PDA

View Full Version : Pete versus Andrei Was there a real rivalry?


FedSampras
05-12-2007, 07:29 AM
I don't think there really was any REAL rivalry between Pete and Andrei especially if you compare what they have accomplished in their careers. I think that theso called rivalry was all ATP and Media hype to create more interest for the sport of tennis. The truth was it was total domination by Pistol Pete.

Any thoughts?

kingdaddy41788
05-12-2007, 07:33 AM
Actually, his name is spelled Andre (assuming you're talking about Agassi and not Pavel). Clearly, you don't know what you're talking about. Agassi accomplished a lot (Career Grand Slam and a gold medal). No more talking for you.

Mad iX
05-12-2007, 07:34 AM
Domination? Maybe in grand slam finals.
All their matches were lots of fun to watch. They had contrasting styles and brought out the best in each other when they were at their peaks.

ATPballkid
05-12-2007, 08:00 AM
Agassi accomplished a lot (Career Grand Slam and a gold medal). No more talking for you.

ANSWER: Lack of dominance.

Roy Emerson and Rod Laver have won each of the Grand Slam events twice already ... but even their own Australian Davis Cup Captain, Harry Hopman, agreed with Lance Tingay and Allison Danzig in proclaiming Bill Tilden (who never won a French and never even played the Australian National Championships) as their unanimous #1 player of the first 100 years of tennis (1877-1977) ahead of Emerson and Laver.

Tilden had dominance on his side ... 6 consecutive years at #1 in the years 1920-1925 (matched only by Pete Sampras in 1993-1998 and Tilden is the only man to have won 10 singles titles from Wimbledon and the U.S. National Championships until Pete Sampras came along and won 12 singles titles from these 2 huge and historic events.

FedSampras
05-12-2007, 08:06 AM
Actually, his name is spelled Andre (assuming you're talking about Agassi and not Pavel). Clearly, you don't know what you're talking about. Agassi accomplished a lot (Career Grand Slam and a gold medal). No more talking for you.


Even if Andrei Agassi won his second French and Wimbledon, what Andrei failed at miserably was consistency over the period of a career to be considered in the same league as Pete Sampras.

Fact: Andrei has longevity because of the lengthy breaks he took during his career(s). What other All-time great can you name that was reduced to playing a challenger event in an attempt to come back from a world ranking in the 140's? Andrei's comeback was a testament to his courage, but he never fulfilled his potential, which is tragic in my opinion. Agassi NEVER seriously challenged Sampras' dominance throughout his career.

FedSampras
05-12-2007, 08:07 AM
Tilden had dominance on his side ... 6 consecutive years at #1 in the years 1920-1925 (matched only by Pete Sampras in 1993-1998 and Tilden is the only man to have won 10 singles titles from Wimbledon and the U.S. National Championships until Pete Sampras came along and won 12 singles titles from these 2 huge and historic events.

Absolutely correct. It is Sampras' dominance year after year that history will reward him with being one of the very best players all-time.:)

Vision84
05-12-2007, 08:20 AM
His name is Andre!

djones
05-12-2007, 08:30 AM
Pjotr - Andrei, I believe the final score was 20-14 for Pjotr, but really most of those matches where a real fight on all surfaces, taking place mostly in the semis and finals, making it a true rivalry in my opinion.

illkhiboy
05-12-2007, 10:41 AM
Even if Andrei Agassi won his second French and Wimbledon, what Andrei failed at miserably was consistency over the period of a career to be considered in the same league as Pete Sampras.

Fact: Andrei has longevity because of the lengthy breaks he took during his career(s). What other All-time great can you name that was reduced to playing a challenger event in an attempt to come back from a world ranking in the 140's? Andrei's comeback was a testament to his courage, but he never fulfilled his potential, which is tragic in my opinion. Agassi NEVER seriously challenged Sampras' dominance throughout his career.

What breaks did Andre have? He had a lengthy one in 1997 but that's it. He had a couple other breaks when he was injured, but they were not all that long. He got injured and missed about 2 months of tennis in 1995, and lost his ranking. And he was forced to take a few months off in 1993 because of a wrist injury. Apart from that he missed a couple Wimbledons and a few Australians because he did not want to go there. But those were not long breaks. So he missed about 2 years of tennis. Big deal, he still finished in 2006 so perhaps otherwise he would have finished in 2004. That is still quite a bit of longetivity for a man who turned pro in 1986 and made the semis at the US Open in 1998.

kingdaddy41788
05-12-2007, 10:55 AM
Even if Andrei Agassi won his second French and Wimbledon, what Andrei failed at miserably was consistency over the period of a career to be considered in the same league as Pete Sampras.

Fact: Andrei has longevity because of the lengthy breaks he took during his career(s). What other All-time great can you name that was reduced to playing a challenger event in an attempt to come back from a world ranking in the 140's? Andrei's comeback was a testament to his courage, but he never fulfilled his potential, which is tragic in my opinion. Agassi NEVER seriously challenged Sampras' dominance throughout his career.

1. Don't state things as fact that are speculation.
2. It's interesting that you addressed all of my post except for the part about you not even knowing how to spell Andre's name.
3. They had a 20-14 record. Not exactly a blowout.

It was a real rivalry. Deal with it.

CyBorg
05-12-2007, 11:00 AM
Sampras/Medvedev was spellbinding tennis!

noeledmonds
05-12-2007, 11:12 AM
Are we referring to Andrei Medvedev or Andre Agassi?

I will presume Agassi as others have.

Look at the rivalry first in terms of the slams. Agassi won all matches at the AO and FO, Sampras won all matches at Wimbledon and USO. Of course Sampras will hold the H2H lead when they played a lot more on the decoturf courts of the USO than at the other grand slams. Serve and Volley players have always prefered the low bouncing ball on the decoturf courts so it should be expected that Sampras would win. Agassi was arguably the best AO player since the introduction of the rebound ace in 1988. Agassi beat Sampras in the final in 1995 and the semi-final in 2000. Agassi holds an open-era record of 4 titles in Australia. As for the FO, they only met once (mainly due to Sampras's inconsistant performances on the red dirt) however Agassi won their encounter in straight sets.

Secondly in Master Series their rivalry is in Agassi's favour. Agassi won 3 finals compared to Sampras's 2. Agassi also won more Master Series encounters.

Sampras never won more than 4 consecutive matches against Agassi, while Agassi achieved 3 consecutive match wins against Sampras. Agassi won matches against Sampras in straight sets on clay, hard court and on carpet. In finals Agassi trails Sampras narrowly 7 wins to Sampras's 9. This was a rivalry that ultimately Sampras won, but it would be very foolish to describe this as domination.

kingdaddy41788
05-12-2007, 11:23 AM
Thank you noeledmonds

Eviscerator
05-12-2007, 11:25 AM
ANSWER: Lack of dominance.

Roy Emerson and Rod Laver have won each of the Grand Slam events twice already ... but even their own Australian Davis Cup Captain, Harry Hopman, agreed with Lance Tingay and Allison Danzig in proclaiming Bill Tilden (who never won a French and never even played the Australian National Championships) as their unanimous #1 player of the first 100 years of tennis (1877-1977) ahead of Emerson and Laver.

Tilden had dominance on his side ... 6 consecutive years at #1 in the years 1920-1925 (matched only by Pete Sampras in 1993-1998 and Tilden is the only man to have won 10 singles titles from Wimbledon and the U.S. National Championships until Pete Sampras came along and won 12 singles titles from these 2 huge and historic events.

:roll:

Your post has what to do with the topic :confused:

Kobble
05-12-2007, 12:38 PM
Pete dominated the fast courts and Agassi dominated the slow courts. It was a rivalry. Look up the head-to-head and the surfaces.

ATPballkid
05-12-2007, 12:48 PM
That is still quite a bit of longetivity for a man who turned pro in 1986 and made the semis at the US Open in 1998.

A little bit of success in several different areas ... winning 1 or 2 times or finishing once at #1 in a 20 year career but never dominating anywhere important and having a losing record against the other 3 American players who ranked #1 at some point during the 1990s decade -- Jim Courier, Ivan Lendl and Pete Sampras.

ATPballkid
05-12-2007, 12:56 PM
Pete dominated the fast courts and Agassi dominated the slow courts. It was a rivalry. Look up the head-to-head and the surfaces.

If winning didn't matter in sports, Andre Agassi might be as good as Pete Sampras.

Chadwixx
05-12-2007, 01:19 PM
Andre is no where close to pete on the court much like pete is no where close to agassi off the court.

If agassi played in the beginning the way he played the last 3-4 years of his career the head to head would have been much different.

ATPballkid
05-12-2007, 01:21 PM
:roll:

Your post has what to do with the topic :confused:

A guy goes to college and scopes out the women on campus .. there are 2 girls who are just drop dead gorgeous and far more attractive than any other girl on campus.

Sampras laid one of those girls 7 times and the other one 5 times ... he was voted #1 guy on campus 5 times ... he won the school championship 5 times.

Agassi laid the 2 beautiful girls once or twice each but was generally no match for an overall better performer in Pete Sampras ... Agassi was voted #1 guy on campus just once .. he won the school championships just once.

Sampras is a legend.

Agassi is a guy who had a little bit of success in several different areas but never was great at anything meaningful.

jmsx521
05-12-2007, 01:30 PM
Andrei Medvedev had 2 wins over Sampras on clay, and 6 losses.
Andrei Pavel -- never played ATP matches against Sampras.
Andrei Stoliarov vs. Sampras 0-1.
Andrei Chesnokov vs. Sampras 0-2.
Andrei Cherkasov vs. Sampras 2-4.
Andre Agassi vs. Sampras 14-20.

tennisjunkiela
05-12-2007, 01:30 PM
Are we referring to Andrei Medvedev or Andre Agassi?

I will presume Agassi as others have.

Look at the rivalry first in terms of the slams. Agassi won all matches at the AO and FO, Sampras won all matches at Wimbledon and USO. Of course Sampras will hold the H2H lead when they played a lot more on the decoturf courts of the USO than at the other grand slams. Serve and Volley players have always prefered the low bouncing ball on the decoturf courts so it should be expected that Sampras would win. Agassi was arguably the best AO player since the introduction of the rebound ace in 1988. Agassi beat Sampras in the final in 1995 and the semi-final in 2000. Agassi holds an open-era record of 4 titles in Australia. As for the FO, they only met once (mainly due to Sampras's inconsistant performances on the red dirt) however Agassi won their encounter in straight sets.

Secondly in Master Series their rivalry is in Agassi's favour. Agassi won 3 finals compared to Sampras's 2. Agassi also won more Master Series encounters.

Sampras never won more than 4 consecutive matches against Agassi, while Agassi achieved 3 consecutive match wins against Sampras. Agassi won matches against Sampras in straight sets on clay, hard court and on carpet. In finals Agassi trails Sampras narrowly 7 wins to Sampras's 9. This was a rivalry that ultimately Sampras won, but it would be very foolish to describe this as domination.


great analysis!

illkhiboy
05-12-2007, 01:46 PM
A little bit of success in several different areas ... winning 1 or 2 times or finishing once at #1 in a 20 year career but never dominating anywhere important and having a losing record against the other 3 American players who ranked #1 at some point during the 1990s decade -- Jim Courier, Ivan Lendl and Pete Sampras.

Did you even read what I posted? I was talking about his longevity not his record. Besides, if Courier had a 3-0 record against Andre on clay, and a 1-0 record in Andre's best season (1995) for which he gets a lot of credit. However, Agassi would likely have turned that rivalry around had Courier continued to be a top player after 1996. Lendl dominated Agassi when the latter was young and inexperienced and the former an accomplished world beater. Sampras did have a winning record over Agassi but, really, so what? Sampras is one of the greatest players ever.

laurie
05-12-2007, 01:48 PM
I agree with Mr "Deal or No Deal" Noel Edmonds.

It was a great rivalry and very close.

Plus putting numbers aside - when they played eachother they brought Tennis to a new level of play, some of their encounters have quite rightly gone down as classics.

One that springs to mind immediately is the 1999 Mercedes Benz cup final in Los Angeles.

ATPballkid
05-12-2007, 01:49 PM
As for the FO, they only met once (mainly due to Sampras's inconsistant performances on the red dirt) however Agassi won their encounter in straight sets.



Let's put it THIS way ... Sampras is better on clay than Agassi is on grass.

Sampras has won at least 3 singles titles on all 4 court surfaces ... Agassi has never won more than 1 singles title on grass ... and Sampras has not dropped a set vs. Agassi on red clay (in both Europe and North America) in the last 10 years.

Plus, Sampras has all the important records in tennis and Agassi does not even come close .. although Agassi does come close to the record for most singles matches lost at the U.S. Open in tennis history.

Agassi did manage to get in 14 wins in the 34 matches he played against the Pistol .. but Sampras won their last 4 matches in tournament formats (2001 U.S. Open quarters .. 2002 Colonial Bank Challenge at Kooyong on Rebound Ace .. 2002 semis of the U.S. Clay Court Championships (in straight sets) .. and the one that clinched Sampras as the greatest player of the Open Era and probably the greatest player of all time, the 2002 U.S. Open.

slice bh compliment
05-12-2007, 01:51 PM
All that mattered between Pete Sampras and Andrei Chesnokov was that thrilling match on wet, indoor red clay in Moscow in the Davis Cup Final of 1995.

Great job, Pete. Well done! Thank you.

FedSampras
05-12-2007, 01:59 PM
Let's put it THIS way ... Sampras is better on clay than Agassi is on grass.

Sampras has won at least 3 singles titles on all 4 court surfaces ... Agassi has never won more than 1 singles title on grass ... and Sampras has not dropped a set vs. Agassi on red clay (in both Europe and North America) in the last 10 years.

Plus, Sampras has all the important records in tennis and Agassi does not even come close .. although Agassi does come close to the record for most singles matches lost at the U.S. Open in tennis history.

Agassi did manage to get in 14 wins in the 34 matches he played against the Pistol .. but Sampras won their last 4 matches in tournament formats (2001 U.S. Open quarters .. 2002 Colonial Bank Challenge at Kooyong on Rebound Ace .. 2002 semis of the U.S. Clay Court Championships (in straight sets) .. and the one that clinched Sampras as the greatest player of the Open Era and probably the greatest player of all time, the 2002 U.S. Open.

i think that basically says it all. that was one amazing display of greatness by pete. poor agassi just paled and withered away. there was just nothing he could do other than hope he didn't get killed by pete. i think it shows the extreme reverence and awe with which agassi holds pete's supreme mastery. i haven't seen agassi as obviously intimidated by another opponent as he was by pete during that match. there was just nothing agassi could do, and he wasn't playing badly at all. pete was just so much better.

one of my favorites uso matches and one which i have watched on tape several times.

here's something else to ponder: i'd have to go back and see who exactly agassi beat in slam event finals but, other than pete, did he truly beat any consistently great players in those finals or just one trick ponies, some of whom suffered from huge metal letdowns and were prone to choking, like ivo and kafelnikov. it would be interesting to survey the overall quality and consistency of agassi's vanquished opponents as opposed to the quality and consistency of players pete beat regularly in slam event finals. it would seem most of agassi's opponents, with the sole exception of pete, of course, were far from 'consistently' great players.

tricky
05-12-2007, 02:02 PM
So, in other words, Pete and Andre wasn't a great rivalry because Andre was an overrated champion (i.e. won GS finals against chokers and lucky journeymen.) This is the crux of your argument, yes?

illkhiboy
05-12-2007, 02:08 PM
Let's put it THIS way ... Sampras is better on clay than Agassi is on grass.

Sampras has won at least 3 singles titles on all 4 court surfaces ... Agassi has never won more than 1 singles title on grass ... and Sampras has not dropped a set vs. Agassi on red clay (in both Europe and North America) in the last 10 years.

Plus, Sampras has all the important records in tennis and Agassi does not even come close .. although Agassi does come close to the record for most singles matches lost at the U.S. Open in tennis history.

Agassi did manage to get in 14 wins in the 34 matches he played against the Pistol .. but Sampras won their last 4 matches in tournament formats (2001 U.S. Open quarters .. 2002 Colonial Bank Challenge at Kooyong on Rebound Ace .. 2002 semis of the U.S. Clay Court Championships (in straight sets) .. and the one that clinched Sampras as the greatest player of the Open Era and probably the greatest player of all time, the 2002 U.S. Open.


