Agassi is unbeatable? what huh? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Agassi is unbeatable? what huh?

max122
08-01-2005, 04:50 PM
It's funny how commentators start making a big mountain out of a mole... I'm an agassi fan, but still I think the reason he won this tourney is cuz there werent any good players in it. I believe it when Andre can beat fredere!

sigmagirl91
08-01-2005, 04:58 PM
fredere!

Who's this guy? :confused:

willie
08-01-2005, 05:02 PM
:lol:
he might be a new junior star:scratch:;)

DanEd
08-01-2005, 05:07 PM
Its Federer

Gigan
08-01-2005, 05:12 PM
Its Federer

are you sure?
not chela-chela? ;)

___________________________
:wavey: Andre Agassi forever :wavey:

alfonsojose
08-01-2005, 05:16 PM
:zzz:

Neely
08-01-2005, 05:21 PM
Who's this guy? :confused:
Big capital mistake of course...

sigmagirl91
08-01-2005, 07:46 PM
:lol:
he might be a new junior star:scratch:;)

Or a qualie guy.

robinhood
08-01-2005, 09:24 PM
Who was it that said Andre was unbeatable??
PMac and Cliff Drysdale?
If so, I am not surprised.
They are Agassi's personal cheerleaders sans the uniforms.

If Agassi beats Federer in any meaningful match,
he should retire right there.

Nimomunz
08-01-2005, 10:32 PM
If Agassi beats Federer in any meaningful match,
he should retire right there.
that reminds me of marat after he beat federer at AO 05 :wavey: it was almost as if i should retire right now!!

tennisace
08-01-2005, 10:42 PM
PMac and Cliffy talk about him like he has a realistic chance of winning the USO. He can't even play two wee tourneys with easy draws two weeks in a row. How the hell is he going to play 7 best of five set matches when the big boys are in the draw?!?

heya
08-02-2005, 12:19 AM
Pmc, Brad Gilbert, Cliff & Courier believe that acting as a circus clown creates victories. They don't care that it's stupid to exhaust a player instead of improving his performance all year.
It hurts the pea brains' feelings when top players don't please them at Davis Cup ties & exhibitions (Peemc & Courier get special perks for being involved in these events).

disturb3d
08-02-2005, 01:16 AM
It's funny how commentators start making a big mountain out of a mole... I'm an agassi fan, but still I think the reason he won this tourney is cuz there werent any good players in it. I believe it when Andre can beat fredere!Safin/Nadal can beat Roger any day of the week.
They're anything but invincible.

heya
08-02-2005, 02:18 AM
:inlove:

its.like.that
08-02-2005, 06:00 AM
Who was it that said Andre was unbeatable??
PMac and Cliff Drysdale?
If so, I am not surprised.
They are Agassi's personal cheerleaders sans the uniforms.

If Agassi beats Federer in any meaningful match,
he should retire right there.

yer, and the wta players deserve equal prizemoney in slams :rolleyes:

Chloe le Bopper
08-02-2005, 08:13 AM
They do if they bring in the same amount of money, something that would probably be damn near impossible to prove :)

Action Jackson
08-02-2005, 08:15 AM
They do if they bring in the same amount of money, something that would probably be damn near impossible to prove :)

Not that hard to prove. :)

max122
08-02-2005, 12:27 PM
oh ya ... i dunno abt this :)

Experimentee
08-02-2005, 01:54 PM
He's not unbeatable, but he has a shot at winning the US Open.

Whistleway
08-02-2005, 02:06 PM
Seriously, anybody thinking that AA has no chance at the open clearly needs their heads shafted in sand. I dream of the finals between AA and Fed ;)

jenanun
08-02-2005, 02:27 PM
as long as agassi does not have to play federer, he has a real good chance to win the USO....
so someone has to beat federer at early stage... before agassi meets him.. well that will be depending on the draw.....
but then..... who will be that someone?

