PDA

View Full Version : SAMPRAS - AGASSI rivalry is WAAAAY Too OVERRATED!!!!


wow246
04-22-2009, 04:54 PM
Sampras led slam finals 4-1 end of story. Forget about non-slma matches, even them tho sampras led!!

Duno why ppl keep going on about it as being a great rivalry.

I mean you didn't see the quality of matches that u see in fed-nadal rivalry.

I also agree fed-nadal is not rivalry anymore 5-2 in slams not really a rivalry. It WAS a rivalry until the end of 2007.

tonyg11
04-22-2009, 05:00 PM
maybe you should watch tennis instead of looking it up on wikipedia. Unless you lived and watched tennis in the 90s, basing your opinions on tennis stats won't give you the bigger picture.

DunlopDood
04-22-2009, 05:24 PM
You know nothing, go away!

GameSampras
04-22-2009, 05:25 PM
Sampras led slam finals 4-1 end of story. Forget about non-slma matches, even them tho sampras led!!

Duno why ppl keep going on about it as being a great rivalry.

I mean you didn't see the quality of matches that u see in fed-nadal rivalry.

I also agree fed-nadal is not rivalry anymore 5-2 in slams not really a rivalry. It WAS a rivalry until the end of 2007.

Whats Nadals record over Fed at the slams. Its pretty darn ugly too. And the Sampras-Andre slam matchups showed us a great diverse matchup with some great all time play. Check out their 2001 USO match. Some fo the best tennis ever played on this earth. Much prettier tennis than watching Nadal moonball against Fed's BH only for Fed to hit it into the net every time. LOL

NotSoSuper
04-22-2009, 05:26 PM
What!!!???? Provide some sort of reason before saying something like that.

tudwell
04-22-2009, 05:28 PM
Just because it's not close doesn't mean it's not a rivalry. I agree the greatest rivalry would have to be one a little more even than Sampras-Agassi or Federer-Nadal, but that doesn't mean those aren't rivalries in their own right.

veroniquem
04-22-2009, 05:34 PM
It was a great rivalry, in many ways closer than Nadal-Fed's rivalry, they were the same age and they played many more matches than Fed-Nadal (34 vs only 19). In master shields Agassi-Sampras were toe to toe: 5-5.
In slams they met 9 times and Sampras led 6 to 3. In Master Cup, Sampras is 4-2. It's true Sampras dominates that rivalry but the matches were exciting and I never felt like they were a foregone conclusion. Nadal-Fed is more one sided. Nadal is 6-2 vs Fed in slams (and Fed's 2 wins happened on the same surface:grass). Nadal is also 6-2 vs Fed in master shields. In the Master Cup, they only met twice and Federer won both. They don't really have a close score in any category, at least Agassi-Sampras was very competitive in masters.

illkhiboy
04-22-2009, 06:05 PM
It was a great rivalry, in many ways closer than Nadal-Fed's rivalry, they were the same age and they played many more matches than Fed-Nadal (34 vs only 19). In master shields Agassi-Sampras were toe to toe: 5-5.
In slams they met 9 times and Sampras led 6 to 3. In Master Cup, Sampras is 4-2. It's true Sampras dominates that rivalry but the matches were exciting and I never felt like they were a foregone conclusion. Nadal-Fed is more one sided. Nadal is 6-2 vs Fed in slams (and Fed's 2 wins happened on the same surface:grass). Nadal is also 6-2 vs Fed in master shields. In the Master Cup, they only met twice and Federer won both. They don't really have a close score in any category, at least Agassi-Sampras was very competitive in masters.

You're wrong, Federer leads Nadal 5-4 on non-clay surfaces. That's a rivalry. One might even say Federer dominated Nadal on non-clay surfaces until the end of 2007. He was 5-2 up.
One might say Nadal needed Federer to slip to even out the rivalry on non-clay surfaces.

helloworld
04-22-2009, 06:10 PM
You're wrong, Federer leads Nadal 5-4 on non-clay surfaces. That's a rivalry. One might even say Federer dominated Nadal on non-clay surfaces until the end of 2007. He was 5-2 up.
One might say Nadal needed Federer to slip to even out the rivalry on non-clay surfaces.

Lol, another non-clay surface excuse. :)

GameSampras
04-22-2009, 06:12 PM
I guess Nadal-Fed is a rivalry.. Kind of.. But when you look at how at this point Nadal has snatched quite a few slams away from Fed including what would have been 2-3 calendar slams, Its not much of a true rivalry anymore.

Nadal has snatched slams from Fed at 3 of the last 4 slams and now on every surface. Pete could not beat Andre at the Australian. And was taken out by Andre at the French. But Pete owned Wimbeldon and and the USO of course.

Andre could grab wins from Pete. Roger cant beat Nadal anywheres these days. A little bit of difference there. Pete-Andre at the end of the day I think was a little more of a competitive rivalry then Fed-Nadal has been. The fed-nadal rivalry is turning into an extremely rivalry in favor of Nadal.


