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

First topic message reminder :


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

Yes it will indeed be music to some ears, laverfan, but then Andre goes and complicates things when he also says ............."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."

It is a continuous progression of players joining in the journey, leaving their imprints, and moving on.

Federer's legacy (which is still being written) to sport is immense. Can two legacies be quantitatively compared, IMVHO, no?

Connors's record, from a purely numbers perspective, is tough to match... http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Co/J/Jimmy-Connors.aspx?t=tf

lags72 wrote:Yes it will indeed be music to some ears, laverfan, but then Andre goes and complicates things when he also says ............."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."

I know he was talking about super talented Dave and the real clay court king Gillermo corria.

lydian wrote: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.

Several silly commentators posted question on when Fed should retire as early as 2008, btw Fed's decline in game is widely seen and easy to be noted, he doesn't have the stamina or the power he used to possess ofcourse he has become smarter and more willy with experience and that carries him on some matches, but to expect that from him on a long GS tournament would be silly.

I actually think RFed is a better player now than he was, say 2007 (2006 was not tennis of this Earth). He can now grind long rallies, maybe its a necessary evolution, but it is an evolution. His Back hand has improved by 10%+. More varied, more consistent, if this Fed faces Nadal at Roland Garros 2005-07 I think he wins. His serve is a greater weapon now. Fed doesnt do 1-2 punches, he often wins the point outright. To still be #3 in probably the most physically demanding era in tennis says alot about his conditioning. Phenomenal professional. Great role model. Half South African.

kingraf wrote:I actually think RFed is a better player now than he was, say 2007 (2006 was not tennis of this Earth). He can now grind long rallies, maybe its a necessary evolution, but it is an evolution. His Back hand has improved by 10%+. More varied, more consistent, if this Fed faces Nadal at Roland Garros 2005-07 I think he wins. His serve is a greater weapon now. Fed doesnt do 1-2 punches, he often wins the point outright. To still be #3 in probably the most physically demanding era in tennis says alot about his conditioning. Phenomenal professional. Great role model. Half South African.

Good post can't say I disagree with much in that post by kingraf. He isn't that far off the best in the game today, and his loss of half a step doesn't show up that often, I think it is more to do with hunger and focus at this stage and possible mental fatigue. But he is still right in the thick of things so that says a lot about his ability.

SoCal... you are not going to like this, but, if he is half-step slower now, requires longer recovery, then in 2003-2007, at the peak of his powers, he would have been good enough to handle the current crop of so-called strong era candidates with ease, correct?

(Fun to see what comes back from this question?).

Not necessarily laverfan I think if Fed, Djoko, Nadal, and murray were all of the same age that there would be a much more even distribution of slams between the four, fed would still probably win the most but I could see Djoko at his best the last couple of years still beating fed at the AO and possibly even RG and challenge him at the USO. Djoko is a much better player than he was at 2007 when he first became #3 and federer was at his peak. He beat fed a couple of times that year, Nadal had the beating of fed from early on, and so did murray. So if fed was the same age of the other 3 I think he may still have finished #1 but all of their counts in slams would be close together than the current distribution. But again this is all a hypothetical to answer your question which requires a hypothetical answer.

laverfan wrote:SoCal... you are not going to like this, but, if he is half-step slower now, requires longer recovery, then in 2003-2007, at the peak of his powers, he would have been good enough to handle the current crop of so-called strong era candidates with ease, correct?

(Fun to see what comes back from this question?).

And on top of that they would not have been able to focus so specifically on a game plan to handle him.

The older champion is always at a big disadvantage - he prepared for his predecessors, his successors prepared for him. He has had to adapt to changes that are natural for them. It's virtually a champions handicap, and perhaps helps to explain why so many fall when they still feel good.

