PDA

View Full Version : Stich says Agassi more talented than Sampras


BaseLineBash
07-01-2006, 04:22 AM
Really good read. "I mentioned that I once saw him playing a tour match with his shoelaces untied. He had just slipped his shoes on. He remembered doing it. It just showed that sometimes he didn't take opponents too seriously"- Michael Stich on Agassi

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/wimbledon2006/story/0,,1810174,00.html

Marius_Hancu
07-01-2006, 04:31 AM
There is a reason why Sampras had 14 and Agassi has 8. He was the better jock, the greater talent.

Agassi openly recognized several times "I can be on my best day, and Pete can beat me." Enough said.

BaseLineBash
07-01-2006, 04:45 AM
There is a reason why Sampras had 14 and Agassi has 8. He was the better jock, the greater talent.

Agassi openly recognized several times "I can be on my best day, and Pete can beat me." Enough said.
I agree, but Stich doesn't see it that way, interesting read no matter how you see it.

Fedexeon
07-01-2006, 05:04 AM
What Stich says is not nessasarily true statement.

FiveO
07-01-2006, 05:19 AM
I think it's about match-ups, resulting personal perspectives and Stich is just being human, letting his personal experiences color his opinion:

When Stich retired he was:

5-4 vs. Sampras

0-6 vs. Agassi

For Stich, Agassi was the "tougher" opponent. Match-ups are match-ups. Stich held a slight edge on Sampras but couldn't beat AA. AA owned Stich yet had a losing career h2h record vs. Pete at the majors and overall, even in his better years. It happens.

For example, going into the '95 USO final, Agassi had won every summer hard court event preceding it and had run through the his first six round opponents. That title would have solidified Agassi as the #1 that year and prevented Pete from establishing his record six consecutive year finishes in the top spot. Before or very early in the match Pete's coach, Paul Annacone stated to a CBS interviewer, that the game plan was to have Pete get AA into as many "athletic points" as possible.

The Sampras camp as well as the rest of those "in the know" believed that Sampras was the better athlete. In particular, that advantage was acknowledged and exploited as part of Sampras's approach when playing Agassi.

35ft6
07-01-2006, 06:44 AM
There is a reason why Sampras had 14 and Agassi has 8. He was the better jock, the greater talent.

Agassi openly recognized several times "I can be on my best day, and Pete can beat me." Enough said. None of this proves Sampras had more talent. Sampras was definitely the better athlete, but as far as talent goes, I think the argument that Agassi was more talented could definitely be made.

Grigollif1
07-01-2006, 07:00 AM
None of this proves Sampras had more talent. Sampras was definitely the better athlete, but as far as talent goes, I think the argument that Agassi was more talented could definitely be made.


I disagree. You could clearly see that Stich opinion is Biased because of his H2H record. Sampras could play from the baseline, which he did a lot in the beginning of his career with great success and later be one of the best serve and volley players of all time. He could do anything on a tennis court: Forehand on the run, amazing serve and top notch volleys, approcach, slice topspin backhand etc.. He had a variety of ways he could win a tennis match. While Agassi although of course, very talented , is mainly a one dimensional player.

Grigollif1
07-01-2006, 07:05 AM
Also , if you go by the Numbers. Sampras surpass Agassi in every aspect including H2H. The only real important one, was that he did not Win RG as Agassi did. That alone Though, is not nearly close enough to make an argument..

HyperHorse
07-01-2006, 07:28 AM
Sampras was more in his prime as Stich started to lose form with injuries and so on....
I cannot believe that he says Andre is more talented than Pete...
Thats the biggest load of crap i've heard in a while...

Captain America
07-01-2006, 10:02 AM
For Stich, Agassi may have been tougher. But during their era, Sampras was the more dominating player period. I wonder how many other former pros would agree with Stich on this one.

federerhoogenbandfan
07-01-2006, 10:35 AM
Sampras was more in his prime as Stich started to lose form with injuries and so on....
I cannot believe that he says Andre is more talented than Pete...
Thats the biggest load of crap i've heard in a while...

Stitch had a better record against Pete then he did vs Andre, didnt he? That could be part of the conception or misconception, his game maybe just happened to match up better with Pete's then Andre's, so it seemed to him Andre was the more talented player, even if he really isnt.

HyperHorse
07-01-2006, 10:40 AM
Stitch had a better record against Pete then he did vs Andre, didnt he? That could be part of the conception or misconception, his game maybe just happened to match up better with Pete's then Andre's, so it seemed to him Andre was the more talented player, even if he really isnt.