And Pete only leads the h2h against Andre 20-14. Nadal is 13-6 overrall against Fed and 6-2 in slam finals and this will only get more lopsided I think

thalivest
04-22-2009, 06:13 PM
Lol, another non-clay surface excuse. :)

Well these people who keep going to that crutch are going to have to hope Federer and Nadal never play another non clay match again since even that will go out the window then. I think of the excuses the *******s keep coming up with as like an iceburg they are standing on in the middle of a freezing ocean. All the time though some more of the iceburg is chipped away and they are now on their tippytoes with what is left, clinging for dear life.

thalivest
04-22-2009, 06:14 PM
I guess Nadal-Fed is a rivalry.. Kind of.. But when you look at how at this point Nadal has snatched quite a few slams away from Fed including what would have been 2-3 calendar slams, Its not much of a true rivalry anymore.

Nadal has snatched slams from Fed at 3 of the 4 slams and now on every surface. Pete could not beat Andre at the Australian. And was taken out by Andre at the French. But Pete owned Wimbeldon and and the USO of course.

Andre could grab wins from Pete. Roger cant beat Nadal anywheres these days. A little bit of difference there.

Agassi was atleast a perfect 3-0 vs Sampras at the Australian and French Opens. Well I guess currently Federer is 2-1 vs Nadal at Wimbledon, and they havent played at the U.S Open yet where in theory Nadal's chances vs Federer would be even worse. However the way both are going now I doubt if Federer can protect or build on his record vs Nadal at those two slams if they inevitably meet in the future at either.

kungfusmkim
04-22-2009, 06:17 PM
It is alot closer than it says on the paper. Andre was always in there just couldnt push past the limit. Its like a race. Near the end of the 400m dash your quads and calves are giving out on you. However, the better runner will still finish the race without losing pace. They pushed their muscles past the limits. Andre couldnt do that. Sampras did. The couple of times Andre won against sampras, he pushed his limits.

GameSampras
04-22-2009, 06:19 PM
Andre was usually was always going to have the advantage over Pete on slower courts. Most of the time.

Of course it is different today I guess. The courts are not as polarized as they were in Pete and Andre's day

deltox
04-22-2009, 06:40 PM
did you see the agassi sampras match that sampras won 7-6 6-7 6-7 6-7? even tho he won and the stats give him a win, it was a crazy great match.

JoshDragon
04-22-2009, 06:55 PM
Sampras led slam finals 4-1 end of story. Forget about non-slma matches, even them tho sampras led!!

Duno why ppl keep going on about it as being a great rivalry.

I mean you didn't see the quality of matches that u see in fed-nadal rivalry.

I also agree fed-nadal is not rivalry anymore 5-2 in slams not really a rivalry. It WAS a rivalry until the end of 2007.

I agree, I didn't like the Sampras/Agassi rivalry. Mostly because of the short points and the aggressive, sometimes reckless, ball bashing from Agassi.

10isDad
04-22-2009, 07:02 PM
Andre was usually was always going to have the advantage over Pete on slower courts. Most of the time.

Of course it is different today I guess. The courts are not as polarized as they were in Pete and Andre's day

was usually always most of the time? Rather noncommital.

skip1969
04-22-2009, 07:10 PM
dear op,

you're overrated.

love,

skip

NadalandFedererfan
04-22-2009, 07:22 PM
It is not overrated. As a mutual Federer and Nadal fan I could only wish Federer showed half the balls and heart vs Nadal that Agassi does vs Sampras. Agassi in many ways is outgunned and outmatched game wise by Sampras. Federer in some respects has more weaponary and a slightly better overall game than Nadal, yet still falls meekly and gives Nadal much less overall battle than Agassi can give Sampras. As a mutual Federer and Nadal fan Federer does not keep up his end of the bargain enough.

10sfreak
04-22-2009, 07:28 PM
^^^ I second this!

NadalandFedererfan
04-22-2009, 07:37 PM
I agree, I didn't like the Sampras/Agassi rivalry. Mostly because of the short points and the aggressive, sometimes reckless, ball bashing from Agassi.

Agassi was one of the most agressive baseliners ever, yet when he played Sampras's all court assault he was forced on the D almost the whole match. So I dont see how he could display agressive, sometimes reckless, ball bashing when he played Sampras.

jamesblakefan#1
04-22-2009, 08:00 PM
It is not overrated. As a mutual Federer and Nadal fan I could only wish Federer showed half the balls and heart vs Nadal that Agassi does vs Sampras. Agassi in many ways is outgunned and outmatched game wise by Sampras. Federer in some respects has more weaponary and a slightly better overall game than Nadal, yet still falls meekly and gives Nadal much less overall battle than Agassi can give Sampras. As a mutual Federer and Nadal fan Federer does not keep up his end of the bargain enough.

As far as this is concerned, I agree. Agassi never lost to Sampras 6-1,6-3, 6-0 in a slam final

NotSoSuper
04-22-2009, 08:28 PM
It is not overrated. As a mutual Federer and Nadal fan I could only wish Federer showed half the balls and heart vs Nadal that Agassi does vs Sampras. Agassi in many ways is outgunned and outmatched game wise by Sampras. Federer in some respects has more weaponary and a slightly better overall game than Nadal, yet still falls meekly and gives Nadal much less overall battle than Agassi can give Sampras. As a mutual Federer and Nadal fan Federer does not keep up his end of the bargain enough.

Great post dude! Im in 100% agreement.