CooCooCachoo
08-02-2005, 02:32 PM
I'd say Andre is an outsider for the US Open. Winning Los Angeles hardly makes someone a top favourite, considering the event is quite poor.

disturb3d
08-02-2005, 02:43 PM
as long as agassi does not have to play federer, he has a real good chance to win the USO....
so someone has to beat federer at early stage... before agassi meets him.. well that will be depending on the draw.....
but then..... who will be that someone?While that's true to some extent. Don't forget that Andre took Roger to 5 sets, at last year's US Open.

Along with Marat, Andre is the only player who can harm Roger on US Open soil.
As well, he is probably 3rd pick to take the tournament.

1sun
08-02-2005, 02:51 PM
While that's true to some extent. Don't forget that Andre took Roger to 5 sets, at last year's US Open.

Along with Marat, Andre is the only player who can harm Roger on US Open soil.
As well, he is probably 3rd pick to take the tournament.
because of the conditions. we all know aggy man loves the worst playin conditions, wind, rain, snow, the lot. he had everything goin for him, conditions, crowd, roger payin shit, but stil lost. and since then i think its been 3 straight, straight sets bitchslaps from roger to andre.

Action Jackson
08-02-2005, 03:05 PM
While that's true to some extent. Don't forget that Andre took Roger to 5 sets, at last year's US Open.

Along with Marat, Andre is the only player who can harm Roger on US Open soil.
As well, he is probably 3rd pick to take the tournament.

You still think Agassi is a threat on clay, so it's obvious that you overlooked the conditions in the Fed match in 2004.

Agassi will be thereabouts, but he won't win.

disturb3d
08-02-2005, 03:41 PM
overlooked the conditions in the Fed match in 2004.All I saw of the match was the score-line, can't comment on the conditions.

tennis elbow
08-02-2005, 03:50 PM
it was played under one of the windiest conditions I have ever seen an official tennis match being played under.. and even though the score suggests otherwise, Federer was never in danger of losing the match, and some believe he may have actually tanked the fourth set to have Agassi worn out during the fifth, which he won easily...

disturb3d
08-02-2005, 03:56 PM
and some believe he may have actually tanked the fourth set to have Agassi worn out during the fifthThat's the most idiotic thing I've heard of a tennis player.

Neely
08-02-2005, 04:02 PM
That's the most idiotic thing I've heard of a tennis player.
LOL... :lol: :yeah: well, excuses have to be invented to justify why Agassi took Federer to five sets in this match :)

According to some people, it just can't be that Agassi was really that good to win two sets against Federer...

revolution
08-02-2005, 04:04 PM
LOL... :lol: :yeah: well, excuses have to be invented to justify why Agassi took Federer to five sets in this match :)

According to some people, it just can't be that Agassi was really that good to win two sets against Federer...

Correct. I don't see why Andre has any haters of any sort, what has he done to deserve vitriol?

Neely
08-02-2005, 04:15 PM
Correct. I don't see why Andre has any haters of any sort, what has he done to deserve vitriol?
I don't think it's hating, it's more like that this frigging five sets match under these windy conditions is destroying the nice statistical picture that Federer otherwise would have from his last seven matches with Agassi. It just can't be that Agassi won a whole of two sets in a match against Federer in 2004 when he lost 7 straight sets to Federer after that and was bagelled by Federer before and almost every match was in straight sets ;) :p

Blaze
08-02-2005, 04:57 PM
I don't think it's hating, it's more like that this frigging five sets match under these windy conditions is destroying the nice statistical picture that Federer otherwise would have from his last seven matches with Agassi. It just can't be that Agassi won a whole of two sets in a match against Federer in 2004 when he lost 7 straight sets to Federer after that and was bagelled by Federer before and almost every match was in straight sets ;) :p

I don't think it is excuses but rather that was the best chance Agassi had of beating Federer with everything known to man working in Agassi's favor. I don't anyone expects the same thing weather wise this year if the two were to play.

