Three things I get from watching this video. 1. How incredibly hard these guys are ripping the ball. It looks almost like ping pong out there. Unreal. 2. Yeah im biased, but the quality of play that AA is showing at 35 years old, which is ANCIENT in the game of tennis is AMAZING here. Keep in mind this is while the guy is getting cortisone injections just to be able to play, a year from retirement, and playing possibly the greatest player that ever lived, IN HIS PRIME. Agassi at 35 crushes the Agassi at 25, and if you gave THIS Agassi 25 year old legs, he competes BIGTIME with any of the top four of today. 3. Roger Federer has the best one handed backhand in tennis history. Anyone who plays tennis knows how much more difficult it is to use a one handed backhand, let alone hit it with that kind of power and spin. Its incredible the amount of stick he could get on that side with balls coming at it with that kind of pace, and high or low. Roger Federer's wrist must be made of iron. Incredible.
I know this comment is 5 years old but for anyone reading, I’d just like to add that the cortisone injections were just in the last year he played (if I’m not mistaken), so a year after that..
@89Pleasek Actually, you're right!!!! I mixed up 2000, when he ran through Hewitt, and 2001, when he ran through Safin, Rafter and a couple of others only to lose the finals both years. Hewitt's one of the few who can say they have a winning record against Pete but no one will write any books about the plucky Aussie......lol Whether or not he would've beaten Sampras in finals all boils down to Pete's stamina. Hewitt never "smoked" anyone. He wore them down.....ask Federer.
@89Pleasek It also would've been interesting to see him against Pete when he was physically in his prime, from say '94-98, and could play from the baseline much more comfortably.
Ah, back in the days when tennis was fast. Courts are so slow now-a-days that you can run down just about anything. It's like playing tennis with those big orange balls the kids use.
@EarlTheDuke8 I'm talking about "real" life too, in the club I play, there's only one guy that likes Nadal, the same goes for ppl I argue with about tennis, my point is that even if Nadal has increased the number of fans of tennis (something really doubtful, but let's give that for granted) I don't believe most of that people are any desirable for the sport, I mean: women who only like Nadal's looks, ppl that barely watch matches from other players, ppl that has never played tennis
@EarlTheDuke8 Of course, I don't deny Nadal represents a huge amount of money to ATP or sponsors, both things that don't matter to the sport ITSELF, I'm just saying that popularity doesn't mean all too, true, Nadal's number of facebook fans is almost the same as Federer's, but I've come to realize that most of those persons have no clue about tennis, they just like Nadal for extra tennis reasons.
It's not just the courts, the whole style of playing tennis is very different now. Fed and Agassi are not going so much for the corners and are more intent on forward rather than lateral movement. The rally hit points are also close to or even within the baseline, so the ball gets less distance to cover and it makes the game look faster. Look how far behind Nadal stands, in comparison. And unlike Nadal, these two seem to be hitting very flat and hard rather than with topspin.
They slow down Melbourne, New York and Wimbledon...which plays in Nadal s and Djokovic s hands if it comes to 1on1 against Federer. Even the US Open are listed on ATP homepage today as "medium fast". If it would be like 10-20 years ago, Nadal would still be Nr. 1 on clay and winning Paris...Djokovic could beat Federer in Melbourne...but Federer would be Nr. 1 in Wimbledon and New York.
@EarlTheDuke8 Soccer is the most followed sport on earth and I can tell you it's not the hardest to play or understand, more followers desn't mean better followers, btw I don't think most of the people like Nadal, there is like 1 video from him per 10 from Federer
On a related note, check out Agassi v/s Kuerten, Year Ending Championships 2000, if you are interested. Kuerten won indoors but more importantly, the pace of tennis is much slower than in this match. Racquets since then have aided topspin even more and besides Nadal is a more complete player than Kuerten....moves better and makes incredible passing shots, again and again.
djokovic is a very good returner who is extremely consistent, IMHO safin was a better returner than djokovic, when he brought his 'A' game. he could crush more winners off the return than djokovic and had a more powerful return. Ofcourse, the greatest returner is Agassi.
If the courts were the same as back then, Djokovic and Nadal would not be nearly as successful, well, maybe Nadal, but definitely not Djoker. Novak may be fast, but he relies on thye slower bounce to give him time to make these great defensive shots into offense. Until this year, Djokovic would fall apart at the WTF in London. But congrats to him, sad for Federer, but I'm still happy that Federer proved he can still trump Murray when it counts.
Just about. It's a pity that only a few months later he started having real back issues, and his run to the USO Final that year is nothing short of awesome. He played like 3 5 set matches just to get to the final, and he put up quite the fight against Federer, but understandably ran out of gas and his back really didn't help matters. Props to Federer though, he was playing like a boss in those years, especially 2005-2006.