Not necessarily BB, not if the older player has less competition earlier on or easier competition he can run up a large number of slams virtually unopposed except on clay. If your three toughest competitors come around later in your career it is not as bad as growing up at the same age as your three toughest competitors. Any gap between the older player assuming weaker competition in the other earlier phase of his career would favor his total records and not hurt them

Lets have a sensible discussion rather than another pathetic weak era debate, I'm just not motivated to discuss that any more, it's all been said. Please don't bother trying to drag me into another waste of time.

The point I made had nothing to do with the rating of an older players earlier opponents, it was about the inherent advantages younger players have (other than their age). It is that the younger player

* gets to plan his game at the older, who can't do that
* has less issues with the games developments whereas the older guy has to adapt. Federer has now had to change his game twice.

Socal...you're doing your best,, once again, to discredit and denigrate other players - presumably in the misguided, biased hope of elevating your hero.

Objective fans who have watched tennis for a good few years can see through your thinly-veiled attempt and as such are very unlikely to swallow the era myth.

If you're determined to perpetuate the notion that Federer won many of his Slams "unopposed" (yeah....right) then you'd best start including Nadal in the same bracket.

For his seven Wimby titles, Federer faced 12 top-tenners, comprised of seven different names - four of whom were Slam winners

For his seven RG titles, Nadal faced 11 top-tenners, comprised of six different names - two of whom were Slam winners.

socal1976 wrote:Not necessarily BB, not if the older player has less competition earlier on or easier competition he can run up a large number of slams virtually unopposed except on clay. If your three toughest competitors come around later in your career it is not as bad as growing up at the same age as your three toughest competitors. Any gap between the older player assuming weaker competition in the other earlier phase of his career would favor his total records and not hurt them

Spot on.

Lags, do you really want to go down this debate route, ie 'he faced players of this and this seed' etc. ?

Anyway if we do, we can continue it on CC's thread which was made for that.

No, that childish debate is of no interest to me IMBL.

But feel free to keep it going with socal. I sense he believes all the era waffle as though it's gospel.

Goodnight

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Not necessarily BB, not if the older player has less competition earlier on or easier competition he can run up a large number of slams virtually unopposed except on clay. If your three toughest competitors come around later in your career it is not as bad as growing up at the same age as your three toughest competitors. Any gap between the older player assuming weaker competition in the other earlier phase of his career would favor his total records and not hurt them

Spot on.

You have a talent for completely misreading posts. You're making yourself into socal's comedy sidekick.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Not necessarily BB, not if the older player has less competition earlier on or easier competition he can run up a large number of slams virtually unopposed except on clay. If your three toughest competitors come around later in your career it is not as bad as growing up at the same age as your three toughest competitors. Any gap between the older player assuming weaker competition in the other earlier phase of his career would favor his total records and not hurt them

Spot on.

You have a talent for completely misreading posts. You're making yourself into socal's comedy sidekick.

Is it ok when you pull out your pom poms and cheer other posters quality comments, like you did with lydian on the chang argument. When someone writes something you like you have no compunction about commending their post, why are you objective when you do it and other people are acting like sidekicks or whatever your insult for the day happens to be? Not nice to hoist those comments at IMBL BB. Are people only allowed to agree with you, or you with them, but not allowed to like my posts?

Lydian was right, you missed the point completely. Amrit cheers stupid posts based on allegiance.

You see the difference?

Or maybe he just liked my post and has a right like you to like someone else's post. You can't read his mind anymore than i can read your mind. I don't know why you would take it to calling someone a comedy sidekick. Just my opinion, it seems that you think agreeing with me or likeing my post is some sort of misdemeanor.

I think agreeing with a relevant, well researched post is laudable, whoever the author.

Your post missed the point entirely. Applauding it is just a bit unfortunate. He is, though, building a habit if that hence the 'sidekick' reference. Amrits capable of far better than cheerleading, he can have his own cape.

Whatever, I don't really care to argue that much about it. Maybe Amritia himself should just answer you.

I'm sure he'd agree with that post.

