Federer Agassi USO 2005 Final Highlights Part 3

[coquio]

2:07 “How do you hit a winner from that position is what Agassi is thinking.” - John McEnroe

Yes that's him commentating, wondering how the hell Federer just pulled that winner.

[Mijumaru500]

lol at 1:10

"Yes!"

[musicandminastirith]

the greatest player is determined by how long a player can maintain an extraordinary level of skill for the longest time. most of the top players have been dominant in certain years ie RF:05-06 RN:10 ND:11... whoever can keep that up the longest is the greatest.

[DickPole]

1:57 for the point David Foster Wallace talks about in his essay.

[hnic14]

Grantland-DFG

[EmceeNolan]

@TheWindupDream Probably because Nadal is going at Federer's backhand with HIS forehand. Nadal gets destroyed by Federer in BH-to-BH rallies...just watch the World Tour Finals final last year.

[EmceeNolan]

@TheWindupDream Federer's backhand is MUCH better than Nadal's. In his prime it was superb. The highlight reels of Federer...the vast majority of those "incredible shots" are off his backhand, not his forehand. Federer minus that backhand is just another great player who doesn't inspire such awe.

Nadal's backhand is a dull rallying shot. He can hit some nice cross court angles on the run with it, but he can't go down the line to save his life, and has no variety in general.

[Maniac742]

@TheWindupDream You're smoking dope if you think Federer's backhand is garbage. The man has the most exquisite one handed backhand that tennis has ever seen. Djokovic beats Nadal because of his backhand. It's the same with all players who run around the backhand. Djokovic pins him in his own forehand corner and forces him to hit the backhand on the run where Nadal struggles. Nadal will never own Federer. While Federer was cleaning house in titles Nadal didn't even make the quarters.

[ancasilviana]

ferocious fed..i miss that. but while fans remain in need, he goes out there and plays with his chances and extravagant shots. well, i guess no one can tame real talent for lesser, selfish aims such as nr of slams, head to heads etc

[rockerduff1231]

i enjoy watching federer much more than nadal...nadal just has his number. i still think federer is better.

[djdenns]

Nadal is a great champion ,

federer in his own laegue

[tjstrott25]

agassi is 35 here. amazing

[casketofdog]

why would u name ur son dick?

[MrHighLife90]

the Federer's forehand at 2:15 is just NOT POSSIBLE.

[mogofou]

I meant, Federer doesn't serve that hard in general, of course it's not accelerated

[HornyGates]

@mogofou He does, did you watch him playing at during his era? It was usual serve lol. He still got an amazing serve right now, even thought its not that fast.

[mogofou]

the serve at the beginning of the vid is just insane ! Is it actual speed or was it accelerated ?

[asdfuogh]

@mogofou i think it's because it sounds really hard and the balls probably bounce faster. wasn't the atp experimenting with slower balls so people could be more entertained when they watch?

[3timeMVPNash]

Whoever thinks that Nadal will be winning Grand Slams in 4 years is out of their mind. With the game he plays, there is no chance in hell he wins as many Slams as Roger, or lasts as long playing great tennis.

[asdfuogh]

@3timeMVPNash Unless he uses some kinda bio-engineering method, eh? I mean.. how does a guy go from completely broken down body (can't serve because he ripped his abs, destroyed his knees, basically became the whipping boy at the WTF last year, suddenly destroy almost everyone on hardcourt?) Not that I'm saying that he's the only top player to abuse.

[libatako]

lol...no way Nadal is winning the US Open.....for one..there are just too many players like Del Potro who salivate at Nadal hitting heavy topspin to them.

[podge325]

i still find myself cheering for agassi when i watch this. 35? he's incredible. love fed too

[89Pleasek]

Of course the competition is bigger each year. Players are faster, stronger, have more stamina - that;s just the nature of evolution. It's like Tilden wouldn't stand a chance in Laver's era, Laver wouldn't do much in Borg's/McEnroe's prime and those 2 wouldn't be even in the top 10 in the 90's with Sampras. Sampras however is the only "old school" player who might have a shot at the Slams had he played now (10 years yougner ofc).

[89Pleasek]

One day even stronger and faster men will surpass Federer's level BUT there's no way these new faster and stronger players can dominate the tour just as Federer did in 2004-2007 and that's why Fed will probably go down as the greatest. The level will not get higher only for a couple fellows (who will be winning slams) but for everyone around as there's too much money involved in tennis now as well.

A new potential GOAT might appear in 20 years but I hardly see him break any of Fed's records.

[JL6293]

@89Pleasek

Personally, I think Federer dominated the tour from 2003-2009 and still doing it. Only let down was in 2008 with his rank dropping, but nothing can really say that he didn't stay up there and dominate as number 2.

[UchihaGege]

the guy is 35 year old how you can compare the play of agassi with federer.

