Interesting interview of Agassi and his views on federer and the game

ANDRE Agassi believes tennis superstar Roger Federer must be ranked alongside the likes of Jack Nicklaus and Michael Jordan as one of the greatest athletes of all time.

As happens with every rare Federer defeat, the doubters have been quick to relegate the Swiss master to yesterday's hero following his five-set Australian Open semi-final loss to Andy Murray.

But just as Murray and world No 1 Novak Djokovic were preparing to meet in a second straight grand slam final, Federer was plotting another successful season, unfazed by those declaring a changing of the guard in men's tennis.

"Nothing has changed," the 17-time grand slam champion and world No 2 said before leaving Australia.

"I've played these guys, what, 60 times? The three guys around me in the rankings.

"So we know each other really well. We play each other very close, very often. Keep on trading wins and losses."








.
. .
Federer said Djokovic had done best at this, which was why he was ranked so highly.

"I enjoy the matches with Rafa (Nadal), Novak and also Andy again (on Friday night)," Federer said. "It's nice playing five sets against him. It was tough tennis. I enjoy that.

"So I go from here with a good feeling for the year. I didn't play a tournament leading in, so now obviously I know where my level is at.

"Also knowing I have even more time to work on my game, work on my fitness this year -- it's something I'm excited about."

Regardless what the future holds for Federer, Agassi says the 31-year-old's legacy as a sporting immortal is secure.

Himself a four-time Australian Open champion like Federer, Agassi said the brilliant Swiss belonged in with Nicklaus, Jordan and company as one of sport's greatest.

"I'm biased in a sense that I think that tennis is one of the most comprehensive sports when it comes to endurance, when it comes to athleticism, when it comes to speed, when it comes to eye-hand," Agassi said.

"It engages every part of what an athlete needs to be and I think the standard of athlete in tennis is finally now starting to make that recognised by people in other sports.

"So I am biased with what I think tennis brings to the table and I think what Roger's done in tennis is as commendable as what we've seen with Nicklaus in golf, or what we've seen with Jordan in basketball. The guy has single-handedly separated himself from a world-class field year after year after year in a way that's probably never been done."

Agassi, who was the sport's oldest world No 1, said he had long given up being surprised about anything Federer achieved and believed that even at almost 32 he was at the top of his game.

"I was ranked No 1 possibly even at 33," Agassi said. "When I was ranked No 1 at that age, I felt better than when I was 25. I felt like I was a better player.

"Given that, I would assume that Roger probably feels like a better player because he's smarter.

"He's dealing with tougher competition. He might not win like he used to. But he himself (now) would beat himself (from back then)."

AAP
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/tennis/federer-the-greatest-says-agassi/story-fnbe6xeb-1226563048942

Andre says some very interesting things as usual he seems to be so wise whenever he speaks. He for first time talks glowingly of tennis as the most comprehensive game and that hasn't been the case. He says federer is separated and can only be compared to Nicklaus or Jordan and that fed is smarter and possibly better than ever. Also some good comments from federer, he isn't losing his cool and accepting these comments about his complete degradation. He still feels like he is right there and so do I frankly, can't doubt the man's ability.

Well I guess comments by any former player - especially one of the game's greats - always seem wise when you find yourself in agreement with what they say.

In this case, much of Agassi's comments do hit the spot for me, though certainly not all.

That said, Agassi's status in my eyes remains undimmed. I really do like the guy and what he brought to the sport.

Interesting lags which parts do you agree with and what parts don't you agree with. I am not saying I agree with anyone unquestioningly myself, everyone will see things their own way.

But I think Federer has transcended the sport to an extent at this point where he can only be compared to giant sports figures of other sports like Jordan or Nicklaus or ali. That I think is pretty glowing praise from Andre, I also agree with his views on tennis in general being one of the most comprehensive games that require such a wide skill set.

"But he himself (now) would beat himself (from back then)."

Which is what Federer has basically said himself too (that he's a better player now).
Funny how many of his fans don't agree though...I wonder why?

Socal : I have no issue whatever with his assessment of Federer as one of the greatest athletes and a "sporting immortal". Realistically, how could anyone ... ?

Whilst first to acknowledge that Agassi's knowledge of the game is on another planet entirely from my own, I really cannot accept the notion that Federer is allegedly still at the top of his game or that his powers are undiminished. It's simply not supported by all available evidence ; the most glaring being that of the last ten Slams, Federer made two Finals with one win. Of the ten prior to that, he made eight Finals, with four wins.

