How many slams would Agassi have without Sampras

[grafselesfan]

Agassi has lost to Sampras 6 times in big slam matches:

1990 U.S Open final in 3 easy sets
1993 Wimbledon quarters in 5 sets
1995 U.S Open final in 4 sets
1999 Wimbledon final in 3 sets
2001 U.S Open quarters in 4 very tough sets
2002 U.S Open final in 4 sets

How many slams do you believe Agassi would currently have without Sampras.

I am going to guess Agassi would have won the following:

1995 U.S Open
2002 U.S Open
1999 Wimbledon

So I would say he would have 11 slams today. As for the others I believe he would have:

1990 U.S Open- lost to Lendl in the final
1993 Wimbledon- lost to Becker in semis or Courier in final
2001 U.S Open- lost to Hewitt in the final, although not really sure what would have happened. This year was wide open with a ton of contenders

 

[grafrules]

I would say only 9. The only extra one he wins is Wimbledon 99.

1990 U.S Open final Lendl beats him easily since he played like dog doo in that final and Lendl owned him then anyway. His only chance is if Becker beats Lendl in the semis and he gets to play his personal pigeon Becker in the finals, but the awful way he played that final Becker even probably beats him too despite his historic ownership of Becker. I know Sampras was playing great but even washed up McEnroe put up a much more competitive score vs Sampras than Agassi managed to in that final.

1993 Wimbledon he was completely out of shape. I have no idea how he managed to somehow take Sampras to 5 sets in the quarters in the shape he was in. Still I see him definitely losing to Becker or Courier here.

1995 U.S Open he could win but Courier owned him from 91-95 and was in great form too, plus Agassi would have been nervous as he had everything to lose here after a dominant summer. He would have been nearly as nervous playing his longtime personal nemisis as playing Pete. So I say Courier takes him here too.

1999 Wimbledon he wins, no doubt.

2001 U.S Open he loses to Hewitt in the final I guess, or maybe to Safin or Rafter depending how the draw panned out. There were so many contenders there he was unlikely to beat all of them, and Hewitt did pretty well vs him around that time.

2002 U.S Open I see him losing to Hewitt in the final. Without Sampras beating Agassi at the 01 U.S Open and some other events I see Agassi ranked atleast #2 and seeded in the opposite half. Hewitt had a very off day in the semis which resulted in his first loss to Agassi in 4 meetings. In all likelihood he would have had a better day in the final, as he rarely around then played as poorly as he did in the semis, and won. Anyway the quick turnaround from semis to final is harder for an older player like Agassi.

So I would say 9 slams, only adding the 99 Wimbledon title.

 

[clayman2000]

I would say only 9. The only extra one he wins is Wimbledon 99.

1990 U.S Open final Lendl beats him easily since he played like dog doo in that final and Lendl owned him then anyway. His only chance is if Becker beats Lendl in the semis and he gets to play his personal pigeon Becker in the finals, but the awful way he played that final Becker even probably beats him too despite his historic ownership of Becker. I know Sampras was playing great but even washed up McEnroe put up a much more competitive score vs Sampras than Agassi managed to in that final.

1993 Wimbledon he was completely out of shape. I have no idea how he managed to somehow take Sampras to 5 sets in the quarters in the shape he was in. Still I see him definitely losing to Becker or Courier here.

1995 U.S Open he could win but Courier owned him from 91-95 and was in great form too, plus Agassi would have been nervous as he had everything to lose here after a dominant summer. He would have been nearly as nervous playing his longtime personal nemisis as playing Pete. So I say Courier takes him here too.

1999 Wimbledon he wins, no doubt.

2001 U.S Open he loses to Hewitt in the final I guess, or maybe to Safin or Rafter depending how the draw panned out. There were so many contenders there he was unlikely to beat all of them, and Hewitt did pretty well vs him around that time.

2002 U.S Open I see him losing to Hewitt in the final. Without Sampras beating Agassi at the 01 U.S Open and some other events I see Agassi ranked atleast #2 and seeded in the opposite half. Hewitt had a very off day in the semis which resulted in his first loss to Agassi in 4 meetings. In all likelihood he would have had a better day in the final, as he rarely around then played as poorly as he did in the semis, and won. Anyway the quick turnaround from semis to final is harder for an older player like Agassi.