JoshDragon
04-22-2009, 09:20 PM
Agassi was one of the most agressive baseliners ever, yet when he played Sampras's all court assault he was forced on the D almost the whole match. So I dont see how he could display agressive, sometimes reckless, ball bashing when he played Sampras.

Andre's returns were usually very aggressive. Sometimes he would hit beautiful winners off of a serve but he could also hit plenty of errors.

From what I have seen of Andre, he was a much better offensive player than defensive. He covered the court decently when he was younger but that changed when he was old and started developing back problems. That's probably part of the reason why he lost to Sampras the last few times that they played.

I like longer well constructed points and I didn't feel the Sampras/Agassi matches had enough long points. I'm also not a fan of the S&V or aggressive baseline strategies. Those are probably my least favorite styles to watch.

LanceStern
04-22-2009, 09:58 PM
Andre could grab wins from Pete. Roger cant beat Nadal anywheres these days. A little bit of difference there. Pete-Andre at the end of the day I think was a little more of a competitive rivalry then Fed-Nadal has been. The fed-nadal rivalry is turning into an extremely rivalry in favor of Nadal.


Agassi at one point went on a four match winning streak against Sampras... no-one gave up hope that Sampras could win.

Nadal has been getting the one up on Federer in all their matches since 2007, but 4/5 of the matches were really close, where Fed had plenty of chances to win.

Leelord337
04-22-2009, 10:01 PM
i like the nadal verdasco rivalry, do u think that semi in the AO this year was the best match of the year?

380pistol
04-22-2009, 10:16 PM
This is what made Sampras - Agassi so compelling......

-The Introvert (Sampras) vs. The Extrovert (Agassi)
-The Booming Serve (Sampras) vs. The Lightning Return (Agassi)
-The King Of The Short Point (Sampras) vs. The Master Of Wearing You Down(Agassi)
-The Serve And Volleyer (Sampras) vs The Baseliner (Agassi)

They were as different as night and day from their games to their personalities. Much like Borg vs McEnroe and Navratilova vs Evert. It was said "Agassi's a brick wall', well Pete knocekd down brick walls, and Agassi would build more".

Agassi would love nothing more than to grind it out with Pete, Sampras on the other hand loved nothing more than a shootout. These are some of the things that made that rivalry what it was.

380pistol
04-22-2009, 10:24 PM
Andre's returns were usually very aggressive. Sometimes he would hit beautiful winners off of a serve but he could also hit plenty of errors.

From what I have seen of Andre, he was a much better offensive player than defensive. He covered the court decently when he was younger but that changed when he was old and started developing back problems. That's probably part of the reason why he lost to Sampras the last few times that they played.

I like longer well constructed points and I didn't feel the Sampras/Agassi matches had enough long points. I'm also not a fan of the S&V or aggressive baseline strategies. Those are probably my least favorite styles to watch.

You must've missed.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zKCLaPPskI&fmt=18 -2002 US Open F
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCvBxiJhGfw&fmt=18 -1994 Key Biscayne F
http://www.fandome.com/video/91753/Pete-On-Point/ -1996 San Jose F
http://www.fandome.com/video/91758/Sick-Point/ -1995 US Open F

flyer
04-22-2009, 11:41 PM
yeah its an overrated rivalry for sure, i think its over done because they were such icons and were so similar in some ways (american, age) and so different in others (playing style, image), but they really didnt play that much for as long as they were around....

someone mentioned the nadal/federer rivalry earlier and said this wasnt a rivalry because of nadal's dominance over him, idk though i disagree, i think that makes it all the more intruiging, because federer has acheived so much more as a whole but when they're on a court togther nadal is the superior player, its like nadal is federer's kryptonite, its federer's tennis dominance vs. nadal's federer dominance, which will prove greater in the end? only time will tell

devila
04-22-2009, 11:57 PM
Agassi was overrated on clay and grass. Sampras was very dependent on serves, and
overrated on hardcourts.

You just blindly love Federer. Nadal beat this crying wench who should've lost a bunch of Slams and Masters titles before Nadal, Murray and Djoke arrived. Even Roddick admits this, and he's the only one slowly improving at 26
years old (yet, he still denies it).

thalivest
04-23-2009, 12:00 AM
Agassi was overrated on clay and grass. Sampras was very dependent on serves, and
overrated on hardcourts.

You just blindly love Federer. Nadal beat this crying wench who should've lost a bunch of Slams and Masters titles before Nadal, Murray and Djoke arrived. Even Roddick admits this, and he's the only one slowly improving at 26
years old (yet, he still denies it).

So lets see, according to you Agassi was overrated, Sampras was overrated, Federer is lucky and a crying wench. So basically everyone is overrated, sucks, or was lucky. Why dont you go out there and win 20 slams then. All these various overrated, lucky bums are winning between 8 and 14 slams, so surely it cant be that hard. :rolleyes:

paulorenzo
04-23-2009, 12:04 AM
yeah its an overrated rivalry for sure, i think its over done because they were such icons and were so similar in some ways (american, age) and so different in others (playing style, image), but they really didnt play that much for as long as they were around....

someone mentioned the nadal/federer rivalry earlier and said this wasnt a rivalry because of nadal's dominance over him, idk though i disagree, i think that makes it all the more intruiging, because federer has acheived so much more as a whole but when they're on a court togther nadal is the superior player, its like nadal is federer's kryptonite, its federer's tennis dominance vs. nadal's federer dominance, which will prove greater in the end? only time will tell

very good post.

paulorenzo
04-23-2009, 12:04 AM
Agassi was overrated on clay and grass. Sampras was very dependent on serves, and
overrated on hardcourts.

