Agassi vs. Sampras

C

Coria

Banned
Agassi vs. Sampras (again)

As mentioned earlier, Sampras gets a slight nod over Agassi.

The fact of the matter is that in finals against each other, Sampras held a 9-7 edge. In total tournaments won, Sampras leads by 64-59.

In Majors, Sampras wins 14-8. They have both won 7 of the the other three not including Wimbledon.

Wimbledon--this is why Sampras gets the nod--and the ONLY reason.

-Agassi has won MORE Masters' series events than Sampras.
-Agassi has won all four majors (Sampras got to one measly semi-final in 12 French Open tries. After splitting the first two sets against Kafelnikov, Sampras won ONE game in the next two sets. He did not have the endurance and stamina of the elite clay court players)
-Agassi won Olympic Gold
-Agassi has been in 35 Quarterfinal or better appearance in slams--more than Sampras.
-Agassi was much better in the Australian (4 titles) and the French (1 title, 2 finals, 2 semis, 3 quarters) than Sampras
-Agassi has won more total grand slam singles match victories than Sampras
-Agassi has a better Davis Cup record.
-Agassi has sustained a level of excellence from age 30-35 that is unmatched in tennis history. Connors is close, but Connors did not face the athleticism, the number of excellent players, nor the type of power that Agassi faces today.
****this is key and some people dismiss it. In '95, when Agassi was clearly the best player that year, the best player of the summer circuit--Agassi had to play a "prime"Boris Becker in the Open semis on Saturday evening. He won in a very tight 4 sets (the best match of the tournament) and got off the court at almost 10:00 p.m. Meanwhile, Sampras had already beaten a declining Courier by 1:30 in the afternoon. No only did he play an inferior opponent to Becker, but he got over 8 hours additional rest by the time they came back at 4 the next day.
In '02 Open final, Agassi has to play Hewitt for the late match AGAIN!! Brilliantly, he beats Hewitt (ranked number one). Meanwhile, Pete was off the court HOURS earlier after beating a clearly inferior Schalken. AGAIN, Sampras gets the break and is fresher to the final. There is no doubt in my mind that Agassi wins both of those finals if he was better rested and a bit more fortunate.

In the end, Sampras has to get the nod for his 14 majors--BUT...when looking at the whole picture and taking everything into account--it's a very slight nod. Andre belongs in the top 5 of all time, right behind Sampras. If somehow he can win another major or two (unlikely), he could go down as better than Sampras. Pete was done after just turning 31. Look what Agassi is doing at just about 35--amazing!!!
 
286 weeks as the number-one player in the world, including 102- and 82-week runs in succession. 7 time winner of the sports MOST prestigious tournament. That's all I need. And look, I even love Andre (check avatar).

7-0 Wimby finals and 5-3 at the Open, more than make up R.Garros. Long live the king of swing.
 
20-14 head to head, Sampras rules. Agassi bounced in and out of the top 100 twice on binges of inactivity and a poor ability to cope with fame and loss. Sampras maintains a cool head through 6 years at #1 despite losing a coach and being called every "boring" name in the book. Sampras wins.
 
Coria, how about this?

Sampras - 5 Masters titles (end of year world championships)
Agassi - 1 Masters title - 1990

Sampras - winner of 5 US Opens; up there with Connors
Agassi - winner of 2 US Opens

Sampras hasn't picked up a racket for two years at least. However, at the time of his last match, he had more match overall wins than Agassi despite his decline over 18 months. Thats not Sampras' fault that he quit before Agassi did. He turned pro after Agassi so won a lot more over a shorter period of time (14 years) as to Agassi's 18 plus years.

However, the bad beatings Sampras dished out to Agassi at
1990 US Open final
1999 Wimbledon final
1999 ATP Masters final

I think those are the sort of things that really stick in people's memory, not speculation at what could have happened at the US Open. After all, people were saying the same about Sampras in 2000 and 2001 when he played his semifinals second. Because ironically in 2000 he beats Hewitt in straight sets and then loses to Safin in straight sets. Then in 2001 he beats Safin in straight sets then loses to Hewitt in straight sets. But he lost both finals and thats that.

Sampras also won the 1995 Davis Cup final against Russia almost singlehanded, on clay as well. He should be congratulated for that.

Plus all the other things Lemurballs mentioned above and I think its clear cut to Sampras.

But of course, Agassi has to be congratulated for his great French Open record.
 
Agassi won 4 different GS, became No 1 and won MCUP.
Sampras won 3 different GS, became No 1 and won MCUP.

Agassi won GS 7 times. Sampras won 14 times GS, two times more GS than Agassi!!!!!!!

Agassi won Masters Cup ( MCUP) 1 time, Sampras won 5 times !!!!

Agassi won 7 different types of Masters Series ( MS) totally 17 times, Sampras won 5 different types of MS, totally 11 times.

Who is more talented don't depend on our sympathy. As you now draw in GS always 128, in MS sometimes 32/64. So to be honest to win GS is harder at least for 1-2 rounds than to win MS, so I give more points to GS.

But if you consider even all 3 kind of major tournaments equal - GS, MS and MC then

Sampras won 14+11+5 = 30 major tournaments

Agassi won 7+1+17 = 25 major tournaments.

Sampras won 77.44% of matches he played ( 984)
Agassi won 76.38% of 1078 matches he played.

IMHO UNDOUBTLY SAMPRAS WAS MORE SUCESSFULL AT COURT than Agassi. Probably he was so more talented. ( For numbers see my 2 threads " Very Very interesting facts" and " Continuation of very interesting facts" - I'm reviving them now).
 
