Agassi put up a great effort but you could tell he was deflated after losing that 3rd set. Roger found enough range on his backhand late in the 3rd and zoned in on his serve to easily take the rest of the match. He's an incredible player but I was hoping for an Agassi win. Hopefully we'll see Andre in the Masters as he's just a few points behind Gaudio in the Indesit points race. This US OPEN results should put him into the top 8. Congrats to Roger but I hope Andre keeps on playing.
Federer tripled (just over) Agassi's ace output, doubled (just over) the amount of winners and still had more unforced errors? I think Agassi and Hewitt may have found a strategy to beat Federer. I think an opponents best chance is to make Federer run and when they have him in that right spot, come towards the net for the winner. This is easier said than done as you'd have to totally dictate the point, and place the ball in the best position to get Roger out of reach, but there were times when Agassi owned Federer during that match using that strategy. I think it just goes to show how talented Federer is. Here is a guy who i think by his standards, did not play well throughout the tournament. And i honestly don't think he'd played well against Agassi until the tie breaker and onwards. (That last set was just amazing, and agassi was just too tired). Federer was being outplayed and was making totally uncharacteristic unforced errors when he had the chance to put balls away, these factors came into Agassi having the upperhand. But that tie breaker and the fourth set, showed the Federer we all know. Limited unforced errors, amazing winners from all angles-when this guy is on his game he is just cool to watch. I think Agassi showed some of the young fellas how to play tennis and hopefully he can grab another slam before he is ready to put the racket away for good.
The way Agassi was playing the 1st 3 sets, if it was anyone else Agassi would probably have another grand slam under his belt but I'd rather it be against Federer even if he doesn't win because you want to beat the best to be called the best. ONE MORE YEAR Andre!! So who wins in mixed doubles? Agassi/Graf vs Federer/Mirka?
Andre is one of the greatest tennis players of all time, and is probably going to be the all-time money earner in Tennis when you combine all his winnings with his endorsements. He's also married to a women who was probably the greatest women's tennis player of all time... and they have two perfect kids who could each have a shot at being very good at the game (but probably won't be pressured... if anything, the girl may have the best shot). I don't think Andre cares if you feel bad for him... he's having the time of his life, and will eventually be remembered just as much as Connors and McEnroe were, and possibly more than Pete (not because he was more successful, just because Pete was too low-key).
The best ever? Slow your roll there grasshopper......it's WAY too early to say that about Federer. He has a long way to go, and many more majors to win to even equal the likes of Laver, McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Lendl and Sampras. It's debatable that he is even on the same level yet as guys like Edberg, Becker, or Agassi were in their prime.
What's scary is that Federer is still young enough to dominate this game for the next decade. And as of right now I don't see anyone even coming close to be as good as him. The only one that can beat Roger right now is Roger. He'll only lose when he has a bad game, not because some one played a better game.
One of Federer's best weapons that I think Sampras could neutralize is how he likes to bring these baseliners to the net. He hits a lot of short balls daring the players to come to net so Federer can pass them or get them to hit poor volleys. Pete would eat those short balls alive and come to net salivating. Granted federer has some awesome passing shots but can Federer withstand all that strong pressure from Sampras or could Sampras withstain all of those passing shot attempts from Federer? I think that is the key to the game btw the two of them. Too bad we'll never really know. We only caught a small glimpse of fed vs sampars when fed was on the rise and pete was on the decline.
I played tennis for 12 years competitively...and followed the game relentlessly from the time I became a player to the present. There's not one player I have seen that is/was as good of an all-around player as Pete Sampras. He never ceased to amaze me with how he could, no matter how well his opponent was playing, reach deeper and pull out touch matches. He was just an amazing player. Mentally, he was the toughest player I have ever seen. He could rally with the best baseline players, he could serve and volley as well as anyone, his serve at times was simply unstoppable. There just wasn't any aspect of the game that Pete did not execute well. Too bad he was so robotic and unemotional most of the time. His oncourt personality, or lack thereof, may have attributed to less of a fan base that guys like Agassi, Becker, etc. It was all about business for Pete.
I agree. Maybe because Sampras was so good it has lessened the awe I see from Federer. Don't get me wrong though, Federer is just amazing but I just don't think there is enough talent at the moment to dethrone him which is allowing him to run away with all these tournament wins. Makes for some boring matches when I watch him but he definitely does amaze with some of the shots he hits. With Sampras I'd be watching a rally and then my jaw would drop because I don't know how he pulls those winners out of thin air.
i think Sampras was great, and really unbelievable. i think Federer can also become great. I think that federers problem is that he does not face any other great players. He is just way above anybody else(maybe not nadal on gravel). So he does not need to play his best game, because nobody makes him. Sampras had some very tough competition. and he needed to play great in oreder to win all those matches. i do not think federer is the best ever(yet) however i think that if he stays motivated he can become the best ever. He is just really that good.
It's a tough one to pick. You ultimately judge the greatness of a player on the amount of slams he has won. If Federer were not playing you could say that guys like Roddick and Hewitt might be getting more slams than they have. Now while they obviously aren't on the same level as the greats mentioned on this thread,it would make them-in retrospect-great players. Federer's absolute dominance may look like he has lesser competition, but in reality he is just so damn good that he has no peer. And i think it's unfair to say he is only winning because he has no one to play. I've been watching tennis more and more over the years since i was around 14 (i'm 22 now) and my appreciation has grown-and i never appreciated the way sampras played because i didn't notice those little things that make a player great. But i will say this, i have never been amazed watching tennis the way that i am when i watch Federer when he is on his game- i think he is just awesome. Agassi said himself that Federer is the best he has ever played, and he wasn't just saying it to be nice. "Pete was great," Agassi said. "But there was a place to go with Pete. You knew what you had to do. If you could do it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger." Agassi is a time capsule when it comes to tennis, he's played them all. I think the 14 slams is definately in his reach, and if one of those is a French Open - i think its fair to say that he is the greatest - IF he can get there.
