Andre Agassi says In His Prime on grass sampras Would Beat Federer

jga111

Hall of Fame
I could see your reasons for a peak or prime comparison but career you have big edge Federer? I don't know about that. I would only say slight edge. Sampras winning 7/8 times and being broken only 4 times in a final can compete with Federer winning it 8 times and being broken 19 times in his 1st 7 finals. I would say peak to Sampras and prime to Federer since he had a longer span of playing at a high level. Peak wise, I would back Sampras over anyone.
I concur.

Peak Sampras didn’t let you breathe let alone play tennis...he broke rhythm. That’s why he struggle on clay - he found it harder to break rhythm - plus the fact he didn’t give a too-hoots about clay
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
It means that he played better players on carpet than Djokovc did.



I already adressed that. If Djokovic needs a couple of years to get past his demons he is not winning much anyway and if EVERY player is playing his peak tennis, especially the S&V players on fast grass, then I don't see him winning anything at all.


Well I am not going to repeat myself again. Stats don't mean much without context, without the competition factor, the difference in surface etc. Again like I said, Djokovic is the better player overall and way more successful. But as for Wimbledon in the 90s? I don't even see him winning one title at all.
I think you're unbelievably naive to say Djokovic would never win Wimbledon in the 90s honestly. Lol. Agassi can do it but he can't? A better returner on grass, a better server, a better mover and defensive player and a better athlete? Not in this reality. Strongly agree to disagree but all speculation at the end of the day. Reality is he has 5 of them, tied for 3rd in the Open Era.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Bad joke.
Saving multiple match points against one of the GOAT in 3 different grand slam matches including in a Wimbledon championship match, in addition to many other examples against other players and yet you aren't convinced. We'll just have to agree to disagree then!
 
On fast (real) grass I agree. I think we underestimate how a lack of depth has contributed to 3 ATG's having their slam counts inflated, or do people think it a mere coincidence that the 3 highest slam counts have occurred in the same decade?
 
Saving multiple match points against one of the GOAT in 3 different grand slam matches including in a Wimbledon championship match, in addition to many other examples against other players and yet you aren't convinced. We'll just have to agree to disagree then!
Despite being the overall GOAT, Federer is far from number one in terms of mentality, so outclutching him doesn't make Djokovic mental GOAT. Novak has a strong mental peak, but isn't such a rock when he's at all off, see 2012-14 or even the recent loss to Thiem at RG.

Of all ATGs, Sampras's game relied perhaps the most on his ability to peak at will while not expending too much energy otherwise. This I consider the most mentally taxing approach, above even giving all at every point like Nadal does (and suffers for it but his body is still in shape, if Sampras tried it he'd have worn himself out in years with his thalassemia). His famous wins on the verge of collapsing (1995 DC Chesnokov, 1996 USO Corretja) are also extra special... sure, the likes of Big 3 simply didn't get in such situations as they were fitter, but it's not Pete's fault he had a genetic condition that impacted endurance.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
Despite being the overall GOAT, Federer is far from number one in terms of mentality, so outclutching him doesn't make Djokovic mental GOAT. Novak has a strong mental peak, but isn't such a rock when he's at all off, see 2012-14 or even the recent loss to Thiem at RG.

Of all ATGs, Sampras's game relied perhaps the most on his ability to peak at will while not expending too much energy otherwise. This I consider the most mentally taxing approach, above even giving all at every point like Nadal does (and suffers for it but his body is still in shape, if Sampras tried it he'd have worn himself out in years with his thalassemia). His famous wins on the verge of collapsing (1995 DC Chesnokov, 1996 USO Corretja) are also extra special... sure, the likes of Big 3 simply didn't get in such situations as they were fitter, but it's not Pete's fault he had a genetic condition that impacted endurance.
Dinner ... great post, fully agreed! :)
 

SaintPetros

Professional
I concur.

Peak Sampras didn’t let you breathe let alone play tennis...he broke rhythm. That’s why he struggle on clay - he found it harder to break rhythm - plus the fact he didn’t give a too-hoots about clay
Clay is for potters. Pete's a SPARTAN
 

SaintPetros

Professional
On fast (real) grass I agree. I think we underestimate how a lack of depth has contributed to 3 ATG's having their slam counts inflated, or do people think it a mere coincidence that the 3 highest slam counts have occurred in the same decade?
Believe it or not, they do.
 

