Would Agassi at 30 have beaten Fed today? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Would Agassi at 30 have beaten Fed today?

sawan66278
09-12-2005, 01:12 AM
I really believe that Agassi would have won today...if he were but five years younger...I feel he would have won in four sets...What's the general opinon?

El Legenda
09-12-2005, 01:14 AM
No. Agassi at 25 would of lost 2.

oneandonlyhsn
09-12-2005, 01:15 AM
Woulda coulda shoulda, it took a a very high intense Safin to knock out Roger. What I am saying is that most players cant keep that intensity, mentally and physically, 1 set 2 sets yes but not an entire match.

sawan66278
09-12-2005, 01:17 AM
You have to understand...the grind to play this high level of tennis at 35 is COMPLETELY different from playing tennis at 30...or 25...Agassi at 25 would not have had the experience to win, but at 30...I really believe he would have won...Roger is a true champion...but he lost to Safin and Nadal this year...neither player is of the caliber of talent of Agassi...

RonE
09-12-2005, 01:23 AM
I think even an Agassi with the experience he has today in a 21 year old body would not have won it. He gave it his best. He was moving better and hitting the ball sweeter and harder than I have EVER seen him play. Roger was simply at another level at 2-4 down in the third set to break back, throughout the 3rd set tiebreak and throughout the 4th set. When he plays like that there is virtually nothing you can do...

Mind you I am really impressed with Andre for fighting as hard as he has done considering all the 5 setters he has played and he really did make Federer look almost amateurish throughout the 2nd and half of the 3rd set. Had Andre been playing anyone else today he would have walked away with the trophy.

sawan66278
09-12-2005, 01:25 AM
I have seen Agassi play MUCH better than this...The night at the Open where he played Sampras in those four tiebreak sets...

deliveryman
09-12-2005, 01:26 AM
Roger didn't even play that bad in the second/third set, aside from the last game in the second set. He just didn't capitalize on his 320942034823094820394820394823 break points, and andre captialized on the very few oppertunities he had.

wipeout
09-12-2005, 01:43 AM
Five years younger might have helped, I'd agree, but I'd say Andre would have won if he'd had more rest and this made more a difference than his age would have.

Also, I know people say Marat had to play his best to beat Roger at the Aussie Open this year but the stats showed Marat and Roger were both playing okay but neither were near their best. For example, Marat's serve was nowhere near where it can be.

AZILANA
09-12-2005, 01:50 AM
yes, definitely, if he can tke it to roger at 35, he can take the title esp. when he's 30,

sawan66278
09-12-2005, 02:01 AM
I agree with the above two posts...what Agassi did today would be like Connors at 35 giving Sampras at 24 a tough match...Playing back to back matches (Saturday and Sunday) at 35 made a huge difference...

Pheobo
09-12-2005, 02:05 AM
No. I think if Agassi didn't have to play 3 five set matches before the final he would have won today though.

Dirk
09-12-2005, 02:08 AM
Andre benefited from Todd Martin's physical state in the 99 USO. Todd also played lots of 5 setters and if he had more energy he might have won that 5th set against Andre or had done better earlier in the match. It's a double edge sword and the sword benefited Andre back then.

AgassiFan
09-12-2005, 02:12 AM
I really believe that Agassi would have won today...if he were but five years younger...I feel he would have won in four sets...What's the general opinon?

If he was serving like he did against Pete at 2001 USO, then, yeah, he would have gotten more "free" points than he did today. Andre also ran better and hit bigger shots especially off the backhand.

Remember, today Roger wasn't in good mental shape until mid-way through the tie-breaker, which Andre should have never allowed to take place when he was leading 4-2, 30-0 and all he had to do was get a couple of 1st serves in, then follow them up with deeper approach shots to the backhand - which he ultimately couldn't do.

So in essence he wasn't facing "Federer" Federer we've come to know from GS Finals...

So the question should be phrased differently: "Could a 30 year old Agassi have beaten a struggling Federer if he were serving better?"

The answer is 'yes'.

bandabou
09-12-2005, 02:16 AM
Coulda, woulda, shoulda....how can one ever know the answer to the question?

Tennis Fool
09-12-2005, 02:18 AM
No. Agassi played the final this year like he played most of his matches in 1999. How many times did he beat Pete on a hardcourt that year?

hablovah19
09-12-2005, 02:19 AM
Coulda, woulda, shoulda....how can one ever know the answer to the question?


:bowdown:

sawan66278
09-12-2005, 02:42 AM
:sad: This might be slightly off topic, but do you believe Andre's back injury contributed to his play falling off in the latter stages of the third set and the fourth...My brother pointed out to me at 5-4 in the third that he thought Agassi looked injured (ever since that one awkward point at the net where he twisted his body in a weird way)...In retrospect, I tend to agree...

If you notice, he kept rubbing and twisting his back during the awards presentation...I think he knows his back is about shot...and that's why he made the comments he made during the trophy presentation (which, by the way, were EXTREMELY poorly handled by CBS and Dick Endberg)...he knows the journey is all but over because of his back...

AgassiFan
09-12-2005, 02:59 AM
No. Agassi played the final this year like he played most of his matches in 1999. How many times did he beat Pete on a hardcourt that year?

Not even close.

His fitness didn't hit its peak until the early '00s. Ditto his serving.



The way Andre played against Pete at 2001 USO and Roger at 2004 USO - same sharp groundstrokes as today, but better serving, which would have made ALL the difference in the world today when he was around 40% after the 1st set ended, which is flat-out suicidal against Roger's forehand.

