Could Andre Agassi have won 13-14 slams and been in the GOAT discussion along with Big 3 today if he had focused on the AO from 87-88 onwards ???

Could Andre Agassi have won 13-14 slams and been in the GOAT discussion if he had focused on AO ?

  • Yes, he possibly could have been in the GOAT discussion

    Votes: 29 54.7%
  • No, he wasn't gonna be that great anyway

    Votes: 24 45.3%

  • Total voters
    53

NonP

Hall of Fame
Agassi ain't winning 3-4 FOs in any era. Well, except maybe in this godawful one if you substitute him for Novak, but that's it.

While it's easy to say his GOAT groundies coupled with a razor-sharp focus would carry the day his flattish strokes and (at least later in his career) mediocre mobility just weren't cut out for CC dominance. And the '90s were arguably the most stacked decade of the OE in terms of elite dirtballers, which also would hurt his chances.

Besides Dre's seasonal GW%s (excluding DC, Olympics and WTC) are in line with those of almost every 1-timer since the late '80s, just barely rising above the all-important 60% but never by a big margin - 60.5% in '95 and 60.2% in '02 - save a misleading 61.1% in '03 when he won Houston vs. top-100 opponents except 6th-ranked Roddick (who of course was no world-beater on dirt).

And when I say almost every 1-timer I mean it literally. Here's the full roster (sans Gomez whose CC resume I've yet to explore in more depth):

Chang
Kafelnikov
Moya
Agassi
Costa
Ferrero
Gaudio
Federer
Wawrinka

(Muster is the big outlier here with 62.0% in '95 and 61.4% in '96.)

In fact Dre, JFC (60.7% in '01) and Fed (60.9% in '05) are the only ones who ever cleared the 60% mark without rounding up (Mike just barely misses out with 59.95% in '95). By contrast the multi-champs all had at least one or two seasons with 61% minimum on clay, sometimes flirting with a dominant 65% or higher a la '92 Courier (his seasonal average actually rises to a rarefied 66.1% if you omit the meaningless loss at Kitzbuhel) and of course Borg and Nadal.

And I should remind y'all that even '96 Kafelnikov, '98 Moya and '15 Wawrinka, the statistically weakest among their peers, raised their game big time for the season finale - 64.3%, 61.0% and 61.1% respectively for the fortnight vs. 57.9%, 56.9% and 55.8% for the season - while '99 Dre managed a mere 57.4% which almost mirrored his seasonal 57.5%. So one could say, if anything, Dre got lucky with his sole W at RG, which presumably offsets whatever bummers he faced along the way.

Now don't get me wrong, I do see Agassi nabbing 1 FO one way or another. But 2 is very unlikely, 3 or more virtually unthinkable. I'll leave the hard/grass-court portions for another day, but at least on clay he stands exactly where he belongs: alongside his fellow one-time FO champs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NAS

BGod

Legend
Given the volume of the Big3 (inflated of course but still) he'd have needed at least a double career Slam to be discussed.

He wasn't beating Pete at Wimbledon but had his chance in 01 losing to Rafter 6-8 in the Semis. I absolutely think he'd beat Goran in that final.
For the French he obviously should have won more prior to 99 but if we look at his chances after, he had a bit of a brain fart against Grosjean in 01 but probably loses to Kuerten and after that Ferrero was just better.

If you're simply looking at the AO, he played and could have won 04 (yes that Federer, excellent time to Obi Wan) but guessing 91-94? Cause he wasn't winning prior to that. Well let's see:

1994: Sampras beat Courier then Martin, no.
1993: Courier beat Stich, then Edberg, likely no but Agassi is Wimbledon champ so confidence?
1992: Courier got a walkover in the Semis and beat Edberg, Agassi certainly has a chance especially if he gets Courier in SF then Edberg.
1991: Both Becker and Lendl had a mental edge on Agassi so a likely no.

In 1998, Agassi flubbed completely in the R16 but would have faced Rios the following round. If he got by him I think his chances would have been pretty great. In 99 it's really hard to say because Agassi did have a great year but you can't figure out if he was injured against Spadea because if he wasn't then he was on airplane mode because he absolutely could have won the whole thing on talent.
 

Enceladus

Legend
Agassi has not dominated tennis, never as Big 3, Sampras or Borg. And I don't think he would have achieved a similar number of titles at AO as Djoker. Nole is a stronger and more consistent tennis player than Agassi has ever been. Perhaps Agassi would have won one more AO title if he had participated in an AO before 1995, but no more.
 

Enceladus

Legend
And as others have said, Lendl and Courier owned Agassi in then time, therefore, Agassi would not take away any AO title from them and Sampras was in the red hot zone in 1994.

From my point of view, neither 1991 doesn't seem like a great chance for Agassi either. When Agassi failed to beat first-time finalists Gomez and Sampras at RG & USO 1990, how can we expect him to beat experienced Grand Slam champion Becker at AO 1991?
 
