I've always felt like Federer was too dominant, they had to slow down the courts for others to have a chance. No one will beat this form of Federer at such a fast paced court.
Very very very correct. If this type of courts had been maintained , as on date, federer would have won almost 40 grandslams, where as novak would have won 1-2 slams ( by luck) & claydal around 11- 12 french opens only.
old Agassi took him 5, and this was when his back issues (Spondylolithesis) were at its worst. Imagine what a young Agassi would do? Imagine what a prime PETE would do? Federer was actually a huge beneficiary of court slow downs because it made it harder for big servers to upset him when they got hot. Novak and Nadal are simply better on slower courts than he is, hence the h2hs.
@@farid1406 The slower courts helped Federer against SOME players - big hitters, big servers - but overall they hurt him because his two biggest rivals are slow court masters, especially Djokovic. Nadal is a different story, with his lefty whip forehand he's a bad matchup for Federer even on medium speed courts. Although Federer did avenge that rivalry once he switched to the bigger racquet and won I think 6 out of 7 of their last matches. Also, the courts kept slowing down. Initially it was beneficial but when it got slower and slower, and he got older, it became a real grind. As for Sampras/Agassi, I don't think Sampras would ever match up well against Federer. Federer is Sampras 2.0. Agassi, on the other hand, with poly strings and a younger body, I've always said that would have been the most entertaining rivalry of all time. Their rallies are insanely aggressive and fun to watch.
@@sup9542 Firstly, Federer is not Sampras 2.0, this is something I hear all the time from Fedfans and it drives me bonkers. Sampras is significantly faster and more explosive than Fed ever was, his serve which is the most important shot in tennis is significantly better than Fed's, and his netgame is miles (yes, MILES) better than Fed's, despite whatever nice volleys Federer occasionally comes up with. I would actually go so far as to say the difference between their baseline games is less than the difference between their net games. Pete noted that Fed panics when he gets up to net against great players whereas Pete thrives off of it. And maybe most importantly, Pete's clutch is in a different stratosphere than Fed. He played his best on the biggest points against his rivals at the biggest moments. Federer, as witnessed by his multiple 40-15s against Novak shrinks in those moments. There's a reason Pete is 14-4 in slam finals and 7-0 in Wimbledon finals in an era of fast courts when one bad break could cost you a match. As his and Fed's coach Annacone said, the guy didn't have a panic button. Overall I think Pete's game is actually more complete than Roger's rather than other way around. His biggest problem was his lack of stamina because of his genetic condition, Thalassemia minor, which made it hard for him to play long matches. He wrote in his book that this hurt him in Australia with the extreme humidity, and I think it was a big reason he failed at RG, where rallies and point construction were more important than attack. The fact that slow courts nullified big servers is a really big deal though. It made Fed less prone to upsets, and helped him handle players like Phillipoussis and Roddick much easier than he would have in 90s conditions (although he would have beaten both regularly even then). His record of 23 semis in a row wouldn't have happened in an era where a big server with great volleys could upset you, ala Kracijek or a prime Phillipousis. Its only fair that the court slowdown eventually work against him. I have no sympathy. Have to take the thorn with the rose. The fact that he couldn't beat Djokodal in the slow court conditions shows his game is not as perfect as everyone thinks. NO player - Pete, Fed, or Djokodal - has a game that translates to absolute dominance in every condition. Everyone has a weakness.
Agassi’s game aged the best of all the Americans. Sampras’ style of play got old fast with the new rackets and polyester strings. After 2000 his game was becoming obsolete, Chang lost his wheels after 1996. Courier after 1997 was washed up. Agassi’s game translated very well to the modern game. He began to use the polyester strings, got slimmer and fitter. After the age of 29 he won 5 grand slams.
@eoe123321 Pete wasn't amazing at serve and volley. His serve was extraordinarily huge which made volley a great deal easier for him. Andre had the better all-around game compared to Sampras and he had a longer career, in large part, because of it. If not for his back issues, he would continued to be one of the best hard court players on tour. I believe Pete retired when he did because his game was slipping. Hewitt was embarrassing him. Outside of Wimbledon, more and more losses in slams were piling up and Pete couldn't handle it. He saw a chance to go out on top at the US Open so he took it. I could see him going deep at the 2003 US Open but that's about it, slam-wise.