I did not know about the Kooyong match. Of course that was an exhibition and not counted. And after that tournament Agassi skipped the AO because of wrist injury.
Anyway it's pointless to say Sampras did not drop a set against Agassi on red clay in the last 10 years when they only met twice during that period. One of them being in Houston, where the balls favor big servers which is why Andy Roddick made 5 consecutive finals over there winning three. The other meeting, in Monte Carlo, was the first round of the tournament. For Agassi it's always been hard to return to clay after a lay-off which is exactly what he was doing then after skipping most tournaments in 1997.
And Agassi had a stellar record on grass. Pete did not come close to matching Agassi's grass court achievements on clay. Even Greg Resudski won a couple grass court tournaments. So now what, he's better than Tim Henman and Agassi on grass? Sampras made one SF, three QF at Roland Garros. Agassi won Wimbledon, made another final, made SF thrice more, and the QF a couple more times.

tennisjunkiela
05-12-2007, 02:12 PM
Let's put it THIS way ... Sampras is better on clay than Agassi is on grass.

I don't know if I agree with this statement considering Agassi won a grand slam on grass (Wimbledon) and Sampras never even made it to a grand slam final on clay.

Also, because the clay court season is much longer than the grass court season (i don't even know if you can call grass a season since it's only couple of weeks long), obviously Sampras had more opportunities to rack up clay court titles compared to Agassi very short window of opportunity to rack up grass titles every year.

FiveO
05-12-2007, 02:25 PM
I'm also with noeledmonds and laurie.

In addition to what they pointed out realize too that both Sampras and Agassi won on the other's best surface(s) when not having to face each other, translating to just how good each was on everything except for Sampras on red clay. Agassi's Wimbledon and USO titles came when not forced to face Sampras. Sampras's AO titles when not forced to face Agassi.

It was one of the best rivalries the sport has seen even with its interruptions and sabaticals. They met in alot of finals of the biggest events over a wide span of years.

It was close too. Had their USO meetings in finals alone gone AA's way instead of Sampras's, their career h2h would have ended 17-17 with 11 GS titles each. That's not the way it played out however, and Sampras got the better of AA overall but not by that wide a margin. It was the best rivalry of that era and one of the best ever.

kingdaddy41788
05-12-2007, 02:28 PM
Let's put it THIS way ... Sampras is better on clay than Agassi is on grass.

Sampras has won at least 3 singles titles on all 4 court surfaces ... Agassi has never won more than 1 singles title on grass ... and Sampras has not dropped a set vs. Agassi on red clay (in both Europe and North America) in the last 10 years.

Plus, Sampras has all the important records in tennis and Agassi does not even come close .. although Agassi does come close to the record for most singles matches lost at the U.S. Open in tennis history.

Agassi did manage to get in 14 wins in the 34 matches he played against the Pistol .. but Sampras won their last 4 matches in tournament formats (2001 U.S. Open quarters .. 2002 Colonial Bank Challenge at Kooyong on Rebound Ace .. 2002 semis of the U.S. Clay Court Championships (in straight sets) .. and the one that clinched Sampras as the greatest player of the Open Era and probably the greatest player of all time, the 2002 U.S. Open.

This is dumb. Pretty much all of it. They both have different records. One can only lose one match per US Open, so that just means Agassi had a longer career than most, so that's a stupid statistic to try to list.

I don't know if I agree with this statement considering Agassi won a grand slam on grass (Wimbledon) and Sampras never even made it to a grand slam final on clay.

Also, because the clay court season is much longer than the grass court season (i don't even know if you can call grass a season since it's only couple of weeks long), obviously Sampras had more opportunities to rack up clay court titles compared to Agassi very short window of opportunity to rack up grass titles every year.

This is ENTIRELY TRUE. Also, about the previously mentioned U.S. Men's Clay Court tournament in Houston, read the above statement about it. It favors faster players. I thought Sampras trolls would be extinct, but here they are today trying to take away the prestige of Agassi's records. Both were great players. Agassi was more versatile. Sampras was more dominant. Deal with it.

breakfast_of_champions
05-12-2007, 04:59 PM
ANSWER: Lack of dominance.

Roy Emerson and Rod Laver have won each of the Grand Slam events twice already ... but even their own Australian Davis Cup Captain, Harry Hopman, agreed with Lance Tingay and Allison Danzig in proclaiming Bill Tilden (who never won a French and never even played the Australian National Championships) as their unanimous #1 player of the first 100 years of tennis (1877-1977) ahead of Emerson and Laver.

Tilden had dominance on his side ... 6 consecutive years at #1 in the years 1920-1925 (matched only by Pete Sampras in 1993-1998 and Tilden is the only man to have won 10 singles titles from Wimbledon and the U.S. National Championships until Pete Sampras came along and won 12 singles titles from these 2 huge and historic events.

gonzalas was #1 nine years.

ATPballkid
05-12-2007, 11:46 PM
but here they are today trying to take away the prestige of Agassi's records. Both were great players. Agassi was more versatile. Deal with it.

What a joke .. Agassi is better than Sampras .. based on exactly what?

Head to head? Sampras, 20-14.
Total Slams? Sampras, 14-8
Most Wimbledons? Sampras, 7-1
Most U.S. Opens? Sampras, 5-2
Most Tour Championships? Sampras, 5-1
Years ranked #1? Sampras, 6-1
Weeks ranked #1? Sampras, 286-100
Consecutive years in Slam finals Sampras, 11 to 4.
Consecutive years winning Slams Sampras, 8 to 3.

ATPballkid
05-12-2007, 11:56 PM
I don't know if I agree with this statement considering Agassi won a grand slam on grass (Wimbledon) and Sampras never even made it to a grand slam final on clay.

Also, because the clay court season is much longer than the grass court season (i don't even know if you can call grass a season since it's only couple of weeks long), obviously Sampras had more opportunities to rack up clay court titles compared to Agassi very short window of opportunity to rack up grass titles every year.

Pete has the all-time 128 year records in the more important areas.

Sampras came within 2 matches of winning a French .. but Agassi would need dozens and dozens of match wins to have been able to accomplish the all-time records that Pete has in the 128 year history of the sport.

laurie
05-13-2007, 12:01 AM
KingDaddy (I love some of these crazy names!)

You make an interesting point.

Sampras' play was versatile in that he could come into net or stay back and rally - especially in his earlier years on tour up until 1999 when he slowed down after that. Agassi was versatile in that he could truly play on all surfaces and excel - one of the few in recent times.

That alone suggest it was a great rivalry - As usual I really don't understand what the fuss is about. When these arguments start it usually comes down to numbers.

When you chaps are arguing about achievements and numbers of titles won etc, how about focusing on the play, Tennis ability and the way how they came up with amazing shots against eachother in big matches. Like that amazing set point in the 1995 US Open final - probably the greatest point ever played by two men in front of a mezmorized crowd.

Cheers Five0

ATPballkid
05-13-2007, 12:02 AM
Sampras never even made it to a grand slam final on clay.

.

I am sure having the all-time record for most Slams ... for winning the most titles at the bigger Slams ... for winning the record number of times at the Tour Championships ... for having the all-time record for most years ranked #1 in the world ... for having the all-time record for most weeks ranked #1 in the world ... and the other major records that Pete obviously has ... I have a feeling that those helped him through it quite a bit.

FedSampras
05-13-2007, 12:25 AM
while the great rival sampras' dominated like no other, agassi remained in the shade.:)

hoosierbr
05-13-2007, 01:02 AM
It was a great rivalry. Sampras himself said so on many an occasion, praising Andre for making a better player time and again over their careers. Pete even said in some ways they needed each other to achieve what they did, they pushed each other and fought for the top prizes year in and out. Unfortunately for Andre the consistency and dedication weren't always there.

Andre was a lot more productive as they got older, winning a Slam at 32. He even played the US Open final at 35 against the guy that Sampras himself has said will break his Grand Slam record.

Andre does have two things on Pete: 1 French Open and 1 Olympic Gold Medal. My guess is Pete would trade one of his major trophies for one French.

tricky
05-13-2007, 01:24 AM
When these arguments start it usually comes down to numbers.

People are just taking a break from Graf-Seles ;) (Well hey at least that disturbingly circular topic prompts posters to actually be "respectful" to women's tennis.) Next week we should have another Nadal-Borg debate in honour of the upcoming French Open.

ATPballkid
05-13-2007, 01:26 AM
Agassi was arguably the best AO player since the introduction of the rebound ace in 1988. Agassi beat Sampras in the final in 1995 and the semi-final in 2000. Agassi holds an open-era record of 4 titles in Australia.

The problem Agassi has to overcome is that half of his Slams came from the Australian Open and that is attributable to his game being perfectly suited to that slow rubberized court surface.

For the first 98 years of tennis 3 of the 4 biggest events (Grand Slam events) were played on grass. Of course, the 2nd tier national championships were not open to the players from outside their nations until 1925 ... but still, in the years 1925 through 1974 the events which became known in 1933 as the Grand Slam events had 3 on grass courts and only 1 on clay.

Naturally, this suited the greatest players with the best strokes in tennis in those years because their great shots could end points on grass.

Agassi has won just 1 grass court event in his entire career (1992) and has only won 1 French Open on clay.

A valid argument could be made that Sampras might have won up to 20 Grand Slam singles titles if the Australian Open had been played on grass courts instead of the slow rubberized Rebound Ace courts.

By the same token, Sampras might have just won 2 Grand Slam events if 3 of the 4 Grand Slam events today were still played on grass.

Having said that, I think Agassi is the best Rebound Ace player in tennis history.

ATPballkid
05-13-2007, 01:28 AM
Andre does have two things on Pete: 1 French Open and 1 Olympic Gold Medal.

Yep ... in his 20 year career Agassi won 1 French to go with his 1 Wimbledon and his 1 ATP Tour Championship .. and he even finished 1 year ranked #1.

As 3 Dog Night used to sing "One is the loneliest number". Andre Agassi is their poster boy.

ATPballkid
05-13-2007, 01:31 AM
Agassi holds an open-era record of 4 titles in Australia.

No man has dominated at the Australian Open while it has been on Rebound Ace as well as Agassi has.

However, you cannot quite put this ahead of these:

Sampras at Wimbledon (7).
Tilden at the U.S. Championships (7).

Borg at the French Open (6).
Emerson at the Australian Championships (6).

Sampras at the U.S. Open (5).
Connors at the U.S. Open (5).
Borg at Wimbledon (5).

McEnroe at the U.S. Open (4).
Laver at Wimbledon (4).

ATPballkid
05-13-2007, 01:42 AM
So he missed about 2 years of tennis. Big deal, he still finished in 2006 so perhaps otherwise he would have finished in 2004. That is still quite a bit of longetivity for a man who turned pro in 1986 and made the semis at the US Open in 1998.

He just didn't know how to win .. and, at the end of the day, tennis is more of a competition than it is a circus.

laurie
05-13-2007, 01:44 AM
Ahh, still about numbers I see.

Oh well.

ATPballkid
05-13-2007, 01:45 AM
This is dumb. Pretty much all of it. They both have different records.




You wouldn't feel dumb, though ... because you are clueless and you are not wired to recognize just how little you know on here.

noeledmonds
05-13-2007, 06:41 AM
Let's put it THIS way ... Sampras is better on clay than Agassi is on grass.

Sampras has won at least 3 singles titles on all 4 court surfaces ... Agassi has never won more than 1 singles title on grass ... and Sampras has not dropped a set vs. Agassi on red clay (in both Europe and North America) in the last 10 years.

This is completely untrue. Agassi won Wimbledon where as Sampras best performance at the FO ended in a straight sets loss in the semi-final. The clay court season is approximately four times as long as the grass court season (around eight tournaments a year on clay compared to two on grass for the top players). Therefore Sampras should have won four times as many tournaments on clay as Agassi won grass to match his record in terms of number of tournaments won alone. However I consider the major win by Agassi far more significant. Agassi also had another final at Wimbledon, and several semi-finals. Why do you single out the last ten years? Agassi holds a lead over Sampras on clay and won their only slam encounter in straight sets. If Sampras won their most recent encounters then Agassi just dominated more of their early encounters.

Plus, Sampras has all the important records in tennis and Agassi does not even come close .. although Agassi does come close to the record for most singles matches lost at the U.S. Open in tennis history.

Agassi's greatest achivement is a feat that can never be beaten, only matched. This is winning the four grand slams accross the four different surface. This is an achivement that noone has matched to date and we can all see how hard Federer is finding it to master all surfaces. Agassi holds the second most match wins at the USO and at all slams. While Sampras holds many important record in tennis he also holds the glaring gap on the clay, Agassi's record is complete.

Agassi did manage to get in 14 wins in the 34 matches he played against the Pistol .. but Sampras won their last 4 matches in tournament formats (2001 U.S. Open quarters .. 2002 Colonial Bank Challenge at Kooyong on Rebound Ace .. 2002 semis of the U.S. Clay Court Championships (in straight sets) .. and the one that clinched Sampras as the greatest player of the Open Era and probably the greatest player of all time, the 2002 U.S. Open

You can't include exhibition matches, they are irrelevant. Sampras won their last three matches, but Agassi won the three previous to this. The most recent matches are no more significant than previous ones. I agree that Sampras's win at the USO did seal Sampras's place as the arguably the greatest open-era player of all time. However his record is far from perfect and he did not dominate Agassi at all.

drakulie
05-13-2007, 07:15 AM
The truth was it was total domination by Pistol Pete.

Any thoughts?

Thoughts? Sure. My first thought is you don't have the first clue about the history between these two guys.

For starters, having a 9-7 record in finals is hardly "domination".

Secondly, Andre never lost to Sampras at the French or Australian Open.

drakulie
05-13-2007, 07:21 AM
Let's put it THIS way ... Sampras is better on clay than Agassi is on grass.



Hmm, last time we had this discussion Pete hadn't won a French much less reached the final there. On the other hand, Agassi reached the final there 3 times winning once.

Any chance you know something the rest of us don't know>>> like Pete managing to buy himself a French Open trophy?

Azzurri
05-13-2007, 08:01 AM
Let's put it THIS way ... Sampras is better on clay than Agassi is on grass.
Sampras has won at least 3 singles titles on all 4 court surfaces ... Agassi has never won more than 1 singles title on grass ... and Sampras has not dropped a set vs. Agassi on red clay (in both Europe and North America) in the last 10 years.

Plus, Sampras has all the important records in tennis and Agassi does not even come close .. although Agassi does come close to the record for most singles matches lost at the U.S. Open in tennis history.
Agassi did manage to get in 14 wins in the 34 matches he played against the Pistol .. but Sampras won their last 4 matches in tournament formats (2001 U.S. Open quarters .. 2002 Colonial Bank Challenge at Kooyong on Rebound Ace .. 2002 semis of the U.S. Clay Court Championships (in straight sets) .. and the one that clinched Sampras as the greatest player of the Open Era and probably the greatest player of all time, the 2002 U.S. Open.

Not sure I agree with you.

First off: Agassi won ALL 4 grand slams
Agassi has 8 GS and an Olympic gold...not too shabby. You make it seem as if Agassi could not hold a candle to Pete....not true. Andre, for the most part, gave Pete all he could handle.

You are also WAAAAYYY wrong in your first sentence.

Pete's record on clay is 90-54 (.666 winning %)
Andre's record on grass is 50-18 (.777 winning %)

I am not great in math, but it seems ANDRE is BETTER on GRASS than PETE is on CLAY. There is nowhere near the amount of grass tournaments as clay, so titles is not as important as wins on the surface.

Sampras has a 79% career win and Agassi is 76%...pretty close.

I am a huge Sampras fan....but your post showed little respect for Agassi.

noeledmonds
05-13-2007, 08:01 AM
No man has dominated at the Australian Open while it has been on Rebound Ace as well as Agassi has.

However, you cannot quite put this ahead of these:

Sampras at Wimbledon (7).
Tilden at the U.S. Championships (7).

Borg at the French Open (6).
Emerson at the Australian Championships (6).

Sampras at the U.S. Open (5).
Connors at the U.S. Open (5).
Borg at Wimbledon (5).

McEnroe at the U.S. Open (4).
Laver at Wimbledon (4).

You certainly can put it ahead of Emerson's 6 Australian Championships. Emerson won his championships after the vast majority of great players had turned professional. Notice how Emerson went from winning 2 Grand Slams in the last year of ameteur grand slams to none in any of the years after this when professionals and ameteurs competed along side each other. Tilden's achivements are remarkable however tennis was very different back (in style and format) then that I don't really consider the achivements comparable. Laver's 4 Wimbedon titles are more impressive than the number suggests as he won 4 consecutive titles that he entered. He turned professional (in 1963) after having won consecutive 2 titles then won 2 more titles when he was able to compete as a professional. Had Laver remainded amteur he would have been likely to win 7 or more Wimbledon titles. I see no reason not to put Agassi's 4 AO along side with McEnroe's 4 USOs. McEnroe won 4 of 16 USOs entered while Agassi won 4 of just 9 AOs entered.