1sun
08-02-2005, 05:04 PM
Correct. I don't see why Andre has any haters of any sort, what has he done to deserve vitriol?
his antics early on in his career. but every player, every sportsman/woman has haters, no matter how nice, how good, how bad. it all comes in the package of being a sportstar. haters exist everywhere.

cleverdutchclogs
08-02-2005, 08:04 PM
He can't even play two wee tourneys with easy draws two weeks in a row.

Let's put this into perspective, two tournaments in a row for Agassi would not normally be a problem. The fact that he has been out injured for the past two months (requiring injections and often going weeks without playing as his body may not have responded to the injections) means that playing FOUR weeks in a row (Los Angeles, Washington, Montreal, Cincinnati) would be a STUPID idea.

Therefore, it's a good idea to skip Washington in order to a) have a rest to recouperate - which you need to do after suddenly playing five matches after not hitting a ball for two months - and b) put in some preparation for the two Masters Series events because those two events are far more important than Washington - that's where the world's top players will be playing and where there will be more ranking points.

In the meantime, it appears that Federer can't string two weeks of tournament play together either - injections or no injections. Or put it this way, he can't even string one week together!

Gigan
08-02-2005, 09:15 PM
7-0
2005 Miami, Federer 4 6 3 6
2005 Dubai, Federer 3 6 1 6
2005 Australian Open, Federer 3 6 4 6 4 6
2004 US Open, Federer 3 6 6 2 5 7 6 3 3 6
2004 Indian Wells AMS, Federer 6 4 3 6 4 6
2003 Tennis Masters Cup, Federer 3 6 0 6 4 6
2003 Tennis Masters Cup, Federer 7 6 3 6 6 7

3-0
2002 Miami TMS, Agassi 6 3 6 3 3 6 6 4
2001 US Open, Agassi 6 1 6 2 6 4
1998 Basel, Agassi 6 3 6 2

Who can help?
what was changed starting from 2003?
why Andre lost those 7 matches to federer?
why he lost number of matches to other
no-name players in this period of time?
why he could not win a GS?

plz think... can you make Andre 23? or, atleast, 33?
____________________________________
:wavey:Andre Agassi forever :wavey:

cleverdutchclogs
08-02-2005, 09:23 PM
I don't think it's hating, it's more like that this frigging five sets match under these windy conditions is destroying the nice statistical picture that Federer otherwise would have from his last seven matches with Agassi. It just can't be that Agassi won a whole of two sets in a match against Federer in 2004 when he lost 7 straight sets to Federer after that and was bagelled by Federer before and almost every match was in straight sets ;) :p

I can accept that Federer has beaten Agassi 7 times in a row on the ATP Tour - that is fact. What I cannot except is the relative ease in which you seem to be implying that Federer beats Agassi on a consistent basis!

Agassi has also beaten Federer during that run of seven matches. He destroyed him in the semi-finals of Kooyong last year 6-2 6-4 - fine it wasn't on the ATP Tour but Kooyong attracts a better field than any non-Masters Series/Grand Slam event and is honoured by players as the 'official' tune-up to the Australian Open.

Agassi also was also a set up and had two match points in a final set tiebreak (one on his own serve) against Federer in the first Masters Cup Round Robin match in November 2003. Federer won 6-7 (3/7) 6-3 7-6 (9-7) in that match.

Agassi also had two break points to serve for the match against Federer in the semi-finals of Indian Wells last year, leading 6-4 3-6 4-3 40-15. Had Agassi have taken one of the two break points, he would have served for the match. As what naturally happens in this situation where players miss chances to break, Federer broke Agassi the game after and then served for the match (6-4 final set).

In last year's US Open, Federer and Agassi were toe-to-toe at (Agassi's score first) 3-6 6-2 5-7 6-3 3-3. Agassi even took Federer apart to take the second set 6-2 and led Federer 5-4 in the third set. The final day of the match was a complete lottery, the ball went where the wind took it. Hit the ball over the net, keep it in play and hope for the best. Federer eventually prevailed 6-3 in the final set after holding, breaking and holding - but that was anybody's match, where the wind controlled who won the points as much as the players.

