What if Agassi didn't skip the AO for the first 9 years of his career...?

[djones]

I actually still don't know what Aggasi's reason(s) were for not showing up here the first 9 years of his career.
But don't you think it's a shame, considering his great AO record!?
He could have won the tournament at least 1 or 2 times more!!!

[Rickson]

What if Agassi didn't skip the AO for the first 9 years of his career...?

He'd still be losing to Federer today.

[djones]

Originally Posted by Rickson

What if Agassi didn't skip the AO for the first 9 years of his career...?

He'd still be losing to Federer today.

Would he have married Graf you think?

[Rickson]

Originally Posted by djones

Would he have married Graf you think?

Yeah, that's a given.

[Moose Malloy]

I think too much gets made of the fact that Agassi could've/should've won more Australian Opens. Check out his ranking/record from '88-'94. He wasn't #1 during that span, was very inconsistent & choked in slams. Had he played it in '89/'90 he would lose to Lendl, if he played it in '92/'93 he would lose to Courier. If he made it that far.
Agassi has great longevity to be sure, but he only became a great player when he 24/25 so I don't think he was good enough to beat the big boys before that time.

[Kobble]

If Agassi committed himself to excellence earlier I believe he would have had two more slams at the very least. For a long time fitness was a question with Agassi, and it happened to turn out that he lost two French Open finals prior to taking very seriously. If you also take into consideration that he dodged his best surface for years, well, you can't help but to believe a very different outcome.

[goober]

Originally Posted by Kobble

If Agassi committed himself to excellence earlier I believe he would have had two more slams at the very least. For a long time fitness was a question with Agassi, and it happened to turn out that he lost two French Open finals prior to taking very seriously. If you also take into consideration that he dodged his best surface for years, well, you can't help but to believe a very different outcome.

Actually Agassi has commented on the notion that if he was committed to excellence and being in top physical shape in his early years that he would have won more grandslams. He countered that he would have burned out earlier and would have retired before 30 so it probably would have been a wash.

Probably a rationalization though on his part.

[The tennis guy]

Originally Posted by djones

I actually still don't know what Aggasi's reason(s) were for not showing up here the first 9 years of his career.
But don't you think it's a shame, considering his great AO record!?
He could have won the tournament at least 1 or 2 times more!!!

No one knows. The point is he chose not to play. No one forced him not to play. So it was moot point.

The only reasonable discussion is what if Laver played grand slam events between 63-68? He wasn't allowed to play back then.

[Turning Pro]

It would be the end of his career...............

[SteveI]

Originally Posted by The tennis guy

No one knows. The point is he chose not to play. No one forced him not to play. So it was moot point.

The only reasonable discussion is what if Laver played grand slam events between 63-68? He wasn't allowed to play back then.

And...

What if 3 of the GS were played on grass like in Laver's day.. how GSs would Pete have???

Regards,
Steve

[The tennis guy]

Originally Posted by SteveI

And...

What if 3 of the GS were played on grass like in Laver's day.. how GSs would Pete have???

Regards,
Steve

That's reasonable also. However, if there were more grass slam events in 90s, the game wouldn't be the same either.

One other point people forget, this just says number of GS titles alone doesn't equate greatness because circumstance changes.

[156MPHserve]

Back in the days, a lot of the players didn't care for the AO. It's only in more recent years that they considered it an event alongside USO, W and FO.

[ATXtennisaddict]

wait, i remember reading about this but someone refresh my memory. why did he not play for 9 years here?

[Moose Malloy]

Back in the days, meaning the 70s/early 80s, yes Australia wasn't important.
But when Agassi played, it was a legit slam with great fields. He had no real excuse for skipping it from '88-'94, except that he was lazy(wanted a longer offseason) & didn't want to travel that far. Ironic considering Agassi played far less tournaments from '88 to '93 than all other top players. He also skipped Wimbledon '88-90. Very strange kid, that Agassi. Image was really everything to him.

Edit:also the 9 years thing is an exaggeration. He turned pro in '86. Probably would have had to qualify for the '87 Australian(which was on grass BTW). Wouldn't have been ranked very high for the '88 Aussie. So really he only missed 6 australians when he was a legit top 10/20 player.)

[Californication]

Originally Posted by djones

I actually still don't know what Aggasi's reason(s) were for not showing up here the first 9 years of his career.
But don't you think it's a shame, considering his great AO record!?
He could have won the tournament at least 1 or 2 times more!!!

The same could be said about Johnny Mac. McEnroe never played the AO during his glory years and surely could have won a couple of those titles on the fast grass at Kooyong. He didn't play in Melbourne until the back end of his career and not winning anything.

it would be the same for borg, he enver played the australian open and has 11 grand slams won. if he wold've palyed the australian he could have won a couple more since it was palyed on grass.

[skip1969]

you can't win what you don't enter. so, it's irrelevant. players skip events.

and it wasn't totally uncommon to see them do it during that time (or before). kooyong was dying a slow death. no one wanted to wake up and go down there when it was in january. and everybody was too tired to bother when it was in december.

players still skip tourneys. but you can't win what you don't enter. wait . . . i already said that.