Agassi's spell at Number One aged 33 will, I am confident, remain a unique achievement. The physical demands of the game have moved to another level even in the relatively short period since Agassi's departure and time stands still for no man. Not even for another sporting giant mentioned by Andre - Jack Nicklaus - who did have a memorable swan song or two in his twilight years, but whose glittering career came to a close at more or less the same time it does for all elite golfers. Even one as truly special as 'Big Jack' aka the Golden Bear.

lydian wrote:"But he himself (now) would beat himself (from back then)."

Which is what Federer has basically said himself too (that he's a better player now).
Funny how many of his fans don't agree though...I wonder why?

Lots of people who aren't his fans also don't agree.

It's hard to be sure what Fed thinks. Firstly he can't allow himself to think he's in decline - such negative thoughts would only make thinks worse. And he certainly can't come out and say "Actually I'm not as good as I used to be".

It's similar to when Sampras was on the decline and yet insisted he was still playing as well as ever. Even in his book he says he retired even though "My game was still there".

I suppose what Agassi is saying is that the greatest sportsmen somehow transcend their sport and that in tennis it is perhaps only Federer that has done that.

I too think fed has lost a little in terms of movement but in some areas I think he has become better and smarter. For example his backhand return I think is better than it has ever been. He used to get killed by Nadal because he chipped every backhand return, now I think he is better at coming over the backhand return than he has ever been. So I think Federer isn't as good as 07 or 06 I think he is closer to that level than some would assume, he still is capable of inspired performance and the faster surface tournaments are always a place where he seems comfortable playing on. To me I think Federer is dismissed too much because of age. I played tennis regularly and between a 31 year old man in shape and a 25 year old version is not that much different especially for an athlete who has been as durable and relatively free of many serious injuries.

lags72 wrote:the most glaring being that of the last ten Slams, Federer made two Finals with one win. Of the ten prior to that, he made eight Finals, with four wins.

Agassi's spell at Number One aged 33 will, I am confident, remain a unique achievement

1st bit...detractors would say the competition is so much tougher now so he's not getting to as many finals
2nd bit...detractors would say he achieved that during the famed "weak transitional era" 2001-3

Indeed JHM...the beauty is that there are arguments for and against.
I tend to agree he's a touch slower...but we don't know how much that is counterbalanced, or superseded, by more stable ground strokes, better serve, and smarter acumen on-court. Tennis ability is a case of adding up all the constituent bits of a player, of which there are many!

Like they say though, it ain't the years it's the mileage. No-one has more miles than Fed (not even Rafa, and look what's happened there )

I also think the mileage can take a mental toll - a momentary lapse of concentration here, a bad choice of shot there, and even though you can be playing just as well, you can lose the tight mathces you might once have won.

Of course we all know that when Agassi says that Federer "has single-handedly separated himself from a world-class field year after year after year" he shows that he doesn't really know much about tennis

Not only was Sampras in major decline but he was losing week after week to guys who would barely have caused him a moment's danger in his pomp. The "my game was still there" comment just doesn't stack up.

Personally I've never been one to take as gospel everything a sporting giants says - however stellar may be their achievements on the field of play.........

lags72 wrote:Not only was Sampras in major decline but he was losing week after week to guys who would barely have caused him a moment's danger in his pomp. The "my game was still there" comment just doesn't stack up.

No, but I'm fairly sure Sampras believed it, especially at the time. He put it more down to a loss of confidence that an actual deterioration of his game.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Like they say though, it ain't the years it's the mileage. No-one has more miles than Fed (not even Rafa, and look what's happened there )

I also think the mileage can take a mental toll - a momentary lapse of concentration here, a bad choice of shot there, and even though you can be playing just as well, you can lose the tight mathces you might once have won.

Of course we all know that when Agassi says that Federer "has single-handedly separated himself from a world-class field year after year after year" he shows that he doesn't really know much about tennis

Very funny, I never said Agassi was right about everything, he was obviously being nice to his compatriots of 04,05,06,07; he isn't going to throw one shot Andy and super talented Dave under the bus. Even a tennis legend can come up short when running up against the reliability zone.

That is the thing Lags, Sampras physically was shot and mentally a long time before federer. I know fed has had a lot of mileage but he still moves stunningly well most of the time, at times I think it is more the hunger and the mental fatigue that for federer could creep in. And to me he seems to have the right attitude. He doesn't get too upset when he loses the tough slam matches anymore, he is still very, very, very good as some stars seem to be in their thirties . Personally, I think news of federer's demise has been going on for years and it is still even at this age a bit premature.

