PDA

View Full Version : Agassi vs. Sampras


Coria
02-28-2005, 09:19 AM
As mentioned earlier, Sampras gets a slight nod over Agassi.

The fact of the matter is that in finals against each other, Sampras held a 9-7 edge. In total tournaments won, Sampras leads by 64-59.

In Majors, Sampras wins 14-8. They have both won 7 of the the other three not including Wimbledon.

Wimbledon--this is why Sampras gets the nod--and the ONLY reason.

-Agassi has won MORE Masters' series events than Sampras.
-Agassi has won all four majors (Sampras got to one measly semi-final in 12 French Open tries. After splitting the first two sets against Kafelnikov, Sampras won ONE game in the next two sets. He did not have the endurance and stamina of the elite clay court players)
-Agassi won Olympic Gold
-Agassi has been in 35 Quarterfinal or better appearance in slams--more than Sampras.
-Agassi was much better in the Australian (4 titles) and the French (1 title, 2 finals, 2 semis, 3 quarters) than Sampras
-Agassi has won more total grand slam singles match victories than Sampras
-Agassi has a better Davis Cup record.
-Agassi has sustained a level of excellence from age 30-35 that is unmatched in tennis history. Connors is close, but Connors did not face the athleticism, the number of excellent players, nor the type of power that Agassi faces today.
****this is key and some people dismiss it. In '95, when Agassi was clearly the best player that year, the best player of the summer circuit--Agassi had to play a "prime"Boris Becker in the Open semis on Saturday evening. He won in a very tight 4 sets (the best match of the tournament) and got off the court at almost 10:00 p.m. Meanwhile, Sampras had already beaten a declining Courier by 1:30 in the afternoon. No only did he play an inferior opponent to Becker, but he got over 8 hours additional rest by the time they came back at 4 the next day.
In '02 Open final, Agassi has to play Hewitt for the late match AGAIN!! Brilliantly, he beats Hewitt (ranked number one). Meanwhile, Pete was off the court HOURS earlier after beating a clearly inferior Schalken. AGAIN, Sampras gets the break and is fresher to the final. There is no doubt in my mind that Agassi wins both of those finals if he was better rested and a bit more fortunate.

In the end, Sampras has to get the nod for his 14 majors--BUT...when looking at the whole picture and taking everything into account--it's a very slight nod. Andre belongs in the top 5 of all time, right behind Sampras. If somehow he can win another major or two (unlikely), he could go down as better than Sampras. Pete was done after just turning 31. Look what Agassi is doing at just about 35--amazing!!!

lemurballs
02-28-2005, 10:28 AM
286 weeks as the number-one player in the world, including 102- and 82-week runs in succession. 7 time winner of the sports MOST prestigious tournament. That's all I need. And look, I even love Andre (check avatar).

7-0 Wimby finals and 5-3 at the Open, more than make up R.Garros. Long live the king of swing.

Brian Purdie
02-28-2005, 11:02 AM
20-14 head to head, Sampras rules. Agassi bounced in and out of the top 100 twice on binges of inactivity and a poor ability to cope with fame and loss. Sampras maintains a cool head through 6 years at #1 despite losing a coach and being called every "boring" name in the book. Sampras wins.

laurie
02-28-2005, 11:07 AM
Coria, how about this?

Sampras - 5 Masters titles (end of year world championships)
Agassi - 1 Masters title - 1990

Sampras - winner of 5 US Opens; up there with Connors
Agassi - winner of 2 US Opens

Sampras hasn't picked up a racket for two years at least. However, at the time of his last match, he had more match overall wins than Agassi despite his decline over 18 months. Thats not Sampras' fault that he quit before Agassi did. He turned pro after Agassi so won a lot more over a shorter period of time (14 years) as to Agassi's 18 plus years.

However, the bad beatings Sampras dished out to Agassi at
1990 US Open final
1999 Wimbledon final
1999 ATP Masters final

I think those are the sort of things that really stick in people's memory, not speculation at what could have happened at the US Open. After all, people were saying the same about Sampras in 2000 and 2001 when he played his semifinals second. Because ironically in 2000 he beats Hewitt in straight sets and then loses to Safin in straight sets. Then in 2001 he beats Safin in straight sets then loses to Hewitt in straight sets. But he lost both finals and thats that.

Sampras also won the 1995 Davis Cup final against Russia almost singlehanded, on clay as well. He should be congratulated for that.

Plus all the other things Lemurballs mentioned above and I think its clear cut to Sampras.

But of course, Agassi has to be congratulated for his great French Open record.

Aykhan Mammadov
02-28-2005, 11:18 AM
Agassi won 4 different GS, became No 1 and won MCUP.
Sampras won 3 different GS, became No 1 and won MCUP.

Agassi won GS 7 times. Sampras won 14 times GS, two times more GS than Agassi!!!!!!!

Agassi won Masters Cup ( MCUP) 1 time, Sampras won 5 times !!!!

Agassi won 7 different types of Masters Series ( MS) totally 17 times, Sampras won 5 different types of MS, totally 11 times.

Who is more talented don't depend on our sympathy. As you now draw in GS always 128, in MS sometimes 32/64. So to be honest to win GS is harder at least for 1-2 rounds than to win MS, so I give more points to GS.

But if you consider even all 3 kind of major tournaments equal - GS, MS and MC then

Sampras won 14+11+5 = 30 major tournaments

Agassi won 7+1+17 = 25 major tournaments.

Sampras won 77.44% of matches he played ( 984)
Agassi won 76.38% of 1078 matches he played.

IMHO UNDOUBTLY SAMPRAS WAS MORE SUCESSFULL AT COURT than Agassi. Probably he was so more talented. ( For numbers see my 2 threads " Very Very interesting facts" and " Continuation of very interesting facts" - I'm reviving them now).

kv581
02-28-2005, 11:26 AM
Agassi won 7+1+17 = 25 major tournaments.

Agassi has won 8 GS tournaments.

Datacipher
02-28-2005, 11:54 AM
As mentioned earlier, Sampras gets a slight nod over Agassi.
!!!

Yes, as a matter of fact it was mentioned earlier! The same argument, with the same points....you know in that thread where I owned you....the one where you had all those incorrect Agassi boasts.....the one where you asked with exclamation "AGASSI IS GREATER THAN PETE BECAUSE (insert erroneous fact here)....DID YOU KNOW THAT? KNUCKLEHEAD! STUDY HISTORY!" lol....

Good strategy though....ignore the double bagel...run off...start new thread...hope some people didn't see the old thread....sort of like waiting for Pete to leave the tour.....lol...just kidding on the last point, would never compare Agassi's tremendous late run to your cowardice.

Aykhan Mammadov
02-28-2005, 12:04 PM
Agassi has won 8 GS tournaments.

U are right, 8. Anyhow id doesn't make a weather, 26 instead of 25.

Coria
02-28-2005, 12:13 PM
Yes, as a matter of fact it was mentioned earlier! The same argument, with the same points....you know in that thread where I owned you....the one where you had all those incorrect Agassi boasts.....the one where you asked with exclamation "AGASSI IS GREATER THAN PETE BECAUSE (insert erroneous fact here)....DID YOU KNOW THAT? KNUCKLEHEAD! STUDY HISTORY!" lol....

Good strategy though....ignore the double bagel...run off...start new thread...hope some people didn't see the old thread....sort of like waiting for Pete to leave the tour.....lol...just kidding on the last point, would never compare Agassi's tremendous late run to your cowardice.

Dude, I know EXACTLY who you are. People couldn't take you anymore on these forums and begged for you to leave. You're the guy with no life and a very low sense of self-worth. Do you honestly think you can hide behind another name. You say the SAME THINGS, use the SAME PHRASES over and over again--the reason you enjoy riding people is because you have no life. Your anger at the world causes you to lash out and put people down on a tennis discussion forum--how pathetic. The TW administrators need to pull the plug on you again.

