Stich says Agassi more talented than Sampras

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by BaseLineBash, Jul 1, 2006.

  1. BaseLineBash

    BaseLineBash Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,543
    #1
  2. Marius_Hancu

    Marius_Hancu G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2004
    Messages:
    17,810
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    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.
     
    #2
  3. BaseLineBash

    BaseLineBash Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,543
    I agree, but Stich doesn't see it that way, interesting read no matter how you see it.
     
    #3
  4. Fedexeon

    Fedexeon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,950
    What Stich says is not nessasarily true statement.
     
    #4
  5. FiveO

    FiveO Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,260
    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.
     
    #5
  6. 35ft6

    35ft6 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,557
    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.
     
    #6
  7. Grigollif1

    Grigollif1 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    659

    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.
     
    #7
  8. Grigollif1

    Grigollif1 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    659
    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..
     
    #8
  9. HyperHorse

    HyperHorse Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,329
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    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...
     
    #9
  10. Captain America

    Captain America Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    143
    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.
     
    #10
  11. federerhoogenbandfan

    federerhoogenbandfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,702
    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.
     
    #11
  12. HyperHorse

    HyperHorse Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,329
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    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...
     
    #12
  13. federerhoogenbandfan

    federerhoogenbandfan Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,702
    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.
     
    #13
  14. !Tym

    !Tym Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,697
    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.
     
    #14
  15. vicnan

    vicnan Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,044
    Depends on the surface, imo. Agassi did a lot better on clay than Sampras. Btw, talent and goat are different things.
     
    #15
  16. 35ft6

    35ft6 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,557
    I'm talking about talent. Sampras was the better player and his record proves that. But Agassi is arguably more talented.
     
    #16
  17. Tennis_Goodness

    Tennis_Goodness Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    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.
     
    #17
  18. framebreaker

    framebreaker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Messages:
    487
    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!
     
    #18
  19. grind

    grind New User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    67
    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.
     
    #19
  20. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    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.
     
    #20
  21. Gilgamesh

    Gilgamesh Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    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.
     
    #21
  22. Kobble

    Kobble Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,365
    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.
     
    #22
  23. Captain Lou

    Captain Lou New User

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    10

    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.
     
    #23
  24. KBalla08

    KBalla08 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2006
    Messages:
    593
    wow one guy says andre has more talent... heres something than...
    "KBalla08 says Sampras more talentend than Agassi"
    ...
     
    #24
  25. framebreaker

    framebreaker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Messages:
    487
    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
     
    #25
  26. Grigollif1

    Grigollif1 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    659

    I'm still waiting for the arguments..
     
    #26
  27. Verbal_Kint

    Verbal_Kint Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    366
    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?
     
    #27
  28. pchoi04

    pchoi04 Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    897
    Agassi's win loss record is better than sampras ;D

    Overall
     
    #28
  29. superman1

    superman1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,243
    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.
     
    #29
  30. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,371
    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.
     
    #30
  31. 35ft6

    35ft6 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,557
    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.
     
    #31
  32. BaseLineBash

    BaseLineBash Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,543
    Man, you so get it! On mark.:D
     
    #32
  33. framebreaker

    framebreaker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2006
    Messages:
    487
    sorry, i have to pick up on it again.
    not just "one guy" - it's me, the FRAMEBREAKER muuuhahaaahaa!
     
    #33

Share This Page