PDA

View Full Version : Andre is incredible!!!


Coria
02-26-2005, 05:53 AM
Hats off to this old warrior. He's beating guys 10, 12, 15 years younger than him!! In this era of athletic and "power" tennis, it's nothing short of amazing. People talk about Sampras as though he's at a whole level above Agassi--bullcrap!! Yes, he gets the nod--but a very slightl nod.

From age 28 years, 11 months to just having turned 31--Sampras won one event. He got to three US Open finals which is very impressive, having won the last one. In the final 26 months of his career, he won about 57% of his matches and just the one title. Then he was finished. Borg was done at 26, 27. Edberg and Becker were done by 30-31. McEnroe's best days were over at 25. Countless other great players of the last 20-25 years were on the downside by their late 20's and out of the game by 30.

Here's Andre, two months shy of 35--35!!! and he's beating top 10 players 75% of the time. Beating guys like Joachim J. and Davydenko and Roddick last year, and many others--it's incredible. He may not beat Federer in the Dubai semis--but he could, and he's there. He's still getting to quarters and semis of major hardcourt events. Usually, when he loses, it's by a very slim margin (Federer at '04 Open, Safin at last year's semis). The fact is that he's still winning 75-85% of his matches against elite players in elite events. What he's done in his early to mid 30's, combined with his 60 professional wins, a ton of Master's series victories, 8 Slams, winning all four slams, tremendous Davis Cup record, Olympic Gold, 25 PLUS quarterfinal or better showings in majors (15 finals appearances) and on and on--ANDRE AGASSI IS ONE OF THE TOP 5 PLAYERS OF ALL TIME!! IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT HE'S ACCOMPLISHED AND TAKE YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND!!! The guy has the greatest groundstrokes in the history of the game!! And nobody has done what he has done at his age in the last 30 years--NOBODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mahboob Khan
02-26-2005, 06:06 AM
My head is out of the sand and I am nodding in approval but how about Jimmy Connors? You forgot to mention his name! He won 109 Pro titles, and at the age of 39 reached the semi-final of U.S. Open. Along the way he beat Aaron Christine who was leading 5/3 in the final set. Connors deserves a mention!

robkat
02-26-2005, 06:10 AM
His name is Aaron Kricksten .

Perfect
02-26-2005, 06:11 AM
True, Andre is incredible! Connors was also. I am not sure, but aren't Agassi and Connors getting similar results at the slams. When Connors was 35, he was still beating pretty good players and getting to the quarters and semis of slams.

Coria
02-26-2005, 08:11 AM
I might put Connors in top five of all time--certainly top 8. The thing is though--it's a tougher field now than even the late 80's, early 90's. Guys have bigger serves, bigger strokes, are more athletic, etc. I think Jimmy was probably the greatest competitor in the history of the sport. But, in all honest, Andre at 35 beats Jimmy at 35 in solid straight sets. Andre has even better groundies than Connors, clearly a better serve and even better hands. Andre can create angles even better than Connors.

My top five of all time are Budge, Sampras, Laver, Agassi and Borg. Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Tilden and Becker round out the top ten--not necessarliy in that order.

Coria
02-26-2005, 08:17 AM
I know someone will say Emerson, but in watching old films of him, I think Becker was the far better player. Perhaps nobody ever played better in the history of the game than Johnny Mac in '84. He beat Connors 6-1,6-1,6-2 and made 3 unforced errors. Connors was 2 the world at the time. Two months later, he clocked Lendl in the US Open final. Also, he was two games away from beating Lendl in straight sets at the French final.

Rosewall, Wilander, Perry, Edberg, Kramer, Newcombe certainly get some top 15 consideration. Got to put Boris in top 10 because even Sampras said he was the greatest indoor player ever.

joeman957
02-26-2005, 10:03 AM
I agree, Agassi is awesome. Wouldn't that be something if he beat Federer at Dubai?

lemurballs
02-26-2005, 10:13 AM
Indeed, one of the last of his generation.

wildbill88AA
02-26-2005, 10:26 AM
ya, well federer just pasted him, 6-3,6-1. i think a 37 year old connors beat edberg and went 5 sets with a young andre at the us open.