Coria
02-28-2005, 12:21 PM
Sampras won 14+11+5 = 30 major tournaments

Agassi won 8+1+17 = 25 major tournaments.--26

Sampras won 77.44% of matches he played ( 984)
Agassi won 76.38% of 1078 matches he played.

YOU MADE MY POINT!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO UNDOUBTLY SAMPRAS WAS MORE SUCESSFULL AT COURT than Agassi. Probably he was so more talented.

Huh, the tally (as of now) is 30-26, and Sampras is so much more talented? Bullcrap. Sampras had the best serve in the history of the game. Agassi is the overall better player. Agassi does more things well on a court than Sampras could. But, Sampras had the best serve and that was the difference. Andre was the better groundstroker off both sides, had more power in his backcourt game, had a better drop shot, better lob, better return. Sampras had the better serve and volley.

35ft6
02-28-2005, 01:09 PM
I once read something that suggested that Sampras had an edge over Agassi partly due to the fact Sampras never got to the later rounds in tournaments/on surfaces that he sucked on. The premise being that Sampras and Agassi mostly on played on surfaces on which Sampras had an edge. Agassi was more solid on all surfaces, Sampras terrible on some, and most of the time they played on the ones Sampras liked.

It may have been Mailbag or something. I can't remember all the details.

hyperwarrior
02-28-2005, 01:43 PM
I bet if Sampras doesn't have anemia, he could have won the french. Having those records with this disease, is incredible.

Rob_C
02-28-2005, 01:44 PM
Sampras is clearly better than Agassi, I'm surprised at the comparison. However, at the 02 US Open, Sampras was clearly starting to get tired, which is the only way Agassi can beat him, is for it to go five.

The disappointing thing about that match for me, was the fact that Agassi was supoosed to have been a "smarter" player from all the time he spent with Gilbert but he never picked up on an obvious trend in the match. Whenever he would try to crank the ball to Sampras' backhand, Sampras would just use his pace against him and keep the points short, and wound up winning the majority of those pts.

But, whenever Agassi would roll the ball high to Sampras' backhand, Sampras would just chip it back, and those points lasted alot longer, with Agassi winning the majority of those points. Had Agassi done this more on the big points late in the 4th, I believe he would have won that set, plus the match.

ragnaROK
02-28-2005, 01:48 PM
Andre was the better groundstroker off both sides, had more power in his backcourt game, had a better drop shot, better lob, better return. Sampras had the better serve and volley.

Does it matter who had MORE weapons when Pete beat Agassi in head2head? Does Agassi come anywhere close to number of weeks at number 1 that Sampras has? Pete dominated those years. You can't question that. Tell me all about those numerous years Agassi dominated tennis hmm? I'm a big fan of Agassi's and have a lot of respect for what he's done but he could retire after his next GS win (im rly hoping here) and he still wouldn't outshine Sampras in my book.

hyperwarrior
02-28-2005, 02:01 PM
Coria, did you know that Hewitt has been #1 twice and Agassi only once??
2 times world champion > 1 time world champion.

Datacipher
02-28-2005, 02:18 PM
Dude, I know EXACTLY who you are. People couldn't take you anymore on these forums and begged for you to leave. You're the guy with no life and a very low sense of self-worth. Do you honestly think you can hide behind another name. You say the SAME THINGS, use the SAME PHRASES over and over again--the reason you enjoy riding people is because you have no life. Your anger at the world causes you to lash out and put people down on a tennis discussion forum--how pathetic. The TW administrators need to pull the plug on you again.

Way to address the arguments!

ROFL! So, tell me, who am I? Cause, I havent' the slightest who you're talking about.

You're making yourself look even more foolish! If you'd actually check the dates beside our names, you'll see, I've been on this forum a lot longer than you. So, it would have been awfully hard for me to COME back under this name. If you're gonna make wild accusations, at least make them plausible....

Now what's really interesting is that you seem to be an old pro about people who get banned on this board and their modus operandi, yet YOU'RE the one who's only been here a few months...so the question is, what name did you get banned under before?

tennis1982
02-28-2005, 02:21 PM
While Sampras clearly has the advantage in terms of statistics, there are some statistics in Agassi's favor.

1. Agassi is the oldest player to ever be ranked number 1 in the world.
2. Agassi is the only player to be ranked in the top ten in three different decades
3. Agassi is one of only five players to have won all four grand slams
4. Agassi has the record for Masters Series titles with seventeen
5. Agassi has the greatest return of serve in the history of the game

Also, Sampras leads Agassi 6-3 in grand slam matches, but if you look at those individual matches you'll notice Sampras was undefeated at the U.s. Open and Wimbledon, and Agassi was undefeated at the Australian Open and French Open. They simply didn't meet as often on the slower surfaces which favored Agassi. I think it is also important to remember that in addition to Agassi's eight slams, he had six other grand slam finals appearances. He was favored to win in 4 of them (the exceptions being against Courier in the French and Sampras in Wimbledon). If you consider that Agassi has played over one thousand pro tennis matches and if only six of these had gone differently, right now Agassi would have fourteen grand slams and Sampras would have ten.

Datacipher
02-28-2005, 02:39 PM
While Sampras clearly has the advantage in terms of statistics, there are some statistics in Agassi's favor.

1. Agassi is the oldest player to ever be ranked number 1 in the world.
2. Agassi is the only player to be ranked in the top ten in three different decades
3. Agassi is one of only five players to have won all four grand slams
4. Agassi has the record for Masters Series titles with seventeen
5. Agassi has the greatest return of serve in the history of the game

Also, Sampras leads Agassi 6-3 in grand slam matches, but if you look at those individual matches you'll notice Sampras was undefeated at the U.s. Open and Wimbledon, and Agassi was undefeated at the Australian Open and French Open. They simply didn't meet as often on the slower surfaces which favored Agassi. I think it is also important to remember that in addition to Agassi's eight slams, he had six other grand slam finals appearances. He was favored to win in 4 of them (the exceptions being against Courier in the French and Sampras in Wimbledon). If you consider that Agassi has played over one thousand pro tennis matches and if only six of these had gone differently, right now Agassi would have fourteen grand slams and Sampras would have ten.

You make some good points 1982, but...

#1, 2, 4 are nice trivial facts, but don't have much meaning at all in terms of measuring who the greatest is. #3 also falls in this category as though it is a neat accomplishment, others have done it and in fact won actual Grand Slams which Agassi has not. #5 is completely subjective, I happen to agree with it, but it means nothing.

You are right about their Grand slam meetings, BUT, the 1 FO meeting was very early in their careers, in 1992, Sampras certainly could not play with Agassi at the FO, a few years later...might have been a different story(the way Sampras played against Courier in his mid 90's encounters), however that is just woulda coulda speculation I admit. Agassi deserves full credit for beating Sampras 2x at the AO....and he got his deserved 2 titles out of those wins. But at the 2 most prestigous tournaments, he met Sampras 6 times and failed to win a single match. Yes, he came close, but the undisputable fact remains, he lost. Yes, if he won those matches perhaps he'd have the 14 slam titles...but he didn't...HE LOST. If Chang had 6 or 7 matches go his way, he might have topped Agassi...but he didn't...he lost. He and Agassi accept that....they don't believe themselves close to Sampras.....funny how some cannot.

