[Spierbal]

Originally Posted by Lee

Don't you love the arguments in MTF?

We have posts claiming Djokovic won 6 slams because it's a weak era, not much competition. Federer won his slams in a stronger era. Then turned around saying Djokovic won't make this SF streak as competition is tough, blah, blah, blah.

Hey, don't you know its all the above..

[janko05]

Originally Posted by pepita1964

Agassi was hungry as much as Fed at that time when they played ,If you compare Fed who played against Murray in SF at AO 13 to Agassi who played vs young Fed then. That is the question . This Fed now has 17 GS and a lot of records but that Agassi had 7 or 8 GS with no records on his name as Fed now. So if Agassi could defeat Fed back then he could be hero but if Fed could take a win against Murray in SF It is just nothing for him another final, Like Wimbledon 2012 almost
everyone felt sorry for Murray and Fed just got his 17 GS, It is just business for Federer,He just broke Murray's heart and his mother and girlfriend as well. All of them cried in public as if someone was dead,So Fed was as a monster in many people 's eyes not as a "hero".

Fixed

[samo7266]

Originally Posted by Saberq

it's a given at this point only..............................12 more to go 3 years

He's definitely got a shot at it, he's been the most consistent player on tour since 2011. Still a long, long way to go though...I agree.

[pepita1964]

Originally Posted by janko05

Fixed

Thanks a lot! Next time i will get my pair of glasses

[Mountaindewslave]

Originally Posted by Saberq

Agassi was 34 years old and took Federer to 5 sets?Your point?

Agassi hardly declined he played very smart tennis. Roger is not anywhere near as good as he used to be. the point is that a mediocre Federer (compared to his standards as far as how he used to play) still beats everyone and can handle these guys in their primes. it obviously says something about his longevity

you won't see Nadal, Novak, Andy playing as well as Federer does at 31, if they're still playing. granted none of them were nearly as good in their primes (right now) as Federer was in his. except maybe Nadal on clay and Djokovic in 2011

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Mountaindewslave

Agassi hardly declined he played very smart tennis. Roger is not anywhere near as good as he used to be. the point is that a mediocre Federer (compared to his standards as far as how he used to play) still beats everyone and can handle these guys in their primes. it obviously says something about his longevity

you won't see Nadal, Novak, Andy playing as well as Federer does at 31, if they're still playing. granted none of them were nearly as good in their primes (right now) as Federer was in his. except maybe Nadal on clay and Djokovic in 2011

Agassi was still much worse than when he was 25

[BauerAlmeida]

Agassi didn't decline?? Watch his matches from RG 91', AO 95' and USO 95' and compare it to his later years. He was competitive untill he retired, but he clearly declined.

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

Agassi didn't decline?? Watch his matches from RG 91', AO 95' and USO 95' and compare it to his later years. He was competitive untill he retired, but he clearly declined.

no only Fed declines man

[atennisfan]

Agassi at 34 had less mileage than Fed at 31.

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by atennisfan

Agassi at 34 had less mileage than Fed at 31.

irrelevant he was a worse player

[Han Solo]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

Agassi didn't decline?? Watch his matches from RG 91', AO 95' and USO 95' and compare it to his later years. He was competitive untill he retired, but he clearly declined.

I've watched 'em. It would help your argument if you could at least pinpoint one or two things from the matches you cite...

Edit: Incidentally, why has this thread turned into a comparison between Federer and Agassi in their later years? I've lost track of how this pertains to the thread topic.

[atennisfan]

Originally Posted by Saberq

irrelevant he was a worse player

Why is mileage irrelevant?

Unless you are a robot, or has the egg, pretty sure mileage is relevant.

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by atennisfan

Why is mileage irrelevant?

Unless you are a robot, or has the egg, pretty sure mileage is relevant.

I have less mileage than Federer......you think I have a better shot against Murray than him?

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by Han Solo

I've watched 'em. It would help your argument if you could at least pinpoint one or two things from the matches you cite...

Edit: Incidentally, why has this thread turned into a comparison between Federer and Agassi in their later years? I've lost track of how this pertains to the thread topic.

More power, better stamina, better reflexes. Basically everything anyone can do better when they're 25 than when they're 35 he did too.

Look at his returns for example, (In the 90's) he could hit winners from +200 km/h serves in surfaces that were a lot faster than the ones he played in the mid 2000's. In the AO 2005 he was aced like 60 times in a match (against Joachim Johansson). In Wimbledon 92' he made Ivanisevic's and Becker's serves look average at times.

[atennisfan]

Originally Posted by Saberq

I have less mileage than Federer......you think I have a better shot against Murray than him?

You are comparing yourself to Agassi/Federer?



I know that djokertards are adverse to facts and logic, but this one takes the cake.