25 thoughts on “Us Open 2005.R.Federer vs A.Agassi.Highlights”
I also think he should stop the aussie and French and their warm ups and focus on indoor and hard court and all grass tournaments
Seeing roger play in his prime years of 2003-2009 is great he has slowed down since 2010 and lost some power I hope he can come back and play another year and rack some titles and maybe another wimbledon or us open
At 0:46-0:49, “It’s not easy, okay, but he does make it look easy”. Federer’s career summed up in one sentence.
That was Agassi’s prime
because he managed to beat 35 year old agassi in 4 sets?
The rallies in these matches were exciting to watch. The guys were crushing the ball, and going for it. A lot more enjoyable than the long grind-it-out rallies that we see in a Djokovic-Murray match.
You have to wonder if he could have only held on the break in the third, or even if he had won the tiebreak, would he have been able to have the confidence and adrenaline to carry him to win the fourth or fifth.
You could see it was a huge letdown when he lost the third set. And he had nothing left after that.
Wallace’s description of the winner is spot on, but Agassi didn’t seem to play as well in that rally as DFW makes out. And no way was there only a ‘two inch pipe’ of space to hit the ball into, that’s some hyperbolic literary bull shit!
credit to agassi, he went toe to toe with a young federer for 3 sets at 35 years old, he just ran out of steam in the 4th set which was inevitable…
this roger was unbeattable
Really? I think most tennis historians would give that title to Laver.
wow replying to a comment 6 months ago with that kind of anger. What’s wrong with you? Asshole
If so, then Wallace got the description completely wrong. The only thing that matches is McEnroe’s comment. I think McEnroe must have used the line earlier, on a point not included in this highlight package, and reused it here.
4:10 Fed’s BH used to be better
and that what i was talking about.. its true now he is a step slower. but the way he plays would have given him bigger advantage against baseliners , the faster the courts the less time his opponent has to react .. and since you said it yourself.. federer was faster back then.. that means he would have won more than what he already did, the reason roger got slower [beside age] is the slow down of the courts that made him make changes to his play style. want a proof ? his results at WTF ..
if slow courts help federer, one wonders why he won 7 Wimbledons and only 1 French Open. Faster is better for him – he’s said it was a pity they slowed Wimbledon down
and a prior meth head
Not true, it gives his opponents more time…tahts were you have to look at because Fed’s playstyle is to aim for the winners as fast as he can.
And as a offensive player, the other would have to defend which would have been harder.
So it goes both ways. But I think it would benefit Fed more( the fast courts) because he is the attacker most of the time.
uhmm…maybe because he was doping like he admitted he did.
And I think Tommy Haas, also 35 now, is moving better than him
he’d have fewer majors, federers movement is not as good now so if the courts were still quick most of the time he’d lose..the slower courts help federer stay in the match as it gives him time to move into position to hit the ball..despite his inferior movement, Federer was faster back then.
How agassi could play this good at 35 is beyond me
Umm you do realise that agassi is fucking 35 years old you cunt
Andre was not moving well in this match, he was relying on pure ball striking in the first three sets. In the fourth he could barely run. Still troubled more a peak Federer than a 32-year-old Sampras in the 2002 final.
Again.. i think he would have won more grand slams , and masters if the courts were faster than what they are now.. speculative or not, thats why i used [makes you wonder, if , and i think] in my comments, because its IF and its what i think.. again..lol
Again, that’s hard to say. As he pointed out, slow courts protect your top 4 players. Faster courts don’t. Whether he would or wouldn’t is all speculative.
I also think he should stop the aussie and French and their warm ups and focus on indoor and hard court and all grass tournaments
Seeing roger play in his prime years of 2003-2009 is great he has slowed down since 2010 and lost some power I hope he can come back and play another year and rack some titles and maybe another wimbledon or us open
At 0:46-0:49, “It’s not easy, okay, but he does make it look easy”. Federer’s career summed up in one sentence.
That was Agassi’s prime
because he managed to beat 35 year old agassi in 4 sets?
The rallies in these matches were exciting to watch. The guys were crushing the ball, and going for it. A lot more enjoyable than the long grind-it-out rallies that we see in a Djokovic-Murray match.
You have to wonder if he could have only held on the break in the third, or even if he had won the tiebreak, would he have been able to have the confidence and adrenaline to carry him to win the fourth or fifth.
You could see it was a huge letdown when he lost the third set. And he had nothing left after that.
Wallace’s description of the winner is spot on, but Agassi didn’t seem to play as well in that rally as DFW makes out. And no way was there only a ‘two inch pipe’ of space to hit the ball into, that’s some hyperbolic literary bull shit!
credit to agassi, he went toe to toe with a young federer for 3 sets at 35 years old, he just ran out of steam in the 4th set which was inevitable…
this roger was unbeattable
Really? I think most tennis historians would give that title to Laver.
wow replying to a comment 6 months ago with that kind of anger. What’s wrong with you? Asshole
If so, then Wallace got the description completely wrong. The only thing that matches is McEnroe’s comment. I think McEnroe must have used the line earlier, on a point not included in this highlight package, and reused it here.
4:10 Fed’s BH used to be better
and that what i was talking about.. its true now he is a step slower. but the way he plays would have given him bigger advantage against baseliners , the faster the courts the less time his opponent has to react .. and since you said it yourself.. federer was faster back then.. that means he would have won more than what he already did, the reason roger got slower [beside age] is the slow down of the courts that made him make changes to his play style. want a proof ? his results at WTF ..
if slow courts help federer, one wonders why he won 7 Wimbledons and only 1 French Open. Faster is better for him – he’s said it was a pity they slowed Wimbledon down
and a prior meth head
Not true, it gives his opponents more time…tahts were you have to look at because Fed’s playstyle is to aim for the winners as fast as he can.
And as a offensive player, the other would have to defend which would have been harder.
So it goes both ways. But I think it would benefit Fed more( the fast courts) because he is the attacker most of the time.
uhmm…maybe because he was doping like he admitted he did.
And I think Tommy Haas, also 35 now, is moving better than him
he’d have fewer majors, federers movement is not as good now so if the courts were still quick most of the time he’d lose..the slower courts help federer stay in the match as it gives him time to move into position to hit the ball..despite his inferior movement, Federer was faster back then.
How agassi could play this good at 35 is beyond me
Umm you do realise that agassi is fucking 35 years old you cunt
Andre was not moving well in this match, he was relying on pure ball striking in the first three sets. In the fourth he could barely run. Still troubled more a peak Federer than a 32-year-old Sampras in the 2002 final.
Again.. i think he would have won more grand slams , and masters if the courts were faster than what they are now.. speculative or not, thats why i used [makes you wonder, if , and i think] in my comments, because its IF and its what i think.. again..lol
Again, that’s hard to say. As he pointed out, slow courts protect your top 4 players. Faster courts don’t. Whether he would or wouldn’t is all speculative.