So, Andre has beaten Federer within the time-frame of the past seven meetings so make that 7-1 to Federer instead of 7-0. Had Agassi won the three tight matches I have listed above, make that 4-4 instead of 7-1.

Fine, I accept, Federer won through in the end because the man is class and could quite easily be the greatest player of all time - but the whole point of this post is to say that Andre could quite easily have won those 3 matches, and deserves to be treated with far more respect as a result of it, much more than Hewitt, Roddick, etc. - he has come far closer than many other top players.

Simply saying that he has lost the last 7 meetings with Federer, and eluding to the one set bagel (one out of 23, including that Kooyong match) represents a very selective memory.

Don't forget, Hewitt was bagelled five times by Federer last year, including twice in one match, and Roddick was also bagelled by Federer last year also.

In contrast, other than one single begel, Agassi has only lost a set by the loss of more than 3 games to Federer once - that was in the SF of Dubai this year (6-1). That means 30 of 32 sets (including last year's Kooyong) have been competive, unlike some other players I know.

Including the final of this year's Kooyong, where Federer beat Roddick 6-4 7-5, Federer has beaten Roddick in 10 of the past 11 meetings including the past six times. Federer has won the past 12 consecutive sets and has won only 4 of the 28 sets they have played.

Hewitt has lost his last 8 meetings with Federer including the last 15 consecutive sets.

Even Safin trails Federer 7-2 in head-to-heads!

So put it this way, Agassi struggling against Federer is not an Agassi thing, it is an everybody thing!

tangerine_dream
08-02-2005, 09:30 PM
Yep, I agree. If any player wins anything it's only because Federer the Awesome and Powerful wasn't around to stop them and therefore their titles are meaningless and everybody ranked 2 through 100 should just throw in the towel and retire.

:cuckoo:

revolution
08-02-2005, 09:35 PM
Yep, I agree. If any player wins anything it's only because Federer the Awesome and Powerful wasn't around to stop them and therefore their titles are meaningless and everybody ranked 2 through 100 should just throw in the towel and retire.

:cuckoo:


Correct. Whoever wins Montreal is worthy of it and on the roll of honour there isn't going to be a little piece of writing below saying 'Roger Federer did not compete in this tournament'.

Imagine if Hewitt had won the AO, it wouldn't have been worthy as he 'didn't beat Roger Federer'. I don't like Hewitt, but it would be very unfair to say that..

disturb3d
08-02-2005, 09:47 PM
Agassi has also beaten Federer during that run of seven matches. He destroyed him in the semi-finals of Kooyong last year 6-2 6-4 - fine it wasn't on the ATP Tour but Kooyong attracts a better field than any non-Masters Series/Grand Slam event and is honoured by players as the 'official' tune-up to the Australian Open.There you have it, kids.
Agassi is still capable of bitch-slapping Roger when he plays a decent game. Halleluia!

tangerine_dream
08-02-2005, 10:10 PM
Imagine if Hewitt had won the AO, it wouldn't have been worthy as he 'didn't beat Roger Federer'. I don't like Hewitt, but it would be very unfair to say that..
This is MTF. There was indeed a lot of hand-wringing from various dark corners by people who worried mightily that the unworthy Hewitt or Roddick might sneak in and snatch the AO title from Safin's hands.

Sjengster
08-02-2005, 10:20 PM
Yes... I'm not going to make excuses for Federer's poor performances or defeats on the regular tour, but in an exhibition event where he played like an amateur and made a ton of UE (around 30 in two sets), I think I will. Wyvern could verify this, he watched the match and I didn't, but he was worried at the time that Federer's lack of a coach was hurting his game since he seemed so clueless on court. He found good form for the event that mattered most just a few days later.

