
@imavaughanstar The French is the only Slam he can have confidence in winning now. The other three he knows that Djokovic is waiting for him. Nole is in his head, and don't underestimate that power. Look at what it did to Fed against Rafa.
@3timeMVPNash lol you think you know about his confidence? I'm pretty sure his assessment of his own playing is a large contributor to his confidence as well as who his opponent is. Against Djokovic this year, though he lost each time, his playing was still very good for the most part, and improvable. I'm sure Nadal is using the off season to develop new strategies to defeat specific opponents, just like he did in the 08-09 break, which helped him play better at the 2009 AUS Open.
@3timeMVPNash and as for Borg coming to the net, that only solidifies my point. Surface didn't stop him, Borg figured out what he had to do to win on grass. Why can't Roger do the same when it comes to beating Nadal at the French Open? Surely the greatest of all time should be able to figure his way around any situation, even if it takes a few years. Surely if he could figure out Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and Agassi, he could get this last guy just once on the red clay of Roland Garros.
@imavaughanstar Nadal will always have the great advantage on clay because of the matchup. That Fed couldn't beat Nadal at RG doesn't mean that Roger isn't the greatest. Rafa is the greatest clay courter ever. Roddick, Hewitt, and others are easy for Fed, but Nadal isn't because he can attack the 1HBH.
@3timeMVPNash Soderling can attack the Nadal forehand very well, and made use of this tactic to defeat him at the French Open. But Nadal found a way to hinder that tactic and now beats him in straight sets. There are no valid excuses. Every tennis player has a weakness, it simply takes a good enough tennis player on the other side of the net to exploit it to beat him.
@imavaughanstar Nadal has no weaknesses though on clay. You basically need to outlast him from the baseline, which only the biggest hitters like Delpo and Soderling can do, or a relentless force like Novak (who also has insane defense).
@3timeMVPNash right and wrong. Soderling indeed was one of the few guys who could do it, but it wasn't about outlasting him. Listen to what the commentators are always saying about that match. Soderling attacked Nadal's forehand side which either let him force an error or more commonly draw Nadal wide, letting him either hit a winner or throw in a dropshot or volley Nadal couldn't reach. That's what won him that match.
@imavaughanstar And Fed cannot attack Nadal's FH with the same consistency because of the high bounce, which makes it more difficult. Indoors though, Fed has attacked Nadal's BH to great success because his BH is a stronger shot with the low bounce.
@3timeMVPNash you prove my point more each time seemingly. 'Difficult' is something the average man cannot contend with. Difficult is something only a determined and skilled man can overcome. So again, I ask, how is it that you sop quickly bestow the title of 'the greatest' upon Federer, yet at the same time, describe him as a man incapable of overcoming the difficulties posed to him by one of his contemporaries?
@doctornov7 I'm assuming by this you mean Nadal. If so, he won one and got the final of two others...I don't think the shit has hit the fan in his career just yet.
@doctornov7 haha I don't see how that was even relevant stating? I was just saying to Nash that a lot of evidence would suggest its too soon to bestow the title of 'greatest of all time' on Federer, and that Nadal may surpass him in the years to come.
I agree. I just watched a match on TV a couple of days ago and the commentator wouldn't stop remarking on how tennis has slowed down in the last six years and how this type of attacking tennis we see here from Fed will never return. I don't think anyone realizes that Federer had to change his game because the game slowed down so much. Here against Agassi you can see how much faster the game is.
The French, well, he never really found his footing since he won in 1999, but he did make the QF 2001-2003. Wimbledon, Finals in 1999, SF 2000-2001. US Open, 1999, Winner, 2000 QF, 2001 QF, 2002 F, 2003 SF, 2004 QF, 2005 F. He also won 8 (!) MS events since his comeback. I think those are astounding stats, especially at that age, where a lot of players are either way past their prime, about to retire or are have already retired! I don't think it's a shame that he lost to Fed here, IMO.
Agassi's peak in his comeback years (1999-200) came in 2003, when he won the Australian Open for the 4th time. Yes he didn't face too many headliners on his way to the the title, but a win is a win. The guy was still competitive and was fairly consistent in Slams and Masters Series events, going to the latter stages in most of them in hic comeback years. I think after his win in 2003, he was slowly declining, but he still played well. AUS: 2004, lost to in form Safin, 2005, lost to Federer
Loot at the footwork at 6:00. It's unreal how fast he goes to hit this forehand winner... sidestepping!!
Geez, he was SO good in his prime. And it's played even faster than any Djokovic vs Söderling. How can one doubt Federer IS the G.O.A.T. when you see this?
@Rodjeurs You should watch some Sampras between 95-99, even earlier if you like. He had the most complete game the sport has ever seen, far more complete than Federer's because Fed cannot serve and volley and win a tournament. Plus, when you look at who Pete faced and defeated in those years, Fed's competition looks paltry. Federer's one of the greats though, no doubt. And his footwork and overall shotmaking versatility is second to none.
@cavaleer Pete was not more complete than Fed. He had a less good backhand, he could hardly hit any inside-out forehand, and above all he was just an average top 30 player on clay. You can't pretend to be a complete player when you're so limited on one surface. Also Roger DID win a grand slam playing serve & volley: Wimbledon 2003.