Coria said:
As mentioned earlier, Sampras gets a slight nod over Agassi.
!!!
Click to expand...

Yes, as a matter of fact it was mentioned earlier! The same argument, with the same points....you know in that thread where I owned you....the one where you had all those incorrect Agassi boasts.....the one where you asked with exclamation "AGASSI IS GREATER THAN PETE BECAUSE (insert erroneous fact here)....DID YOU KNOW THAT? KNUCKLEHEAD! STUDY HISTORY!" lol....

Good strategy though....ignore the double bagel...run off...start new thread...hope some people didn't see the old thread....sort of like waiting for Pete to leave the tour.....lol...just kidding on the last point, would never compare Agassi's tremendous late run to your cowardice.
 
Datacipher said:
Yes, as a matter of fact it was mentioned earlier! The same argument, with the same points....you know in that thread where I owned you....the one where you had all those incorrect Agassi boasts.....the one where you asked with exclamation "AGASSI IS GREATER THAN PETE BECAUSE (insert erroneous fact here)....DID YOU KNOW THAT? KNUCKLEHEAD! STUDY HISTORY!" lol....

Good strategy though....ignore the double bagel...run off...start new thread...hope some people didn't see the old thread....sort of like waiting for Pete to leave the tour.....lol...just kidding on the last point, would never compare Agassi's tremendous late run to your cowardice.
Click to expand...

Dude, I know EXACTLY who you are. People couldn't take you anymore on these forums and begged for you to leave. You're the guy with no life and a very low sense of self-worth. Do you honestly think you can hide behind another name. You say the SAME THINGS, use the SAME PHRASES over and over again--the reason you enjoy riding people is because you have no life. Your anger at the world causes you to lash out and put people down on a tennis discussion forum--how pathetic. The TW administrators need to pull the plug on you again.
 
Sampras won 14+11+5 = 30 major tournaments

Agassi won 8+1+17 = 25 major tournaments.--26

Sampras won 77.44% of matches he played ( 984)
Agassi won 76.38% of 1078 matches he played.

YOU MADE MY POINT!!! THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO UNDOUBTLY SAMPRAS WAS MORE SUCESSFULL AT COURT than Agassi. Probably he was so more talented.

Huh, the tally (as of now) is 30-26, and Sampras is so much more talented? Bullcrap. Sampras had the best serve in the history of the game. Agassi is the overall better player. Agassi does more things well on a court than Sampras could. But, Sampras had the best serve and that was the difference. Andre was the better groundstroker off both sides, had more power in his backcourt game, had a better drop shot, better lob, better return. Sampras had the better serve and volley.
 
I once read something that suggested that Sampras had an edge over Agassi partly due to the fact Sampras never got to the later rounds in tournaments/on surfaces that he sucked on. The premise being that Sampras and Agassi mostly on played on surfaces on which Sampras had an edge. Agassi was more solid on all surfaces, Sampras terrible on some, and most of the time they played on the ones Sampras liked.

It may have been Mailbag or something. I can't remember all the details.
 
I bet if Sampras doesn't have anemia, he could have won the french. Having those records with this disease, is incredible.
 
Sampras is clearly better than Agassi, I'm surprised at the comparison. However, at the 02 US Open, Sampras was clearly starting to get tired, which is the only way Agassi can beat him, is for it to go five.

The disappointing thing about that match for me, was the fact that Agassi was supoosed to have been a "smarter" player from all the time he spent with Gilbert but he never picked up on an obvious trend in the match. Whenever he would try to crank the ball to Sampras' backhand, Sampras would just use his pace against him and keep the points short, and wound up winning the majority of those pts.

But, whenever Agassi would roll the ball high to Sampras' backhand, Sampras would just chip it back, and those points lasted alot longer, with Agassi winning the majority of those points. Had Agassi done this more on the big points late in the 4th, I believe he would have won that set, plus the match.
 
Coria said:
Andre was the better groundstroker off both sides, had more power in his backcourt game, had a better drop shot, better lob, better return. Sampras had the better serve and volley.
Click to expand...

Does it matter who had MORE weapons when Pete beat Agassi in head2head? Does Agassi come anywhere close to number of weeks at number 1 that Sampras has? Pete dominated those years. You can't question that. Tell me all about those numerous years Agassi dominated tennis hmm? I'm a big fan of Agassi's and have a lot of respect for what he's done but he could retire after his next GS win (im rly hoping here) and he still wouldn't outshine Sampras in my book.
 
Coria said:
Dude, I know EXACTLY who you are. People couldn't take you anymore on these forums and begged for you to leave. You're the guy with no life and a very low sense of self-worth. Do you honestly think you can hide behind another name. You say the SAME THINGS, use the SAME PHRASES over and over again--the reason you enjoy riding people is because you have no life. Your anger at the world causes you to lash out and put people down on a tennis discussion forum--how pathetic. The TW administrators need to pull the plug on you again.
Click to expand...

Way to address the arguments!

ROFL! So, tell me, who am I? Cause, I havent' the slightest who you're talking about.

You're making yourself look even more foolish! If you'd actually check the dates beside our names, you'll see, I've been on this forum a lot longer than you. So, it would have been awfully hard for me to COME back under this name. If you're gonna make wild accusations, at least make them plausible....

Now what's really interesting is that you seem to be an old pro about people who get banned on this board and their modus operandi, yet YOU'RE the one who's only been here a few months...so the question is, what name did you get banned under before?
 