Yeah i guess so... then again Andre & Michael only won Wimbledon once....
Maybe Stich is a bit envious of Pete....
who knows... his logic is severly flawed...

federerhoogenbandfan
07-01-2006, 10:49 AM
Yeah i guess so... then again Andre & Michael only won Wimbledon once....
Maybe Stich is a bit envious of Pete....
who knows... his logic is severly flawed...

He could be a bit bitter since when he won Wimbledon as a relatively youngster in 91, he probably thought he could be the king of Wimbledon and win 4 or 5 of them over the next 10 years or so. Then somebody named Pete came along and took over Wimbledon for good, and Michael rarely even got close again. Also the one time Michael and Pete did play at Wimbledon, in the 92 quarters, Stich got spanked. His overall head to head is impressive, but players who have good head to heads with Pete usually played them often in non-slam events, as opposed to slams where he is much tougher to beat.

!Tym
07-01-2006, 10:59 AM
I don't think it has anything to do with envy. Players just match up better with some players than others, and are entitled to their opinions. For them, that opinion DOES hold true, so what do you want from them? To lie, to go against their own personal experience ACTUALLY playing the best in the world? Bruguera won more points in every single match he every played with Sampras including the two matches he lost, and could easily have been up 5-0 career wise. He barely lost a three setter indoors to him when he got a little careless in the end, and he barely lost to him at the French in a five setter which had he been at full health and confidence, he almost certainly would not have lost (was 2-20 on break chances calling it the most frustrating match of his career).

Quite simply, he matched up well with Sampras. And even indoors on a very fast indoor court, he seemed to be able to read and return Sampras' serve very well. What can you say? It's just match ups. Meanwhile on the other hand he said Ivanisevic's serve is without a doubt the best in the game when on after getting his clock cleaned with it a 97 indoor final, saying that there's nothing you can do when he's on with it.

Then, Bruguera said after getting his clocked cleaned by a zoning Agassi in the Olympic final, he said that to HIM Agassi's without a doubt the best player in the world when he plays his best tennis. Outside clay, to me Agassi's take it on the rise game is a bad match up for Bruguera; he also just got his clock cleaned. What else is he going to say that would make him feel better? It's not abotu any jealousy of Sampras in my opinion, it's just how he matched up with certain players. I mean Muster owned Bruguera, and Rafter said Bruguera was a bugger for him, doesn't mean any of those guys are in denial that Sampras was the greatest player of their generation. Bruguera, in fact, said Muster without a doubt was who he hated to play the most of anyone on tour, for him, MUSTER was his all-time worst foe, doesn't mean Muster's the GOAT and Bruguera wouldn't be arguing that. It's just individual matchups is all, nothing personal against anyone at all in my opinion.

Then, Jim Courier of all people, one of Sampras' best friends, said that Stich to him was the most talented player of his generation and Stich won their last four.

That's just how it goes. You can't ask someone who they matched up poorly against, oh, hey who do you think is the best? Of course, they're going to be influenced by their "feel" of playing one another. At this level, it's all relative in my opinion. We're not talking like Stich is saying oh that Sargis Sargisian and Byron Shelton, oh, wow, now THOSE guys were really talented. We're talking all-time great talents either way. You're allowed to have opinions there based on your own personal experience and how you matched up personally.

vicnan
07-01-2006, 01:17 PM
There is a reason why Sampras had 14 and Agassi has 8. He was the better jock, the greater talent.

Agassi openly recognized several times "I can be on my best day, and Pete can beat me." Enough said.

Depends on the surface, imo. Agassi did a lot better on clay than Sampras. Btw, talent and goat are different things.

35ft6
07-01-2006, 04:07 PM
I'm talking about talent. Sampras was the better player and his record proves that. But Agassi is arguably more talented.

Tennis_Goodness
07-01-2006, 04:28 PM
Pete had shots Agassi could not do. People ooed and awed at Pete more then Andre. Pete's shot selection and power on his shots and the way he used him made Pete the better talent.

framebreaker
07-01-2006, 04:30 PM
Sampras was the more successful player and agassi the more talented player that could play on any surface against any style.
oh yes, give it to me! shoot!

grind
07-01-2006, 05:31 PM
Almost everything written here is true. 'dre didn't have a chance mentally or physically in their last US Open final --Agassi played as though the result was a foregone conclusion. Winning RG was Andre's crowning acheivement -- he did something here Pete could never do, and thus separated himself in at least one spectacular way from Sampras in tennis history.

fastdunn
07-01-2006, 05:31 PM
5-4 vs. Sampras

0-6 vs. Agassi

For Stich, Agassi was the "tougher" opponent. Match-ups are match-ups. .