And about the competition, a classic argument, though his greatest opponents are all grand slam champions: Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic...
@Rodjeurs You're comically ignorant. Pull up Pete Sampras Davis Cup 1997 and watch him demolish Patrick Rafter in the finals. Seriously, I can tell you haven't seen any tennis pre-2001 by your comment about Pete's backhand and his FH. Pull up ANY Sampras video from 1990-1999. I doubt you will though because few people like to have their delusions shattered.
@Rodjeurs And did you seriously say Hewitt, Safin and a far past his prime Agassi??? LMAO!!! Djoker is barely coming into his prime and is CRUSHING Federer, while Nadal has OWNED his ass for about 6 years now. So who exactly has he beaten?? Oh, Roddick and Hewitt. lolololololololol
wtf are you talking about, Sampras played neither at the 2002 US Open, instead he had a piss easy draw to the finals and should thank Agassi for taking Hewitt out in the semis cause Hewitt would've smoked Sampras in the final if they actually played, get your facts right
@89Pleasek Actually, you're right!!!! I mixed up 2000, when he ran through Hewitt, and 2001, when he ran through Safin, Rafter and a couple of others only to lose the finals both years. Hewitt's one of the few who can say they have a winning record against Pete but no one will write any books about the plucky Aussie......lol
Whether or not he would've beaten Sampras in finals all boils down to Pete's stamina. Hewitt never "smoked" anyone. He wore them down.....ask Federer.
pete wrote in his book that hewitt was unlucky to be playing his best tennis in 2000-2005 where serve-and-volley was slowly dissappearing, lleyton had the perfect game against s-a-volleyers, look at his record vs Henman (3-0 on fast grass I believe), Sampras - 19-year-old hewitt beat him at 2000 queen's very convincigly 6-4 6-4, rafter and others
then Federer came along in 2003 who even though a great volleyer didn't rush the net after every shot and Hewitt had no answers from the baseline
@89Pleasek Hewitt has a great game against S&V cause he chipped the return and ran down the volley. It was very effective. He could also serve well enough to hold. I never said he wasn't skilled. But his relative strengths were exposed by Fed, once he figured him out, among others because he doesn't have any real WEAPONS. He's a counter-puncher. His record over the last 8 years speaks for itself. He would've been interesting to see in the 90s, against all the S&Vers.
@89Pleasek It also would've been interesting to see him against Pete when he was physically in his prime, from say '94-98, and could play from the baseline much more comfortably.
Agassi of as late as 2003 or even 2004 would have given Federer a really good match here, it could've went one way or another but Agassi's movement here was way too slow due to the back.
Man these were the days Roger was in his prime, unstoppable! So sad to see Roger starting a slow decline, gonna miss that awesome backhand, slice, and the amazing freak shots that only Roger can do!
si el tenis hubiese sido justo, roger y andre, habrian pertenecido a la misma generacion; hubiesen jugados muchos mas partidos entre si que los que realmente han jugado (11); hubiese sido un gran clasico de la historia de este deporte.....
federer from 2003/4-2007 is just wow. Hes still amazing now but i think he play at least more consistent from 2003-2007 but 2009 was a really great year for him in terms of his tennis also :)
@cammpinno his back was f'ed.. read his book he explains it everday at that point was fought for his foundation. sleeping on the floor everynight fighting through reporters asking about retirement, constant pain
@TheFuckingDestroy I just had to read the last two sentences to realize that you're a dumbass and probably an obsessed gamer. "Federer has no talent"? Google him up and see how many wins he has compared to any other player in the sport, you ignorant kid.
Its amazing... i was not planning to watch the entire video.. bubt the more points i watched the more i realised the level of tennis.. is so high... Love roger my idol and classy andre...
@federerbestcIass what's the deal with so many people inserting just random comments into videos. maybe ill try it: 'I hope billy joel's next tour is going to hit minneapolis- i'm definetely going! yayyyyy!!!!!!!'
@fbinsulation Andre was not only the best ball striker and returner of all time....He generated a lot of power (he was probably the most powerful baseline player). They called him the punisher because of how hard he hit it and how he would run his opponents left/right during rallies. It's unfortunate that he was going on 35 in the video before you...but I think you can see what I'm saying considering he's 34 here.
@fbinsulation agassi's a counter puncher and plays on the rise it just looks faster because agassi returns the ball back to federer faster and federer is just trying to keep up
@youziness Very good point. I'm watching this after having watched a couple of his matches from this year and there is definitely a sharp drop in speed and strength. I think the mistake Fed has made was that he didn't get stronger as he matured, like Pete. He's actually become slower and weaker while the others have gotten stronger, notably Djoker. It catches up with you....
@fbinsulation becouse now you have more defensive players like Nadal or Murray. Of course these years with Sampras Agassi HEwitt Rafter were better in tennis than yeras with Nadal domination.
@fbinsulation True. But then today's Roland Garros is fast then back then, they are homogenising the surfaces to allow all top players to do better on all slams.
@fbinsulation thats because it was. Courts were faster, these days all courts are so damn slow, even wimbledon is slower - Hence players like nadal have it easier. Faster courts played well for Roger.