You just blindly love Federer. Nadal beat this crying wench who should've lost a bunch of Slams and Masters titles before Nadal, Murray and Djoke arrived. Even Roddick admits this, and he's the only one slowly improving at 26
years old (yet, he still denies it).

very weak post.

Gorecki
04-23-2009, 12:12 AM
I agree, I didn't like the Sampras/Agassi rivalry. Mostly because of the short points and the aggressive, sometimes reckless, ball bashing from Agassi.

this post is so dumb it makes the OP look inteligent...

flyer
04-23-2009, 12:19 AM
very good post.

thankssssssss

Leublu tennis
04-23-2009, 04:31 AM
A four ...............

jamesblakefan#1
04-23-2009, 05:18 AM
yeah its an overrated rivalry for sure, i think its over done because they were such icons and were so similar in some ways (american, age) and so different in others (playing style, image), but they really didnt play that much for as long as they were around....

someone mentioned the nadal/federer rivalry earlier and said this wasnt a rivalry because of nadal's dominance over him, idk though i disagree, i think that makes it all the more intruiging, because federer has acheived so much more as a whole but when they're on a court togther nadal is the superior player, its like nadal is federer's kryptonite, its federer's tennis dominance vs. nadal's federer dominance, which will prove greater in the end? only time will tell

Didn't play that much? The guys played each other 34 times in 13 years.(89-2002) And that's with Andre being pretty much gone for 1997. Nadal/Federer have played 19 times in 6 years (04-now).

It was a great rivalry, the greatest of all time, better than Nadal/Federer. The only drawback is taht they didnt get to play one another in a Wimbledon final. Other than taht it was great and saying it was overated is ridiculous.

Gorecki
04-23-2009, 05:23 AM
Didn't play that much? The guys played each other 34 times in 13 years.(89-2002) And that's with Andre being pretty much gone for 1997. Nadal/Federer have played 19 times in 6 years (04-now).

It was a great rivalry, the greatest of all time, better than Nadal/Federer. The only drawback is taht they didnt get to play one another in a Wimbledon final. Other than taht it was great and saying it was overated is ridiculous.

i agree... saying Agassi - Sampras is overrated is a plain dumb statment.

the only overrated thing in this forum is Teenagers who think Tony Nadal invented tennis... for his nephew's entertainment!

Orion
04-23-2009, 05:35 AM
This is what made Sampras - Agassi so compelling......

-The Introvert (Sampras) vs. The Extrovert (Agassi)
-The Booming Serve (Sampras) vs. The Lightning Return (Agassi)
-The King Of The Short Point (Sampras) vs. The Master Of Wearing You Down(Agassi)
-The Serve And Volleyer (Sampras) vs The Baseliner (Agassi)

They were as different as night and day from their games to their personalities. Much like Borg vs McEnroe and Navratilova vs Evert. It was said "Agassi's a brick wall', well Pete knocekd down brick walls, and Agassi would build more".

Agassi would love nothing more than to grind it out with Pete, Sampras on the other hand loved nothing more than a shootout. These are some of the things that made that rivalry what it was.

Great analysis. You're spot-on. Nadal-Fed is a good match, but not the rivalry that Agassi-Sampras was. Agassi and Sampras pushed each other to their respective limits. The age parity means alot too. I'm not sure the current-Nadal would have fared this well against Fed during the heart of Fed's tear. Nadal is in Fed's head and he oft looks like he wishes he wasn't playing Nadal.

Overall, the tour doesn't seem as competitive now as it was 10-15 years ago. The current players seem to content with a Grand Slam QF. I see the drive in Murray but there is a definite void. No Edberg's nor Courier's pr Cash's, but alot of inconsistency. An earlier post mentioned Roddick as the only player improving with age. Verdasco is showing promise, but the verdict is still out.

heninfan99
04-23-2009, 05:57 AM
I agree. Sampras feared Goran much more despite his dominant record over him.
Sampras led slam finals 4-1 end of story. Forget about non-slma matches, even them tho sampras led!!

Duno why ppl keep going on about it as being a great rivalry.

I mean you didn't see the quality of matches that u see in fed-nadal rivalry.

I also agree fed-nadal is not rivalry anymore 5-2 in slams not really a rivalry. It WAS a rivalry until the end of 2007.

flyer
04-23-2009, 07:35 AM
Didn't play that much? The guys played each other 34 times in 13 years.(89-2002) And that's with Andre being pretty much gone for 1997. Nadal/Federer have played 19 times in 6 years (04-now).

It was a great rivalry, the greatest of all time, better than Nadal/Federer. The only drawback is taht they didnt get to play one another in a Wimbledon final. Other than taht it was great and saying it was overated is ridiculous.

im talking about slams, the other match are mearly trivial to me, nadal and federer have played more, greater, closer matches in slams, in finals, on all surfaces...

jamesblakefan#1
04-23-2009, 07:58 AM
im talking about slams, the other match are mearly trivial to me, nadal and federer have played more, greater, closer matches in slams, in finals, on all surfaces...