35ft6
02-26-2005, 12:56 PM
Something that I rarely hear mentioned when people try to explain Agassi's remarkable resilience is the fact that he hits the ball so early.

Because he can take the ball so early, he can camp out on or inside the baseline cutting off angles, which means he doesn't have to move nearly as much as his opponent. I know he trains like a crazy person but his great eyes and hands have saved him hundreds of miles of wear and tear on the legs.

Plus, his game style is very simple. No matter who he plays, his strategy is pretty much the same. He's going to go out there, try to control the middle of the court, and hit methodically corner to corner. If his opponent is too good that day then he's too good, but Agassi knows that in the long run he's going to win far more matches than he'll lose. This simplicity of game is important because I think a huge reason for tennis burnout is becoming gun shy. A person without a concrete gameplan as Agassi, who has to think about what strategy is best on any given day, at any given moment, are subjected to a lot more stress. If nothing else, Agassi unlike other people doesn't really have to obsess over what he's going to do in terms of strategy.

I think this is what happened with Sampras, with his high risk attacking style -- he just lost that mental edge. It became harder for him to know when and where to pull the trigger.

Agassi on the other hand, he doesn't have to worry about that ****. Can't wait to see him play this Friday in Carson!

dAgEnIuS
02-26-2005, 01:12 PM
it would have been a whole lot different if Andre won the 2002 us open finals against Pete Sampras...
It would have been a viseversa of what is happening right now...
Agassi probably would have retired and Sampras would have been doing the same thing that Andre is doing right now...

Datacipher
02-26-2005, 01:28 PM
ya, well federer just pasted him, 6-3,6-1. i think a 37 year old connors beat edberg and went 5 sets with a young andre at the us open.

He decimated Edberg, the Wimbledon champ that year. 6-2, 6-3, 6-1 (One of the games Edberg won in the 2nd set was a game penalty against Connors)

At that age, Connors had still retained considerbly more quickness than Agassi has now. However, the edge in fitness and endurance would go to Agassi, though Connors was still very lean and mean.

Yes, Perfect, Connors was still making quarters and semis at the same age and in fact, just like Agassi/Federer, if not for a man named Lendl, Connors may have pulled one of those grand slams out.]

Ashe is another who won a grand slam in his 30's and at age 35 climbed from 275 to 13 in 1 year.

In terms of longevity, Agassi beats Sampras, however, saying Sampras gets the nod by a "slight" margin is indefensible. Longevity is great, but Gianlucca Pozzi doesn't get the nod over Hingis.

What Agassi is doing is just fantastic, but not unheard of, nor does it somehow push his legacy over other greats. He already has some fine accomplishments and may yet do more but Coria, your last paragraph is pretty fanboyish and not too convincing.

Coria
02-26-2005, 06:31 PM
"Agassi beats Sampras, however, saying Sampras gets the nod by a "slight" margin is indefensible."

Are you kidding? Why, because Pete won all those Wimbledons? Did he win the French? He got to ONE semi (and was blown out) in 12 French appearances. He had a 20-14 record vs. Andre. Hardly dominating!! And two times, Sampras enjoyed the LUCK of getting to rest significantly more than Andre going into a US OPEN final. In '95, he was off the court by 1:30 on Saturday. Andre got off at almost 10:00 beating Becker. Then, he had to come back in 18 hours after a much better rested Sampras. The match was even through the late 3rd set and Andre tired. In the '02 Open, Sampras AGAIN had the luck of an earlier match while Andre had to play Hewitt and AGAIN got significantly less rest.

Andre won MORE MASTERS series events than Sampras--did you know that??
Andre won Olympic Gold--Pete didn't. Andre won all four slams--pete DIDN'T.
Did you know that Andre has a slighty BETTER winning percentage in majors than PETE??

"Longevity is great, but Gianlucca Pozzi doesn't get the nod over Hingis."

Your longevity point is so idiotic it's laughable. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT Gianlucca Pozzi knucklehead--I'm talking about ANDRE AGASSI and him winning majors and Masters series events at 32, 33, 34. I'm talking about a level of fitness unmatched by any guy ever after 30. Connors did not face the depth of talent that is out there now. He did not face the same power of today or the athleticism Andre would clock Connors, absolutely clock him. And I loved Connors, but he can't match Andre's power, control, serve and angles.