@fbinsulation That's because they want Nadal to win. Notice how in this year's US open Djoker the #1 seed met Fed who was the #3 seed in the semis. Usually #1 plays #4 in the semis. But just for that year they somehow had #1 play #3. Why? They were hoping Fed would beat, or atleast tire the hell out of the Djoker and then the US open would be in Nadal's back pocket. Slezy bunch the whole of them
@sanjaytumati Yeah, agreed. It's even more crazy that for the past 12 slams, Federer and Djokovic have been on the same side! And apart from a the claycourts of Paris a few years ago and one or two Wimbledons, this has been the case. It's very, very strange.
@fbinsulation Back when tennis was tennis and guys hit flat. Now guys either put so much spin it's practically a moon ball OR they go flat as a board. This was a different type of ball striking... one I miss.
The topspin backhand too short in the diagonal, it was relative weakness of Federer or 2005. Federer likes trajectories tense and could rely on this ball.
I miss the old roger Federer but also the others. Some say that from 2002 to 2007 players weren't as good as now but I disagree. I miss this kind of hard hitting matches. Matches with Federer, agassi, hewitt, safin, nalbandian... where far more enjoyable to see than today's matches.
djokovic is a very good returner who is extremely consistent, IMHO safin was a better returner than djokovic, when he brought his 'A' game. he could crush more winners off the return than djokovic and had a more powerful return. Ofcourse, the greatest returner is Agassi.
arvind13 1 day ago
I would love to see the Djokovic of 2011 play Agassi. Two of the best service returners in the game go against each other.
mainhoondon21 1 day ago
Federer came to the net more often back then
luke9915 3 weeks ago
Hillarious the skippy in the top right hand corner ... only in Europe!
madbert80 3 weeks ago
Jesus these courts are fast, why did they go and ruin things :-(
Melshae10 3 weeks ago 9
@Melshae10 The slow courts have defo hurt Federer.
incredibleXMan 3 weeks ago
@Melshae10 this surface is heavily influenced by the climate, Hewitt said you would play in Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne and it felt like a completely different court each time, one would be super slow and another would be as fast as the American hard courts. Plus it also used to result in ankle injuries because the surface would actually melt sometimes, typical Australian weather. I know this is true because my school had a court with this surface and there were places where it had melted.
imavaughanstar 1 week ago
Rebound Ace was a lot faster than what they have now
Uzaair 3 weeks ago
This looks a lot faster than Australian Open now. Why they slow up couts?
BenKey4 1 month ago 2
Comment removed
gurlz87me 3 weeks ago
@BenKey4 because the did not want roger to win and want Rafa/Joker to win LOL The slow court really favaourable to both of them because of their doblebackhand.Balls bounce a bit higher and its difficult for someone who has onehandbackhand like Roger.They also want "epic" loooong game which they thought fan love that type of game.For me its not the type of game that i like that tennis show to us now.Monotonous+no variety of shot like S&V
gurlz87me 3 weeks ago
even if nadal gets more titles than fed,he will never be better.
TKTiggz 1 month ago
It's unfortunate that for Andre he persevered through Sampras' career and was only able to win one Australian Open title before Federer's rise to dominance, and then that window was slammed shut. Federer delivered some serious body blows to Andre in 2005, and essentially retired him although he hang around until the USO in '06 just to be dramatic.
ctoth666 1 month ago
Everything seems much more faster... Ball looks smaller wtf
boban305 2 months ago
YO!
MiniFats01 2 months ago
In..credible. Audacious and an absolute whirlwind of tennis virtuosity. Those were the days, I'm afraid. Still, let's see what Roger has in store for in in 2012.
FederersL1ama 2 months ago
wat a cruot is liek graun colrlos?
mjsupafly 3 months ago
I love Agassi vs Federer matches! They're so lively and fast-paced!
AtobeTanhausser01 3 months ago
5:45-5:50 Wow!
Rus6ATP 3 months ago
1:38-1:41 Power!
Rus6ATP 3 months ago
1:14
YO
vegeta775 3 months ago
@vegeta775 grande!
Rus6ATP 3 months ago
The 2005 Federer backhand was unbelievable. He was just outrageous that year. Really should've had those AO and Masters Cup titles.
EmceeNolan 4 months ago
funny kangaroo in the corner as Roger swung =p hehe
Nabs07 4 months ago
holy crap, they look like they're in fast-forward
Fernandez218 4 months ago
Fearless Federer.
Fukarichief 4 months ago
that poser Djokovic should learn from this
MrBrownGNR 4 months ago
It's matches like these that make you wonder why they ever considered slowing down the game.
sasook 4 months ago
fed played with so much desire and energy back then.
ludtke337 4 months ago
just to play against Agassi woaw that must have been epic every tournament.
skunkid2 5 months ago
simply federer in his prime, dont think we ever gonna see this movement and aggressive shot making from boths wings again............
cbee69 5 months ago
I play at the same velocity... when I'm playing ping pong.....
AkMachx 6 months ago
goodtimes...
fejuncor 6 months ago
They slow down Melbourne, New York and Wimbledon...which plays in Nadal s and Djokovic s hands if it comes to 1on1 against Federer.