So I would say 9 slams, only adding the 99 Wimbledon title.

There is no.... Agassi would have been ranked higher crap. Take Sampras and fill him with a LL. Its unlikely that LL goes far. Keep the same draw. The Other half SF would be Schalken and Roddick. I say Roddick takes it. Then its him v Agassi. No way Andre looses.

Only other one i strongly disagree with was USO 95. He was the no 1 player int the world

 

[grafrules]

There is no.... Agassi would have been ranked higher crap. Take Sampras and fill him with a LL. Its unlikely that LL goes far. Keep the same draw. The Other half SF would be Schalken and Roddick. I say Roddick takes it. Then its him v Agassi. No way Andre looses.

Only other one i strongly disagree with was USO 95. He was the no 1 player int the world

Why wouldnt you do that though. Without Sampras and some of the results of a given past 12 months that Sampras altered the rankings and seedings and draws often would be different. Agassi would have done better at the 2001 U.S Open, atleast the semis, probably a final, maybe even won (although I dont think so but possible). He probably is now ranked higher than Safin and seeded #2, and thus he and Hewitt are seeded to meet in the final instead of nutcase Safin as the 2nd seed.

If you insist on keeping the same draws though no way Roddick is in the 2002 U.S Open final. Haas would be. Haas owned Roddick at the time, and even in future years when Haas was down from his 2001-2002 peak and Roddick a much better player than 2002 he has always had a hard time with Haas. Haas also gave Sampras a much tougher match. Haas would have spanked Roddick in the quarters and cruised to that final without Sampras in that half. Roddick in 2002 wasnt that good at all. His other 3 slams that year were 2nd round, 1st round, 3rd round. Actually I think Haas would have given Agassi a very tough final if that were the final of the 2002 U.S Open, much more than young Roddick would have.

Yes Agassi was #1 in the world at the time of the 95 U.S Open but he was #1 in the world going into the French Open, Wimbledon, and U.S Open and didnt meet expectations in any of the 3. He was expected to atleast reach the semis of the French and play Muster but fell to Kafelnikov, granted mostly due to an injury. He was expected by nearly everyone to reach the Wimbledon final, especialy with his pigeon Becker the only noteable of that half even left by the round of 16s after all the first week upsets, and of course Becker broke his 8 match losing streak to Agassi in the semis. He was expected by nearly everyone to win the U.S Open after his summer streak and as you know lost that final to Sampras. The semifinal with Courier was atleast as competitive as the final, Courier had beaten both Muster and Chang in straight sets at that U.S Open while Agassi lost sets to Korda, Becker, and Corretja, and Courier had beaten Agassi in 2 straight sets in their earlier meeting that year on hard courts. Of course I could be wrong on Courier winning there, but I dont think my reasoning for thinking that is invalid.

 

[vkartikv]

Let's not forget the consecutive wimbledon losses to rafter.

 

[grafrules]

Let's not forget the consecutive wimbledon losses to rafter.

What does that have to do with Sampras.

 

[zagor]

I'd say he would have won 1999 Wimbledon and 2002 USO.

1995 USO he would certainly have a shot but Courier would have been very tough as he was riding on a streak of wins against Agassi and beat him that year on HC.However IF Agassi won that '95 USO I think he would have won a bunch more slams as I believe that '95 USO final loss was devastating mentally for Agassi and pushed him into a slump(although he also had injury problems later that year and next year as well so not all was mental certainly).

 

[grafrules]

I'd say he would have won 1999 Wimbledon and 2002 USO.

1995 USO he would certainly have a shot but Courier would have been very tough as he was riding on a streak of wins against Agassi and beat him that year on HC.However IF Agassi won that '95 USO I think he would have won a bunch more slams as I believe that '95 USO final loss was devastating mentally for Agassi and pushed him into a slump(although he also had injury problems later that year and next year as well so not all was mental certainly).