But still we can sse that he plactically could win 2 sets on this final against federer. For me: Federer n°1, Agassi and sampras n°2 not far away!!!

[onixya1969]

I agree, and if Federer can keep playing with the same spirit Agassi did, he can go on and win 20 Majors without a problem. It's really up to Federer now, it's all about motivation.

[Thanos20111992]

go federer!!!!!!!!

[Wilbododo]

Federer nearly wept on realising he would have to play Henman in 2005. In a later interview, Federer described Henman as "unappreciated in our time, but the key player of our generation".

[benjc82]

Henman was the player Federer still aspires to be

[Samprasisthebest]

Are you kidding me? Roger is ten times the player Tim ever was.

[mcmiljr]

I've been an Agassi fan since the miracle in Paris. It was great to see him make it through a tough draw (Ivo, Berdych, Malisse, Blake, Ginepri) and then play so well in the final. It was frustrating to see him lose despite playing so well. Reminds of that match in the '00 quarters against Pete. Andre played flawless and still lost. Pete and Roger are incredible talents, and they frustrated my hopes on many a day. But in the end, I'll always love the old guy from Vegas. Just something about him.

[mousavsm]

@mcmiljr I still think to this day he was the most talented ball striker ever, from both wings. He got in his own way and that may have cost him a chance at history but there was one thing that clearly seperated Agassi from Fed/Sampras; that being the serve. If we could some how level the serves of Agassi when he faced Pete, I don't think Pete would have won 1 out of every 5 matches vs Agassi. Pete's serve saved him on many occasions, as Roger's did too, but not so much now for Roger..

[89Pleasek]

Why should we pity Nadal for his injuries btw? He knows exactly what he's doing by running every ball down. This is the way he found of winning, you can't tell him to suddenly play aggresively cause he simply can't. It's not like Nadal had an accident, fell off the stairs or whatever. No. This is his injury-prone style, if he can't change that, well then, deal with injuries or shut the fuck up.

[mousavsm]

@89Pleasek Surfaces are surfaces. In the end, you have to beat the guy on the other side of the net. And, quite honestly, all Nadal has been doing is beating Federer and now it's on pretty much every surface. All that's left is for Nadal to beat Fed at the Us open, then I'm sure you will stop chirping. When Nadal is all said and done, he will have more records than Federer, mark my words.

[89Pleasek]

Dude,why you keep using only one arguement - the head-to-head?At the end of the day it won't matter. ampras was 4-6 against Krajicek (who literally owned Pete in 96 at SW19),guess Richard was the better player. Heck, even Davydenko is 5-4 against Nadal,guess that means he's better than him McEnroe was 3-1 in Slam finals against Borg with his only loss a tight 5-setter at Wimbledon in 1980, guess McEnroe is considered better than Borg all in all,nobody cares about h2h cause they prove nothing bro

[mousavsm]

@89Pleasek No no no, not head to head, but big matches head to head, like finals of slams. Who comes out to play then? Just eat it the way you gave it when you were on the bandwagon and Fed was winning. Funny how Fed fans are blind bandwagon jumpers......He is getting toasted by Nadal, why can't you guys live with it and stop making excuses like clay, this that. No, not just clay, he got his crown taken from him in wimbledon and he got it taken at the aussie.

[mousavsm]

@89Pleasek And if all my words didn't fall on deaf ears then you would realise that i'm using more than 1 point. The only stats right now that are on Fed's side are the ones that Nadal can't possibly achieve at this age. If you want a relevant comparison then wait 5 years and we'll talk. As of now, Nadal is world number 1, holder of 8 slams and 1 away from the career grand slam (took fed 28 years to achieve this), holder of olympic gold in singles, holder of the tennis masters 1000 record.

[89Pleasek]

I'm telling you once more, players peak in different ages, Sampras/Federer did at 22-26, Wilander, Nadal did earlier. Nadal won't cheat the time, his knees just won't let him win in 2-3 years time, you'll see.

And yes, you're right, the facts that I'm talking about have to do with age, but do you see Nadal winning 2/3 majors A YEAR aged 26 or 27 like Federer? I doubt it, but yes, time will tell. If Nadal gets to 16 (+ Federer's not done yet) Slams and breaks some records, then we'll talk again

[mousavsm]

@89Pleasek Holder of numerous tournament records, and has won the last 2 slams. If we compare him and Federer at the same age then he's also doing better than Federer. So yea, Rafa did bloom earlier (as Federer was busy losing in the first rounds a lot when Nadal was winning slams) but Rafa is still going strong and is now truly peaking. I've watched him his whole career, he's playing better now than ever. He wins with his b and c games vs top level opponents. If it's his A game, no shot.

[89Pleasek]

It all looks good for Nadal when he's still 24 and young. Wait till he reaches Federer's age. I'm very sure he won't have half the records Federer has now. Soon Nadal's body will break down again (not like I want it to, it's just a fact) because you simply can't play such physical damaging tennis without any consequences. Let's wait for the hard court season.