Last edited:

NAS

Hall of Fame
Agassi is not winning 90 AO beating Lendl , 91 beating Lendl and Edberg both. 92 and 93 is out of question with Courier being monster that time. Sampras was at his best strech in 94 .
At max one AO , not more than that.
Another thing Agassi also got lucky with ATP only giving him warning after failing drug test, he could have easily gotten one to two year ban.
 

NAS

Hall of Fame
In which year?
In 97, so even with one year ban , means no more improvement in ranking in 98, his whole resurgence become question and with two year ban , his career might be over.
In cricket champion bowler Warne got one year ban and people said he got away easily
 

vandre

Hall of Fame
early on (87-88), andre lacked the physical conditioning to make a deep run at the aussie. he's not beating wilander in 88. the only guy who beat mats in a slam that year was mecir. mats beat andre in the semis at the french that year.

89-90/ andre would have to "tree" to beat lendl
91- might be andre's best chance to pick up an aussie title; becker was a better matchup for andre and he seemed to have becker's number @ this time
92 & 93- nope
94- nope
 

big ted

Hall of Fame
agassi never got his act together until mid 94 when he hired BG..
he was in the zone and a little lucky when he won W in 92..
it could have happened at the AO but not likely imo...
the conditions were so hot at the AO the fittest players usually won,
which andre was NOT at the time... if u watched tennis back then
his whole thing was "getting stronger" not fitter
 
hahaha snatch Fed's Wimbledons and USO ?
R u joking?
Federer was already at a different level in 2004, there is no chance Pete would have even taken a set off Roger, forget beating him
Why do you Pete fans get into unrealistic facts ? We know for a fact that he had become slow, aspects of his game i.e the way he played was outdated while Andre's was same as what Djokovic plays today, so he could get play on while Pete could not
So how do you expect Pete to beat Roger if Andre could not ??? Did you see how Roger was playing at the USO 2004 ? Man he double bageled Hewitt .... the same Hewitt who had beaten Sampras like 3 years back .... even Roddick had become strong enough to beat Pete in 2003, the serve was just too powerful of Roddick and even he was no match for Roger

How do you expect Pete to take slams off Roger in 04 ? It would be a bloodbath ..... Roger would crush Pete in straight sets .... Infact Pete would never face Roger to begin with ... he would lose before Semis ...
What, did Pete Sampras pee your lunch box you pot-stirring troll? ......"bloodbath" .... "would crush" ..... "would lose before semis"

Man you are one angry fanboy...LMAO!
 
Last edited:

Rosstour

Legend
Sampras still had the GOAT serve and deadly FH and net attack game and the ability to keep points short and keep his opponent out of rhythm. . That alone keeps him in contention for Wimbledon/USO even if he isn't in his prime anymore. Its more of an "interest" thing with Sampras. He lost interest in week to week tennis. Hes even gone on record in past interview saying this.

Physically he was still capable. Mentally not really
I think he lost interest because it stopped coming so easy. He'd lost two Finals at US before winning the last.
 

Sunny014

Legend
What, did Pete Sampras pee your lunch box you pot-stirring troll? ......"bloodbath" .... "would crush" ..... "would lose before semis"

Man you are one angry fanboy...LMAO!
Naa, Pete just got straight setted by Federer's sidekicks Hewitts, Safins etc etc

Sad, isn't it ?

Reduced to the status of a common toady by guys who won like 2 slams, thats your Pete, plus he lost in 2nd round on Grass in 02 and "felt horribly out of sorts on court 1" in his own words.
 
Naa, Pete just got straight setted by Federer's sidekicks Hewitts, Safins etc etc

Sad, isn't it ?

Reduced to the status of a common toady by guys who won like 2 slams, thats your Pete, plus he lost in 2nd round on Grass in 02 and "felt horribly out of sorts on court 1" in his own words.
My Pete? Nice try fanboi

Here you are talking about a guy who won 14 Grand Slam titles as if he were some run of the mill bum. Get a clue skid mark.
 
Last edited:
Given the volume of the Big3 (inflated of course but still) he'd have needed at least a double career Slam to be discussed.

He wasn't beating Pete at Wimbledon but had his chance in 01 losing to Rafter 6-8 in the Semis. I absolutely think he'd beat Goran in that final.
For the French he obviously should have won more prior to 99 but if we look at his chances after, he had a bit of a brain fart against Grosjean in 01 but probably loses to Kuerten and after that Ferrero was just better.

If you're simply looking at the AO, he played and could have won 04 (yes that Federer, excellent time to Obi Wan) but guessing 91-94? Cause he wasn't winning prior to that. Well let's see:

1994: Sampras beat Courier then Martin, no.
1993: Courier beat Stich, then Edberg, likely no but Agassi is Wimbledon champ so confidence?
1992: Courier got a walkover in the Semis and beat Edberg, Agassi certainly has a chance especially if he gets Courier in SF then Edberg.
1991: Both Becker and Lendl had a mental edge on Agassi so a likely no.