I think alot of people forget Agassi wasnt playing up to the standard at the 95 U.S Open he had all summer. He nearly went out to a pre prime and then unknown Corretja in the 2nd round. He had a very hard time with Korda in the quarters, and this wasnt one of Kordas better years at all. In the semis with Becker he had an extremely hard time, and while Becker had beaten him at Wimbledon he had an extremely easy time with Becker on hard courts for years now. That was part of the reason Sampras was able to turn the tables and beat Agassi in the final after the dominant summer of Agassi, in addition to Sampras ability to rise for the big match. Courier was much more dominant and convincing at that U.S Open, in addition to the matchup problems he poses for Andre.

 

[NonP]

The problem with this kind of a poll is that, as zagor briefly suggested, if Agassi had won one of the earlier Slams his later rankings and career would've been different. This is also why it's wrongheaded to assume that a GOAT would've gotten the exact same draw as the other GOAT when comparing GOATs from different eras, and that's not even considering our different views on which years to compare.

 

[zagor]

I think alot of people forget Agassi wasnt playing up to the standard at the 95 U.S Open he had all summer. He nearly went out to a pre prime and then unknown Corretja in the 2nd round. He had a very hard time with Korda in the quarters, and this wasnt one of Kordas better years at all. In the semis with Becker he had an extremely hard time, and while Becker had beaten him at Wimbledon he had an extremely easy time with Becker on hard courts for years now. That was part of the reason Sampras was able to turn the tables and beat Agassi in the final after the dominant summer of Agassi, in addition to Sampras ability to rise for the big match. Courier was much more dominant and convincing at that U.S Open, in addition to the matchup problems he poses for Andre.

You're right,I remember how comentators,experts etc. were saying that Agassi overplayed that summer on HC going into USO and that it showed in his level of play there.In fact if I remember well Agassi himself said in an interview after the final that he played too much that summer and that he was fatiqued and got tired faster in the final than he thought he would.His form at USO wasn't as great as it was that summer and plus given Courier's play at USO that year and his winning streak against Agassi I'd favour him as well,however if Agassi did somehow manage to win I think it would have been big for him and he wouldn't go into a big slump like he did(although as I said that slump was also partly due to injury as well).

 

[grafrules]

You're right,I remember how comentators,experts etc. were saying that Agassi overplayed that summer on HC going into USO and that it showed in his level of play there.In fact if I remember well Agassi himself said in an interview after the final that he played too much that summer and that he was fatiqued and got tired faster in the final than he thought he would.His form at USO wasn't as great as it was that summer and plus given Courier's play at USO that year and his winning streak against Agassi I'd favour him as well,however if Agassi did somehow manage to win I think it would have been big for him and he wouldn't go into a big slump like he did(although as I said that slump was also partly due to injury as well).

I remember cheering for Agassi to win that U.S Open. I felt he deserved his first multi-slam year and the year end #1 for his form and overall play that year. I felt he needed that for his own pysche too, to feel he was a true peer to Sampras in the years to come. I think losing that final was devastating to him too. I also think he wasnt that injured that fall and could have played enough to get the year end #1 ranking with his lead, but he felt he wasnt really the top player that year anymore so what was the point and kind of gave up even before the year was out. I remember thinking before the U.S Open he would win it too, his form was just peerless. Sampras had a decent though not particularly good for him summer, I expected him to pick it up for the Open, but still didnt think it would be quite enough to deny Agassi that year. However after Agassis match with Corretja I was already having 2nd thoughts, and by the time of watching the quarters and semis I was fully expecting Sampras to win the final now.

So yes I agree if Agassi won that 95 U.S Open it would have been a huge boost to his career from 96-98, although we both feel he wouldnt have even without Sampras. If he did though it could have made a big difference, and that big slump might never have happened. Then again would he have been as good from 2000-2003 without his 96-98 slump. Who knows. Then again if he did have more extra kick later in his career it actually turned out fortunate for him in a way as the transition era of 1999-2003 was weaker than the Sampras era anyway, as he bagged some extra Aussie Opens vs some jokish draws during this transition era in mens tennis, especialy the 2002 and 2003 draws which were pretty much laughable. That is also where much of the false perception of some that Agassi is unstoppable in Australia and would have won more titles there had he played in his earlier career years comes from too.