Heeheehee. Stich must have felt Agassi is a genius every time he watched
his serves being eaten like a cookie by Agassi.
In fact, anyone would think that way when they watched Agassi
tearing apart all of great serves of 90's.


Plus, Stich did not really get the real taste of Sampras' game.
In their only gland slam meeting at Wimbledin, he got crushed in straight sets.
If he has met more times at gland slams, he might have different thoughts
on Sampras.

Gilgamesh
07-01-2006, 05:46 PM
Almost everything written here is true. 'dre didn't have a chance mentally or physically in their last US Open final --Agassi played as though the result was a foregone conclusion. Winning RG was Andre's crowning acheivement -- he did something here Pete could never do, and thus separated himself in at least one spectacular way from Sampras in tennis history.

When that Final materialized I thought it was destiny.

Seriously, Pistol vs his greatest nemesis in a GS on his home soil as his last ever match....and he wins it.

Destiny.

It is kind of like when Jordan hit the gamewinning shot against the Jazz for his sixth championship. Of course he screwed up his perfect ending by coming back for thw Wiz.

Kobble
07-01-2006, 08:06 PM
All about surface. If everything was clay, Nadal is likely the GOAT. If everything grass(old school grass), maybe Sampras. Here is something else Agassi has done that Sampras has not, make the finals of every major at least twice, and we all know, win at least once. Agassi's career grand slam is no fluke, it could have happened two times over, maybe more.

Captain Lou
07-01-2006, 10:11 PM
When that Final materialized I thought it was destiny.
It is kind of like when Jordan hit the gamewinning shot against the Jazz for his sixth championship. Of course he screwed up his perfect ending by coming back for thw Wiz.


You mean the 2 personal fouls that wern't called on Jordan because he alwasy go the calls. What a fix.


Yea, I think Andre had more talent but Pete won the slams and in the end of the day I guess that's what counts.

KBalla08
07-01-2006, 10:16 PM
wow one guy says andre has more talent... heres something than...
"KBalla08 says Sampras more talentend than Agassi"
...

framebreaker
07-01-2006, 11:34 PM
wow one guy says andre has more talent... heres something than...
"KBalla08 says Sampras more talentend than Agassi"
...
because everybody can comprehend my statement. agassi had (has) a better foerhand, a better backhand, better rallies, better court sense etc. but sampras knew how to win more often - mentally more stable.:D

Grigollif1
07-01-2006, 11:50 PM
I'm talking about talent. Sampras was the better player and his record proves that. But Agassi is arguably more talented.


I'm still waiting for the arguments..

Verbal_Kint
07-02-2006, 12:29 AM
IMO Agassi's ball-striking talent is maybe the best of all time (but so is Federer's, Arazi's and maybe Sampras'). Andre was the worlds greatest underachiever for a long time though. On the other hand, had he not been underachieving for the first 8-10 years on tour, would he have lasted until now?

pchoi04
07-02-2006, 12:39 AM
Agassi's win loss record is better than sampras ;D

Overall

superman1
07-02-2006, 12:59 AM
Talent is subjective. These guys are all ridiculously talented. The argument could be made that Agassi was more talented than Sampras since he has been a force on all surfaces. Sampras obviously had the more effective game, I think his game was more effective than anyone's in history, but it took him longer than Agassi to surface. In 1988, Sampras was probably in the practice court spraying balls while Agassi was out winning titles and beating everyone except Lendl.

urban
07-02-2006, 02:08 AM
It is not easy to answer that. Technically, Sampras was the more complete player, who could play in all parts of the court. He had a much better forecourt game, better volley and half volley, better moving around the t-line. Agassi was never at home around the net. His greatest asset was his hand-eye-coordination for striking a ball early on or just in front of the baseline - a fast moving object, that came in a 1 meter box around him. Along with Seles, he established the position on the baseline, to dictate the points with the opponenet running from side to side. Sampras could counter that pretty well, because Agassi always gave him same pace and high, especially on the backhand side. When Andre had to run, he wasn't as effective.

35ft6
07-02-2006, 06:24 AM
I'm still waiting for the arguments.. Yeah, me too. This thread is sorely lacking of any.