@Melshae10 Well, Australia has always been the 2nd slowest event, only surpassed by Roland Garros of course, but I think the reason why many of these matches seem to be playing on faster surfaces compared to today is the type of players. I mean we have Murray, Nadal and Djokovic who are much more defensive minded. Even Federer is not as aggressive as he used to be. However, this tournament for example, you have aggressive baseliners like Federer and Agassi hitting everything on the rise.
@Zoso666 I've never said anything about better followers or viewers, ATP doesn't care about that. More viewers means more endorsements, more retail sales, more MONEY. Also videos aren't the tell all. Both Nadal and Federer are close in say Facebook followers over 9 mil each,NEVER said "most" just said people like him. But if you look at the sales of Babolat before Nadal and after Nadal, he pretty much singlehandedly promoted Babolat. He's Michael Jordan to Nike.
@3timeMVPNash I agree. I just watched a match on TV a couple of days ago and the commentator wouldn't stop remarking on how tennis has slowed down in the last six years and how this type of attacking tennis we see here from Fed will never return. I don't think anyone realizes that Federer had to change his game because the game slowed down so much. Here against Agassi you can see how much faster the game is.
@fbinsulation That's because they want Nadal to win. Notice how in this year's US open Djoker the #1 seed met Fed who was the #3 seed in the semis. Usually #1 plays #4 in the semis. But just for that year they somehow had #1 play #3. Why? They were hoping Fed would beat, or atleast tire the hell out of the Djoker and then the US open would be in Nadal's back pocket. Slezy bunch the whole of them
@89Pleasek Hewitt has a great game against S&V cause he chipped the return and ran down the volley. It was very effective. He could also serve well enough to hold. I never said he wasn't skilled. But his relative strengths were exposed by Fed, once he figured him out, among others because he doesn't have any real WEAPONS. He's a counter-puncher. His record over the last 8 years speaks for itself. He would've been interesting to see in the 90s, against all the S&Vers.
pete wrote in his book that hewitt was unlucky to be playing his best tennis in 2000-2005 where serve-and-volley was slowly dissappearing, lleyton had the perfect game against s-a-volleyers, look at his record vs Henman (3-0 on fast grass I believe), Sampras - 19-year-old hewitt beat him at 2000 queen's very convincigly 6-4 6-4, rafter and others then Federer came along in 2003 who even though a great volleyer didn't rush the net after every shot and Hewitt had no answers from the baseline
The French, well, he never really found his footing since he won in 1999, but he did make the QF 2001-2003. Wimbledon, Finals in 1999, SF 2000-2001. US Open, 1999, Winner, 2000 QF, 2001 QF, 2002 F, 2003 SF, 2004 QF, 2005 F. He also won 8 (!) MS events since his comeback. I think those are astounding stats, especially at that age, where a lot of players are either way past their prime, about to retire or are have already retired! I don't think it's a shame that he lost to Fed here, IMO.
Agassi's peak in his comeback years (1999-200) came in 2003, when he won the Australian Open for the 4th time. Yes he didn't face too many headliners on his way to the the title, but a win is a win. The guy was still competitive and was fairly consistent in Slams and Masters Series events, going to the latter stages in most of them in hic comeback years. I think after his win in 2003, he was slowly declining, but he still played well. AUS: 2004, lost to in form Safin, 2005, lost to Federer
@cavaleer Pete was not more complete than Fed. He had a less good backhand, he could hardly hit any inside-out forehand, and above all he was just an average top 30 player on clay. You can't pretend to be a complete player when you're so limited on one surface. Also Roger DID win a grand slam playing serve & volley: Wimbledon 2003. And about the competition, a classic argument, though his greatest opponents are all grand slam champions: Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic...
@Rodjeurs You should watch some Sampras between 95-99, even earlier if you like. He had the most complete game the sport has ever seen, far more complete than Federer's because Fed cannot serve and volley and win a tournament. Plus, when you look at who Pete faced and defeated in those years, Fed's competition looks paltry. Federer's one of the greats though, no doubt. And his footwork and overall shotmaking versatility is second to none.
It is about how the ball bounces off the surface. On fast courts like grass it skids of the surface, keeping low and fast. This leads to faster ball speed off the ground. On slow courts ( like clay) it holds up, and bounces much higher. So you see players like Nadal putting crazy amounts of spin on the ball to work this, and get a bigger loop and bounce.
I know the longer rallies are exciting. when they get up to 30 shots, it gets me on my feet because you never know who is going to make the final shot, but bolleying takes so much more skill. You really get to see just how good a player is with their hands when they come up to net. Which is hard with the current courts because passing shots are much easier with a slower bounce.
