Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by RAFA2005RG, Dec 23, 2012.
Are you surprised that Agassi only won Wimbledon once?
No. Sampras, remember?
Sampras only played Agassi a couple of times at Wimbledon. Agassi was almost always eliminated by another player.
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?
Sampras took probably 2 more wimbledon titles away from Andre (1993 and 1999)
Agassi choked against Rafter in 2-five setters, so probably Agassi's mental shortcomings were the difference.
Not necessary 1993, that was a QF. 1999, definitely.
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.
I got that DVD too. What a great match! I think I'll some of it again now..
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.
OP, please end the suspense and tell us how does this connect to Nadal's greatness in some convoluted way.
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.
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 think the clue is here
Agassi choked. That's why he won ONLY one Wimbledon :wink: A player who doesn't choke will win more Wimbledons May be five or six more
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.
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
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).
agreed, both were fantastic 5-sets wins by pat.
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.
Very interesting many of McEnroe comments in this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLJTtl1CvqA
Around 2:45 he starts to talk about Agassi's and Courier's baseline style and success on grass, saying it was something that nobody would have anticipated 5 five years earlier, and that the reason they were that successful on grass playing like that is (among other things) that they hit so hard that a serve-and-first ground stroke winner could be as successful (or even more) than a serve-and-volley (besides, both Agassi and Courier had very compact strokes, which helped tremendously when returning lightning fast serves).
In this match (Courier-Sampras 1993 Wimbledon final) you can see many baseline rallies because Courier stayed back most of the time, and (and this is important) that year was very dry and the courts at Wimbledon were firmer and harder than usual (because of all the sun and dry weather), having a higher and truer bounce.
Did you see how Courier beat Edberg in the semi finals of 1993 Wimbledon? Courier was even volleying better than Edberg.
Agassi would have won more Wimbledon on a slower grass.
Agassi has lost quite easily in the second round vs Srichapan at Wimbledon 2002
Fast grass was just not his surface.
I did not know that!!!!! (Don't really pay attention to statistics)
No. His problem was Sampras whose game was perfectly tailored to the Wimbledon grass of that era.
He was in his 30's......what if he was 20 sumthing....it would be a different story.
Plus Srichapan is a pretty good top 20 player.
Going into his Wimbly win I thought he had no chance but he did deserve it, he returned very well.
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.
90s grass isn't 00s grass.
Agassi was a hardcourt specialist back then but today any court is like a slow hard court so Agassi would have a better Chance then back .
do you think nadal would have won several Wimbledons on 90s grass?
It happens to very good players. In Wimbledon ALONE just look at:
Nadal 2011 vs #100 ranked Rosol
Boris Becker vs #70 Peter Doohan L 6-7, 6-4, 2-6, 4-6 in the second round
I'm sure there are others if we go down the list of tennis greats at Wimbledon and other slams...
Srichaphan beating Agassi wasn't the only big upset at that stage of the tournament, though. Bastl beating Sampras was an even bigger upset.
The upsets continued the next year with Dr. Ivo taking out defending champ Hewitt in the opening match, only the second time (Pasarell d. Santana '66) a a champ flamed out. Srichiphan also continued his success @Wimby, getting to the R16. His hot streak included a straight-set rout of Baby Nadal, making his Slam debut. Nadal did surprise Ancic in the first round and clubbed a British WC in R2.
Andre wasn't playing all that good tennis in 2002 outside of the USO. By 2002-2005 he was basically just playing well on hard courts.. He wasn't doing anything off them. His "all surface prime" ended in 1999 or 2000. I think the numbers show that as well
Going into 2002 Wimbledon, Agassi had won Miami and Rome in 2002, and had lost to Ferrero in 4 close sets in the French Open quarter finals. Agassi losing to Srichaphan was entirely unexpected.
Agassi played US Open final after Wimbledon and had some good results before that, see what Mustard said.
a great upset for paradorn !
i miss him.. he was really fun to watch.
I think Agassi is already happy he won Wimbledon at all. It clearly wasn't his best slam and his playstyle didn't help him at that time.
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 ....
again, coming back to why the whole topic started, that's because that hypocrite nadalagassi just wants to argue both sides of the coin , changing depending on whomever he is arguing for ....... agassi in 93 was in much worse form than in 92 ... he had wrist problems and was serving with an entirely different motion ....sampras should never have let that Qf go to 5 .....
fat chance that agassi beats becker and courier back to back to win that wimbledon in 93 ... he beat becker in 5 in 92 , that was when he was in much better form and becker in worse form ...
also courier was by some distance in better form in 93 ....
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.
This isn't at all surprising. He does it weekly.
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.
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.
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
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.
No. He was lucky to win his lone Wimbledon title in the era of many grass court giants.
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.
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
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).
Separate names with a comma.