Anyway I don't really see your point here. There are many players who have been very dominant at a given slam, some more than Agassi, but this does not diminish Agassi's achivements at the AO.

Azzurri
05-13-2007, 08:04 AM
I don't think there really was any REAL rivalry between Pete and Andrei especially if you compare what they have accomplished in their careers. I think that theso called rivalry was all ATP and Media hype to create more interest for the sport of tennis. The truth was it was total domination by Pistol Pete.

Any thoughts?

I was wondering if you have recently been in a car accident, eaten lead, licked a live power line or maybe you were born a few days ago. Seriously...how old are you? Making this absurd statement shows your age or lack of being awake in the 90's.

Azzurri
05-13-2007, 08:06 AM
Hmm, last time we had this discussion Pete hadn't won a French much less reached the final there. On the other hand, Agassi reached the final there 3 times winning once.

Any chance you know something the rest of us don't know>>> like Pete managing to buy himself a French Open trophy?

funny how some people throw out opinions based on incorrect assumptions. I added some FACTS above....:)

kingdaddy41788
05-13-2007, 08:09 AM
What a joke .. Agassi is better than Sampras .. based on exactly what?

Head to head? Sampras, 20-14.
Total Slams? Sampras, 14-8
Most Wimbledons? Sampras, 7-1
Most U.S. Opens? Sampras, 5-2
Most Tour Championships? Sampras, 5-1
Years ranked #1? Sampras, 6-1
Weeks ranked #1? Sampras, 286-100
Consecutive years in Slam finals Sampras, 11 to 4.
Consecutive years winning Slams Sampras, 8 to 3.

#1, thanks for doctoring my post to suit your needs. I said Sampras was more dominant. Agassi, however, was more versatile. He won all four slams, Sampras did not. Sampras did, however, win the other slams more than Agassi did. Agassi = versatile. Sampras = dominant. Shut up.

kingdaddy41788
05-13-2007, 08:10 AM
KingDaddy (I love some of these crazy names!)

You make an interesting point.

Sampras' play was versatile in that he could come into net or stay back and rally - especially in his earlier years on tour up until 1999 when he slowed down after that. Agassi was versatile in that he could truly play on all surfaces and excel - one of the few in recent times.

That alone suggest it was a great rivalry - As usual I really don't understand what the fuss is about. When these arguments start it usually comes down to numbers.

When you chaps are arguing about achievements and numbers of titles won etc, how about focusing on the play, Tennis ability and the way how they came up with amazing shots against eachother in big matches. Like that amazing set point in the 1995 US Open final - probably the greatest point ever played by two men in front of a mezmorized crowd.

Cheers Five0

I can completely agree with this.

ATPballkid
05-13-2007, 08:36 AM
Not sure I agree with you.

First off: Agassi won ALL 4 grand slams
Agassi has 8 GS and an Olympic gold...not too shabby. You make it seem as if Agassi could not hold a candle to Pete....not true. Andre, for the most part, gave Pete all he could handle.

You are also WAAAAYYY wrong in your first sentence.

Pete's record on clay is 90-54 (.666 winning %)
Andre's record on grass is 50-18 (.777 winning %)

I am not great in math, but it seems ANDRE is BETTER on GRASS than PETE is on CLAY. There is nowhere near the amount of grass tournaments as clay, so titles is not as important as wins on the surface.

Sampras has a 79% career win and Agassi is 76%...pretty close.

I am a huge Sampras fan....but your post showed little respect for Agassi.

LMAO ... the DIFFERENCE between Sampras and Agassi is a much, much more than anything Agassi will ever accomplish.

A player representing the DIFFERENCE between Sampras and Agassi would be one of the very, very top players of the Open Era:

Wimbledons:

1. Sampras 7
Renshaw 7
3. Difference between Sampras and Agassi 6
4. Borg and L. Doherty 5
6. Laver, R. Doherty and Wilding 4
9. Becker, McEnroe, Newcombe, Tilden, Perry 3
16. Connors, Edberg and multiple others 2

Only One Wimbledon title in the Open Era:
Smith, Kodes, Ashe, Stich, Agassi, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Hewitt



U.S. Opens on Hardcourts:

1. Sampras 5
2. McEnroe 4
3. Difference between Sampras and Agassi 3
3. Connors, Lendl 3
5. Edberg, Agassi and Rafter 2



ATP TOUR CHAMPIONSHIPS:

1. Sampras, Lendl 5
3. Difference between Sampras and Agassi 4
3. McEnroe, Nastase 4



Years Ranked #1:

1. Sampras and Tilden 6
2. Difference between Sampras and Agassi 5
2. Connors 5
4. Cochet, Laver, Lendl and McEnroe 4
8. Newcombe and Perry 3
Budge, Borg, Edberg, Hewitt, Cooper, Fraser 2



Weeks Ranked #1:

1. Sampras 286
2. Lendl 270
3. Connors 268
4. Difference between Sampras and Agassi 199
5. McEnroe 170
6. Borg 109



Consecutive Years
In A Grand Slam Final:
1. Sampras, Lendl 11
3. Borg 8
4. Difference between Sampras and Agassi 6
4. McEnroe 6
6. Connors and Agassi 5



Consecutive Years Winning
A Grand Slam final:

1. Sampras, Borg 8
3. Difference between Sampras and Agassi 5

On down the line: Agassi 3


This mythical player known simply as "Difference between Sampras and Agassi" would be right there with Ivan Lendl and Bjorn Borg as the 3 best players of the Open Era other than Sampras.


AND BESIDES THAT:

Sampras has won more clay court singles titles than Agassi has in the last 11 years since Agassi won his only Wimbledon .. and Sampras is 2-0 on clay vs. Agassi in the last 10 years without even dropping a set in either match in Monte Carlo or in Houston.

ATPballkid
05-13-2007, 08:41 AM
Agassi's greatest achivement is a feat that can never be beaten, only matched. This is winning the four grand slams accross the four different surface. This is an achivement that noone has matched to date and we can all see how hard Federer is finding it to master all surfaces. Agassi holds the second most match wins at the USO and at all slams. While Sampras holds many important record in tennis he also holds the glaring gap on the clay, Agassi's record is complete.







Greatest Achievements in Tennis (Men)

1. Pete Sampras - 14 Grand Slam singles titles (1990-2002).

2. Pete Sampras - 7 Wimbledon singles titles (1993-2000).

3. Ken Rosewall - U.S. Championships 20 years apart (1952-1972).

4. Bill TIlden - 6 consecutive U.S. Championships (1920-1925).

5. Bjorn Borg - 5 consecutive Wimbledons (1976-1980).

6. Rod Laver - Grand Slam twice (1962 and 1969).

7. Pete Sampras - 6 consecutive years at #1 (1993-1998 ).

8. Don Budge - First Grand Slam (1938 ).

9. Bill Tilden - 6 consecutive years at #1 (1920-1925).

10. Jimmy Connors - 5 U.S. Opens on 3 different surfaces.

11. Bjorn Borg - 6 French Open singles titles (1974-1981).

12. Pete Sampras - 5 U.S. Opens on hardcourts (1990-2002).

13. Bill Tilden win 13 Davis Cup Challenge Round singles matches in a row (1920-1926).

14. Arthur Gore competes at Wimbledon over a 40 year span without interruption (1888-1926).

15. Pete Sampras has 8th consecutive year with a Grand Slam singles title (1993-2000).

16. Bjorn Borg has 8th consecutive year with a Grand Slam singles title (1974-1981).

17. Arthur Gore wins Wimbledon at 41 (1909).

18. Pete Sampras wins 4 consecutive Wimbledons (1997-2000).

19. Pete Sampras' Open Era 12 years between Slams (1990-2002).

20. Andre Agassi ranking #1 at the age of 33 (2003).

21. Pete Sampras has 11th consecutive year in a Grand Slam final (1992-2002).

22. Ivan Lendl has 11th consecutive year in a Grand Slam final.

23. Pete Sampras establishes a record 286 weeks at #1 in the ATP rankings.

24. Pete Sampras becomes the only man in tennis history to win both Wimbledon and the U.S. Championships more than 3 times each (at least 5 times each for Sampras).

25. Pete Sampras ties Ivan Lendl's record for 5 ATP Tour Championships at the biggest indoor event in the world.


TOTALS:

Pete Sampras 11
Bjorn Borg 3
Bill Tilden 3
Arthur Gore 2
Don Budge 1
Jimmy Connors 1
Rod Laver 1
Ivan Lendl 1
Ken Rosewall 1
Andre Agassi 1

Gilgamesh
05-13-2007, 08:52 AM
He just didn't know how to win .. and, at the end of the day, tennis is more of a competition than it is a circus.

For a man who didn't know how to win 8 GS and a career GS ain't too shabby.

Seriously stop posting crap like this.

No one is saying Agassi is greater than Sampras but for anyone who doesn't believe that Sampras vs. Agassi had a real H2H rivalry I suggest you watch some of their matches. We are not talking about the farce that is Fed vs. Nadal.

ATPballkid
05-13-2007, 08:56 AM
Hmm, last time we had this discussion Pete hadn't won a French much less reached the final there. On the other hand, Agassi reached the final there 3 times winning once.



the all-time 128 year record for ....

• most Grand Slam singles titles (14).
• most singles titles from Wimbledon and U.S. Open (12).
• most Wimbledon singles titles played through (7).
• most U.S. Open singles titles on hardcourts (5).
• most singles titles at the ATP Tour Championships (5).
• most years ranked #1 in the world (6).
• most consecutive years ranked #1 in the world (6).
• most consecutive years in Grand Slam finals (11).
• most consecutive years winning Grand Slam titles (8 ).
• most weeks ranked #1 on the ATP rankings (286).


But, yeah ... Agassi did win 1 french open.

Gilgamesh
05-13-2007, 08:58 AM
LMAO ... the DIFFERENCE between Sampras and Agassi is a much, much more than anything Agassi will ever accomplish.



Their rivalry was never about Pete's and Agassi's historical position. You know that right?

Their rivalry was always about on one side you had the #1 on the other you had the #2. I don't remember anybody saying Agassi is as great or greater than Sampras. Also of course them being both Americans, the American media hyped up their rivalry and their H2H matches often lived up to expectations.

Agassi is arguably a top 10 player of all-time. Sampras a top 3 surely a top 5. It was a legitimate rivalry between two greats but like I said I don't remember anybody saying Agassi was greater than Sampras or would end his career as a greater player.

Gilgamesh
05-13-2007, 09:06 AM
Let's put it THIS way ... Sampras is better on clay than Agassi is on grass.


This is absurd. Did you watch 90s tennis or are you just referencing with the use of record books and stats?

Agassi won a GS on grass and has a 73.5% winning percentage on grass.

Sampas has never won FO and has a 62.5% winning percentage on grass.

Since when did 3 clay titles (non-GS) eclipse a Wimbledon title?

CEvertFan
05-13-2007, 09:45 AM
ANSWER: Lack of dominance.

Roy Emerson and Rod Laver have won each of the Grand Slam events twice already ... but even their own Australian Davis Cup Captain, Harry Hopman, agreed with Lance Tingay and Allison Danzig in proclaiming Bill Tilden (who never won a French and never even played the Australian National Championships) as their unanimous #1 player of the first 100 years of tennis (1877-1977) ahead of Emerson and Laver.

Tilden had dominance on his side ... 6 consecutive years at #1 in the years 1920-1925 (matched only by Pete Sampras in 1993-1998 and Tilden is the only man to have won 10 singles titles from Wimbledon and the U.S. National Championships until Pete Sampras came along and won 12 singles titles from these 2 huge and historic events.

Tilden was #1 for 7 years in total with 6 of them being consecutive which is 2nd to Gonzales with 8 years as #1.

Tilden is also 4th all time for the most majors:

Sampras -14
Emerson - 12
Laver and Borg - 11
(Laver and Emerson being the only ones of these four who won all 4 of the Majors and Laver being the only one with 2 "Grand Slams")
Tilden - 10
Federer -10

hoosierbr
05-13-2007, 11:49 AM
Yep ... in his 20 year career Agassi won 1 French to go with his 1 Wimbledon and his 1 ATP Tour Championship .. and he even finished 1 year ranked #1.

As 3 Dog Night used to sing "One is the loneliest number". Andre Agassi is their poster boy.


How many French finals did Pete get to? Let me think, zero. Agassi, three. How many Olympic medals did Pete win? Hmmm, let me think, zero.

kingdaddy41788
05-13-2007, 11:50 AM
You wouldn't feel dumb, though ... because you are clueless and you are not wired to recognize just how little you know on here.

Listen ballKID, I know a hell of a lot more than you do. I'm not saying Agassi was better than Sampras. I'm saying it was a real rivalry, just as Pete has said himself. Shut your mouth.

CEvertFan
05-13-2007, 12:10 PM
I agree that it was a real rivalry but Sampras was the better player of the two which is why he has more majors and has the winning record in their rivalry. Agassi was as a whole, more verstile across the surfaces than Pete was, which is why Agassi has at least one of each of the 4 majors. The only real blemish on Pete's record is not winning the French or even making it to the finals there.

kingdaddy41788
05-13-2007, 01:11 PM
Greatest Achievements in Tennis (Men)

1. Pete Sampras - 14 Grand Slam singles titles (1990-2002).

2. Pete Sampras - 7 Wimbledon singles titles (1993-2000).

3. Ken Rosewall - U.S. Championships 20 years apart (1952-1972).

4. Bill TIlden - 6 consecutive U.S. Championships (1920-1925).

5. Bjorn Borg - 5 consecutive Wimbledons (1976-1980).

6. Rod Laver - Grand Slam twice (1962 and 1969).

7. Pete Sampras - 6 consecutive years at #1 (1993-1998 ).

8. Don Budge - First Grand Slam (1938 ).

9. Bill Tilden - 6 consecutive years at #1 (1920-1925).

10. Jimmy Connors - 5 U.S. Opens on 3 different surfaces.

11. Bjorn Borg - 6 French Open singles titles (1974-1981).

12. Pete Sampras - 5 U.S. Opens on hardcourts (1990-2002).

13. Bill Tilden win 13 Davis Cup Challenge Round singles matches in a row (1920-1926).

14. Arthur Gore competes at Wimbledon over a 40 year span without interruption (1888-1926).

15. Pete Sampras has 8th consecutive year with a Grand Slam singles title (1993-2000).

16. Bjorn Borg has 8th consecutive year with a Grand Slam singles title (1974-1981).

17. Arthur Gore wins Wimbledon at 41 (1909).

18. Pete Sampras wins 4 consecutive Wimbledons (1997-2000).

19. Pete Sampras' Open Era 12 years between Slams (1990-2002).

20. Andre Agassi ranking #1 at the age of 33 (2003).

21. Pete Sampras has 11th consecutive year in a Grand Slam final (1992-2002).

22. Ivan Lendl has 11th consecutive year in a Grand Slam final.

23. Pete Sampras establishes a record 286 weeks at #1 in the ATP rankings.

24. Pete Sampras becomes the only man in tennis history to win both Wimbledon and the U.S. Championships more than 3 times each (at least 5 times each for Sampras).

25. Pete Sampras ties Ivan Lendl's record for 5 ATP Tour Championships at the biggest indoor event in the world.


TOTALS:

Pete Sampras 11
Bjorn Borg 3
Bill Tilden 3
Arthur Gore 2
Don Budge 1
Jimmy Connors 1
Rod Laver 1
Ivan Lendl 1
Ken Rosewall 1
Andre Agassi 1

Greatest Achievements in whose opinion, Kid? Yours?

Guevin
05-13-2007, 02:08 PM
This is absurd. Did you watch 90s tennis or are you just referencing with the use of record books and stats?

Agassi won a GS on grass and has a 73.5% winning percentage on grass.

Sampas has never won FO and has a 62.5% winning percentage on grass.

Since when did 3 clay titles (non-GS) eclipse a Wimbledon title?

They don't. ballkid has taken too many balls to the head. There's no point arguing with trolls.

drakulie
05-13-2007, 03:53 PM
But, yeah ... Agassi did win 1 french open.

Glad to hear you finally recognized this. But you failed to mention Pete has ZERO.

drakulie
05-13-2007, 03:54 PM
Not sure I agree with you.

First off: Agassi won ALL 4 grand slams
Agassi has 8 GS and an Olympic gold...not too shabby. You make it seem as if Agassi could not hold a candle to Pete....not true. Andre, for the most part, gave Pete all he could handle.