@imavaughanstar Nadal will always have the great advantage on clay because of the matchup. That Fed couldn't beat Nadal at RG doesn't mean that Roger isn't the greatest. Rafa is the greatest clay courter ever. Roddick, Hewitt, and others are easy for Fed, but Nadal isn't because he can attack the 1HBH.
@imavaughanstar Bjorn Borg came to net MUCH more than any of the players in today's era do. And let's really not get started on the Sampras/Federer debate. The eras are different and it would all depend on the playing surface. But either way, prime Federer was the greatest player to EVER play, so even on a 90's Wimbledon court he could have beaten Pete.
@Rodjeurs You're comically ignorant. Pull up Pete Sampras Davis Cup 1997 and watch him demolish Patrick Rafter in the finals. Seriously, I can tell you haven't seen any tennis pre-2001 by your comment about Pete's backhand and his FH. Pull up ANY Sampras video from 1990-1999. I doubt you will though because few people like to have their delusions shattered.
@youziness Very good point. I'm watching this after having watched a couple of his matches from this year and there is definitely a sharp drop in speed and strength. I think the mistake Fed has made was that he didn't get stronger as he matured, like Pete. He's actually become slower and weaker while the others have gotten stronger, notably Djoker. It catches up with you....
they changed the courts, because the green rubber rebound ace, retained more heat and apparently, the intense heat, made the court get weird and it was dangerous for the player´s, because, they were more at risk, to sprain an ankle, fall and get injured. that´s what I heard..
I love today's game. But Honestly, Proffesional Tennis players should look like this. On a fast and nice surface. "Phlexicushion" Has ruined today's game. Proffesional's should look fast and elegant, even with one-handed backhands it looks faster then todays average forhand.
@Zoso666 In real life...you know...outside the internet. There seem to be millions of people watching him play and paying for tickets for tournaments he's playing in. The initial argument issue was that Nadal has won many viewers and tennis fanatics for his baseline style, which suits slower courts.
@Zoso666 what do you mean by good? I'm sure tennis is trying to get more attention for the sport, and so far they've been doing a good job with more viewers...Why do you think people like Nadal. He's ALL baseline...LOVES slow courts..consistently long rallies..
@purgatory13z At the WTF, he struggled with the quickness of the court and he needs a lot of time to set up his FH. No doubt he has tremendous athletic abilities, but if all the surfaces weren't more or less the same now he would struggle a lot to play on the fast surfaces of the past.
@sanjaytumati Yeah, agreed. It's even more crazy that for the past 12 slams, Federer and Djokovic have been on the same side! And apart from a the claycourts of Paris a few years ago and one or two Wimbledons, this has been the case. It's very, very strange.
this was one of feds best matches ever i wud say, i remember it, he didnt give agassi a look in on his serve, and it looks like his footwork is way better than it is now. I think the levels gone up now and feds gone down a bit although he is still capable of winning gs every now n then
@fbinsulation It's fast cause both player have played very aggressive tennis, taking the ball very early. No spiny ball almost at all. That's all. Federer backhand is excellent when it comes to those low bouncing balls. But with balls with many spin, that bounce high, he has a problem.
wtf are you talking about, Sampras played neither at the 2002 US Open, instead he had a piss easy draw to the finals and should thank Agassi for taking Hewitt out in the semis cause Hewitt would've smoked Sampras in the final if they actually played, get your facts right
@Rodjeurs And did you seriously say Hewitt, Safin and a far past his prime Agassi??? LMAO!!! Djoker is barely coming into his prime and is CRUSHING Federer, while Nadal has OWNED his ass for about 6 years now. So who exactly has he beaten?? Oh, Roddick and Hewitt. lolololololololol
Loot at the footwork at 6:00. It's unreal how fast he goes to hit this forehand winner... sidestepping!! Geez, he was SO good in his prime. And it's played even faster than any Djokovic vs Söderling. How can one doubt Federer IS the G.O.A.T. when you see this?
@imavaughanstar And Fed cannot attack Nadal's FH with the same consistency because of the high bounce, which makes it more difficult. Indoors though, Fed has attacked Nadal's BH to great success because his BH is a stronger shot with the low bounce.
@imavaughanstar Nadal has no weaknesses though on clay. You basically need to outlast him from the baseline, which only the biggest hitters like Delpo and Soderling can do, or a relentless force like Novak (who also has insane defense).
@imavaughanstar The French is the only Slam he can have confidence in winning now. The other three he knows that Djokovic is waiting for him. Nole is in his head, and don't underestimate that power. Look at what it did to Fed against Rafa.
@purgatory13z Yes, Nalby was definitely the second most talented player of that era behind Roger. He had endless talent, just not enough focus. Btw, Rafa has a warrior's heart, but not much natural talent.
