Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by jamesblakefan#1, Nov 6, 2009.
Im actually stunned that this side of Andre didnt come out much earlier than now. This guy is like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
So you are admiting Agassi had worse defense than Sampras, which is my main point anyway. What I am saying is Agassi is the last one who is in position to call Sampras one dimensional. Agassi is a great ball striker from the baseline and a great returner, with a pretty good (but far from great) 1st serve. That is it. He cant play defense worth a damn, his volleys are crap, his 2nd serve is weak, he cant slice, he doesnt have an effective transition game, and yet he is calling Sampras one dimensional? On what planet exactly.
Still a little bewildered why Agaassi would call Pete one dimensional. Pete had more dimensions to his game than Andre ever had. Hell, Pete had more dimensions to his game than just about any player on tour today. I think its just years of bitterness eating away at Andre. He couldnt handle being 2nd fiddle his whole career to Pete
Is Agassi calling Sampras' game 1-dimensional or his personality? From the short excerpt in the OP, there is only mention of Sampras' personality. Nothing about his game.
true, but Sampras never beat him at the French or AO, and he did get 14 wins off him, inlcuding 9 finals. Additionally, they played much more on surfaces that favored Sampras', as opposed to surfaces that favored Agassi.
I see nothing wrong with what Andre does, the ATP is a very protected world and once you are out of it im sure there are lots of things to complain about. Wait until Nadal has retired then youre gonna see a book of complaints from him about this and that.
Put Sampras of the 94 and 97 Australian Open up against Agassi of 95 or 2000 and Sampras takes him down. He had a hard time enough time beating Sampras those years when he was nowhere near the level he was at the 94 and 97 events. Agassi also would have a very hard time beating Sampras at the 93, 95, and 96 French Opens had they played.
Thats true. 2000 Torn rotator cuff vs. Andre when arguably the match was Pete's. 1995, Pete's coaching dying.
I don't believe he tanked.
Saying he didn't want to meet becker because he didn't want to lose in the finals and instead losing against chang through tanking, whom he disliked a lot doesn't make ANY sense
However it is possible that seeing becker whom he had dominated so much, he might've woken up in the finals( like he did in the later part of the courier match ) and if he started playing well , he'd probably win over becker in any form on rebound ace . So I said, I don't know - it'd depend more on agassi than becker is what I'd say
umm, becker getting passed time and again by agassi in that match was what I was referring to as schooling , I wasn't referring to the scoreline . Try again
And if you mean a great grasscourter beating a baseliner ( albeit a great one ) on fast grass at wimbledon , winning 2 sets in tie-breaks and one set 6-4 while having to come back in the 2nd set after being 2 breaks down is called a schooling, all I can say is LOL !
In a way I guess I can sort of see through the bitterness with Andre. We have to remember Pete was a player never willing relinquish his Number 1 title to anyone for a long time and would do anything to keep that at the end of the year. This went on for 6 years and Pete stopped Andre from being possibly the hands down number 1 player in the world for a few years. And even stopped Andre from getting another 3-4 slams possibly. Maybe more, if Andre didnt go into his meth shell from early 96 on after getting beat by Pete at the USO in 95. Andre was a beast i 95 and arguably playing the best that whole year and Pete put that to an end
There is alot of hidden bitternes in Andre. Pete cost him alot more success Im sure. And Im sure there will be alot of players talking S*** about federer in their books if they plan to write them. When youre the best, negative backlashes come with the territory as well. Lots of people try to knock you off that pedastal
well , I mentioned the same thing in my first line, didn't I ? That pete's game was NOT one-dimensional
My point was sampras did NOT have great defense >> contrary to what you stated
Pete was rather one-dimensional in the way he owned Agassi over and over. I mean cmon Pete, show us some of the variety that Agassi has, by losing every once in a while.
I haven’t heard anything about Andre saying negative things about Federer. If he was bitter or having a chip on his shoulder from the players he competed on court, then Federer should be included. He lost to Federer at the slams and including 8 straight times. Perhaps he doesn’t take shot at Federer b/c he truly respect Roger’s game and as a person, unlike Pete, Chang and a few others in the 90s.
agreed. and put agassi at his very best anytime he lost to sampras, and he goes 34-0 against him. :roll:
Sampras had a very EFFECTIVE game on FAST surfaces.
On SLOW surfaces his weaknesses became VERY easy to see.
Sampras can be happy that the 90`s had some of the fastest surfaces ever seen.
I think Sampras was a good athlete, huge serve, a good forehand and decent volleys. Nothing more nothing less.
THE ONE DIMENSIONAL COMMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SAMPRAS' GAME; AGASSI IS TALKING ABOUT SAMPRAS' PERSONALITY WHICH IS LIKE WATCHING PAINT DRY ON A WALL.
My goodness people. Use your reading comprehension skills and stop reading what you only want to read.
You don't know anything about Nadal and you should keep your fantasies to yourself.
Sampras one-dimensional?! LOL!
Agassi should stop taking those pills...
I know WTF! Some people didnt read the OP probably. They just started singing like love stricken canaries about Sampras games..