So Masters Events don't matter now, just because? And as far as closer, 19 of the 34 matches they played had at least one set of either 7-6 or 7-5. That shows how evenly matched these two were. Sure there were times where one would beat the other decisevely. But there were also those classics where it could've gone either way and came down to one or two tiebreaks (01 US Open).

People remember that rivalry for what it was, and while Nadal/Federer is great, it still hasn't managed to take the interest level in the game back to where it was during Sampras/Agassi.

P_Agony
04-23-2009, 08:10 AM
Whats Nadals record over Fed at the slams. Its pretty darn ugly too. And the Sampras-Andre slam matchups showed us a great diverse matchup with some great all time play. Check out their 2001 USO match. Some fo the best tennis ever played on this earth. Much prettier tennis than watching Nadal moonball against Fed's BH only for Fed to hit it into the net every time. LOL

I happen to actually agree with you on this one. I love to watch Federer play but I hate to watch him play against Nadal. Nadal forces Federer to play his game instead of Fed's game, resulting in billion of unforced errors from Fed, long points, and backhand bashing to death. It is Nadal FH to Fed's BH, FH to BH, FH to BH, until Federer drops it into the net out of frustration.

Back when Fed had confidence it was better because Fed's movement and sheer talent were allowing him to play his offense game. Nowdays Federer's confidence is completley gone, his strokes aren't as sharp, and Nadal's moonballs are even higher, resulting in matches that are maybe exciting, but not the highest tennis quality.

fps
04-23-2009, 08:24 AM
I don't think stats are everything when it comes to a great rivalry, it's the quality of tennis produced also. I've seen the one with all tie breaks, it was incredible. The last two Wimbledon finals have also been totally awesome, and the first 4 sets of the AO final were fantastic as well. I think Federer- Nadal on hard courts is going to continue to be a great battle that produces great tennis. On the other surfaces I see Nadal, from hereon out, as big favourite.

The win-loss column isn't the only thing that determines a good rivalry. Agassi may have given more fight than Fed has in some of his performances, but Agassi and Sampras were the same age, and also, the bad matches have faded away in people's minds. I'm not saying Sampras didn't beat down Agassi in an FO final-style way some time, I'm saying I don't know, because the good stuff is what gets remembered.

ksbh
04-23-2009, 08:51 AM
I feel sorry for you because the bolded statement below indicates that you missed the 1999 Wimbledon final. It was an exhibition of perfection by the greatest grass court tennis player that ever played, Pete Sampras! Nobody has played grass court tennis better!

Didn't play that much? The guys played each other 34 times in 13 years.(89-2002) And that's with Andre being pretty much gone for 1997. Nadal/Federer have played 19 times in 6 years (04-now).

It was a great rivalry, the greatest of all time, better than Nadal/Federer. The only drawback is taht they didnt get to play one another in a Wimbledon final. Other than taht it was great and saying it was overated is ridiculous.

flyer
04-23-2009, 08:56 AM
So Masters Events don't matter now, just because? And as far as closer, 19 of the 34 matches they played had at least one set of either 7-6 or 7-5. That shows how evenly matched these two were. Sure there were times where one would beat the other decisevely. But there were also those classics where it could've gone either way and came down to one or two tiebreaks (01 US Open).

People remember that rivalry for what it was, and while Nadal/Federer is great, it still hasn't managed to take the interest level in the game back to where it was during Sampras/Agassi.

i'll adress each point you made individually...

first, yes they matter to determine rankings, prize winnings, preparation, etc, but they do not define tennis history, that book is written in grand slams, nobody remember who won miami in 1992, but i bet you remember who won wimbledon....so rivalries are defined the same way, nadal and federer have played more times in slams on all surfaces, including the greatest tennis match ever played....nadal and federer define each other, agassi does not define sampras, his 14 slams do...thats my point.

as far as intrest level, in the United States your right it hasnt, the reason being nadal and federer are not american icons so theres no way it will get to that level here in the states, but think outside the box, globally tennis has never been so accessable and popular in so many courtries like it is today, so i understand you might live in america and only see that prespective but as long as the sport is healthy and growing overall i certainly dont give a sh1t whether we in american are watching...

vandre
04-23-2009, 09:03 AM
to op: does your mommy know you're using the computer??? :mad:

if you've seen agassi/ sampras matches (let's say more than 2) you'd know that those were multi-dimensional matches. it was sampras' amazing serve against agassi's amazing return of serve. sampras' net play versus agassi's passing shots. sampras' running forehand against agassi's groundstrokes.

agassi/ sampras wasn't just a match, it was a contrast in playing styles. you don't see that anymore at the top levels of the game. today you have the baseliner against the other baseliner.

agassi had to get better to compete with sampras and vice versa. those two guys pushed each other to improve and they peaked about the same time. what your numbers show is that perhaps sampras had a gear agassi didn't (unfortunately for us agassi fans). usually, those matches hinged on whoever could more impossible shots won.

now giving credit where it's due, nadal and fed have pushed one another to improve (although to date it seems like nadal has been pushed to improve more) but the age difference (like other posters have mentioned) and the fact that they don't play opposing styles somewhat diminish the rivalry for some of us. also, tennis isn't as popular in the U.S. at it was during the agassi/ sampras era which might have something to due with the popularity of agassi versus sampras.