Agassi needs to learn that he has more chance of being right about tennis if he simply agrees with socal all the time. (I read that on wikipedia under "Socal's Maxim")

It sounds very egotistical when you put it that way, but please mr. moderator attempt to focus your comments on the theme of the thread, if we want to talk about the athletic magnificence of super talented Dave there are others threads for that.

Yep and I argued vehemently with Tenez about Sampras having declined greatly despite Sampras saying otherwise. Of course it suited vested interests to have a "peak" Sampras being beaten by the upcoming Federer, when in reality everyone and his dog...inc. his fellow pros who commented...could see the guy was in decline. The thalassemia issue seemingly hastening quicker decline than you would have expected. Interestingly re: Federer, not one player has yet suggested any evidence of decline as yet...

Wrt to Agassi's comments - yes, even the past tennis greats haven't transcended the sport in the way Fed has, in terms of achievement, global acclaim and status. I guess he is out in front in a way that Nicklaus and Jordan are (don't know much about Jordan).
But we already knew that I suppose

Jordan is a US-centric thing to me. Tennis is so much more global...

Sampras never blamed the thalassemia, even after he retired i.e. in his book. It was, to him, just a mild problem, which for the vast majority of the time didn't affect him at all.
When he analyzses e.g. his problems on clay, or the reasons for his decline, it doesn't get a mention.

lydian wrote:Yep and I argued vehemently with Tenez about Sampras having declined greatly despite Sampras saying otherwise. Of course it suited vested interests to have a "peak" Sampras being beaten by the upcoming Federer, when in reality everyone and his dog...inc. his fellow pros who commented...could see the guy was in decline. The thalassemia issue seemingly hastening quicker decline than you would have expected. Interestingly re: Federer, not one player has yet suggested any evidence of decline as yet...

Any objective person who viewed the two players in their late 20s and early 30s could tell pete had lost a lot more explosiveness and athleticism when compared to federer. Some athletes like fed, agassi, and connors can keep being very, very good into later years. It was much clearer and more pronouced a physical collapse for Sampras than it has been for federer. And that is to the good fortune of all tennis fans. I am sure this was one of the many arguments you had that resulted in you gaining the title of "Tenez's worst student ever", I have to hand it to the man he had me laughing it up with that bit of brilliance.

Social : some of that (7.03pm) strikes a chord, but not entirely. Fed could quite possibly be good enough to handle most guys even if he were playing aged 40 but that's a whole lot different from expecting him to keep pace with the really big guns today who are 5/6 years younger AND with far fewer tour matches on the clock.

Lydian: no quibble with your post per se, but any reference to, or discussion of, defined "eras" invariably ends up putting me into a long sleep. Of all the recent debate, I did not see one post from those championing the "eras" theory that made much sense or logic. I actually take great delight in considering myself an era denier. The whole silly business was summed up beautifully by Henman Bill. I won't reproduce his post here but it can be found on the relevant thread at Wed Feb 6, 10.48pm .....

Nobody is talking eras here lags, it seems that some are glutton's for logical punishment on the subject of eras. But as you referenced there are other threads for those discussions.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Sampras never blamed the thalassemia, even after he retired i.e. in his book. It was, to him, just a mild problem, which for the vast majority of the time didn't affect him at all.
When he analyzses e.g. his problems on clay, or the reasons for his decline, it doesn't get a mention.

I don't know what the issue was but sampras hit the wall and fast particularly in 2001 and after that is why everyone was so stunned he won the 2002 US open, I think he was barely in the top 15 when he won it 2002 if I am not mistaken, but he played flawlessly those two weeks.

Socal , sorry the silly predictive text on my iPad got your name wrong.....!

Remember that complete humiliation at the hands of Safin at the USO, I have never seen such more lethargic and powerless sampras.

Oh it is ok Lags, people have called me worse

lags72 wrote:Socal , sorry the silly predictive text on my iPad got your name wrong.....!

Damn predicated textile!

And as the groom said at his wedding reception ...... "I'd particularly like to thank my wife's parents for their generous present of a perky copulator"

I remember the HB post lags...quite agree

JHM, Sampras does refer to the condition in his book. He stated how he didn't want to admit to it, or else give opponents an edge. He doesn't blame decline on it, but then he never thought he was in decline either!

However, it is at odds with comments he made about his condition. For example, in 2000 he said to an interviewer...

Interviewer: It seems that the 'F' word in your career has been 'fitness'. Are your critics justified in claiming you aren't always in the best of shape?

