PDA

View Full Version : Can PMac stop saying Agassi is so great at 33 years of age..


edge
03-20-2004, 07:52 PM
Let it be known that the (actually) great Rod Laver won 44 titles AFTER his 30th birthday. Agassi is not even close to that and will never be in that league of greatness. So will someone point this fact out to PMac so he will stop saying Agsssi, "great this and that at age 33", etc. AA will never come close to Laver's level of greatness. Hell if Medvedev didn't chock his 2 set to none lead at the French, Agassi wouldn't have his lifetime blah, blah, blah.

Anonymous
03-20-2004, 08:14 PM
And let's not forget, f... naw I won't say it... Agassi has to reach the semifinals of the US Open at age 40 (that's 40, not 33) and win oh say.... a **** LOAD more titles past 30 to approach the swaggering nut sack that is Jimmy Connors.

Then there is Ken Rosewall...

Nosoupforyou
03-20-2004, 09:30 PM
Let it be known that the (actually) great Rod Laver won 44 titles AFTER his 30th birthday. Agassi is not even close to that and will never be in that league of greatness. So will someone point this fact out to PMac so he will stop saying Agsssi, "great this and that at age 33", etc. AA will never come close to Laver's level of greatness. Hell if Medvedev didn't chock his 2 set to none lead at the French, Agassi wouldn't have his lifetime blah, blah, blah.

Agreed that PMac does talk too much about some people, but is that really a reason to insult Agassi, with the exception of Connors maybe, the players you named were playing in a whole different era, it was not uncommon for those players to go into their late 30's, but since the game has evolved so much since their time it is a much harder thing to do now

Lambro
03-20-2004, 11:06 PM
idolizing Laver before Andre was even a teen

But Pat is a TV color comentator..so he has to pump up an angle of the current match

PureCarlosMoyaDrive
03-20-2004, 11:35 PM
I really hate watching matches with Agassi in it at all now, simply because I know if Agassi gets a complete sitter and hits a winner, PMac will cheer it like it was the hardest to hit shot in tennis. Then Cliffy'll back him up, talk bout how he's the old man kicking the young guys butts still, whatever.

Pete_D
03-21-2004, 06:14 AM
Maybe its just a case of ESPN getting what they pay for. Notice J-Mac went to greener pastures in lands where tennis is appreciated. So maybe PMac and Cliff really have nothing intelligent to say but the price was right. On the other hand, maybe ESPN orders Cliffatrick to repeat the same drivel endlessly, in order to help popularize tennis by cutting into the dirt bike ratings on the other network. Which (HELLO?) doesn't seem to be working. I gave up trying to figure ESPN out so I just keep the "mute" button handy. And keep up hope for the day when there's an alternative way to see tennis.

Hit 'em clean
03-21-2004, 06:14 AM
Laver and Connors both played in eras where the competition was not as fierce as it is today. I truly believe that what Agassi is doing now is special in it's own right and will be borne out over time. Even as great as Sampras was he was struggling to beat guys. The fact is that the depth of the tour is much greater today than it ever was when Laver and Connors were over 30. Factor in also how quickly the game is changing.

Now you have big guys avg over 6ft tall that can totally unload on the ball off of both wings, have monster serves, and have tremendous movement around the court. The game has changed and I'm sorry to say that after watching the Federer match, it's the first time I've seen someone who didn't have to bring their 'A' game to beat Andre. 10-20 years from now we'll all appreciate what Andre has been able to accomplish in this new power age of tennis.

larrhall
03-21-2004, 07:12 AM
It's not a good thing to belittle Agassi's late-career accomplishments by judging him against Rosewall, Laver and Connors just as Andre's game has started to decline. What he has done at his 'age' is truly remarkable, given the facts about size and power of players and depth of field as some have mentioned. He is about to turn 34, which is about like 38 or 39 of 15 or 20 years ago. Just getting to the semis of a Masters Series event is something pretty impressive. How many regular ATP players have to qualify and lose in qualifying? Young and promising players like Fish who did well in San Jose just a few weeks ago find themselves in Federer's way and...gone.

Of the players mentioned as having the winning mentality or whatever, well, McEnroe always struggled with his confidence. Unlike Andre, who does appear to focus on the 'process', John tended to focus on the result more. He 'had' to win. He did use a lot of gamesmanship when things weren't going well. I don't see that out of the older version of Andre. Lendl struggled mightily until he realized his potential. He could demolish lesser opponents but would fade out against his peers in big matches. Once he turned it around, then he got that Sampras swagger.

I find it hard to believe, also, that Roddick lacks the 'killer instinct.' It is more that he is self-critical, and has learned to use input to improve his game. It is clear he has a lot of self-belief; he also knows his weaknesses, like at net, and has worked to improve them. You could see the result in the Safin match.

As for Agassi himself, I agree that sometimes he believes and sometimes he goes towards the McEnroe self-doubt side.

What he has done with his career has been an inspiration to a lot of people in and out of tennis. Good for him. The dedication he has shown is truly impressive.