Besides the point I made in the other thread about longevity not being in itself a factor in greatness, it's strange that some would say Sampras declined so much and Agassi has sustained. As much as I admire Agassi's continued play(and I've posted on it many times) and as much as I hope he keeps playing, the truth is, he's finally putting in the dedication that Sampras maintained for all those years. Sampras' last match was a USO victory....over AGASSI....their is no doubt in my mind, that had Sampras the desire to go on and had he some goals still left pursue that had meaning to him, he could have continued to contend at Wimbledon the USO and probably the AO to this day. But after 14 titles, he decided that it no longer meant enough to him....and I don't blame him.

nkhera1
02-28-2005, 06:21 PM
You guys have to realize that Sampras stopped trying as much after winning GS number 13, and Agassi has played for a longer time than Sampras so some of these stats aren't fair.

Coria
02-28-2005, 06:31 PM
"ROFL! So, tell me, who am I? Cause, I havent' the slightest who you're talking about."

I can't think of your name. I just remember you ending every post with "Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras"--and it was before you started your new name in April. I did a search but it doens't go back that far.

"You're making yourself look even more foolish! If you'd actually check the dates beside our names, you'll see, I've been on this forum a lot longer than you."

Right around when you were kick off the forum, I was an occasional reader, not contiributor. I had just discovered this Discussion forum and chose not to write. But, I did see how you were compulsively responding to EVERY single thread that had anything to do with Sampras or Agassi. People come back under different names all the time. You picked Datacipher--actually a much better name than your old one.

"Now what's really interesting is that you seem to be an old pro about people who get banned on this board and their modus operandi, yet YOU'RE the one who's only been here a few months...so the question is, what name did you get banned under before?"

I was never banned and finally decided to come on board this forum, after tiring of another I was on. This one is better, with more informed people (like NO BadMoJo) Prior to the Fall, I CHOSE to be a reader, not a writer. Anything wrong with that??????
I stand by my accusation about who you were in a former life. I can see, however, that you've toned it down a bit. You're not quite as obnoxious as you used to be. Are you now on the right meds?? :) :)

Phil
02-28-2005, 06:52 PM
Do you honestly think you can hide behind another name.

What, like you do, "Coria". And a pro tennis player's name-what a loser. I may as well call myself "Roger".

Coria
02-28-2005, 07:02 PM
[QUOTE=Phil]What, like you do, "Coria". And a pro tennis player's name-what a loser. I may as well call myself "Roger"

Go ahead, who gives a crap? I have a very clear reason I chose Coria--one that I certainly won't tell you. Also, you don't have any idea what I'm talking about with regarding Datacipher, so MYOB

Datacipher
02-28-2005, 07:08 PM
I can't think of your name. I just remember you ending every post with "Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras"--and it was before you started your new name in April. I did a search but it doens't go back that far.

Right around when you were kick off the forum, I was an occasional reader, not contiributor. I had just discovered this Discussion forum and chose not to write. But, I did see how you were compulsively responding to EVERY single thread that had anything to do with Sampras or Agassi. People come back under different names all the time. You picked Datacipher--actually a much better name than your old one.
:)

WOW! I used a famous quote from Agassi (that directly related to that thread) for the 1st time in 1115 posts and now you think that I'm a person from over a year ago...who's name you can't remember....who used to use that thread in every post?! Sorry I can't help you with the name, since apparently this person was kicked off before I got here! Nice story. ROFL Then you say you know EXACTLY who I am and say I should be kicked off the forum? You've got a big future as a conspiracy theory buff.

You claim to be reading this board for longer than I've been here and yet you're the same person who called me a "knucklehead" and said "I need to study history" all the while making numerous factually incorrect statements to try to back up your assertions? Yeah....I think it's pretty clear who's on the meds here.

It's also pretty funny when you said all you remember is this guy ending every post with "sampras, sampras..." yet, before you said "Dude, I know EXACTLY who you are." and that I say the "SAME THINGS, use the SAME PHRASES over and over again"

I guess you meant I used the ONE phrase in 1 out of a 1 thousand posts, that I used in every post before....well you've convinced me...I"M THE GUY. NOW if only we knew what my name was I could go back and see what I used to write!

I'm also glad you think Datacipher is better than my old name, too bad you don't know what it was and neither do I!

I have never been on this board under any other name, feel free to check with TW administrators and enjoy your wild and as we now see completley irrational accusations.

Coria
02-28-2005, 07:16 PM
I'm also glad you think Datacipher is better than my old name, too bad you don't know what it was and neither do I!

I have never been on this board under any other name, feel free to check with TW administrators and enjoy your wild and as we now see completley irrational accusations.[/QUOTE]

If you're not that person, I apologize. Beyond the Sampras, Sampras.... wording, there were some other eerie similarities. I did go back and look at some of your posts. While I don't agree with many of your assessments regarding the Agassi and Sampras thing, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not that previous, incredibly rude and obnoxious poster that worshipped at Pete's alter 24/7, always had to get the last word in and seemed to despise Agassi.

Brian Purdie
02-28-2005, 07:19 PM
I bet if Sampras doesn't have anemia, he could have won the french. Having those records with this disease, is incredible.

In all honesty, his anemia should be a negligable factor at that level of training and athleticism. It's not really symptomatic. People run marathons with his same condition without difficulties.

Coria
02-28-2005, 07:26 PM
Unfortunatley, Sampras did not have the level of stamina of a Borg, Vilas, Courier, Lendl, Agassi, Muster and some others. That doesn't diminish his athleticism, but endurance is a key area of total physicality, and Sampras was not in the elite class in this area. How many times did we see him throw up or barely keep his head up in five set matches.

Datacipher
02-28-2005, 07:33 PM
If you're not that person, I apologize. Beyond the Sampras, Sampras.... wording, there were some other eerie similarities. I did go back and look at some of your posts. While I don't agree with many of your assessments regarding the Agassi and Sampras thing, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not that previous, incredibly rude and obnoxious poster that worshipped at Pete's alter 24/7, always had to get the last word in and seemed to despise Agassi.

If you looked at my previous posts, you'll see, that I've made very positive posts about both Sampras and Agassi. Negative ones as well. Throw Federer in as well. I am actually a bigger fan of Agassi than of Sampras, but I absolutely acknowledge that Sampras has the superior career and was the superior player between the 2, Agassi is an all time great, I hope he plays another 10 years! I hope he can pull out another GS, but he's not close to Sampras.

Phil
02-28-2005, 07:37 PM
[QUOTE=Phil]Also, you don't have any idea what I'm talking about with regarding Datacipher, so MYOB

Neither, obviously, did he. Youz a wanker, "Co-ria".

Datacipher
02-28-2005, 07:41 PM
Neither, obviously, did he. Youz a wanker, "Co-ria".

That's what I was about to say Phil. You know just as much as I do....you're one of the posters(seems like a minority some days) who is capable of reading and following a thread!

It's a public forum and there is no mysterious back story here, it's all right there.

laurie
03-01-2005, 05:02 AM
Coria, I don't really understand your argument. Sampras actually won the majority of his five set battles in his career. So, maybe like his opponents, his looks lulled you into a false sense of security and his endurance must be underestimated. Thats why his opponents would look so dismayed. He would look like this and still hit incredible shots.

Also, Sampras won at least 50% of the baseline rallies in their last match despite his decline. When he was younger he often dominated Agassi from the backcourt.

Coria
03-01-2005, 09:17 AM
Agreed. But there were other matches where Agassi clocked him from the backcourt. I remember one match where Agassi won 6-2,6-3 in the BMW final or something like that in about 55 minutes. Agassi won about 85% or the baseline rallies. Remember, it was 20-14 in their encounters. Sampras winning 58% of their matches clearly puts him as favorite, but not by much. If Sampras dominated Agassi, as some say, why did Agassi beat him in 7 finals and 14 matches overall?

laurie
03-01-2005, 10:39 AM
Coria, forgive me for asking but I really don't understand why you are working yourself up almost into a frenzy over what is almost a non issue.

I should tell you that the two wins Sampras had over Agassi in 1990 & 1995 the court was a medium paced court. It was not a fast court like an Arthur Ashe stadium court. Sampras stayed back more then especially on second serve.