Sampras: After that Corretja match, Tom Tebbutt, a US newspaper reporter, wrote a story claiming I suffered from thalassemia, a low-iron blood condition that afflicts some people of Mediterranean descent. He was spot on. I have it. It sometimes makes me feel lethargic and a little out of it - that hang-dog look is partly because of the condition - especially in any very hot weather. I've been doing about all you can to offset it, which is taking iron pills. Other than trying to build up your iron level, there isn't much else you can do. I've never admitted it until now because I didn't want my opponents to have that confidence of knowing I was playing with a deficit.

He also said, "In the heat of battle, there's a tendency to get tired when the iron's low and it can affect you."

So as socal says, the heat of flushing meadow could affect him...and his recovery after long matches. But Sampras wasnt one to get into his person life, he hid the condition which was diagnosed in his childhood until he was well into his playing career. So I'm not surprised he didn't mention it much in the book.

Lydian, I agree with your comments. Sampras wasn't that open and never wanted to be seen as making an excuse. Still it was clear to any objective observer that Sampras was far from his peak in 2001 and 2002, and the drop off was much more dramatic than any loss of explosiveness we have seen in federer.

He also wrote "It was easily addressed"

I took the "I didn't want my opponents to have that confidence of knowing I was playing with a deficit" line not as an indication that he himself felt that he had a deficit, but that his opponents would take confidence if they felt he had a deficit (whether it actually was or not).

JHM, seems whatever I write you always counter.
Addressing low iron is easy in general...but not when it materialises as an issue during a match.
Clearly it wasn't an issue despite him saying it could make him tired and "a little out of it" in some matches.

lydian wrote:"But he himself (now) would beat himself (from back then)."

Which is what Federer has basically said himself too (that he's a better player now).
Funny how many of his fans don't agree though...I wonder why?

Thats what Sampras said of himself in 2002, funny how Pete fans argued with it I wonder why

lydian wrote:JHM, seems whatever I write you always counter.

No I don't. Damn, done it again.
Actually, I don't do it that often, do I?
But yes, it probably did affect him a bit in a few matches.

lydian wrote:

lags72 wrote:the most glaring being that of the last ten Slams, Federer made two Finals with one win. Of the ten prior to that, he made eight Finals, with four wins.

Agassi's spell at Number One aged 33 will, I am confident, remain a unique achievement

1st bit...detractors would say the competition is so much tougher now so he's not getting to as many finals
2nd bit...detractors would say he achieved that during the famed "weak transitional era" 2001-3

Well Lyd you know jealous guys talk all rubbish, thats part and parcel of the world we live, Fed inspite of winning a slam and regaining No.1 against Peak Djoko and Murray yet some doubters claim he won many titles in weak era rather than aplauding the genius, if this Fed can run these peak giants of the game its very obivious he would have run his competitors on his peak with much more ease, no idea why such a simple concept doesn't reach simple minds.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Agassi needs to learn that he has more chance of being right about tennis if he simply agrees with socal all the time. (I read that on wikipedia under "Socal's Maxim")

Quote of the Week

socal1976 wrote:Lydian, I agree with your comments. Sampras wasn't that open and never wanted to be seen as making an excuse. Still it was clear to any objective observer that Sampras was far from his peak in 2001 and 2002, and the drop off was much more dramatic than any loss of explosiveness we have seen in federer.

Exactly and same is the case for Federer, again simple logic I guess

IC, perhaps you can tell me 2 pros who have commented on Federer declining - when in contrast at a similar age Sampras' decline was so obvious he had Kafelnikov, ranked 3 at the time, saying in Apr 2002 "I think Pete should think of retiring. His loss should tell him something and I think it is a disrespect to himself to keep playing" or Rusedski who said Sampras was "1/2 a step slower" after losing to him in 5 sets at US02? Given they're almost exactly 10 yrs difference in age it would be like Fed getting those comments last April & August.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

lydian wrote:"But he himself (now) would beat himself (from back then)."

Which is what Federer has basically said himself too (that he's a better player now).
Funny how many of his fans don't agree though...I wonder why?

Thats what Sampras said of himself in 2002, funny how Pete fans argued with it I wonder why

Jordan was a "better" basketball player in his later years than his younger years, but he couldn't dominate a game the way he used too.. he had a far better outside shot, was a better defender, so all around better player.

Ali was a much better fighter both technically and tactically in the early/mid 70's yet struggled to dominate or easily take out opponents he would have in earlier years.