Audiodude
03-21-2004, 07:28 AM
It's possible that both the ATP and the WTA, and possibly ESPN, want the players talked up in an effort to create personalities. This needs to happen if you don't want to see tennis replaced with more and more poker. Not one person who lives on my street, other than myself, would know who Roger Federer is. Most of them, if not all, know who Tiger Woods is. I know it gets very old hearing the same old drivel about Agassi, Roddick, Federer, Henin, etc. It drives me crazy too. But you can't assume that exactly the same audience is watching every time. Same bus, different passengers, folks. Tennis needs to develop personalities if it's going to thrive. Heck, if Nascar can generate incredible loyalty for individual drivers in a large group of guys going in circles, surely tennis can do the same for its players. If that means putting up with those annoying MTV type profiles, then so be it. My nine year old son, who is not a tennis fan, likes to watch Andy Roddick. I view that as a good thing. Another potential tennis fan.

jjames
03-21-2004, 02:39 PM
problem with agassi is that he's been talked up by the media folks since he was seventeen, and only managed one year end #1 ranking. thats not legendary status. even courier had two #1's.

Camilio Pascual
03-22-2004, 04:26 AM
Different eras, Edge. Older players did much better in Laver's time than now. Case in point: Agassi, who is in the Top Ten of titles won by teenagers. Rod is not.

dander
03-22-2004, 05:46 AM
for the record, agassi is still #2 in the world, rankings be darned. what's so interesting is that he lost to fed almost the exact same way he lost to sampras on hard courts (at least flushing) all of those years, from 1990-2002. in all of those, agassi simply had to go for too much off the ground. agassi's huge ball threw off fed's timing early and he came out of the gate so hard, but just like sampras, fed kicked it up a notch as the match got deeper while agassi didn't have a higher gear to rely on.
see sampras v. agassi in 1990, 1005, 2001, 2002 at the US open and this match was so, so eerily similar

edge
03-22-2004, 06:27 AM
dander, the big diff is that Sampras beat AA by attacking, S&V, and Fed beat him at the baseline with his ground game.

dander
03-22-2004, 08:26 AM
go back and watch those matches from flushing and you'll find that sampras stayed back way more than most people think
that's why those losses were so demoralizing, because agassi's groundgame is generally seen as being THE gold standard but in their head to head sampras did more than just hold his own from the baseline. on lots of occasions he stayed back and beat agassi in almost the same way as fed on saturday

edge
03-22-2004, 09:52 AM
Maybe you're right. Sampras has often said that he played his best late in his career. My son and I watched the tapes of him losing to Edberg in '92 vs. Sampras beating AA in the Qtrs, US Open 2001 and there is no comparision....Circa 2001 he was more agressive coming in on almost all first and half of 2nd serves. In '92 he was more of a baseliner and Tony Trabert, the announcer kept saying that he should be attacking.

dozu
03-22-2004, 10:27 AM
it's a free country. PMac has the liberty to say whatever. You have the liberty to hit the mute button.

Free_Martha
03-22-2004, 10:27 AM
problem with agassi is that he's been talked up by the media folks since he was seventeen, and only managed one year end #1 ranking. thats not legendary status. even courier had two #1's.

You know nothing about tennis.

Stinkdyr
03-22-2004, 10:59 AM
Pete D be right. just mute the boobs.

Robert Jones
03-23-2004, 03:17 PM
What a crok of %^*%$*

Connors played them all. The competition was better then than now.

Borg, Lendl, Connors, Mac, Courier, Edberg, Wilander, Becker, etc.... This list goes on. Much deeper bench in those days and more entertaining.


I think Agassi is a great baseliner but to say the competition is better now is a stretch.

Let todays pros hit with 60 head size wood sticks and let them play back then.

Also It is very apparant that Both Mac brothers worship Agassi. Its very difficult for them to critique him. Yes it annoys many viewers.


Laver and Connors both played in eras where the competition was not as fierce as it is today. I truly believe that what Agassi is doing now is special in it's own right and will be borne out over time. Even as great as Sampras was he was struggling to beat guys. The fact is that the depth of the tour is much greater today than it ever was when Laver and Connors were over 30. Factor in also how quickly the game is changing.

Now you have big guys avg over 6ft tall that can totally unload on the ball off of both wings, have monster serves, and have tremendous movement around the court. The game has changed and I'm sorry to say that after watching the Federer match, it's the first time I've seen someone who didn't have to bring their 'A' game to beat Andre. 10-20 years from now we'll all appreciate what Andre has been able to accomplish in this new power age of tennis.

cruusher
03-23-2004, 04:10 PM
i think we all know that comp was not as deep in the 50s - 60s, but i think that we all know that raquet tech has also lengthened the careers of a few older players. andre would never have adopted the sideline to sideline strategy he employs now with wood/ without oversize hea! lets face it, that is what has contributed to his lengthy career. no6t to mention string technology, and training programs of today being way better than of years past. the big reason guys dont stick around so long now is MONEY! you dont have to play into your late thirtys to be well off!

SonicSpeed
03-23-2004, 09:36 PM
problem with agassi is that he's been talked up by the media folks since he was seventeen, and only managed one year end #1 ranking. thats not legendary status. even courier had two #1's.

So?

It's not all about number of years ending #1. Who has more slams between Agassi and Courier? Who has more titles? (You can even go to who has more weeks at #1..which would be Agassi) etc, etc.

By your logic then Becker would be a complete nothing, seeing he has ended ZERO years at #1. Yet he has 6 slams to his resume.

I do consider year ending #1 in my analysis of career comparisons...but there is much more than just that.