Ahh, back when the US Open used DecoTurf courts that actually had some speed. Nowadays, all courts are virtually the same and there's nothing special about any of them.
2004 Federer was my favorite Federer. He used to lift his right leg when serving and also hitting his forehand, and that gave the shots extra whip. He was near unstoppable.
04 and 05 both are the sickest Feds. 06 he was very polished and still great, but not quite that hurricane we had in 04 and 05. 07 was where he lost it.
@@michaelcholodenko7712 I watched all of it live. I know his history, he's my favorite player of all time. In my opinion he was at his most polished in 2006, but in 2004/2005, his forehand was more ballistic and was the tiniest bit quicker.
Agassi could stay centered because he had such a good backhand. Rune should watch and learn. Lunacy to run around and hit forhands from the backhand side of the court like Federer if backhand is your best shot.
This near retirement phase was clearly Agassi's peak in his entire career performance. If he would have played like this during his career he would have won many many more majors.
Agassi suffered emotional and personality issues that affected his ability to ever reach his true potential in terms of his career. He was not a cold eyed killer like Pete, he was sensitive and more prone to choking, and getting distracted by life in general. Still the most beautiful ball striker in history.
He was absolutely at his competitive, mental, and disciplined peak in his later career. Without question. However, I would argue that his ability on the court was a little better in the mid-90’s, simply because he could move better. He still moved amazingly for his age in the 2000’s, but he was naturally a bit stiffer because of his back issue. I would argue that if he’d had that discipline in the 90’s, I’d like to think he would have won more slams back then. Most argue that he underachieved in his career, which is definitely true for the first half of his career. He really should have been more like an 11-major guy instead of 8. But I would argue that from 1998 and on, he actually overachieved! No one ever could have imagined that he would be world #1 at age 33. He was truly amazing in those later years.
Craziest wind ever in a tennis match until the 2019 French Open semifinals, which was unfortunate because Federer was hitting the ball so well that tournament, and the wind completely screwed him against Nadal. Not that he would have won anyway, but it would have been a great match without the wind.
Old Agassi took him to the 5 setter and the courts were already slowed down,imagine prime Sampras or even Becker,Edberg and Andre as well,on old fast hard and grass,I won’t say Rodger would definitely lose,because he is a genius,but it wouldn’t be easy for him.
Agassi era un monstruo incluso a los 34 años. Federer le ganó por el saque. El bajo nivel de la generación del 2000 se hace evidente cuando se compara el nivel de juego de Agassi (generación 80's) y el del eventual finalista de ese US Open, Leyton Hewitt.
I wonder how common it is for US Open matches, especially at the SF level, to start at night then resume the next day. Was it due to weather, or reaching the required finish time due to starting late (is that a thing?)? Agassi was always such a remarkably clean striker of the ball, typically very, very reliable. Easy to forget he won 8 majors from 15 finals, a truly great record even though the 3 super freaks we've watched for 15 years or so might make us forget that fact. I don't really remember any obvious shot that tended to break down etc, which is not to say he didn't have relatively "off" days (they all do). While hardly weak, with a better serve he almost certainly would have won even more majors. (As an aside, Fed's serve is so simple and reliable and seemingly "unspectacular" that I think many of us overlook what a weapon, especially as a "get out of jail" card, it has been) p.s. yes, as many others have said, isn't it nice to watch tennis that isn't a 20 shot grind fest 2 out of 3 points.