You are also WAAAAYYY wrong in your first sentence.

Pete's record on clay is 90-54 (.666 winning %)
Andre's record on grass is 50-18 (.777 winning %)

I am not great in math, but it seems ANDRE is BETTER on GRASS than PETE is on CLAY. There is nowhere near the amount of grass tournaments as clay, so titles is not as important as wins on the surface.

Sampras has a 79% career win and Agassi is 76%...pretty close.

I am a huge Sampras fan....but your post showed little respect for Agassi.


Excellent post. Enough said.

ATPballkid
05-13-2007, 04:04 PM
Glad to hear you finally recognized this. But you failed to mention Pete has ZERO.

Pete is the PLAYER OF THE CENTURY.

Azzurri
05-13-2007, 04:04 PM
Excellent post. Enough said.

Thanks drak. I'm amazed how much BS people will throw out. It is obvious atpkid did not watch tennis in the 90's. I did not say Agassi was a better player than Pete, but he (Agassi) had the skills to be the best. He had all the tools (except a great serve...did not need a great volley as he did win Wimby). I am sure you remember all thos up and down years he had. If he were as dedicated in his late teens and early twenties as he was after age 26...who knows? Maybe Pete would have maybe 10-11 slams and Andre would have 11-12....something to think about.

noeledmonds
05-13-2007, 04:09 PM
Lets not go any further into this debate. Any real tennis fan knows that both Sampras and Agassi were extremely great tennis players and that their rivalry is one of the greatest of all time. If induviduals fail to see this with the information already put forward then they will never understand. Some are just too young, arrogant, ignorant or just enjoy winding up others.

navratilovafan
05-13-2007, 04:28 PM
I agree. Agassi is barely top 15 all time. Sampras is the GOAT. Sampras could even outpower Agassi from the baseline with ease and that was Agassi's best asset. I am not young and ignorant, I would not have the username I do if I were. Agassi is a great player, but a second tier all time great at best. Sampras is the GOAT. Agassi never beat Sampras in a big fast court event ever, not in a year end Champions elimination match(I am not counting round robin), not at a U.S Open, not at a Wimbledon. I think the head to head at those 3 biggest fast court events is something like 9-0 for Sampras. Agassi could only beat Sampras at the biggest slow court events where Sampras was never near as dominant or strong.

Wondertoy
05-13-2007, 04:38 PM
I agree with ATPballkid. Agassi was an overated boring baseline grinder, especially in his later years. He didn't knew how to come in to close off points. Sampras was an all cout player with a "Big Game." He basically destroyed Agassi because he had too much game, and they both knew that. True that, you could see the fear in Agassi's eyes when they played and you could see the cnfidence in Pete's eyes when they played. In a big match when the stakes were high, they both knew who would come out on top.

Azzurri
05-13-2007, 05:07 PM
I agree. Agassi is barely top 15 all time. Sampras is the GOAT. Sampras could even outpower Agassi from the baseline with ease and that was Agassi's best asset. I am not young and ignorant, I would not have the username I do if I were. Agassi is a great player, but a second tier all time great at best. Sampras is the GOAT. Agassi never beat Sampras in a big fast court event ever, not in a year end Champions elimination match(I am not counting round robin), not at a U.S Open, not at a Wimbledon. I think the head to head at those 3 biggest fast court events is something like 9-0 for Sampras. Agassi could only beat Sampras at the biggest slow court events where Sampras was never near as dominant or strong.

He beat Pete in the AO..guess in your opinion the AO is second tier event.

CEvertFan
05-13-2007, 05:24 PM
I agree. Agassi is barely top 15 all time. Sampras is the GOAT. Sampras could even outpower Agassi from the baseline with ease and that was Agassi's best asset. I am not young and ignorant, I would not have the username I do if I were. Agassi is a great player, but a second tier all time great at best. Sampras is the GOAT. Agassi never beat Sampras in a big fast court event ever, not in a year end Champions elimination match(I am not counting round robin), not at a U.S Open, not at a Wimbledon. I think the head to head at those 3 biggest fast court events is something like 9-0 for Sampras. Agassi could only beat Sampras at the biggest slow court events where Sampras was never near as dominant or strong.

Agassi beat Sampras 14 times! What other player has a double digit win record over Sampras?? No one. I did say and will say again that I consider Sampras to be the better player. Pete's serve gave even Agassi tons of trouble, and Andre has what is to be considered the greatest return of serve ever in the men's game. Pete's entire game was built around his serve.

It was a legitimately good rivalry and it was very entertaining to watch them both spar against one another.

navratilovafan
05-13-2007, 05:24 PM
The Australian Open is not a smaller event but it is a slower surface event where Sampras does not excel as much. Sampras won only 2 Australian and 0 French Opens, so 2 titles total at the two biggest slow court events. By contrast he has 5 U.S Opens, 5 year end Championship titles, and 7 Wimbledons, for 17 titles at the three biggest fast court events. Agassi could not beat Sampras even once in something like 9 meetings at those 3 biggest events, excluding any non-elimination "round robin" matches. Agassi could only possibly hope to knock out Sampras in a "slow court" event where Sampras was nowhere near as strong or dominant.

The Sampras-Agassi rivalry is a good but far from great rivalry. To compare it to say the amazing historic rivalry of Evert-Navratilova would be hogwash. Agassi spent most of Sampras's prime not even ranked top 5, often not even top 10, that is not a great rivalry. Agassi had more then half of his biggest success when Sampras's period of dominance had ended and guys like Hewitt, Kafelnikov, Kuerten started taking the #1 ranking.

navratilovafan
05-13-2007, 05:27 PM
Agassi beat Sampras 14 times! What other player has a double digit win record over Sampras?? No one.

What other great player has played Sampras 34 times? The answer is probably the same, nobody. It is not like any other great players have had the chance to play Sampras often enough for that to show Agassi is superior to any of them. If Federer played him that many times he almost certainly would have beaten him more often I feel. Federer would never lose to Sampras on a slower court probably, and beat him atleast sometimes on a faster court.

Since Agassi had so many "weak" years (for a great player standards he had many many weak years) where he wasnt playing the best people much, his head to head is deceptive in a sense. Sampras was right near the top every year almost, so his lesser years would still see him still playing the best people factoring into their head to head, Agassi had alot of his worst years avoiding playing the real best people too often.

navratilovafan
05-13-2007, 06:18 PM
Just for fun though, Sampras head to heads some of the great players:

Sampras vs Edberg: Sampras leads 8-6. 43% winning % for Edberg.
Sampras vs Becker: Sampras leads 12-7. 37% winning % for Becker.
Sampras vs Courier: Sampras leads 16-4. 20% winning % for Courier(ouch)
Sampras vs Hewitt: Sampras trails 5-4. 56% for Hewitt
Sampras vs Lendl: Sampras leads 5-3. 38% winning % for Lendl
Sampras vs Agassi: Sampras leads 20-14. 41% winning % for Agassi

So out of Agassi, Lendl, Becker, and Edberg, Agassi did 2nd best of those 4, and the 4 of them are all within 6% success rate of each other from 37%-43%. Pretty safe to say any of the other great players of that time, except Courier perhaps, would very likely have gotten double digit wins vs Sampras, as great as he is, had they played him 34 times.

drakulie
05-13-2007, 07:14 PM
Pete is the PLAYER OF THE CENTURY.

ZERO FRENCH OPEN'S OR FINAL APPEARANCES.

By the way, has Seles won a Wimbledon title? Maybe her and Pete could work out a trade?

drakulie
05-13-2007, 07:16 PM
Sampras could even outpower Agassi from the baseline with ease and that was Agassi's best asset.

LOL. You need to go back and actually watch their matches. You wish Sampras could beat Agassi from the baseline.

slice bh compliment
05-14-2007, 12:22 AM
LOL. You need to go back and actually watch their matches. You wish Sampras could beat Agassi from the baseline.

Drak is mostly right, but there are exceptions here and there.

That San Jose Open match. Pete over Dre like 1 and 1. SOme net play, but it was a lot of bh to bh, then Pete lacing a large BH up the line. When his BH was working with confidence, yeah, like the Navratilovafan says, Pete was just better even from the back.

Oh yeah, Drak, also that 95 US Open final. That long point?

drakulie
05-14-2007, 05:33 AM
Oh yeah, Drak, also that 95 US Open final. That long point?

One of, if not the greatest rally ever. But one rally hardly equates to Pete having a better ground game than Andre. If that were so, he would have more than one French open. Especially when you consider his serve.

noeledmonds
05-14-2007, 05:47 AM
Head 2 Heads

All ATP Tournaments: Agassi 14-24 Sampras

Grand Slams: Agassi 3-6 Sampras

AO: Agassi 2-0 Sampras

FO: Agassi 1-0 Sampras

SW19: Agassi 0-2 Sampras

USO: Agassi 0-4 Sampras

End of year Tournament: Agassi 2-4 Sampras

Masters Series: Agassi 6-4 Sampras

ATP tournaments finals: Agassi 7-9 Sampras

Clay: Agassi 3-2 Sampras

Grass: Agassi 0-2 Sampras

Hard Court: Agassi 9-11 Sampras

Carpet: Agassi 2-5 Sampras

Longest Winning Streak Against Each Other: Agassi 3-4 Sampras

Straight Sets Victory: Agassi 9-12 Sampras

Career

Number of ATP Tournaments: Agassi 60-64 Sampras

Grand Slams: Agassi 8-14 Sampras

AO Titles: Agassi 4-2 Sampras

FO Titles: Agassi 1-0 Sampras

SW19 Titles: Agassi 1-7 Sampras

USO Titles: Agassi 2-5 Sampras

Number of Different Grand Slams Won: Agassi 4-3 Sampras

End of Year Tournaments: Agassi 1-5 Sampras

Master Series Titles: Agassi 17-11 Sampras

Number of Different Masters Series Won: Agassi 7-6 Sampras

Clay Court Titles: Agassi 7-3 Sampras

Grass Court Titles: Agassi 1-10 Sampras

Hard Court Titles: Agassi 46-37 Sampras

Carpet Titles: Agassi 6-14 Sampras

Olympic Golds: Agassi 1-0 Sampras

Win-Loss Percentage: Agassi 76.0%-77.4% Sampras

Best Year Win-Loss Percentage: Agassi 87.8%-87.5% Sampras

Weeks at Number 1: Agassi 101-286 Sampras

Years Ending Number 1: Agassi 1-6 Sampras

Best Winning Streak: Agassi 26-29 Sampras

Surely we can all see that Sampras does hold the advantage in the rivalry as a whole. However it is not possible to say that Sampras dominates while Agassi clearly has the advantage accross half the grand slams. Agassi has the advantage on clay, Sampras on grass and carpet, while hard courts are finely balanced. Sampras holds the Head2Head lead on hard courts while Agassi won many more tournaments. Sampras was a more dominant player accross his career while Agassi was a more versitile player accross the surfaces.

navratilovafan
05-14-2007, 09:00 AM
One of, if not the greatest rally ever. But one rally hardly equates to Pete having a better ground game than Andre. If that were so, he would have more than one French open. Especially when you consider his serve.

Do Gaston Gaudio, Albert Costa, Carlos Moya, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, to name a few all have superior ground games to Federer? After all they all won a French Open and he hasnt. Pete didnt know how to slide properly on clay, his groundstrokes did not have enough topspin for the clay either, and the rallies were too long and plodding in nature for what he prefers. Clay is just a bad fit for his game, it doesnt mean he doesnt have a great groundstroke game.

navratilovafan
05-14-2007, 09:04 AM
Head 2 Heads

All ATP Tournaments: Agassi 14-24 Sampras

Grand Slams: Agassi 3-6 Sampras

AO: Agassi 2-0 Sampras

FO: Agassi 1-0 Sampras

SW19: Agassi 0-2 Sampras

USO: Agassi 0-4 Sampras

End of year Tournament: Agassi 2-4 Sampras

Masters Series: Agassi 6-4 Sampras

ATP tournaments finals: Agassi 7-9 Sampras

Clay: Agassi 3-2 Sampras

Grass: Agassi 0-2 Sampras

Hard Court: Agassi 9-11 Sampras

Carpet: Agassi 2-5 Sampras

Longest Winning Streak Against Each Other: Agassi 3-4 Sampras

Straight Sets Victory: Agassi 9-12 Sampras

Career

Number of ATP Tournaments: Agassi 60-64 Sampras

Grand Slams: Agassi 8-14 Sampras

AO Titles: Agassi 4-2 Sampras

FO Titles: Agassi 1-0 Sampras

SW19 Titles: Agassi 1-7 Sampras

USO Titles: Agassi 2-5 Sampras

Number of Different Grand Slams Won: Agassi 4-3 Sampras

End of Year Tournaments: Agassi 1-5 Sampras

Master Series Titles: Agassi 17-11 Sampras

Number of Different Masters Series Won: Agassi 7-6 Sampras

Clay Court Titles: Agassi 7-3 Sampras

Grass Court Titles: Agassi 1-10 Sampras

Hard Court Titles: Agassi 46-37 Sampras

Carpet Titles: Agassi 6-14 Sampras

Olympic Golds: Agassi 1-0 Sampras

Win-Loss Percentage: Agassi 76.0%-77.4% Sampras

Best Year Win-Loss Percentage: Agassi 87.8%-87.5% Sampras

Weeks at Number 1: Agassi 101-286 Sampras

Years Ending Number 1: Agassi 1-6 Sampras

Best Winning Streak: Agassi 26-29 Sampras

Surely we can all see that Sampras does hold the advantage in the rivalry as a whole. However it is not possible to say that Sampras dominates while Agassi clearly has the advantage accross half the grand slams. Agassi has the advantage on clay, Sampras on grass and carpet, while hard courts are finely balanced. Sampras holds the Head2Head lead on hard courts while Agassi won many more tournaments. Sampras was a more dominant player accross his career while Agassi was a more versitile player accross the surfaces.

You have to remember Sampras did not care about smaller events the way he did the biggest events. That is where he put his most focus and energy. Others like Agassi(in his good years anyway), Federer today, and Nadal today, put a priority on trying to win every event.

Your grand slam head to head showed what I said. Agassi played Sampras many times at Wimbledon, U.S Open, or elimination round(semis or finals)of year end Championships and never won. He only could beat Sampras on "slower surface" big events where Sampras was light years less accomplished and dominant, and much more beatable. Contrast that to Evert and Navratilova, where Evert could beat Navratilova-generaly the more dominant player, at any of the slams, and even beat her at Wimbledon and the U.S Open before.

FiveO
05-14-2007, 09:08 AM
Just how often do some of you think major winners vying for the top spot meet and then how often they meet in majors?

To put Sampras v. Agassi's 20-14 in further perspective, here are some h2h's of Major winners and guys vying for and/or reaching #1 in the Open Era:

Laver v.

Rosewall 12-5 with two of Rosewall's five wins coming in the WTC Championships in '71 and '72. (The two played over 100 times in total including amateur and pre-Open professional matches)

Ashe 12-2

Newcombe 7-3

Roche 8-2

Smith 6-6

Nastase 1-2

Borg 2-5

Connors 0-3

Newcombe v.

Laver 3-6

Ashe 6-3

Nastase 0-4

Ashe 6-3

Smith 5-4

Connors 2-2

Vilas 1-1

Borg 3-0

McEnroe 1-0

Smith v.

Rosewall 2-3

Laver 6-6

Ashe 5-10

Newk 4-5

Nastase 8-9 w/ Smith going 3-0 v. Nastase in DC Finals in '69, '71 and '72.

Borg 2-5

Connors 4-14

Nastase v.

Laver 2-1

Newcombe 4-0

Smith 9-8

Connors 12-8

Borg 4-8

Ashe 3-3

McEnroe 2-4

Connors v.

Rosewall 5-1

Laver 3-0

Newcombe 2-2

Nastase 8-12

Smith 14-4

Ashe 5-1

Vilas 5-4

Borg 8-13

McEnroe 14-20

Lendl 13-22

Borg v.

Vilas 17-5

Connors 13-8

McEnroe 7-7

Lendl 5-2

McEnroe v.

Newk 0-1

Smith 5-0

Ashe 2-0

Connors 20-14

Borg 7-7

Vilas 5-6

Lendl 13-21

Kriek 12-5

Wilander 7-6

Edberg 7-6

Becker 2-8

Lendl v.

Connors 22-13

McEnroe 21-13

Vilas 10-5

Borg 2-5

Becker 11-10

Wilander 15-7

Agassi 6-2

Courier 4-0

Edberg 13-14

Sampras 3-5

Wilander v.