Even the US Open are listed on ATP homepage today as "medium fast".
If it would be like 10-20 years ago, Nadal would still be Nr. 1 on clay and winning Paris...Djokovic could beat Federer in Melbourne...but Federer would be Nr. 1 in Wimbledon and New York.
NDoraku 6 months ago 6
@NDoraku grass isn't 'fast' specifically, it can be both fast and slow. They had two grass courts at my school and you'd be amazed how much the speed varied, on a given day one court might play quite fast and the other very very slow and even have a surprisingly consistent bounce, its a lot more respondent to the weather than a hardcourt. Even then Wimbledon has always used slazenger which is known as a ball significantly slower than the Wilson balls used in New York and Melbourne.
imavaughanstar 1 week ago
this is Jedi tennis
tennismaroc 6 months ago 2
I wish the courts at the AO were still this fast.
roddickfan90 6 months ago
Agassi was a relic of an old era. The fact that Agassi was still competitive at such an age was stunning in it's own right.
gargarensi 6 months ago
this was one of feds best matches ever i wud say, i remember it, he didnt give agassi a look in on his serve, and it looks like his footwork is way better than it is now. I think the levels gone up now and feds gone down a bit although he is still capable of winning gs every now n then
irfanulhaq1 6 months ago
Hey who's that fellow in the blue, he is quite amazing at tennis ;)
MrJM215 6 months ago 10
@MrJM215
dis is a frederher u dumass haha
mjsupafly 3 months ago
@mjsupafly I was being sarcastic dipshit lol
MrJM215 3 months ago
@MrJM215
fuk 2 u brah dis is liek dumy dumy fuk ufk
mjsupafly 3 months ago
@mjsupafly lol what? you make no fucking sense ha, go learn some english before commenting again
MrJM215 3 months ago
@MrJM215
hey wassup homes wy u talkin dat shit , fuk u brah,
u sed dat we wos gona run ewey togeza
mjsupafly 3 months ago
federer in his prime was better then agassi in his prime
eew64059 6 months ago
@eew64059 Federer in his prime is better than anybody in their prime.
3timeMVPNash 6 months ago 25
@3timeMVPNash Except Nadal
Boudosaved 3 months ago
@3timeMVPNash he is better than anybody, excepting nalbandian in his prime (look masters final 2005 in shangai and madrid and paris 2007) or backwards (ao 2003 or us open 2003) and many more.
Luchon20092109 2 months ago
@Luchon20092109 Who has 16 GS and who has 0? Nalbandian was not better than Roger in their primes.
3timeMVPNash 2 months ago
@3timeMVPNash Head to head, I will argue that when Nalbandian was on, he could beat just about anybody. Problem is, he can't keep it up. He's not a better player than Roger overall, but he could beat him, on just about any surface. He's a hell of a player, and one of the few that has as much talent as a Roger or Rafa. A bit of a waste, really. He never really had a prime, just his on days when he was better than anyone else, even fed at his best.
purgatory13z 2 months ago
@purgatory13z Yes, Nalby was definitely the second most talented player of that era behind Roger. He had endless talent, just not enough focus.
Btw, Rafa has a warrior's heart, but not much natural talent.
3timeMVPNash 2 months ago
@3timeMVPNash You have to argue that nadal does have an extreme amount of talent, as he has incredible timing to be able to contact so well the way he swings, as well as having natural physical abilities. The rest was hard work. However I will say he definitely isn't as talented as roger or david.
purgatory13z 2 months ago
@purgatory13z At the WTF, he struggled with the quickness of the court and he needs a lot of time to set up his FH. No doubt he has tremendous athletic abilities, but if all the surfaces weren't more or less the same now he would struggle a lot to play on the fast surfaces of the past.
3timeMVPNash 2 months ago
@Luchon20092109 federer was injured in that masters, and was blowing away nalbandian 2sets to love. he couldnt end the match in that third set and nalbandian won in five. Even Federer was serving for the match at 6-5 and 30-0, so nothing to do with nalbandian being more talented.
contactafc10 2 months ago
@3timeMVPNash if that's so, then why is it that during Roger's prime, that being 2004-2007, he never ONCE managed to beat Nadal at Roland Garros, despite being afforded three chances in that time?
imavaughanstar 2 months ago
@imavaughanstar Clay is Rafa's best surface and he is the greatest player to ever play on clay. Not really that hard. Besides, I was talking about fast courts, not slow courts.
3timeMVPNash 2 months ago
@3timeMVPNash lol not really that hard? Of course, you must have won a couple of French Opens yourself in your spare time outside of being the world's biggest shithead (check that on urban dictionary, definitions 2, 3 and 4 seem to describe you perfectly). The court is no excuse. Borg won Wimbledon five times, even though every S&V player he would have come across would have had a massive advantage given the nature of the surface. Besides, prime Sampras could have beaten prime Federer.
imavaughanstar 2 months ago
@imavaughanstar Bjorn Borg came to net MUCH more than any of the players in today's era do. And let's really not get started on the Sampras/Federer debate. The eras are different and it would all depend on the playing surface. But either way, prime Federer was the greatest player to EVER play, so even on a 90's Wimbledon court he could have beaten Pete.
