What an absolutely stunning match between Blake and Agassi !!!!!!!!!!!!
Men's tennis is so full of incredibles....And Agassi so deserves his due for the unbelievable fighter he is, even I am going to give it to him...If he can do to Federer what he did to Blake, we can expect one of the greatest US Open finals in history....
I am hoping that happens after we see another phenomenon between David and Roger tomorrow...Andy's mojo loss is now beginning to make sense...Neither he nor little Lleyton can give Roger anything to worry about...But the 35-year old veteran just might...
Can't wait...
Egotism ....a lifelong romance
Thursday, September 08, 2005
The Incredibles!
Posted by Karthika at Thursday, September 08, 2005
Labels: Keeping the Eye on the ball
13 comments:
Go Agassi.
I still believe no one has been able to match his all-round game. Throw him on any surface, and he looks equally at ease. Apart from being the best returner in the history of the sport (and that too 'consistently' the best), he can unfurl the widest array of shots I have ever seen of a player, at any point in the match. His hunger and stamina does not seem to diminish even at 35, and I for that matter, cannot believe that he has won a meagre 8 slams in his career - as strange as it may sound.
Sunday's encounter should be a much-awaited one after a long time.
I want to agree with you and would have, if not for last night. It's not that David was playing bad, infact he was returning so well, he'd have put agassi to shame. But Roger instantly raised the level of his game and when I blinked and looked up he was up two sets and leading 5-0 in the third... it's almost like an on-off switch!
I know Nalbandian is no Agassi (not even close), but if you've noticed, Roger seems to dispose off the Rochuses and the Roddicks out there with an uncanny similarity..
I'm hoping for a great match too, I want to see Roger stretched to his limit, but sorry pal, it seems increasingly like he doesnt have one...
did i hear you say "the widest array of shots I have ever seen of any player" ???
ok, somewhere b/w being besotted with federer and complimenting agassi, i missed that...
here's what roger's got: powerful ace (albeit rare), superb volley, backhand overhead (for crying out loud!), fearsome groundstroke, backhand passing shot/slice, and a forehand in every possible spin and angle (things we never saw till roger came along).
and if all that were not enough, he is one of the best returners in the game (that's how he beat Pete in his prime). I think the only shot I havent seen him make too often is the drop shot.
AND he makes it all look so easy--- it's like all he needs to do is keep his eye on the ball and it goes flying in all directions..
with all due respect to Andre and your adoration of him, he doesn't even come close..in fact, noone does.
Whatchoo talk about, willis?
It was in Wimbledon 2001, 4th Round.
The score was:
7-6(7), 5-7, 6-4, 6-7(2), 7-5
Five setter - with a 30 year old Sampras.Federer must have been like 19.
You can hardly call that Sampras at his 'prime'.
The decline had already begun for Pistol Pete,right from the US Open Final in 2000.
However, looks like Federer really does adjust strategies in the middle of the match. I see that just like Sampras, he can create different spins and angles without any appreciable change in the racket head position.
Most interesting.
one thing not to forget is the power.
Sampras had the three things
needed in any sport....the touch,
the speed and the power.
Plus the best second serve...kicking or on the body.
30 year old Sampras was hardly in His prime.
Becker was asked in the Wimbledon
to compare Sampras and Federer having played both(unlike us)
and he chose Sampras.
I probably enjoyed only a dozen Pete Sampras matches of the hundreds he may have played - not because of an anti-Sampras xenophobia - but simply because his game rarely seemed attractive and pleasing to the eyes. He was just "not up there" in my terms, even though he swept pretty much everything that came his way. In fact, I would rather watch Agassi losing a match, than watching Sampras winning one - no matter how well Sampras played.
I cannot make a judgement on Federer, as I haven't even seen one full-length Federer tennis match yet - but the little I have seen he does seem a brilliant all-round player.
Honestly, although I haven't seen much of Nalbandian either, why don't we wait a few years before we even start comparing him with the likes of Agassi. If he can still produce the same breathtaking returns as Agassi does year-in and year-out, I'll be happy to hand over the baton to him. And has he actually 'won' anything yet - slams, I mean?
By "the widest array of shots", I also meant - "on all surfaces". I am curious to see how Federer unleashes his armoury in the French Open, in the coming years. The beauty of Agassi's game - no matter where, when, and whom he is playing - is in his style. He seems to adapt to any environment with relatively no change in his style and game plans. I guess match tactics will keep fluctuating, but if you look at his overall tennis abilities, he has consistently played the same level of top quality tennis against every other opponent, no matter what their individual styles have been, and has been very successful.
Finally, since I am hardly your ardent and passionate tennis fan, may the best player win on Sunday. My heart says Agassi...actually even my mind says it will be Agassi - one last time, pliz.