The match was delayed after the 3rd set due to storms and rain. When it resumed the next day, it was windy the entire remainder of the match, with serious wind gusts consistently making it difficult to execute quality shot making. It's a testament to the ability of both men with how well they were able to play in those conditions 👏
I will comment on what's been written. Federer is not a top 5 clay courted of all time, much less the open era. Nadal, Borg, Kuerten, Lendl and Wilander are ahead of him. There was not a deep field of claycourters during his prime, and getting to multiple RG and losibg to Nadal does not put him ahead if those 5. Roger wouldnhave his hands full with any of Bruguera, Courier, Muster or Kafelnikov (see his RG battles with Guga), But he is above Pete on the red dirt. Fed would not be greater if the courts stayed at their original speed and not slowed down despite what his rabid fan base might say. He called the old US Open courts and was unable to get out of the 4th rd til they slowed them down twice (01 & 03), as reported in USA Today. He refused to play the Paris Masters until the organizers slowed the courts down and also voted to remove carpet from the tour. While he doea not like the as slow as Nadal (and even Djokovic) but he's certainly not opposed to them. While Sampras is faster, I don't think he's "significantly" faster than Fed, and there's not much between them movement wise. Roger is the better defender but Pete is the better athlete.
Sampras was a great hardcourt and fast court player. On slower courts, which is what dominates most of the tournaments today, his game was pretty neutralized.
Sampras can never be better than roger. He cannot fit into all eras. Federer is the only player to win matches in all courts ( fast,medium,slow etc) & can fit into any era & can win any player of any era , most of the times ( when both are in their primes) ( by prime i mean aged between 19 and 29)
Agassi is great, but he doesn't put nearly as many returns back in play as Djokovic or move as well as Djokovic. Djokovic would beat this Federer no doubt.
@@michaelcholodenko7712 which courts are you talking about. If you are referring to Wimbledon than how did serve bot Isner reach the semis and him and Anderson go 26-24 in the Wimbledon semi? If you are referring to US open or Australia then why clay court grinders like Ferrer, Almagro didn't reach any finals let alone win. Djokovic has been winning consistently on fast surfaces like grass and indoors since 2011. Sometimes it's not even fast or slow surfaces it is about the mental edge which Djokovic clearly has over Federer.
@@AS-js7kb Aussie Open they slowed them down in 08... grass, even when it's slowed down is still a surface where big servers can excel and Ferrer and Almagro were not good enough to make it that deep.
@@AS-js7kb yes even if that goes against the strengths of that players game. Nadal and Djokovic wouldn't be the players they are today if the courts weren't slowed down and Fed would have 30 majors
federer was from another planet. now new young guys on internet call weak era to those past days cos they didnt born for see the beggning of tennis... look federer 2000 to 2005 playing all time with number 1 or ex number 1, all champions from atleast 1 gs, best top ten from in that moment, nalbandian safin rodick agassi ferrero davydenko and more that cant remember (all champions of 1 master 1000). while now the top ten player reach 1 or 2 finals on the whole year... if there is a new weak era is this right now. no top ten players for the last 6 or 7 years.
@@eduardochernajovsky3633 ye, there are lot of names in the past that are much better than now, maybe same in quality but in consistency i remember guys like davydenko reaching all quarter or semis of any tournament he was playing. and for years did that. later he was master final beating federer djokovic. there are so much players from those years 2000 to 2008 being a beast. kafelnikov, rios, moya. coria. (in clay) maybe came up later wawrinka soderling berdych tsonga all top ten were fucking good players comparated to now. when u only have thiem or maybe zverev. i m not saying that djokovic doesnt deserve all his GS cos he did great of course, but people maybe fans ignorant that only know this match cos internet, couldnt follow all the evolution of teenis. so their mind is keept only in last 5 or 7 years.
good point man.I just don;t get the weak era argument,,nadal played with fed from 2005-2008,he was a top player of this era,and he got beaten sometimes by these so called weak era players,the guys that federer was constantly beating,and if you say that they will say that nadal was not ready yet.I mean how can a player that can go toe to toe with federer,the best in the world at that point,struggles to beat the rest of the guys?it is not federer fault that nadal coudln;t reach the slam finals on hard courts.And with the djoko side,he started beating federer at slams in a dominant manner after 2012,after his prime,,i mean federer has beaten djokovic at australia,but djokovic wasn;t prime,but when djokovic defeated a post prime federer at wimbledon,federer is weak,how come?,it doesnn;t make any sense, he does that because of stamina,all their grand slam matches were tght,it;s not like djokovic humiliates him,he has a hard time against fed.All three of them are goats,but if you really wanna argue,support your player with an argument about him and don;t disrespect other players.