While Sampras clearly has the advantage in terms of statistics, there are some statistics in Agassi's favor.

1. Agassi is the oldest player to ever be ranked number 1 in the world.
2. Agassi is the only player to be ranked in the top ten in three different decades
3. Agassi is one of only five players to have won all four grand slams
4. Agassi has the record for Masters Series titles with seventeen
5. Agassi has the greatest return of serve in the history of the game

Also, Sampras leads Agassi 6-3 in grand slam matches, but if you look at those individual matches you'll notice Sampras was undefeated at the U.s. Open and Wimbledon, and Agassi was undefeated at the Australian Open and French Open. They simply didn't meet as often on the slower surfaces which favored Agassi. I think it is also important to remember that in addition to Agassi's eight slams, he had six other grand slam finals appearances. He was favored to win in 4 of them (the exceptions being against Courier in the French and Sampras in Wimbledon). If you consider that Agassi has played over one thousand pro tennis matches and if only six of these had gone differently, right now Agassi would have fourteen grand slams and Sampras would have ten.
 
tennis1982 said:
While Sampras clearly has the advantage in terms of statistics, there are some statistics in Agassi's favor.

1. Agassi is the oldest player to ever be ranked number 1 in the world.
2. Agassi is the only player to be ranked in the top ten in three different decades
3. Agassi is one of only five players to have won all four grand slams
4. Agassi has the record for Masters Series titles with seventeen
5. Agassi has the greatest return of serve in the history of the game

Also, Sampras leads Agassi 6-3 in grand slam matches, but if you look at those individual matches you'll notice Sampras was undefeated at the U.s. Open and Wimbledon, and Agassi was undefeated at the Australian Open and French Open. They simply didn't meet as often on the slower surfaces which favored Agassi. I think it is also important to remember that in addition to Agassi's eight slams, he had six other grand slam finals appearances. He was favored to win in 4 of them (the exceptions being against Courier in the French and Sampras in Wimbledon). If you consider that Agassi has played over one thousand pro tennis matches and if only six of these had gone differently, right now Agassi would have fourteen grand slams and Sampras would have ten.
Click to expand...

You make some good points 1982, but...

#1, 2, 4 are nice trivial facts, but don't have much meaning at all in terms of measuring who the greatest is. #3 also falls in this category as though it is a neat accomplishment, others have done it and in fact won actual Grand Slams which Agassi has not. #5 is completely subjective, I happen to agree with it, but it means nothing.

You are right about their Grand slam meetings, BUT, the 1 FO meeting was very early in their careers, in 1992, Sampras certainly could not play with Agassi at the FO, a few years later...might have been a different story(the way Sampras played against Courier in his mid 90's encounters), however that is just woulda coulda speculation I admit. Agassi deserves full credit for beating Sampras 2x at the AO....and he got his deserved 2 titles out of those wins. But at the 2 most prestigous tournaments, he met Sampras 6 times and failed to win a single match. Yes, he came close, but the undisputable fact remains, he lost. Yes, if he won those matches perhaps he'd have the 14 slam titles...but he didn't...HE LOST. If Chang had 6 or 7 matches go his way, he might have topped Agassi...but he didn't...he lost. He and Agassi accept that....they don't believe themselves close to Sampras.....funny how some cannot.

Besides the point I made in the other thread about longevity not being in itself a factor in greatness, it's strange that some would say Sampras declined so much and Agassi has sustained. As much as I admire Agassi's continued play(and I've posted on it many times) and as much as I hope he keeps playing, the truth is, he's finally putting in the dedication that Sampras maintained for all those years. Sampras' last match was a USO victory....over AGASSI....their is no doubt in my mind, that had Sampras the desire to go on and had he some goals still left pursue that had meaning to him, he could have continued to contend at Wimbledon the USO and probably the AO to this day. But after 14 titles, he decided that it no longer meant enough to him....and I don't blame him.
 
You guys have to realize that Sampras stopped trying as much after winning GS number 13, and Agassi has played for a longer time than Sampras so some of these stats aren't fair.
 
"ROFL! So, tell me, who am I? Cause, I havent' the slightest who you're talking about."

I can't think of your name. I just remember you ending every post with "Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras"--and it was before you started your new name in April. I did a search but it doens't go back that far.

"You're making yourself look even more foolish! If you'd actually check the dates beside our names, you'll see, I've been on this forum a lot longer than you."

Right around when you were kick off the forum, I was an occasional reader, not contiributor. I had just discovered this Discussion forum and chose not to write. But, I did see how you were compulsively responding to EVERY single thread that had anything to do with Sampras or Agassi. People come back under different names all the time. You picked Datacipher--actually a much better name than your old one.

"Now what's really interesting is that you seem to be an old pro about people who get banned on this board and their modus operandi, yet YOU'RE the one who's only been here a few months...so the question is, what name did you get banned under before?"

I was never banned and finally decided to come on board this forum, after tiring of another I was on. This one is better, with more informed people (like NO BadMoJo) Prior to the Fall, I CHOSE to be a reader, not a writer. Anything wrong with that??????
I stand by my accusation about who you were in a former life. I can see, however, that you've toned it down a bit. You're not quite as obnoxious as you used to be. Are you now on the right meds?? :) :)
 
Coria said:
Do you honestly think you can hide behind another name.
Click to expand...

What, like you do, "Coria". And a pro tennis player's name-what a loser. I may as well call myself "Roger".
 
