Pete versus Andrei Was there a real rivalry?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by FedSampras, May 12, 2007.

  1. FedSampras

    FedSampras Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    697
    I don't think there really was any REAL rivalry between Pete and Andrei especially if you compare what they have accomplished in their careers. I think that theso called rivalry was all ATP and Media hype to create more interest for the sport of tennis. The truth was it was total domination by Pistol Pete.

    Any thoughts?
     
    #1
  2. kingdaddy41788

    kingdaddy41788 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,753
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Actually, his name is spelled Andre (assuming you're talking about Agassi and not Pavel). Clearly, you don't know what you're talking about. Agassi accomplished a lot (Career Grand Slam and a gold medal). No more talking for you.
     
    #2
  3. Mad iX

    Mad iX Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    710
    Location:
    Australia 3195
    Domination? Maybe in grand slam finals.
    All their matches were lots of fun to watch. They had contrasting styles and brought out the best in each other when they were at their peaks.
     
    #3
  4. ATPballkid

    ATPballkid Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    878
    ANSWER: Lack of dominance.

    Roy Emerson and Rod Laver have won each of the Grand Slam events twice already ... but even their own Australian Davis Cup Captain, Harry Hopman, agreed with Lance Tingay and Allison Danzig in proclaiming Bill Tilden (who never won a French and never even played the Australian National Championships) as their unanimous #1 player of the first 100 years of tennis (1877-1977) ahead of Emerson and Laver.

    Tilden had dominance on his side ... 6 consecutive years at #1 in the years 1920-1925 (matched only by Pete Sampras in 1993-1998 and Tilden is the only man to have won 10 singles titles from Wimbledon and the U.S. National Championships until Pete Sampras came along and won 12 singles titles from these 2 huge and historic events.
     
    #4
  5. FedSampras

    FedSampras Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    697

    Even if Andrei Agassi won his second French and Wimbledon, what Andrei failed at miserably was consistency over the period of a career to be considered in the same league as Pete Sampras.

    Fact: Andrei has longevity because of the lengthy breaks he took during his career(s). What other All-time great can you name that was reduced to playing a challenger event in an attempt to come back from a world ranking in the 140's? Andrei's comeback was a testament to his courage, but he never fulfilled his potential, which is tragic in my opinion. Agassi NEVER seriously challenged Sampras' dominance throughout his career.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2007
    #5
  6. FedSampras

    FedSampras Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    697
    Absolutely correct. It is Sampras' dominance year after year that history will reward him with being one of the very best players all-time.:)
     
    #6
  7. Vision84

    Vision84 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,655
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    His name is Andre!
     
    #7
  8. djones

    djones Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,782
    Pjotr - Andrei, I believe the final score was 20-14 for Pjotr, but really most of those matches where a real fight on all surfaces, taking place mostly in the semis and finals, making it a true rivalry in my opinion.
     
    #8
  9. illkhiboy

    illkhiboy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,968
    Location:
    Karachi
    What breaks did Andre have? He had a lengthy one in 1997 but that's it. He had a couple other breaks when he was injured, but they were not all that long. He got injured and missed about 2 months of tennis in 1995, and lost his ranking. And he was forced to take a few months off in 1993 because of a wrist injury. Apart from that he missed a couple Wimbledons and a few Australians because he did not want to go there. But those were not long breaks. So he missed about 2 years of tennis. Big deal, he still finished in 2006 so perhaps otherwise he would have finished in 2004. That is still quite a bit of longetivity for a man who turned pro in 1986 and made the semis at the US Open in 1998.
     
    #9
  10. kingdaddy41788

    kingdaddy41788 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,753
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    1. Don't state things as fact that are speculation.
    2. It's interesting that you addressed all of my post except for the part about you not even knowing how to spell Andre's name.
    3. They had a 20-14 record. Not exactly a blowout.

    It was a real rivalry. Deal with it.
     
    #10
  11. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Sampras/Medvedev was spellbinding tennis!
     