Borg 0-1

McEnroe 6-7

Connors 5-0

Kriek 5-0

Lendl 7-15

Becker 3-7

Edberg 11-9

Agassi 2-5

Sampras 1-2

Edberg v.

Connors 6-6

McEnroe 6-7

Lendl 14-13

Cash 8-2

Becker 10-25

Wilander 9-11

Courier 4-6

Agassi 3-6

Chang

Sampras 6-8

Courier v.

Connors 3-0

McEnroe 2-1

Lendl 0-4

Becker 1-6

Edberg 6-4

Bruguera 5-2

Muster 7-5

Agassi 7-5

Chang 12-12

Sampras 4-16

Sampras v.

Wilander 2-1

Lendl 5-3

McEnroe 3-0

Becker 12-7

Agassi 20-14

Muster 7-5

Gomez 2-0

Edberg 8-6

Muster 9-2

Stich 4-5

Bruguera 2-3

Courier 16-4

Krajicek 4-6

Chang 12-8

Ivanisevic 12-6

Kafelnikov 12-2

Kuerten 2-1

Johansson 2-1

Rafter 12-4

Korda 12-5

Moya 3-1

Rios 2-0

T. Martin 18-4

Costa 5-0

Safin 3-4

Hewitt 4-5

Agassi v.

Connors 2-0

McEnroe 2-2

Lendl 2-6

Wilander 5-2

Becker 10-4

Edberg 6-3

Chang 15-7

Sampras 14-20

Gomez 2-3

Courier 5-7

Stich 6-0

Bruguera 7-2

Muster 5-4

T. Martin 13-5

Ivanisevic 4-3

Kafelnikov 8-4

Krajicek 4-3

Kuerten 7-4

Rafter 10-5

Korda 7-1

Moya 3-1

Rios 1-2

Safin 3-3

Johansson 6-1

Costa 4-1

Hewitt 4-4

Ferrero 2-3

Roddick 5-1

Federer 3-8


H2H's of twenty matches or more are highlighted in red.

Still fewer, 4 H2H's in the Open Era to be exact, are of thirty matches or more:

McEnroe v. Connors 34.
Connors v. Lendl 35.
Lendl v. McEnroe 34.
Becker v. Edberg 35.

and

None of the 34 or more h2h's ended any closer than Sampras v. Agassi's 20-14.

So that's four match-ups of this caliber of player that have met as much or more than 34 times.

Now factor back in Borg v. McEnroe at 7-7 and and Borg v. Connors at 13-8 to compare the number of big spots each rivalry met in Majors.


McEnroe v. Connors, 2 finals, 7 SF
Lendl v. Connors, 2 finals, 4 SF
Lendl v. McEnroe, 3 finals, 2 SF, 3 QF
Edberg v. Becker, 3 finals, 1 SF
McEnroe v. Borg, 4 finals
Connors v. Borg, 4 finals, 4 SF

Sampras v. Agassi, 5 finals, 1 SF, 3 QF

No 30+ h2h meeting of slam winners ended closer than Sampras v. Agassi.
Only one other of these rivalries met nine times at majors (Mc v. Connors).
And none of these rivalries met in as many Major finals as Sampras v. Agassi.

It really doesn't get much closer in the Open era with each player extending the other to 5 setters on the other's best surface. Sampras edges out Agassi, but not by as wide a margin as some would portray it. And yeah, especially in light of the surface changes at 2 of the majors over the decades Sampras v. Agassi constitutes one of the greatest rivalries ever.

navratilovafan
05-14-2007, 09:18 AM
The Sampras-Agassi rivalry is not even in the same league as the great rivalries of the 70s and 80s like Borg-Connors, Borg-McEnroe, Connors-McEnroe. Of course they would meet more, there are more tournaments all the top people play today then back then. There were events like Masters events then not called them, but not a multitude of Masters events like today, and alot of players only played 2 of 4 slams, 3 of 4 at most, back then. Today shows that, Federer and Nadal have met 10 times already even though Nadal is only 20, and Nadal struggles to make finals regularly on non-clay surfaces.

A rivalry between a dominant player, and a player who spent over half of that other players 8-year prime or so not even top 5 ranked player since he was such an erratic player, does not make one of the classic rivalries. I would watch tapes of Borg-McEnroe and Borg-Connors over Agassi-Sampras anyday.

FiveO
05-14-2007, 10:32 AM
The Sampras-Agassi rivalry is not even in the same league as the great rivalries of the 70s and 80s like Borg-Connors, Borg-McEnroe, Connors-McEnroe.

I think you would be surprised to learn that counting the various "end of year championships" AND the Majors what these storied h2h's work out to. In that era there was a period of time when there were actually two "end of years championships" called "The Masters" and "Dallas WCT" as opposed today. Also the US Pro in Philadelphia was held in high regerd. Though most top players skipped the AO in that period they had several extra lucrative championships to make up for it. In fact how that was the only way Connors was able to edge out Vilas for the #1 ranking, in that Connors best major showings were the finals of both Wimbledon and the US Open. He won seven titles including the end of year Masters. Vilas that year won 16 titles including RG and US Open (over Connors), reached the final of the AO and the SF of the Masters. Suffice it to say the computer needed a little re-configuring after that.

Major and "End of Year Championship" meetings in the aforementioned rivalries:

Borg 7 v. Connors 4
McEnroe 10 v. Connors 4
McEnroe 4 v. Borg 3

Sampras 9 v. Agassi 5

Of course they would meet more, there are more tournaments all the top people play today then back then. There were events like Masters events then not called them, but not a multitude of Masters events like today, and alot of players only played 2 of 4 slams, 3 of 4 at most, back then. Today shows that, Federer and Nadal have met 10 times already even though Nadal is only 20, and Nadal struggles to make finals regularly on non-clay surfaces.

There were less large tournaments back then so it was LESS likely the top players would meet at them. Seems a little counterintuitive to me. For instance, the 1977 #1 Connors played 20 events that year, #2 Vilas played 31, #3 Borg, 19, Last year Federer added events at the end and played 17, Nadal 16.

Any rivalry between a dominant players, and a player who spent over half of that other players 8-year prime or so not even top 5 ranked player since he was such an erratic player, does not make one of the classic rivalries. I would watch tapes of Borg-McEnroe and Borg-Connors over Agassi-Sampras anyday.

Ultimately each person's response to any "rivalry" is in the eye of the beholder. However, the argument against Sampras/Agassi being one kind of ignores some facts:

-Borg's retirement nipped rivalries with both Connors and Mc in the bud,
-with Borg's retirement came a sympathetic swoon at the Majors from Mc which lasted nearly two years,

-mostly it ignores the fact that despite Agassi's slides and resurrections from the ashes in the period from 1990 to 2002 he managed win 7 of his 8 Majors and face Sampras at Majors more times (9) in more Finals of Majors (5) than any of the rivalries from the '70's-'80's.

Azzurri
05-14-2007, 10:45 AM
The Australian Open is not a smaller event but it is a slower surface event where Sampras does not excel as much. Sampras won only 2 Australian and 0 French Opens, so 2 titles total at the two biggest slow court events. By contrast he has 5 U.S Opens, 5 year end Championship titles, and 7 Wimbledons, for 17 titles at the three biggest fast court events. Agassi could not beat Sampras even once in something like 9 meetings at those 3 biggest events, excluding any non-elimination "round robin" matches. Agassi could only possibly hope to knock out Sampras in a "slow court" event where Sampras was nowhere near as strong or dominant.

The Sampras-Agassi rivalry is a good but far from great rivalry. To compare it to say the amazing historic rivalry of Evert-Navratilova would be hogwash. Agassi spent most of Sampras's prime not even ranked top 5, often not even top 10, that is not a great rivalry. Agassi had more then half of his biggest success when Sampras's period of dominance had ended and guys like Hewitt, Kafelnikov, Kuerten started taking the #1 ranking.

What??....I don't understand your point? This thread was not WHO IS BETTER, but was it a rivalry. It was...again this is your opinion, but 90% of tennis fans would easily say they had a great rivalry. They facewd each other 5 times in finals, 5 times in Masters series and countless other tourneys. Agassi was his BEST rival throughout his career....was there anyone else?

noeledmonds
05-14-2007, 10:58 AM
Your grand slam head to head showed what I said. Agassi played Sampras many times at Wimbledon, U.S Open, or elimination round(semis or finals)of year end Championships and never won. He only could beat Sampras on "slower surface" big events where Sampras was light years less accomplished and dominant, and much more beatable. Contrast that to Evert and Navratilova, where Evert could beat Navratilova-generaly the more dominant player, at any of the slams, and even beat her at Wimbledon and the U.S Open before.

Yes Agassi failed to beat Sampras at the USO and at Wimbledon on the faster surfaces, but Sampras also failed to beat Agassi at the slower events where he was at his best. By many times at Wimbledon, you mean just 2, one of which went to 5 sets. Agassi did beat Sampras at the Year End Championships twice at the RR stage. Most notably Agassi beat Sampras in the 1990 ATP ATP Tour World Championships in the first match. This eventualy caused Sampras not to qualify for the semi-final of the championship and Agassi went on to win the title beating Becker in the semi-final and Edberg in the final. Rivalries extend far beyond the slams anyway. Agassi and Sampras had a competitive rivalry accross all surfaces in all events. Comparisons with women's tennis are not really valid. Women's tennis was far easier to dominate men's tennis ever has been.

The Sampras-Agassi rivalry is not even in the same league as the great rivalries of the 70s and 80s like Borg-Connors, Borg-McEnroe, Connors-McEnroe

Borg-Connors is a rivalry that never even extended accorss the surfaces as Connors was banned from the FO. Sure they played on green clay, but that is not the same as the red dirt. They never competed on Borg's strongest surface, and a surface that makes up around one third of the tour. Not unlike Agassi-Sampras Connors never beat Borg at Wimbledon and Borg lost 2 finals and a sem-final to Connors at the USO before finally beating him. Connors also was in his prime before Borg, so they never played when both were at their peaks

Borg-McEnroe also never extended to Borg's strongest surface and McEnroe's weakest surface. McEnroe would stand no chance against Borg on clay. Borg struggled again with the USO, so never beat McEnroe there in 2 finals. The only grand slam these players had a competitve rivalry was Wimbledon. The rivalry was short lived due to Borg's retirement.

The McEnroe-Connors rivalry with the same head2head as the Agassi-Sampras. However both players peaked at vastly different times. McEnroe won 14 of their last 16 encounters against an ageing Connors. While Connors won 6 of their first 7 encounters against a young Connors. There was a brief period inbetween which was competitve after Connors peaked but before McEnore peaked. True rivalries should extend to both players peaks simultaniously.

drakulie
05-14-2007, 11:52 AM
Do Gaston Gaudio, Albert Costa, Carlos Moya, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, to name a few all have superior ground games to Federer? After all they all won a French Open and he hasnt. Pete didnt know how to slide properly on clay, his groundstrokes did not have enough topspin for the clay either, and the rallies were too long and plodding in nature for what he prefers. Clay is just a bad fit for his game, it doesnt mean he doesnt have a great groundstroke game.

We're not arguning whether he has a "great ground game". **YOU** implied he has a better ground game than Andre. YOU ARE WRONG! Like I said, if he would have had a better ground game than Andre, he would have done much better at the French.

chrisdaniel
05-14-2007, 01:22 PM
Wow this thread ****es me off. Why would anyone want to take away from a great rivalry. I love Sampras and feel at this moment he still the great tennis player to ever live, and that says alot about his greatest challanger.
No matter how strong of a player Sampras was, there was always a chance that Agassi could beat him anyday. I saw it at two Australian Opens, and many other tournaments. I really believe the 95 open was the match that really decided on who the more dominant player was, and I believe that one long point is one of the most important points in the modern age of tennis. Now if you want to take away from Andre go ahead, Agassi will always have the FRENCH, and the way Federer is trying so hard to get that championship it must be pretty important. Andre Agassi beat down Sampras many times, he deserved it for how many times he got beat down by Sampras. which makes a great Rivalry. Please, just exept that...

Azzurri
05-14-2007, 06:27 PM
Wow this thread ****es me off. Why would anyone want to take away from a great rivalry. I love Sampras and feel at this moment he still the great tennis player to ever live, and that says alot about his greatest challanger.
No matter how strong of a player Sampras was, there was always a chance that Agassi could beat him anyday. I saw it at two Australian Opens, and many other tournaments. I really believe the 95 open was the match that really decided on who the more dominant player was, and I believe that one long point is one of the most important points in the modern age of tennis. Now if you want to take away from Andre go ahead, Agassi will always have the FRENCH, and the way Federer is trying so hard to get that championship it must be pretty important. Andre Agassi beat down Sampras many times, he deserved it for how many times he got beat down by Sampras. which makes a great Rivalry. Please, just exept that...

Excellent Post!! Too bad some people don't get the OP...;)

drakulie
05-14-2007, 07:12 PM
Excellent Post!! Too bad some people don't get the OP...;)

Exactly. By downplaying the rivalry along with how great Agassi was, people just don't understand they are also downplaying Sampras' greatness.

ATPballkid
05-14-2007, 07:25 PM
They don't. ballkid has taken too many balls to the head. There's no point arguing with trolls.

It's obvious YOU don't have anything to contribute on here, clown.

ATPballkid
05-14-2007, 07:27 PM
ZERO FRENCH OPEN'S OR FINAL APPEARANCES.

By the way, has Seles won a Wimbledon title? Maybe her and Pete could work out a trade?

You have posted some b.s. on here and tried to twist things around ... and I have been there every step of the way to get it corrected ... but here you go again ...

The crazy part about this is that you ACTUALLY think you are right somehow ... it blows my mind ... you are clueless and don't even realize how clueless you are.

ATPballkid
05-14-2007, 07:31 PM
I agree. Agassi is barely top 15 all time. Sampras is the GOAT. Sampras could even outpower Agassi from the baseline with ease and that was Agassi's best asset. I am not young and ignorant, I would not have the username I do if I were. Agassi is a great player, but a second tier all time great at best. Sampras is the GOAT. Agassi never beat Sampras in a big fast court event ever, not in a year end Champions elimination match(I am not counting round robin), not at a U.S Open, not at a Wimbledon. I think the head to head at those 3 biggest fast court events is something like 9-0 for Sampras. Agassi could only beat Sampras at the biggest slow court events where Sampras was never near as dominant or strong.

Wow ... what a great post, navratilovafan ... right on the mark. Excellent post. I agree 100 percent.

ATPballkid
05-14-2007, 07:32 PM
Wow this thread ****es me off. Why would anyone want to take away from a great rivalry. I love Sampras and feel at this moment he still the great tennis player to ever live, and that says alot about his greatest challanger.
No matter how strong of a player Sampras was, there was always a chance that Agassi could beat him anyday. I saw it at two Australian Opens, and many other tournaments. I really believe the 95 open was the match that really decided on who the more dominant player was, and I believe that one long point is one of the most important points in the modern age of tennis. Now if you want to take away from Andre go ahead, Agassi will always have the FRENCH, and the way Federer is trying so hard to get that championship it must be pretty important. Andre Agassi beat down Sampras many times, he deserved it for how many times he got beat down by Sampras. which makes a great Rivalry. Please, just exept that...

Agassi will be looked upon as a worthy challenger to Sampras in the 1990s and early 21st century who had some flair in his game and a good return of serve. Some might reference the era that Sampras led and include Agassi, Courier and Chang as players who won a Slam from the United States in those years.

ATPballkid
05-14-2007, 07:34 PM
What??....I don't understand your point? This thread was not WHO IS BETTER, but was it a rivalry. It was...again this is your opinion, but 90% of tennis fans would easily say they had a great rivalry. They facewd each other 5 times in finals, 5 times in Masters series and countless other tourneys. Agassi was his BEST rival throughout his career....was there anyone else?

Agassi had a little bit of success in several different areas .. no question about that.

Agassi was ranked the same number of years at #1 as Maurice McLoughlin, Gerald Patterson, Ellsworth Vines, Jack Crawford, Bobby Riggs, Frank Parker, Budge Patty, Jaroslav Drobny, Rafael Osuna, Manuel Santana, Jim Courier, Mats Wilander and Gustavo Kuerten ... (and 1/2 as many years as Rene Lacoste, Jack Kramer, Frank Sedgman, Tony Trabert, Ashley Cooper, Neale Fraser, Ilie Nastase, Stefan Edberg, Lleyton Hewitt and Stefan Edberg).