Phil said:
What, like you do, "Coria". And a pro tennis player's name-what a loser. I may as well call myself "Roger"

Go ahead, who gives a crap? I have a very clear reason I chose Coria--one that I certainly won't tell you. Also, you don't have any idea what I'm talking about with regarding Datacipher, so MYOB
Click to expand...
 
Coria said:
I can't think of your name. I just remember you ending every post with "Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras"--and it was before you started your new name in April. I did a search but it doens't go back that far.

Right around when you were kick off the forum, I was an occasional reader, not contiributor. I had just discovered this Discussion forum and chose not to write. But, I did see how you were compulsively responding to EVERY single thread that had anything to do with Sampras or Agassi. People come back under different names all the time. You picked Datacipher--actually a much better name than your old one.
:)
Click to expand...

WOW! I used a famous quote from Agassi (that directly related to that thread) for the 1st time in 1115 posts and now you think that I'm a person from over a year ago...who's name you can't remember....who used to use that thread in every post?! Sorry I can't help you with the name, since apparently this person was kicked off before I got here! Nice story. ROFL Then you say you know EXACTLY who I am and say I should be kicked off the forum? You've got a big future as a conspiracy theory buff.

You claim to be reading this board for longer than I've been here and yet you're the same person who called me a "knucklehead" and said "I need to study history" all the while making numerous factually incorrect statements to try to back up your assertions? Yeah....I think it's pretty clear who's on the meds here.

It's also pretty funny when you said all you remember is this guy ending every post with "sampras, sampras..." yet, before you said "Dude, I know EXACTLY who you are." and that I say the "SAME THINGS, use the SAME PHRASES over and over again"

I guess you meant I used the ONE phrase in 1 out of a 1 thousand posts, that I used in every post before....well you've convinced me...I"M THE GUY. NOW if only we knew what my name was I could go back and see what I used to write!

I'm also glad you think Datacipher is better than my old name, too bad you don't know what it was and neither do I!

I have never been on this board under any other name, feel free to check with TW administrators and enjoy your wild and as we now see completley irrational accusations.
 
I'm also glad you think Datacipher is better than my old name, too bad you don't know what it was and neither do I!

I have never been on this board under any other name, feel free to check with TW administrators and enjoy your wild and as we now see completley irrational accusations.[/QUOTE]

If you're not that person, I apologize. Beyond the Sampras, Sampras.... wording, there were some other eerie similarities. I did go back and look at some of your posts. While I don't agree with many of your assessments regarding the Agassi and Sampras thing, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not that previous, incredibly rude and obnoxious poster that worshipped at Pete's alter 24/7, always had to get the last word in and seemed to despise Agassi.
 
hyperwarrior said:
I bet if Sampras doesn't have anemia, he could have won the french. Having those records with this disease, is incredible.
Click to expand...

In all honesty, his anemia should be a negligable factor at that level of training and athleticism. It's not really symptomatic. People run marathons with his same condition without difficulties.
 
Unfortunatley, Sampras did not have the level of stamina of a Borg, Vilas, Courier, Lendl, Agassi, Muster and some others. That doesn't diminish his athleticism, but endurance is a key area of total physicality, and Sampras was not in the elite class in this area. How many times did we see him throw up or barely keep his head up in five set matches.
 
Coria said:
If you're not that person, I apologize. Beyond the Sampras, Sampras.... wording, there were some other eerie similarities. I did go back and look at some of your posts. While I don't agree with many of your assessments regarding the Agassi and Sampras thing, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not that previous, incredibly rude and obnoxious poster that worshipped at Pete's alter 24/7, always had to get the last word in and seemed to despise Agassi.
Click to expand...

If you looked at my previous posts, you'll see, that I've made very positive posts about both Sampras and Agassi. Negative ones as well. Throw Federer in as well. I am actually a bigger fan of Agassi than of Sampras, but I absolutely acknowledge that Sampras has the superior career and was the superior player between the 2, Agassi is an all time great, I hope he plays another 10 years! I hope he can pull out another GS, but he's not close to Sampras.
 
Phil said:
Neither, obviously, did he. Youz a wanker, "Co-ria".
Click to expand...

That's what I was about to say Phil. You know just as much as I do....you're one of the posters(seems like a minority some days) who is capable of reading and following a thread!

It's a public forum and there is no mysterious back story here, it's all right there.
 
Coria, I don't really understand your argument. Sampras actually won the majority of his five set battles in his career. So, maybe like his opponents, his looks lulled you into a false sense of security and his endurance must be underestimated. Thats why his opponents would look so dismayed. He would look like this and still hit incredible shots.

Also, Sampras won at least 50% of the baseline rallies in their last match despite his decline. When he was younger he often dominated Agassi from the backcourt.
 
Agreed. But there were other matches where Agassi clocked him from the backcourt. I remember one match where Agassi won 6-2,6-3 in the BMW final or something like that in about 55 minutes. Agassi won about 85% or the baseline rallies. Remember, it was 20-14 in their encounters. Sampras winning 58% of their matches clearly puts him as favorite, but not by much. If Sampras dominated Agassi, as some say, why did Agassi beat him in 7 finals and 14 matches overall?
 
Coria, forgive me for asking but I really don't understand why you are working yourself up almost into a frenzy over what is almost a non issue.

I should tell you that the two wins Sampras had over Agassi in 1990 & 1995 the court was a medium paced court. It was not a fast court like an Arthur Ashe stadium court. Sampras stayed back more then especially on second serve.