@fbinsulation Back when tennis was tennis and guys hit flat. Now guys either put so much spin it's practically a moon ball OR they go flat as a board. This was a different type of ball striking... one I miss.
@cammpinno his back was f'ed.. read his book he explains it everday at that point was fought for his foundation. sleeping on the floor everynight fighting through reporters asking about retirement, constant pain insane
the new blue acrilic plexicushion courts, at the australian open are not slow, it´s still a medium-fast speed court, indian wells and miami are the slower, sandy surfaced hard courts, on tour.
@fbinsulation thats because it was. Courts were faster, these days all courts are so damn slow, even wimbledon is slower - Hence players like nadal have it easier. Faster courts played well for Roger.
@BenKey4 The courts r slowed down because allegedly, the serve and volley points were too fast. So they slowed them down in order to facilitate the long ralley points we see nowadays
@imavaughanstar Clay is Rafa's best surface and he is the greatest player to ever play on clay. Not really that hard. Besides, I was talking about fast courts, not slow courts.
@fbinsulation agassi's a counter puncher and plays on the rise it just looks faster because agassi returns the ball back to federer faster and federer is just trying to keep up
beg to differ, but roger´s game was already, very much formed, by then..today he´s using the drop shot a lot more and he might not come to net, as much as he used to.
So there would be more rallies. It's a good idea in theory (no one likes a serving contest) but personally I think they've gone too far and turned it into a grinders game.
@imavaughanstar Nadal won't break Fed's GS record, probably because he doesn't have 5-6 more great years in him. He is already declining mentally and physically at 25.
yeah, thats why i love the indoor season because it still kinda plays like the old hard courts. Probably because of the lack of wind resistance, or as much.
god, a young federer, despite not having the technicality as the federer of today, has the cleanest volley game and lightning speed. And the fucking power.
si el tenis hubiese sido justo, roger y andre, habrian pertenecido a la misma generacion; hubiesen jugados muchos mas partidos entre si que los que realmente han jugado (11); hubiese sido un gran clasico de la historia de este deporte.....
Roger was great in so many ways and continues to be even when most have hung them up. so, it's kind of silly for me to call attention to just one thing to admire but his movement here is so easy/natural. yes, he was young and in great shape, etc. but few ever move like that no matter how young and in great shape they are! a treat for me to see, especially given that i am now in my mid-40s and can no longer move like i once did.
These days , we are lacking talented players , Tennis has lost a lot Blake , Roddick , Davydenko , Nalbandian , Gonzalez , Safin , Hewitt , Federer ... Except Nadal and Djokovic , I don't see any talented player (I forgot mad "Gubis" ) that can show the quality of tennis that those players had shown
![[HL] Roger Federer vs. Marat Safin 2005 Australian Open [SF] [2/2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GEeyM3KFovk/mqdefault.jpg)
![[HL] Roger Federer vs. Nikolay Davydenko 2010 Australian Open [QF]](/img/n.gif)
Back when tennis was fast as shit and actually pretty to watch
If those two were in the same generation, we would see the greatest rivalry in tennis history.
Agreed.
+qing zhang don't forget sampras
Three things I get from watching this video.
1. How incredibly hard these guys are ripping the ball. It looks almost like ping pong out there. Unreal.
2. Yeah im biased, but the quality of play that AA is showing at 35 years old, which is ANCIENT in the game of tennis is AMAZING here. Keep in mind this is while the guy is getting cortisone injections just to be able to play, a year from retirement, and playing possibly the greatest player that ever lived, IN HIS PRIME. Agassi at 35 crushes the Agassi at 25, and if you gave THIS Agassi 25 year old legs, he competes BIGTIME with any of the top four of today.
3. Roger Federer has the best one handed backhand in tennis history. Anyone who plays tennis knows how much more difficult it is to use a one handed backhand, let alone hit it with that kind of power and spin. Its incredible the amount of stick he could get on that side with balls coming at it with that kind of pace, and high or low. Roger Federer's wrist must be made of iron. Incredible.
ulizinho
Very good backhands indeed. I just don't think those guys were consistently as good on that side as Federer, but you are correct my friend.
And What about the gasquet's backhand?
+LightningJanitorial- Well said, I agree.
I know this comment is 5 years old but for anyone reading, I’d just like to add that the cortisone injections were just in the last year he played (if I’m not mistaken), so a year after that..