[d3torres]

@89Pleasek We waited, we saw, he conquered.

[89Pleasek]

Bullshit about the 2005 US Open final. The back got to Andre in the 4th set, that's first. Second, he wouldn'tve won the final anyway cause Federer was playing tennis out of this world. Third, Andre always produced some of his best tennis when playing Federer, check 2004 US Open quarters (I can't remember when Andre played better than that - give me an example), 2005 AO. It's easy to say "Andre was 34, he was old, end of discussion". Watch how he played first and then make your statistics.

[mousavsm]

@89Pleasek Andre didn't play his best vs Federer, I have no clue what you are talking about. Andre played his best vs Sampras when he was younger and didn't have to take cortison shots every match. If you didn't see Andre play better than that, then you obviously didn't watch Andre at all.

[89Pleasek]

"he was younger and didn't have to take cortison shots every match"

That was only in late 2005, don't forget that Federer beat him 8 times in a row starting from 2003, when Agassi was still a Slam contender and the no 1 in the world. Agassi was obviously younger in the 90's but don't forget that he won 5 out of 8 Slams after his 29th birthday, that sais it all. Andre was know for his lack of consistency when he was younger, not so much in 1999-2005 when he was a top 5 player all the time.

[TibxB0i]

is that federer's brother sitting next to his girlfriend at the end of the video? he sure looks like him

[MrDgenerate212]

Nadal isn't even close to federer in being called the greatest of all time. Nadals a great player but greatest? Not really

[mousavsm]

@MrDgenerate212. It just seems weird for you (or anyone) to call fed the greatest of all time when one of his main rivals OWNS him. If it were not for Nadal's knee troubles, Federer wouldn't have regained that number 1 ranking. Nadal allowed Federer to get back some of his past triumphs and get over his tears from Australia, just remember that. If Rafa stays healthy, you will see him kick Roger's as s some more.

[MrDgenerate212]

@mousavsm yes nadal has been getting the better of him alot over the past few years but that's mainly because most of the meetings have been on clay, and the fact is nobody OWNS roger federer, and he has 16 grand slams to prove that

[Ryan81M]

@MrDgenerate212

The only thing Federer haters have to go on is the 13-7 record in favour of Nadal. They use that as 'evidence' of Nadal being the better player. Never do they quote the 23 consecutive semis at slam level, 16 slams, 22 finals and his years of dominance from 2004-2007 (and 2009 to a lesser extent) which are the things people will consider important. Hell, Krajicek had a positive record against Sampras. Guess that meant he was a better player.

[Ryan81M]

@mousavsm

History is a bitch, ain't it? Nothing you say will change the fact that Federer has won 16 slams, 11 of those coming at a time when Nadal was his main rival (at #1 and # 2 in the world) Many Nadal fans argue that Federer won most of his slams when Nadal was nowhere in tennis. This is a blatant lie. Another fact is that Federer made 4 consecutive finals on his worst surface (RG) while Nadal has yet to reach a single US open final (his worst surface)

[89Pleasek]

Bullshit. I can say the same thing about Nadal. Nadal was patiently waiting for Federer's slump cause he knew he wouldn't get to no 1 when Federer was playing his best tennis in 2004-2007. In 2008 an illness fucked Federer's preparation that's why he lost nearly all of his titles and Nadal didn't play super tennis in 08 to reach the no 1, it was all thx to Federer's slump. Btw I wouldn't call 14-7 ownage when Federer is leading 5-4 on hard and grass courts, only thx to clay it's 14-7 for Nadal

[mousavsm]

@89Pleasek Um, Nadal beat Federer when Nadal was 18 years old and Federer was in his absolute prime. Head to head, Nadal OWNS Federer and not just Federer, pretty much everyone else. He's number 1 by a long shot and only injuries let your boy Federer get back to number 1 AND break the record. Oh yea, last time I checked clay is a surface?? Maybe you should stop acting like it isn't, if we eliminate a surface from Federer's career then what would he be?

[89Pleasek]

Nadal for years could only challenge Federer on clay, that's what screwed up the head-to-head. As I mentioned 10 out of 14 wins for Nadal came on clay, they played 12 out of 21 times on clay courts which is a riddiculous 60 % in a hard court era.

"Federer got back to no 1 after Nadal's injury"

And how did Nadal get to no1 in 2008 in the first place?After Federer's sickness which left him underprepared for the season. This is part of tennis, if you can't deal with injuries - it's your problem

[89Pleasek]

I'm not saying clay isn't a surface but it's pretty unfair that they play all the time only on clay, only couple times on other surfaces (some of them are slow as well - Wimbledon's grass f.e.). I already asked you and still got no answer. Would Nadal lead their head-to-head 14-7 had they played 12 times on fast hard courts instead of clay?