Gorecki
04-23-2009, 09:09 AM
I feel sorry for you because the bolded statement below indicates that you missed the 1999 Wimbledon final. It was an exhibition of perfection by the greatest grass court tennis player that ever played, Pete Sampras! Nobody has played grass court tennis better!

K... old geezeer... how's things?

about your post, i dont really know if you agree with the OP or not based on it, but wouldnt it be some food for thought the fact that the greatest showdown in Grasscourt tennis ever performed by one player (Sampras) happend when his greatest rival (Agassi) faced him in the Final of Wimby?

lets all think about it for a second...;)

stormholloway
04-23-2009, 09:13 AM
The Federer/Nadal rivalry is kind of a joke. Nadal dominated Federer even when he was in his prime. Now that he isn't anymore, it looks much worse.

Agassi/Sampras was much better. If Sampras had been a quality clay courter it might have been more interesting though. The same could be said for Agassi on grass, though to a make lesser degree.

swedechris
04-23-2009, 09:21 AM
True.. But i think the level of both guys movement around the baseline was not as good as the guys deliver nowadays. They were more ´straightshooters ´..which in turn kept the pace high and i think that was attractive to the spectators. Also we are prone to being partial as Americans.

fantom
04-23-2009, 09:57 AM
I feel sorry for you because the bolded statement below indicates that you missed the 1999 Wimbledon final. It was an exhibition of perfection by the greatest grass court tennis player that ever played, Pete Sampras! Nobody has played grass court tennis better!

That was quite a display by Pete! I was rooting for AA big-time, but he never really had a chance.

ksbh
04-23-2009, 10:20 AM
Gorecki ... how have you been old bean?! As for me, I'm quite enlivened by these long overdue discussions about the king of swing! Hundreds of threads about everything that Federer does can be mind numbingly boring :)

You say let's all think about it for a second? Second? Try years! I've played parts of that match so many times in my mind that I could've taught people how to meditate! LOL!

Anyways, refer bolded part of your post ... it's that very fact that makes it such an incredible feat. Agassi was arguably playing the best tennis of his career that year and to snuff out the challenge of a multi-surface, multi-slam champion in the manner that Pete did, beggars belief! The qualities of a great champion come through in times such as these when challengers encroach upon their territory. Quite unlike a certain current GOAT candidate that's made a habit of faltering when the stakes are high!

As Nirmal Shekar writes about the 1999 Wimbledon final ... "In sport there are times when you watch a contest and go back with the distinct feeling of having witnessed two entirely different games. Agassi was playing great grass court tennis. Sampras was playing something else, stuff not accessible to ordinary mortals."

As for the OP, dare I say it but I'd be surprised if he knew the difference between a diaper & a wipe! LOL!

K... old geezeer... how's things?

about your post, i dont really know if you agree with the OP or not based on it, but wouldnt it be some food for thought the fact that the greatest showdown in Grasscourt tennis ever performed by one player (Sampras) happend when his greatest rival (Agassi) faced him in the Final of Wimby?
lets all think about it for a second...;)

Gorecki
04-23-2009, 10:32 AM
Gorecki ... how have you been old bean?! As for me, I'm quite enlivened by these long overdue discussions about the king of swing! Hundreds of threads about everything that Federer does can be mind numbingly boring :)

You say let's all think about it for a second? Second? Try years! I've played parts of that match so many times in my mind that I could've taught people how to meditate! LOL!

Anyways, refer bolded part of your post ... it's that very fact that makes it such an incredible feat. Agassi was arguably playing the best tennis of his career that year and to snuff out the challenge of a multi-surface, multi-slam champion in the manner that Pete did, beggars belief! The qualities of a great champion come through in times such as these when challengers encroach upon their territory. Quite unlike a certain current GOAT candidate that's made a habit of faltering when the stakes are high!

As Nirmal Shekar writes about the 1999 Wimbledon final ... "In sport there are times when you watch a contest and go back with the distinct feeling of having witnessed two entirely different games. Agassi was playing great grass court tennis. Sampras was playing something else, stuff not accessible to ordinary mortals."

As for the OP, dare I say it but I'd be surprised if he knew the difference between a diaper & a wipe! LOL!

always a clever word...:)

ksbh
04-23-2009, 10:33 AM
Fantom! I wasn't rooting for Andre Agassi by any stretch of imagination. But considering that he was playing incredible tennis that summer, on the eve of the final I thought that there was a real chance that Sampras' domination at Wimbledon might end. Little did I expect what followed on that Sunday!

I wish Agassi had made more Wimbledon finals, if for nothing but to see Sampras at his majestic best. It's common knowledge that Agassi brought the best out of Sampras.

That was quite a display by Pete! I was rooting for AA big-time, but he never really had a chance.

ksbh
04-23-2009, 10:38 AM
Hey Gorecki, have your read Nirmal Shekar's articles about Pete? He's a great sports writer and wrote many tennis articles, especially during Sampras' reign. He's from back home in my country but I always felt that had he worked for one of the American or European news casters, he could've contributed a lot more to the tennis world.

always a clever word...:)

fantom
04-23-2009, 10:56 AM
Fantom! I wasn't rooting for Andre Agassi by any stretch of imagination. But considering that he was playing incredible tennis that summer, on the eve of the final I thought that there was a real chance that Sampras' domination at Wimbledon might end. Little did I expect what followed on that Sunday!

