How big a match was the 95 U.S Open final

[yatestwile]

I really think had Agassi won this his 96-98 might have been entirely different. Then again he might not have had the late career success if that were the case. I don't know. It is interesting to wonder what impact that very pivotal match might have had on the careers of both Agassi and Sampras. For Sampras it was a huge win, and basically kept his streak of being the best player for what would be a good 6-7 years alive, and also forever beat back the emerging challenge of Agassi. And for Agassi even moreso huge as anyone who followed his career at all would realize. He seemed to lose his spirit and motivation to play practically for a good 2 years minimum.

 

[70後]

For the sake of wondering what if, if Agassi had beaten Pete at this US 95 battle, I'd also agree the 96-98 part of the war will have had Agassi with the upper hand for at least a few years over Pete. Pete may have also lost more times at Wimbledon in this period. But it would also have been a strong incentive for Pete to also change his game and thinking. Instead of the Annacone influenced Pete from 1995 to 2001, he would reconfigure himself to his Fischer roots. He would have kept changing and kept re-tinkering his racquets and racquet setups as Agassi was also constantly doing to find an edge and a place to move forward, rather than be stuck in his ways. Had he lost US 1995 and been forced to change, Pete would have perhaps taken more defeats in the middle to later 90's, won fewer slams in that period, some of which would have been won by Agassi, but also win big from 1999 onwards right up to 2005. For example, I would think that Fischer Pete with a modern racquet would be as terrible a matchup for Hewitt as Federer was. In other words, Pete's and Agassi's late careers would be reversed and it would have been Fischer Pete at 34, with possibly 16 slams at that point, in the US 2005 final vs Federer. Who would have won that one?

 

[70後]

So my conclusion is Agassi would have won more between 96-98, but would have ended with fewer slams overall.

For Pete and the ATG level types, 29, 30, 31 seems rather young nowadays.

 

[Waspsting]

I don't think it would have made too much long term difference, especially for Agassi

I think his off-court difficulties - stuff like marital problems - had more to do with his slump in 97 and assume that would have happened regardless of the 95 US Open result

He seems to me now to have just not been a very together guy. "Its hard to think of a guy who seems to be at his most authentic married to Stefi Graf, having not been a bit lost when he was married to Brooke Shields

If we take the 1999 and onward Agassi as the "Real" Andre... before that we can see him as a supremely talented hare-brain. Just the kind of guy to be so delicate as to be so devastated by the loss in 95 as to more or less go MIA for most of 1996

I would think someone that delicate... even if he'd won the 95 US, would soon enough have been brought down. Especially with Sampras - who possessed a ferocious, unwavering drive to be top Dog (almost the polar opposite of Agassi) - on his heels

From Sampras' point of view... he was faced many challenges to his status as Top Dog, lost the #1 ranking various times to various people. I'm confident he'd just have got on with the business of regaining his status without any undue dampening of mind or spirits and that he'd have been just as he actually was

---

Still, Agassi beats Sampras in 1995 means...

- Agassi finishes #1 that year (which mean Sampras doesn't)
- Agassi wins US Open (which means Sampras doesn't)

... even if everything goes back to 'normal' by 1997 at the latest, there are some huge implications down the road.

Most of all, Sampras chasing Emerson's Slam count (he'd still be doing it after Wimbledon) and falling short of 6 Year End #1s... that I can see affecting Sampras' motivation levels down the road and thus things playing out very differently than they did

For Agassi though... I think it was off-court stuff that transformed him (probably would have anyway) and doubt he could have established any long term dominance from 95 on ward (given he was mentally a bit delicate)... so not much, if any, major difference

 

[yatestwile]

I dont think Agassi was ever going to dominate the game, especialy long term. Dont get me wrong there. However I could see him having some more success in 96-98 where he literally did nothing, 98 he definitely put in the effort but it was always going to take over a whole career to climb out of the abyss he sunk himself into by the end of 97. Especialy as those years were totally wide open, even Sampras won only 4 slams and there were a bunch of semi crappy slam winners, another 3-4 slams would be very possible, even while not being a dominant #1.

 

[suwanee4712]

At the time it seemed like a huge match. But I've always thought of Agassi as limited. Not a potential GOAT at all. I still don't think of him as one of the top 10 greatest though I'm sure many will disagree. He had that kind of ability in moments, but only fleeting success. He could not do what it takes to be on top long term. Some brilliant players are just that way, and I feel that he is one of them.