[mousavsm]

@89Pleasek Fact of the matter is that they have played on clay 12 times and other surfaces 9 times. On clay Nadal is 10-2 vs Fed. On other surfaces he is 4-5 which is just about 500. He beat Federer in 3 straight roland garros finals, the last time they faced at wimbledon, and the last time they faced on a hard court (aussie open final 09). That's 3 different surfaces and the same result, Federer losing and Nadal winning.

[89Pleasek]

I never questioned Nadal's abilities but as I said their head-to-head is not fair as it's packed with encounters on clay. It's exactly the same story with Nadal's head-to-head with Djokovic. Believe it or not, Djokovic won 7 times on hard courts and lost 3 (in a hard court era!) but Nadal of course got him on clay zillion times which screwed their head to head record.

[89Pleasek]

Of course Nadal is a great player but it's also unfair that he's 5 years younger than Federer and is still considered his main rival. Sampras' rival was Agassi (Agassi was older), Laver's main rival was Rosewall (3,5 younger!), even McEnroe was 2,5 years yougner than Borg, only Federer has his main rival which is 5 (!!!) years younger than him. Beating a post 2007 Federer in a Slam is nothing compared to beating him in his prime in 2004-2007 and Nadal knows that as he lost twice on grass.

[89Pleasek]

Would Nadal lead Federer 14-7 if they met 12 out of 21 times on hard courts instead of clay? But even on clay Federer was always very hard to beat, even for Nadal. Except the 2008 French Open final all of their 12 matches on clay were tight and Federer won 2 of those and had match points in Rome in 06. Nadal never owned Federer anywhere.

It's only Nadal's fault that for all these years he failed to reach hard court finals to meet a super Federer, that's what fucked their h-2-h.

[mousavsm]

@89Pleasek Nadal has won 8 slams in 25 attempts, faster than federer (who won 7 in his first 27). Go look up Federer's results, he had a lot of early (1st round exits) when Pete and Andre were running things so yea, he only feasted on the opportunity that was provided for him until Nadal matured into the better player. Nadal not only leads him in head to head, he owns more tennis masters 1000 titles, also (5 years younger, can't forget this), oh yea, and the COVETED GOLD MEDAL IN SINGLES!

[89Pleasek]

This is crap. Wilander had 7 Slams at the age of 24. Finished with 7. McEnroe had 7 Slams aged 25. Finished with 7. Becker won 5 out of his 6 Slams at 23. Finished with 6. Tons of other examples which I don't remember. Some players win early, some peak later, it's not like Nadal's gonna win 3 majors a year now till he's 30 cause his body won't simply let him.

And a big Lol for your 1000 Masters titles. Federer has so many records in his little finger that Nadal can only dream about.

[mousavsm]

@89Pleasek Um, as it stands now, Nadal is better than Federer on any surface. First of all, you must not watch Rafa much, because he plays much more aggressive now than he did before. That's why I think (along with some smart tournament management) that Rafa can remain and healthy and really make a run at some records. Since you claim Federer's injuries were the reason Nadal won in 08 and 09, what's the modern day reason?

[89Pleasek]

I wouldn't say that Nadal is better than Federer on any surface even now. It's blasphemy to say that Nadal is better on hard courts with 1 Slam compared to Federer's 9 on that surface. Even on grass Federer has 6 titles compared to Nadal's 2. We'll talk when Nadal wins a couple more.

[mousavsm]

@89Pleasek At this moment, Rafa Nadal is better than Federer. You seem to be dodging the obvious stat that matters here. Their last 3 Rolland Garros finals, Nadal beat Fed on Clay. Their last encounter in the Aussie and Wimbledon finals, Nadal beat Fed. Nadal just won Wimbledon for a 2nd time after being injured and not being able to defend it last year, oh yea, and Fed didn't make it but instead got smoked by Berdych, who got smoked by Nadal. Your excuses are comical.

[89Pleasek]

At this moment maybe yes, when Federer is reaching 30 and is on the brink of retirement. It's like saying Rafter is better than Sampras at WImbledon based on their 2001 and 2002 results. You'll see what it's like when your Nadal will be losing to 100 ranked players in a couple of years. Everybody has their start, peak and post career and Nadal/Federer is no different.

[89Pleasek]

"oh yea, and Fed didn't make it but instead got smoked by Berdych, who got smoked by Nadal"

And how many times was that the case for Federer in almost every Slam Federer won? 2007 Australian OPen - Nadal owned by Gonzalez, Gonzalez owned in the final, same with 2008 US Open with Murray, Murray owned in the final. And Berdych/Soderling is nothing but a whimp, Federer would eat him alive if he was a couple years older, he pwned them zillion times in his prime, not like Nadal.

[d3torres]

@89Pleasek Nadal is just entering his prime.

