C_C said:
So what that Agassi makes Semis and Quarters at 33-34 years of age ?
That means the competition is worse ? where did you get that from ? You realise that Lendl was making semis and quarters in the early 90s, at the same stage as Agassi is right now ?
Dude, Lendl's last major came when he was 30, Agassi's last major when he was 33 Lendl had retired at 34, Agassi is 35+ and still playing. Not to forget Lendle was crushed by Becker. Besides Agassi is nowhere the physical monster Lendl was. Do you see the difference now. Lendl would have retired earlier had it not been for his quest for winning Wimbledon.
They are alltime great players and when they switch it on, they can beat almost anybody.
Yeah Right and Johny Mac of 90s and today is same same as that of 80s, right ?? He is an alltime great and when he switches on he can beat anyone right ??
Federer blew away agassi 2 years ago i think and that wasnt agassi past his prime- indeed, as recent as a year ago, he still had it.
Agassi beat Federer when he was a newbie- every player- good,great or poor gets creamed the first few years on the tour. Becker is the only exception i can think of.
Becker is the only exception, ever heard the name Bjorg ? Anyways, yes Federer beat Agassi in 2003 November when he was only 4 months shy of turning 34 and Federer had hit his peak form because in next one year he won 3 grand slams, . Roger was not a newbie when he was beaten by Agassi, Federer turned pro in 1998 and until 2002 when Agassi was 31, he had lost all the three matches played. Even an aged Agassi took him to five sets in 2004 US open Quarters and in the same US open Roger crushed Hewitt(who is considered in top 3 palyers today) 6-0, 7-6, 6-0. That's the competition Roger gets now a days. And as far as newbies are concerned, Jim courier, Agassi, Pete, Becker all won at least one GS within 3 years of turning pro, Roger won his first after six years.
Pete had an awesome running forehand but it was nowhere close to being the best forehand in the game in my opinion. Marcelo Rios had a demon forehand and there was this Swede ( i forget his name- Magnus Gustaffson i think) who had an absolute stunner of a forehand. Tomas Muster's forehand was awesome too...all of them handily overshadowed Pete's forehand both in terms of power and accuracy.
Federer's forehand is easily as good as Pete's.
Rios had very good forehand but nowhere near as all time best. All time best can be Courier, Lendl, Sampras, Federer and Pete's running forehand was the best I have seen. Roddick's forehand is good but IMO he takes too much time before hitting his forehand (to get more power) and that's what makes his forehand very predictable. I dont know much about Muster other than him being a Clay court monster. I dont think he could beat Pete's forehand on any other surface.
Federer's shotmaking is of a superior quality than Pete's( or indeed anybody's saving perhaps Borg and McEnroe).
We will never know that unless he faces some real challenge on a tennis court. Shot making comes from confidence in your game and when you are really challenged, 6-0s and 6-es aren't what I call challenged.
Pete's backcourt game was underrated but by no means was it awesome. He couldnt outslug or outlast the baseliners while playing back. Federer can practically blow anyone outta the ballpark with his backcourt game OR his serve and volleying. His game is essentially an amalgam of Agassi and Sampras.
Good that you mentioned that Roger's game is an amalgam of Agassi's Backcourt and Sampras' Serv & Volley, but is he better than Andre in Back court, I doubt, is he a better serve and volley player than Pete, NO. Pete's backcourt game(combined with his serve) was good enough to beat players like Agassi. I hardly saw Pete making a double fault on his serve, Federer did that the other day against Roddick and I didn't even watch the full match. No matter how much you deny, Pete's had the most reliable serve one has seen. Roger doesn't.
And yes, the field is a LOT stronger today than it was 5-6 years ago. Right now you have number 50s or number 80s who give top 10 players a run for their money,
err that is because top 10 today aren't good enough to stay there for long. I classify them as the Greg Reudeskis of 90s.
have almost all shots in their armoury and on their day can beat anybody. Pete didnt have that kinda competition- no one had.
Nonsense, No. 2 Roddick doesn't have anything except for his serve. Hewitt's speed and his return is his strength and other than that he doesn't have much of a game. The only player today who can challenge Roger or can be considered as a top 10 player besides Roger is Safin. And as I said, Safin is the Goran of 2000s and until he changes that I dont see much competition for Roger.
And you dont see a good grasscourt player today ? Federer is GOD of grasscourt right now- fit to be alongside Pete, Borg,Becker,Edberg and McEnroe as the kings of grasscourt.
Roddick is pretty awesome on grass as well - easily as good as anybody on grass back in Pete's day barring Goran.
What ?? Roddick is as good as grass on anyone in 90s ?? Dude, ever heard the name Scud, Rafter, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Stich, Martin etc ?
Anyways, If you think Roger is the best player ever since Laver, then I respect your opinion, I have not watched Laver or Bjorg play so cant comment, I watched Tennis extensively in late 80s and 90s and I have seen Federer, I dont think he is better than Pete on Grass or Hard Courts. He is better on Clay and that's it but Sampras of 90s would beat Federer of today 7 out of 10 times on hard/Grass court. Roger will probably win it all on clay.