@@mihaicristi9617 yes, for do or make it short,,, lets say just a little. nadal from 2005 to 2009. won (out of clay of course) wimbledon (awesome match) and australian open (awesome match) and in all those years nadal was since number 5 for not say 3 or 2. so he just being the best second only could get a few tournaments. it show how impossible is to call it a "weak era" with this example. so lets not say like this all new comers that nadal wasnt good in that time, cos he was the number 2!! And the oposite to it, for take another point in our favor for federer. lets say Roger played vs the best Nadal in clay in every final of roland garros on those years! So weak era is just an excuse cos they are fan of djoko or nadal that cannot see the past in tennis cos they are just a kid 15 years old who couldnt live like us, along from this 20 years of tennis.
I recall watching this match live Federer lead by 2 sets to 1 and then the match was interrupted by rain. When the match resumed on day 2 we experienced some really tricky windy conditions, Federer finally prevailed in 5 sets but a 34 year old Agassi fought very hard and gave a good account of himself. This guy started playing in 1986 but his game was way ahead of his time. His serve wasn't the biggest on tour but his foot speed, court positioning, return of serve and punishing ground strokes made him a treat to watch and a nightmare to play against. His double handed backhand was as good if not better than anybody who has played this great sport. At 5 feet 11 he wasn't really tall but it was still very difficult to get the ball out of his strike zone.
such clean hitting by Agassi he spanked the ball..obviously fed was god mode here but when these 2 played they absolutely were smacking the ball...some of the best hitting ever
I remember watching this on a Thursday night in college. Being my 2 favorite players of all time, this was the most fun enjoyable match I've ever seen. The points were just unbelievable.
It’s only because of Agassi. The US open crowd supporter him even against Sampras. Ofcourse, Fed was not even a year into being number one too at this point but was still more popular than pretty much anyone else.
Agassi was the most popular player since Borg, especially in the US. Federer's popularity was rising but he was still seen as cold and ruthless, a killer.
bruh this fed almost lost to an Agassi with spondylitis loll. Federer has an 8-6 h2h vs Nadal ( Nadal’s lead) on outdoor hard courts . If he struggled Vs a teenage Nadal on hard court there is no way he is beating djokovic on hard courts. No doubt
![[1080p 50fps] Del Potro v. Federer - US Open 2009 Final Highlights](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qy1YkokmiHw/mqdefault.jpg)
I've always felt like Federer was too dominant, they had to slow down the courts for others to have a chance. No one will beat this form of Federer at such a fast paced court.
Very very very correct. If this type of courts had been maintained , as on date, federer would have won almost 40 grandslams, where as novak would have won 1-2 slams ( by luck) & claydal around 11- 12 french opens only.
old Agassi took him 5, and this was when his back issues (Spondylolithesis) were at its worst. Imagine what a young Agassi would do? Imagine what a prime PETE would do? Federer was actually a huge beneficiary of court slow downs because it made it harder for big servers to upset him when they got hot. Novak and Nadal are simply better on slower courts than he is, hence the h2hs.
@@farid1406 exactly
@@farid1406 The slower courts helped Federer against SOME players - big hitters, big servers - but overall they hurt him because his two biggest rivals are slow court masters, especially Djokovic. Nadal is a different story, with his lefty whip forehand he's a bad matchup for Federer even on medium speed courts. Although Federer did avenge that rivalry once he switched to the bigger racquet and won I think 6 out of 7 of their last matches. Also, the courts kept slowing down. Initially it was beneficial but when it got slower and slower, and he got older, it became a real grind. As for Sampras/Agassi, I don't think Sampras would ever match up well against Federer. Federer is Sampras 2.0. Agassi, on the other hand, with poly strings and a younger body, I've always said that would have been the most entertaining rivalry of all time. Their rallies are insanely aggressive and fun to watch.