[mousavsm]

@MrDgenerate212 Well when Federer was 24 we weren't even having this conversation about him. But Rafa at 24 is igniting such conversation, makes one think that he may be better than Federer but I guess we'll see. Rafa is still young, Federer is older and now that his serve isn't as big, he can't control points like he used to. Nadal has never really had a good serve but it's getting better, kind of scary to think of where he may go with a serve half as good as Fed's was.

[mousavsm]

@MrDgenerate212 You should start to rethink your statement (possibly). Nadal looks like the man to beat for some time now.

[Jaishankar100]

@MrDgenerate212 hmm....but he's getting closer by the day.....and who knows.....nadal can get there !!! and if Federer doesnt stop him at the Us this year next year might well be a Calendar GS For Nadal!!!

[bjorncerovsek]

@MrDgenerate212 how ominous does it look now? 9 majors at a younger age than Federer.... more master series shields... a big time winning head to head against Roger

[cammpinno]

@MrDgenerate212 Nadal dominates him in HtH and soon will dominate in number of g slams. THATS called greatness. And Not beating permanent chokers like Blake, Davy, Soder, Berdych, Gonzo...and losing to ballsy Rafa.

[Tallchurch]

@cammpinno 1 Choking means getting a lead playing better than your opponent and then falling off the rails. The players you mentioned have scarcely ever choked against Fed. He has either outplayed them OR comeback through his own play. 2 If beating chokers doesn't count, what about losing to them? Blake, Sod and Gonzo have all beaten Nad at slams and Davy has a winning H2H against Nad. Substantiate your argument and show some respect to Fed and Agassi by not talking about Nad on their highlights

[farhannius]

@MrDgenerate212 he still has the potential to be the greatest though. Keep in mind that Nadal at the age of 24 has won more grand slams than Federer had when he was 24. If the grand slam count is the most influential criteria for 'greatest', then Nadal has all the potential to be given that honour. We'll just have to wait and see I guess!

[Maniac742]

@farhannius Nadal's a 1 trick pony. High topspin off the lefty forehand. He has a mediocre serve, mediocre volley, and an even more mediocre backhand. That's why he's struggled on all surfaces other than red clay. Nadal will never catch up to Federer's streak. Not by a long shot.

[ForeverMan91]

@MrDgenerate212 oh stop sucking fed's cock. he sucks.chucho is better

[CASPER10666]

Agassie fitness cant take him to the 4th set, Roger is running him around the court.

[Samprasisthebest]

Sorry, I wrote 286 years, I mean 286 weeks, oops.

[Chazfazzer]

'Hewitt has nothing but speed, Roddick is all serve, and Safin is nucking futs. Agassi is the product of a MUCH tougher era.'

Hewitt destroyed Sampras in the US open final and has a 4-4 head to head with Agassi - Roddick leads the head to head with Sampras, as does Safin...do you need any more evidence?

It's natural progression...more ppl play today = more competition = better players. Simple.

[IricForset]

Its not that easy to say. Of course play is always going to get better, but the older guys like Sampras and Agassi who played the young guns hewitt and roddick etc...do I need say more. Age difference was a big factor.

[diehardFedfan]

true age difference makes a big difference ..but to say federer dominated a weak era is ridiculous...if the era was weak why is it that only federer managed to do so well? you have to credit him for his hardwork..some of his shots are unreal..moreover he's a complete player...the competition was never weak..he made everything look easy.. competition is never easy..it depends on how a player goes against the tide..and roger did that very well..

[IricForset]

I didnt say dominated a weak era...quite the contrary. he makes everyone else not named Nadal and Djokovic look weak.

[Samprasisthebest]

"Roddick leads the head to head with Sampras"

Yeah, he beat Sampras twice in 2001, Sampras's worst year of his career. Yet, Sampras destroyed Roddick in straight sets in 2002 US Open quarters, so he got the last laugh.

[pablodeargentina]

This Outfit looks great on Roger...

[Chazfazzer]

Samprasisthebest...you're an idiot. I think the fact that Federer beat Agassi 8 times in a row and Sampras once out of one attempt shows who's the best out of the three. Sampras retired because he knew he couldn't hack it against the next generation of players...the same players that Federer takes delight in destroying time and again.

[JKwingsfan]

How many of those young players has Federer beaten this year? The fact that Fed cruised through easy competition until the Djoker and Rafa showed up speaks VOLUMES. And remind me, how old was Double A when Roger beat him 8 times in a row? 30 something? Well past reitirement age for most players?

[TENNISSROCKS12]

Speaks VOLUMES! please this is the circle of life. A person is the best for a while and then as you begin to age you are surpassed by the newcomers. Plus federer had mono at the big season and barely lost the wimbledon final and that was a huge blow to his confident. Federer is going through a period of self doubt like he commonly did when he was younger. . Easy compeition discussions is stupid. Ivan lendl stated that the only reason people think of the era has weak is because fed is so good.