I wish Agassi had made more Wimbledon finals, if for nothing but to see Sampras at his majestic best. It's common knowledge that Agassi brought the best out of Sampras.


Yep. Agassi was tearing it up. The quote from that article just sums it up perfectly. Agassi did play a great match, but Sampras was just un-beatable.

Sampras always dialed his game to another level when he faced Andre.

jamesblakefan#1
04-23-2009, 11:02 AM
Yep. Agassi was tearing it up. The quote from that article just sums it up perfectly. Agassi did play a great match, but Sampras was just un-beatable.

Sampras always dialed his game to another level when he faced Andre.

And that's the difference with Federer against Nadal. I don't think you can say Fed always takes his game to a new level when playing Nadal, save for the last 2 Wimbledon finals.

Gorecki
04-23-2009, 01:08 PM
Hey Gorecki, have your read Nirmal Shekar's articles about Pete? He's a great sports writer and wrote many tennis articles, especially during Sampras' reign. He's from back home in my country but I always felt that had he worked for one of the American or European news casters, he could've contributed a lot more to the tennis world.

nope... but i will definitely take a look into his words now...

seffina
04-23-2009, 01:33 PM
I was such a Sampras fan during the Sampras years that I never really got to enjoy tennis beyond him. It made me so anti Agassi that I couldn't enjoy his smallest victories. But I remember them well and I think they amounted to a great rivalry. It was a different thing that Rafa/Roger. I think the fact that they were both Americans kind of added another flavor to it. It's funny how much more I've come to appreciate Agassi in these last few years. Maybe I'm just not a total dodo anymore. The OP sure does put the do in dodo, though.

veroniquem
04-23-2009, 01:37 PM
Agassi at one point went on a four match winning streak against Sampras... no-one gave up hope that Sampras could win.

Nadal has been getting the one up on Federer in all their matches since 2007, but 4/5 of the matches were really close, where Fed had plenty of chances to win.
Agassi never went on a 4 match win streak vs Sampras. The maximum he did was 3: AO 2000, IW 2001 and LA 2001 (but AO and IW were more than a year apart). It was toward the end of the rivalry since Sampras retired in 2002.

wangs78
04-23-2009, 01:47 PM
Regardless of which rivalry was better, I think the Nadal-Federer rivalry is much more intriguing bc of the circumstances. Basically, Nadal is the only thing that has stood between Federer and tennis immortality. And I don't use that word (immortality) lightly here. Had Fed won Wimby last year and also won just ONE of the FO finals where he's faced Nadal, I think no one would ever question Fed's place as the GOAT. But Fed, nearing the summit of the mountain of men's tennis, past and present, ran into a wall called Nadal that he could not scale and has quite possibly irreversibly broken his back from falling from this wall on so many occasions.

JoshDragon
04-23-2009, 01:55 PM
You must've missed.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zKCLaPPskI&fmt=18 -2002 US Open F
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCvBxiJhGfw&fmt=18 -1994 Key Biscayne F
http://www.fandome.com/video/91753/Pete-On-Point/ -1996 San Jose F
http://www.fandome.com/video/91758/Sick-Point/ -1995 US Open F

It really is a shame that Federer only played Pete that 1 time when they were both on the tour. I wish they could have both played in their primes. Or Nadal vs Sampras that would have been even better.

Hope they have an exhibition match between them soon.

deltox
04-23-2009, 02:02 PM
Agassi was one of the most agressive baseliners ever, yet when he played Sampras's all court assault he was forced on the D almost the whole match. So I dont see how he could display agressive, sometimes reckless, ball bashing when he played Sampras.

he attacked the sampras serve AGGRESSIVELY more so than anyone else ever did.

wangs78
04-23-2009, 02:44 PM
he attacked the sampras serve AGGRESSIVELY more so than anyone else ever did.

That is one thing that Fed needs to do better, attack the serve of his rivals. I think he's gotten so used to blocking it back and then winning a war of groundstrokes (simply bc in his younger days he was more consistent and quicker that no one could beat him in a ground war). Nowadays he needs to do more against the serve. Problem I guess is it's definitely a little harder to attack with a one-handed backhand. Today's serves are so fast (everyone of the top 5 seems to serve at least 125mph) that a 1-hbh simply isn't effective against serves. It's unfortunate, but I think the 1-hbh may truly become extinct soon. Very very sad.

Nadalator
04-23-2009, 02:47 PM
great thread, their rivalry is overrated because they are american

veroniquem
04-23-2009, 02:50 PM
im talking about slams, the other match are mearly trivial to me, nadal and federer have played more, greater, closer matches in slams, in finals, on all surfaces...
Actually Agassi and Sampras played each other 9 times in slams (compared to 8 for Fed-Nadal) and they met in all 4 slams: Agassi had the edge in AO and RG, Sampras in W and USO. I found all their matches very spectacular with lots of tie-breaks or tight sets, there's no way you can trivialize them. Also Fed and Nadal have never played at USO.