Nicklaus was a better golfer,etc...

Experience, improved shots from practice, new tactics all help you improve with age, but at the same time- all athletes, all humans start to lose tiny amounts of muscle twitch reaction, stamina, hand eye coordination once they hit around 27.. In team sports it's easier to hide, in one on one sports- just that fractional amount turns a guy who could dominate any and everyone into a guy who still is right there at the top but brought back to the pack. Also, at the highest success you become jaded somewhat with all the wins.. it's harder to mentally go after your 5th nba champioship then your 2nd,3rd etc... then there is family responsibilities, wanting to settle down-- it all takes your focus just a tad away....

At the same time, the younger generation coming up is training to take you down, while you had trained orignially to a different era of players, conditions... You have to change/adapt, while they just train right through...

It's a weird concept to wrap peoples heads around and I think people look at it the wrong way- yes- every all time great got better with age, but every all time great was less dominant with age....... the two states can coexist there are reasons why :-)

Excellent points TRuffin.

Always great to read a detached analysis that looks at the bigger picture, rather than the myopic view that is so often driven by inherent bias and alternative agenda.

Yes a very strong post by Ruffin, very good work, I think I touched on some similar themes, Federer in some ways is better technically but of course he has lost a little bit physically. Ruffin also touched on the mental fatigue factors that I discussed as well. Federer in the position he his in can't help but lose the hunger and the desire to constantly push as hard as younger and hungrier players. He has already accomplished so much there is a human tendency maybe not to push yourself quite as hard as when you were still trying to climb the mountain and build your legacy.

TRuffin wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

lydian wrote:"But he himself (now) would beat himself (from back then)."

Which is what Federer has basically said himself too (that he's a better player now).
Funny how many of his fans don't agree though...I wonder why?

Thats what Sampras said of himself in 2002, funny how Pete fans argued with it I wonder why

Jordan was a "better" basketball player in his later years than his younger years, but he couldn't dominate a game the way he used too.. he had a far better outside shot, was a better defender, so all around better player.

Ali was a much better fighter both technically and tactically in the early/mid 70's yet struggled to dominate or easily take out opponents he would have in earlier years.

Nicklaus was a better golfer,etc...

Experience, improved shots from practice, new tactics all help you improve with age, but at the same time- all athletes, all humans start to lose tiny amounts of muscle twitch reaction, stamina, hand eye coordination once they hit around 27.. In team sports it's easier to hide, in one on one sports- just that fractional amount turns a guy who could dominate any and everyone into a guy who still is right there at the top but brought back to the pack. Also, at the highest success you become jaded somewhat with all the wins.. it's harder to mentally go after your 5th nba champioship then your 2nd,3rd etc... then there is family responsibilities, wanting to settle down-- it all takes your focus just a tad away....

At the same time, the younger generation coming up is training to take you down, while you had trained orignially to a different era of players, conditions... You have to change/adapt, while they just train right through...

It's a weird concept to wrap peoples heads around and I think people look at it the wrong way- yes- every all time great got better with age, but every all time great was less dominant with age....... the two states can coexist there are reasons why :-)

Great post bro

socal1976 wrote:Yes a very strong post by Ruffin, very good work, I think I touched on some similar themes

but you contradicted on many other things.

Like what exactly, when have I said federer is as good as he was in 2007? Ruffin touches on some of the exact points I made about how federer does some things better but has lost a half step in terms of movement. My position on this has always been consistent.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Agassi needs to learn that he has more chance of being right about tennis if he simply agrees with socal all the time. (I read that on wikipedia under "Socal's Maxim")

Quote of the Week

There are a few posters on here who would do better subsituting my tennis knowledge and analysis in place of their own. If someone is just wrong about the game the majority of times it would help them to look at more knowledgable posters for guidance on the issues of the game, thus we have the inarguable truth of socal's maxim, which would help alot of posters improve the quality of their tennis posts. I just get frightened by the results of some posts when certain posters make the mistake of independent thinking.

Quote of the Week should probably be reserved for some piece of tennis wisdom, rather than just a wisecrack (it was quite good though)

Wisecrack all you like I think you would benefit from remembering socal's maxim and applying it, you could be the prime beneficiary julius of such wisdom.

"He's dealing with tougher competition. He might not win like he used to. But he himself (now) would beat himself (from back then)."

This is music to SoCal/IMBL and many other ears. All roads to GOAT debates.

@HB... are you generating statistics on how to approach the same problem and write the same litany ad infinitum?