3timeMVPNash 2 months ago
@3timeMVPNash still haven't explained why Federer should be called the greatest of all time when he couldn't beat one guy on one day of the year on three successive occasions during his prime. Surely just once he could have beaten him if he really was the greatest ever. Sampras and McEnroe both have stated that they still have the most confidence in Nadal breaking Federer's record of 16 ie. the race is still on. Do you believe your knowledge of tennis supersedes theirs dipshit?
imavaughanstar 2 months ago
@imavaughanstar Nadal won't break Fed's GS record, probably because he doesn't have 5-6 more great years in him. He is already declining mentally and physically at 25.
3timeMVPNash 2 months ago
@3timeMVPNash lol he just won his sixth Frenchie and your telling us he's in decline? When the only man standing in his way of yet another stellar three slam season has been Djokovic? For all you know Aus open final might be the two of them next year, and Rafa may once again tip the scales in his favour. No doubt he'll make use of offseason training to improve his game (like he did in 2009-2009) even more so that he can exploit the weaknesses in Djokovic's when they next meet.
imavaughanstar 2 months ago
@imavaughanstar The French is the only Slam he can have confidence in winning now. The other three he knows that Djokovic is waiting for him. Nole is in his head, and don't underestimate that power. Look at what it did to Fed against Rafa.
3timeMVPNash 2 months ago
@3timeMVPNash lol you think you know about his confidence? I'm pretty sure his assessment of his own playing is a large contributor to his confidence as well as who his opponent is. Against Djokovic this year, though he lost each time, his playing was still very good for the most part, and improvable. I'm sure Nadal is using the off season to develop new strategies to defeat specific opponents, just like he did in the 08-09 break, which helped him play better at the 2009 AUS Open.
imavaughanstar 2 months ago
@3timeMVPNash and as for Borg coming to the net, that only solidifies my point. Surface didn't stop him, Borg figured out what he had to do to win on grass. Why can't Roger do the same when it comes to beating Nadal at the French Open? Surely the greatest of all time should be able to figure his way around any situation, even if it takes a few years. Surely if he could figure out Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and Agassi, he could get this last guy just once on the red clay of Roland Garros.
imavaughanstar 2 months ago
@imavaughanstar Nadal will always have the great advantage on clay because of the matchup. That Fed couldn't beat Nadal at RG doesn't mean that Roger isn't the greatest. Rafa is the greatest clay courter ever. Roddick, Hewitt, and others are easy for Fed, but Nadal isn't because he can attack the 1HBH.
3timeMVPNash 2 months ago
@3timeMVPNash Soderling can attack the Nadal forehand very well, and made use of this tactic to defeat him at the French Open. But Nadal found a way to hinder that tactic and now beats him in straight sets. There are no valid excuses. Every tennis player has a weakness, it simply takes a good enough tennis player on the other side of the net to exploit it to beat him.
imavaughanstar 2 months ago
@imavaughanstar Nadal has no weaknesses though on clay. You basically need to outlast him from the baseline, which only the biggest hitters like Delpo and Soderling can do, or a relentless force like Novak (who also has insane defense).
3timeMVPNash 2 months ago
@3timeMVPNash right and wrong. Soderling indeed was one of the few guys who could do it, but it wasn't about outlasting him. Listen to what the commentators are always saying about that match. Soderling attacked Nadal's forehand side which either let him force an error or more commonly draw Nadal wide, letting him either hit a winner or throw in a dropshot or volley Nadal couldn't reach. That's what won him that match.
imavaughanstar 2 months ago
@imavaughanstar And Fed cannot attack Nadal's FH with the same consistency because of the high bounce, which makes it more difficult. Indoors though, Fed has attacked Nadal's BH to great success because his BH is a stronger shot with the low bounce.
3timeMVPNash 2 months ago
@3timeMVPNash you prove my point more each time seemingly. 'Difficult' is something the average man cannot contend with. Difficult is something only a determined and skilled man can overcome. So again, I ask, how is it that you sop quickly bestow the title of 'the greatest' upon Federer, yet at the same time, describe him as a man incapable of overcoming the difficulties posed to him by one of his contemporaries?
imavaughanstar 2 months ago
@imavaughanstar, just look at how many grand slams he won this year. He's not going to win any more. His record will just be surpassed.
doctornov7 1 month ago
@doctornov7 I'm assuming by this you mean Nadal. If so, he won one and got the final of two others...I don't think the shit has hit the fan in his career just yet.
imavaughanstar 1 month ago
@imavaughanstar no i mean federer. come on he's 30. the end is nigh for mr federer.
doctornov7 1 month ago
@doctornov7 haha I don't see how that was even relevant stating? I was just saying to Nash that a lot of evidence would suggest its too soon to bestow the title of 'greatest of all time' on Federer, and that Nadal may surpass him in the years to come.
imavaughanstar 1 month ago
@imavaughanstar no its not too early to say he's the greatest. though it's too early to say he's the most successful
butterflycaught900 1 month ago
@3timeMVPNash
I agree. I just watched a match on TV a couple of days ago and the commentator wouldn't stop remarking on how tennis has slowed down in the last six years and how this type of attacking tennis we see here from Fed will never return. I don't think anyone realizes that Federer had to change his game because the game slowed down so much. Here against Agassi you can see how much faster the game is.