[TENNISSROCKS12]

he said that had roger not been there people would have been constantly talking about how intense the compeition is between roddick safin and hewitt. How many times have safin, Roddick, and hewitt been in a grandslam final where they have been torn by federer.Lendl is dead right and i find that words from his mouth his mouth mean alot more than delusional people like you who bash on players without recognizing there talent. hav you any idea how great safins ball striking is?defcomparable to AA

[diehardFedfan]

simply ridiculous..roger is the best..accpt it and shut up...

[grungero]

Agassi, so slow.

[miguebetter666]

roger made agassi his bitch.

[intruZo1991]

Can we download the good quality version of this? This is awesome!

[lllppp1234]

agassi's prime was in 1999-2000 when won the french-us open and aussie.. i agree with you Samprasisthebest, when agassi was in his prime he could beat federer and every player in every surface.

[dual4aces]

u wouldent know that for sure its imposible now to know a unless u do wat they did in the new rocky movie and used supecomputers to see the outcome

[lllppp1234]

they are so goodddd

[Samprasisthebest]

I love how in this clip, Agassi didn't win a point. Agassi is (unfortunately) extremely underappreciated. Without a doubt(in his prime), would have consistently beaten Federer at the Aussie Open and at least split victories at the French and US Open.

[TENNISSROCKS12]

Dude shut the fuck up moron. You dont know any knowledge of this and should shut the fuck up. No will ever know what will happen if they meet in their prime

[Samprasisthebest]

Why don't YOU shit the fuck up dipshit.I am a 5.5 level player and am the director of tennis at an athletic club,and am a USTA rep so I DO have some knowledge about tennis, enough to state my own opinions.You're right,no one will ever know what would happen if they met,but I'M betting Andre would win.Look at this, age 35 (after an exhausting 5 set match w/Blake in Quarters) and needing Cortisone injections into his back, he still took it to four sets and won one of the sets 6-2.That says alot.

[TENNISSROCKS12]

you are using logic to say that this says a lot, but you actually think your opinion is more accurate than andre agassi's, who after the match said federer is the best player he ever played against, even better than sampras.I am sure your shitty 5.5 level play is nowhere near good enough to estimate who will win between these great players especially when andre agassi, a man a billion times your superior at tennis, says otherwise.

[Samprasisthebest]

I'm going to use logic to prove that you're wrong once again. Consider that if you are in AA's position, what would you do? If you say that you think that you could beat Fed, that would sound arrogant and pricks like yourself would think he was a douche. Sampras himself has only said that he doesn't think Fed would embarass him, which translates into he thinks he could've beat Fed in his prime (if you know ANYTHING about Pete's humility).

[Samprasisthebest]

(continueing) Agassi's opinion on who he thinks is the best has changed about a million times as well. I remember that first he thought it was Becker, than Connors, then Becker again, then Sampras then Roddick, then Sampras again. I remember him also stating that he felt Marat Safin was the most talented he'd ever played, and now recently he's said that Fed is the best he's ever played. Too bad he never played Djokovic in his prime, or else maybe he'd be a candidate for best as well.

[Samprasisthebest]

Final thoughts...You're a douche, Andre Agassi would beat Fed in his prime, Sampras would own both of them on grass, fast carpet, and US Open hardcourt, I could beat the shit out of you in a tennis match any day, oh did I mention you're a douche?

Take it easy and peace out :)

[TENNISSROCKS12]

Final Thougts... you are a asswipe who thinks old ass players were better for no particular reason. Move on, sampras is gone and that guy will lose to federer on grass, hard, fast carpet, and clay on any given day and thats what i think. ha you dont even no me and think you can beat, i will destroy you cunt. Anyways well thanks man i will take it easy. peace out and go fuck your mother.

Fed>Sampras

[Samprasisthebest]

Wow man, settle down. Sounds to me like you need a hug...from your mother! You're probably one of those losers that has no life and so when people insult the only damn thing you know about in life, you get all pissed and react like a gorilla. Sampras in his old age managed to beat Federer once in their scheduled exhibitions, and took him to two tiebreakers and a three set match in the last match they played. At age 31, barely able to keep on tour he took Fed to five sets at Wimbledon. Samp>Fed.

[diehardFedfan]

samprasisthebest..accept it..federer is the best..ive watched sampras..ive watched borg and many many great players..federer beats them all..no matter what you say..your so called logic is only pathetic..

[Samprasisthebest]

"your so called logic is only pathetic"

"simply ridiculous...roger is the best...accpt it and shut up..."

Your logic is SO good, I'm sorry I should take notes, shouldn't I?

[diehardFedfan]

i dont know about my logic..and i became a federer fan only after watching him for 4 yrs...not overnight...i ve watched him..and unlike you i have accpted tht he's better than wnyone ive seen..