 

[thalivest]

I am guessing 10.

 

[Toxicmilk]

over 9000 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1Sa6Umz8YA&feature=related

I think he shoulda had two more...wimby99 uso2002

 

[flying24]

He would have 8. Lendl takes the 1990 U.S Open. I dont know who takes Wimbledon 1993 but in his shape and form that year Becker, Edberg, Courier, or even Stich all take him down if they meet. Courier takes the 95 U.S Open. Hewitt still takes the 2001 U.S Open. Haas takes the 2002 U.S Open taking advantage of a fatigued Agassi from his long semifinal win over Hewitt. He also loses a slam he already won, as Courier takes the the 95 Australian Open now over Agassi in the final. So the same # he has now, 8.

 

[grafselesfan]

I thought GameSampras would be in this thread.

 

[World Beater]

I thought GameSampras would be in this thread.

u must be feeling so sad.

 

[EtePras]

Where's the option for 6? They met twice at the Australian Open too.

 

[zagor]

I remember cheering for Agassi to win that U.S Open. I felt he deserved his first multi-slam year and the year end #1 for his form and overall play that year. I felt he needed that for his own pysche too, to feel he was a true peer to Sampras in the years to come. I think losing that final was devastating to him too. I also think he wasnt that injured that fall and could have played enough to get the year end #1 ranking with his lead, but he felt he wasnt really the top player that year anymore so what was the point and kind of gave up even before the year was out. I remember thinking before the U.S Open he would win it too, his form was just peerless. Sampras had a decent though not particularly good for him summer, I expected him to pick it up for the Open, but still didnt think it would be quite enough to deny Agassi that year. However after Agassis match with Corretja I was already having 2nd thoughts, and by the time of watching the quarters and semis I was fully expecting Sampras to win the final now.

Yeah,I expected Sampras to win the USO as well looking at their form during the tourney,Agassi just lacked that bit of an edge at USO that year,he wasn't really playing inspiring tennis,it might have been fatique because he played too many matches that summer going into USO like he said himself.He wasn't playing "bad" tennis but lacked that little bit extra edge(which was evident in matches against Corretja,Korda and even Becker as well).

I also think Agassi should have won more than one slam that year because of his level of play(except FO where he went down pretty meekly to Kafelnikov).Even at Wimbledon Agassi looked amazing,was hitting return winners with ease and was toying with Becker in first and part of second set when Becker suddenly woke up and staged an amazing comeback.

So yes I agree if Agassi won that 95 U.S Open it would have been a huge boost to his career from 96-98, although we both feel he wouldnt have even without Sampras. If he did though it could have made a big difference, and that big slump might never have happened. Then again would he have been as good from 2000-2003 without his 96-98 slump. Who knows. Then again if he did have more extra kick later in his career it actually turned out fortunate for him in a way as the transition era of 1999-2003 was weaker than the Sampras era anyway, as he bagged some extra Aussie Opens vs some jokish draws during this transition era in mens tennis, especialy the 2002 and 2003 draws which were pretty much laughable. That is also where much of the false perception of some that Agassi is unstoppable in Australia and would have won more titles there had he played in his earlier career years comes from too.

You're right that it might have been a blessing in disguise because if he was giving it his all in 1996-1998 he might not have the same vigour he had during the transition period between Pete's and Fed's dominance but then again maybe he would have been still going strong in those years anyway because of his playing style which is suited for longevity(standing at the baseline taking the ball very early off both sides and running the oppoenent silly)and his insane dedictaion to fitness in his later years.

You're right that perception of Agassi being the rebound ace master is aided by the AOs he won in transition period(2001 and 2003)but also by the fact that he beat Sampras there twice(even though conditions weren't in favour of Pete in both of their meetings).Regardless of the draws I still feel that 4 AOs show that surface suits him and that he would have been a strong contender at AO before '95 if he bothered to show up.