I pointed this out to someone sometime last year. Nice of you to point out a Masters result. But you are obviously a fanatic and thats why you're here. BUT the average man and woman on the street are not interested in Masters results (some of them have no idea about those events). What they know is that in the biggest matches Agassi was humiliated at the hands of Sampras. Agassi has admitted that himself.

1990 US Open final - 6:4, 6:3, 6:2 - broken 5 times
1999 Wimbledon Final - 6:3, 6:4, 7:5
1999 ATP final - 6:1, 7:5, 6:4

Plus he won the last match they played and Agassi got badly beaten in the first two sets. I have the match on DVD. After the first two sets, Sampras hit 7 backhand winners to Agassi's 0. This is not made up by the way. This is a fact.

Sampras also beat Agassi on slower hardcourt finals in Miami and Indian Wells and beat him twice on clay as well. The two Aussie matches were close and fun to watch in their rivalry.

At the end of 1999 when Sampras mauled Agassi in Hanover the rivalry was actually 17:11. Agassi won the next three meetings between 2000 & 2001 and then Sampras won the last three meetings between 2001 & 2002.

By the way, the 22 shot rally, (which they made an advert of) at the 1995 US Open final, Sampras won it with a backhand crosscourt winner.
 
Coria,
I understand the points you are trying to make(& have no problem with you saying Agassi deserves to be top 5 of all time, its your opinion & no one can really prove the best ever, etc.)

The stats you cite are interesting, but when history (i.e. fans, media, etc), compares Sampras & Agassi, 20-14 & 7-7 in finals are the least important stats. The most important stat:4-1 in GS finals, they are the only tournaments that matter, no one cares about the BMW final(do you think Andre would rather beat Sampras there or the US Open?)

Out of the 5 GS finals they played 3 were at the US Open & 1 was at Wimbledon. The other final (which Andre won) was at the Aussie Open, whose prestige is far less than the other slams. Even Laver, Rosewall, Cash say the most important tournament to win for an Australian is Wimbledon, not their native tournament.

So Sampras won their 4 most important matches. He also won their highest quality match the '01 US Open QF, when Andre made very few unforced errors, was the clearly the better overall player in recent months, having drilled Sampras twice in '01, yet Sampras was still able to prevail(I'm not sure Sampras cared much about non-GS events throughout his career, he put many half-hearted efforts at minor tourneys like the BMW open)
But even with Sampras' questionable efforts at non-GS events, he was still able to finish #1 six years, while Agassi could only manage to do that once.

I like Agassi, he is one of the most talented players ever to play the game(being the 1st player to win all 4 in a career since laver is an amazing achievement).
His success was far more important to the growth of the sport(esp. in the US) than Sampras.
But I can't place him in Laver, Lendl, Sampras, Borg level. He never was clearly the best player in the world for a long period of time like the others.

Also, I don't think Sampras' serve was the reason Sampras was able to prevail over Agassi in their 4 most important matches. Agassi was an amazing player, I've seen him destroy bigger & better servers than Sampras many times. In those 4 matches, I don't believe Agassi really thought he could win. Mentally he was a little fragile, while Sampras' mentality(no matter how bad he was playing) was 'I think I'm the best player in the world & expect to win, that's what I'm supposed to do'

I also think that Sampras was capable of elevating his game more than Agassi could on big points. Remember set point in the 1st set of the '95 US Open Final? Sampras won that point(one of the best baseline points I've ever seen) & went on a tear to go up 2 sets. Agassi won the 3rd & made an error down breakpoint in the 4th. Game over. Sure even the great ones get nervous, but I've seen Agassi do it more than Lendl,Borg, Sampras. Maybe Agassi was mentally tough, but not when he played Sampras. Just a little self-doubt can make all the difference at the biggest moments. Sampras never had any self-doubt.
 
I agree. Sampras was definitely more "clutch" in those big grand slam finals.

But, and it seems like no one gives this any legitimacy, Sampras was very fortunate against Agassi in the '95 and '02 US Open finals. At Wimbledon in '99 and the '90 US OPEN, Sampras kicked Andre's butt. In '90, Agassi was overwhelmed by the occasion and clearly was not clutch.

But in '95 and '02, Andre had UNBELIEVABLE and CLUTCH wins over a prime Becker and number 1 ranked and defending champion Hewitt. Agassi simply was not as mentally or physically fresh for those finals. Sampras had a HUGE break in not only playing inferior opponents, but playing the first match and having many hours of additional rest. Remember, in '95, they were tied at 5-5, one set all in the third set. Agassi clearly was tired in that match. In '02, Andre was simply not at the same level as he was vs. Hewitt.

I do realize Sampras had that misfortune in the two previous Opens when he got smoked by Hewitt and Safin. But, we're talking about Andre and Pete here. At the least, Agassi wins ONE of those two finals if he was more fortunate in match time and opponent. That would make it 3-2 in finals and 8-8 overall in finals. Bottom line, in two of Pete's wins over Agassi in finals, Pete was very lucky in how things shook out the day before.
 
Coria said:
But in '95 and '02, Andre had UNBELIEVABLE and CLUTCH wins over a prime Becker and number 1 ranked and defending champion Hewitt. Agassi simply was not as mentally or physically fresh for those finals. Sampras had a HUGE break in not only playing inferior opponents, but playing the first match and having many hours of additional rest. Remember, in '95, they were tied at 5-5, one set all in the third set. Agassi clearly was tired in that match. In '02, Andre was simply not at the same level as he was vs. Hewitt.