RBaltovi 1 month ago
agassi is a beast!
seanmukherji 7 months ago
I miss this Federer, fast and willing to fight for points!
BenKey4 7 months ago
@napajedlacek i would say 2004-dubai 2007
plfight 7 months ago
Federer's prime right here...even Agassi admitted that Roger had "no weaknesses"
iGo0ch 8 months ago
@iGo0ch -Rogers prime time was in 2005 at Wimbledon and later 2007 Australia ..
I would say ...Aussie 2005 (lost to Safin )till Aussie 2007 was his prime time
napajedlacek 8 months ago
The French, well, he never really found his footing since he won in 1999, but he did make the QF 2001-2003. Wimbledon, Finals in 1999, SF 2000-2001. US Open, 1999, Winner, 2000 QF, 2001 QF, 2002 F, 2003 SF, 2004 QF, 2005 F. He also won 8 (!) MS events since his comeback. I think those are astounding stats, especially at that age, where a lot of players are either way past their prime, about to retire or are have already retired! I don't think it's a shame that he lost to Fed here, IMO.
davd1986 8 months ago
Agassi's peak in his comeback years (1999-200) came in 2003, when he won the Australian Open for the 4th time. Yes he didn't face too many headliners on his way to the the title, but a win is a win. The guy was still competitive and was fairly consistent in Slams and Masters Series events, going to the latter stages in most of them in hic comeback years. I think after his win in 2003, he was slowly declining, but he still played well. AUS: 2004, lost to in form Safin, 2005, lost to Federer
davd1986 8 months ago
Loot at the footwork at 6:00. It's unreal how fast he goes to hit this forehand winner... sidestepping!!
Geez, he was SO good in his prime. And it's played even faster than any Djokovic vs Söderling. How can one doubt Federer IS the G.O.A.T. when you see this?
Rodjeurs 8 months ago
@Rodjeurs You should watch some Sampras between 95-99, even earlier if you like. He had the most complete game the sport has ever seen, far more complete than Federer's because Fed cannot serve and volley and win a tournament. Plus, when you look at who Pete faced and defeated in those years, Fed's competition looks paltry. Federer's one of the greats though, no doubt. And his footwork and overall shotmaking versatility is second to none.
cavaleer 8 months ago
@cavaleer Pete was not more complete than Fed. He had a less good backhand, he could hardly hit any inside-out forehand, and above all he was just an average top 30 player on clay. You can't pretend to be a complete player when you're so limited on one surface. Also Roger DID win a grand slam playing serve & volley: Wimbledon 2003.
And about the competition, a classic argument, though his greatest opponents are all grand slam champions: Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic...
Rodjeurs 8 months ago
@Rodjeurs You're comically ignorant. Pull up Pete Sampras Davis Cup 1997 and watch him demolish Patrick Rafter in the finals. Seriously, I can tell you haven't seen any tennis pre-2001 by your comment about Pete's backhand and his FH. Pull up ANY Sampras video from 1990-1999. I doubt you will though because few people like to have their delusions shattered.
cavaleer 8 months ago
Comment removed
Rodjeurs 8 months ago
@Rodjeurs And did you seriously say Hewitt, Safin and a far past his prime Agassi??? LMAO!!! Djoker is barely coming into his prime and is CRUSHING Federer, while Nadal has OWNED his ass for about 6 years now. So who exactly has he beaten?? Oh, Roddick and Hewitt. lolololololololol
cavaleer 8 months ago
Comment removed
Rodjeurs 8 months ago
@Rodjeurs Hewitt and Safin, the two guys Sampras also SMOKED on his way to his last Slam. You're young and ignorant...troll on...
cavaleer 8 months ago
Comment removed
Rodjeurs 8 months ago
wtf are you talking about, Sampras played neither at the 2002 US Open, instead he had a piss easy draw to the finals and should thank Agassi for taking Hewitt out in the semis cause Hewitt would've smoked Sampras in the final if they actually played, get your facts right
89Pleasek 7 months ago
@89Pleasek Actually, you're right!!!! I mixed up 2000, when he ran through Hewitt, and 2001, when he ran through Safin, Rafter and a couple of others only to lose the finals both years. Hewitt's one of the few who can say they have a winning record against Pete but no one will write any books about the plucky Aussie......lol
Whether or not he would've beaten Sampras in finals all boils down to Pete's stamina. Hewitt never "smoked" anyone. He wore them down.....ask Federer.
cavaleer 7 months ago
pete wrote in his book that hewitt was unlucky to be playing his best tennis in 2000-2005 where serve-and-volley was slowly dissappearing, lleyton had the perfect game against s-a-volleyers, look at his record vs Henman (3-0 on fast grass I believe), Sampras - 19-year-old hewitt beat him at 2000 queen's very convincigly 6-4 6-4, rafter and others
then Federer came along in 2003 who even though a great volleyer didn't rush the net after every shot and Hewitt had no answers from the baseline
89Pleasek 7 months ago
@89Pleasek Hewitt has a great game against S&V cause he chipped the return and ran down the volley. It was very effective. He could also serve well enough to hold. I never said he wasn't skilled. But his relative strengths were exposed by Fed, once he figured him out, among others because he doesn't have any real WEAPONS. He's a counter-puncher. His record over the last 8 years speaks for itself. He would've been interesting to see in the 90s, against all the S&Vers.
cavaleer 7 months ago
@89Pleasek It also would've been interesting to see him against Pete when he was physically in his prime, from say '94-98, and could play from the baseline much more comfortably.
cavaleer 7 months ago
that point on the 44th sec is amazing, what a volley and what an anticipation !