Hi,

Bogbrush- Sorry if you don't think I posted with enough detail explaining myself, I was on the phone and don't really like typing so much on that device.
For the record I totally agree with Socal was saying, and if you don't then that's your call.
For any player I think it would be far more annoying to have all time greats who are the same age as you, compared to younger than you.
For example if you could give Djokovic the choice now to choose between Murray getting injured and Fedal retiring next month, with the catch that after 4 years Tomic is going to focus and improve his shots to become one of the greatest players in the game, Djokovic would take that deal to the current situation.

That was what Socal was saying, it did not contradict you astute post on your later competitors having an advantage in terms of not having to adapt at that current time.
Feel free to agree/disagree with my opinion.

Lags, I think perhaps you should have a bit more respect for other types of opinion rather than starting the debate by researching some stats... and then quickly backtracking and calling the whole idea silly.
My underlying point is that some slams may be harder than others in terms of difficulty. Normally the biggest threat comes from world class players at the top of the game.
If I may I will use the example in the above post again: If Murray injures his wrist again and Fedal retire, for Djokovic in my eyes winning a slam will become easier than it was previously.
Of course some may disagree, and that's their opinion.

However, rather than addressing points that you don't like, or you don't agree with, as silly; perhaps you could acknowledge that others may have a different opinion to you.

Of course if you could chose IMBL would you rather have all your strong rivals be your age, or would you rather prefer like federer to have his 3 toughest rivals be 5 and 6 years younger than you. As you said and BB alluded to it is an advantage to be the younger dog chasing the old dog. But if the old dog is guaranteed of having 5 or 6 years of prime to beat up on the younger players and to rack up trophies and glories, what is wrong with that scenario for the older legend. Federer in fact had optimal timing, He couldn't have picked a better time right between Sampras and Agassi and then Djoko, murray, and Nadal. He is the only player who doesn't have a rival his own age, that is partly because of how great he is, but it is also doesn't reflect very highly on the players he came up with. Safin could have been but chose not to, Hewitt and Roddick maximized their lesser talents. None rose up to challenge Federer until a 17 year old spaniard said you may be the king but I am going to take it from you.

socal1976 wrote:Of course if you could chose IMBL would you rather have all your strong rivals be your age, or would you rather prefer like federer to have his 3 toughest rivals be 5 and 6 years younger than you. As you said and BB alluded to it is an advantage to be the younger dog chasing the old dog. But if the old dog is guaranteed of having 5 or 6 years of prime to beat up on the younger players and to rack up trophies and glories, what is wrong with that scenario for the older legend. Federer in fact had optimal timing, He couldn't have picked a better time right between Sampras and Agassi and then Djoko, Fed, and Nadal. He is the only player who doesn't have a rival his own age, that is partly because of how great he is, but it is also doesn't reflect very highly on the players he came up with. Safin could have been but chose not to, Hewitt and Roddick maximized their lesser talents. None rose up to challenge Federer until a 17 year old spaniard said you may be the king but I am going to take it from you.

I think BB made a fair point:

-Your rivals later on may have an advantage over you, as you are the one 'being hunted'; as well as the fact that they are more likely to be suited to the conditions at the time which mean the onus would be on the top player to adapt.

-However as I have expanded, my point is taking into account another variable, this and is is slightly different from what Bogbrush is saying.
I think what is telling is that that even by the end of 2007 I believe Djokovic and Nadal were already world number 2 and 3, despite being very young and not at their prime. This would indicate to me that as you said: Federer really never had a cutting edge world class rival who was his own age, one who could have stemmed Fed's slam show slightly, as they would have shared more slams.
That's what my point, and one you have also made, is trying to say; let me make this clear this is different from Bogbrush's first point.

Yes but those 3 rivals have to deal with the goat and with each other so I don't see it as that big an advantage. It is an advantage if you are the only player that could threaten federer. But Nadal, Djoko, and Murray don't just have the luxury of worrying about Federer. They have to worry about each other as well. Something that in his peak years federer never had, at most he had to fear Nadal and that was it.