The Agassi-Federer head-to-head is very interesting; one win for Agassi when Federer was little more than a junior, then another couple in which Federer was a rapidly improving young talent, but still not in the same league. If we're going to play could-haves and should-haves, I could easily say the record should have been 2-1 to Agassi had Federer held his nerve near the end of the fourth set in Miami and taken it to five with Agassi clearly fatiguing in the heat, instead of which he dumped his last two service games of the match. The TMC RR match was the most equal match the two have ever contested, I reckon, and you could have flipped a coin as to the result (although Agassi's matchpoints only came after Federer had reverted to classic headcase mode and failed to serve out what would have been a relatively routine 3 and 3 victory, albeit from a set down).

The final in Houston was one-sided and had much to do with Agassi's fatigue, then the two encounters in 2004 were also close affairs in which Federer was poor for large periods and Agassi was outplaying him, but superior mental strength got him through in the end. His backhand was abysmal in the IW match, he couldn't hit a topspin drive into court to save his life, and in many ways that match was similar to the TMC one in that he lost a lot of the longer rallies and had to come up with inspirational shots to get the win (notice that the running forehand pass at 4-4 in the third that broke down Agassi mentally was a very similar shot to the one he hit on matchpoint at the TMC).

At the US Open it was Federer's serve that saved him much of the time, he was being given the runaround for the second set and most of the third, but Agassi's nerve crumbled at the crucial moment just like it did in the final set. Perhaps it's been a lack of belief, a doubt in his mind that he can beat Federer, that has stopped him winning since he was certainly playing well enough to win both the IW and the US Open matches. Federer certainly didn't tank the fourth set of that match, it was easily the longest set of the match and had many long and hard-fought games when the server was at the tough end of the court playing with the wind. Yes, Federer got lucky that Agassi was serving at that end at 3-4 in the fifth, just as he himself was serving from that end at 3-4 in the previous set, but both men had to play the same amount of games from that position; Federer, supposedly the less consistent groundstroker and the poorer player in windy conditions, got the ball in play at the right times and Agassi didn't. As much as it's possible to play tennis in wind as bad as that, he outplayed him when it mattered most.

Their recent matches in 2005 have really demonstrated how much Federer's footwork, backhand, speed and consistency have improved in the last couple of years. Had Agassi played at the same level this time last year, and certainly the year before, the matches would at the least have been very tight and most likely he would have won his fair share. But while Federer arguably served him off the court at the AO, hitting 22 aces in three sets, the Miami match was very telling indeed. All the big points in that match were won by Federer in seemingly endless cross-court backhand rallies, long and taxing points that you would expect Agassi to win against any other top player, but Federer's shots were more consistent, his angles were sharper, and ultimately Agassi couldn't sustain the exchanges. I particularly remember the point where Federer broke to serve for the match: Agassi was stretched out wide and hit a great defensive slice backhand at an amazing short angle, but Federer got up to it and hit an even better angle back cross-court and Agassi netted the ball.

All this verbiage from me is probably unnecessary, just my perspective on the way their matches have developed, but it does indicate that Agassi's chances against Federer are getting smaller and smaller with each match. On the other hand, the one place where I would give him the best chance of beating Federer is the US Open, with the crowd behind him and the court giving him enough pace to hurt Federer in the rallies (although that works vice versa as well, of course). It would be interesting to see Agassi against Hewitt, Roddick, Safin et al; his Cincinnati run last year suggests he would be favourite to beat them all, but conditions would favour Roddick's serve (remember Agassi's record against Sampras in New York) and it's still hard to predict the outcome of a Hewitt-Agassi match, bearing in mind their last encounter was scuppered by Agassi's toe injury and the one before was a close three-setter.

NYCtennisfan
08-02-2005, 10:43 PM
but every player, every sportsman/woman has haters, no matter how nice, how good, how bad. it all comes in the package of being a sportstar. haters exist everywhere.

This is so true and always will be.

Gigan, the difference between now and back when Agassi owned Federer is twofold.

One, Federer has a much better BH now and is able to consistently hit through it. He used to get owned in rallies with Agassi because of his relatively weak and unstable BH. He got pinned on it and lost the majority of long rallies. NOw he can rip that BH down the line and Agassi doesn't cover it as well which usually means a weaker reply back which Federer can then attack taking control of the rally. He did this time and time again at the AO and in Miami this year.