@@sup9542 Firstly, Federer is not Sampras 2.0, this is something I hear all the time from Fedfans and it drives me bonkers. Sampras is significantly faster and more explosive than Fed ever was, his serve which is the most important shot in tennis is significantly better than Fed's, and his netgame is miles (yes, MILES) better than Fed's, despite whatever nice volleys Federer occasionally comes up with. I would actually go so far as to say the difference between their baseline games is less than the difference between their net games. Pete noted that Fed panics when he gets up to net against great players whereas Pete thrives off of it. And maybe most importantly, Pete's clutch is in a different stratosphere than Fed. He played his best on the biggest points against his rivals at the biggest moments. Federer, as witnessed by his multiple 40-15s against Novak shrinks in those moments. There's a reason Pete is 14-4 in slam finals and 7-0 in Wimbledon finals in an era of fast courts when one bad break could cost you a match. As his and Fed's coach Annacone said, the guy didn't have a panic button. Overall I think Pete's game is actually more complete than Roger's rather than other way around. His biggest problem was his lack of stamina because of his genetic condition, Thalassemia minor, which made it hard for him to play long matches. He wrote in his book that this hurt him in Australia with the extreme humidity, and I think it was a big reason he failed at RG, where rallies and point construction were more important than attack.
The fact that slow courts nullified big servers is a really big deal though. It made Fed less prone to upsets, and helped him handle players like Phillipoussis and Roddick much easier than he would have in 90s conditions (although he would have beaten both regularly even then). His record of 23 semis in a row wouldn't have happened in an era where a big server with great volleys could upset you, ala Kracijek or a prime Phillipousis. Its only fair that the court slowdown eventually work against him. I have no sympathy. Have to take the thorn with the rose. The fact that he couldn't beat Djokodal in the slow court conditions shows his game is not as perfect as everyone thinks. NO player - Pete, Fed, or Djokodal - has a game that translates to absolute dominance in every condition. Everyone has a weakness.
Agassi’s game aged the best of all the Americans. Sampras’ style of play got old fast with the new rackets and polyester strings. After 2000 his game was becoming obsolete, Chang lost his wheels after 1996. Courier after 1997 was washed up. Agassi’s game translated very well to the modern game. He began to use the polyester strings, got slimmer and fitter. After the age of 29 he won 5 grand slams.
RossBayCult Sampras still had a great game. He just retired early because he lost inspiration.
Agassi is the one that really modernized tennis
And Federer beat Sampras with the same racket, no excuses, Federer is just better.
@eoe123321 Pete wasn't amazing at serve and volley. His serve was extraordinarily huge which made volley a great deal easier for him.
Andre had the better all-around game compared to Sampras and he had a longer career, in large part, because of it. If not for his back issues, he would continued to be one of the best hard court players on tour.
I believe Pete retired when he did because his game was slipping. Hewitt was embarrassing him. Outside of Wimbledon, more and more losses in slams were piling up and Pete couldn't handle it. He saw a chance to go out on top at the US Open so he took it. I could see him going deep at the 2003 US Open but that's about it, slam-wise.
Andre was one of the first to include weight training into his workout regimen.
Ahh, back when the US Open used DecoTurf courts that actually had some speed.
Nowadays, all courts are virtually the same and there's nothing special about any of them.
I thought they still did but added more sand to the paint used to give the court more grit thus making it slower
2004 Federer was my favorite Federer. He used to lift his right leg when serving and also hitting his forehand, and that gave the shots extra whip. He was near unstoppable.
He played perfectly back then- (unreal level of play).
in 04 was he a killer, none of this "tennis ambasaddor" stuff. He was a tennis player who was ruthless and efficient at winning matches.
04 and 05 both are the sickest Feds. 06 he was very polished and still great, but not quite that hurricane we had in 04 and 05. 07 was where he lost it.
@@slamandjam2 06 was his best year ever and 07 was almost as good. 08 was when he lost it read up on your history sir
@@michaelcholodenko7712 I watched all of it live. I know his history, he's my favorite player of all time. In my opinion he was at his most polished in 2006, but in 2004/2005, his forehand was more ballistic and was the tiniest bit quicker.
Agassi always controls the center of the court even when he loses.
What a master mind.
Agassi could stay centered because he had such a good backhand. Rune should watch and learn. Lunacy to run around and hit forhands from the backhand side of the court like Federer if backhand is your best shot.
