How does mens tennis history change if Agassi wins 95 U.S Open

[angrybirds89]

This was the match that derailed Agassi's career and also all but ended the Sampras-Agassi rivalry (the most captivating rivalry even to those who hate either Sampras or Agassi) mens tennis had had since the 80s. It also sent the mens game into a massive tailspin the following 3 years with no serious rival to challenge Sampras consistently, and a collection of relative rogue slam winners (Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Moya, baby Kuerten, Korda, etc...).

If Agassi wins this match he ends 95 with 2 slams and Year End #1. Sampras is probably even more determined to fight back, and we likely see a super strong Agassi the next 3 years. Agassi's late career might also be less fruitful now, leading to even more success for people like Hewitt and Safin, possibly invigorating them with more confidence as they prepare to face GOATederer's emergence.

 

[jrepac]

I felt this match really killed Agassi's momentum. He was on a real roll from late '94 (winning USO) through the summer of '95. Then this debacle in the USO final. Couldn't square that with what had come before, particularly since he beat Pete at the AO. Andre seemed a bit out of sorts in this final from the get-go and was quickly down two sets to none. He rebounded a bit, but was never in control. I felt it was all in his head, really. For some reason, at the USO, Pete got into his brain and undermined his confidence...of course when he was out-rallying Andre from the back court that might have had something to do with it.

 

[angrybirds89]

I felt this match really killed Agassi's momentum. He was on a real roll from late '94 (winning USO) through the summer of '95. Then this debacle in the USO final. Couldn't square that with what had come before, particularly since he beat Pete at the AO. Andre seemed a bit out of sorts in this final from the get-go and was quickly down two sets to none. He rebounded a bit, but was never in control. I felt it was all in his head, really. For some reason, at the USO, Pete got into his brain and undermined his confidence...of course when he was out-rallying Andre from the back court that might have had something to do with it.

I think Agassi overplayed that summer too and overfocused on winning every event. He never once looked as good at the U.S Open even in any of his previous matches as he had all summer. He was lucky to escape Corretja, Korda gave him a tough time even though Korda wasnt playing particularly great in that match, and he did well to survive Becker who he had not been having problems with outside of grass/carpet in recent years. Seeing their previous matches at the Open I sort of sensed that result coming, even though going into the Open I would have had Agassi having the momentum.

Pete by contrast was a bit casual in the summer and really peaked for the Open, getting better with each round, and really peaking for the final.

I do think if Agassi won the 95 U.S Open and ended 95 at #1, he would have stayed strong the whole 96-98 period even if he ended each year at #2 behind Sampras from then on and never had another 2 slam year in that period (which I am not saying would have happened, just that I think he could handle any future dissapointments, so long as he won that match).

 

[TnsGuru]

That loss at the U.S Open was demoralizing for him as I recall. 4 titles won leading up to the U.S Open with 20 straight wins and he was the most focused I had ever seen him. He beat Becker in the Semis but hurt himself in the process, torn cartilage in his ribcage which hampered him during the final against Pete.

He was so dissapointed in that loss during the summer, a match winnng streak of 26-1 looks great in the eyes of a tennis fan but to him that was a failure because that 1 loss was what counted the most and he didn't deliver. After losing this match his will was absent for a few years until he surged again in 99 by winning the FO. If he would have won in 95 he would have been riding high in confidence but that loss really took a toll on his moral. He would have won more GS's for sure if not for this loss to Pete.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

PETE single-handedly smashed Agassi's spirit when he won that epic rally to clinch the first set. Can't do much when you're getting not only outserved but outrallied under pressure as well.

 

[tennistiger]

The match that had more influence was the SF against Becker. Agassi lost his mind in Beckers last service game. He also was injured the night after that match.

 

[scootad.]

PETE single-handedly smashed Agassi's spirit when he won that epic rally to clinch the first set. Can't do much when you're getting not only outserved but outrallied under pressure as well.

This.

Another overlooked factor if my memory serves me correctly, is Agassi overplayed the pre-US Open hardcourt circuit in the leadup. He won a ton and played too many matches because of that. He did look to me like he was running on fumes in that final match.

 

[scootad.]

^ Sorry didn't see Angrybirds already mentioned that

 

[WestboroChe]

I have to say that regardless of the outcome of this match Agassi and Pete still do the same amount of winning. In Agassi's case, maybe it just happens a little faster because he doesn't have to play challengers . But the simple fact is that as good as Agassi ever was, Pete was always better. Better serve, better power, better focus, better all around. So he was always going to be someone that Andre had to deal with, but I think at this point in their careers Pete was so dominant that even if this one match had gone the other way, Pete would have just continued to rack up wins while Andre was always going to find something to distract him from tennis.

 

[jasonbrown]

I have to say that regardless of the outcome of this match Agassi and Pete still do the same amount of winning. In Agassi's case, maybe it just happens a little faster because he doesn't have to play challengers . But the simple fact is that as good as Agassi ever was, Pete was always better. Better serve, better power, better focus, better all around. So he was always going to be someone that Andre had to deal with, but I think at this point in their careers Pete was so dominant that even if this one match had gone the other way, Pete would have just continued to rack up wins while Andre was always going to find something to distract him from tennis.

