Agassi only won one Wimbledon?

[RAFA2005RG]

Are you surprised that Agassi only won Wimbledon once?

[firepanda]

No. Sampras, remember?

[RAFA2005RG]

Originally Posted by firepanda

No. Sampras, remember?

Sampras only played Agassi a couple of times at Wimbledon. Agassi was almost always eliminated by another player.

[90's Clay]

No.. He was a baseliner in an era with Sampras and lightning fast weird bouncing grass.

Just to win one at that time was damn good if you were a baseliner. How many baseliners won wimbledon in the 90s?

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

Sampras only played Agassi a couple of times at Wimbledon. Agassi was almost always eliminated by another player.

Sampras took probably 2 more wimbledon titles away from Andre (1993 and 1999)

[RAFA2005RG]

Agassi choked against Rafter in 2-five setters, so probably Agassi's mental shortcomings were the difference.

[RAFA2005RG]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Sampras took probably 2 more wimbledon titles away from Andre (1993 and 1999)

Not necessary 1993, that was a QF. 1999, definitely.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

Agassi choked against Rafter in 2-five setters, so probably Agassi's mental shortcomings were the difference.

Well Rafter did play some great tennis in beating Agassi. It wasn't as if Agassi played badly.

[quest01]

Originally Posted by pc1

Well Rafter did play some great tennis in beating Agassi. It wasn't as if Agassi played badly.

Agassi should have won the Wimbledon semi's in 2001 against Rafter. He choked big time in the 5th set. I have that match on DVD.

[slowfox]

Originally Posted by quest01

Agassi should have won the Wimbledon semi's in 2001 against Rafter. He choked big time in the 5th set. I have that match on DVD.

I got that DVD too. What a great match! I think I'll some of it again now..

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

Not necessary 1993, that was a QF. 1999, definitely.

Yeah... had Agassi beaten Sampras he wasn't anything close to being a sure-thing versus Becker and then Courier. Courier had won the Aussie Open and then been a French Open finalist that year... He was still a force - and a bigger one than Agassi - having beaten Agassi on every occasion they'd played since the 1990 French Open over three years earlier.

Agassi hadn't even played the first two majors of 1993 and was beginning his plummet in the rankings. In the following 4 majors he never made it past the 4th round.

In short - the likelihood of him having won in 93 if he'd beaten Sampras was bordering on nil imo.

[sbengte]

OP, please end the suspense and tell us how does this connect to Nadal's greatness in some convoluted way.

[NadalAgassi]

Regarding 1993, it is true Courier owned Agassi, but all those matches were either on clay where prime Courier was better anyway, medium to fast hard courts which was a neutral meeting point, or indoors which was also a neutral meeting point for them. Had they met on rebound ace, Agassi`s best surface, or grass, Courier`s worst by far, I think Agassi would always have a decent chance.

As for Becker, Becker is Agassi`s lapdog and Agassi is just the ultimate nightmare matchup for him, even more than Sampras whose main edge was he did everything just a bit better than Becker. Even when Becker beat Agassi in 1995 it was seen as an enormous upset, and it probably wouldnt have happened twice in a relatively short span, not even on the grass Becker was legendary.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

... Had they met on rebound ace, Agassi`s best surface, or grass, Courier`s worst by far, I think Agassi would always have a decent chance.

We'll never know. If someone had predicted Wimbledon would be Agassi's first major the majority of experts would have laughed. Then he won it... stranger things have happened but one thing is pretty sure, Courier owned Agassi in that period of time both in the head-to-head and achievements.

[Feather]

Originally Posted by sbengte

OP, please end the suspense and tell us how does this connect to Nadal's greatness in some convoluted way.

I think the clue is here

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

Agassi choked against Rafter in 2-five setters, so probably Agassi's mental shortcomings were the difference.

Agassi choked. That's why he won ONLY one Wimbledon A player who doesn't choke will win more Wimbledons May be five or six more

[Tafmatch]

This clearly shows how Agassi would've had no chance against Nadal as Nadal didn't win Wimbledon only once.

And nobody in their right mind can be surprised that Agassi 'only' won Wimbledon once.

Oh, and one more thing. Choking isn't the same as losing.

[helloworld]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

We'll never know. If someone had predicted Wimbledon would be Agassi's first major the majority of experts would have laughed. Then he won it... stranger things have happened but one thing is pretty sure, Courier owned Agassi in that period of time both in the head-to-head and achievements.

I'd pick Agassi over Courier on grass any day. His game just translates much better on grass.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by helloworld

I'd pick Agassi over Courier on grass any day. His game just translates much better on grass.

I don't see it that clearly to be honest. On the grass of that era (later Agassi, I would totally agree with you):

Serve: Courier, by far
Volleys: Courier, by far
Tennis smarts/guile: Courier, by far
Groundstrokes: Agassi

Courier lost to a much, much better player in the final he competed in. It was one which was played at a considerably higher level than the previous year when Agassi played Ivanisevic too so I think it's a bit of a stretch to say Agassi was definitely the better grass court player in that period. notwithstanding the result, in 92 he had a draw which would be called a cake-walk draw by this board's standards - aside from the Becker match - and he faced a very post-prime 33 year old McEnroe in the semis who basically bent over for him. (Ivanisevic, by contrast, had Woodforde, Rosset, Lendl, Edberg, Sampras in a row > much more accomplished fast court players by comparison).

[vive le beau jeu !]

Originally Posted by pc1

Well Rafter did play some great tennis in beating Agassi. It wasn't as if Agassi played badly.

agreed, both were fantastic 5-sets wins by pat.

[mattennis]

During the 90s, a baseline player winning wimbledon was just something almost impossible to even suggest.

Even in previous decades, it was very rare (Borg and Connors were baseline players, but at Wimbledon both did serve-and-volley a lot on first serves, and both ended most of the rallies at the net; Lendl was close to win Wimbledon, but Lendl did serve-and-volley on all his first serves and many second serves, and he had a great serve).

Agassi's serve was very mediocre, and his volleys were very ordinary too.

He was the first player to win Wimbledon with just his return and groundstrokes.

Again, it was nothing like today. In the 90s, it was so much faster and the bounces so irregular, that a player winning Wimbledon having a very ordinary serve and net skills....was impressive.

It is impossible to compare different eras, but if I had to bet, I would say that neither Nadal nor Federer would win Wimbledon from the baseline in the 90s (had they been born 15 years earlier I mean) like Agassi did.