I pointed this out to someone sometime last year. Nice of you to point out a Masters result. But you are obviously a fanatic and thats why you're here. BUT the average man and woman on the street are not interested in Masters results (some of them have no idea about those events). What they know is that in the biggest matches Agassi was humiliated at the hands of Sampras. Agassi has admitted that himself.

1990 US Open final - 6:4, 6:3, 6:2 - broken 5 times
1999 Wimbledon Final - 6:3, 6:4, 7:5
1999 ATP final - 6:1, 7:5, 6:4

Plus he won the last match they played and Agassi got badly beaten in the first two sets. I have the match on DVD. After the first two sets, Sampras hit 7 backhand winners to Agassi's 0. This is not made up by the way. This is a fact.

Sampras also beat Agassi on slower hardcourt finals in Miami and Indian Wells and beat him twice on clay as well. The two Aussie matches were close and fun to watch in their rivalry.

At the end of 1999 when Sampras mauled Agassi in Hanover the rivalry was actually 17:11. Agassi won the next three meetings between 2000 & 2001 and then Sampras won the last three meetings between 2001 & 2002.

By the way, the 22 shot rally, (which they made an advert of) at the 1995 US Open final, Sampras won it with a backhand crosscourt winner.

Coria
03-01-2005, 11:05 AM
I think you forgot to mention Agassi beating Sampras 6-1 in the fifth set of the Australian Open FINAL.

Kevin Patrick
03-01-2005, 11:17 AM
Coria,
I understand the points you are trying to make(& have no problem with you saying Agassi deserves to be top 5 of all time, its your opinion & no one can really prove the best ever, etc.)

The stats you cite are interesting, but when history (i.e. fans, media, etc), compares Sampras & Agassi, 20-14 & 7-7 in finals are the least important stats. The most important stat:4-1 in GS finals, they are the only tournaments that matter, no one cares about the BMW final(do you think Andre would rather beat Sampras there or the US Open?)

Out of the 5 GS finals they played 3 were at the US Open & 1 was at Wimbledon. The other final (which Andre won) was at the Aussie Open, whose prestige is far less than the other slams. Even Laver, Rosewall, Cash say the most important tournament to win for an Australian is Wimbledon, not their native tournament.

So Sampras won their 4 most important matches. He also won their highest quality match the '01 US Open QF, when Andre made very few unforced errors, was the clearly the better overall player in recent months, having drilled Sampras twice in '01, yet Sampras was still able to prevail(I'm not sure Sampras cared much about non-GS events throughout his career, he put many half-hearted efforts at minor tourneys like the BMW open)
But even with Sampras' questionable efforts at non-GS events, he was still able to finish #1 six years, while Agassi could only manage to do that once.

I like Agassi, he is one of the most talented players ever to play the game(being the 1st player to win all 4 in a career since laver is an amazing achievement).
His success was far more important to the growth of the sport(esp. in the US) than Sampras.
But I can't place him in Laver, Lendl, Sampras, Borg level. He never was clearly the best player in the world for a long period of time like the others.

Also, I don't think Sampras' serve was the reason Sampras was able to prevail over Agassi in their 4 most important matches. Agassi was an amazing player, I've seen him destroy bigger & better servers than Sampras many times. In those 4 matches, I don't believe Agassi really thought he could win. Mentally he was a little fragile, while Sampras' mentality(no matter how bad he was playing) was 'I think I'm the best player in the world & expect to win, that's what I'm supposed to do'

I also think that Sampras was capable of elevating his game more than Agassi could on big points. Remember set point in the 1st set of the '95 US Open Final? Sampras won that point(one of the best baseline points I've ever seen) & went on a tear to go up 2 sets. Agassi won the 3rd & made an error down breakpoint in the 4th. Game over. Sure even the great ones get nervous, but I've seen Agassi do it more than Lendl,Borg, Sampras. Maybe Agassi was mentally tough, but not when he played Sampras. Just a little self-doubt can make all the difference at the biggest moments. Sampras never had any self-doubt.

Coria
03-01-2005, 11:50 AM
I agree. Sampras was definitely more "clutch" in those big grand slam finals.

But, and it seems like no one gives this any legitimacy, Sampras was very fortunate against Agassi in the '95 and '02 US Open finals. At Wimbledon in '99 and the '90 US OPEN, Sampras kicked Andre's butt. In '90, Agassi was overwhelmed by the occasion and clearly was not clutch.

But in '95 and '02, Andre had UNBELIEVABLE and CLUTCH wins over a prime Becker and number 1 ranked and defending champion Hewitt. Agassi simply was not as mentally or physically fresh for those finals. Sampras had a HUGE break in not only playing inferior opponents, but playing the first match and having many hours of additional rest. Remember, in '95, they were tied at 5-5, one set all in the third set. Agassi clearly was tired in that match. In '02, Andre was simply not at the same level as he was vs. Hewitt.

I do realize Sampras had that misfortune in the two previous Opens when he got smoked by Hewitt and Safin. But, we're talking about Andre and Pete here. At the least, Agassi wins ONE of those two finals if he was more fortunate in match time and opponent. That would make it 3-2 in finals and 8-8 overall in finals. Bottom line, in two of Pete's wins over Agassi in finals, Pete was very lucky in how things shook out the day before.

Datacipher
03-01-2005, 12:29 PM
But in '95 and '02, Andre had UNBELIEVABLE and CLUTCH wins over a prime Becker and number 1 ranked and defending champion Hewitt. Agassi simply was not as mentally or physically fresh for those finals. Sampras had a HUGE break in not only playing inferior opponents, but playing the first match and having many hours of additional rest. Remember, in '95, they were tied at 5-5, one set all in the third set. Agassi clearly was tired in that match. In '02, Andre was simply not at the same level as he was vs. Hewitt.

I do realize Sampras had that misfortune in the two previous Opens when he got smoked by Hewitt and Safin. But, we're talking about Andre and Pete here. At the least, Agassi wins ONE of those two finals if he was more fortunate in match time and opponent. That would make it 3-2 in finals and 8-8 overall in finals. Bottom line, in two of Pete's wins over Agassi in finals, Pete was very lucky in how things shook out the day before.

So you spent considerable time criticizing Sampras stamina and fitness and now you're saying Agassi was tired and trying to postulate that he might have won? Yikes.

You're also showing me you don't understand what happens when great champions play when you say Sampras winning 60% of 34 matches is not a clear indication.

Over the course of a decade, Sampras won 60% of his matches and 67% of matches in grand slam play against an 8 time GS champion. That's pretty clear.

Bertchel Banks
03-01-2005, 12:39 PM
Does it matter who had MORE weapons when Pete beat Agassi in head2head? Does Agassi come anywhere close to number of weeks at number 1 that Sampras has? Pete dominated those years. You can't question that.

Sampras was clearly not the best player in 1995 or 1998. He was annointed by the math, a la Hingis.

Tell me all about those numerous years Agassi dominated tennis hmm? I'm a big fan of Agassi's and have a lot of respect for what he's done but he could retire after his next GS win (im rly hoping here) and he still wouldn't outshine Sampras in my book.

If it isn't the tired, I'm really a fan so my words are objective routine. Coward!

The fact is that Andre was the best player on the ATP tour in 1995, 1999, and 2001. Had he been a numbers chaser like Sampras he would've obtained the YE #1 ranking in those years, and very likely 2002 as well.

tennis1982
03-01-2005, 12:41 PM
I don't agree with this perception of Wimbledon being the most important Grand Slam. I think all four slams are equally important. Just because some of the great players say they like that one the best, it doesn't make it the hardest to win. I think each one offers a unique challenge: the heat in the Australian Open, the consistency and endurance required to win the French Open, being able to adapt to a faster ball speed at Wimbledon, and the energetic crowd and atmosphere at the U.S. Open. All of these tournaments feature the best players in the world and they all try equally hard at all four tournaments. I think it is misleading to say that Sampras won the four most important matches against Agassi. It is more important to realize that Sampras couldn't beat Agassi at the Australian Open and French Open, and that Agassi couldn't beat Sampras at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open.

