Agassi vs. Sampras

[Phil]

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.

The truth only hurts if it's...the truth, and you believe in a lie. I've heard the "Sampras lived by his serve" stuff before, but you can make that argument about any player. Agassi lives by his groundies. Take them away, and guess what? No 8 slams. Take away Hewitt's speed and guess what-no #1 ranking or slams, etc., etc....If a serve was all that it took to win 14 (Say it, West Coast, F-O-U-R-T-E-E-N), than why doesn't Goran, Rude-seski, Marky P. and a dozen or so other one-trick ponies have slams under their belts? Why, I'll tell you why, because Sampras has MUCH MORE. A terrific net game, speed and agility, a great forehand and slice backhand, and the WILL of a champion. It's a stupid argument-he had a great serve, and that's that-he had what he had. Take away America's AIR FORCE and we aren't crap...right?

As for 6 straight #1 years, if that were so easy to manipulate without actually winning something, there would be a few more players with consecutive #1 years. There aren't. Now there ARE b.s. #1's, like Thomas Muster playing on nothing but clay tournaments, intentionally missing Wimbledon, and gaining #1-now THAT is b.s. Sampras, at least, showed up to play where it counted. So...exactly what "truth" were you talking about?

 

[Bertchel Banks]

As for 6 straight #1 years, if that were so easy to manipulate without actually winning something, there would be a few more players with consecutive #1 years.

Now now Phillip, let's not read too much between the lines. No one is saying that Pete was untalented, ugly, or that he hurt the children. All we're saying it that in two of his six year end #1's ('95 & '98) his best wasn't good enough, so he flew from Saskatchewan to Timbuktu to earn the points and put himself over the top, giving the impression that he was standout player, as he may have been in year prior when he didn't need to go to such far off places. He was chasing numbers.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Thanks, BB.

Phil, you embarrass yourself. To hit groundies you have to move to get in position, get your racket back, and time it. The serve: you hold the ball - standing still -and hit it when you're good and ready.

And I wouldn't brag about Sampras' slice backhand. Just like Roddick today, a slice usually means that you have bad footwork.

 

[Phil]

Thanks, BB.

Phil, you embarrass yourself. To hit groundies you have to move to get in position, get your racket back, and time it. The serve: you hold the ball - standing still -and hit it when you're good and ready.

And I wouldn't brag about Sampras' slice backhand. Just like Roddick today, a slice usually means that you have bad footwork.

West Coast "Ace" - A Slice usually means bad footwork? Comparing RODDICK and his learned-yesterday slice with Sampras' approach? Man, talk about embarrassing yourself! You must not play or watch a lot of tennis, and you obviously, like a lot of the kids who post here, never saw Sampras in his prime.

A POINT is a POINT, whether it is won on a serve or off a groundie. I really don't get YOUR point. Does the fact that Agassi had good FOOTWORK, make him the "better" player than Sampras? Of course not. The numbers, buddy, the numbers. They don't lie. And don't forget, Sampras followed many of those serves to the net, where he won plenty of points, while the words "Agassi" and "net" have never been uttered, seriously, in the same sentence.

Look at the numbers again. His footwork didn't help him, obviously, in the head-to-head totals. And also, the fact that FOOTWORK did not earn Andre 14 slams or 6 #1's.

AA has a great record-he will be known as one of the great ones, only, no one who actually knows something about tennis will rank him next to Sampras. No one. You're on really thin ground here-in fact, I think you've just fallen through.

 

[Datacipher]

Coria, you're going to have to do better than pull new quotes out of thin air. I was already correcting your previous faulty statements with quotes.

ROFL. I like how you took your last quote directly from my post and then cut off the part you didn't like to try to fit your reasoning!

 

[Datacipher]

The truth only hurts if it's...the truth, and you believe in a lie. ?

If people want to fly in the face of all the facts and try to work around them with convoluted rationales, there's not much you can do about it Phil..... I just hope these fellows are arguing out of emotion or for for the sake of argument and don't really believe this stuff....

 

[Datacipher]

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.

Why THE HECK are you and Coria trying to say that Phil said Sampras was not a number chaser? Phil only pointed out the absurdity of such an accusation. Besides being meaningless, it's not even an insult! He chased numbers and he got them! Mostly he chased GS trophies, like everyone else, and he got those as well!

I'd be careful calling Phil "uninformed", he's killing you guys and ALL of the factual errors(and there have been quite a few) in the 3 threads you've started regarding Agassi and Sampras have been on the Agassi supporter side.

 

[laurie]

When I read some of the comments here, I have to conclude that some people posting here with increasingly cantankerous views actually don't really know, understand or appreciate all the aspects, physical, technical and mental of the game of tennis. What is even more amazing is that they try to force their opinion on others somehow expecting people to crumble to their force of personality.

Whenever anyone approaches this argument they have to get cantankerous because you always will approach it from a defensive position. Sampras like on the court is always in the dominant position when the argument of their rivalry comes up. Agassi followers are aware of this, which is why it makes them so angry.