Two, a different mentality. Federer used to be afraid of Agassi I think because of AGassi's phenomenal ability to take the ball early from both sides and pin him on his BH. He felt like an underdog, was and underdog, and played liked it. Now he is confident in his ability to beat AGassi and the rest is history.

I didn't get to see his match against Agassi in Dubai but I heard that Federer was phenomenal in that one. I did see his their matches at the AO and in Miami. AGassi played well in both of those matches and Federer beat up on him.

As things stand right now, here is how I see Agassi against his biggest rivals. Things can of course change with upcoming results, losses in confidence, injuries, etc.

I still give Agassi a chance against everyone other than Federer who he of course COULD beat but is highly unlikely at this point.

Agassi against the top players on a fast hardcourt:

Federer: Agassi big underdog
Roddick: Agassi slight underdog
Hewitt: Agassi slight underdog
Safin: Agassi slight underdog
Nadal: Agassi slight favorite (if Nadal plays well in Montreal and Cincy, this should be even or Nadal becomes the slight favorite)

Everyone else: Agassi a solid favorite

revolution
08-02-2005, 10:43 PM
This is MTF. There was indeed a lot of hand-wringing from various dark corners by people who worried mightily that the unworthy Hewitt or Roddick might sneak in and snatch the AO title from Safin's hands.

But of course. I'm no massive fan of Roddick, but he sure is victimised on these forums.

disturb3d
08-02-2005, 10:56 PM
Roddick: Agassi slight underdog
Hewitt: Agassi slight underdogYou're kidding right?
You, and every fan out there know that Agassi is favored to beat both of these guys.
But refuse to accept it, as to follow the rankings.

Roger, Marat, Rafael are the only tennis players in the world who can go toe-to-toe with Andre.

Experimentee
08-03-2005, 03:24 AM
it was played under one of the windiest conditions I have ever seen an official tennis match being played under.. and even though the score suggests otherwise, Federer was never in danger of losing the match, and some believe he may have actually tanked the fourth set to have Agassi worn out during the fifth, which he won easily...

The conditions are the same for both players, and Andre won two sets off him fair and square. Suggesting that Federer tanked is incredibly disrespectful to both players, and blatantly untrue if you even watched the match.
Its really annoying how there seems to be the mentality among some that its impossible for Federer to lose anything if he wasnt tired/injured/tanking.

revolution
08-03-2005, 03:26 AM
The conditions are the same for both players, and Andre won two sets off him fair and square. Suggesting that Federer tanked is incredibly disrespectful to both players, and blatantly untrue if you even watched the match.
Its really annoying how there seems to be the mentality among some that its impossible for Federer to lose anything if he wasnt tired/injured/tanking.

I agree with that 100%, and it's getting goodrepped.

Experimentee
08-03-2005, 03:31 AM
Yes... I'm not going to make excuses for Federer's poor performances or defeats on the regular tour, but in an exhibition event where he played like an amateur and made a ton of UE (around 30 in two sets), I think I will. Wyvern could verify this, he watched the match and I didn't, but he was worried at the time that Federer's lack of a coach was hurting his game since he seemed so clueless on court. He found good form for the event that mattered most just a few days later.


Federer certainly did not play like an amateur in that match. He was decent, and had to be playing well to even reach the final in the first place against 3 quality opponents. Andre outplayed him, he plays his best on this surface and that was no exception. Wyvern in general has some disrespect for the Kooyong tournament, and believes none of the players take it seriously or try to play well, so that may affect his perception. I have seen no one play like an amateur at Kooyong, with the exception of maybe Ginepri.

revolution
08-03-2005, 03:35 AM
Federer certainly did not play like an amateur in that match. He was decent, and had to be playing well to even reach the final in the first place against 3 quality opponents. Andre outplayed him, he plays his best on this surface and that was no exception. Wyvern in general has some disrespect for the Kooyong tournament, and believes none of the players take it seriously or try to play well, so that may affect his perception. I have seen no one play like an amateur at Kooyong, with the exception of maybe Ginepri.