 

[zagor]

I thought GameSampras would be in this thread.

Yeah,I'm suprised he didn't give his opinion on this matter in this thread as well.

 

[GameSampras]

I would have to venture to say a few more maybe be more than we think Because Agassi may never have taken that 3 years MIA session had Pete not of been around. We really dont know. It seems the USO final, and a mixture of Andre's personal problems really affected Andre alot.


I would have to say...

USO 95- Andre takes that most likely

99 Wimbeldon- Andre was on a role that year.. Maybe the best tennis he was ever playing and would have won the French, Wimbeldon, USO and 99 YEC that year without Pete.

01- USO.. Again.. Andre was playing superb and only hewitt stands in his way.. Very good chances for Andre since he took out Hewitt who was the defending champ the year after.


02 USO.. Agassi takes that as well.

So there is 4 most likely that Andre wins

 

[Gizo]

He clearly would have won the 1995 US Open, 1999 Wimbledon and 2002 US Open if Sampras wasn't standing in his way.
I don't think that he would have won the 1990 US Open and 1993 Wimbledon.
The only slam that is unclear is the 2001 US Open. I think that he would have beaten Safin in the semi-finals, and the hypothetical final against Hewitt could have gone either way, although I would lean towards Llegs there.

 

[boredone3456]

Honestly...and I am likely in the minority here,but without Sampras I don't think agassi would even win 8. Sampras was, in my opinion, the one who gave Agassi the kick he really needed to take tennis seriously. Sampras forced Agassi to really raise his game and improve in order to stay a contender and win majors. Without Sampras I could see Agassi still floundering around like he did in his younger days on the tour, playing here and there but never seeming to take the tour seriously. If you took Sampras out at an earlier time than in history....well then I would say Agassi would win the 2002 US Open, and pushing it...Wimbledon 1999. But if we pretend Sampras never set foot on a tennis court...Agassi in my opnion would not have as many slams, sort of like Chris Evert said she would have retired early from burnout before Martina got in shape and rose up to challenge her.

 

[grafselesfan]

Honestly...and I am likely in the minority here,but without Sampras I don't think agassi would even win 8. Sampras was, in my opinion, the one who gave Agassi the kick he really needed to take tennis seriously. Sampras forced Agassi to really raise his game and improve in order to stay a contender and win majors. Without Sampras I could see Agassi still floundering around like he did in his younger days on the tour, playing here and there but never seeming to take the tour seriously. If you took Sampras out at an earlier time than in history....well then I would say Agassi would win the 2002 US Open, and pushing it...Wimbledon 1999. But if we pretend Sampras never set foot on a tennis court...Agassi in my opnion would not have as many slams, sort of like Chris Evert said she would have retired early from burnout before Martina got in shape and rose up to challenge her.

Actually those are some interesting points. I never really thought of it that way.

 

[grafselesfan]

I would have to venture to say a few more maybe be more than we think Because Agassi may never have taken that 3 years MIA session had Pete not of been around. We really dont know. It seems the USO final, and a mixture of Andre's personal problems really affected Andre alot.


I would have to say...

USO 95- Andre takes that most likely

99 Wimbeldon- Andre was on a role that year.. Maybe the best tennis he was ever playing and would have won the French, Wimbeldon, USO and 99 YEC that year without Pete.

01- USO.. Again.. Andre was playing superb and only hewitt stands in his way.. Very good chances for Andre since he took out Hewitt who was the defending champ the year after.


02 USO.. Agassi takes that as well.

So there is 4 most likely that Andre wins

I am almost in agreement with you. I see the 95 U.S Open, 99 Wimbledon, and 02 U.S Open as well. The only one I am not sure about is the 2001 U.S Open. He did lose his next 3 matches with Hewitt but he also did beat him when they played at the U.S Open next year. I guess that one is a toss up.

 

[tacou]

There is no.... Agassi would have been ranked higher crap. Take Sampras and fill him with a LL. Its unlikely that LL goes far. Keep the same draw. The Other half SF would be Schalken and Roddick. I say Roddick takes it. Then its him v Agassi. No way Andre looses.