I still find it hard to believe that he won Wimbledon.

 

[ibbi]

Yeah, I don't think it would have made much difference to Andre. Brooke Shields still gonna Brooke Shields. As far as Pete is concerned he didn't have great results at the Masters or Australian Open that followed this victory, so I don't know that him losing this match would have transformed things all that much. As an Andre fan, seeing him beat Sampras in 2 slams final that year would have just been too good to be true.

 

[yatestwile]

At the time it seemed like a huge match. But I've always thought of Agassi as limited. Not a potential GOAT at all. I still don't think of him as one of the top 10 greatest though I'm sure many will disagree. He had that kind of ability in moments, but only fleeting success. He could not do what it takes to be on top long term. Some brilliant players are just that way, and I feel that he is one of them.

I still find it hard to believe that he won Wimbledon.

No I definitely agree there. I dont see him as a potential GOAT or a truly long term dominant player. Even had he done better in 96-98 and ended up around 12 slams max (and even then not likely as some of his later career success is reduced now probably) it would be a case of bleeding a bit at a time rather than ever dominating. He didnt have a huge serve and isnt the best athlete, so he was unlikely to ever be a truly dominant player, just someone who had the ability to be a factor on every surface and for a long time due to his incredible ball striking ability off the ground and hand-eye-coordination.

I am mostly thinking about the mens game more than Agassi himself in the big picture. Mens tennis suffered in a huge way from Agassi decline from 96-98 and become utterly abysmal. Sampras dominating is frankly not a great thing for the game, especialy at the same time Graf was also dominating. As frankly both are kind of boring personalities, with extremely effective but not particularly viewer friendly games, and without a real rivalry in either case apart from Seles and Agassi briefly, tedious and a borderline unbearable situation for the general public, despite their greatness. I am sure in 96 when you had a Kafelnikov-Stich RG final, a Krajicek-Washington Wimbledon final (for the general public and even a lot of the media a huge ewww yuck, the outstanding and very Wimbledon worthy tennis Krajicek played here aside), a one sided Sampras-Chang U.S Open final, a terrible Olympics despite Agassi winning in the end, a lot of people already were tuning out the mens game. And if they didnt already 97 and 98 probably got even worse, with only the emergence of Rafter of probably some interest to the casual tennis viewing public.

During this same time a very weak womens with a badly injured Graf easily winning almost every match and tournament in 96 before her body breaking down pretty much for good, Seles at first promising but eventually mediocre return to the game, Conchita Martinez regularly in the top 3 and folding at the semi final stage of every slam, Pierce being a huge dissapointment after her 94-early 95 rise, Davenport still as hefty as a U-haul for quite awhile, Capriatis at first horrendous return, and 15-16 year old Hingis easily coming in and romping over and dominating over this weak mess in 97. Late 98 what was perhaps one of the golden eras of womens tennis started to open, but prior to that, along with the mens game which badly needed an in form Agassi, what a disaester for tennis fans.

 

[WestboroChe]

No I definitely agree there. I dont see him as a potential GOAT or a truly long term dominant player. Even had he done better in 96-98 and ended up around 12 slams max (and even then not likely as some of his later career success is reduced now probably) it would be a case of bleeding a bit at a time rather than ever dominating. He didnt have a huge serve and isnt the best athlete, so he was unlikely to ever be a truly dominant player, just someone who had the ability to be a factor on every surface and for a long time due to his incredible ball striking ability off the ground and hand-eye-coordination.

I am mostly thinking about the mens game more than Agassi himself in the big picture. Mens tennis suffered in a huge way from Agassi decline from 96-98 and become utterly abysmal. Sampras dominating is frankly not a great thing for the game, especialy at the same time Graf was also dominating. As frankly both are kind of boring personalities, with extremely effective but not particularly viewer friendly games, and without a real rivalry in either case apart from Seles and Agassi briefly, tedious and a borderline unbearable situation for the general public, despite their greatness. I am sure in 96 when you had a Kafelnikov-Stich RG final, a Krajicek-Washington Wimbledon final (for the general public and even a lot of the media a huge ewww yuck, the outstanding and very Wimbledon worthy tennis Krajicek played here aside), a one sided Sampras-Chang U.S Open final, a terrible Olympics despite Agassi winning in the end, a lot of people already were tuning out the mens game. And if they didnt already 97 and 98 probably got even worse, with only the emergence of Rafter of probably some interest to the casual tennis viewing public.