So in federer's case I can't think of better timing for federer than to come up when Pete and Andre are old and leaving and to have a few years of prime playing in a down era for top notch championship competition.

socal1976 wrote:Yes but those 3 rivals have to deal with the goat and with each other so I don't see it as that big an advantage. It is an advantage if you are the only player that could threaten federer. But Nadal, Djoko, and Murray don't just have the luxury of worrying about Federer. They have to worry about each other as well. Something that in his peak years federer never had, at most he had to fear Nadal and that was it.

Yes, and to add to that Nadal when he was younger was only really a threat in the clay slams.

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Yes but those 3 rivals have to deal with the goat and with each other so I don't see it as that big an advantage. It is an advantage if you are the only player that could threaten federer. But Nadal, Djoko, and Murray don't just have the luxury of worrying about Federer. They have to worry about each other as well. Something that in his peak years federer never had, at most he had to fear Nadal and that was it.

Yes, and to add to that Nadal when he was younger was only really a threat in the clay slams.

And also once he got older as well

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Yes but those 3 rivals have to deal with the goat and with each other so I don't see it as that big an advantage. It is an advantage if you are the only player that could threaten federer. But Nadal, Djoko, and Murray don't just have the luxury of worrying about Federer. They have to worry about each other as well. Something that in his peak years federer never had, at most he had to fear Nadal and that was it.

Yes, and to add to that Nadal when he was younger was only really a threat in the clay slams.

None of these things that we are saying are even controversial, but because it cuts against the party line of the majority of the fans of federer online, and the man has earned a lot of fans; now all of sudden these obvious statements become some kind of denigration of federer or wumming.

It's very similar to the 'weak era of clay' argument from about 2003 onwards.

Socal

All I would say is that if people to counter what I am saying, then I would hope they would address my points rather than aiming their posts at me.

Julius, I think we have had a lack of clay court specialists for a long time now in the top of the game.
As a Nadal fan though, I think for him in particular his biggest threat would not lie with the traditional clay courter, even on clay I think players like Rosol and Soderling who may actually prefer hard courts would be a bigger threat to Nadal.

Exactly, IMBL usually when you actually look at the facts of the argument it makes sense, but people take any denial of any part of federer's legacy to be the equivalent of heresy.

socal1976 wrote:Exactly, IMBL usually when you actually look at the facts of the argument it makes sense, but people take any denial of any part of federer's legacy to be the equivalent of heresy.

Depends on the motive

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Exactly, IMBL usually when you actually look at the facts of the argument it makes sense, but people take any denial of any part of federer's legacy to be the equivalent of heresy.

Depends on the motive

I just call them like i see them, just because I am not a federer fan and criticize some things doesn't mean that my points are not valid. In fact I find them a needed counter-balance to the wildly one side and fawning coverage of the man in general. There is one outpost of objectivity that tennis readers can rely on as small a voice as it might be.

socal1976 wrote:...........
........There is one outpost of objectivity that tennis readers can rely on as small a voice as it might be.

Well I think that's a great service you're providing socal, one which is - without doubt - widely appreciated, surely.

Not only do we see somewhat excessive fawning from all those Federer fans, but all too often we then turn the page to witness that very same love (indeed a love that knows no bounds) and devotion, given selflessly to Rafa and Novak.

But without your sense of detachment and balance this favouritism for the three multi-Slammers could so easily all get out of hand .........

socal1976 wrote:Yes but those 3 rivals have to deal with the goat and with each other so I don't see it as that big an advantage. It is an advantage if you are the only player that could threaten federer. But Nadal, Djoko, and Murray don't just have the luxury of worrying about Federer. They have to worry about each other as well. Something that in his peak years federer never had, at most he had to fear Nadal and that was it.

Ha! Even when you have amrit telling you you've missed the point you can't help yourself from trying to start a weak era argument. My post was about the generic advantage the younger successors have over the older champion. You can only talk, directly or indirectly, about how wonderful Djokovic is.