Bertchel Banks
03-01-2005, 12:55 PM
It is more important to realize that Sampras couldn't beat Agassi at the Australian Open and French Open...

The surfaces that reward skill & savvy over bulk & brawn. Take the 2001 Oz event, Pete was headed for a straight set whipping, ego go the best of him, so tanked against Todd Martin in the 3rd round.

I like Agassi

mmmk

he [Andre] is one of the most talented players ever to play the game

True.

...being the 1st player to win all 4 in a career since laver is an amazing achievement.

What's even more amazing is while Laver won his on grass and clay, Andre won his on Grass, Clay, Cement, and Rubber.

Rabbit
03-01-2005, 01:16 PM
What, like you do, "Coria". And a pro tennis player's name-what a loser. I may as well call myself "Roger".

Ahh now! Don't hide it....you have are a Phil Dent wannabe! Wait....does that make me a Wendy Turnbull wannabe? Oh God!


The guy probably closest to the Agassi camp for the longest made an assessment of the two players. Brad Gilbert would've given Agassi the nod had it not been for the head to head in Grand Slam finals where Sampras clearly had the edge. I personally am a bigger Agassi fan than Sampras, but when the whole tomato is looked at, Sampras clearly had the better overall career. This is not to say that both didn't have HOF careers and careers that 99% of the tennis world would kill to have, but Sampras is further up the All-Time list than Agassi.

Aykhan Mammadov
03-01-2005, 02:31 PM
Coria, u didn't notice that I wrote "even if u consider GS, MS and MC the same" then Sampras won 30, Agassi 26. U missed word "even". U can't compare actually GS with MS or MC with MS. Imagine 14 times GS champion, and 7 times GS champion !!! Peoples remember this fact more, nobody cares about MC or MS. This is me who noticed them also. But actually to become GS champion is the main dream for every tennis-player.

The only advantage I can give to Agassi opposit the fact above is that he won all 4 different types of GS. And tennis1982 is not right in post 17. Agassi is not 1 of 5 players ever won all 4 GS, he is 1 of 2 players ever won all 4 GS ( + Rod Laver 1969). This is why this fact is great. Only 2 players.

So this discussion is meaningless in some meaning, somebody likes 14 GS against 8 more, somebody likes 4 types of GS against 3 types more.

IMHO Federer is the most talented player ever I see and I hope he will easily beat record of Agassi and Rod Laver in the close future with 4 types of GS.

Kevin Patrick
03-01-2005, 02:47 PM
Coria,
Do you really believe the inane US Open scheduling/tough semis are responsible for Andre's '95 & '02 US losses?
I admit Agassi was flat the 1st 2 sets in '02, but Sampras was on fire as well those 2 sets. Also Sampras had to play 5 matches in 7 days that US Open because of rain, don't think he caught that much of a break having a few hours more rest than Andre. I really believe the US Open scheduling favors younger players, not because I believe they are fitter, but they don't need as much recovery time. Both Agassi & Sampras were over 30 & we know how much fitter Agassi was & we know that Agassi had a mental block against Sampras(having lost in the QF the previous year) so I don't see how he definitively would have won that match with another day's rest.

Don't buy that Agassi lost the '95 final due to playing the late match. He was 25, he could handle the quick turnaround(& did so the year before beating Martin in the late match, & winning the final the next day)
Also Sampras' match against Courier was just as tough as Agassi's match with Becker. There were far more rallies in that match & it was played under the sun, so Sampras wasn't exactly fresh the nest day.


If you want to nitpick, I can show example of how Sampras would have won more if he had some luck on a few occaisons:

'95 Australian Open Final-the only significant match win Agass had over Sampras. Andre didn't lose a set before the final. Sampras had 5 set wins over Larsson in the 4th Round, Courier in the QF, & a tough 4 setter Chang in the semis. Plus he had to cope with attention of his crying in the quarters against Courier/the sudden illness of his coach. You have to admit Sampras was physically & emotionally exhausted before the final. Still he gave Agassi all he could handle(I think this may be the best match Agassi ever played) had a set point to go up 2 sets to 1(which Agassi saved with a passing shot that nicked the net), served 28 aces(which was a career high at the time)

'98 US Open SF against Rafter:pulls his hamstring up 2 sets to 1, has no mobility & loses the last 2 sets

'92 US Open Final:plays the late match on super saturday, has a upset stomach during SF win, is up til 3 am night before final due to illness, loses final to Edberg(who he had drilled a few weeks before Open)

'96 French SF:has a tough road to semis, loses to Kafelnikov (who he owns head-to-head) the French played very fast that year, if he played one less 5 setter, do you think he couldn't beat Kafelnikov & Stich on a court that played like a hardcourt?

'00 & 01 US Finals:encountered same bad luck w/scheduling was not fresh for either final due to playing the late match & being much older than his opponents, needed the recovery time

'99 US Open: was clear favorite, hurts his back the day before the tournament & pulls out. Guess who wins his 2nd US Open.

'94 US Open:as dominating a player as Federer is now. Injures ankle after Wimbledon win, is unable to play any summer hardcourt events or even practice intensely. Still enters event heavy favorite despite not being physically ready. Loses in 5 vs. Yzaga in the 4th round. Practically needs to be carried off the court. Guess who wins his 1st US Open.

'00 Australian Open SF:Agassi beats sampras in 5, Sampras strains hip flexor in 4th set & loses 5th easily. Pulls out of Davis Cup 1st round due to injury.

Wow, Agassi's kinda lucky to have those 2 US Open titles & 2 of his Australian titles, don't you think?

Coria
03-01-2005, 05:31 PM
You make some good points. But the fact of the matter is that Agassi got OFF THE COURT at almost 10:00 and played a draining match against number 3 ranked Becker, who was playing at his top level. He said so after the match.

Sampras got off the court before 2:00. I'm sorry, but having 26 hours to rest, vs. 18 is HUGE. Even for a 25 year old, 3/4 of a day is not enough rest for a best of five final. The US OPEN format is ridiculous. Remember, in '95, they were still doing one men's SF, then the Ladies' final, then the second mens' SF. At least now they are playing the men first.

Agassi was a better player than Sampras that whole year, that whole summer. He beat Sampras twice earlier in the year, including the '95 Australian. I watched that match over and over on video. Sampras was by far the more fresher. That's the fact. Had they played the SF on Friday--when they should have, I believe Agassi wins that match--or even if Andre got to play right after the Sampras-Courier match, as opposed to after the ladies' final and starting his match at 7:00. That was a joke-and then to come back and play the final at 4 the next day--a disgrace.

tennis1982
03-01-2005, 06:00 PM
Aykhan, you're the one who's wrong. In addition to Rod Laver and Agassi, Roy Emerson, Fred Perry and Don Budge have all won each grand slam event. Also, Agassi has 8 grand slams, not 7. And finally, saying that nobody cares about the Masters Series tournaments is ridiculous. They are second in prestige only to the Grand Slams. They feature the best players in the world and are worth a considerable amount of points in the ranking system.

Datacipher
03-01-2005, 06:35 PM
You make some good points. But the fact of the matter is that Agassi got OFF THE COURT at almost 10:00 and played a draining match against number 3 ranked Becker, who was playing at his top level. He said so after the match.


Actually Agassi was asked after the match if he was going to be ready to play Sampras because maybe he didn't have much time and Agassi cut off the interviewer declaring "I have PLENTY of time and Pete is you're watching this, I'm coming!"