The advantage Agassi has over Sampras though is he can win everywhere, while Sampras is limited to really just Wimbledon and the U.S Open, with a shot at the Australian if the draw falls apart and Agassi is AWOL. I agree Sampras on his best surfaces is better and more dominant, but Agassi could still have come closer to Sampras just through his versatility alone. It is certainly believe he could have won a 2nd Wimbledon and 3rd U.S Open at the very least, maybe even a 4th at the U.S Open where he had a lot of bad luck, a 2nd French atleast at some point, just look at all the missed chances he had there especialy early in his career, and even more than 4 at the Australian had he played it younger.

 

[WestboroChe]

The advantage Agassi has over Sampras though is he can win everywhere, while Sampras is limited to really just Wimbledon and the U.S Open, with a shot at the Australian if the draw falls apart and Agassi is AWOL. I agree Sampras on his best surfaces is better and more dominant, but Agassi could still have come closer to Sampras just through his versatility alone. It is certainly believe he could have won a 2nd Wimbledon and 3rd U.S Open at the very least, maybe even a 4th at the U.S Open where he had a lot of bad luck, a 2nd French atleast at some point, just look at all the missed chances he had there especialy early in his career, and even more than 4 at the Australian had he played it younger.

I love this. Andre could win anywhere. And yet Sampras did far more winning. Ha ha. No offense. I love Andre too. But if we’re going by who did more winning and head to head it’s Pete my a country mile.

 

[jasonbrown]

I love this. Andre could win anywhere. And yet Sampras did far more winning. Ha ha. No offense. I love Andre too. But if we’re going by who did more winning and head to head it’s Pete my a country mile.

Well Agassi is still the only man in history to win all of Wimbledon, U.S Open, French, Australian, Oympic singles Gold, and YEC. That is what I mean that he could win anywhere. His problem was he couldnt dominate anything except the Australian Open. Plus his erratic career. Still he had a real shot of winning all the slams atleast twice, quite obviously he could have/should have won a 2nd French at some point (think of the 90 and especialy 91 French finals), and a 2nd Wimbledon at some point (think of Wimbledons 93, 95, 2000, and 2001. Sampras obviously never had a hope in hell of winning the French ever, and he did well to even win the Australian Open twice (aided by Agassi's inconsistency since it is pretty clear Sampras cant beat Agassi there).

I agree with you that Sampras is a more dominating player, but that doesnt mean Agassi could not have won more than he did, and he could have come a lot closer to Sampras in slams than you think is for the simple reason I said, he has a shot of winning everywhere even if he dominates almost nowhere. Kind of like a much better version of Sharapova in that sense.

 

[travlerajm]

This was the match that derailed Agassi's career and also all but ended the Sampras-Agassi rivalry (the most captivating rivalry even to those who hate either Sampras or Agassi) mens tennis had had since the 80s. It also sent the mens game into a massive tailspin the following 3 years with no serious rival to challenge Sampras consistently, and a collection of relative rogue slam winners (Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Moya, baby Kuerten, Korda, etc...).

If Agassi wins this match he ends 95 with 2 slams and Year End #1. Sampras is probably even more determined to fight back, and we likely see a super strong Agassi the next 3 years. Agassi's late career might also be less fruitful now, leading to even more success for people like Hewitt and Safin, possibly invigorating them with more confidence as they prepare to face GOATederer's emergence.

So you’re saying that success demotivated Sampras, and failure demotivated Agassi? I suppose that’s plausible.

 

[travlerajm]

I recall watching Agassi’s post match interview.

He was still ranked number 1. But he seemed totally deflated because he knew in his heart of hearts that Sampras was the true number 1.

 

[WestboroChe]

Well Agassi is still the only man in history to win all of Wimbledon, U.S Open, French, Australian, Oympic singles Gold, and YEC. That is what I mean that he could win anywhere. His problem was he couldnt dominate anything except the Australian Open. Plus his erratic career. Still he had a real shot of winning all the slams atleast twice, quite obviously he could have/should have won a 2nd French at some point (think of the 90 and especialy 91 French finals), and a 2nd Wimbledon at some point (think of Wimbledons 93, 95, 2000, and 2001. Sampras obviously never had a hope in hell of winning the French ever, and he did well to even win the Australian Open twice (aided by Agassi's inconsistency since it is pretty clear Sampras cant beat Agassi there).

I agree with you that Sampras is a more dominating player, but that doesnt mean Agassi could not have won more than he did, and he could have come a lot closer to Sampras in slams than you think is for the simple reason I said, he has a shot of winning everywhere even if he dominates almost nowhere. Kind of like a much better version of Sharapova in that sense.

Sure. All true. Bottom line is that Sampras was 100% focused on tennis and Andre wasn’t.