I missed that Roger!!!!! come back, stay young. I can't imagine the day without Federer
I agree. I love fast court tennis. And it's funny cause Rebound Ace was considered a slower surface but these two made it look so fast.
wow. agassi was 34 yrs old - still playing beast
@89Pleasek Actually, you're right!!!! I mixed up 2000, when he ran through Hewitt, and 2001, when he ran through Safin, Rafter and a couple of others only to lose the finals both years. Hewitt's one of the few who can say they have a winning record against Pete but no one will write any books about the plucky Aussie......lol
Whether or not he would've beaten Sampras in finals all boils down to Pete's stamina. Hewitt never "smoked" anyone. He wore them down.....ask Federer.
look at roger's movement.. it is so fast! And that forehand of his is beast!
@89Pleasek It also would've been interesting to see him against Pete when he was physically in his prime, from say '94-98, and could play from the baseline much more comfortably.
fuck the slow surfaces
Federer's ability to run around his backhand in 2003-2007: UNREAL!!!
Ah, back in the days when tennis was fast. Courts are so slow now-a-days that you can run down just about anything. It's like playing tennis with those big orange balls the kids use.
Great match from these two, congrats to Federer. Agassi, always a legend.
remember Agassi is 35 here...
@EarlTheDuke8 I'm talking about "real" life too, in the club I play, there's only one guy that likes Nadal, the same goes for ppl I argue with about tennis, my point is that even if Nadal has increased the number of fans of tennis (something really doubtful, but let's give that for granted) I don't believe most of that people are any desirable for the sport, I mean: women who only like Nadal's looks, ppl that barely watch matches from other players, ppl that has never played tennis
@EarlTheDuke8 Of course, I don't deny Nadal represents a huge amount of money to ATP or sponsors, both things that don't matter to the sport ITSELF, I'm just saying that popularity doesn't mean all too, true, Nadal's number of facebook fans is almost the same as Federer's, but I've come to realize that most of those persons have no clue about tennis, they just like Nadal for extra tennis reasons.
It's not just the courts, the whole style of playing tennis is very different now. Fed and Agassi are not going so much for the corners and are more intent on forward rather than lateral movement. The rally hit points are also close to or even within the baseline, so the ball gets less distance to cover and it makes the game look faster. Look how far behind Nadal stands, in comparison. And unlike Nadal, these two seem to be hitting very flat and hard rather than with topspin.
They slow down Melbourne, New York and Wimbledon...which plays in Nadal s and Djokovic s hands if it comes to 1on1 against Federer.
Even the US Open are listed on ATP homepage today as "medium fast".
If it would be like 10-20 years ago, Nadal would still be Nr. 1 on clay and winning Paris...Djokovic could beat Federer in Melbourne...but Federer would be Nr. 1 in Wimbledon and New York.
@EarlTheDuke8 Soccer is the most followed sport on earth and I can tell you it's not the hardest to play or understand, more followers desn't mean better followers, btw I don't think most of the people like Nadal, there is like 1 video from him per 10 from Federer
On a related note, check out Agassi v/s Kuerten, Year Ending Championships 2000, if you are interested. Kuerten won indoors but more importantly, the pace of tennis is much slower than in this match. Racquets since then have aided topspin even more and besides Nadal is a more complete player than Kuerten....moves better and makes incredible passing shots, again and again.
djokovic is a very good returner who is extremely consistent, IMHO safin was a better returner than djokovic, when he brought his 'A' game. he could crush more winners off the return than djokovic and had a more powerful return. Ofcourse, the greatest returner is Agassi.
If the courts were the same as back then, Djokovic and Nadal would not be nearly as successful, well, maybe Nadal, but definitely not Djoker. Novak may be fast, but he relies on thye slower bounce to give him time to make these great defensive shots into offense. Until this year, Djokovic would fall apart at the WTF in London. But congrats to him, sad for Federer, but I'm still happy that Federer proved he can still trump Murray when it counts.
Just about. It's a pity that only a few months later he started having real back issues, and his run to the USO Final that year is nothing short of awesome. He played like 3 5 set matches just to get to the final, and he put up quite the fight against Federer, but understandably ran out of gas and his back really didn't help matters. Props to Federer though, he was playing like a boss in those years, especially 2005-2006.
@Melshae10 Well, Australia has always been the 2nd slowest event, only surpassed by Roland Garros of course, but I think the reason why many of these matches seem to be playing on faster surfaces compared to today is the type of players. I mean we have Murray, Nadal and Djokovic who are much more defensive minded. Even Federer is not as aggressive as he used to be. However, this tournament for example, you have aggressive baseliners like Federer and Agassi hitting everything on the rise.
@Zoso666 I've never said anything about better followers or viewers, ATP doesn't care about that. More viewers means more endorsements, more retail sales, more MONEY. Also videos aren't the tell all. Both Nadal and Federer are close in say Facebook followers over 9 mil each,NEVER said "most" just said people like him. But if you look at the sales of Babolat before Nadal and after Nadal, he pretty much singlehandedly promoted Babolat. He's Michael Jordan to Nike.