Agassi won the same number of Wimbledons as Pat Cash Manuel Santana, Chuck McKinley, Neale Fraser, Alex Olmedo, Ashley Cooper, Jaroslav Drobny, Vic Seixas, Dick Savitt, Frank Sedgman, Ted Schroeder, Budge Patty, Yvon Petra, Bob Falkenburg, Bobby Riggs, Jack Crawford, Sidney Wood, Bill Johnston, Harold Mahoney, Willoughby Hamilton, Herbert Lawford, Frank Hadow, Spencer Gore, Goran Ivanisevic, Jan Kodes, Michael Stich, Richard Krajicek and Arthur Ashe ... (and 1/2 as many as John Hartley, Joshua Pim, Norman Brookes, Lew Hoad, Roy Emerson, Jimmy Connors and Stefan Edberg) ..

Agassi won the same number of U.S. Championships as Pat Rafter, Neale Fraser, Frank Sedgman, Tony Trabert, Frank Parker, Bobby Riggs, Ellsworth Vines, Lindley Murray, Dick Williams, Bill Johnston, Maurice McLaughlin and Henry Slocum, Jr. (and 1/2 as many as Robert Wrenn and John McEnroe).

Agassi won the same number of French Opens as Andres Gimeno, Ilie Nastase, Adriano Panatta, Yannick Noah, Michael Chang, Andres Gomez, Albert Costa, Tony Roche, Fred Stolle, Mervyn Rose, Sven Davidson, Joszef Asboth, Marcel Bernard, Don McNeill, Henner Henkel and Jack Crawford) ... and 1/2 as many as Sergi Bruguera, Jim Courier, Jan Kodes, Nicola Pietrangeli, Tony Trabert, Jaroslav Drobny, Frank Parker and Gottfried von Cramm).



“Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras and Sampras.”

— Andre Agassi, naming the best 5 players of all time.
Stuttgart, Baden-Wuerttenburg, Germany
October 1998

FedSampras
05-14-2007, 07:38 PM
How many French finals did Pete get to? Let me think, zero. Agassi, three. How many Olympic medals did Pete win? Hmmm, let me think, zero.


There is no doubt that pete sampras was better tennis player agassi and many claim that sampras was arguably the greatest player to play the game. sampras; accomplishments dwarf those of agassi.

petes dominance is outstanding- 9 years top 3- 6 of them ending at number 1while agassi 6 years at top 3- only 1 of them ending at number 1. Thats a very important statistic when it comes to greatness. Plus, sampras dominanted at Wimbledon, US Open and ATP Tour Championships- especially Tour Championships are very important in this matter since the best 8 players of that particular year take place and pete won 5 of them, while agassi won only 1. Also, the fact that pete won 14 Slams while agassi won 8 tells a lot. 286 weeks at number 1 for Pete against 101 for agassi is another indication of petes dominance.

Agassi was forever the bridesmaid to Sampras. :)

ATPballkid
05-14-2007, 07:45 PM
Exactly. By downplaying the rivalry along with how great Agassi was, people just don't understand they are also downplaying Sampras' greatness.

Come on, I have said before that Andre is probably about #14 in the 127 year history of the sport in spite of his shortfalls and his lack of sustained dominance at significant events outside of Melbourne, Australia.

I even listed Agassi as the major challenger to Sampras as a Champion.

Agassi is getting a pretty fair shake out of all of this.

ATPballkid
05-14-2007, 07:51 PM
Thanks drak. I'm amazed how much BS people will throw out. It is obvious atpkid did not watch tennis in the 90's.



LOL ... lack of tennis knowledge is one thing you don't have to worry about with me ... I have FORGOTTEN more about tennis through the years than you will ever know, son.

drakulie
05-14-2007, 07:54 PM
The crazy part about this is that you ACTUALLY think you are right somehow ... it blows my mind ... you are clueless and don't even realize how clueless you are.

Really? How am I wrong or clueless? Has Sampras won a French Open?????

HMMMM????? Please enlighten me. Please provide me the link that proves I'm wrong and Sampras won a French Open.

For such an amazingly "GREATER and DOMINANT" player Sampras was compared to Agassi (cough), he sure lost to him quite a bit. Lets, see > hmmmm :roll: >>>> if I remember correctly he lost 14 times to him, including 7 finals. He was also unable to beat him at the AO and French. And all of this "in spite of his shortfalls and his lack of sustained dominance at significant events outside of Melbourne, Australia."

You must not really hold Sampras in such "HIGH REGARD" as you claim, being that he lost to such a crappy player 14 times.

ATPballkid
05-14-2007, 08:02 PM
Really? How am I wrong or clueless? Has Sampras won a French Open?????



Based on tennis actually being a sport .. Sampras stands alone at the top with nobody around for MILES .. except, of course, for the fact that he never won a South African Open or a French Open.

ATPballkid
05-14-2007, 08:03 PM
Really? How am I wrong or clueless? Has Sampras won a French Open?????

HMMMM????? Please enlighten me.

At least Sampras can say that he has won at least 3 singles titles on all 4 court surfaces ... something only Kafelnikov, Edberg, McEnroe, Connors and Borg can also say in the last quarter century.

ATPballkid
05-14-2007, 08:05 PM
Please provide me the link that proves I'm wrong and Sampras won a French Open.

For such an amazingly "GREATER and DOMINANT" player Sampras was compared to Agassi (cough), he sure lost to him quite a bit.

I guess that's it ... that is ALL you can come up with ... I have been waiting on here for somebody to come up with something other than the French Open Agassi won in 1999 when he had a fluke draw.

You shot your load in one fluke tournament win for Agassi ... and all you can do is repeat it.

EVERYTHING else --- including their head to head record overall, and their head to head record on clay, favors Pete.

Maybe that is why Andre Agassi said:



“Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras and Sampras.”

— Andre Agassi, naming the best 5 players of all time.
Stuttgart, Baden-Wuerttenburg, Germany
October 1998

ATPballkid
05-14-2007, 08:09 PM
For such an amazingly "GREATER and DOMINANT" player Sampras was compared to Agassi (cough

There are a lot of guys who won 1 French Open ... a lot of them are not exactly household names ... Sampras came within a couple of matches of winning one himself ... and if that is the clear defining achievement the Agassi fans point to in their argument on behalf of Agassi then that rings pretty hollow when you consider how many matches it would have taken Agassi to match Sampras in winning an all-time record 7 Wimbledons .. an all-time record 5 U.S. Opens on hardcourts .. an all-time record 5 ATP Tour Championships .. reach a Grand Slam singles final in an all-time record 11 consecutive years .. win a Grand Slam an all-time record 8 consecutive years .. finish #1 in the world an all-time record 6 consecutive years .. and rank #1 an all-time record 286 weeks.

Guys, there is no way that Agassi came within 2 matches of accomplishing this like Sampras came within 2 matches of winning 1 French Open.

drakulie
05-14-2007, 08:14 PM
I guess that's it ... that is ALL you can come up with ...

Obviously, not only do you not read too well, but are also not a very good "historian of the sport".


I have been waiting on here for somebody to come up with something other than the French Open Agassi won in 1999 when he had a fluke draw.

If that was a fluke and AA didn't deserve it because he is, like you said such a crappy player, then that doesn't help your argument that Sampras is the greatest ever. I will remind you, that Sampras won 4 slams playing against a crappy player like Agassi. So, with your own logic Sampras "got a pass" not only in those 4 finals he beat AA, but each and every time he beat AA on the way to a slam. Additionally, lost to Agassi ( a crappy player) in one slam final.

ATPballkid
05-14-2007, 08:16 PM
I agree with ATPballkid. Agassi was an overated boring baseline grinder, especially in his later years. He didn't knew how to come in to close off points. Sampras was an all cout player with a "Big Game." He basically destroyed Agassi because he had too much game, and they both knew that. True that, you could see the fear in Agassi's eyes when they played and you could see the cnfidence in Pete's eyes when they played. In a big match when the stakes were high, they both knew who would come out on top.

Exacly, Wondertoy ... you and Navratilovafan just completely NAIL the point on the bull's eye with some of the things you say on here.

Great response

ATPballkid
05-14-2007, 08:23 PM
Head 2 Heads

Surely we can all see that Sampras does hold the advantage in the rivalry as a whole. However it is not possible to say that Sampras dominates while Agassi clearly has the advantage accross half the grand slams. Agassi has the advantage on clay, Sampras on grass and carpet, while hard courts are finely balanced. Sampras holds the Head2Head lead on hard courts while Agassi won many more tournaments. Sampras was a more dominant player accross his career while Agassi was a more versitile player accross the surfaces.

Here is where the all-time record 6 consecutive years at #1 .. the all-time record 286 weeks at #1 .. the all-time record 11 consecutive years in a Grand Slam singles final .. and the all-time record 8 years winning Grand Slam singles finals comes in ... FOR PETE ... and the falling out of the top 140 ... the only 1 year ranked #1 in a 20 year career .. the only 101 weeks at #1 .. and the failure to have any sustained success until after Sampras had topped all of the meaningful records and was winding his career down part comes in ... AGAINST AGASSI.

ATPballkid
05-14-2007, 08:26 PM
No 30+ h2h meeting of slam winners ended closer than Sampras v. Agassi.
Only one other of these rivalries met nine times at majors (Mc v. Connors).
And none of these rivalries met in as many Major finals as Sampras v. Agassi.

It really doesn't get much closer in the Open era with each player extending the other to 5 setters on the other's best surface. Sampras edges out Agassi, but not by as wide a margin as some would portray it. And yeah, especially in light of the surface changes at 2 of the majors over the decades Sampras v. Agassi constitutes one of the greatest rivalries ever.

Let's compare:

* all-time record in the 127 year history of men's tennis.
** all-time record on hardcourts.


Wimbledon

Pete Sampras 7 *
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAMPRAS AND AGASSI 6
Andre Agassi 1



U.S. Open

Pete Sampras 5 **
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAMPRAS AND AGASSI 3
Andre Agassi 2



TOTAL GRAND SLAM SINGLES TITLES

Pete Sampras 14 *
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAMPRAS AND AGASSI 6
Andre Agassi 8



ATP TOUR CHAMPIONSHIPS

Pete Sampras 5 *
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAMPRAS AND AGASSI 4
Andre Agassi 1



YEAR END #1 RANKINGS

Pete Sampras 6 *
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAMPRAS AND AGASSI 5
Andre Agassi 1



WEEKS RANKED #1

Pete Sampras 286 *
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAMPRAS AND AGASSI 185
Andre Agassi 101



CONSECUTIVE YEARS WINNING GRAND SLAM TITLES

Pete Sampras 8 *
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAMPRAS AND AGASSI 5
Andre Agassi 3



CONSECUTIVE YEARS REACHING GRAND SLAM FINALS

Pete Sampras 11 *
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAMPRAS AND AGASSI 6
Andre Agassi 5


As you can clearly see, Agassi isn't HALF the champion that Sampras is ... the DIFFERENCE between Sampras and Agassi is greater than Agassi is.

ATPballkid
05-14-2007, 08:31 PM
If that was a fluke and AA didn't deserve it because he is, like you said such a crappy player, then that doesn't help your argument that Sampras is the greatest ever.

Andre fluked into 1 singles title on grass and 1 French Open singles title on clay in his 20 year career. Andre only finished 1 year ranked #1 in his 18 year career. Andre only won 1 Tour Championship in his 18 year career. Agassi had a little bit of success in a few different areas. This is an undeniable fact.

navratilovafan
05-14-2007, 08:39 PM
Agassi had a little bit of success in several different areas .. no question about that.

Agassi was ranked the same number of years at #1 as Maurice McLoughlin, Gerald Patterson, Ellsworth Vines, Jack Crawford, Bobby Riggs, Frank Parker, Budge Patty, Jaroslav Drobny, Rafael Osuna, Manuel Santana, Jim Courier, Mats Wilander and Gustavo Kuerten ... (and 1/2 as many years as Rene Lacoste, Jack Kramer, Frank Sedgman, Tony Trabert, Ashley Cooper, Neale Fraser, Ilie Nastase, Stefan Edberg, Lleyton Hewitt and Stefan Edberg).

Agassi won the same number of Wimbledons as Pat Cash Manuel Santana, Chuck McKinley, Neale Fraser, Alex Olmedo, Ashley Cooper, Jaroslav Drobny, Vic Seixas, Dick Savitt, Frank Sedgman, Ted Schroeder, Budge Patty, Yvon Petra, Bob Falkenburg, Bobby Riggs, Jack Crawford, Sidney Wood, Bill Johnston, Harold Mahoney, Willoughby Hamilton, Herbert Lawford, Frank Hadow, Spencer Gore, Goran Ivanisevic, Jan Kodes, Michael Stich, Richard Krajicek and Arthur Ashe ... (and 1/2 as many as John Hartley, Joshua Pim, Norman Brookes, Lew Hoad, Roy Emerson, Jimmy Connors and Stefan Edberg) ..

Agassi won the same number of U.S. Championships as Pat Rafter, Neale Fraser, Frank Sedgman, Tony Trabert, Frank Parker, Bobby Riggs, Ellsworth Vines, Lindley Murray, Dick Williams, Bill Johnston, Maurice McLaughlin and Henry Slocum, Jr. (and 1/2 as many as Robert Wrenn and John McEnroe).

Agassi won the same number of French Opens as Andres Gimeno, Ilie Nastase, Adriano Panatta, Yannick Noah, Michael Chang, Andres Gomez, Albert Costa, Tony Roche, Fred Stolle, Mervyn Rose, Sven Davidson, Joszef Asboth, Marcel Bernard, Don McNeill, Henner Henkel and Jack Crawford) ... and 1/2 as many as Sergi Bruguera, Jim Courier, Jan Kodes, Nicola Pietrangeli, Tony Trabert, Jaroslav Drobny, Frank Parker and Gottfried von Cramm).


Great lists, great compiling of all those names. That really puts into perspective where Agassi falls historicaly compared to someone like Sampras.

To me the greatest rivalries have 2 players you say are atleast in the same league, preferably almost peers. Navratilova and Evert, how much closer can you have gotten, 18 slams both, wins over each other at all 4 slam venues, only 11 singles tournament titles apart, Evert with the most French Opens while Navratilova the most Wimbledons. Connors, McEnroe, and Lendl, Wilander, all within 7-8 slams when they had the Connors-McEnroe, McEnroe-Lendl, and Lend-Wilander rivalries. Becker and Edberg both 6-time slam Champs had their rivalry. Even McEnroe and Connors were much closer to Borg's league, then Agassi is to Sampras's. Agassi is a great player but he is not in Sampras's league, the best rivalries the two players are closer to each other then that.

drakulie
05-14-2007, 08:45 PM
Andre fluked into 1 singles title on grass and 1 French Open singles title on clay in his 20 year career. Andre only finished 1 year ranked #1 in his 18 year career. Andre only won 1 Tour Championship in his 18 year career. Agassi had a little bit of success in a few different areas. This is an undeniable fact.

In that case, Sampras "fluked" every one of his 14 slam wins. I will again remind you, Agassi was by far the second if not the best player of that generation. And if he beat Andre in 4 slams, and beat "lesser" opponents than the clear number 2 in the other 10 >>>>> THEN ALL OF HIS SLAM WINS ARE FLUKES AND NOT DESERVED.

navratilovafan
05-14-2007, 08:47 PM
Andre fluked into 1 singles title on grass and 1 French Open singles title on clay in his 20 year career. Andre only finished 1 year ranked #1 in his 18 year career. Andre only won 1 Tour Championship in his 18 year career. Agassi had a little bit of success in a few different areas. This is an undeniable fact.

He is a top 15 player all time only because he won both the French Open and Wimbledon. If he didnt win 1 of those people wouldnt even be saying he is top 20 all time. He would be one of a large group of 7 time slam winners, behind the top 10 already of 8 and more, but who also lacked severely in top notch domination and consistency, and would no longer have his biggest added claim to greatness, other then his 8 slam titles and longevity, which is the career slam. He would be a 10 way tie for 11th place in slams with 7, 7 if you exclude the pre-World 1 challgenge round format players, however all of those others would much greater careers as far as dominance and consistency. Plus there would be others like Hoad, Budge, Gonzalez, Kramer, would also easily be above him then.

I dont know why people who think Agassi is underrated accuse others of being young and naive. Agassi is the 2nd most recent great to Federer, he retired only last year.

ATPballkid
05-14-2007, 08:53 PM
Agassi was by far the second if not the best player of that generation.