[SunSigil]

Samprasisthebest and TENNIS SROCKS12,may the Lord bless you both and His Face shine on both of you,love one another and peace!

[ChrissyChiChi]

Gotta say from what can be seen of this pathetic argument you are the one with the 'douche' award. Seriously how fucking immature to you have to be to take a debate about tennis and start calling the other guy a douche, i take it you are about 10 and are just being a dick for the sake of it, sighs.

[diehardFedfan]

you think you are theo nly one who knows tennis out here..learn to accept others' opinions..you dont know if federer wouldve lost to sampras or agassi in their prime..thats an entirely debatable issue..and im really sad you cannot give credit where it is due for you claim that you know a lot about tennis...

[Samprasisthebest]

"learn to accept others' opinions"

"simply ridiculous...roger is the best...accpt it and shut up"

Way to accept others' opinions. Of course, I should expect nothing more profound from someone named "diehardFedfan".

[diehardFedfan]

i said that coz you people like you wont admit the truth..insulting someone's professional grace is the easiest thing to do..you ppl have turned a blind eye to federer's achievements..im not saying you should like him..but if you can come up with crap then i will say such things.

[diehardFedfan]

and yeah..i see tht i too cannot expect anything more from someone called 'samprasisthebest'...get a life..life 's meant to progress...roger's better than previous player..and there is going to be someone better than him and all other greats very soon..thts how it goes.

[diehardFedfan]

and opinion comes in terms of liking or not liking someone not the truth..& judgement has to be fair...federer deserves every bit of the praise he has won..and he deserves to be called greatest so far.

[Samprasisthebest]

Even though he has won 12 grand slams and not 14 (like Pete) and even though Pete was number one longer than Roger and for more consecutive years? All of Pete's accomplishments came even though Pete had a blood disorder! He deserves to be the best ever.

[diehardFedfan]

yes,but pete could not domintae like roger..even roger had mono..and you have to give him credit for not getting injured or falling ill too much..roger is a better overall player...in a way what you're saying is true though..right now both of them deserve to be called greatest so far..i'll not take that away from sampras...

[Samprasisthebest]

Roger has had mono for not even a year, and he's lost his #1 ranking. Pete dominated his era (one full of great players) for 286 years, six consecutive years, won 14 grand slam titles (7 Wimbledons) with a blood disorder during his entire career. Pete could only play at about 60-70 percent of his capability most of the time, and he still was amazing. THAT'S why I think Sampras is the best.

[diehardFedfan]

ure forgetting..roger's career is not over it..and ive already said..right now both deserve to be called the best...and even if roger's mono didnt last for a year..even his trainer said he lackes the stamina coz of it and has missed many days of training...anyway..the point is..i agree with you on the point tht even sampras is the best ever..

[Samprasisthebest]

I don't hate Federer, in fact he's my favorite player to watch in this era, he has more power than Roddick, more touch than Nalbandian, more athleticism than Blake and more concentration than Nadal. His problem now (IMO) is a mental one, not at all related to his illness. He doesn't look like he believes he can win when I saw him lose to Simon and Karlovic, his focus just broke. But yes, Sampras and Federer are the two best of all time.

[CASPER10666]

Actually Sampras was ranked no 1, 10 times in his career the longest consecutive time was for 102 weeks shortest was 3 weeks. Federer has won 13 Grand Slams and his career is no way over. Roger consecutive no 1 weeks was 237 - nearest to him was Conners 160 weeks. Roger is the only player to have 5 wimbledon and 5 US Open again no other player has this. It can go on and on, until Roger hangs up his racket you cant compare records. But most ex champions state Roger is the best, time will tell.

[juandi2570]

Federer might the best ever but both players(sampras and fed) are the best two players ever with Laver coming in third place not far behind.

[CASPER10666]

Well Federe and Sampras all played in a era pretty close to the same. Laver, wooden rackets, some of the players not even professionals, less hard courts. Even Laver said that his game would not stand up against the likes of Federer/sampras/nadal etc.

[juandi2570]

you are right but you are not taking into account "raw talent. If you put the great ones: Borg,Mac, Fed,sampras, connors, nadal,etc in the same moment on time using equipment, technology,etc it'll be pretty competitve. The racket technology has evolved so much since 2002. Now players used synthetic strings which is crazy, that has increased power amazingly.

[CASPER10666]

Yes but the strengths and fitnes is way beyond Lavers level of fitness. Infact some of the older games look like slow motion in comparison

[mousavsm]

@CASPER10666 Casper you need to get a clue. Look at hockey 50 years ago compared to now, it looks slower too. The fact is that technology pushes these sports to higher levels and things like the internet, teaching, etc, all contribute and are much more plentiful now than they once were. Players, nowadays, have an infinite amount of advantages over players in the past. Laver is being humble because that's the type of person he is. Get a clue and stop ass-humping federer.