During this same time a very weak womens with a badly injured Graf easily winning almost every match and tournament in 96 before her body breaking down pretty much for good, Seles at first promising but eventually mediocre return to the game, Conchita Martinez regularly in the top 3 and folding at the semi final stage of every slam, Pierce being a huge dissapointment after her 94-early 95 rise, Davenport still as hefty as a U-haul for quite awhile, Capriatis at first horrendous return, and 15-16 year old Hingis easily coming in and romping over and dominating over this weak mess in 97. Late 98 what was perhaps one of the golden eras of womens tennis started to open, but prior to that, along with the mens game which badly needed an in form Agassi, what a disaester for tennis fans.

Nice post. I agree with you completely. I remember hating Graf and Sampras for all the reasons you said. Just boring personalities who weren't really challenged, Graf especially. So many of the women's players just seemed to wilt on the big points.

I don't think this match result being flipped would have changed much. Agassi was still who he was which was a guy who wasn't even sure if he wanted to play tennis. If anything he might have just packed it in sooner.

Sampras being the determined person he was probably would have just used it as motivation to destroy his opponents even more than he did. Don't forget this was the guy who threw up and had a nervous breakdown against Courier in the AO and still came back to win the match. and he was alyways a better player than Andre even if he did lose sometimes.

 

[JasonZ]

Agassi could never ever win this match. Only if sampras got injured. A well playing sampras was too much at the us open for andre, no matter what form agassi would show. So there is no could have been, like maybe sampras - ivanisevic wimbledon 1998 or federer - djokovic us open 2011, where few points decided the outcome

 

[Phoenix1983]

No I definitely agree there. I dont see him as a potential GOAT or a truly long term dominant player. Even had he done better in 96-98 and ended up around 12 slams max (and even then not likely as some of his later career success is reduced now probably) it would be a case of bleeding a bit at a time rather than ever dominating. He didnt have a huge serve and isnt the best athlete, so he was unlikely to ever be a truly dominant player, just someone who had the ability to be a factor on every surface and for a long time due to his incredible ball striking ability off the ground and hand-eye-coordination.

I am mostly thinking about the mens game more than Agassi himself in the big picture. Mens tennis suffered in a huge way from Agassi decline from 96-98 and become utterly abysmal. Sampras dominating is frankly not a great thing for the game, especialy at the same time Graf was also dominating. As frankly both are kind of boring personalities, with extremely effective but not particularly viewer friendly games, and without a real rivalry in either case apart from Seles and Agassi briefly, tedious and a borderline unbearable situation for the general public, despite their greatness. I am sure in 96 when you had a Kafelnikov-Stich RG final, a Krajicek-Washington Wimbledon final (for the general public and even a lot of the media a huge ewww yuck, the outstanding and very Wimbledon worthy tennis Krajicek played here aside), a one sided Sampras-Chang U.S Open final, a terrible Olympics despite Agassi winning in the end, a lot of people already were tuning out the mens game. And if they didnt already 97 and 98 probably got even worse, with only the emergence of Rafter of probably some interest to the casual tennis viewing public.

During this same time a very weak womens with a badly injured Graf easily winning almost every match and tournament in 96 before her body breaking down pretty much for good, Seles at first promising but eventually mediocre return to the game, Conchita Martinez regularly in the top 3 and folding at the semi final stage of every slam, Pierce being a huge dissapointment after her 94-early 95 rise, Davenport still as hefty as a U-haul for quite awhile, Capriatis at first horrendous return, and 15-16 year old Hingis easily coming in and romping over and dominating over this weak mess in 97. Late 98 what was perhaps one of the golden eras of womens tennis started to open, but prior to that, along with the mens game which badly needed an in form Agassi, what a disaester for tennis fans.

It's weird that you say all this, because this is precisely the period when I first became a tennis fan (admittedly, helped by being British and cheering on Tiger Tim Henman in his annual "not-quite-good-enough" Wimbledon campaigns...). So I disagree that the period was "a disaster for tennis fans".

 

[TheAverageFedererFan]

Had Agassi won: He would have had a Summer Slam that year and the next year could collect 2 slams again. And 1 a year in 1997 and 1998.
Sampras might have struggled more.