If it weren't about Federer Agassi would win another Slam at the age of 35

Too true.
About deserving, I think that Roger would deserve 2 slams after the splendid year he did.

If it weren't for Federer, Andre almost certainly would have walked away with the 2004 USO, and maybe with some more luck, 2004 AO as well (too bad he wasted so many chances, including 2 set points, in those first 2 tie-breakers against Marat in the Semis, before storming back down 0-2 in sets to dominate Marat in the 3rd and 4th before running out of gas in the 5th...).

Agassi has to be super-pissed off that Federer wasn't born, say, 5 years later.

They both have to make it to the finals first

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

AgassiFan said:

Agassi has to be super-pissed off that Federer wasn't born, say, 5 years later.

Click to expand...

Well, Agassi had great results during his career, so it is not that bad

On the other hand, there are a few other guys, esp. Roddick and Hewitt, that have to be pissed to have Roger around

James has almost taken out agassi, and Ginepri will not be easy at all. let us see if agassi first will get to the final

No one "deserves" to win, except the person who is good enough to score the last point of the final. Sentimentally, there are reasons to want different people. I said I would like James to win, it would be a beautiful end to a traumatic year. Others think Roge deserves to win. Others want Andy, and think he has worked hard and deserves to win one more slam.

pinky said:

Well, Agassi had great results during his career, so it is not that bad

On the other hand, there are a few other guys, esp. Roddick and Hewitt, that have to be pissed to have Roger around

Click to expand...

34 and a screwed-up back and all... Federer definately spoiled Andre's 2004 and 2005 - both in slams and in non-slams, both by actually beating him head-to-head and by always lurking in the back of Agassi's mind...

AgassiFan said:

34 and a screwed-up back and all... Federer definately spoiled Andre's 2004 and 2005 - both in slams and in non-slams, both by actually beating him head-to-head and by always lurking in the back of Agassi's mind...

Click to expand...

I think the better thread title here is that if it were not for Pete, then agassi would be the most successful slam player in history. Roge has stopped agassi only one time : last year (where I think agassi would win final if he got there) but in Australia this year, marat would beat agassi in SF.

R.Federer said:

James has almost taken out agassi, and Ginepri will not be easy at all. let us see if agassi first will get to the final

No one "deserves" to win, except the person who is good enough to score the last point of the final. Sentimentally, there are reasons to want different people. I said I would like James to win, it would be a beautiful end to a traumatic year. Others think Roge deserves to win. Others want Andy, and think he has worked hard and deserves to win one more slam.

Click to expand...

Agassi's grand slam defeats have this in common: very flat in the 1st set, even when he won it against Coria at 2003 FO.

So if Andre has some more "rhythm problems" early and gives Ginepri a 1-0 set headstart... There is a good chance he will LOSE. I don't care who you are, you CAN'T always fight your way from behind, not at his age and back condition coming off back-to-back 5-setters especially.

This is USO. Never underestimate the support of the home crowd and what it can do to the players' minds. If Federer meets Agassi, I expect Agassi to have the upper hand.

R.Federer said:

but in Australia this year, marat would beat agassi in SF.

Click to expand...

Agassi outplayed Marat for 4 sets before losing steam in the 5th. If Andre converts one of his many opps in either 1st or 2nd set, the match is over in 4. Had he won the 1st, it might have been over in 3.


Then he would have had another cake-walk Aussie Final if Roger wasn't there.

mickymouse said:

This is USO. Never underestimate the support of the home crowd and what it can do to the players' minds. If Federer meets Agassi, I expect Agassi to have the upper hand.

Click to expand...

They met last year and the crowd was mainly on agassi's side (not all) and the result was not helped.

Believe me, I have been part of the USO crowd. I thought Roge would recognize us because we go in Swiss tee shirts, and our surprise: the place if full of others in Swiss flag tee shirts! There are too many foreigners (not all Swiss, but India, Asia, Spanish and others) in NY who are not fond of American players and give all their weight to Roge. This is what makes US open very different from Wimbledon

Agassi deserves the title most? Sorry, James should've beaten him already.

But yes it would be a perfect ending if Agassi could take this USO and then retire. And no, I don't see the slightest chance of him to beat Federer in the final, given that there is no off day in between final and semi...

And there is no point of saying if it weren't for Federer Agassi would blah blah blah, because then we can also say about Nadal being the youngest No1 in the world, Safin Hewitt and Roddick all holding 3 slams in hand...

Originally posted by mickymouse
If Federer meets Agassi, I expect Agassi to have the upper hand.

Click to expand...

The crowd won't matter at all.
Remember last year's US Open Wednesday night match?

yanchr said:

.And there is no point of saying if it weren't for Federer Agassi would blah blah blah, because then we can also say about Nadal being the youngest No1 in the world, Safin Hewitt and Roddick all holding 3 slams in hand...
..

Click to expand...

Just stating facts. Agassi would have taken 2004 USO rather easily, and maybe even the 2004 AO had he shown a little more killer instinct in either 1st or 2nd set. That's at least 1 and possibly 2 slams in ONE year - complete with the confidence boost they would have provided going into 2005 and beyond.

I do agree Marat would have probably beaten Agassi at 2005 AO, but 2005 USO could have, once again, been on Andre's resume.

So that's as many as 3 slams Federer "cost" Agassi in 2004-2005.

And, yes, Roddick would have had 2 Wimbledons by now. So what of it?

AgassiFan said:

Agassi outplayed Marat for 4 sets before losing steam in the 5th. If Andre converts one of his many opps in either 1st or 2nd set, the match is over in 4. Had he won the 1st, it might have been over in 3.

Then he would have had another cake-walk Aussie Final if Roger wasn't there.

Click to expand...

No, my post said ".. in Australia this year".
Even if he could beat Roge in QF, he would not beat marat in the SF. Marat's level was the highest of any player (correctly so he wins the tournament)

AgassiFan said:

Just stating facts. Agassi would have taken 2004 USO rather easily?

Click to expand...

You act like Hewitt is a walkover

AgassiFan said:

Jand maybe even the 2004 AO had he shown a little more killer instinct in either 1st or 2nd set. That's at least 1 and possibly 2 slams in ONE year - complete with the confidence boost they would have provided going into 2005 and beyond.

So that's as many as 3 slams Federer "cost" Agassi in 2004-2005.

Click to expand...

This is completely delussional stuff about him winning AO04 without Federer. For a start he lost to Safin - nothing to do with Federer. So how the hell does FEDERER cost him that slam when he lost to SAFIN :retard:. Secondly, even if he beat Safin and Federer didnt exist, how do you know that JCF would not have have kicked his arse off the court just like he did at US03 or Nalbandian wouldnt have beaten him since he was playing peak tennis at that stage and thrashed Andre in the Kooyong final?

Agassi's record is good enough that you shouldnt have to make up this crap.

i always liked andre, but now, i'm for seeing fed break records and hopefully get 15 slams. so go fed!