[CASPER10666]

@mousavsm Nonsense, hitting/tracking a ball flying at the speed these balls are, is far harder. The condition you have to be in is out standing. Humble my ass, even they admit they could not play in the game today as they did then. Technology does alot, however there is still a human at the end of the racket. So your knowledgeable comment about ass humping comment kinda lets it known, whos the expert in that area. You really haven't a clue.

[sovietroulette]

racket technology has not evolved "so much" since 2002, and players use polyester strings now which is a low powered and spin friendly string. if u hit with polyester, you will realize that "increased power" is the last thing you would say to describe it

[fcshahzaib]

I absloultely agree. Plus the fact that Pete had great players hunting for him all his career, like agassi, becker, rafter. Who did federer have, stupid roddick, low hewitt, inconsistent safin, old agassi . That just sucks my fed fans. That sucks. Sampras played one of the greatest players in Agassi all his life. Fed had llittle compitition.

[vindo112]

Fed made his competition look bad...rafter wasn't much better than hewitt..safin could beat anyone including sampras, and becker wasn't at his peak when during the sampras' era....federer has proved that he can more than match it with the new generation also - with the exception of Nadal who seems genetically engineered to beat Federer

[fcshahzaib]

thats just stupid. federer's rivals had such obvious weaknesses. Becker didnt have any, Agassi didnt have any. Fed barely won against sampras last year when sampras was 36. Yeah yeah. anyone COULD beat anyone thats just dumb to say safin could beat anyone, ofcourse, anyone CAN beat anyone.. Safin is good but his consistency is so sucking poor.

Anyway, this arguement will go on forever and ever. Its a matter of opinion. For you federer is the greatest, for me Nadal is the greatest. Peace bro.

[alywen06]

If becker didnt haqve any why didnt he win more slams ummm. And federers era is the strongest mens tennis has ever had, becker wouldnt stand a chance agaisnt federer, nadal murray or anyone in the top ten

[StevenCBlah]

Are you really taking those Sampras/Federer exhibitions seriously? Wow, you're a retard.

[splendid1000]

@vindo112

u compare hewitt to rafter??

[cammpinno]

@vindo112 Nadal beats him almost everytime. If Nadal was his generation, swiss wouldnt have 16, but maybe 10 gs. If there were more real champions (like Pete had to handle), even less.

In 5 years time Rafa will have 19, 20 gs, then you can call him GOAT as u want to compare it with the number of gs´.

[cammpinno]

@vindo112 Any top 10 player in Sampras era would be a multiple or even more multiple GS champion these days. Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Chang....anybody. Swiss would be left with a half of a number he has now at maximum.

[JKwingsfan]

Dude, rog just lost to a dirtballer on grass and you seriously think he could give Pete a hard time? Samprasisthebest is so right.

[TENNISSROCKS12]

the wimbledon grass has been slowed down tremendously since 2002 . Nadal would have dirtballed sampras of the court had they played today. Pat Rafter recently stated that the beautiful net game federer displayed against sampras in 2001 is not visible anymore because the grass is too slow for S and V techinque anymore.

[JKwingsfan]

Look, Roger beat Agassi when Andre was well past his prime. Agassi beat Roger when he was not yet in his prime. Fed's competition up until Nadal and Djoko was softer than a feather pillow. Hewitt has nothing but speed, Roddick is all serve, and Safin is nucking futs. Agassi is the product of a MUCH tougher era.

[puzzlechess]

To be honestly, he is in perfect performance in 2005~2006. Stable back hand and quick moving...

[caezar55]

Well i think his backhand is more of a weapon now, but yeah his movement was better back then, or at least better than the recent aussie open.

[timgruff]

Roger caught Andre at the right time in his career, when he broke out in 2003 Andre was already 33, and a little past his prime. I would've liked to see Roger face off against the Andre from 1999-2001, when he was at the height of his powers, his movement was much better then.

[Samprasisthebest]

timgruff, you wouldn't, because Andre would literally punish the hell out of Federer.

[sktrbskaterboy3]

I tend to agree with you, I'd take Andre in 5

[timgruff]

Prob true, I think he could grind Fed down in 5 sets, maybe a long 4 setter

[KikasisIluvya]

yeah propably, but when agassi was in his prime federer wasn't... sad, but normally legends don't meet in there prime...

[mousavsm]

@timgruff You're so right. I think Andre would have beaten him considering Roger barely beat Andre in this final and Andre was a 35 year old man with back problems. I think this match was telling to me, in considering where Roger stood (compared with a great of another generation). He almost lost this match and was facing the wall, it goes to show you that a younger and more healthy Agassi may have taken him down rather easily after that first set..

[schmoove33]

Federer the best on the world ! wow !

[kurfurstus]

THANKS SO MUUUUUUUUUUUUUCH!!!