1989
Becker - 64/8 w/l & 5 titles
Lendl - 79/7 w/l & 10 titles
I watched all those matches and it was a painful experience for an Agassi fan, because even though there were some tie breaks, he never ever won a set and never looked as if he had realistic chances. The Wimbledon and YEC final as well as the Cincinnati semi were pure masterclass performances from Pete. You are right that conditions might have been favorable to Pete (relatively speaking as Andre himself was good on any surface), but this would also hold true had they met at the USO. After the two matches at LA and Cincinnati and considering (half in hindsight) Pete’s 4-0 record over Andre at the USO, I cannot see how Andre would have won this. Ofc we will never truly know and Pete even in his best years was no stranger to upsets outside Wimbledon so might also be possible that Andre could avoid him, but under normal circumstances he should at least been favored. While it is a minority opinion around these boards, I also value H2H way higher than most others here. In an individual sport that is played uno vs. uno i simply find it illogical to disregard H2H completely. 4-1 with 10-2 in sets is a beatdown and we are not talking some weird match up issue where a way inferior player who does not win much else scores some meaningless wins in smaller tournaments, but the two best players in the world that year, including a Wimbledon and a YEC final. Andre himself already said in his speech after the Wimbly final that he does not feel like the No.1 (he became it by reaching the final), and I am sure after the YEC beat down he felt the same.
Fair enough and yes let’s agree to disagree. As for the bold: This is mainly driven by Pete’s injury. Had he played the USO and lost earlier to an opponent other than Agassi, I would have no issues seeing Agassi as the deserved No.1. However, Pete being injured right in the middle of his run during the HC swing and his dominant YEC, wasn’t of course Andre’s fault, but leaves a bit of a doubt. Fully agree on 2017 btw, Federer was the No.1 here for me.
Would '96 Krajicek been able to handle that version of Pete?
It's a good question. I would tip Pete because of his level, confidence, and overall experience but it would be very close. Kracijek was one of the very few who could get in Pete's head and do to Pete what Pete did to everyone
Yes, this has been consensus. Pete came back with a vengeance during indoor season at least.
I think Sampras wins but it would be closer than the final. Sampras' level though was close to unplayable. Agassi did good to make it respectable score wise.
It really just depends on how tight Pete can get the first set. If he gets it to something like 5-4, 5-5 then I think he eeks it and the match could split open into a routine 4 setter. If it's a 3-6 loss in the first and Pete gets the second 6-3 without making Richard go through some tight moments then it could be a long one.
Yea it will be a tough 4 setter I think in Sampras' favor but I think he wins it. Something like 7-6 6-7 7-5 6-4.
Same!I always played my best tennis indoors! The outdoor elements played havoc with tennis rackets and the strings from way back when! Lendl loved the indoor season as well!
I don’t think it was emotions - just a poor ranking systemRankings were a joke before the ATP took over in 1990 w/ the computer! Back in the day points was just a factor; more on emotions gave #1 to a player at times!