LLeytonRules
09-12-2005, 03:05 AM
No, it wouldnt have matter, Roger has a very similar game to Pete, one handed backhand,using lots of slice, also similar serve in disguise.

disturb3d
09-12-2005, 03:08 AM
He was very unlucky in the third set, being up 4-2 and 30-0... I really believe he SHOULD have won this match.

I'll be happy to see him acknowledge what he's learned, and face Roger in the 2006 AO.

Tennis Fool
09-12-2005, 03:10 AM
Not even close.

His fitness didn't hit its peak until the early '00s. Ditto his serving.


Well, he must have done something right to get to the finals of four majors (including the A0 '00) and winning three of them.

The way Andre played against Pete at 2001 USO and Roger at 2004 USO - same sharp groundstrokes as today, but better serving, which would have made ALL the difference in the world today when he was around 40% after the 1st set ended, which is flat-out suicidal against Roger's forehand.
Yeah, his serve was terrible, but Roger "let me stand 3 feet behind the baseline and rip a backhand error" was even more horrid.

LLeytonRules
09-12-2005, 03:11 AM
Should have, could have, Federer is a clutch player, Agassi found that out today.

Tennis Fool
09-12-2005, 03:12 AM
:sad: This might be slightly off topic, but do you believe Andre's back injury contributed to his play falling off in the latter stages of the third set and the fourth...My brother pointed out to me at 5-4 in the third that he thought Agassi looked injured (ever since that one awkward point at the net where he twisted his body in a weird way)...In retrospect, I tend to agree...

If you notice, he kept rubbing and twisting his back during the awards presentation...I think he knows his back is about shot...and that's why he made the comments he made during the trophy presentation (which, by the way, were EXTREMELY poorly handled by CBS and Dick Endberg)...he knows the journey is all but over because of his back...
I think it was mental. He'd let go of a lead and lost a tb 7-1. He knew he couldn't do that. Sometimes when your'e losing the injuries feel even more painful.

Lee
09-12-2005, 03:15 AM
I have no doubt that, would Agassi be 20 today, he would have no problem defeating 9 years old Federer. OK, even Agassi at 25, he would still defeat 14 years old Federer.

NYCtennisfan
09-12-2005, 03:38 AM
Unlikely but one thing that he did better 5 years ago other than move around the court was hit the BH DTL. Fed was giving him that shot today but Agassi didn't take it.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-12-2005, 03:41 AM
A younger Andre with no back problems would have beat Fed in 4 sets.
Someone has to end the finals winning streak.
2006 FO final: Nadal def. Federer
Then my name can be fact.

AgassiFan
09-12-2005, 03:43 AM
Should have, could have, Federer is a clutch player, Agassi found that out today.

Federer's clutchness is not in question. He wouldn't be a legend otherwise. It was incumbent on Agassi to produce stunning, clutch tennis, and he almost pulled it off - but just like in their 5-setter in 2004 USO, 'almost' doesn't count for shit.

All through-out 2nd and 3rd set Agassi kept winning his servioce games despite barely serving 40%. I kept saying "this careless shit is gonna catch with him sooner than later". And it did at 4-2, 30-0 where Andre netted 3 consecutive 1st serves, which allowed Roger to dictate play off his 2nd serves, and when the opportunity presented itself for Andre to RIP a big groundstroke winner or at least force yet another BH error from Roger, Andre elected to play more conservatively to his FH, miscalulating that Federer would be too scared to go for winners with his back against the wall... And Agassi's 3 UE in the first 5 points of the tie-breaker pretty much sealed his fate. The 4th set wasn't necessary.

AgassiFan
09-12-2005, 03:55 AM
Well, he must have done something right to get to the finals of four majors (including the A0 '00) and winning three of them.


Yeah, his serve was terrible, but Roger "let me stand 3 feet behind the baseline and rip a backhand error" was even more horrid.


Against what competition? It's hard to argue that he displayed better overall quality in USO losses to Pete in '01 and Federer '04... than he did in WINS over Medvedev, Martin, Clement, etc in 99-00.

In the 2nd and 3rd sets especially, Federer was getting outplayed badly on Agassi's first serves, even when they weren't struck with maxiumum velocity or hit the lines. Unfortunately for Andre, he only served around 40% in that span even though he knew how critical it was to get them in as he was getting outplayed by Roger when he DIDN'T.

We all knew that Andre needed his best groundstrokes AND his best serve to beat Federer. The hitting was there, the serving wasn't. At the end, it made ALL the difference in the world.

AgassiFan
09-12-2005, 04:04 AM
Unlikely but one thing that he did better 5 years ago other than move around the court was hit the BH DTL. Fed was giving him that shot today but Agassi didn't take it.

Good point.

Moving around = better retrieving, but also better counter-punching. Hard to hit a great backhand on the run when you're split-second late ... :D

While he can still rip a mean FH on the run if you're not careful, Andre doesn't have the confidence in his power backhand DTL, which is the shot practically ALL his opponents give him. A few times he uncorked one close to the lines, it either shot throught for a winner or resulted in a forced FH error by Federer. Too bad the "few times" do not a great BH DTL make. Federer has no trouble swatting the BH that are "guided" down the line.

PamV
09-12-2005, 04:18 AM
I really believe that Agassi would have won today...if he were but five years younger...I feel he would have won in four sets...What's the general opinon?

I don't think so.