MdeSouche 9 months ago
Agassi of as late as 2003 or even 2004 would have given Federer a really good match here, it could've went one way or another but Agassi's movement here was way too slow due to the back.
SoooBlue 9 months ago
Man these were the days Roger was in his prime, unstoppable! So sad to see Roger starting a slow decline, gonna miss that awesome backhand, slice, and the amazing freak shots that only Roger can do!
MiChiaL93 9 months ago
Forehand at 2:16 is very good.
brandon672008 9 months ago
roger at his prime. Remember this roger, the greatest player of all time
raikahoken 9 months ago
i have always liked federer's slice. so cool~
destinykaizer 9 months ago
si el tenis hubiese sido justo, roger y andre, habrian pertenecido a la misma generacion; hubiesen jugados muchos mas partidos entre si que los que realmente han jugado (11); hubiese sido un gran clasico de la historia de este deporte.....
pablotjob 9 months ago
djokovic will be no match for federer if they at that court
dumbledoriesII 10 months ago
This tennis is blistering fast, I like it. Why the fuck did they slow down all the courts?
kaylun80 10 months ago
favorite part: "YO!" 1:08
iGo0ch 10 months ago
This game is very beautiful. I really like Agassi
DaeronKing 11 months ago
federer from 2003/4-2007 is just wow. Hes still amazing now but i think he play at least more consistent from 2003-2007 but 2009 was a really great year for him in terms of his tennis also :)
jasonkkcca 11 months ago
@jasonkkcca in that era was a great amazing tennis, but there's a great beckheand and wonderfoul slice now.
alfiere1978 11 months ago
Dr. Evil...
jantisoy 11 months ago
I missed that Roger!!!!! come back, stay young. I can't imagine the day without Federer
tomerico20 11 months ago
2 champions of this tournament....wow
MrTennislover69 1 year ago
Andre doesnt bother running much..no wonder at 34.
cammpinno 1 year ago
@cammpinno his back was f'ed.. read his book he explains it everday at that point was fought for his foundation. sleeping on the floor everynight fighting through reporters asking about retirement, constant pain
insane
cj397 1 year ago
man.....is it just me or at that year the hard court matches were ways more faster than actual....this looks awesome
alejomax1 1 year ago
@alejomax1 yeah now they started slowing down the hardcourts. it blows.
cj397 1 year ago
I think that Agassi were in better shape the year before. But mr.incredible, Safin, were in his way from the final agains Federer.. :/
Hageltrast 1 year ago
@Hageltrast yes, he was much better in 04. It was his last consistent great GS performance in AO 04.
cammpinno 1 year ago
@cammpinno How about USO 2005 were he made the final?
bjarktron 11 months ago
sick ballstriking from both player´s, a joy to watch..
extradutyfelt1 1 year ago
0:44, andre ripped the shit out of that backhand and roger manages to block it with the volley..unreal..
extradutyfelt1 1 year ago
Federer has no talent. The advantage lies in its hardware. Rope-bat.
TheFuckingDestroy 1 year ago
@TheFuckingDestroy I just had to read the last two sentences to realize that you're a dumbass and probably an obsessed gamer. "Federer has no talent"? Google him up and see how many wins he has compared to any other player in the sport, you ignorant kid.
misterlonely1446 1 year ago
Comment removed
jayze494 1 year ago
@TheFuckingDestroy nice joke dude
jayze494 1 year ago
@TheFuckingDestroy Cool story Bro.
toozydude2 1 year ago
haha agassi at 6:08 "damn it im too old for this shit"
tennisboi 1 year ago
Its amazing... i was not planning to watch the entire video.. bubt the more points i watched the more i realised the level of tennis.. is so high... Love roger my idol and classy andre...
satishsatishiyer 1 year ago
@satishsatishiyer Just wish Andre was 10 years younger when he faced Roger. Some would say (including me) that the result could be quite different...
mousavsm 1 year ago
Rafa Nadal is the classic greatest. so nice. love Nadal :)
federerbestcIass 1 year ago
@federerbestcIass what's the deal with so many people inserting just random comments into videos. maybe ill try it: 'I hope billy joel's next tour is going to hit minneapolis- i'm definetely going! yayyyyy!!!!!!!'
tennisboi 1 year ago
this seems way faster than today's tennis
fbinsulation 1 year ago 37
@fbinsulation Andre was not only the best ball striker and returner of all time....He generated a lot of power (he was probably the most powerful baseline player). They called him the punisher because of how hard he hit it and how he would run his opponents left/right during rallies. It's unfortunate that he was going on 35 in the video before you...but I think you can see what I'm saying considering he's 34 here.
