Would Agassi at 30 have beaten Fed today?

No. Agassi at 25 would of lost 2.

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.

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...

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.

I have seen Agassi play MUCH better than this...The night at the Open where he played Sampras in those four tiebreak sets...

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.

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.

yes, definitely, if he can tke it to roger at 35, he can take the title esp. when he's 30,

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...

No. I think if Agassi didn't have to play 3 five set matches before the final he would have won today though.

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.

sawan66278 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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'.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda....how can one ever know the answer to the question?

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?

bandabou said:

Coulda, woulda, shoulda....how can one ever know the answer to the question?

Click to expand...

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...

Tennis Fool said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.