Only other one i strongly disagree with was USO 95. He was the no 1 player int the world

its a completely hypothetical premise you can't make up rules to which parts can be imagined and which can't

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Honestly...and I am likely in the minority here,but without Sampras I don't think agassi would even win 8. Sampras was, in my opinion, the one who gave Agassi the kick he really needed to take tennis seriously. Sampras forced Agassi to really raise his game and improve in order to stay a contender and win majors. Without Sampras I could see Agassi still floundering around like he did in his younger days on the tour, playing here and there but never seeming to take the tour seriously. If you took Sampras out at an earlier time than in history....well then I would say Agassi would win the 2002 US Open, and pushing it...Wimbledon 1999. But if we pretend Sampras never set foot on a tennis court...Agassi in my opnion would not have as many slams, sort of like Chris Evert said she would have retired early from burnout before Martina got in shape and rose up to challenge her.

... as the joker wouldn't be anything without the batman ?

 

[rod99]

1995 us open - courier wasn't the same courier of the last 4 years. agassi would win that match.

1999 wimbledon - no brainer

2001 us open - assuming he didn't have a brutal semifinal match, he beats hewitt. the quick turnaround in the semi/final cost him the 1995 and 2002 us opens. he was playing great and should have won wimbledon (had a sitter pass against rafter in the semis to go up 2 breaks in the fifth set).

2002 us open - agassi ran hewitt ragged in the semi. patrick mcenroe even said it was the first time he saw hewitt clearly fatigued.

at least 1-2 additional slams b/n 1996 - 1998. the 1995 us open loss destroyed him for 2+ years. he had no motivation in 1996 but still won the olympic gold, won 2 master series shields, and got to two semifinals.

so i'd say 5-6.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

I dont care how many he would have. in my eyes his carrer is more than perfect.

Being an Agassi fan is not about titles.. it's about life as a parabola for life itself!

he had glory and dominance, he had slumps and low form, he recriated new ball striking timming and precision. develped new aproaches to modern tennis, he had rock & roll lifestyle, he had grampa style elderly statesman of the game carrer end... he found is fairy tale love with Steffi...

he did it all... in every way... his way...

yeah.. deep stuff...

 

[federerfanatic]

I dont think anything would have started to change without Sampras until 1995. That is when the change would begin.

He did not play well enough to win the 1990 U.S Open in the final vs any top quality opponent. That was really a dissapointing performance and a bit of a choke job, maybe even worse than his other 2 early slam finals. Whether it would have been Lendl, or Becker who he beat in the semis, or even someone else he was going down the way he played that day.

He also wasnt in the shape to win Wimbledon 1993 even if he had beaten Sampras or Sampras not been there. His career wasnt really affected much or any by Sampras until 1995. What he achieved or didnt achieve up until then was based on his immense talent, his up and down work ethic in his younger years, and which non-Sampras opponents he was or wasnt doing well against out of Courier, Chang, Lendl, etc..

The difference would have begun in 1995. This is when he finally had some real momentum in his career. Sampras I think stopped him from winning the 95 U.S Open. That is the first chance in that it is an additional slam but it also would have carried over into 1996-1998. Had he ended 1995 with both hard court slams and the dominant year end #1 he would have carried that confidence and momentum into the rest of his career. Probably won 4 or 5 more slams from 1996-1998. Would have won 4 straight in 1999-2000, slumped a bit the rest of 2000 as it was due to personal problems, but then won the 2001 and 2002 U.S Opens in addition to the 2001 and 2003 Australian Opens. So that would give him a total of 16 or 17 slams.

 

[hoodjem]

Former player section?

 

[Bertie B]

8 Grand Slams.

Andre had the game, but not the mindset of a dominating champion. In the 2001 Wimbledon Semi, he had Rafter beaten, yet lost that match. Things always had to "fall into place" for him to do well. As opposed to him imposing his game on the opponent, even Sampras.

I dont think anything would have started to change without Sampras until 1995. That is when the change would begin.

No. Andre was born on April 29th, and right on cosmic schedule, he peaked at age 29 and achieved his greatest success.