SaintPetros

Professional
I think you're unbelievably naive to say Djokovic would never win Wimbledon in the 90s honestly. Lol. Agassi can do it but he can't? A better returner on grass, a better server, a better mover and defensive player and a better athlete? Not in this reality. Strongly agree to disagree but all speculation at the end of the day. Reality is he has 5 of them, tied for 3rd in the Open Era.
Agassi was a more aggressive, cleaner ballstriker who went for broke on returns he reached, and crucially won his Wimbledon *not* against Pete Sampras.
Love Nole, but if he has to go through PETE in the 90s then the closest he gets to the trophy is watching Petros hoist it in the presentation ceremony. He *might* get one before or after Pete's rise, since his longevity is likely still going to be greater.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Agassi was a more aggressive, cleaner ballstriker who went for broke on returns he reached, and crucially won his Wimbledon *not* against Pete Sampras.
Love Nole, but if he has to go through PETE in the 90s then the closest he gets to the trophy is watching Petros hoist it in the presentation ceremony. He *might* get one before or after Pete's rise, since his longevity is likely still going to be greater.
But Djokovic is better all around baseliner, who can get to more balls and force his opponents out of position. He also has a better serve which is a big plus on grass. He doesn't even need to go through Pete though like Agassi didn't. Agassi got close to beating him in 1993 too before Pete started dominating.
 

DeathStar

Rookie
Sampras in 97 and 99 was unbeatable at wimbledon and indoors. He suffocated Kafelnikov, Pioline in 97 & Agassi in 99 at both places, among others.
 

SaintPetros

Professional
But Djokovic is better all around baseliner, who can get to more balls and force his opponents out of position. He also has a better serve which is a big plus on grass. He doesn't even need to go through Pete though like Agassi didn't. Agassi got close to beating him in 1993 too before Pete started dominating.
He doesn't get the chance against Pistol Petros.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
He doesn't get the chance against Pistol Petros.
Pete would win most of the matches no doubt, however, Federer and Djokovic would give Sampras hell my friend. Not to say that they would dominate him because they wouldn't but you underestimate them. Pete doesn't go 7-0 in finals if he had to play against their peak versions in his era.
 

SaintPetros

Professional
Pete would win most of the matches no doubt, however, Federer and Djokovic would give Sampras hell my friend. Not to say that they would dominate him because they wouldn't but you underestimate them. Pete doesn't go 7-0 in finals if he had to play against their peak versions in his era.
Pete would expose Nole's forehand return out wide on the deuce court, and his wide serve in the ad court is way, way better than Fed's. I don't see Nole ever beating him at Wimbledon in the 90s. Fed would be really tough. If he was truly zoned out, then I could see him returning on the level of Kracijek in the 96 quarters, and that would be a tough day at the office for Pete. Unlike Kracijek though, Roger wouldn't have the ability to overpower him on the serve game, so even in the worst of scenarios Pete would have a foothold in the match. I think Fed and Pete's matches would come down to 4 or 5 really tough sets with Pete usually winning, but you're right, he wouldn't go 7-0 if he had to play peak Roger all the time in Wimbledon finals.
 

SaintPetros

Professional
Pete would win most of the matches no doubt, however, Federer and Djokovic would give Sampras hell my friend. Not to say that they would dominate him because they wouldn't but you underestimate them. Pete doesn't go 7-0 in finals if he had to play against their peak versions in his era.
But don't fear, Nole would win all their matches at the Aussie, even in 90s conditions. He'd also win 8/10 at the French. I see Pete winning majority of the US Open matches though.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
Sampras in 97 and 99 was unbeatable at wimbledon and indoors. He suffocated Kafelnikov, Pioline in 97 & Agassi in 99 at both places, among others.
Kafelnikov is not exactly known for being great at Wimbledon. Pioline is viewed as one of the worst Wimbledon finalists (unfairly I have to admit, loved his game). I don’t see that beating Kafelnikov and Pioline on grass indicates that you are unbeatable. 99 Pete is a little overrated for his final performance which in turn is also overrated. Pete played great but Agassi also played badly and was Pete’s pigeon anyways. His quarter and semifinal against Philippoussies and Henman were not really dominant.
 