"WhatAgassi is doing is just fantastic, but not unheard of, nor does it somehow push his legacy over other greats. He already has some fine accomplishments and may yet do more but Coria, your last paragraph is pretty fanboyish and not too convincing."

Don't give me this isolated example of an Ashe. And Connors did not win ANY majors after 31--Agassi has. He's also won more tournaments at 32, 33, 34 --against better players. Case in point--the '03 Australian, the '04 Masters in Cincinnati and others. Study your history.

joe sch
02-26-2005, 08:12 PM
True, Andre is incredible! Connors was also. I am not sure, but aren't Agassi and Connors getting similar results at the slams. When Connors was 35, he was still beating pretty good players and getting to the quarters and semis of slams.
There are a few notable others include Pancho Gonzalez and Ken Rosewall ...

wildbill88AA
02-26-2005, 08:41 PM
coria-And Connors did not win ANY majors after 31--Agassi has. He's also won more tournaments at 32, 33, 34 --against better players. Case in point--the '03 Australian, the '04 Masters in Cincinnati and others. Study your history.

connors won the us open after he had turned 31. i'm sure agassi would give all 5 of those AO titles for a couple more us open titles. and whether the competition is better is debateable . agassi is about where connors was at this stage statistically. time will tell if agassi can maintain it. agassi in the top 5 all time? noway. he was just not a great pressure player. couldnt even beat a "deteriorated" sampras in 2002. yearend #1 only once. even courier , hewitt did it twice. most of his slam finals wins were againt so-so competition, not sampras, edburg, becker, etc.. and the AO has only recenttly become a tourny where the top players bring their "A" game.

Datacipher
02-27-2005, 02:06 AM
Are you kidding? Why, because Pete won all those Wimbledons? Did he win the French?

You can take Agassi's one FO title, I'd rather have 7 Wimbledons. I'll even throw in Agassi's 2 extra AO titles! Since Andre won Wimbledon one time, that still leaves 6 Wimbledons vs. 1 FO and 2 AO....should we mention the USO? LOL.


He had a 20-14 record vs. Andre. Hardly dominating!!

That's right, thanks for the point, he not only won many more Grand slam titles, he also had a winning record. In grand slam encounters he beat Agassi 6-3....that isn't close.


And two times, Sampras enjoyed the LUCK of getting to rest significantly more than Andre going into a US OPEN final. In '95, he was off the court by 1:30 on Saturday. Andre got off at almost 10:00 beating Becker. Then, he had to come back in 18 hours after a much better rested Sampras. The match was even through the late 3rd set and Andre tired. In the '02 Open, Sampras AGAIN had the luck of an earlier match while Andre had to play Hewitt and AGAIN got significantly less rest.

ROFL, fanboy raving. Sampras was a lucky guy wasn't he. He must have bene the luckiest player ever....


Andre won MORE MASTERS series events than Sampras--did you know that??
Andre won Olympic Gold--Pete didn't. Andre won all four slams--pete DIDN'T.
Did you know that Andre has a slighty BETTER winning percentage in majors than PETE??.

LOL. Really? You don't say? You obviously have never read my posts before. Even people who hate me generally concede that I've forgotten more about tennis than you'll ever know....

1.So, now, indeed Andre won more masters, Sampras won more tournaments and more grand slams. Which is better? What does winning more Masters even even mean? What does it say about it that most people don't keep track of who has won the most masters? lol.

2.Andre won Olympic Gold, true. Pete never played. In fact he said the "Olympics were never really a consideration." Actually it didn't seem to important to a lot of the players. Still, beating Leander Paes for a gold medal is really something....

3.Yes, he did win all 4. That's fantastic. Combined with his gold medal, I'd consider putting Agassi over somebody who won 9 slams, if you're really into these things, maybe you'd put him over somebody with 10 slams. We're still falling way short. Of course Agassi is not the only player who has won all 4, some have even done it in the same year...now they have an argument for being greater than Pete for they have the one thing that trumps grand slam titles, the Grand slam. Andre doesn't.