After the match when asked about fatigue Agassi repeatedly pointed to the long summer and not the match with Becker as being the main reason for any fatique he felt. " More than just playing the late match yesterday. I think, quite honest, the whole summer has affected me. A few hours isn't going to do you much better or much worse."

He also noted:

ANDRE AGASSI: Yeah, I think it is an advantage for anybody that plays earlier in the day. I have been here, you know, few different times in the semis, and it is tough. I played here in the day once -- one time I played Boris in 1990. I played early in the day. Pete played McEnroe late at night, so it was a little bit of advantages for me, but it didn't seem to mean a whole lot come Sunday. You just try to get the match over with. Get back, relax, and start thinking about tomorrow.


Agassi was a better player than Sampras that whole year, that whole summer. He beat Sampras twice earlier in the year, including the '95 Australian. I watched that match over and over on video. .

Agassi did play better at the small tournaments. Both Agassi and Sampras agreed before the USO that it would be the decider, that they both had 1 GS and that this would decide who the year belonged to. Not many would argue that the guy who won Australia had a better year than the Wimbledon/USO champion.

Phil
03-01-2005, 07:06 PM
Sampras was clearly not the best player in 1995 or 1998. He was annointed by the math, a la Hingis.
He was the best in those years. No one had to annoint him.
The fact is that Andre was the best player on the ATP tour in 1995, 1999, and 2001. Had he been a numbers chaser like Sampras he would've obtained the YE #1 ranking in those years, and very likely 2002 as well.
So now Sampras was a "numbers chaser" is it? I suppose the same can be said of Federer or ANYONE who wipes the field.

Call him what you want, but he won 14 slams and was #1 for 6 consecutive years, all that while playing CONCURRENTLY to Agassi. Therefore, how in the world can anyone even consider that Agassi was the "better" player? You don't have the problem of having to compare players from completely different eras. No, they played at the exact same time, and they played each other 34 times-of which Sampras won 20. So he leads Agassi in head-to-head competition, slams, total tournaments and years at #1 (6 vs 1), all while playing in the same era. How do you reconcile your ill-informed opinion with the FACTS? Really.

These "who was better" discussions get boring, but really, there are some obvious things that people are absolutely blind to, due to their own biases. Open your friggin eyes.

Coria
03-01-2005, 07:20 PM
[QUOTE=Datacipher]Actually Agassi was asked after the match if he was going to be ready to play Sampras because maybe he didn't have much time and Agassi cut off the interviewer declaring "I have PLENTY of time and Pete is you're watching this, I'm coming!"

Of course he's going to say that. Nobody wants the fans and media thinking they may feel they won't be at their best because of scheduling format.

After the match when asked about fatigue Agassi repeatedly pointed to the long summer and not the match with Becker as being the main reason for any fatique he felt. " More than just playing the late match yesterday. I think, quite honest, the whole summer has affected me. A few hours isn't going to do you much better or much worse."

He said that, but then he said the following. Agassi knew Sampras had a big edge. I wish I could find the link. But, Andre said he went into a deep depression after that match--his game showed it to as well as his skipping out on some events. Later, when asked about his resurgence and his phenomenol comeback in the late 90's, Agassi said it did bother him that he had to expend that much energy and get so little time to be ready for the final. That year--Becker was far better than Courier. IN fact, Boris was coming into another prime season for him--winning a big event that Fall and the Australian in Jan. of '96. Andre admitted he got to bed about 3:00 in the morning from all the adrenalin, post-match stuff, eating and finally being able to relax. He stated he was mentally drained after beating Becker and wished the final was on Monday. It was very bad luck for him--just like for Sampras against Safin in '00. In '01, Hewitt would have beaten him no matter what. Hewitt was playing amazing that year and had blown by Pete in the rankings.

In '02, Agassi played perhaps the match of his life in beating number 1 AND defending champ Hewitt. The crowd was nuts. Andre clearly was not at the same mental or physical level the next day. If you watch him against Hewitt and then watch him against Sampras, Andre was not as explosive, as quick or as decisive. You can say he didn't have the confidence against Pete. I don't buy that. Andre had an awesome '02, winning Australian, a couple of summer events, clocking Federer in Nasdaq Masters and I think he got to the Wimbledon semi again--losing to Rafter in a tremendous 5 setter. Andre was tired against Sampras--plain and simple. And he could have easily won that fourth set anyway, but to Sampras' credit, he came up with his best. Pete knew Andre would dust him in the fifth. He was running out of gas and was not at the same fitness level as Andre. A couple of points decided it and I do give Sampras credit for that. His first two sets against Agassi was the best tennis he had played since '00 Wimbledon.

He also noted:

ANDRE AGASSI: Yeah, I think it is an advantage for anybody that plays earlier in the day. I have been here, you know, few different times in the semis, and it is tough.

West Coast Ace
03-01-2005, 07:35 PM
He was the best in those years. No one had to annoint him.

So now Sampras was a "numbers chaser" is it? I suppose the same can be said of Federer or ANYONE who wipes the field.

Call him what you want, but he won 14 slams and was #1 for 6 consecutive years, all that while playing CONCURRENTLY to Agassi. Therefore, how in the world can anyone even consider that Agassi was the "better" player? You don't have the problem of having to compare players from completely different eras. No, they played at the exact same time, and they played each other 34 times-of which Sampras won 20. So he leads Agassi in head-to-head competition, slams, total tournaments and years at #1 (6 vs 1), all while playing in the same era. How do you reconcile your ill-informed opinion with the FACTS? Really.

These "who was better" discussions get boring, but really, there are some obvious things that people are absolutely blind to, due to their own biases.Open your friggin eyes.Phil, you're the ill-informed one. Sampras most certainly did 'number chase'. Two different years in the '#1 for 6 straight' he changed his fall schedule at the last minute, entering a few tournaments he previously had no intention of playing, for the SOLE PURPOSE of keeping the #1. That 'stat' was something he and 'his people' concocted - he was always very cranky about not getting his due from the non-tennis media and thought this would force them to give him the press he craved. Previously he had joked "A dead person could be #1 in pro tennis."

Sampras lived and died with his big serve. Sorry that the truth hurts but those are the facts. If he had a broader game, he'd have one or two FO trophies to show his son.

Bertchel Banks
03-01-2005, 07:52 PM
What WCA says. Sampras most suredly chased numbers. And let's keep the multi-talented, versatile, and classy Federer (the un-Sampras) out of this.

Stuck
03-01-2005, 07:52 PM
14 Slams Beeeeotch!

Phil
03-01-2005, 08:00 PM
Phil, you're the ill-informed one. Sampras most certainly did 'number chase'. Two different years in the '#1 for 6 straight' he changed his fall schedule at the last minute, entering a few tournaments he previously had no intention of playing, for the SOLE PURPOSE of keeping the #1. That 'stat' was something he and 'his people' concocted - he was always very cranky about not getting his due from the non-tennis media and thought this would force them to give him the press he craved. Previously he had joked "A dead person could be #1 in pro tennis."

Sampras lived and died with his big serve. Sorry that the truth hurts but those are the facts. If he had a broader game, he'd have one or two FO trophies to show his son.

The truth only hurts if it's...the truth, and you believe in a lie. I've heard the "Sampras lived by his serve" stuff before, but you can make that argument about any player. Agassi lives by his groundies. Take them away, and guess what? No 8 slams. Take away Hewitt's speed and guess what-no #1 ranking or slams, etc., etc....If a serve was all that it took to win 14 (Say it, West Coast, F-O-U-R-T-E-E-N), than why doesn't Goran, Rude-seski, Marky P. and a dozen or so other one-trick ponies have slams under their belts? Why, I'll tell you why, because Sampras has MUCH MORE. A terrific net game, speed and agility, a great forehand and slice backhand, and the WILL of a champion. It's a stupid argument-he had a great serve, and that's that-he had what he had. Take away America's AIR FORCE and we aren't crap...right?