    #11
  12. noeledmonds

    noeledmonds Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    920
    Are we referring to Andrei Medvedev or Andre Agassi?

    I will presume Agassi as others have.

    Look at the rivalry first in terms of the slams. Agassi won all matches at the AO and FO, Sampras won all matches at Wimbledon and USO. Of course Sampras will hold the H2H lead when they played a lot more on the decoturf courts of the USO than at the other grand slams. Serve and Volley players have always prefered the low bouncing ball on the decoturf courts so it should be expected that Sampras would win. Agassi was arguably the best AO player since the introduction of the rebound ace in 1988. Agassi beat Sampras in the final in 1995 and the semi-final in 2000. Agassi holds an open-era record of 4 titles in Australia. As for the FO, they only met once (mainly due to Sampras's inconsistant performances on the red dirt) however Agassi won their encounter in straight sets.

    Secondly in Master Series their rivalry is in Agassi's favour. Agassi won 3 finals compared to Sampras's 2. Agassi also won more Master Series encounters.

    Sampras never won more than 4 consecutive matches against Agassi, while Agassi achieved 3 consecutive match wins against Sampras. Agassi won matches against Sampras in straight sets on clay, hard court and on carpet. In finals Agassi trails Sampras narrowly 7 wins to Sampras's 9. This was a rivalry that ultimately Sampras won, but it would be very foolish to describe this as domination.
     
    #12
  13. kingdaddy41788

    kingdaddy41788 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,753
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Thank you noeledmonds
     
    #13
  14. Eviscerator

    Eviscerator Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,709
    Location:
    S. Florida
    :roll:

    Your post has what to do with the topic :confused:
     
    #14
  15. Kobble

    Kobble Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,365
    Pete dominated the fast courts and Agassi dominated the slow courts. It was a rivalry. Look up the head-to-head and the surfaces.
     
    #15
  16. ATPballkid

    ATPballkid Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    878
    A little bit of success in several different areas ... winning 1 or 2 times or finishing once at #1 in a 20 year career but never dominating anywhere important and having a losing record against the other 3 American players who ranked #1 at some point during the 1990s decade -- Jim Courier, Ivan Lendl and Pete Sampras.
     
    #16
  17. ATPballkid

    ATPballkid Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    878
    If winning didn't matter in sports, Andre Agassi might be as good as Pete Sampras.
     
    #17
  18. Chadwixx

    Chadwixx Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,639
    Andre is no where close to pete on the court much like pete is no where close to agassi off the court.

    If agassi played in the beginning the way he played the last 3-4 years of his career the head to head would have been much different.
     
    #18
  19. ATPballkid

    ATPballkid Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    878
    A guy goes to college and scopes out the women on campus .. there are 2 girls who are just drop dead gorgeous and far more attractive than any other girl on campus.

    Sampras laid one of those girls 7 times and the other one 5 times ... he was voted #1 guy on campus 5 times ... he won the school championship 5 times.

    Agassi laid the 2 beautiful girls once or twice each but was generally no match for an overall better performer in Pete Sampras ... Agassi was voted #1 guy on campus just once .. he won the school championships just once.

    Sampras is a legend.

    Agassi is a guy who had a little bit of success in several different areas but never was great at anything meaningful.
     
    #19
  20. jmsx521

    jmsx521 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,496
    Andrei Medvedev had 2 wins over Sampras on clay, and 6 losses.
    Andrei Pavel -- never played ATP matches against Sampras.
    Andrei Stoliarov vs. Sampras 0-1.
    Andrei Chesnokov vs. Sampras 0-2.
    Andrei Cherkasov vs. Sampras 2-4.
    Andre Agassi vs. Sampras 14-20.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2007
    #20
  21. tennisjunkiela

    tennisjunkiela Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    687

    great analysis!
     