In 1998, Agassi flubbed completely in the R16 but would have faced Rios the following round. If he got by him I think his chances would have been pretty great. In 99 it's really hard to say because Agassi did have a great year but you can't figure out if he was injured against Spadea because if he wasn't then he was on airplane mode because he absolutely could have won the whole thing on talent.
I think he had a good shot to win 2 French Opens, but it wasn't likely ever happening after 99. 2000 he wasn't in form. 2001 he wasn't beating Kuerten or a hot Grosjean, Corretja, and Kuerten all in a row as you said. And he wasn't going past Ferrero in the draw in 2002 or 2003. Instead he had a good shot to win another French Open basically almost anytime the 90-95 period, apart from 92 and 93. He could have even potentially wound up with 3 French Opens if he were super clutch there.

Wimbledon he had decent chances lost in both 2001 and 2002. Like you said he was never beating Sampras there in any year most likely, and no way do I see him beating Federer in 2003. Sampras was vurnerable in 2000, so actually maybe Agassi had a fighting shot here had he won that Rafter semi. Rafter probably does beat Sampras in the final if he doesn't choke in the 2nd set tiebreaker.

So the Double Career Slam was possible for him. On the other hand you could argue he did well to complete the Career Slam at all. He could have easily not won the only French Open and only Wimbledon he ultimately did win, which doesn't really need explaining. I agree a Double Career Slam was doable for him but it would have required him to be way more clutch at RG early in his career and at Wimbledon late in his career.
 
hahaha snatch Fed's Wimbledons and USO ?

R u joking?

Federer was already at a different level in 2004, there is no chance Pete would have even taken a set off Roger, forget beating him

Why do you Pete fans get into unrealistic facts ? We know for a fact that he had become slow, aspects of his game i.e the way he played was outdated while Andre's was same as what Djokovic plays today, so he could get play on while Pete could not

So how do you expect Pete to beat Roger if Andre could not ??? Did you see how Roger was playing at the USO 2004 ? Man he double bageled Hewitt .... the same Hewitt who had beaten Sampras like 3 years back .... even Roddick had become strong enough to beat Pete in 2003, the serve was just too powerful of Roddick and even he was no match for Roger

How do you expect Pete to take slams off Roger in 04 ? It would be a bloodbath ..... Roger would crush Pete in straight sets .... Infact Pete would never face Roger to begin with ... he would lose before Semis ...
Yes 100% all this. And as I said on another thread, people forget Sampras's 2002 U.S Open was his only tournament win, not slam win, tournament win, in 25 months. He was a shadow of the player he was, and the form he found at the U.S Open was a total aberration. And even his form here mostly was nowhere near his prime level, he had 2 nearly great matches vs Roddick in the quarters and Agassi in the final. Even here Agassi was badly gassed out after a physically taxing baseline war semi vs Hewitt in the 2nd semi, which was too much to handle for a 32 year old. And young Roddick was slightly injured and majorly flat in the quarter final. Most of his other matches here were just ok, and he nearly went out and should have lost to Rusedski in the 3rd round which would never be happening at any slam in a million years for a prime Sampras. Rusedski is the kind of slow footed, fairly one dimensional serve bot that prime Sampras always owned, and would never come close to losing in any slam, but this Sampras needed Greg in closing out the match to get past. He was already running on fumes by them, and the U.S Open was an unlikely last hurrah. With Federer, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero all finding themselves in 2003, there was no way an already massively declined Sampras was winning anything, barring a radical remotivation and hardcore fitness recommitment, which was not going to happen when at that point he felt his slam record and important records were completely safe.
 
Andre didn’t play Australia until ‘95, and skipped out on Wimby from ‘88-‘90. Winning the most # of GS Singles titles wasn’t seen as the ultimate deal until around the late 90s and especially the early 00s

Andre wasn’t a “tennis machine” like the Big 4 of this era or like Sampras and others in the 90s. He had a tremendous aptitude for tennis, but it was something he was forced to do by his Drill Sargeant-like father, then he saw it as a way to provide for himself. As he’s said, he came to love tennis and play for his own reasons “far too late” in his career...early in his career, he was never gonna relentlessly pursue winning Slam after Slam b/c it simply wasn’t the driving force for him as much as it would be for other players (especially in today’s era). A big reason why I love Andre’s story, is that it’s so human/relatable. Could he have won more than 8 Slams?? Yup (French Opens in ‘90 and ‘91 for sure; Wimby in 2000 and 2001, etc)..but has he been consumed with the sport (as you almost need to be in order to win Slam after Slam), he would’ve burned out early
 
Top