Perhaps Sampras should have been defaulted from a tournament for profanity, said after reaching his first slam final he was happier than a "f#ggot on a submarine", and in jealousy of rivals who beat him in slam finals to win their first slams first that they either looked like a monkey, or their game was built all on hard work as they didnt have alot of natural talent to fall back on, and then he would be seen as more interesting like Agassi. :twisted:
I used to find it odd that commentators would call Aggassi the "punisher" because when Sampras and Agassi were both playing at a high level, I thought Pete's all court game was much more punishing and disheartening to an opponent than Agassi's cross court predictable thumping. True agassi hit the ball hard, but watch the 2000 US open 1/4's on you tube. They both crushed the ball and it was obvious that Pete's movement was superior to Agassis, giviing Pete many more options to win points than Andre. I enjoyed watchng both of them play, but really enjoyed watching them play each other the most.
QFT! I think Agassi is really going to regret some of these things he is writing.
Connors IS a pr*ck though. The behavior he showed in the match when he was coaching Roddick vs Berrer at the AO, was unforgivable. I love Connors fighting spirit but someone needed to call him out publicly on how he treats ppl.
here come the sampras lovers
all we need now is sampras lovers defending pete. i wish my dad chained me to a dragon and made me super rich, thanks alot pop!
Sampras was one dimensional compared to the other greats. But damn, he was extremely good in that dimension
No one ever said Sampras had to be McEnroe, but the dude made Henman's personality exciting.
I dont think hes talking about Pete's personality. What the hell is a one dimensional Personality? Why not just say Pete doesnt have much of a personality? Which I agree with watching alot of Pete's interviews what Andre is getting at. But a one dimensional personality?
I for one liked Timmy, even if he was a bit bland.
Yeah because Federer's personality is so exicting, he's a real jester on the court.
Federer at least makes the attempt to put up a front. Sampras is just "Oh... hi." That's it. Federer attempts to promote the game, etc.
Meanwhile, Sampras' personality during his competitive days was extremely boring. The only thing that drove him was to win and to be world #1. That was pretty much it.
Well, I'd say it's someone who's rather shallow...not much of an interesting person to talk with and someone who's more concerned with appearance versus substance.
But, again, we'd need to see the book for the context of Agassi's "one-dimensional" comment re: Sampras. Right now, without the book, we're all merely speculating as to what the quote means.
Yes. I'm a little older, but he played up.
Yeah, I'd have to self-publish and I'd lose $50K on the deal. Andre's book? Several million copies worldwide, I'm guessing. NY TImes bestseller list.
Or how about "robotic" personality. Obviously, the author isn't clear on his part.
But what ever it is, he took a good shot at Sampras.
Have you ever seen Sampras off-court? Guess not....
Well that is true.. Federer is a hardly a paparazzi's personality dream like a Safin or McEnroe I think even Nadal has more personality than Fed and I can barely make out a damn lick of a sentence Nadal spews he speaks so fast in english. Both Fed and Pete seem much more introverted than others but probably to their advantage.
Back to the Australian Open. It should be taken into account there were underlying midigating factors there in 95 and 00. Not so sure Andre would have ever beat Sampras there either if we take out Pete's coach dying and a torn rotator cuff. Maybe 1995 though. I think Pete had him in 2000 if it wasnt for that injury
Yes I have GameSampras. He was utterly boring during his competitive days. All he wanted to do was win, win, win, and win. This is a well documented fact in his own book.
it's a subtle jab. Not gutsy enough to say what he really thinks.
^^Blinkism feels sampras' game is one dimensional.
Please stop stalking and trolling me. That's all I ask.
And please, stay on topic.
WTF enough non-sense coming out of this book or his mind.
Even club player things same for other player. But you don't tell them in public to sell your book.
He is just creating non-sense by putting all in book for sell. I lost respect for him in some ways.
Roddick hates Roger so does others because he is winning it all. But hey at the end of playing days you won't say the obvious by adding spicy word to it.
Agassi wouldn't have wore short shorts because it was in 1999 onwards. Maybe thats good luck because 1999 was arguably Agassi's best year on tour, I guess he can credit his French Open victory of not wearing any underwear. I would imagine wearing no underwear would give a player an aerodynamic edge due to an increase in speed and quickness.
Pete Sampras was a great player and everyone knows his style of play but that is interesting that he only gave a $1 dollar tip. I may have to pick up a copy of his book, it seems like a good read.
lol, awesome !
I was actually the one who convinced Agassi to put that in his book.
You seemed to just ignore what i said...have you ever seen Sampras OFF, yes, i said OFF court?
Comprehension fail much?
lol. 10 char.
Well I think its uncalled for. Sampras has shown nothing but respect to Andre over the years.. Even calling AGassi the best player hes ever played against. You wouldnt know it though considering how many times Pete had the advantage over Andre in the h2h during his career. Sampras could have just as easily called Andre one dimensional and if everything was clicking for him he would whipe him off the court and there was nothing Andre could do about it. 1999 Wimbeldon for example? But Pete didnt. Pete could have said Edberg or Krajicek was the best player he ever played against
Uh, no. Federer is a media dream house for tennis. He is easy to promote and he promotes the game. He is IMO far more popular than Sampras was. Federer's popularity globally rivals that of Bjorn Borg, who was a rockstar everywhere he went.
What he meant was, Sampras was too... single-minded; the guy sacrified everything to be on top of the game.
What he also meant was, Sampras didn't do drugs. How boring is that huh?
Separate names with a comma.