As for 6 straight #1 years, if that were so easy to manipulate without actually winning something, there would be a few more players with consecutive #1 years. There aren't. Now there ARE b.s. #1's, like Thomas Muster playing on nothing but clay tournaments, intentionally missing Wimbledon, and gaining #1-now THAT is b.s. Sampras, at least, showed up to play where it counted. So...exactly what "truth" were you talking about?

Bertchel Banks
03-01-2005, 08:26 PM
As for 6 straight #1 years, if that were so easy to manipulate without actually winning something, there would be a few more players with consecutive #1 years.

Now now Phillip, let's not read too much between the lines. No one is saying that Pete was untalented, ugly, or that he hurt the children. All we're saying it that in two of his six year end #1's ('95 & '98) his best wasn't good enough, so he flew from Saskatchewan to Timbuktu to earn the points and put himself over the top, giving the impression that he was standout player, as he may have been in year prior when he didn't need to go to such far off places. He was chasing numbers.

West Coast Ace
03-01-2005, 08:33 PM
Thanks, BB.

Phil, you embarrass yourself. To hit groundies you have to move to get in position, get your racket back, and time it. The serve: you hold the ball - standing still -and hit it when you're good and ready.

And I wouldn't brag about Sampras' slice backhand. Just like Roddick today, a slice usually means that you have bad footwork.

Phil
03-01-2005, 08:45 PM
Thanks, BB.

Phil, you embarrass yourself. To hit groundies you have to move to get in position, get your racket back, and time it. The serve: you hold the ball - standing still -and hit it when you're good and ready.

And I wouldn't brag about Sampras' slice backhand. Just like Roddick today, a slice usually means that you have bad footwork.

West Coast "Ace" - A Slice usually means bad footwork? Comparing RODDICK and his learned-yesterday slice with Sampras' approach? Man, talk about embarrassing yourself! You must not play or watch a lot of tennis, and you obviously, like a lot of the kids who post here, never saw Sampras in his prime.

A POINT is a POINT, whether it is won on a serve or off a groundie. I really don't get YOUR point. Does the fact that Agassi had good FOOTWORK, make him the "better" player than Sampras? Of course not. The numbers, buddy, the numbers. They don't lie. And don't forget, Sampras followed many of those serves to the net, where he won plenty of points, while the words "Agassi" and "net" have never been uttered, seriously, in the same sentence.

Look at the numbers again. His footwork didn't help him, obviously, in the head-to-head totals. And also, the fact that FOOTWORK did not earn Andre 14 slams or 6 #1's.

AA has a great record-he will be known as one of the great ones, only, no one who actually knows something about tennis will rank him next to Sampras. No one. You're on really thin ground here-in fact, I think you've just fallen through.

Datacipher
03-01-2005, 11:12 PM
Coria, you're going to have to do better than pull new quotes out of thin air. I was already correcting your previous faulty statements with quotes.

ROFL. I like how you took your last quote directly from my post and then cut off the part you didn't like to try to fit your reasoning!

Datacipher
03-01-2005, 11:45 PM
The truth only hurts if it's...the truth, and you believe in a lie. ?

If people want to fly in the face of all the facts and try to work around them with convoluted rationales, there's not much you can do about it Phil..... I just hope these fellows are arguing out of emotion or for for the sake of argument and don't really believe this stuff....

Datacipher
03-01-2005, 11:52 PM
What WCA says. Sampras most suredly chased numbers. And let's keep the multi-talented, versatile, and classy Federer (the un-Sampras) out of this.

Why THE HECK are you and Coria trying to say that Phil said Sampras was not a number chaser? Phil only pointed out the absurdity of such an accusation. Besides being meaningless, it's not even an insult! He chased numbers and he got them! Mostly he chased GS trophies, like everyone else, and he got those as well!

I'd be careful calling Phil "uninformed", he's killing you guys and ALL of the factual errors(and there have been quite a few) in the 3 threads you've started regarding Agassi and Sampras have been on the Agassi supporter side.

laurie
03-02-2005, 04:43 AM
When I read some of the comments here, I have to conclude that some people posting here with increasingly cantankerous views actually don't really know, understand or appreciate all the aspects, physical, technical and mental of the game of tennis. What is even more amazing is that they try to force their opinion on others somehow expecting people to crumble to their force of personality.

Whenever anyone approaches this argument they have to get cantankerous because you always will approach it from a defensive position. Sampras like on the court is always in the dominant position when the argument of their rivalry comes up. Agassi followers are aware of this, which is why it makes them so angry.

The sad truth is they can get as mad and as angry as they want. They can also say Pete just had a serve (hey..just like Wayne Arthurs) and nothing else and get all *****y. Sampras followers are always quick to point out Agassi's achievements and applaud it for what it is.

Its very pathetic. But fun to read all the same as we can clearly get to see who the pathetic one's are here who obviously cannot come to terms with reality.

Don't worry, If anyone wants to have a go at me for saying this I have the wit to put anyone here in their place (If I have to).

Brettolius
03-02-2005, 05:28 AM
i would also like to add that it's not like in those years pete "shadily" finished no.1 that he just had to enter those tournaments he didn't have on his schedule. that would not have cut it, would you agree? he needed to post some results. i think in a way that's more impressive because he's sitting back saying, "i've got to win these tourneys to finish number 1, so i'm GONNA DO IT!" and he did. he coldy calculated what he had to do, and did it. saying "all i have to do is WIN this," is easier said than done. it's like he stepped it up and did whatever he wanted when he wanted. maybe he didn't all the time,but when it counted. really, if it doesn't measure up in the overall scheme of things, who gives a damn how many times pete won the "podunk open's" of the world? 14 majors baby!
p.s. one thing agassi does have over sampras, is that he won more satellites and challengers, lol!

Rabbit
03-02-2005, 05:50 AM
Thanks, BB.

And I wouldn't brag about Sampras' slice backhand. Just like Roddick today, a slice usually means that you have bad footwork.

Hmmmm.....there are a few other players who would be suprised to hear that. Namely, Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, John McEnroe, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Matts Wilander, and every other pro who's ever played tennis. A sliced backhand is a tool, just like a hammer or a screwdriver. A sliced backhand is a low risk shot that can be used to keep a player in a backcourt rally. Likewise, it's a weapon that can be used to approach net, usually (if you're smart) down the line. It stays low and moves off the ground quickly.

With regard to Sampras chasing numbers. Somebody please explain to me how any pro doesn't chase numbers? Does anyone think that the truly great players don't play to win Grand Slams? Sampras was Lendl's hitting partner much of the time he was coming up. Wouldn't it mean something to Sampras to eclipse Lendl's mark? I'm quite sure he looked up to Lendl and rightly so.

I never thought that I'd be on these boards defending Sampras, but geeze, guys, y'all are going down a wacky path.