I've always thought of Agassi as being the ultimate hotshot, showoff player. Maybe not anymore, but before he became the ultimate percentage player, when he was still a bit of a punk, I saw him hit shots that I still have never seen anybody hit. Half volleys from the baseline with incredible pace... return winners off serves that should have been screaming aces... and I heard that he could go into a batting cage, set it to 90mph, and nail every pitch while running into them. I'm not saying that Sampras wasn't "talented," but here I'm making a distinction between athleticism and talent. Like a poster already pointed out, talent is very subjective, but even if by the slimmest of margins, I think Agassi's natural hand eye coordination, his natural tennis ability might have exceeded that of Sampras. I think a lot of the ways people have cited Sampras as being superior speaks more of his athleticism than talent. If Agassi had Sampras' athletic ability? Wow.

I feel like in the beginning Agassi underachieved because of too much talent (he could be top 5 without barely trying? why put work into it?). But in the end he won Wimbledon and the French, his two most improbable Slams, on sheer talent. Until the last third of his career, his dedication was always suspect, yet he managed to pretty much be an elite player every year, even with no conditioning, sketchy practices, and a diet that supposedly consisted mainly of McDonald's. Sampras, on the other hand, was a square by comparison, a guy who admitted caring about nothing but rewriting tennis history.

So to me it's almost like Sampras is the valedictorian who did nothing but study, never played sports, and had no social life. Agassi is the salutatorian who didn't study at all freshmen, sophomore, and half of his junior year, partied a lot, did lots of extracurricular stuff, and had tons of friends and still managed to get the second highest average GPA in his school.

Lets put it this way... when they were both in their primes, I think if both didn't touch a racket for a year and came back to play a match the first time they DID touch a racket after a year, Agassi would still be pretty good, and would smoke Sampras, whereas Pete would be spraying shots all over the place. I think a lot of people only think of Agassi as the consummate percentage player, the ultimate professional, almost workmanlike in his game, and forget that at one time he was the flashiest mofo to ever step on the court, hitting shots that made everybody rethink what was possible on a tennis court.

BaseLineBash
07-02-2006, 10:19 AM
Yeah, me too. This thread is sorely lacking of any.

I've always thought of Agassi as being the ultimate hotshot, showoff player. Maybe not anymore, but before he became the ultimate percentage player, when he was still a bit of a punk, I saw him hit shots that I still have never seen anybody hit. Half volleys from the baseline with incredible pace... return winners off serves that should have been screaming aces... and I heard that he could go into a batting cage, set it to 90mph, and nail every pitch while running into them. I'm not saying that Sampras wasn't "talented," but here I'm making a distinction between athleticism and talent. Like a poster already pointed out, talent is very subjective, but even if by the slimmest of margins, I think Agassi's natural hand eye coordination, his natural tennis ability might have exceeded that of Sampras. I think a lot of the ways people have cited Sampras as being superior speaks more of his athleticism than talent. If Agassi had Sampras' athletic ability? Wow.

I feel like in the beginning Agassi underachieved because of too much talent (he could be top 5 without barely trying? why put work into it?). But in the end he won Wimbledon and the French, his two most improbable Slams, on sheer talent. Until the last third of his career, his dedication was always suspect, yet he managed to pretty much be an elite player every year, even with no conditioning, sketchy practices, and a diet that supposedly consisted mainly of McDonald's. Sampras, on the other hand, was a square by comparison, a guy who admitted caring about nothing but rewriting tennis history.

So to me it's almost like Sampras is the valedictorian who did nothing but study, never played sports, and had no social life. Agassi is the salutatorian who didn't study at all freshmen, sophomore, and half of his junior year, partied a lot, did lots of extracurricular stuff, and had tons of friends and still managed to get the second highest average GPA in his school.

Lets put it this way... when they were both in their primes, I think if both didn't touch a racket for a year and came back to play a match the first time they DID touch a racket after a year, Agassi would still be pretty good, and would smoke Sampras, whereas Pete would be spraying shots all over the place. I think a lot of people only think of Agassi as the consummate percentage player, the ultimate professional, almost workmanlike in his game, and forget that at one time he was the flashiest mofo to ever step on the court, hitting shots that made everybody rethink what was possible on a tennis court.
Man, you so get it! On mark.:D

framebreaker
07-02-2006, 12:15 PM
wow one guy says andre has more talent... heres something than...
"KBalla08 says Sampras more talentend than Agassi"
...
sorry, i have to pick up on it again.
not just "one guy" - it's me, the FRAMEBREAKER muuuhahaaahaa!