Honestly, I think in the last couple of days you've lost it, and a lot of posters have noticed.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Yes but those 3 rivals have to deal with the goat and with each other so I don't see it as that big an advantage. It is an advantage if you are the only player that could threaten federer. But Nadal, Djoko, and Murray don't just have the luxury of worrying about Federer. They have to worry about each other as well. Something that in his peak years federer never had, at most he had to fear Nadal and that was it.

Ha! Even when you have amrit telling you you've missed the point you can't help yourself from trying to start a weak era argument. My post was about the generic advantage the younger successors have over the older champion. You can only talk, directly or indirectly, about how wonderful Djokovic is.

Honestly, I think in the last couple of days you've lost it, and a lot of posters have noticed.

He didn't miss the point, he made a new one about a different aspect

No, he responded to my post on an entirely different subject. I call that missing the point. Lets be charitable and say he did it deliberately shall we?

It's just a symptom of obsession over Djokovic's place in the game, like the laughable attempt on the other thread to denigrate Chang as in the same bracket as Ferrer.

Bogbrush, did you read my post at 4:03pm.
Did you agree/disagree with it. I assume you'll probably disagree with it, and if so, why?

Do you think my point is unfair?

Your point is wrong, he had such rivals who he wiped out. He made them look poor simply because at his peak, as a young player nobody had prepared their game to aim at, he was irresistible.

bogbrush wrote:Your point is wrong, he had such rivals who he wiped out. He made them look poor simply because at his peak, as a young player nobody had prepared their game to aim at, he was irresistible.

Fair enough if you think that

I totally disagree, apart from Roddick and a young Nadal, Federer did not have a consistent performer in slams to play against 2004-2007.
Anyway that's for another thread.

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.

Should I really trust (the Government a la Pink Floyd) or a self-admitted liar, like Agassi?

Yes but lies and opinions aren't necessarily connected

bogbrush wrote:Your point is wrong, he had such rivals who he wiped out. He made them look poor simply because at his peak, as a young player nobody had prepared their game to aim at, he was irresistible.

Yes super talented Dave who losted in 10 grandslam finals all to federer is that who we are talking about, which rivals? BB my post was exactly related to IMBL's post if you follow the thread instead of going postal you would have seen how the argument developed along the lines we talked about. Clearly federer's 3 toughest competitors talent wise and age wise have all be younger than him. You see that as a disadvantage, I don't at all.

Your monomania is disturbing.

It Must Be Love wrote:
-However as I have expanded, my point is taking into account another variable, this and is is slightly different from what Bogbrush is saying.
I think what is telling is that that even by the end of 2007 I believe Djokovic and Nadal were already world number 2 and 3, despite being very young and not at their prime. This would indicate to me that as you said: Federer really never had a cutting edge world class rival who was his own age, one who could have stemmed Fed's slam show slightly, as they would have shared more slams.

Completely wrong and baised accusation, by the start of 2008, Fed main rivals are already old enough and retiring, so don't expect them to continue the quest for fight if they would have did then there would have been no difference between Fed and the rest.

Start of 2008 means Fed is already 27, and his close rivals , Hewitt/Safin/Ferrero/Nalbandian are 28-29, Roddick 26 stayed in hunt, Nadal was in hunt, we already see how much Nadal is struggling with increasing age even given there is no break through youngsters coming up, Nole is no way gonna have a successful career like Fed, 2011 is his peak year and I won't be surprised if it ends in 2013 and 2014 onwards he might just be a contender who knows, and what would be his age by then?

Actually if not baised Nadal at his prime years seriously didn't have one great challanger in FO i.e like a clay court world class specialist , so if at all there is a weak era it was in Clay from 2005-2011 , but I know your eyes will not see any negative on your hero's cv but will tie up with Socal to form vague assumptions on your hero's rival.