This near retirement phase was clearly Agassi's peak in his entire career performance. If he would have played like this during his career he would have won many many more majors.
Agassi suffered emotional and personality issues that affected his ability to ever reach his true potential in terms of his career. He was not a cold eyed killer like Pete, he was sensitive and more prone to choking, and getting distracted by life in general. Still the most beautiful ball striker in history.
He was absolutely at his competitive, mental, and disciplined peak in his later career. Without question. However, I would argue that his ability on the court was a little better in the mid-90’s, simply because he could move better. He still moved amazingly for his age in the 2000’s, but he was naturally a bit stiffer because of his back issue. I would argue that if he’d had that discipline in the 90’s, I’d like to think he would have won more slams back then. Most argue that he underachieved in his career, which is definitely true for the first half of his career. He really should have been more like an 11-major guy instead of 8. But I would argue that from 1998 and on, he actually overachieved! No one ever could have imagined that he would be world #1 at age 33. He was truly amazing in those later years.
Yep Agassi played amazing at 34, it’s just dumb fedfans been using the age excuses when he’s only 29
Both guys taking the ball so soon off the rise. Crazy aggression in their matches.
Just look at 10:17. Nobody else plays like that.
My two favorite players of all time! Huge fan of Agassi growing up and huge fan of Fed as an adult!
Lol the wind was so crazy this match.
This Fed was easily the best player ever
Craziest wind ever in a tennis match until the 2019 French Open semifinals, which was unfortunate because Federer was hitting the ball so well that tournament, and the wind completely screwed him against Nadal. Not that he would have won anyway, but it would have been a great match without the wind.
Awesome upload
👍
I wonder how tennis would be had Sampras played through his 30s.
Old Agassi took him to the 5 setter and the courts were already slowed down,imagine prime Sampras or even Becker,Edberg and Andre as well,on old fast hard and grass,I won’t say Rodger would definitely lose,because he is a genius,but it wouldn’t be easy for him.
you'll never see a QF of a slam with Fed in it and the stands that empty
Agassi is a classy guy
I love Federer. He is the greatest
Agassi era un monstruo incluso a los 34 años. Federer le ganó por el saque. El bajo nivel de la generación del 2000 se hace evidente cuando se compara el nivel de juego de Agassi (generación 80's) y el del eventual finalista de ese US Open, Leyton Hewitt.
I wonder how common it is for US Open matches, especially at the SF level, to start at night then resume the next day. Was it due to weather, or reaching the required finish time due to starting late (is that a thing?)?
Agassi was always such a remarkably clean striker of the ball, typically very, very reliable. Easy to forget he won 8 majors from 15 finals, a truly great record even
though the 3 super freaks we've watched for 15 years or so might make us forget that fact.
I don't really remember any obvious shot that tended to break down etc, which is not to say he didn't have relatively "off" days (they all do). While hardly weak, with a better serve he almost certainly would have won even more majors. (As an aside, Fed's serve is so simple and reliable and seemingly "unspectacular" that I think many of us overlook what a weapon, especially as a "get out of jail" card, it has been)
p.s. yes, as many others have said, isn't it nice to watch tennis that isn't a 20 shot grind fest 2 out of 3 points.
The match was delayed after the 3rd set due to storms and rain. When it resumed the next day, it was windy the entire remainder of the match, with serious wind gusts consistently making it difficult to execute quality shot making. It's a testament to the ability of both men with how well they were able to play in those conditions 👏
People invented "Weak Era" because one man made everyone look like amateurs, The G.O.A.T. undisputed Roger Federer
crazy wind ..
This Fed to me is the greatest athlete in history. Perfectly rounded and dominant. Better than peak MJ
lol
8:01 WOW
ivan navarro and taylor dent mate' US open 2009 round 2
Roger Federer Rafa Nadal Andre Agassi ! The best geniuses in the history of tennis with the most beautiful game
3:26 3:49 7:11 8:45 10:08 14:17
Its 34 v 23 !
Wow it feels like Federer has way more time here to breathe compared to later despite the faster courts.