SaintPetros

Professional
Which is unbelievably funny. It is plain obvious that homogenization, 32 seeds, lack of depth, longevity due to medical enhancements and the overall notion that slams are the be all and all are the true reason that the big 3 are so far away from former players in terms of achievements.
we live in an age of gloss. Easier to believe that tennis is the BEST IT'S EVER BEEN than to acknowledge how lolworthy the state of the Men's tour is.
 

Born_to_slice

Professional
Djokovic is hyper-charged Agassi and then some, to put it in simplistic terms. Sampras had trouble with semi-dedicated Andre who was screwing with his life doing meth and suffering depression. But do enjoy imaginary domination over Djokovic, sky is the limit.
 

SaintPetros

Professional
Djokovic is hyper-charged Agassi and then some, to put it in simplistic terms. Sampras had trouble with semi-dedicated Andre who was screwing with his life doing meth and suffering depression. But do enjoy imaginary domination over Djokovic, sky is the limit.
The only true thing in your post.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
I think you're unbelievably naive to say Djokovic would never win Wimbledon in the 90s honestly. Lol. Agassi can do it but he can't? A better returner on grass, a better server, a better mover and defensive player and a better athlete? Not in this reality. Strongly agree to disagree but all speculation at the end of the day. Reality is he has 5 of them, tied for 3rd in the Open Era.
Agassi had better passing shots which would be massive on 90s grass. Net game they are equally bad, maybe Agassi a little better due to the overhead. I would not necessarily agree about return. Agassi had a great return and his short swing and taking the ball early translates better to fast grass IMO (Agree that in general Novak’s return is better, just not on fast grass). Leaves us with Djokovic as a better server and baseliner/defense player. The latter would not be so relevant on fast grass with almost all good players serving and volleying. Serve is important of course but it is not that Novak has an ATG Serve.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Pete would expose Nole's forehand return out wide on the deuce court, and his wide serve in the ad court is way, way better than Fed's. I don't see Nole ever beating him at Wimbledon in the 90s. Fed would be really tough. If he was truly zoned out, then I could see him returning on the level of Kracijek in the 96 quarters, and that would be a tough day at the office for Pete. Unlike Kracijek though, Roger wouldn't have the ability to overpower him on the serve game, so even in the worst of scenarios Pete would have a foothold in the match. I think Fed and Pete's matches would come down to 4 or 5 really tough sets with Pete usually winning, but you're right, he wouldn't go 7-0 if he had to play peak Roger all the time in Wimbledon finals.
It's tough to say on grass or bet against Pete in his condtions. We've never seen them play each other at any point so it's hard to say how they would matchup. Of course Pete is the strong favorite on grass though but I agree Djokovic gets him at the USO once or twice.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Agassi had better passing shots which would be massive on 90s grass. Net game they are equally bad, maybe Agassi a little better due to the overhead. I would not necessarily agree about return. Agassi had a great return and his short swing and taking the ball early translates better to fast grass IMO (Agree that in general Novak’s return is better, just not on fast grass). Leaves us with Djokovic as a better server and baseliner/defense player. The latter would not be so relevant on fast grass with almost all good players serving and volleying. Serve is important of course but it is not that Novak has an ATG Serve.
Djokovic is no slouch in passing shots. He basically saved two virtual match points against Nadal and Federer at Wimbledon with forehand passing shots. Net game Djokovic is a little better especially now as he's improved that over the years but Agassi wasn't terrible up there. Djokovic was really solid up there this past Wimbledon. Agassi does have the better overhead but how much difference would that make since Djokovic still wins the majority of points with it. Agassi just could not return big first serves that well. He was good with taking second serves on the rise and punishing them. Sure, if the big serve is right into his strike zone he could bury it but he was not good with defensive returning like a Djokovic and Murray are. That's where the difference is and that's why Djokovic is better, especially with his long agile 6'3 frame. Also, Djokovic's serve is better than Agassi's in a way that he bails himself out of trouble a lot more than he could. That's significant.
 

Born_to_slice

Professional
Take your own advice. Low bouncing 90's conditions were a dream for Hewitt. They would be a nightmare for Novak.
Only nightmare condition for Nole is heavy wind. There is no man bar Paradorn Srichaphan who gen get lower than Nole. Anyway, baby Hewitt won zero matches against Sampras in the '90 but then started owning him in '00. It has nothing to do with surface, but with growing up out of diapers for Hewitt.