mousavsm 1 year ago
@fbinsulation agassi's a counter puncher and plays on the rise it just looks faster because agassi returns the ball back to federer faster and federer is just trying to keep up
Ralzaly 1 year ago
Agassi a counter puncher? yeee what else
89Pleasek 1 year ago
@fbinsulation the courts at tournaments those days were WAY faster than they are today.. they slowed the hell out of them now it sucks
cj397 1 year ago
@fbinsulation agassi and federer are both very aggressive players, thats why
fedex19912000 1 year ago
@fbinsulation It's not. Fed's footwork is a little slower but not much. Watch him play Djoker. It's every bit as fast, hard and crisp.
cavaleer 10 months ago
@cavaleer roger's footwork definitely slower and body not as flexible now, no strong core nor balance.
youziness 8 months ago
@youziness Very good point. I'm watching this after having watched a couple of his matches from this year and there is definitely a sharp drop in speed and strength. I think the mistake Fed has made was that he didn't get stronger as he matured, like Pete. He's actually become slower and weaker while the others have gotten stronger, notably Djoker. It catches up with you....
cavaleer 8 months ago
@fbinsulation it is faster. its just because federer and agassi have such great rackethead acceleration. they use eachothers pace.
tenn1spro92 9 months ago
@fbinsulation becouse now you have more defensive players like Nadal or Murray. Of course these years with Sampras Agassi HEwitt Rafter were better in tennis than yeras with Nadal domination.
Fuckbarcelona 8 months ago
@fbinsulation
it's hard court!
squashjunkiepete 8 months ago
@fbinsulation Is not tennis, its roger.
MrPedroso88 8 months ago 2
@fbinsulation both federer and agassi hits the ball erly
and this typ of tennis more of power and finding angels
tennis today is more slow beacuse allot of players waits fore his/her aponent to make and error
like murray
dassmanen44 7 months ago
@fbinsulation
It's fast cause both player have played very aggressive tennis, taking the ball very early.
No spiny ball almost at all.
That's all.
Federer backhand is excellent when it comes to those low bouncing balls.
But with balls with many spin, that bounce high, he has a problem.
velikikomsa 7 months ago
@fbinsulation i think its because of the green court today they have a blue court at the australian open which makes the ball look slower
clubfreak360er 6 months ago
@fbinsulation of course, today tennis is more topspin than the old school style.
BlakkLining 6 months ago
@fbinsulation True. But then today's Roland Garros is fast then back then, they are homogenising the surfaces to allow all top players to do better on all slams.
tbk1457 5 months ago
@fbinsulation it does indeed.
nikehike 4 months ago
@fbinsulation thats because it was. Courts were faster, these days all courts are so damn slow, even wimbledon is slower - Hence players like nadal have it easier. Faster courts played well for Roger.
Mopzboy 4 months ago
@fbinsulation That's because they want Nadal to win. Notice how in this year's US open Djoker the #1 seed met Fed who was the #3 seed in the semis. Usually #1 plays #4 in the semis. But just for that year they somehow had #1 play #3. Why? They were hoping Fed would beat, or atleast tire the hell out of the Djoker and then the US open would be in Nadal's back pocket. Slezy bunch the whole of them
sanjaytumati 4 months ago
@sanjaytumati Yeah, agreed. It's even more crazy that for the past 12 slams, Federer and Djokovic have been on the same side! And apart from a the claycourts of Paris a few years ago and one or two Wimbledons, this has been the case. It's very, very strange.
davd1986 4 months ago
@fbinsulation Back when tennis was tennis and guys hit flat. Now guys either put so much spin it's practically a moon ball OR they go flat as a board. This was a different type of ball striking... one I miss.
z33twinturbo 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Federer's ability to run around his backhand 2003-2007 was just staggering!!!
davd1986 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Federer's ability to run around his backhand 2003-2007 was just staggering!!!
davd1986 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Federer's ability to run around his backhand in 2003-2007, UNREAL!!!
davd1986 1 year ago
Federer's ability to run around his backhand in 2003-2007: UNREAL!!!
davd1986 1 year ago
Federer's ability to run around his backhand in 2003-2007: UNREAL!!!
davd1986 1 year ago
love it when these two played.
JamieOwen03 1 year ago
look at roger's movement.. it is so fast! And that forehand of his is beast!
hsieno 1 year ago 28
@hsieno i miss this roger :(
abcjc1 7 months ago
THIS Fed, is the best Federer I have ever seen.
Fed of 2005 would beat anyone in the open era....
LDis1 1 year ago
@LDis1 Cept when Safin beat him in the semi's the day after this.
DanimalLawlz 1 year ago
The topspin backhand too short in the diagonal, it was relative weakness of Federer or 2005. Federer likes trajectories tense and could rely on this ball.
TheFuckingDestroy 1 year ago
I miss the old roger Federer but also the others. Some say that from 2002 to 2007 players weren't as good as now but I disagree. I miss this kind of hard hitting matches. Matches with Federer, agassi, hewitt, safin, nalbandian... where far more enjoyable to see than today's matches.
And Federer at this time was just incredible
69wiwi69 1 year ago
Comment removed
89Pleasek 1 year ago
Damn, I miss the old Roger