4.Did I know Andre has a slightly better winning percentage in majors than Pete? Hmm.....YOU KNOW WHAT? I DIDN'T!!!! Thank you for educating me...Agassi is 214-49 while Sampras is only....203-38....um wait...something doesn't seem right....um....no, Agassi's must be better because he has bigger numbers right? duh....

Look Coria, you've been corrected a number of times in this thread alone....I'm not going to keep correcting your errors while you insult me. You can't just make things up out of your head.


Your longevity point is so idiotic it's laughable. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT Gianlucca Pozzi knucklehead--I'm talking about ANDRE AGASSI and him winning majors and Masters series events at 32, 33, 34. I'm talking about a level of fitness unmatched by any guy ever after 30. Connors did not face the depth of talent that is out there now. He did not face the same power of today or the athleticism Andre would clock Connors, absolutely clock him. And I loved Connors, but he can't match Andre's power, control, serve and angles..

Again, this is silly ranting. Completely subjective. Yes, you think Andre is so much fitter than anybody else ever was over 30? How do you know? How do you measure this? Is he fitter than Lendl was in his 30's? Is he fitter than Laver? Is he fitter than Budge? Give me a break. Even if we say Agassi is the fittest over 30, how does that make him as great as Sampras? Ronald Agenor played well into his 30's and was incredibly fit, that's a great acomplishment. I'd rather have a grand slam title.


Don't give me this isolated example of an Ashe. And Connors did not win ANY majors after 31--Agassi has. He's also won more tournaments at 32, 33, 34 --against better players. Case in point--the '03 Australian, the '04 Masters in Cincinnati and others. Study your history.

Isolated example eh? Rosewall age 37 wins grand slam title, Emerson age 30(3 slams), Gonzales beats top pros including Connors, Smith, Newcombe etc in his 40's....wins pro tournament at 44, Gimeno wins French open at 34, the list goes on and on....not even addressing the women's side(King, Navratilova, Du Pont on and on) ....it's you who needs to study history. So many great champions have played and won into their 30's. Unbelievable ignorance.

Longevity is a great feat and should be appreciated. Does it make you the greatest? NOPE.

BOTTOM LINE: You can call me names and rant all you want. Doesn't matter. History will record Sampras far above Agassi. You can remember it in your mind any way you want, just don't expect the rest of the world not to laugh at you.

Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras and Sampras"--Andre Agassi's reply when asked who are the best five players of all time

Rabbit
02-27-2005, 04:48 AM
Jimmy Connors was the single greatest competitor professional tennis has seen since Pancho Gonsalez retired. Connors called it 'the tennis'. Connors never blew kisses to the crowd, Connors never drew hearts on the court. He went out and gave 110% every time he played. Granted there were times in matches he tanked a set, but he did so to catch his breath, a tactic he learned late in his career.

Agassi's career has been very long-lived. But, Agassi is not in the same mold as Connors and Gonsalez. He is different. His attention to tennis has not been what Connors' was over the years. With repsect to his career lined up against Sampras, even Brad Gilbert (who knows a thing or two about Agassi if nothing else) has said that the head to head between these guys is so one-sided that Sampras has to get the nod as the greater player. This is not to diminish Agassi's career Slam, which in itself is incredible. But, when you consider the whole career, Sampras is higher on the ladder by several rungs.

That said, Agassi is a Hall of Famer, and he is a HOF'er the first year he's eligible, which will be five years after he retires. Agassi is also one of the all-time greats and definetly in the top ten in my book. I also preferred to watch Agassi play when he and Sampras were both competing, but you have to give credit where credit is due and Sampras was the better player.

baseliner
02-27-2005, 07:36 AM
I thought Conners did blow kisses to the crowd at the USO where he made the semis at 39. If not he certainly played to the crowd. Remember the staggering around in that one set like he was in a fog then got his legs back to win. AA may be playing into his 30's but let's not overlook other seniors like Rosewall and Laver who won GS's well into their 30's. Rosewall, as has been pointed out earlier won a GS at 37! Beat that AA.