The sad truth is they can get as mad and as angry as they want. They can also say Pete just had a serve (hey..just like Wayne Arthurs) and nothing else and get all *****y. Sampras followers are always quick to point out Agassi's achievements and applaud it for what it is.

Its very pathetic. But fun to read all the same as we can clearly get to see who the pathetic one's are here who obviously cannot come to terms with reality.

Don't worry, If anyone wants to have a go at me for saying this I have the wit to put anyone here in their place (If I have to).

 

[Brettolius]

i would also like to add that it's not like in those years pete "shadily" finished no.1 that he just had to enter those tournaments he didn't have on his schedule. that would not have cut it, would you agree? he needed to post some results. i think in a way that's more impressive because he's sitting back saying, "i've got to win these tourneys to finish number 1, so i'm GONNA DO IT!" and he did. he coldy calculated what he had to do, and did it. saying "all i have to do is WIN this," is easier said than done. it's like he stepped it up and did whatever he wanted when he wanted. maybe he didn't all the time,but when it counted. really, if it doesn't measure up in the overall scheme of things, who gives a damn how many times pete won the "podunk open's" of the world? 14 majors baby!
p.s. one thing agassi does have over sampras, is that he won more satellites and challengers, lol!

 

[Rabbit]

Thanks, BB.

And I wouldn't brag about Sampras' slice backhand. Just like Roddick today, a slice usually means that you have bad footwork.

Hmmmm.....there are a few other players who would be suprised to hear that. Namely, Billie Jean King, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, John McEnroe, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Matts Wilander, and every other pro who's ever played tennis. A sliced backhand is a tool, just like a hammer or a screwdriver. A sliced backhand is a low risk shot that can be used to keep a player in a backcourt rally. Likewise, it's a weapon that can be used to approach net, usually (if you're smart) down the line. It stays low and moves off the ground quickly.

With regard to Sampras chasing numbers. Somebody please explain to me how any pro doesn't chase numbers? Does anyone think that the truly great players don't play to win Grand Slams? Sampras was Lendl's hitting partner much of the time he was coming up. Wouldn't it mean something to Sampras to eclipse Lendl's mark? I'm quite sure he looked up to Lendl and rightly so.

I never thought that I'd be on these boards defending Sampras, but geeze, guys, y'all are going down a wacky path.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

The only year Sampras entered more tournaments than he would normally play was '98(& that was only post US Open that he added events). He was very close with Rios that year(& how legitimate would #1 be if Rios ended the year #1 without a slam?, I'm glad Sampras chased 'numbers' that year a slam winner should be #1)
Every other year Sampras had #1 locked up pretty early in the year(except '95, but it's not his fault that Agassi was injured in the latter part of the year)

So Sampras wasn't concerned with #1 for the most part(unlike that "classy" Federer who's so obsessed with being #1 he skips Davis Cup in order to "chase numbers" at events like Dubai. It's February, why is he thinking about the ranking now? Especially with his 2,000 point lead) just concerned about winning slams(& letting #1 take care of itself)

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

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.

tennis1982, I don't understand. Either I'm crazy or I missed something. Who u told - Roy Emerson, Fred Petty and Don Budge ? I hear about them first time in my life. Didn't these GS tornaments start officially in 1968 ? Which year did those men win GS ?

 

[tennis1982]

Aykhan, the open era of tennis started after that time, but there was still professional tennis before then as well as the grand slam tournaments. If you type those names in your search engine I'm sure you'll find the information on them.

 

[Bertchel Banks]

Why THE HECK are you and Coria trying to say that Phil said Sampras was not a number chaser? Phil only pointed out the absurdity of such an accusation. Besides being meaningless, it's not even an insult! He chased numbers and he got them! Mostly he chased GS trophies, like everyone else, and he got those as well!

The only reason I brought to light the fact that Sampras was chasing points is because it takes away the illusion that he was the best player on the ATP tour for six consecutive years. He was not. He was the clear #1 in '93, '94, '96 & '97, that's four years. He got lucky in '95 and again in '98, where the surface and conditions played in his favor. Had the surface been on...clay, for example, the outcome would've been different.

On close inspection his six years at number 1 is misleading. Had Andre been as obsessive with the numbers as Pete he could've finished #1 in '95, 2001, and 2002, in addition to his 1999 triumph. That's four years.

 

[Phil]

Could have, would have, should have. Bertchel, that is the sorry refrain of all wannabes (or fans of players that could have, would have, should have been).

You can't change history, but you can certainly try, as futile as it may be, to spin it to how you would like it to have been. Again, my man, take a count. SIX #1's and 14 (that's FOURTEEN) Majors. Oh, and FIVE Masters Finals. Say it and weep. You're GRASPING at straws. But go ahead. Spin away, buddy, but if you were to ask ANDRE to name the greatest player, and who he thought is the best between he and Sampras, he just might say, in all sincerity, that Pete was.

 

[Datacipher]

The He got lucky in '95 and again in '98, where the surface and conditions played in his favor. Had the surface been on...clay, for example, the outcome would've been different.

On close inspection his six years at number 1 is misleading. Had Andre been as obsessive with the numbers as Pete he could've finished #1 in '95, 2001, and 2002, in addition to his 1999 triumph. That's four years.