@3timeMVPNash
I agree. I just watched a match on TV a couple of days ago and the commentator wouldn't stop remarking on how tennis has slowed down in the last six years and how this type of attacking tennis we see here from Fed will never return. I don't think anyone realizes that Federer had to change his game because the game slowed down so much. Here against Agassi you can see how much faster the game is.
@fbinsulation That's because they want Nadal to win. Notice how in this year's US open Djoker the #1 seed met Fed who was the #3 seed in the semis. Usually #1 plays #4 in the semis. But just for that year they somehow had #1 play #3. Why? They were hoping Fed would beat, or atleast tire the hell out of the Djoker and then the US open would be in Nadal's back pocket. Slezy bunch the whole of them
@89Pleasek Hewitt has a great game against S&V cause he chipped the return and ran down the volley. It was very effective. He could also serve well enough to hold. I never said he wasn't skilled. But his relative strengths were exposed by Fed, once he figured him out, among others because he doesn't have any real WEAPONS. He's a counter-puncher. His record over the last 8 years speaks for itself. He would've been interesting to see in the 90s, against all the S&Vers.
pete wrote in his book that hewitt was unlucky to be playing his best tennis in 2000-2005 where serve-and-volley was slowly dissappearing, lleyton had the perfect game against s-a-volleyers, look at his record vs Henman (3-0 on fast grass I believe), Sampras - 19-year-old hewitt beat him at 2000 queen's very convincigly 6-4 6-4, rafter and others
then Federer came along in 2003 who even though a great volleyer didn't rush the net after every shot and Hewitt had no answers from the baseline
The French, well, he never really found his footing since he won in 1999, but he did make the QF 2001-2003. Wimbledon, Finals in 1999, SF 2000-2001. US Open, 1999, Winner, 2000 QF, 2001 QF, 2002 F, 2003 SF, 2004 QF, 2005 F. He also won 8 (!) MS events since his comeback. I think those are astounding stats, especially at that age, where a lot of players are either way past their prime, about to retire or are have already retired! I don't think it's a shame that he lost to Fed here, IMO.
Agassi's peak in his comeback years (1999-200) came in 2003, when he won the Australian Open for the 4th time. Yes he didn't face too many headliners on his way to the the title, but a win is a win. The guy was still competitive and was fairly consistent in Slams and Masters Series events, going to the latter stages in most of them in hic comeback years. I think after his win in 2003, he was slowly declining, but he still played well. AUS: 2004, lost to in form Safin, 2005, lost to Federer
@cavaleer Pete was not more complete than Fed. He had a less good backhand, he could hardly hit any inside-out forehand, and above all he was just an average top 30 player on clay. You can't pretend to be a complete player when you're so limited on one surface. Also Roger DID win a grand slam playing serve & volley: Wimbledon 2003.
And about the competition, a classic argument, though his greatest opponents are all grand slam champions: Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic...
@Rodjeurs You should watch some Sampras between 95-99, even earlier if you like. He had the most complete game the sport has ever seen, far more complete than Federer's because Fed cannot serve and volley and win a tournament. Plus, when you look at who Pete faced and defeated in those years, Fed's competition looks paltry. Federer's one of the greats though, no doubt. And his footwork and overall shotmaking versatility is second to none.
It is about how the ball bounces off the surface.
On fast courts like grass it skids of the surface, keeping low and fast. This leads to faster ball speed off the ground.
On slow courts ( like clay) it holds up, and bounces much higher. So you see players like Nadal putting crazy amounts of spin on the ball to work this, and get a bigger loop and bounce.
I know the longer rallies are exciting. when they get up to 30 shots, it gets me on my feet because you never know who is going to make the final shot, but bolleying takes so much more skill. You really get to see just how good a player is with their hands when they come up to net. Which is hard with the current courts because passing shots are much easier with a slower bounce.
@imavaughanstar Nadal will always have the great advantage on clay because of the matchup. That Fed couldn't beat Nadal at RG doesn't mean that Roger isn't the greatest. Rafa is the greatest clay courter ever. Roddick, Hewitt, and others are easy for Fed, but Nadal isn't because he can attack the 1HBH.
@imavaughanstar Bjorn Borg came to net MUCH more than any of the players in today's era do. And let's really not get started on the Sampras/Federer debate. The eras are different and it would all depend on the playing surface. But either way, prime Federer was the greatest player to EVER play, so even on a 90's Wimbledon court he could have beaten Pete.