Bhagi Katbamna
02-27-2005, 08:23 AM
And Rosewall made the finals of the US Open and Wimbledon when he was 39.

bamboo
03-10-2005, 08:59 PM
Excellent posts - my own opininion of peak ability as shown through a calendar year, as opposed to lifetime record 1)Federer 2)Laver 3)Hoad 4)Gonzales 5)Sampras

big ted
03-10-2005, 09:13 PM
brad gilbert said agassi could be considered the best player of all time but he would have to win 1 more french and 1 more wimbledon, that would mean he won every gs title at least twice

federerhoogenbandfan
03-11-2005, 05:40 AM
Agassi "might" be considered in one's top ten list all-time, or he could be left out. He would be in the 8-15 group, all around the same area, battling for the final spots in the top ten. He isnt at the same level of Sampras, Borg, Laver, Tilden, Gonzales, though.

federerhoogenbandfan
03-11-2005, 05:41 AM
brad gilbert said agassi could be considered the best player of all time but he would have to win 1 more french and 1 more wimbledon, that would mean he won every gs title at least twice

Well that sure as hell wont happen. He would be doing well to stay a contender at the Australian and U.S opens. He wouldnt be able to beat any of the favorites at the French or Wimbledon, a quartefinal, draw permitting, would be a real success for him at either of those events.

127 mph
03-12-2005, 10:00 AM
Wildbill not to start a fight but It has been said the Pete won the 02 US open because Andre pounded it out with Hewitt in the semi's and Hewitt was the man to beat at that time. Just a counterpoint with all due respect.

wildbill88AA
03-12-2005, 10:53 AM
sampras had to play a semi's as well. i dont think the hewitt - agassi was a real epic match. andre didn't reeally look tired against pete. just hypnotized.

Matt H.
03-12-2005, 11:04 AM
sampras had to play a semi's as well. i dont think the hewitt - agassi was a real epic match. andre didn't reeally look tired against pete. just hypnotized.


what's done is history, and Pete won the '02 US Open.

However, what do you think would have happened if Pete played Hewitt in the semi's and Andre got to play Schalken instead?

The Pusher Terminator
03-12-2005, 11:54 AM
1. Sampras chose not to continue his career. He wanted to go out on top and that is exacty what he did. He simply did not want to train everyday and travel all around the world. I believe that if he trained really hard he would give almost anyone including federer a good run for the money!

2. i forget which Pacho (segura or Gonzalez) , but one them had such an awesome serve that it kept him in the top five ranked in the world during his 40's. Lets see if andre can top that!

tommytom11
03-12-2005, 10:37 PM
what's done is history, and Pete won the '02 US Open.

However, what do you think would have happened if Pete played Hewitt in the semi's and Andre got to play Schalken instead?

very good point. it could have been like the year he had to play Safin the next day and was dead tired. i don't get why some of these people want to discredit AA. Pete was great but if AA hadn't been around at exactly the same time, AA could have won atleast 3-4 more slams. its bad timing for AA but the bottom line is that he won all 4 slams and the gold medal. its really going to be a long time before another man does that.

Max G.
03-12-2005, 10:58 PM
what's done is history, and Pete won the '02 US Open.

However, what do you think would have happened if Pete played Hewitt in the semi's and Andre got to play Schalken instead?

The same thing that had happened the previous year, when he played Safin after having played Agassi after having played Rafter - arguably a horrendous draw for him that year.

And the year before, where he had to play Krajicek and then Hewitt before losing to Safin.

And even in '02, he had a hard draw - because of the rain he had to play 5 matches in 7 days, including Greg Rusedski (who at the time was the hottest player around, having beaten the #1, #2, and #3 players in the world in the month or two before the US Open) and Tommy Haas.

And yet this time he had just slightly more of an opportunity than the previous times, and he took it. He consistently put himself into a position to win - twice the stars aligned against him, but once for him. Heck, you couldn't even call this "aligning for him" - he had to play a packed schedule, which all his fans thought spelt doom for him. But he got ONE lucky break - playing Schalken in the semis - and he ran with it.

You can't expect him to get horrible draws EVERY time - you can't get much worse than playing 3 former world #1s in a row, like he did in 2001.