It's a wonder anyone is still trying to compare Agassi with Federer. I am not one to jump on a praisathon bandwagon like the commentators for the US open are doing with Federer, but without doubt he is the best player I have seen play tennis. Before Wimbledon 2004, when he was only one of the current best rather than the icon he is now, I thought it was just a case of the pundits glorifying the new kid on the block, much like they do with Roddick. But he has really come along amazingly in the last couple of years, and I can now see what Johnny Mac, et al. were seeing in him so long ago. I agree with what Patrick MacEnroe said the other day on ESPN: He is without doubt the best to have ever played, but it remains to be seen whether he can become the greatest. To do that he will have to beat Sampras' grand slam record and win on clay.
And to answer Atool, who's living in a 14er bubble it seems :o ...he has won 5 slams...3 consecutive Wimbledons...which is all that matters after all. Though I must admit, he is playing pretty mediocre in this US open, which has showcased some of the best Grand Slam tennis I have seen in a long time.
fierysinews,
point well taken on sampras not being in his prime, but when I am talkin about Roger, a little exaggeration is always in order :) But lemme try and justify my statement a li’l bit; true, Sampras had lost that halo around his head by the time federer beat him at the big W, but even so, IMO, Sampras practically retired “in his prime”. He still had a few grand slams in him when he left in all his glory. I look at his 2000-01 slump as nothing more than a brief hiatus, cos he sure didn’t seem over the hill in the ’02 US open final against Agassi.
And yeah, Roger is certainly the most innovative player that ever lived and he seems to mentally go through the shots before he actually makes them. This was most obvious in the Andy-Roger W-final last year when Roger came back after the rain delay, W/O a coach and completely turned his game around. Andy went running to his coach for advice every break, but still couldn’t pull it off…
As for Sharapova, I realize I’m dealing with a buncha guys that simply cannot think beyond her face, but all she seems to have is a good serve and a lot of power and bravo, her 2 extra inches should help her there; but I believe she needs to have something grow inside as well ;) like you say, she doesn’t play a mind game; she is not very different from the Williams sisters (only in that regard; I grant that she is the most good looking woman on the tour; and if that is what we are spossed to be lookin for, all the girls should be rooting for Mario Ancic…)
IMO, Clijsters and Justine Henin are the only good things about women’s tennis; and I’m glad Kim is finally goin to win her first slam :) She's such a fighter; I have loved her since her french open clash with capriati where she lost 10-12 in the decider...one of the few Rolland Garros matches that I actually loved..
Sid, we actually agree on something!!
One, that Atool is living inside his 14-er bubble and two, that Roger is the best tennis player in history :)
Atool, your 14-er bubble is all good, but let me burst the one about Agassi --- not a chance that he can beat Federer, unless Roger encounters darth vader or somethin...but this is as good a full-length match of roger's to watch as any... though i should warn you that it might be uneventful (he lost in straight sets to Roger at the Oz open).
Roger played an awesome match against Nadal at Rolland Garros and he certainly has the game to win there (since he can play both slow and fast --- he's a spectacular baseliner and he net-rushes at Wimbledon almost as well as Pete/Tim) he's great at EVERY surface. it's not for nothin that people are calling him the best player ever, including mcenroe.
Sid, nobody has tested Roger so far at the US open. he did raise his level when he was playing nalbandian. seems to me like he doesnt show his magic till he has to. i just hope someone can test him enough for him to do that ...
atul, nalbandian hasnt won a single slam and I dont think he ever will, but he's one of the best baseliners out there, and I dont know how he does it but he tests almost every top player and his final week slam matches (except the one against Roger yesterday ;)) are usually epic five setters. you have to see it to believe it...
I don't know why anything that mentions Agassi needs to have the number 35 in it. It just gets irritating after a while; I guess like they keep a count of unforced errors, forhand wins and other stats, they should also write how many times they mentioned Agassi's age ?How about you write your age in every blog sentence you put up ?
simple reason: what andre is doing is not incredible. it is just incredible considering his age..
I disagree. I think Pete Sampras retired 'on a high' and that was a great place to stop.
The younger players were running around, and I believe Sampras would not have won a 15th grand slam - he wasn't as fast as he used to be and speed is a necessary element of any serve and volley style of play. Just ask Edberg :-).
Sampras did not look over the hill simply because, he is a far better player than Agassi is. Rather Agassi could seldom find a way to negate Sampras's strengths: His Serve, Net Play and that awesome god-gifted running forehand.
He simply couldn't pass Sampras at the net because Sampras has a great reach, and forget ever trying to play an offensive lob over him - he has his trademark Slam Dunk Smash.
In the end I will forever remember Sampras by his CLASSIC style of play and his almost inhuman ability to find that extra gear when looking down the barrel.
Its hard when people dont jump on your bandwagon and praise you to the skies above. Sampras faced that with the media calling him a bulldog, boring etc and yet managed to get 14 slams.
Post a Comment