@Rodjeurs You're comically ignorant. Pull up Pete Sampras Davis Cup 1997 and watch him demolish Patrick Rafter in the finals. Seriously, I can tell you haven't seen any tennis pre-2001 by your comment about Pete's backhand and his FH. Pull up ANY Sampras video from 1990-1999. I doubt you will though because few people like to have their delusions shattered.
@youziness Very good point. I'm watching this after having watched a couple of his matches from this year and there is definitely a sharp drop in speed and strength. I think the mistake Fed has made was that he didn't get stronger as he matured, like Pete. He's actually become slower and weaker while the others have gotten stronger, notably Djoker. It catches up with you....
6:14 - See you in August, for the US Open final.
they changed the courts, because the green rubber rebound ace, retained more heat and apparently, the intense heat, made the court get weird and it was dangerous for the player´s, because, they were more at risk, to sprain an ankle, fall and get injured. that´s what I heard..
I love today's game. But Honestly, Proffesional Tennis players should look like this. On a fast and nice surface. "Phlexicushion" Has ruined today's game. Proffesional's should look fast and elegant, even with one-handed backhands it looks faster then todays average forhand.
@Zoso666 In real life...you know...outside the internet. There seem to be millions of people watching him play and paying for tickets for tournaments he's playing in. The initial argument issue was that Nadal has won many viewers and tennis fanatics for his baseline style, which suits slower courts.
@Zoso666 what do you mean by good? I'm sure tennis is trying to get more attention for the sport, and so far they've been doing a good job with more viewers...Why do you think people like Nadal. He's ALL baseline...LOVES slow courts..consistently long rallies..
@purgatory13z At the WTF, he struggled with the quickness of the court and he needs a lot of time to set up his FH. No doubt he has tremendous athletic abilities, but if all the surfaces weren't more or less the same now he would struggle a lot to play on the fast surfaces of the past.
@sanjaytumati Yeah, agreed. It's even more crazy that for the past 12 slams, Federer and Djokovic have been on the same side! And apart from a the claycourts of Paris a few years ago and one or two Wimbledons, this has been the case. It's very, very strange.
this was one of feds best matches ever i wud say, i remember it, he didnt give agassi a look in on his serve, and it looks like his footwork is way better than it is now. I think the levels gone up now and feds gone down a bit although he is still capable of winning gs every now n then
@fbinsulation
It's fast cause both player have played very aggressive tennis, taking the ball very early.
No spiny ball almost at all.
That's all.
Federer backhand is excellent when it comes to those low bouncing balls.
But with balls with many spin, that bounce high, he has a problem.
wtf are you talking about, Sampras played neither at the 2002 US Open, instead he had a piss easy draw to the finals and should thank Agassi for taking Hewitt out in the semis cause Hewitt would've smoked Sampras in the final if they actually played, get your facts right
@Rodjeurs And did you seriously say Hewitt, Safin and a far past his prime Agassi??? LMAO!!! Djoker is barely coming into his prime and is CRUSHING Federer, while Nadal has OWNED his ass for about 6 years now. So who exactly has he beaten?? Oh, Roddick and Hewitt. lolololololololol
Loot at the footwork at 6:00. It's unreal how fast he goes to hit this forehand winner... sidestepping!!
Geez, he was SO good in his prime. And it's played even faster than any Djokovic vs Söderling. How can one doubt Federer IS the G.O.A.T. when you see this?
@imavaughanstar And Fed cannot attack Nadal's FH with the same consistency because of the high bounce, which makes it more difficult. Indoors though, Fed has attacked Nadal's BH to great success because his BH is a stronger shot with the low bounce.
@imavaughanstar Nadal has no weaknesses though on clay. You basically need to outlast him from the baseline, which only the biggest hitters like Delpo and Soderling can do, or a relentless force like Novak (who also has insane defense).
@imavaughanstar The French is the only Slam he can have confidence in winning now. The other three he knows that Djokovic is waiting for him. Nole is in his head, and don't underestimate that power. Look at what it did to Fed against Rafa.
@purgatory13z Yes, Nalby was definitely the second most talented player of that era behind Roger. He had endless talent, just not enough focus.
Btw, Rafa has a warrior's heart, but not much natural talent.
@fbinsulation Back when tennis was tennis and guys hit flat. Now guys either put so much spin it's practically a moon ball OR they go flat as a board. This was a different type of ball striking... one I miss.
@cammpinno his back was f'ed.. read his book he explains it everday at that point was fought for his foundation. sleeping on the floor everynight fighting through reporters asking about retirement, constant pain
insane
the new blue acrilic plexicushion courts, at the australian open are not slow, it´s still a medium-fast speed court, indian wells and miami are the slower, sandy surfaced hard courts, on tour.
@fbinsulation thats because it was. Courts were faster, these days all courts are so damn slow, even wimbledon is slower - Hence players like nadal have it easier. Faster courts played well for Roger.