I do realize Sampras had that misfortune in the two previous Opens when he got smoked by Hewitt and Safin. But, we're talking about Andre and Pete here. At the least, Agassi wins ONE of those two finals if he was more fortunate in match time and opponent. That would make it 3-2 in finals and 8-8 overall in finals. Bottom line, in two of Pete's wins over Agassi in finals, Pete was very lucky in how things shook out the day before.
Click to expand...

So you spent considerable time criticizing Sampras stamina and fitness and now you're saying Agassi was tired and trying to postulate that he might have won? Yikes.

You're also showing me you don't understand what happens when great champions play when you say Sampras winning 60% of 34 matches is not a clear indication.

Over the course of a decade, Sampras won 60% of his matches and 67% of matches in grand slam play against an 8 time GS champion. That's pretty clear.
 
Does it matter who had MORE weapons when Pete beat Agassi in head2head? Does Agassi come anywhere close to number of weeks at number 1 that Sampras has? Pete dominated those years. You can't question that.
Click to expand...

Sampras was clearly not the best player in 1995 or 1998. He was annointed by the math, a la Hingis.

Tell me all about those numerous years Agassi dominated tennis hmm? I'm a big fan of Agassi's and have a lot of respect for what he's done but he could retire after his next GS win (im rly hoping here) and he still wouldn't outshine Sampras in my book.
Click to expand...

If it isn't the tired, I'm really a fan so my words are objective routine. Coward!

The fact is that Andre was the best player on the ATP tour in 1995, 1999, and 2001. Had he been a numbers chaser like Sampras he would've obtained the YE #1 ranking in those years, and very likely 2002 as well.
 
I don't agree with this perception of Wimbledon being the most important Grand Slam. I think all four slams are equally important. Just because some of the great players say they like that one the best, it doesn't make it the hardest to win. I think each one offers a unique challenge: the heat in the Australian Open, the consistency and endurance required to win the French Open, being able to adapt to a faster ball speed at Wimbledon, and the energetic crowd and atmosphere at the U.S. Open. All of these tournaments feature the best players in the world and they all try equally hard at all four tournaments. I think it is misleading to say that Sampras won the four most important matches against Agassi. It is more important to realize that Sampras couldn't beat Agassi at the Australian Open and French Open, and that Agassi couldn't beat Sampras at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open.
 
It is more important to realize that Sampras couldn't beat Agassi at the Australian Open and French Open...
Click to expand...

The surfaces that reward skill & savvy over bulk & brawn. Take the 2001 Oz event, Pete was headed for a straight set whipping, ego go the best of him, so tanked against Todd Martin in the 3rd round.

I like Agassi
Click to expand...

mmmk

he [Andre] is one of the most talented players ever to play the game
Click to expand...

True.

...being the 1st player to win all 4 in a career since laver is an amazing achievement.
Click to expand...

What's even more amazing is while Laver won his on grass and clay, Andre won his on Grass, Clay, Cement, and Rubber.
 
Phil said:
What, like you do, "Coria". And a pro tennis player's name-what a loser. I may as well call myself "Roger".
Click to expand...

Ahh now! Don't hide it....you have are a Phil Dent wannabe! Wait....does that make me a Wendy Turnbull wannabe? Oh God!


The guy probably closest to the Agassi camp for the longest made an assessment of the two players. Brad Gilbert would've given Agassi the nod had it not been for the head to head in Grand Slam finals where Sampras clearly had the edge. I personally am a bigger Agassi fan than Sampras, but when the whole tomato is looked at, Sampras clearly had the better overall career. This is not to say that both didn't have HOF careers and careers that 99% of the tennis world would kill to have, but Sampras is further up the All-Time list than Agassi.
 
Coria, u didn't notice that I wrote "even if u consider GS, MS and MC the same" then Sampras won 30, Agassi 26. U missed word "even". U can't compare actually GS with MS or MC with MS. Imagine 14 times GS champion, and 7 times GS champion !!! Peoples remember this fact more, nobody cares about MC or MS. This is me who noticed them also. But actually to become GS champion is the main dream for every tennis-player.

The only advantage I can give to Agassi opposit the fact above is that he won all 4 different types of GS. And tennis1982 is not right in post 17. Agassi is not 1 of 5 players ever won all 4 GS, he is 1 of 2 players ever won all 4 GS ( + Rod Laver 1969). This is why this fact is great. Only 2 players.

So this discussion is meaningless in some meaning, somebody likes 14 GS against 8 more, somebody likes 4 types of GS against 3 types more.

IMHO Federer is the most talented player ever I see and I hope he will easily beat record of Agassi and Rod Laver in the close future with 4 types of GS.
 
Coria,
Do you really believe the inane US Open scheduling/tough semis are responsible for Andre's '95 & '02 US losses?
I admit Agassi was flat the 1st 2 sets in '02, but Sampras was on fire as well those 2 sets. Also Sampras had to play 5 matches in 7 days that US Open because of rain, don't think he caught that much of a break having a few hours more rest than Andre. I really believe the US Open scheduling favors younger players, not because I believe they are fitter, but they don't need as much recovery time. Both Agassi & Sampras were over 30 & we know how much fitter Agassi was & we know that Agassi had a mental block against Sampras(having lost in the QF the previous year) so I don't see how he definitively would have won that match with another day's rest.

Don't buy that Agassi lost the '95 final due to playing the late match. He was 25, he could handle the quick turnaround(& did so the year before beating Martin in the late match, & winning the final the next day)
Also Sampras' match against Courier was just as tough as Agassi's match with Becker. There were far more rallies in that match & it was played under the sun, so Sampras wasn't exactly fresh the nest day.