The-Champ
04-23-2009, 02:54 PM
It really is a shame that Federer only played Pete that 1 time when they were both on the tour. I wish they could have both played in their primes. Or Nadal vs Sampras that would have been even better.
Hope they have an exhibition match between them soon.


Why should Nadal, risk injury for something worthless. If Sampras wants to play Nadal, he should join the tour and hope he gets Nadal in the 1st round. I would love to see that.

JoshDragon
04-23-2009, 02:56 PM
Why should Nadal, risk injury for something worthless. If Sampras wants to play Nadal, he should join the tour and hope he gets Nadal in the 1st round. I would love to see that.

I'm just saying that it would be fun to watch.

Besides, there's no way that Sampras could come back to the ATP.

leonidas1982
04-23-2009, 05:56 PM
I feel sorry for you because the bolded statement below indicates that you missed the 1999 Wimbledon final. It was an exhibition of perfection by the greatest grass court tennis player that ever played, Pete Sampras! Nobody has played grass court tennis better!

As Sampras said, "He couldn't have played that match any better."

Bassus
04-23-2009, 06:00 PM
The 2001 US Open quarterfinal and the 2000 AO semifinal between Agassi and Sampras were great matches.

GameSampras
04-23-2009, 06:04 PM
Petes been gone to long to really come back and make some deep run in a slam much less beat the best player in the world today. Though a one match situation between Pete and Nadal you never know. Obviously Pete cant come back and play the grind. 7 years retired is quite a long time

flyer
04-23-2009, 07:24 PM
Actually Agassi and Sampras played each other 9 times in slams (compared to 8 for Fed-Nadal) and they met in all 4 slams: Agassi had the edge in AO and RG, Sampras in W and USO. I found all their matches very spectacular with lots of tie-breaks or tight sets, there's no way you can trivialize them. Also Fed and Nadal have never played at USO.

yeah but they didnt play in 9 finals, there rivalry in slams was basically a hard court rivalry, nadal and federer have played finals on all surfaces and played the greatest match of all time....agassi and sampras didnt do that

veroniquem
04-23-2009, 07:47 PM
yeah but they didnt play in 9 finals, there rivalry in slams was basically a hard court rivalry, nadal and federer have played finals on all surfaces and played the greatest match of all time....agassi and sampras didnt do that
Who cares if it's finals or semis? Nadal-Fed have played 1 RG in the semis too.

kaiotic
04-23-2009, 09:02 PM
Sampras led slam finals 4-1 end of story. Forget about non-slma matches, even them tho sampras led!!

Duno why ppl keep going on about it as being a great rivalry.

I mean you didn't see the quality of matches that u see in fed-nadal rivalry.

I also agree fed-nadal is not rivalry anymore 5-2 in slams not really a rivalry. It WAS a rivalry until the end of 2007.

wow! you should play paddle ball instead. send me your tennis raquets meow!!

fantom
04-24-2009, 03:13 AM
And that's the difference with Federer against Nadal. I don't think you can say Fed always takes his game to a new level when playing Nadal, save for the last 2 Wimbledon finals.

I agree. With all of the talent that Fed possesses, he just doesn't have the ability to rise to occasion against when he's really up against it. He'll show flashes of it for a set or so, but then he takes his foot off the gas.

muzza123
04-24-2009, 04:18 AM
did you see the agassi sampras match that sampras won 7-6 6-7 6-7 6-7? even tho he won and the stats give him a win, it was a crazy great match.

i think that was 2001 USO QF?

that match was as close to all round perfect tennis as you can ever get.
virtually every point was won by an outrageous winner.
and it lasted for 4 very long sets.
a match for the ages IMO. because it wasn't a lopside affair - perfect tennis from both sides of the net.

Povl Carstensen
04-25-2009, 04:53 PM
I agree. With all of the talent that Fed possesses, he just doesn't have the ability to rise to occasion against when he's really up against it. He'll show flashes of it for a set or so, but then he takes his foot off the gas.
He did it for 5 years

Bhagi Katbamna
04-25-2009, 08:56 PM
It wasn't wins losses as the sole reason it was a great rivalry. It was the best server vs. the best returner. The best attacking player vs. the best baseliner. They needed each other to make each other better players.

EtePras
04-25-2009, 09:16 PM
Only popular rivalry because both players sucked so much that neither could dominate the other.

danb
04-25-2009, 09:25 PM
I guess Nadal-Fed is a rivalry.. Kind of.. But when you look at how at this point Nadal has snatched quite a few slams away from Fed including what would have been 2-3 calendar slams, Its not much of a true rivalry anymore.

Nadal has snatched slams from Fed at 3 of the last 4 slams and now on every surface. Pete could not beat Andre at the Australian. And was taken out by Andre at the French. But Pete owned Wimbeldon and and the USO of course.

Andre could grab wins from Pete. Roger cant beat Nadal anywheres these days. A little bit of difference there. Pete-Andre at the end of the day I think was a little more of a competitive rivalry then Fed-Nadal has been. The fed-nadal rivalry is turning into an extremely rivalry in favor of Nadal.


And Pete only leads the h2h against Andre 20-14. Nadal is 13-6 overrall against Fed and 6-2 in slam finals and this will only get more lopsided I think

well said - I agree