It must be frightening playing against such server as Mark! And I can't even imagine how one can even dare to believe to beat him and develop strategy in order to achieve it!
@@martinhudecek8886 quite arguably Philipousis had a better game than Roddick. The problem with Mark wasn't talent, the problem with Mark was his own head. Mark was never very interested in playing tennis. Mark was more interested in the lifestyle the money provided. Mark had a full court game, and a serve just as good as Roddick's. Roddick couldn't volley to save his life and had a very weak forehead to the point where Roddick would run around to try to find a backhand first. Mark by comparison had every shot in the book.
@@orestes1984WHAT are you talking about. Roddick had an incredible forehand that got him winners against most players except for federer who was the only one that he didnt bother much with that shot. His backhand was his weak shot. He eventually became a decent volleyer by the tail end of his career but he started getting hurt too often. Andy actually has a slam and many career titles. Mark doesnt lol. 32 titles to 11...having a better game doesnt mean shit if it doesnt result in titles lol...that means he didnt have a full game. The mental factor is also part of the full repertoir. Mark didnt have that, andy did. Andy couldve won MORE if he didnt run into one of the 3 greatest players of ALL TIME
Amazing how titles don’t necessarily reflect totality of talent. Clearly healthy uninjured Mark is far superior by large margins in almost every area. Every area doesn’t matter anymore with the transition to spin blasting.
Another armchair youtuber that doesn't understand tennis - or what makes a player great. Agassi was 6-2 against Flipper - and that wasn't luck. Nor was Mark injured in any of those encounters. LOL. YIkes....
@@datacipherOh I thought this was football. If you are unable to grasp the talent differential, not sure what to say. The technical difficulty of execution level of Mark’s game is extraordinary in comparison. Agassi was one of the greatest basic shot makers of all time, in the same category as Djoker and Nadal, but with a higher level of placement and flattening shot ability. Baseline spin blasters who avoid using the elite skill required for attacking volley game. Assisted by a massive (really ridiculous at the elite level) 107 sq inch frame and 21x23 string pattern vs marks 90 ish sq inch frame and 18x19 ish string pattern Agassi’s racquet is vastly easier to use, adding on to that Agassi’s use of the two handed backhand again vastly easier to use as the game was continually slowed. Technology and two hander made up a large portion of Agassi’s success. Not bashing Agassi, he was awesome, but Mark using a play method and equipment from what was becoming an bygone era, massively more difficult to execute, in and ever changing game that continually distances itself from that olderera, and still being absolutely elite is a feat worthy of recognition. Give Agassi an 85 sq inch racquet and a requirement of a one handed backhand on fast grass at the inception of his tennis career and we may have never head of him. Mark on the other hand would still have been a world beater.
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
That serve is ridiculous.
Most likely the greatest serve ever.
One of lol...Mark's got Andy Roddick's, Marat Safin's, and many others to compete with.@@thebeardedgolfer9819
Agassi for meeeeee❤❤❤❤😊
Thanks for this. Do you have highlights of the match these two played at the Australian Open in 2000? Would like to see it. Thanks.
It must be frightening playing against such server as Mark! And I can't even imagine how one can even dare to believe to beat him and develop strategy in order to achieve it!
Roddick and federer did ok.
@@martinhudecek8886 yes they did but to me it looks impossible and terrifying
@@dinomijatovic3921 I see then. We would be lucky to get his slowest serves back. Even a semi pro woman is a difficult server for many average players
@@martinhudecek8886 quite arguably Philipousis had a better game than Roddick. The problem with Mark wasn't talent, the problem with Mark was his own head. Mark was never very interested in playing tennis. Mark was more interested in the lifestyle the money provided. Mark had a full court game, and a serve just as good as Roddick's. Roddick couldn't volley to save his life and had a very weak forehead to the point where Roddick would run around to try to find a backhand first.
Mark by comparison had every shot in the book.
@@orestes1984WHAT are you talking about. Roddick had an incredible forehand that got him winners against most players except for federer who was the only one that he didnt bother much with that shot. His backhand was his weak shot. He eventually became a decent volleyer by the tail end of his career but he started getting hurt too often. Andy actually has a slam and many career titles. Mark doesnt lol. 32 titles to 11...having a better game doesnt mean shit if it doesnt result in titles lol...that means he didnt have a full game.
The mental factor is also part of the full repertoir. Mark didnt have that, andy did. Andy couldve won MORE if he didnt run into one of the 3 greatest players of ALL TIME
Amazing how titles don’t necessarily reflect totality of talent. Clearly healthy uninjured Mark is far superior by large margins in almost every area. Every area doesn’t matter anymore with the transition to spin blasting.
Another armchair youtuber that doesn't understand tennis - or what makes a player great. Agassi was 6-2 against Flipper - and that wasn't luck. Nor was Mark injured in any of those encounters. LOL. YIkes....
@@datacipherOh I thought this was football. If you are unable to grasp the talent differential, not sure what to say.
The technical difficulty of execution level of Mark’s game is extraordinary in comparison. Agassi was one of the greatest basic shot makers of all time, in the same category as Djoker and Nadal, but with a higher level of placement and flattening shot ability. Baseline spin blasters who avoid using the elite skill required for attacking volley game. Assisted by a massive (really ridiculous at the elite level) 107 sq inch frame and 21x23 string pattern vs marks 90 ish sq inch frame and 18x19 ish string pattern Agassi’s racquet is vastly easier to use, adding on to that Agassi’s use of the two handed backhand again vastly easier to use as the game was continually slowed. Technology and two hander made up a large portion of Agassi’s success.
Not bashing Agassi, he was awesome, but Mark using a play method and equipment from what was becoming an bygone era, massively more difficult to execute, in and ever changing game that continually distances itself from that olderera, and still being absolutely elite is a feat worthy of recognition.
Give Agassi an 85 sq inch racquet and a requirement of a one handed backhand on fast grass at the inception of his tennis career and we may have never head of him. Mark on the other hand would still have been a world beater.