If you want to nitpick, I can show example of how Sampras would have won more if he had some luck on a few occaisons:

'95 Australian Open Final-the only significant match win Agass had over Sampras. Andre didn't lose a set before the final. Sampras had 5 set wins over Larsson in the 4th Round, Courier in the QF, & a tough 4 setter Chang in the semis. Plus he had to cope with attention of his crying in the quarters against Courier/the sudden illness of his coach. You have to admit Sampras was physically & emotionally exhausted before the final. Still he gave Agassi all he could handle(I think this may be the best match Agassi ever played) had a set point to go up 2 sets to 1(which Agassi saved with a passing shot that nicked the net), served 28 aces(which was a career high at the time)

'98 US Open SF against Rafter:pulls his hamstring up 2 sets to 1, has no mobility & loses the last 2 sets

'92 US Open Final:plays the late match on super saturday, has a upset stomach during SF win, is up til 3 am night before final due to illness, loses final to Edberg(who he had drilled a few weeks before Open)

'96 French SF:has a tough road to semis, loses to Kafelnikov (who he owns head-to-head) the French played very fast that year, if he played one less 5 setter, do you think he couldn't beat Kafelnikov & Stich on a court that played like a hardcourt?

'00 & 01 US Finals:encountered same bad luck w/scheduling was not fresh for either final due to playing the late match & being much older than his opponents, needed the recovery time

'99 US Open: was clear favorite, hurts his back the day before the tournament & pulls out. Guess who wins his 2nd US Open.

'94 US Open:as dominating a player as Federer is now. Injures ankle after Wimbledon win, is unable to play any summer hardcourt events or even practice intensely. Still enters event heavy favorite despite not being physically ready. Loses in 5 vs. Yzaga in the 4th round. Practically needs to be carried off the court. Guess who wins his 1st US Open.

'00 Australian Open SF:Agassi beats sampras in 5, Sampras strains hip flexor in 4th set & loses 5th easily. Pulls out of Davis Cup 1st round due to injury.

Wow, Agassi's kinda lucky to have those 2 US Open titles & 2 of his Australian titles, don't you think?
 
You make some good points. But the fact of the matter is that Agassi got OFF THE COURT at almost 10:00 and played a draining match against number 3 ranked Becker, who was playing at his top level. He said so after the match.

Sampras got off the court before 2:00. I'm sorry, but having 26 hours to rest, vs. 18 is HUGE. Even for a 25 year old, 3/4 of a day is not enough rest for a best of five final. The US OPEN format is ridiculous. Remember, in '95, they were still doing one men's SF, then the Ladies' final, then the second mens' SF. At least now they are playing the men first.

Agassi was a better player than Sampras that whole year, that whole summer. He beat Sampras twice earlier in the year, including the '95 Australian. I watched that match over and over on video. Sampras was by far the more fresher. That's the fact. Had they played the SF on Friday--when they should have, I believe Agassi wins that match--or even if Andre got to play right after the Sampras-Courier match, as opposed to after the ladies' final and starting his match at 7:00. That was a joke-and then to come back and play the final at 4 the next day--a disgrace.
 
Aykhan, you're the one who's wrong. In addition to Rod Laver and Agassi, Roy Emerson, Fred Perry and Don Budge have all won each grand slam event. Also, Agassi has 8 grand slams, not 7. And finally, saying that nobody cares about the Masters Series tournaments is ridiculous. They are second in prestige only to the Grand Slams. They feature the best players in the world and are worth a considerable amount of points in the ranking system.
 
Coria said:
You make some good points. But the fact of the matter is that Agassi got OFF THE COURT at almost 10:00 and played a draining match against number 3 ranked Becker, who was playing at his top level. He said so after the match.
Click to expand...

Actually Agassi was asked after the match if he was going to be ready to play Sampras because maybe he didn't have much time and Agassi cut off the interviewer declaring "I have PLENTY of time and Pete is you're watching this, I'm coming!"

After the match when asked about fatigue Agassi repeatedly pointed to the long summer and not the match with Becker as being the main reason for any fatique he felt. " More than just playing the late match yesterday. I think, quite honest, the whole summer has affected me. A few hours isn't going to do you much better or much worse."

He also noted:

ANDRE AGASSI: Yeah, I think it is an advantage for anybody that plays earlier in the day. I have been here, you know, few different times in the semis, and it is tough. I played here in the day once -- one time I played Boris in 1990. I played early in the day. Pete played McEnroe late at night, so it was a little bit of advantages for me, but it didn't seem to mean a whole lot come Sunday. You just try to get the match over with. Get back, relax, and start thinking about tomorrow.

Coria said:
Agassi was a better player than Sampras that whole year, that whole summer. He beat Sampras twice earlier in the year, including the '95 Australian. I watched that match over and over on video. .
Click to expand...

Agassi did play better at the small tournaments. Both Agassi and Sampras agreed before the USO that it would be the decider, that they both had 1 GS and that this would decide who the year belonged to. Not many would argue that the guy who won Australia had a better year than the Wimbledon/USO champion.
 
Bertchel Banks said:
Sampras was clearly not the best player in 1995 or 1998. He was annointed by the math, a la Hingis.
Click to expand...
He was the best in those years. No one had to annoint him.
The fact is that Andre was the best player on the ATP tour in 1995, 1999, and 2001. Had he been a numbers chaser like Sampras he would've obtained the YE #1 ranking in those years, and very likely 2002 as well.
Click to expand...
So now Sampras was a "numbers chaser" is it? I suppose the same can be said of Federer or ANYONE who wipes the field.