    #21
  22. illkhiboy

    illkhiboy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,968
    Location:
    Karachi
    Did you even read what I posted? I was talking about his longevity not his record. Besides, if Courier had a 3-0 record against Andre on clay, and a 1-0 record in Andre's best season (1995) for which he gets a lot of credit. However, Agassi would likely have turned that rivalry around had Courier continued to be a top player after 1996. Lendl dominated Agassi when the latter was young and inexperienced and the former an accomplished world beater. Sampras did have a winning record over Agassi but, really, so what? Sampras is one of the greatest players ever.
     
    #22
  23. laurie

    laurie Guest

    I agree with Mr "Deal or No Deal" Noel Edmonds.

    It was a great rivalry and very close.

    Plus putting numbers aside - when they played eachother they brought Tennis to a new level of play, some of their encounters have quite rightly gone down as classics.

    One that springs to mind immediately is the 1999 Mercedes Benz cup final in Los Angeles.
     
    #23
  24. ATPballkid

    ATPballkid Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    878
    Let's put it THIS way ... Sampras is better on clay than Agassi is on grass.

    Sampras has won at least 3 singles titles on all 4 court surfaces ... Agassi has never won more than 1 singles title on grass ... and Sampras has not dropped a set vs. Agassi on red clay (in both Europe and North America) in the last 10 years.

    Plus, Sampras has all the important records in tennis and Agassi does not even come close .. although Agassi does come close to the record for most singles matches lost at the U.S. Open in tennis history.

    Agassi did manage to get in 14 wins in the 34 matches he played against the Pistol .. but Sampras won their last 4 matches in tournament formats (2001 U.S. Open quarters .. 2002 Colonial Bank Challenge at Kooyong on Rebound Ace .. 2002 semis of the U.S. Clay Court Championships (in straight sets) .. and the one that clinched Sampras as the greatest player of the Open Era and probably the greatest player of all time, the 2002 U.S. Open.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2007
    #24
  25. slice bh compliment

    slice bh compliment G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,032
    All that mattered between Pete Sampras and Andrei Chesnokov was that thrilling match on wet, indoor red clay in Moscow in the Davis Cup Final of 1995.

    Great job, Pete. Well done! Thank you.
     
    #25
  26. FedSampras

    FedSampras Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    697
    i think that basically says it all. that was one amazing display of greatness by pete. poor agassi just paled and withered away. there was just nothing he could do other than hope he didn't get killed by pete. i think it shows the extreme reverence and awe with which agassi holds pete's supreme mastery. i haven't seen agassi as obviously intimidated by another opponent as he was by pete during that match. there was just nothing agassi could do, and he wasn't playing badly at all. pete was just so much better.

    one of my favorites uso matches and one which i have watched on tape several times.

    here's something else to ponder: i'd have to go back and see who exactly agassi beat in slam event finals but, other than pete, did he truly beat any consistently great players in those finals or just one trick ponies, some of whom suffered from huge metal letdowns and were prone to choking, like ivo and kafelnikov. it would be interesting to survey the overall quality and consistency of agassi's vanquished opponents as opposed to the quality and consistency of players pete beat regularly in slam event finals. it would seem most of agassi's opponents, with the sole exception of pete, of course, were far from 'consistently' great players.
     
    #26
  27. tricky

    tricky Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,305
    So, in other words, Pete and Andre wasn't a great rivalry because Andre was an overrated champion (i.e. won GS finals against chokers and lucky journeymen.) This is the crux of your argument, yes?
     
    #27
  28. illkhiboy

    illkhiboy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,968
    Location:
    Karachi

    I did not know about the Kooyong match. Of course that was an exhibition and not counted. And after that tournament Agassi skipped the AO because of wrist injury.
    Anyway it's pointless to say Sampras did not drop a set against Agassi on red clay in the last 10 years when they only met twice during that period. One of them being in Houston, where the balls favor big servers which is why Andy Roddick made 5 consecutive finals over there winning three. The other meeting, in Monte Carlo, was the first round of the tournament. For Agassi it's always been hard to return to clay after a lay-off which is exactly what he was doing then after skipping most tournaments in 1997.
    And Agassi had a stellar record on grass. Pete did not come close to matching Agassi's grass court achievements on clay. Even Greg Resudski won a couple grass court tournaments. So now what, he's better than Tim Henman and Agassi on grass? Sampras made one SF, three QF at Roland Garros. Agassi won Wimbledon, made another final, made SF thrice more, and the QF a couple more times.
     