I will comment on what's been written. Federer is not a top 5 clay courted of all time, much less the open era. Nadal, Borg, Kuerten, Lendl and Wilander are ahead of him. There was not a deep field of claycourters during his prime, and getting to multiple RG and losibg to Nadal does not put him ahead if those 5. Roger wouldnhave his hands full with any of Bruguera, Courier, Muster or Kafelnikov (see his RG battles with Guga), But he is above Pete on the red dirt.
Fed would not be greater if the courts stayed at their original speed and not slowed down despite what his rabid fan base might say. He called the old US Open courts and was unable to get out of the 4th rd til they slowed them down twice (01 & 03), as reported in USA Today. He refused to play the Paris Masters until the organizers slowed the courts down and also voted to remove carpet from the tour.
While he doea not like the as slow as Nadal (and even Djokovic) but he's certainly not opposed to them.
While Sampras is faster, I don't think he's "significantly" faster than Fed, and there's not much between them movement wise. Roger is the better defender but Pete is the better athlete.
How in the fuck are there that many empty seats? Wow.
Why does Agassi walk like an old man?
I believe Sampras was better than Federer. Oh yeah 100%.!!!!.
He was good but had no backhand.
Sampras was a great hardcourt and fast court player. On slower courts, which is what dominates most of the tournaments today, his game was pretty neutralized.
Mublik Bublik what? Are you crazy? 😂😂😂
@GreaterGood510 No one like him- (puts the "G" in GOAT).
Sampras can never be better than roger. He cannot fit into all eras. Federer is the only player to win matches in all courts ( fast,medium,slow etc) & can fit into any era & can win any player of any era , most of the times ( when both are in their primes) ( by prime i mean aged between 19 and 29)
Agassi is great, but he doesn't put nearly as many returns back in play as Djokovic or move as well as Djokovic. Djokovic would beat this Federer no doubt.
Beyond false! Djokovic didn't start winning until they slowed down the courts
@@michaelcholodenko7712 which courts are you talking about. If you are referring to Wimbledon than how did serve bot Isner reach the semis and him and Anderson go 26-24 in the Wimbledon semi? If you are referring to US open or Australia then why clay court grinders like Ferrer, Almagro didn't reach any finals let alone win.
Djokovic has been winning consistently on fast surfaces like grass and indoors since 2011.
Sometimes it's not even fast or slow surfaces it is about the mental edge which Djokovic clearly has over Federer.
@@AS-js7kb Aussie Open they slowed them down in 08... grass, even when it's slowed down is still a surface where big servers can excel and Ferrer and Almagro were not good enough to make it that deep.
@@michaelcholodenko7712 so what you are saying is that a player still has to be good enough to win titles on the slowed down surfaces.
@@AS-js7kb yes even if that goes against the strengths of that players game. Nadal and Djokovic wouldn't be the players they are today if the courts weren't slowed down and Fed would have 30 majors
Man, Agassi was so good. Can't get over how well he challenged peak Federer while himself an old man. Agassi appreciation week should be a thing.
34 isn't an old man.
@@frankieboy8414 in sports it is.
federer was from another planet. now new young guys on internet call weak era to those past days cos they didnt born for see the beggning of tennis... look federer 2000 to 2005 playing all time with number 1 or ex number 1, all champions from atleast 1 gs, best top ten from in that moment, nalbandian safin rodick agassi ferrero davydenko and more that cant remember (all champions of 1 master 1000). while now the top ten player reach 1 or 2 finals on the whole year... if there is a new weak era is this right now. no top ten players for the last 6 or 7 years.
I agree. Those were well established names, who d been around for years at that point.
@@eduardochernajovsky3633 ye, there are lot of names in the past that are much better than now, maybe same in quality but in consistency i remember guys like davydenko reaching all quarter or semis of any tournament he was playing. and for years did that. later he was master final beating federer djokovic. there are so much players from those years 2000 to 2008 being a beast. kafelnikov, rios, moya. coria. (in clay) maybe came up later wawrinka soderling berdych tsonga all top ten were fucking good players comparated to now. when u only have thiem or maybe zverev. i m not saying that djokovic doesnt deserve all his GS cos he did great of course, but people maybe fans ignorant that only know this match cos internet, couldnt follow all the evolution of teenis. so their mind is keept only in last 5 or 7 years.
