Agassi only won one Wimbledon?

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by abmk

while courier faced a tougher opponent in sampras than agassi did in ivanisevic ... agassi's game simply translated better on the fast, slick grass ...... that's because his return was just that much better than courier and while courier's serve was better, it wasn't that much better ....

Agreed on most of this except the bolded part. In 1992/3 Courier's serve was way better than Agassi's. Agassi was still in "let's start this rally" serving mentality back then. He may have translated better to grass but he was Courier's pigeon so I don't think it would have mattered enough imo.

Originally Posted by abmk

again, coming back to why the whole topic started, that's because that hypocrite nadalagassi just wants to argue both sides of the coin

This isn't at all surprising. He does it weekly.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by abmk

while courier faced a tougher opponent in sampras than agassi did in ivanisevic ...

Are you sure about that? Ivanisevic beat both Lendl and Sampras at 1992 Wimbledon without even facing a break point. I certainly gave Agassi very little chance of beating Ivanisevic. Sampras was favoured against Courier because it was grass and the matchup issue, but Sampras hadn't won a major in nearly 3 years while Courier had reached 7 major finals in the previous 10 majors.

[kishnabe]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Come on, kishnabe. It was a big upset. Andre Agassi was the world number 4 and had been in the semi finals or better at Wimbledon in the previous 3 years. Agassi had a new coach on board since February 2002 in Darren Cahill, having parted from his previous coach of 8 years, Brad Gilbert. Also, Agassi's first round match against Harel Levy at 2002 Wimbledon was chosen to be the first match on centre court in the absence of reigning champion, Goran Ivanisevic. Paradorn Srichaphan was ranked at number 67 in the world at the time, so wasn't considered anywhere near Agassi's level before their second round match. In the match, Srichaphan totally outplayed Agassi to win 6-4, 7-6, 6-2. This was one of many upsets at 2002 Wimbledon. In that second round alone, there was Olivier Rochus beating Marat Safin (then world number 2), and George Bastl beating Pete Sampras.

I know he was still good in his 30's. Yeah he was the favorite in that match.

He could have adapted on the slower grass in his 20's.....maybe Sampras couldn't hurt him on their early Wimbledon encouters if it were slow.

Agassi baselining has to help on the slower stuff....even though Faster courts suit him. The SanV guys were too strong most of the time....so it would hurt them more than it hurts him.

Hewitt preferes the faster grass but did better at Wimbledon after it was slowed.

[big ted]

i think it was just as surprising that agassi won the usopen only twice and also that he only had the year end no1 ranking once

[NLBwell]

It was a total shock that Agassi could win even one Wimbledon. Everyone expected him to win the French and probably the others, but not Wimbledon - grass-court tennis was a completely different game back then.

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

Are you surprised that Agassi only won Wimbledon once?

No. He was lucky to win his lone Wimbledon title in the era of many grass court giants.

[mental midget]

Originally Posted by 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.

i have to say, i wasn't the biggest agassi fan, i was rooting for goran in that final for sure, but credit has to be given for the way andre played that tournament, his passing shots, return game, and general baseline play were all exceptional.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

No. He was lucky to win his lone Wimbledon title in the era of many grass court giants.

Unfortunately for Roddick, he wasn't lucky as Agassi.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by TMF

Unfortunately for Roddick, he wasn't lucky as Agassi.

+1. That serve was incredible, and he had a monster forehand to back it up (well up until mid 2000s). Without Fed, he probably would have gotten a few Wimbledon trophies

[TMF]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

+1. That serve was incredible, and he had a monster forehand to back it up (well up until mid 2000s). Without Fed, he probably would have gotten a few Wimbledon trophies

If he was in the 90s with a quicker grass he would have a better shot. He just doesn't get too many free point from his serve against Roger(except 2009 Wimbledon).

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by TMF

If he was in the 90s with a quicker grass he would have a better shot. He just doesn't get too many free point from his serve against Roger(except 2009 Wimbledon).

Fed has a great return of serve against big servers though in general.
Classic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxzFlrFfUrg

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by TMF

If he was in the 90s with a quicker grass he would have a better shot. He just doesn't get too many free point from his serve against Roger(except 2009 Wimbledon).

He wouldnt stand a chance against prime Sampras ever, and he would also face other better grass courters like Becker, Ivanisevic, and arguably Agassi and Rafter, so he wouldnt win a Wimbledon title in the 90s either. Maybe if he had ever learnt to volley proberly he might have had a fighting chance, but that is not the case.

[DropShotArtist]

Sampras won half his Wimbledon's off pigeons.

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Easiest slam draws (for winners) in open era:

1- Sampras: Wimbledon 2000: highest ranked opponent: # 21
2- Sampras: Wimbledon 1997: # 18
3- Sampras: Wimbledon 1998: # 17
4- Agassi: AO 2003: # 16
5- Wilander: AO 1984: # 15/ 21
6- Agassi: AO 2001: # 15/18
7- Kafelnikov: AO 1999: 13
8- Lendl: RG 1986: 12
9- Johansson: AO 2002: 11/ 23
10- Wilander: RG 1988: 11/ 14
11- Lendl: AO 1989: 11/ 13
12- Edberg: AO 1987: 9/ 24
13- Ferrero: RG 2003: 9/ 20
14- Courier: RG 1992: 8
15- Nadal: RG 2010: 7/ 21
16- Sampras: USO 1993: 7/ 14
17- Costa: RG 2002: 7/ 11
18- Hewitt: USO 2001: 7/ 10
19- Federer: W 2003: 6/ 12/ 45
20- Federer: W 2009: 6/ 12/ 32
21- Muster: RG 1995: 6/ 9
22- Federer: AO 2006: 5/ 25
23- Sampras: AO 1997: 5/ 13
24- Federer: RG 2009: 5/ 10

And this is a complete list of the slams won without having to play a top 4 player. Enjoy! (Notice that Nadal has 1, Djoko 0 and Fed 4. Sampras has 5, Agassi: 2. )

[NLBwell]

Although they did mix up the seedings at Wimbledon some to better reflect the skill on the grass courts, the top seeds weren't necessarily the best grass-court players. Krajicek was not in the top 4, for example.
Also because of the nature of grass courts (in those days) upsets were much more common than today.

(It also shows that good luck is a factor in winning a tennis tournament.)

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by TMF

Unfortunately for Roddick, he wasn't lucky as Agassi.

Roddick had it easy by comparison, as the current era would never be described as one with a large number of grass court giants, hence the reason a player with such questionable "skills" could reach three Wimbledon finals had serious chances to beat Federer. Roddick would not even make a final in the era discussed in this thread, as his "skills" were not suited for a period where real grass--and the kind of players mastering said grass would have catapulted him out of the event in the first week.

[BHud]

Not really...Agassi pouted and didn't play it for several years because the crowd disliked him...and also there was PS...

[3fees]

one is better than none.

[ec51]

Didn't Agassi also skip a few Wimbledons?

He talks about it in his book - he didnt enjoy the venue too much, if I remember correctly.

[dudeski]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

Are you surprised that Agassi only won Wimbledon once?

Nah. It was a fluke just like Nadal's AO and USO wins.

[Gorecki]

Originally Posted by pc1

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

you must excuse the village idiot for posting that level of absurdities...