You can daydream forever about Sampras owning Nole, but only real thing is to look up matches that have occurred in reality with somewhat similar players, since Novak and Pete never played a match on pro tour.
 

SaintPetros

Professional
Only nightmare condition for Nole is heavy wind. There is no man bar Paradorn Srichaphan who gen get lower than Nole. Anyway, baby Hewitt won zero matches against Sampras in the '90 but then started owning him in '00. It has nothing to do with surface, but with growing up out of diapers for Hewitt.

You can daydream forever about Sampras owning Nole, but only real thing is to look up matches that have occurred in reality with somewhat similar players, since Novak and Pete never played a match on pro tour.
*sigh*
Sampras is hyper-charged Kyrgios and then some, to put it in simplistic terms. Nole had trouble with semi-dedicated Kyrgios who was screwing with his life posting tweets and suffering depression. But do enjoy imaginary domination over Sampras, sky is the limit.
 

Born_to_slice

Professional
*sigh*
Sampras is hyper-charged Kyrgios and then some, to put it in simplistic terms. Nole had trouble with semi-dedicated Kyrgios who was screwing with his life posting tweets and suffering depression. But do enjoy imaginary domination over Sampras, sky is the limit.
Don't be a mirror parrot. Pete-Andre rivalry 20-14 is a proper sample. Incomparable to Nole-Nick 2 matches from 2017, Novak's worst year. You know perfectly well who Novak is on average day of his career and his incredible high standards. He was nowhere near it 2017. I'm not even saying Novak would have domination over Sampras, but instead telling you to not daydream about Pete's domination over Novak. Anyway, my last post on this topic.
 

SaintPetros

Professional
Don't be a mirror parrot. Pete-Andre rivalry 20-14 is a proper sample. Incomparable to Nole-Nick 2 matches from 2017, Novak's worst year. You know perfectly well who Novak is on average day of his career and his incredible high standards. He was nowhere near it 2017. I'm not even saying Novak would have domination over Sampras, but instead telling you to not daydream about Pete's domination over Novak. Anyway, my last post on this topic.
Don't be dense. You were comparing Hewitt to Novak as players and concluding that because Hewitt troubled Pete therefore Nole would. Kyrgios has a similar style to Pete and is 2-0 against Novak, therefore Pete would trouble Novak. If you don't like this method of analysis then don't initiate it.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
You are ridiculously butthurt in about every comment.
Not butthurt at all. Just an objective comment about the effect the conditions has on various players based on their playing style and strengths/weakneses.

Federer was one point away from winning the title on that slow court though wasn't he so the speed of it has no bearing on why that match didn't go his way.
Wrong. The fact he was one point away despite shows what a great problem-solver he really is - despite the nonsense peddled by people like you.

Also, your bias is shining through in saying Djokovic is only winning on grass because it is slower than Becker and Edberg.
This is empirically true. In early 2000s conditions, let alone 1980s/90s Djokovic would have struggled much more at Wimbledon and others done better. Notably: Federer'
Anyone could make the same argument in regards to Federer since all his titles came on the slower 100% rye surface.
Slower than the earlier versions, but not slow. And certainly nothing like this year.

But you're right, "anyone could make the same argument". Most people don't know squat about tennis so of course they could make the same argument. You're one of those people.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Not butthurt at all. Just an objective comment about the effect the conditions has on various players based on their playing style and strengths/weakneses.


Wrong. The fact he was one point away despite shows what a great problem-solver he really is - despite the nonsense peddled by people like you.


This is empirically true. In early 2000s conditions, let alone 1980s/90s Djokovic would have struggled much more at Wimbledon and others done better. Notably: Federer'

Slower than the earlier versions, but not slow. And certainly nothing like this year.

But you're right, "anyone could make the same argument". Most people don't know squat about tennis so of course they could make the same argument. You're one of those people.
Oh no, make no mistake. You are definitely butthurt shown by every comment you have made since the Wimbledon final. You actually believe that Federer has been harmed by homogenization when he is one of the main beneficiaries. All 8 of his titles were on 100% rye grass, and yes this year was slow but you act like every year Djokovic won it was the same conditions that it was this year when it clearly wasn't. A plea for such a major a change when Federer was one point away from the title falls on many deaf ears. You can create hypotheticals where Djokovic would never be a great grass champion but it won't be in this reality when he has 5, and as many Federer, Nadal and Murray combined this decade. Cheers.
 