Wow. Yep, had they played all year on clay, the outcome would have been different. If they banned overhead serving, the outcome would be different. If Sampras was born an invalid the outcome would be different. If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon....

That lucky lucky Sampras, if only we had played on my home courts and none of the pros cared about the numbers or winning and I made them use ping pong paddles, Datacipher would have been #1 in 1995.

 

[Phil]

Wow. Yep, had they played all year on clay, the outcome would have been different. If they banned overhead serving, the outcome would be different. If Sampras was born an invalid the outcome would be different. If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon....

That lucky lucky Sampras, if only we had played on my home courts and none of the pros cared about the numbers or winning and I made them use ping pong paddles, Datacipher would have been #1 in 1995.

No, Datacipher, I would have been #1 in '95! Me, Me-because all you had was a serve, and had to hit slice to compensate for your faulty footwork, while I, with my superior footwork and countless more cool TV comercials was the RIGHTFUL #1! LOL-you pretty much hammered the final nail in the coffin, but wait, I hear footsteps...they're coming back-they always are, it seems...

 

[Bertchel Banks]

Wow. Yep, had they played all year on clay, the outcome would have been different. If they banned overhead serving, the outcome would be different. If Sampras was born an invalid the outcome would be different. If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon....

...If Sampras didn't have so much tennis talent he might have won the French, or made it to the finals.

 

[Bertchel Banks]

with my superior footwork and countless more cool TV comercials was the RIGHTFUL #1!

This is just sad. I thought you guys were secure with Pete's accomplishments. No need to be sore about the fact that Andre got $100M from Nike, while Pete was reduced to begging for pennies.

 

[ty slothrop]

"but if you were to ask ANDRE to name the greatest player, and who he thought is the best between he and Sampras, he just might say, in all sincerity, that Pete was."

This is just sad. I thought you guys were secure with Pete's accomplishments. No need to be sore about the fact that Andre got $100M from Nike, while Pete was reduced to begging for pennies.

what Dre would really say is that, when it comes down to it, it's all about the nike bling.

 

[sarpmas]

I really do not understand why is there so much resentment that people have to nitpick Pete's accomplishment. Pete was lucky to be no.1 in 95 & 98?! I thought he should garnered more respect and admiration for the way he was pushing himself to the limit to re-write history! How many athlete can do what Pete has done, setting his mind on something and ACTUALLY accomplish it? Federer has just won a few tight matches and people are already doubting his dominance, imagine being dominant for 6 straight years!

Should have, could have, would have. Come to think of it, I think Andre is the luckiest person in the world! If Medvedev did not 's n a t c h defeat from the jaws of victory' in the French Open... Frankly, how do you rate Andre with no French Open title? Seems like I have to thank Andre for winning the French so that folks like us can have fun arguing over thread like this!

 

[Coria]

Pete deserved to be number one but I wouldn't say he dominated in all of those years. He certainly dominated in '93 but in other years, like '95, Andre was the better player and had the better record. But Pete won the clutch points at that Open and he deserved number one. But dominated? I don't think so.

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

Aykhan, the open era of tennis started after that time, but there was still professional tennis before then as well as the grand slam tournaments. If you type those names in your search engine I'm sure you'll find the information on them.

tennis1982, suppose I search and will find something. Can u explain what u mean under open era, and what was before open - unopen, closed ? Why there is such an exact barrier 1968 ? Why 1967 or 1966 is not taken into consideration ? Why the starting date for all 4 GS is the same ? What do u know about ?

 

[laurie]

Hi Aykhan, Open era started in 1968 and Wimbledon was the first tournament to invite professionals to play that year. I saw this on one of Wimbledon's official films. Until then only amateurs were allowed to participate in grand slam tournaments. Of course, amateurs don't make money as such so most top players turned professional and went to play in the States to earn money and make a living from the sport.

But the level of play was diminishing badly at the amateur level. The likes of Tony Trabert, Jack Kramer and Pancho Gonzales all turned pro and couldn't play in the slams. Trabert had won US Open, Wimbledon and French Open in 1950s but then turned pro. Kramer won Wimbledon in late 1940s and then initiated the pro scene. Gonzales was one of the best players but unfortunately turned pro so young that he seems to be forgotten because of his lack of slam play.

Rod Laver turned pro after winning four slams in one year in 1962. When pros were invited to play Wimbledon, it became open...open to amateurs and professionals alike. I think Golf majors are similar. Then Laver won 4 slams in one year in 1969. That would explain the 7 year gap. He might have done it more often. Its easy to see why many people consider him the best.

Of course, we have seen other major sports transition from amateur to professional in recent times. Rugby Union changed in the 1990s and Athletics around the 1980s. In Rugby's case where players can train full time and not worry about working for a living and training after work or getting time off from work to train; you can see the level of fitness and standard of play is increasing all the time.

I hope this helps

 

[thor's hammer]

This is a fun one, plus exceptional picture quality, and no commentator babble.

They were 2 all at this early stage in their rivalry.

https://www.atptour.com/en/players/atp-head-2-head/andre-agassi-vs-pete-sampras/a092/s402