    #28
  29. tennisjunkiela

    tennisjunkiela Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    687
    I don't know if I agree with this statement considering Agassi won a grand slam on grass (Wimbledon) and Sampras never even made it to a grand slam final on clay.

    Also, because the clay court season is much longer than the grass court season (i don't even know if you can call grass a season since it's only couple of weeks long), obviously Sampras had more opportunities to rack up clay court titles compared to Agassi very short window of opportunity to rack up grass titles every year.
     
    #29
  30. FiveO

    FiveO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,260
    I'm also with noeledmonds and laurie.

    In addition to what they pointed out realize too that both Sampras and Agassi won on the other's best surface(s) when not having to face each other, translating to just how good each was on everything except for Sampras on red clay. Agassi's Wimbledon and USO titles came when not forced to face Sampras. Sampras's AO titles when not forced to face Agassi.

    It was one of the best rivalries the sport has seen even with its interruptions and sabaticals. They met in alot of finals of the biggest events over a wide span of years.

    It was close too. Had their USO meetings in finals alone gone AA's way instead of Sampras's, their career h2h would have ended 17-17 with 11 GS titles each. That's not the way it played out however, and Sampras got the better of AA overall but not by that wide a margin. It was the best rivalry of that era and one of the best ever.
     
    #30
  31. kingdaddy41788

    kingdaddy41788 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,753
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    This is dumb. Pretty much all of it. They both have different records. One can only lose one match per US Open, so that just means Agassi had a longer career than most, so that's a stupid statistic to try to list.

    This is ENTIRELY TRUE. Also, about the previously mentioned U.S. Men's Clay Court tournament in Houston, read the above statement about it. It favors faster players. I thought Sampras trolls would be extinct, but here they are today trying to take away the prestige of Agassi's records. Both were great players. Agassi was more versatile. Sampras was more dominant. Deal with it.
     
    #31
  32. breakfast_of_champions

    breakfast_of_champions Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,068
    gonzalas was #1 nine years.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2007
    #32
  33. ATPballkid

    ATPballkid Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    878
    What a joke .. Agassi is better than Sampras .. based on exactly what?

    Head to head? Sampras, 20-14.
    Total Slams? Sampras, 14-8
    Most Wimbledons? Sampras, 7-1
    Most U.S. Opens? Sampras, 5-2
    Most Tour Championships? Sampras, 5-1
    Years ranked #1? Sampras, 6-1
    Weeks ranked #1? Sampras, 286-100
    Consecutive years in Slam finals Sampras, 11 to 4.
    Consecutive years winning Slams Sampras, 8 to 3.
     
    #33
  34. ATPballkid

    ATPballkid Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    878
    Pete has the all-time 128 year records in the more important areas.

    Sampras came within 2 matches of winning a French .. but Agassi would need dozens and dozens of match wins to have been able to accomplish the all-time records that Pete has in the 128 year history of the sport.
     
    #34
  35. laurie

    laurie Guest

    KingDaddy (I love some of these crazy names!)

    You make an interesting point.

    Sampras' play was versatile in that he could come into net or stay back and rally - especially in his earlier years on tour up until 1999 when he slowed down after that. Agassi was versatile in that he could truly play on all surfaces and excel - one of the few in recent times.

    That alone suggest it was a great rivalry - As usual I really don't understand what the fuss is about. When these arguments start it usually comes down to numbers.

    When you chaps are arguing about achievements and numbers of titles won etc, how about focusing on the play, Tennis ability and the way how they came up with amazing shots against eachother in big matches. Like that amazing set point in the 1995 US Open final - probably the greatest point ever played by two men in front of a mezmorized crowd.