@imavaughanstar, just look at how many grand slams he won this year. He's not going to win any more. His record will just be surpassed.
@BenKey4 The courts r slowed down because allegedly, the serve and volley points were too fast. So they slowed them down in order to facilitate the long ralley points we see nowadays
@imavaughanstar Clay is Rafa's best surface and he is the greatest player to ever play on clay. Not really that hard. Besides, I was talking about fast courts, not slow courts.
@fbinsulation agassi's a counter puncher and plays on the rise it just looks faster because agassi returns the ball back to federer faster and federer is just trying to keep up
beg to differ, but roger´s game was already, very much formed, by then..today he´s using the drop shot a lot more and he might not come to net, as much as he used to.
So there would be more rallies. It's a good idea in theory (no one likes a serving contest) but personally I think they've gone too far and turned it into a grinders game.
@imavaughanstar Nadal won't break Fed's GS record, probably because he doesn't have 5-6 more great years in him. He is already declining mentally and physically at 25.
yeah, thats why i love the indoor season because it still kinda plays like the old hard courts. Probably because of the lack of wind resistance, or as much.
god, a young federer, despite not having the technicality as the federer of today, has the cleanest volley game and lightning speed. And the fucking power.
The real reason they slowed the courts down is because the courts last make longer when the court has more grade. The more grade, the slower the court
@fbinsulation i think its because of the green court today they have a blue court at the australian open which makes the ball look slower
@fbinsulation It's not. Fed's footwork is a little slower but not much. Watch him play Djoker. It's every bit as fast, hard and crisp.
@fbinsulation the courts at tournaments those days were WAY faster than they are today.. they slowed the hell out of them now it sucks
@Rodjeurs Hewitt and Safin, the two guys Sampras also SMOKED on his way to his last Slam. You're young and ignorant...troll on...
@fbinsulation it is faster. its just because federer and agassi have such great rackethead acceleration. they use eachothers pace.
34 year old Agassi did so good against prime RF. Can’t believe Roger still didn’t win that AO..
I would love to see the Djokovic of 2011 play Agassi. Two of the best service returners in the game go against each other.
si el tenis hubiese sido justo, roger y andre, habrian pertenecido a la misma generacion; hubiesen jugados muchos mas partidos entre si que los que realmente han jugado (11); hubiese sido un gran clasico de la historia de este deporte.....
Roger was great in so many ways and continues to be even when most have hung them up. so, it's kind of silly for me to call attention to just one thing to admire but his movement here is so easy/natural. yes, he was young and in great shape, etc. but few ever move like that no matter how young and in great shape they are! a treat for me to see, especially given that i am now in my mid-40s and can no longer move like i once did.
@imavaughanstar no its not too early to say he's the greatest. though it's too early to say he's the most successful
man.....is it just me or at that year the hard court matches were ways more faster than actual....this looks awesome
is it rrl the courts or the players dat make the ball speed different? i always thought it was the cameras......
because that's what modern tennis is catered to. Slow paced baselining is more "entertaining" apparently.
0:44, andre ripped the shit out of that backhand and roger manages to block it with the volley..unreal..
THIS Fed, is the best Federer I have ever seen.
Fed of 2005 would beat anyone in the open era....
@Luchon20092109 Who has 16 GS and who has 0? Nalbandian was not better than Roger in their primes.
@imavaughanstar no i mean federer. come on he's 30. the end is nigh for mr federer.
@TheFastolf I mean, Nadal would, but only on clay...and Fed would have like 40 mayors by now...
To make sure Federer didn't win like 30 slams, and put up a record nobody else could touch :)
It's matches like these that make you wonder why they ever considered slowing down the game.
This tennis is blistering fast, I like it. Why the fuck did they slow down all the courts?
i would hve loved to see this federer vs the 2011 novak it would hve been so entertaining
Agassi love his style! Unfortunate hard and flat was made for Federer. He uses that speed and turns it against him.
@fbinsulation of course, today tennis is more topspin than the old school style.
Federer's prime right here...even Agassi admitted that Roger had "no weaknesses"
These days , we are lacking talented players , Tennis has lost a lot Blake , Roddick , Davydenko , Nalbandian , Gonzalez , Safin , Hewitt , Federer ... Except Nadal and Djokovic , I don't see any talented player (I forgot mad "Gubis" ) that can show the quality of tennis that those players had shown
just to play against Agassi woaw that must have been epic every tournament.
@fbinsulation agassi and federer are both very aggressive players, thats why
This looks a lot faster than Australian Open now. Why they slow up couts?
@BenKey4 SLower courts means longer rallies = more viewers for the sport
roger at his prime. Remember this roger, the greatest player of all time