Agassi is arguably the 2nd best player of the last 15 years or so and Sampras was 6-0 vs. Agassi at the 2 biggest events in the world, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open.

navratilovafan
05-14-2007, 08:55 PM
Agassi is arguably the 3rd best player of the last 15 years actually. No way is he 2nd. Roger Federer already has 2 more slams, 2 more year-end #1, the only man to win Wimbledon and the U.S Open 3 straight years, the only guy to win 3 slams twice in a 3 year span, 3 year end Championship wins to Agassi's 1.

drakulie
05-14-2007, 09:01 PM
Agassi is arguably the 2nd best player of the last 15 years or so and Sampras was 6-0 vs. Agassi at the 2 biggest events in the world, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open.

And yet the player you consider the Greatest ever lost to him 14 times. A guy who only won slams because of >>>> how did you put it??? Oh yes, >>> "flukes".

And by the way, many pro players state the French is the very hardest of the slams to win. How many "of the hardest slams" did "The Greatest Ever" win, and how many times did he beat AA?

noeledmonds
05-15-2007, 02:54 AM
AGASSI CAREER SUMMARY
• The only man in tennis history to win all four Grand Slam titles and an
Olympic Gold Medal.
• One of five players (Fred Perry, Don Budge, Rod Laver, Roy Emerson) to win
all four Grand Slam titles during his career.
• One of three players (Rod Laver, Roger Federer) in the Open Era to reach
four consecutive Grand Slam finals -- won Roland Garros, reached
Wimbledon final and won US Open in 1999; won Australian Open in 2000.
• One of four players all-time to win the Australian Open title at least four times
along with Aussie Hall of Famers Roy Emerson (six), Jack Crawford (four)
and Ken Rosewall (four).
• Has played in most Grand Slam tournaments (60, including Wimbledon) in
the Open Era. Stands No. 3 with most career Grand Slam match wins (220)
behind Jimmy Connors (233) and Ivan Lendl (222).
• Only player in the Open Era to win at least one ATP title for 18 years.
• Has appeared in 90 career finals (60-30) between 1987-2005 (except 1997)
and 15 Grand Slam finals (8-7). He reached the championship at least twice
in all four Grand Slam tournaments.
• One of 11 players all-time to win at least 8 Grand Slam titles:
1) Pete Sampras 14
2) Roy Emerson 12
3) Bjorn Borg 11
Rod Laver 11
5) Bill Tilden 10
6) Andre Agassi 8
Jimmy Connors 8
Roger Federer 8
Ivan Lendl 8
Fred Perry 8
Ken Rosewall 8
• The only player to rank in the Top 10 in three different decades (1988, 1990,
2000).
• Has finished in the Top 10 for 16 years (along with Jimmy Connors), ranking
between No. 1 and 10 at least once (except for No. 5).
• Became oldest player to rank No. 1 in INDESIT ATP Rankings at 33 years,
13 days on May 11, 2003 and held the top spot for 14 weeks.
• A member of three winning Davis Cup teams (1990, '92 and '95) and
compiled a 30-6 career record in 22 ties. His 30 singles match wins is the
second-best in U.S. Davis Cup history (behind John McEnroe's 41).
• Winner of an all-time best 17 career ATP Masters Series titles (since 1990),
capturing seven (of nine) different tournament titles.
AGASSI BY THE NUMBERS
• The 36-year-old Las Vegas native is fifth all-time with 866 career match
wins (as of July 24):
W L
1. Jimmy Connors 1222 269
2. Ivan Lendl 1070 238
3. Guillermo Vilas 920 281
4. John McEnroe 881 198
5. Andre Agassi 866 271
• Agassi’s 60 career titles places him seventh in the Open Era:
Player Titles
1) Jimmy Connors 109
2) Ivan Lendl 94
3) John McEnroe 77
4) Pete Sampras 64
5) Bjorn Borg 62
Guillermo Vilas 62
7) Andre Agassi 60
• Here’s a look back at Agassi's milestone ATP titles during his career:
Title Age Date Tournament Opponent
No. 1 17 Nov. 29, 1987 Itaparica, Brazil d. Luiz Mattar
No. 10 19 Apr. 1, 1990 AMS Miami d. Stefan Edberg
No. 20 23 Feb. 27, 1994 Scottsdale d. Luiz Mattar
No. 30 25 Aug. 13, 1995 AMS Cincinnati d. Michael Chang
No. 40 28 Apr. 12, 1999 Hong Kong d. Boris Becker
No. 50 31 Mar. 10, 2002 Scottsdale d. Juan Balcells
No. 60 35 July 31, 2005 Los Angeles d. Gilles Muller
• Agassi's 60 career titles by country (12):
No.
United States 41
Australia 4
Canada 3
France 3
Germany 2
Austria 1
Brazil 1
China + 1
Czech Republic 1
England 1
Italy 1
Spain 1
+ Formerly Hong Kong
• Agassi’s 15th title since turning 30 tied him for fourth place in the Open Era
for titles over the age of 30:
Player Titles After 30
1. Rod Laver 44
2. Ken Rosewall 29
3. Arthur Ashe 20
4. Andre Agassi 15
Jimmy Connors 15
• Agassi has finished in the Top 10 in the ATP Rankings 16 times, tying
Jimmy Connors for the most Top 10 year-end rankings. Here are the
players with the most Top 10 finishes:
No.
1. Jimmy Connors 16
Andre Agassi 16
3. Ivan Lendl 13
4. Pete Sampras 12
5. Boris Becker 11
• Agassi is one of seven players to rank No. 1 at least 100 weeks in the
INDESIT ATP Rankings:
Weeks at No. 1
1. Pete Sampras 286
2. Ivan Lendl 270
3. Jimmy Connors 268
4. John McEnroe 170
5. Roger Federer 130 (as of July 24)
6. Bjorn Borg 109
7. Andre Agassi 101
• Agassi has appeared in eight finals in Miami and San Jose-San Francisco
during his career, the most of any tournament:
Tournament Finals W-L
Miami 8 6-2
San Jose-San Francisco* 8 5-3
Washington, D.C. 6 5-1
Los Angeles 6 4-2
US Open 6 2-4
* The San Francisco event moved to San Jose in 1994

Wondertoy
05-15-2007, 06:12 AM
Well, I willl say that Agassi's charisma has brought him a lot of esteem in the tennis world and raise his place in history far higher than it would be otherwise. However, he really isn't in Sampras' league, he's clearly 2nd fiddle.

Azzurri
05-15-2007, 06:35 AM
Well, I willl say that Agassi's charisma has brought him a lot of esteem in the tennis world and raise his place in history far higher than it would be otherwise. However, he really isn't in Sampras' league, he's clearly 2nd fiddle.

do you think there was a rivalry? He did beat Sampras 14 times....FAR more wins against Sampras than any other player. When you look at each player individually, yes Sampras is the KING...no doubt. But the thread was asking if they had a rivalry. To be honest this thread should have been dead a long time ago. The question of whether there was rivalry is bogus to begin with.

A poll should be started asking who is Sampras's greatest rival...Agassi would win in a landslide. The issue in this thread is people are actually arguing this FACT and making absurd comments about Agassi's legacy. To be honest...anyone that thinks Agassi is overrated never watched tennis from 1987-2003 or has mental issues that require hospitalization.

A poster provided lots of support for Agassi. Not one of us Agassi supporters or supporters of he being Sampras's greatest rival EVER said he was better than Pete...not once.

Gizo
05-15-2007, 01:22 PM
To answer the question that the original poster is asking, the head to head between Sampras was 20-14. Agassi won 41.2% of their matches. That sounds like a rivalry to me. For me the best year of the Sampras-Agassi rivalry was 1995. They met 5 times, with all their matches being the finals of grand slams or super nine events. Agassi beat Sampras at the Australian Open, Miami (that was a superb match) and Montreal, with Pete returning the favour at Indian Wells and the US Open (ending Agassi's career best 26 match winning streak in the process). The no. 1 ranking changed hands between the two players twice that year.
1999 was also a good year, with Agassi snatching the world no. 1 spot of Sampras after Wimbledon. Sampras got it back in the North American hardcourt season, he was didn't play at the US Open due to an injury, allowing Agassi to become world no. 1 again where he was to end the year. Sampras was on fire in the Wimbledon final, teaching an in-form and at his peak Agassi a grasscourt masterclass. He then beat Agassi twice in the North American hardcourt summer. At the Masters Cup, Agassi thrashed Sampras for the loss of only 4 games in the round robin stage, but Sampras got his revenge in the final where he beat Andre very comfortably.

laurie
05-15-2007, 01:51 PM
I must admit I'm very surprised (actually stunned) that people are still arguing over this.

There really isn't any argument. Both were great players who pushed eachother to be better players to challenge eachther. The result was some of the best tennis played between two men in recent times.

It was a great rivalry - and it doesn't matter what statistics or numbers to prove whatever arguments. Both guys needed eachother to become legends. I'm very pleased they played eachother 34 times and am also pleased it wasn't 29 wins to 5 for either player. It was very competitive and close.

Five 0 mentioned some nice rivalries yesterday or Sunday. Out of the ones he mentioned my favourites were:

Sampras v Becker
Becker v Lendl
Becker v Edberg
Sampras v Rafter
Agassi v Rafter
Edberg v Sampras

ATPballkid
05-15-2007, 04:59 PM
Glad to hear you finally recognized this. But you failed to mention Pete has ZERO.

I also suppose Pete's all-time record 7 Wimbledons ARE (plural) better than just 1 Wimbledon.

I suppose Pete's all-time record 5 U.S. Opens on hardcourts ARE (plural) are better than 2 U.S. Opens.

I suppose Pete's all-time record 5 ATP Tour Championships ARE (plural) better than just 1.

I suppose Pete's all-time record 6 years ranked #1 ARE (plural) better than just 1.

I suppose Pete's all-time record 11 consecutive years in Grand Slam finals ARE (plural) better than just 5.

I suppose Pete's all-time record 8 consecutive years winning Slam finals ARE (plural) better than just 3.

I suppose Pete's all-time record 286 weeks ranked #1 ARE (plural) better than just 101 weeks at #1.

I suppose Pete's all-time record 14 Grand Slam singles titles ARE (plural) better than just 6 or 8 Grand Slam singles titles.


Sampras did not drop even a set vs. Agassi on clay in their last 10 years

Agassi leads Sampras 3-2 on clay if you count matches from 12 to 15 years ago.

Wow ... Agassi actually has a surface (when you count matches from 12 to 15 years ago) that he actually has a 3-2 advantage over Sampras? Alert the Agassi Fan Club.

ATPballkid
05-15-2007, 05:04 PM
Thank you......This is a wonderful display of Agassi's achievements (not to mention his cahrity). I (and a few others) were not arguing who is the better player, but who was Pete's greatest rival and IDIOTS like ATP ruin a good thread. It shocks me how stupid, immature and totally full of sh$t some people are.

Don't think when you are not used to it, slappano ... it might hurt your brain ... the analogy, of course, is that Sampras stands so much taller than Agassi in career accomplishments in tennis that even if Agassi managed to get a fluke draw in 1999 and actually win 1 French Open in his entire 20 year career it doesn't change all of the other aspects of their careers over 15 to 18 years of playing which favor Sampras over Agassi.

ATPballkid
05-15-2007, 05:10 PM
They also clearly do not understand that when they downplay Agassi
.


No dominance at any major event or in the #1 ranking for Agassi ... the closest would be the Australian Open.

Meanwhile, Sampras has dominated the 2 biggest events in tennis history -- Wimbledon and the U.S. Open -- and he has dominated the #1 ranking and the Tour Championships like no man in tennis history ... this dominance, combined with the consistency of reaching Grand Slam singles finals in an all-time record 11 consecutive years and winning Grand Slam singles titles in an all-time record 8 consecutive years ... and then added to the longevity of being the only man in the 35 years of the Open Era to win Grand Slam singles titles 12 years apart and in his teenage years in addition to his 20s and 30s ... all of this separates Sampras from Agassi and the rest of the pack to a point that there is literally nothing Agassi could do which would reverse their legacies.

drakulie
05-15-2007, 05:11 PM
ATP, it is obvious you are very good at cutting and pasting. Only problem is you are horrible at comprehending. The question is>>>>>>>
"Pete versus Andrei Was there a real rivalry?"

The answer is "YES".

ATPballkid
05-15-2007, 05:30 PM
Great points...did not think of that. Making Agassi sound like a clown (even though the guy won 8 majors) makes it like Sampras had no competition. Anyone with half a brain knows their rivalry was the greatest since Mac/Connors/Borg?Lendl...not bad company.

Agassi was a neon clad, commercially motivated underachiever who had some flair in his game that drew some fans to him ... he obviously wasn't as good at tennis as Sampras, but he did have his following.

drakulie
05-15-2007, 05:54 PM
A Rivalry To Remember: Courier Analyzes Agassi vs. Sampras

By Richard Pagliaro, 04/04/2003

http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=8344

From Wikipedia (Under Pete Sampras bio):

The rivalry between Agassi and Sampras became the dominant rivalry in tennis in the 1990s, with Sampras winning 20 of the 34 matches they played.

Rivalry with Agassi
Andre Agassi was perhaps Sampras's greatest rival, and the rivalry often brought out the best in both players' games.

FedSampras
05-15-2007, 06:57 PM
A Rivalry To Remember: Courier Analyzes Agassi vs. Sampras

By Richard Pagliaro, 04/04/2003

http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=8344

From Wikipedia (Under Pete Sampras bio):

The rivalry between Agassi and Sampras became the dominant rivalry in tennis in the 1990s, with Sampras winning 20 of the 34 matches they played.

Rivalry with Agassi
Andre Agassi was perhaps Sampras's greatest rival, and the rivalry often brought out the best in both players' games.


this last post of yours DRAKULA reeked of desperation.

let it go already......you are losing ground.......

Like agassi, you are "slipping"......
:D

drakulie
05-15-2007, 07:31 PM
You're right FedSamp>> Sampras's greatest rival was Mark Keil.

FedSampras
05-15-2007, 09:10 PM
You're right FedSamp>> Sampras's greatest rival was Mark Keil.

Yeah, I think agassi was over rated, even at his peak he's nowhere near federer and sampras. His biggest legacy was being an entertainer. :D

kingdaddy41788
05-15-2007, 09:33 PM
Yeah, I think agassi was over rated, even at his peak he's nowhere near federer and sampras. His biggest legacy was being an entertainer. :D

Wow. You started the thread and you don't even remember what it was about. Was their a rivalry? Yes. 41% is a pretty good winning percentage against a GOAT contender. Their was definitely a rivalry. Agassi was not overrated - he won a career grand slam and an olympic medal. Two INCREDIBLE achievements that Sampras could not match. Sampras, on the other hand, had many records Agassi could not match.

Both were incredible players. Both hold incredible records. Both shared an incredible rivalry.

CEvertFan
05-16-2007, 12:15 AM
Hate Agassi or love him, you have to admit that he and Pete had a genuinely good rivalry.

Azzurri
05-17-2007, 11:17 AM
this last post of yours DRAKULA reeked of desperation.

let it go already......you are losing ground.......

Like agassi, you are "slipping"......
:D

Dude...you and ATP give me a headache. The last thing Drak shows is desperation. Look at ATP's posts....that is desperation. He and apparently you too have no concept of the word RIVAL or RIVALRY.

1. a person who is competing for the same object or goal as another, or who tries to equal or outdo another; competitor.
2. a person or thing that is in a position to dispute another's preeminence or superiority


everyone has stated that Pete is the better player...maybe even far better for 9/10 of their careers (made so evidently by ATPballsack). But the OP question was there a RIVALRY. The pure definition shows that anyone can be a rival, but did they have a rivalry? The answer is an easy yes. Consider the fact that they played each other 34 times (more than any other player each has faced). The won a combined 22 majors and Olympic gold. What other rivals won a combined 22 majors? I don't know of any personally and did not do a search to find out. But think of it this way in an 11 years they won a combined 21 majors. How is this not a rivalry?


Here are a few quotes from players that know a bit more about how good this Agassi guy was. Their opinion offers far more credibility than you and ATP.

John McEnroe said, "if I had to name the top five or six guys at this point, I would put Sampras, I would put Laver, I'd have to put Borg up there because he won the eleven, I'd put Federer in there now, I'd put Agassi in there...if I could be thrown in the same breath as those guys I'd be happy."[8]


When Mats Wilander was asked in 2005 to name the top five tennis players of all time, he placed Agassi, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, and Björn Borg in the top four (in no order) and tied John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, and Jimmy Connors for fifth place. Concerning Agassi, Wilander said, “He has some limitations, like he can’t serve and volley, yet he has won all four Slams. He has a very high energy level, quite like Borg. He is on fifth gear from the very first point. There is some abnormality in his eyes, otherwise he wouldn’t have had such a phenomenal return. He sees the ball like no one else and just guides it wherever he wants to. He’s just played a Grand Slam final at 35, that tells me he wasted the first five years of his career, otherwise he couldn’t have lasted this long. No one has done more to tennis than Agassi and Borg."