Call him what you want, but he won 14 slams and was #1 for 6 consecutive years, all that while playing CONCURRENTLY to Agassi. Therefore, how in the world can anyone even consider that Agassi was the "better" player? You don't have the problem of having to compare players from completely different eras. No, they played at the exact same time, and they played each other 34 times-of which Sampras won 20. So he leads Agassi in head-to-head competition, slams, total tournaments and years at #1 (6 vs 1), all while playing in the same era. How do you reconcile your ill-informed opinion with the FACTS? Really.

These "who was better" discussions get boring, but really, there are some obvious things that people are absolutely blind to, due to their own biases. Open your friggin eyes.
 
Datacipher said:
Actually Agassi was asked after the match if he was going to be ready to play Sampras because maybe he didn't have much time and Agassi cut off the interviewer declaring "I have PLENTY of time and Pete is you're watching this, I'm coming!"

Of course he's going to say that. Nobody wants the fans and media thinking they may feel they won't be at their best because of scheduling format.

After the match when asked about fatigue Agassi repeatedly pointed to the long summer and not the match with Becker as being the main reason for any fatique he felt. " More than just playing the late match yesterday. I think, quite honest, the whole summer has affected me. A few hours isn't going to do you much better or much worse."

He said that, but then he said the following. Agassi knew Sampras had a big edge. I wish I could find the link. But, Andre said he went into a deep depression after that match--his game showed it to as well as his skipping out on some events. Later, when asked about his resurgence and his phenomenol comeback in the late 90's, Agassi said it did bother him that he had to expend that much energy and get so little time to be ready for the final. That year--Becker was far better than Courier. IN fact, Boris was coming into another prime season for him--winning a big event that Fall and the Australian in Jan. of '96. Andre admitted he got to bed about 3:00 in the morning from all the adrenalin, post-match stuff, eating and finally being able to relax. He stated he was mentally drained after beating Becker and wished the final was on Monday. It was very bad luck for him--just like for Sampras against Safin in '00. In '01, Hewitt would have beaten him no matter what. Hewitt was playing amazing that year and had blown by Pete in the rankings.

In '02, Agassi played perhaps the match of his life in beating number 1 AND defending champ Hewitt. The crowd was nuts. Andre clearly was not at the same mental or physical level the next day. If you watch him against Hewitt and then watch him against Sampras, Andre was not as explosive, as quick or as decisive. You can say he didn't have the confidence against Pete. I don't buy that. Andre had an awesome '02, winning Australian, a couple of summer events, clocking Federer in Nasdaq Masters and I think he got to the Wimbledon semi again--losing to Rafter in a tremendous 5 setter. Andre was tired against Sampras--plain and simple. And he could have easily won that fourth set anyway, but to Sampras' credit, he came up with his best. Pete knew Andre would dust him in the fifth. He was running out of gas and was not at the same fitness level as Andre. A couple of points decided it and I do give Sampras credit for that. His first two sets against Agassi was the best tennis he had played since '00 Wimbledon.

He also noted:

ANDRE AGASSI: Yeah, I think it is an advantage for anybody that plays earlier in the day. I have been here, you know, few different times in the semis, and it is tough.
Click to expand...
 
Sorry Phil - the truth hurts

Phil said:
He was the best in those years. No one had to annoint him.

So now Sampras was a "numbers chaser" is it? I suppose the same can be said of Federer or ANYONE who wipes the field.

Call him what you want, but he won 14 slams and was #1 for 6 consecutive years, all that while playing CONCURRENTLY to Agassi. Therefore, how in the world can anyone even consider that Agassi was the "better" player? You don't have the problem of having to compare players from completely different eras. No, they played at the exact same time, and they played each other 34 times-of which Sampras won 20. So he leads Agassi in head-to-head competition, slams, total tournaments and years at #1 (6 vs 1), all while playing in the same era. How do you reconcile your ill-informed opinion with the FACTS? Really.

These "who was better" discussions get boring, but really, there are some obvious things that people are absolutely blind to, due to their own biases.Open your friggin eyes.
Click to expand...
Phil, you're the ill-informed one. Sampras most certainly did 'number chase'. Two different years in the '#1 for 6 straight' he changed his fall schedule at the last minute, entering a few tournaments he previously had no intention of playing, for the SOLE PURPOSE of keeping the #1. That 'stat' was something he and 'his people' concocted - he was always very cranky about not getting his due from the non-tennis media and thought this would force them to give him the press he craved. Previously he had joked "A dead person could be #1 in pro tennis."

Sampras lived and died with his big serve. Sorry that the truth hurts but those are the facts. If he had a broader game, he'd have one or two FO trophies to show his son.
 
What WCA says. Sampras most suredly chased numbers. And let's keep the multi-talented, versatile, and classy Federer (the un-Sampras) out of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

illkhiboy
Curiosity about a Sampras-Agassi match..
Replies
12
Views
1K
laurie
L
doriancito
Why did Sampras beat Agassi?
2
Replies
51
Views
4K
doriancito
doriancito
S
Sampras & Agassi: H2H with attacking players reveals Sampras probably has the most complete game in history
2
Replies
79
Views
5K
Crazy Finn
C
B
  • Poll Poll
Best Agassi-Sampras Encounter
Replies
18
Views
2K
War Safin!
War Safin!
JohnS
Sampras + Agassi = Federer
Replies
49
Views
4K
ksbh
ksbh
Back
Top