    Cheers Five0
     
    #35
  36. ATPballkid

    ATPballkid Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    878
    I am sure having the all-time record for most Slams ... for winning the most titles at the bigger Slams ... for winning the record number of times at the Tour Championships ... for having the all-time record for most years ranked #1 in the world ... for having the all-time record for most weeks ranked #1 in the world ... and the other major records that Pete obviously has ... I have a feeling that those helped him through it quite a bit.
     
    #36
  37. FedSampras

    FedSampras Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    697
    while the great rival sampras' dominated like no other, agassi remained in the shade.:)
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2007
    #37
  38. hoosierbr

    hoosierbr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,837
    It was a great rivalry. Sampras himself said so on many an occasion, praising Andre for making a better player time and again over their careers. Pete even said in some ways they needed each other to achieve what they did, they pushed each other and fought for the top prizes year in and out. Unfortunately for Andre the consistency and dedication weren't always there.

    Andre was a lot more productive as they got older, winning a Slam at 32. He even played the US Open final at 35 against the guy that Sampras himself has said will break his Grand Slam record.

    Andre does have two things on Pete: 1 French Open and 1 Olympic Gold Medal. My guess is Pete would trade one of his major trophies for one French.
     
    #38
  39. tricky

    tricky Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,305
    People are just taking a break from Graf-Seles ;) (Well hey at least that disturbingly circular topic prompts posters to actually be "respectful" to women's tennis.) Next week we should have another Nadal-Borg debate in honour of the upcoming French Open.
     
    #39
  40. ATPballkid

    ATPballkid Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    878
    The problem Agassi has to overcome is that half of his Slams came from the Australian Open and that is attributable to his game being perfectly suited to that slow rubberized court surface.

    For the first 98 years of tennis 3 of the 4 biggest events (Grand Slam events) were played on grass. Of course, the 2nd tier national championships were not open to the players from outside their nations until 1925 ... but still, in the years 1925 through 1974 the events which became known in 1933 as the Grand Slam events had 3 on grass courts and only 1 on clay.

    Naturally, this suited the greatest players with the best strokes in tennis in those years because their great shots could end points on grass.

    Agassi has won just 1 grass court event in his entire career (1992) and has only won 1 French Open on clay.

    A valid argument could be made that Sampras might have won up to 20 Grand Slam singles titles if the Australian Open had been played on grass courts instead of the slow rubberized Rebound Ace courts.

    By the same token, Sampras might have just won 2 Grand Slam events if 3 of the 4 Grand Slam events today were still played on grass.

    Having said that, I think Agassi is the best Rebound Ace player in tennis history.
     
    #40
  41. ATPballkid

    ATPballkid Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    878
    Yep ... in his 20 year career Agassi won 1 French to go with his 1 Wimbledon and his 1 ATP Tour Championship .. and he even finished 1 year ranked #1.

    As 3 Dog Night used to sing "One is the loneliest number". Andre Agassi is their poster boy.
     
    #41
  42. ATPballkid

    ATPballkid Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    878
    No man has dominated at the Australian Open while it has been on Rebound Ace as well as Agassi has.

    However, you cannot quite put this ahead of these:

    Sampras at Wimbledon (7).
    Tilden at the U.S. Championships (7).

    Borg at the French Open (6).
    Emerson at the Australian Championships (6).

    Sampras at the U.S. Open (5).
    Connors at the U.S. Open (5).
    Borg at Wimbledon (5).

    McEnroe at the U.S. Open (4).
    Laver at Wimbledon (4).
     
    #42
  43. ATPballkid

    ATPballkid Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    878
    He just didn't know how to win .. and, at the end of the day, tennis is more of a competition than it is a circus.
     
    #43
  44. laurie

    laurie Guest

    Ahh, still about numbers I see.

    Oh well.
     
    #44
  45. ATPballkid

    ATPballkid Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    878
    You wouldn't feel dumb, though ... because you are clueless and you are not wired to recognize just how little you know on here.
     