Here is a funny quaote. It basically sums up what ATP and FEDSAMP have been saying...he has had a ho-hum career...but:

On August 29, 2006, a columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer asserted that Agassi's career will never be characterized by sheer recordbreaking. He then went on to humorously observe that "Agassi doesn't even have the record for most Grand Slam wins in his house," a passing reference to Agassi's wife Steffi Graf (who won 22 Grand Slam singles titles).

To be as great as he is and win as much as he did is remarkable consdiering he had so many legendary players RIVAL him. Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Courier, Chang, Lendl, Mac, and a few others (remember he started his career in 1987 and Lendl was good until 1992.)

Hope this helps FEDSAMPRAS.

ATPballkid
05-17-2007, 06:32 PM
Here is a funny quaote. It basically sums up what ATP and FEDSAMP have been saying...he has had a ho-hum career...but:

On August 29, 2006, a columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer asserted that Agassi's career will never be characterized by sheer recordbreaking. He then went on to humorously observe that "Agassi doesn't even have the record for most Grand Slam wins in his house," a passing reference to Agassi's wife Steffi Graf (who won 22 Grand Slam singles titles).

.

Right as Andre Agassi was starting the men's tour in February 1986 ... Steffi Graf was bringing Chris Evert's 6 consecutive match winning streak to an end with her last loss to Evert in the same month Agassi got it started .. and then in April of that year, Steffi was starting an 8 match winning streak of her own against the great Chris Evert.

Andre Agassi (USA)
1986 Singles Activity
AGASSI'S FIRST YEAR BEGAN WITH AN EVENT IN FEBRUARY 1986

La Quinta, California, USA
February 24, 1986
Surface: Hardcourt
R64 John Austin (USA) W 6-4 6-2
R32 Mats Wilander (SWE) L 1-6 1-6


Stratton Mountain, Vermont, USA
August 04, 1986
Surface: Hardcourt
R64 Stefan Eriksson (SWE) W 7-6 6-2
R32 Tim Mayotte (USA) W 4-6 6-4 6-2
R16 Scott Davis (USA) W 6-3 3-6 6-2
QF John McEnroe (USA) L 3-6 3-6


U.S. Open at Flushing Meadows, New York, USA
August 25, 1986
Surface: Hardcourt
R128 Jeremy Bates (GBR) L 6-7 3-6 6-4 4-6


Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
October 06, 1986
Surface: Hardcourt
R32 Glenn Layendecker (USA) L 4-6 6-7


Tokyo, Japan
October 13, 1986
Surface: Hardcourt
R64 Jimmy Arias (USA) L 4-6 2-6


Houston, Texas, USA
November 17, 1986
Surface: Indoor Carpet
R32 Glenn Michibata (CAN) W 6-3 6-2
R16 Bill Scanlon (USA) L 1-6 3-6



MEANWHILE, STEFFI GRAF LOST HER FINAL MATCH TO ALL-TIME GREAT, CHRIS EVERT, IN FEBRUARY 1986.


1985-02-04 Delray Beach SF Hardcourt Evert won 6-4 6-2
1985-04-08 Hilton Head SF Clay Evert won 6-2 6-1
1985-05-13 Berlin F Clay Evert won 6-4 7-5
1985-05-27 French R4 Clay Evert won 6-2 6-3
1986-01-27 Key Biscayne F Hardcourt Evert won 6-3 6-1
1986-02-10 Boca Raton F Hardcourt Evert won 6-4 6-2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1986-04-07 Hilton Head F Clay Graf won 6-4 7-5
1987-02-23 Key Biscayne F Hardcourt Graf won 6-1 6-2
1987-07-26 Fed Cup RR Hardcourt Graf won 6-2 6-1
1987-08-10 Los Angeles F Hardcourt Graf won 6-3 6-4
1988-01-11 Australian F Hardcourt Graf won 6-1 7-6
1988-03-14 Key Biscayne F Hardcourt Graf won 6-4 6-4
1989-03-13 Boca Raton F Hardcourt Graf won 4-6 6-2 6-3
1989-06-26 Wimbledon SF Grass SF Graf won 6-2 6-1


Certain moments in tennis are milestones .. for Agassi and Graf, the year 1986 will be special for 2 very different reasons.

The fact that Sampras got to experience the all-time record of Wimbledon and to experience the all-time record for Grand Slam events in July 2000 was phenomenal ... either one of those (an all-time record 7th Wimbledon or an all-time record 13th Grand Slam singles title) would have been special enough to make time stand still as Spencer Gore, Willie Renshaw, Tony Wilding and Bill Tilden looked down on the moment.

BUT THEN ... for Sampras to be able to experience it again by setting the all-time record for a 5th U.S. Open on hardcourts while breaking his own record with a record 14th Grand Slam singles title at the 2002 U.S. Open -- and for it to be won over Roddick and Agassi ... now THAT is great.

AND THEN, the following year, to get the tribute that he got in New York as he retired from the sport .. sensational.

ATPballkid
05-17-2007, 07:21 PM
Sampras's greatest rival was Mark Keil.

drakulie, you have the inability to provide substance and to back up your loose talk and mindless banter on here.

At least try to learn something through all of this ... we all can see that you need to.

ATPballkid
05-17-2007, 08:05 PM
Agassi was not overrated - he won a career grand slam and an olympic medal. Two INCREDIBLE achievements that Sampras could not match. Sampras, on the other hand, had many records Agassi could not match.

Both were incredible players. Both hold incredible records. Both shared an incredible rivalry.

It's semantics, but I would say:

"Pete has been the better player, but Agassi has been more of an entertainer than Sampras has .. and, as a result, Agassi has been overrated relative to Sampras for the short term. In the long term, however -- and this includes long after we are all laid 6 feet under -- Sampras will be the one who stands the test of time like a Bill Tilden, Don Budge, Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall."

EZRA
05-18-2007, 03:35 AM
.... even Sampras himself admits that his greatest rival was Andre .. he openly admits that the man that brought out the best in him was Andre... yet you people argue otherwise? You think you know better than The Man himself?

Just because Pete has a dominating head-to-head contest against Andre doesn't mean that there wasn't a real rivalry. Obviously PETE was the better player ... but ANDRE was the obvious second during their career.

---

There are people who's got a winning record against PETE... but would you guys consider them his rivals? EXACTLY.

Guevin
05-18-2007, 12:00 PM
It's obvious YOU don't have anything to contribute on here, clown.

Pete Sampras says his greatest rival was Agassi, you, an internet nerd/troll say otherwise.

Hmm who should we believe?

End of discussion.

FedSampras
05-19-2007, 12:52 AM
Pete Sampras says his greatest rival was Agassi, you, an internet nerd/troll say otherwise.

Hmm who should we believe?

End of discussion.

i think kid is right you are clown in the agassi circus. as what I posted on my first post in this thread, its all MEDIA/ATP hype that there was a great rivalry when in reality sampras was singledhandedly dominating mens tennis during those years.

federerfanatic
05-19-2007, 03:54 AM
Pete Sampras says his greatest rival was Agassi, you, an internet nerd/troll say otherwise.

Hmm who should we believe?

End of discussion.

Agassi also said after losing to Federer in the 2005 U.S Open final that Federer is even better then Sampras was. Do you automaticaly accept that just because he said it as well. :p

armand
05-19-2007, 04:41 AM
I tell ya there was another part of the rivalry: It was 'Who can make the most whimpering exit at Wimbledon rivalry?'
Remember that? Agassi lost to Scrichaphan and Sampras lost to Bastl on the graveyard both in the 2nd round. I think Pete won that one too because Srichaphan at least came to have some noteriety(other marrying a beauty queen) while Bastl has become a journeyman at the onsight pub in the qualifying draw(if that).

ATPballkid
05-19-2007, 12:18 PM
Hmm, last time we had this discussion Pete hadn't won a French much less reached the final there. On the other hand, Agassi reached the final there 3 times winning once.



Pete has more hair than Agassi.
Pete also has more years ranked #1 than Agassi.
Pete also has more weeks ranked #1 than Agassi.
Pete also has more Grand Slam titles than Agassi.
Pete also has more Tour Championships than Agassi.
Pete also has more years between Slams than Agassi.
Pete also has more ATP Tour singles titles than Agassi.
Pete also has more U.S. Open singles titles than Agassi.
Pete also has more Wimbledon singles titles than Agassi.
Pete also has more years in Grand Slam finals than Agassi.
Pete also has more years winning Grand Slam titles than Agassi.

Pete also has a better looking wife than Agassi.
Pete also has a better place in tennis history than Agassi.

CEvertFan
05-19-2007, 03:36 PM
Pete has more hair than Agassi.
Pete also has more years ranked #1 than Agassi.
Pete also has more weeks ranked #1 than Agassi.
Pete also has more Grand Slam titles than Agassi.
Pete also has more Tour Championships than Agassi.
Pete also has more years between Slams than Agassi.
Pete also has more ATP Tour singles titles than Agassi.
Pete also has more U.S. Open singles titles than Agassi.
Pete also has more Wimbledon singles titles than Agassi.
Pete also has more years in Grand Slam finals than Agassi.
Pete also has more years winning Grand Slam titles than Agassi.

Pete also has a better looking wife than Agassi.
Pete also has a better place in tennis history than Agassi.


I thought this thread was about whether or not Sampras and Agassi had a legitimate rivalry, not who was the better player. I don't think anyone would say that Agassi was a greater player than Sampras so I don't understand why you keep posting pointless stuff like this. Everyone already knows that Pete is the better player, what everyone except you acknowledges is that they did in fact have a legitimately good rivalry.

FedSampras
05-19-2007, 09:43 PM
I thought this thread was about whether or not Sampras and Agassi had a legitimate rivalry, not who was the better player. I don't think anyone would say that Agassi was a greater player than Sampras so I don't understand why you keep posting pointless stuff like this. Everyone already knows that Pete is the better player, what everyone except you acknowledges is that they did in fact have a legitimately good rivalry.


i agree with kid. Agassi was not an EQUAL rival to the Great Sampras. He was the whipping boy of Sampras. Did you now get the point of this thread???

hoping this would finally put an end to your pointless responses on this thread. thanks.

EZRA
05-20-2007, 04:44 AM
20-14 win/loss record doesn't make someone a whipping boy .. so Agassi won roughly 40% of the matches played.... not a bad percentage. Sampras got 40% of his matches played against Richard Krajicek, does that mean that he's Krajicek's whipping boy as well???

Now Chang's got a decent record against Pete.. does that mean he's a closer to a rival to Pete than ANDRE?

Azzurri
05-20-2007, 06:01 AM
i agree with kid. Agassi was not an EQUAL rival to the Great Sampras. He was the whipping boy of Sampras. Did you now get the point of this thread???

hoping this would finally put an end to your pointless responses on this thread. thanks.

You are a COMPLETE and Utter MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The point of this thread was not who is better but was there a RIVALRY.

People....(besides the assclowns ATP and FEDSampra) lets end this stupid thread. These guys are just busting everyone's chops. Either they are the same person, brothers, live together, gay, or Pete himself. Then this thread is going no where. There is no point anymore to talk even a little sense. To be honest, not sure what a good reason is for being suspended, but I think this is. How many people have to tell these "children" we are not arguing who was better. They continue to insult and berade us for actually answering the OP question. Even thought the OP is a weed at this point. Check the weeds top 5...he has Agassi in it. How come you rate him top 5 and not a rival or at least a great champion? Cuz you are a joke. See #50.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=118570&page=3

This just proves I am right. This is the last post for me......ENOUGH!:mad:

obanaghan
05-23-2007, 01:44 PM
Clearly head to head Sampras has the better numbers than Agassi. I never liked Agassi and came to dislike Sampras but despite the quantity of titles, Slams and weeks at number one Agassi has two things Sampras will never have; a French Open title and an Olympic gold medal.

I myself would rather have Agassi's Slams at 8: 1 French, 1 Wimbledon, 2 US and 4 Aussies is it than Sampras' 14 Slams with ZERO French Opens and only a single semifinal to show for it. That questions for me just how GOAT he was.

Lastly, while Steffi Graf is not as pretty as Mrs. Sampras who cares??!! Brookd Shields sure was and she was Mrs. Agassi for a few years!!

drakulie
05-23-2007, 02:55 PM
You are a COMPLETE and Utter MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The point of this thread was not who is better but was there a RIVALRY.

People....(besides the assclowns ATP and FEDSampra) lets end this stupid thread. These guys are just busting everyone's chops. Either they are the same person, brothers, live together, gay, or Pete himself. Then this thread is going no where. There is no point anymore to talk even a little sense. To be honest, not sure what a good reason is for being suspended, but I think this is. How many people have to tell these "children" we are not arguing who was better. They continue to insult and berade us for actually answering the OP question. Even thought the OP is a weed at this point. Check the weeds top 5...he has Agassi in it. How come you rate him top 5 and not a rival or at least a great champion? Cuz you are a joke. See #50.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=118570&page=3

This just proves I am right. This is the last post for me......ENOUGH!:mad:

haha, OWNED!

CEvertFan
05-23-2007, 03:28 PM
It's semantics, but I would say:

"Pete has been the better player, but Agassi has been more of an entertainer than Sampras has .. and, as a result, Agassi has been overrated relative to Sampras for the short term. In the long term, however -- and this includes long after we are all laid 6 feet under -- Sampras will be the one who stands the test of time like a Bill Tilden, Don Budge, Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall."

Agassi won 8 Slams. That's as many as Lendl and Connors won and one more than McEnroe's 7 Slams. That must mean that they are as overrated as you seem to think Agassi is. :roll: :roll: Hell, Connors was just as much of a showman as Agassi if not more so, so does that also make him overrated too? I have a piece of advice for you-GET A CLUE.

ATPballkid
05-23-2007, 07:25 PM
Agassi has two things Sampras will never have; a French Open title and an Olympic gold medal.



Add in just 1 more from the U.S. Open, Wimbledon and Tour Championship and that is Agassi's career .. + the Australian Opens.

Like I said, not much of a career for a guy who was trying for 20 years.

Borg accomplished more in 4 years (Wimbledon 1977 through Wimbledon 1981) than Agassi accomplished in his 20 years on the ATP Tour.

Sampras accomplished more in 4 years (Wimbledon 1993 through Wimbledon 1997) than Agassi accomplished in his entire 20 years on the ATP Tour.

drakulie
05-23-2007, 07:27 PM
^^^ Agassi accomplished more in one year at the French than Sampras did his entire career.

Azzurri
05-24-2007, 02:49 PM
^^^ Agassi accomplished more in one year at the French than Sampras did his entire career.

LOL!!!!!!! Great one Drak....I was not going to post anymore but your post was great!

Guevin
05-26-2007, 05:09 PM
^^^ Agassi accomplished more in one year at the French than Sampras did his entire career.

The truth hurts.

FiveO
05-26-2007, 05:29 PM
Pete has more hair than Agassi.
Pete also has more years ranked #1 than Agassi.
Pete also has more weeks ranked #1 than Agassi.
Pete also has more Grand Slam titles than Agassi.
Pete also has more Tour Championships than Agassi.
Pete also has more years between Slams than Agassi.
Pete also has more ATP Tour singles titles than Agassi.
Pete also has more U.S. Open singles titles than Agassi.
Pete also has more Wimbledon singles titles than Agassi.
Pete also has more years in Grand Slam finals than Agassi.
Pete also has more years winning Grand Slam titles than Agassi.



All true BUT, in multiple interviews Sampras said he felt Agassi was the only contemporary capable of beating him when Sampras was playing his best tennis.

navratilovafan
05-26-2007, 07:12 PM
All true BUT, in multiple interviews Sampras said he felt Agassi was the only contemporary capable of beating him when Sampras was playing his best tennis.

Well that whenever that match is occured is obviously one I never saw, since from 1993-beyond Sampras did not play his "best tennis" in any loss to Agassi that I saw, or even close to it quite honestly. In fact when Sampras was playing his best the best Agassi could ever do was be respectable, not truly competitive, like the 1999 Wimbledon final, and he had to be playing his best to even do that. Agassi's grinding style could not stack up against to a sublime shotmaker and phenomenal athlete like Sampras at his best. Players say alot of excessive gush statements about their main competitors, look at Federer and Nadal and the "grain of salt" statements they make about each other.