Kevin Patrick
03-02-2005, 08:35 AM
The only year Sampras entered more tournaments than he would normally play was '98(& that was only post US Open that he added events). He was very close with Rios that year(& how legitimate would #1 be if Rios ended the year #1 without a slam?, I'm glad Sampras chased 'numbers' that year a slam winner should be #1)
Every other year Sampras had #1 locked up pretty early in the year(except '95, but it's not his fault that Agassi was injured in the latter part of the year)

So Sampras wasn't concerned with #1 for the most part(unlike that "classy" Federer who's so obsessed with being #1 he skips Davis Cup in order to "chase numbers" at events like Dubai. It's February, why is he thinking about the ranking now? Especially with his 2,000 point lead) just concerned about winning slams(& letting #1 take care of itself)

Aykhan Mammadov
03-02-2005, 04:07 PM
Aykhan, you're the one who's wrong. In addition to Rod Laver and Agassi, Roy Emerson, Fred Perry and Don Budge have all won each grand slam event. Also, Agassi has 8 grand slams, not 7. And finally, saying that nobody cares about the Masters Series tournaments is ridiculous. They are second in prestige only to the Grand Slams. They feature the best players in the world and are worth a considerable amount of points in the ranking system.

tennis1982, I don't understand. Either I'm crazy or I missed something. Who u told - Roy Emerson, Fred Petty and Don Budge ? I hear about them first time in my life. Didn't these GS tornaments start officially in 1968 ? Which year did those men win GS ?

tennis1982
03-02-2005, 04:18 PM
Aykhan, the open era of tennis started after that time, but there was still professional tennis before then as well as the grand slam tournaments. If you type those names in your search engine I'm sure you'll find the information on them.

Bertchel Banks
03-02-2005, 06:00 PM
Why THE HECK are you and Coria trying to say that Phil said Sampras was not a number chaser? Phil only pointed out the absurdity of such an accusation. Besides being meaningless, it's not even an insult! He chased numbers and he got them! Mostly he chased GS trophies, like everyone else, and he got those as well!

The only reason I brought to light the fact that Sampras was chasing points is because it takes away the illusion that he was the best player on the ATP tour for six consecutive years. He was not. He was the clear #1 in '93, '94, '96 & '97, that's four years. He got lucky in '95 and again in '98, where the surface and conditions played in his favor. Had the surface been on...clay, for example, the outcome would've been different.

On close inspection his six years at number 1 is misleading. Had Andre been as obsessive with the numbers as Pete he could've finished #1 in '95, 2001, and 2002, in addition to his 1999 triumph. That's four years.

Phil
03-02-2005, 06:15 PM
Could have, would have, should have. Bertchel, that is the sorry refrain of all wannabes (or fans of players that could have, would have, should have been).

You can't change history, but you can certainly try, as futile as it may be, to spin it to how you would like it to have been. Again, my man, take a count. SIX #1's and 14 (that's FOURTEEN) Majors. Oh, and FIVE Masters Finals. Say it and weep. You're GRASPING at straws. But go ahead. Spin away, buddy, but if you were to ask ANDRE to name the greatest player, and who he thought is the best between he and Sampras, he just might say, in all sincerity, that Pete was.

Datacipher
03-02-2005, 06:25 PM
The He got lucky in '95 and again in '98, where the surface and conditions played in his favor. Had the surface been on...clay, for example, the outcome would've been different.

On close inspection his six years at number 1 is misleading. Had Andre been as obsessive with the numbers as Pete he could've finished #1 in '95, 2001, and 2002, in addition to his 1999 triumph. That's four years.

Wow. Yep, had they played all year on clay, the outcome would have been different. If they banned overhead serving, the outcome would be different. If Sampras was born an invalid the outcome would be different. If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon....

That lucky lucky Sampras, if only we had played on my home courts and none of the pros cared about the numbers or winning and I made them use ping pong paddles, Datacipher would have been #1 in 1995.

Phil
03-02-2005, 06:32 PM
Wow. Yep, had they played all year on clay, the outcome would have been different. If they banned overhead serving, the outcome would be different. If Sampras was born an invalid the outcome would be different. If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon....

That lucky lucky Sampras, if only we had played on my home courts and none of the pros cared about the numbers or winning and I made them use ping pong paddles, Datacipher would have been #1 in 1995.

No, Datacipher, I would have been #1 in '95! Me, Me-because all you had was a serve, and had to hit slice to compensate for your faulty footwork, while I, with my superior footwork and countless more cool TV comercials was the RIGHTFUL #1! LOL-you pretty much hammered the final nail in the coffin, but wait, I hear footsteps...they're coming back-they always are, it seems...

Bertchel Banks
03-02-2005, 06:34 PM
Wow. Yep, had they played all year on clay, the outcome would have been different. If they banned overhead serving, the outcome would be different. If Sampras was born an invalid the outcome would be different. If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon....

...If Sampras didn't have so much tennis talent he might have won the French, or made it to the finals.

Bertchel Banks
03-02-2005, 06:39 PM
with my superior footwork and countless more cool TV comercials was the RIGHTFUL #1!

This is just sad. I thought you guys were secure with Pete's accomplishments. No need to be sore about the fact that Andre got $100M from Nike, while Pete was reduced to begging for pennies.

ty slothrop
03-02-2005, 08:30 PM
"but if you were to ask ANDRE to name the greatest player, and who he thought is the best between he and Sampras, he just might say, in all sincerity, that Pete was."

This is just sad. I thought you guys were secure with Pete's accomplishments. No need to be sore about the fact that Andre got $100M from Nike, while Pete was reduced to begging for pennies.

what Dre would really say is that, when it comes down to it, it's all about the nike bling.

sarpmas
03-03-2005, 01:35 AM
I really do not understand why is there so much resentment that people have to nitpick Pete's accomplishment. Pete was lucky to be no.1 in 95 & 98?! I thought he should garnered more respect and admiration for the way he was pushing himself to the limit to re-write history! How many athlete can do what Pete has done, setting his mind on something and ACTUALLY accomplish it? Federer has just won a few tight matches and people are already doubting his dominance, imagine being dominant for 6 straight years!

Should have, could have, would have. Come to think of it, I think Andre is the luckiest person in the world! If Medvedev did not 's n a t c h defeat from the jaws of victory' in the French Open... Frankly, how do you rate Andre with no French Open title? Seems like I have to thank Andre for winning the French so that folks like us can have fun arguing over thread like this!

Coria
03-03-2005, 01:47 PM
Pete deserved to be number one but I wouldn't say he dominated in all of those years. He certainly dominated in '93 but in other years, like '95, Andre was the better player and had the better record. But Pete won the clutch points at that Open and he deserved number one. But dominated? I don't think so.

Aykhan Mammadov
03-03-2005, 03:19 PM
Aykhan, the open era of tennis started after that time, but there was still professional tennis before then as well as the grand slam tournaments. If you type those names in your search engine I'm sure you'll find the information on them.

tennis1982, suppose I search and will find something. Can u explain what u mean under open era, and what was before open - unopen, closed ? Why there is such an exact barrier 1968 ? Why 1967 or 1966 is not taken into consideration ? Why the starting date for all 4 GS is the same ? What do u know about ?

laurie
03-04-2005, 04:03 AM
Hi Aykhan, Open era started in 1968 and Wimbledon was the first tournament to invite professionals to play that year. I saw this on one of Wimbledon's official films. Until then only amateurs were allowed to participate in grand slam tournaments. Of course, amateurs don't make money as such so most top players turned professional and went to play in the States to earn money and make a living from the sport.

But the level of play was diminishing badly at the amateur level. The likes of Tony Trabert, Jack Kramer and Pancho Gonzales all turned pro and couldn't play in the slams. Trabert had won US Open, Wimbledon and French Open in 1950s but then turned pro. Kramer won Wimbledon in late 1940s and then initiated the pro scene. Gonzales was one of the best players but unfortunately turned pro so young that he seems to be forgotten because of his lack of slam play.

Rod Laver turned pro after winning four slams in one year in 1962. When pros were invited to play Wimbledon, it became open...open to amateurs and professionals alike. I think Golf majors are similar. Then Laver won 4 slams in one year in 1969. That would explain the 7 year gap. He might have done it more often. Its easy to see why many people consider him the best.

Of course, we have seen other major sports transition from amateur to professional in recent times. Rugby Union changed in the 1990s and Athletics around the 1980s. In Rugby's case where players can train full time and not worry about working for a living and training after work or getting time off from work to train; you can see the level of fitness and standard of play is increasing all the time.

I hope this helps