SaintPetros

Professional
Oh no, make no mistake. You are definitely butthurt shown by every comment you have made since the Wimbledon final. You actually believe that Federer has been harmed by homogenization when he is one of the main beneficiaries. All 8 of his titles were on 100% rye grass, and yes this year was slow but you act like every year Djokovic won it was the same conditions that it was this year when it clearly wasn't. A plea for such a major a change when Federer was one point away from the title falls on many deaf ears. You can create hypotheticals where Djokovic would never be a great grass champion but it won't be in this reality when he has 5, and as many Federer, Nadal and Murray combined this decade. Cheers.
He was *the* main beneficiary of it. Remember, he had 10 slams before Nadal materialized into any sort of threat on grass, and 16 before Nole began to arrive, all won against the likes of Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick (the upper end of his competition) and baby Nadal and Nole.
At least Rafa and Nole had to beat him and each other to win their slams in the homogenized era. Fred just beat up on children and midgets
 
Last edited:

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
He was *the* main beneficiary of it. Remember, he had 10 slams before Nadal materialized into any sort of threat on grass, and 16 before Nole began to arrive, all won against the likes of Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick (the upper end of his competition) and baby Nadal and Nole.
At least Rafa and Nole had to beat him and each other to win their slams in the homogenized era. Fred just beat up on children and midgets
Well I'm not going to be too harsh on him but I'm just saying it's hard to be asking for less homogenization when he is sitting on 20 Slams and it helped him just as much as the others.
 

SaintPetros

Professional
Well I'm not going to be too harsh on him but I'm just saying it's hard to be asking for less homogenization when he is sitting on 20 Slams and it helped him just as much as the others.
Yeah, I'm occasionally harsh on him, mostly just to wash out the hype. I'd say we need to fully understand the effects of homogenization before we can accurately rank him, Nadal, and Djokovic. I think Fed's legacy is the most affected because while all three have been inflated due to homogenization, the other two have something truly extraordinary going for them - Nadal obvious clayGOAT, Novak mental monster and beater of Nadal and Fed - but Fed's reputation is built entirely on ridiculous achievements most of which he accomplished in the absence of the other two. We need some perspective on the effects of homogenization in order to rank these achievements in a more fair way alongside the other GOATs of the game.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
He was *the* main beneficiary of it. Remember, he had 10 slams before Nadal materialized into any sort of threat on grass, and 16 before Nole began to arrive, all won against the likes of Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick (the upper end of his competition) and baby Nadal and Nole.
At least Rafa and Nole had to beat him and each other to win their slams in the homogenized era. Fred just beat up on children and midgets
You’re a clown. Nole beats up on old men in that case with 0 young resistance.
 

SaintPetros

Professional
You’re a clown. Nole beats up on old men in that case with 0 young resistance.
Normally I would respond to such pettiness with the deserved chastisement, but since I know you're in pain right now, I'll content myself with a "lol".

Honestly, being a Nole fan has increased my mindfulness and ability to turn the other cheek. Amazing, really.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Yeah, I'm occasionally harsh on him, mostly just to wash out the hype. I'd say we need to fully understand the effects of homogenization before we can accurately rank him, Nadal, and Djokovic. I think Fed's legacy is the most affected because while all three have been inflated due to homogenization, the other two have something truly extraordinary going for them - Nadal obvious clayGOAT, Novak mental monster and beater of Nadal and Fed - but Fed's reputation is built entirely on ridiculous achievements most of which he accomplished in the absence of the other two. We need some perspective on the effects of homogenization in order to rank these achievements in a more fair way alongside the other GOATs of the game.
Nole’s reputation is built on winning 10/16 majors vs over 30s old man Fed and post prime Nadal.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Normally I would respond to such pettiness with force and aggression, but since I know you're in pain right now, I'll content myself with a "lol".

Honestly, being a Nole fan has increased my mindfulness and ability to turn the other cheek. Amazing, really.
Pettiness in exposing your double standards?

Nole won like 6-7 strong era slams at most. His biggest success came vs 30s fed and post prime Nadal.
 
Top