@@heynow1988 yeah they say an era is weak, but maybe the dominant ones were too good
good point man.I just don;t get the weak era argument,,nadal played with fed from 2005-2008,he was a top player of this era,and he got beaten sometimes by these so called weak era players,the guys that federer was constantly beating,and if you say that they will say that nadal was not ready yet.I mean how can a player that can go toe to toe with federer,the best in the world at that point,struggles to beat the rest of the guys?it is not federer fault that nadal coudln;t reach the slam finals on hard courts.And with the djoko side,he started beating federer at slams in a dominant manner after 2012,after his prime,,i mean federer has beaten djokovic at australia,but djokovic wasn;t prime,but when djokovic defeated a post prime federer at wimbledon,federer is weak,how come?,it doesnn;t make any sense, he does that because of stamina,all their grand slam matches were tght,it;s not like djokovic humiliates him,he has a hard time against fed.All three of them are goats,but if you really wanna argue,support your player with an argument about him and don;t disrespect other players.
@@mihaicristi9617 yes, for do or make it short,,, lets say just a little. nadal from 2005 to 2009. won (out of clay of course) wimbledon (awesome match) and australian open (awesome match) and in all those years nadal was since number 5 for not say 3 or 2. so he just being the best second only could get a few tournaments. it show how impossible is to call it a "weak era" with this example. so lets not say like this all new comers that nadal wasnt good in that time, cos he was the number 2!! And the oposite to it, for take another point in our favor for federer. lets say Roger played vs the best Nadal in clay in every final of roland garros on those years! So weak era is just an excuse cos they are fan of djoko or nadal that cannot see the past in tennis cos they are just a kid 15 years old who couldnt live like us, along from this 20 years of tennis.
I recall watching this match live Federer lead by 2 sets to 1 and then the match was interrupted by rain. When the match resumed on day 2 we experienced some really tricky windy conditions, Federer finally prevailed in 5 sets but a 34 year old Agassi fought very hard and gave a good account of himself. This guy started playing in 1986 but his game was way ahead of his time. His serve wasn't the biggest on tour but his foot speed, court positioning, return of serve and punishing ground strokes made him a treat to watch and a nightmare to play against. His double handed backhand was as good if not better than anybody who has played this great sport. At 5 feet 11 he wasn't really tall but it was still very difficult to get the ball out of his strike zone.
Wtf is up with the stat at 17:35. Makes no sense at all. That would mean Fed won all of his sets in a tiebreak, which didn’t happen...
The match was split into two days. The 'today' in that stat refers to the break points on that particular day (which was the 4th set onwards).
such clean hitting by Agassi he spanked the ball..obviously fed was god mode here but when these 2 played they absolutely were smacking the ball...some of the best hitting ever
I remember watching this on a Thursday night in college. Being my 2 favorite players of all time, this was the most fun enjoyable match I've ever seen. The points were just unbelievable.
How did they even see the ball on TV back in the day!?
back when no one was rooting for fed, look at the crowd reaction to his winners.
It’s only because of Agassi. The US open crowd supporter him even against Sampras. Ofcourse, Fed was not even a year into being number one too at this point but was still more popular than pretty much anyone else.
Agassi was the most popular player since Borg, especially in the US. Federer's popularity was rising but he was still seen as cold and ruthless, a killer.
Fed has def lost a bit of velocity on his serve since 2004. Still the GOAT.
Actually his serve got a lot better as the years went by. The forehand declined for sure though
Just passing through on my journey to watch every Federer match.
I think this is the day when Agassi realized he and all his generation were just a piece of fucking history
He played him awful close for a guy ten years older and with chronic health issues
bruh this fed almost lost to an Agassi with spondylitis loll. Federer has an 8-6 h2h vs Nadal ( Nadal’s lead) on outdoor hard courts . If he struggled Vs a teenage Nadal on hard court there is no way he is beating djokovic on hard courts. No doubt
Agassi Is another planet