    #45
  46. noeledmonds

    noeledmonds Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    920
    This is completely untrue. Agassi won Wimbledon where as Sampras best performance at the FO ended in a straight sets loss in the semi-final. The clay court season is approximately four times as long as the grass court season (around eight tournaments a year on clay compared to two on grass for the top players). Therefore Sampras should have won four times as many tournaments on clay as Agassi won grass to match his record in terms of number of tournaments won alone. However I consider the major win by Agassi far more significant. Agassi also had another final at Wimbledon, and several semi-finals. Why do you single out the last ten years? Agassi holds a lead over Sampras on clay and won their only slam encounter in straight sets. If Sampras won their most recent encounters then Agassi just dominated more of their early encounters.

    Agassi's greatest achivement is a feat that can never be beaten, only matched. This is winning the four grand slams accross the four different surface. This is an achivement that noone has matched to date and we can all see how hard Federer is finding it to master all surfaces. Agassi holds the second most match wins at the USO and at all slams. While Sampras holds many important record in tennis he also holds the glaring gap on the clay, Agassi's record is complete.

    You can't include exhibition matches, they are irrelevant. Sampras won their last three matches, but Agassi won the three previous to this. The most recent matches are no more significant than previous ones. I agree that Sampras's win at the USO did seal Sampras's place as the arguably the greatest open-era player of all time. However his record is far from perfect and he did not dominate Agassi at all.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2007
    #46
  47. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    Thoughts? Sure. My first thought is you don't have the first clue about the history between these two guys.

    For starters, having a 9-7 record in finals is hardly "domination".

    Secondly, Andre never lost to Sampras at the French or Australian Open.
     
    #47
  48. drakulie

    drakulie Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    24,466
    Location:
    FT. Lauderdale, Florida
    Hmm, last time we had this discussion Pete hadn't won a French much less reached the final there. On the other hand, Agassi reached the final there 3 times winning once.

    Any chance you know something the rest of us don't know>>> like Pete managing to buy himself a French Open trophy?
     
    #48
  49. Azzurri

    Azzurri Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    7,884
    Location:
    Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
    Not sure I agree with you.

    First off: Agassi won ALL 4 grand slams
    Agassi has 8 GS and an Olympic gold...not too shabby. You make it seem as if Agassi could not hold a candle to Pete....not true. Andre, for the most part, gave Pete all he could handle.

    You are also WAAAAYYY wrong in your first sentence.

    Pete's record on clay is 90-54 (.666 winning %)
    Andre's record on grass is 50-18 (.777 winning %)

    I am not great in math, but it seems ANDRE is BETTER on GRASS than PETE is on CLAY. There is nowhere near the amount of grass tournaments as clay, so titles is not as important as wins on the surface.

    Sampras has a 79% career win and Agassi is 76%...pretty close.

    I am a huge Sampras fan....but your post showed little respect for Agassi.
     
    #49
  50. noeledmonds

    noeledmonds Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    920
    You certainly can put it ahead of Emerson's 6 Australian Championships. Emerson won his championships after the vast majority of great players had turned professional. Notice how Emerson went from winning 2 Grand Slams in the last year of ameteur grand slams to none in any of the years after this when professionals and ameteurs competed along side each other. Tilden's achivements are remarkable however tennis was very different back (in style and format) then that I don't really consider the achivements comparable. Laver's 4 Wimbedon titles are more impressive than the number suggests as he won 4 consecutive titles that he entered. He turned professional (in 1963) after having won consecutive 2 titles then won 2 more titles when he was able to compete as a professional. Had Laver remainded amteur he would have been likely to win 7 or more Wimbledon titles. I see no reason not to put Agassi's 4 AO along side with McEnroe's 4 USOs. McEnroe won 4 of 16 USOs entered while Agassi won 4 of just 9 AOs entered.

    Anyway I don't really see your point here. There are many players who have been very dominant at a given slam, some more than Agassi, but this does not diminish Agassi's achivements at the AO.
     
    #50

Share This Page