The most ridiculous thing about Kooyong I heard around was that cuz Henman beat Nalbandian at Kooyong it was an unworthy event as Nalbandian should have won due to his 4-1 head to head lead.

heya
08-03-2005, 03:50 AM
At mtf, some people believe they're so intellectually superior to other posters.
Obviously, no one's as smart & human as them. Hypocrites (usually 16-25 years old. A few are 33-34 years old).
They're so obsessed with their fave players that they post self-righteous, abusive crap aimed at fans of nonfave players.
As time goes on, they slow down their insecure crap. A few admit that some players aren't that bad. Others try to be friends with their enemies.

NYCtennisfan
08-03-2005, 04:38 AM
You're kidding right?
You, and every fan out there know that Agassi is favored to beat both of these guys.
But refuse to accept it, as to follow the rankings.

Roger, Marat, Rafael are the only tennis players in the world who can go toe-to-toe with Andre.

No, I am not kidding. As of right now, I believe that Safin, Hewitt and Roddick would be slight betting favorites. I think the outcome is 50-50 on all three of these matches--they could all go either way and nobody is a clear favorite. As a point of reference, Agassi was a slight underdog against Hewitt at Indian Wells this year (I think he was at 1.2). Things can change though depending upon injuries, how players are playing, etc.

max122
08-03-2005, 01:57 PM
I would take agassi over roddick any day... guy is just a genius on the court!

Sjengster
08-03-2005, 02:13 PM
Federer certainly did not play like an amateur in that match. He was decent, and had to be playing well to even reach the final in the first place against 3 quality opponents. Andre outplayed him, he plays his best on this surface and that was no exception. Wyvern in general has some disrespect for the Kooyong tournament, and believes none of the players take it seriously or try to play well, so that may affect his perception. I have seen no one play like an amateur at Kooyong, with the exception of maybe Ginepri.

OK, so amateurish is the wrong word. That was only his second match, however, the first was an error-filled three-set win against Johansson in which he made over 40 UE. I'm not suggesting that Federer didn't try, but that his level of performance was lower than you would see in a normal tour event. I can certainly believe that Agassi outplayed him on Rebound Ace, it's arguably his best surface and would favour him against Federer, that's why I was so surprised by the ease of the AO victory this year (but then an awful lot of that was down to how well Federer served).

gooner88
08-03-2005, 02:40 PM
You're kidding right?
You, and every fan out there know that Agassi is favored to beat both of these guys.
But refuse to accept it, as to follow the rankings.

Roger, Marat, Rafael are the only tennis players in the world who can go toe-to-toe with Andre.

Nalbo is another who can go 'toe-to-toe' with Andre.
Their Masters Cup match in 2003 was a classic with Andre beating Nalbo in 3 tight sets. Then 2 months later Nalbo thrashed Andre in the Kooyong final, albeit in an exhibition. Hewitt is another who can fight all the way with Andre.

disturb3d
08-03-2005, 02:47 PM
Nalbo is another who can go 'toe-to-toe' with Andre.
Their Masters Cup match in 2003 was a classic with Andre beating Nalbo in 3 tight sets. Then 2 months later Nalbo thrashed Andre in the Kooyong final, albeit in an exhibition. Hewitt is another who can fight all the way with Andre.Anyone who is playing their best can trouble Agassi.
The point I made was to seperate Marat/Roger/Rafael from the rest of the pack.
As the only players who can consistently hit with Andre.

gooner88
08-03-2005, 03:02 PM
Anyone who is playing their best can trouble Agassi.
The point I made was to seperate Marat/Roger/Rafael from the rest of the pack.
As the only players who can consistently hit with Andre.

Andre's views on Nalbo.
http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=9926

"It's the fact that he can hit it short cross court so effectively. You got to respect that," Agassi said. "When I hit a backhand cross court, hard and punishing, I'm used to being in a very offensive position. He established really early that he has the quickness and anticipation to move over there and comfortably play it up the line.