D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Agree with Agassi-
Andre Agassi says In His Prime on grass sampras Would Beat Federer
- Thread starter Amy Foster
- Start date
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
Agreed but there's one that matches or at least nearly matches Pete's clutch play- Novak Djokovic
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
Bionic Poster
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.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Agreed but there's one that matches or at least nearly matches Pete's clutch play- Novak Djokovic
Bad joke.
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
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!
BringBackWood
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?
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
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.
D
Deleted member 744633
Guest
SaintPetros
Hall of Fame
Clay is for potters. Pete's a SPARTAN
SaintPetros
Hall of Fame
Believe it or not, they do.
SaintPetros
Hall of Fame
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
Bionic Poster
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.
SaintPetros
Hall of Fame
He doesn't get the chance against Pistol Petros.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
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
Hall of Fame
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
Hall of Fame
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
Legend
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.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
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.
SaintPetros
Hall of Fame
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
Legend
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
Hall of Fame
The only true thing in your post.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
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.
Born_to_slice
Legend
You're dreaming. Hewitt, far lesser player than Novak, was enigma for Pete. Have some perspective.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
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.
SaintPetros
Hall of Fame
Take your own advice. Low bouncing 90's conditions were a dream for Hewitt. They would be a nightmare for Novak.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
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
Legend
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
Hall of Fame
*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
Legend
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
Hall of Fame
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.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Does this opinion bother people?
Standaa
G.O.A.T.
you’re more likeable hating on Kyrgios
Sorry_to_tell_you_mate
Professional
Does Agassi speak broken English?
Bobby Jr
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.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Better on 90s grass. On 2010s grass Federer would be better. On 2019 grass even Djokovic would be better than Sampras.
SaintPetros
Hall of Fame
Nah, you give prime Sampras poly and he's giving both of them fits in the 2010s.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
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
Hall of Fame
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:
SaintPetros
Hall of Fame
Stream of consciousness. I believe the OP was taken from a deep therapy session he had. Might run into some issues there. Oops.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
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
Hall of Fame
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.
You’re a clown. Nole beats up on old men in that case with 0 young resistance.
SaintPetros
Hall of Fame
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.
Nole’s reputation is built on winning 10/16 majors vs over 30s old man Fed and post prime Nadal.
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.
SaintPetros
Hall of Fame
Similar threads
