How Much Agassi Can A Person Take.

[Kaptain Karl]

jjames - You started this thread as if you were tired of the TV coverage of Andre ... which was a sham. Why didn't you just start a "Andre's Not So Great" thread and be honest with us? You just don't appreciate AA like the rest of us.

That's okay. (It's nuts, but it's okay.)

You appraisal of Andre Agassi's place in Tennis History ... doesn't match up with anyone examining it with an objective eye.

- KK

 

[annihilatorpro]

Is Agassi really trying to get as much attention as he can possibly get from his retirement? Is not the media bombarding him with questions regarding his retirement? Give the man a break, he decided to answer the lingering question in his awesome tennis career, and people blast him for it. He's played for 20 odd years in the ATP, and at a high level at that, he deserves some credit. And for some reason, I don't think he's putting tapes of himself on the USA and CBS network...if anyone wants to blame anyone for putting up video clips of Agassi, blame the media, not Agassi.

 

[rod99]

jjames,
you're a clown, dude. first you come on here stating facts that are not really facts ("sampras announced his retirement b/f his last us open". nope, check again!). then you make ridiculous claims about agassi like saying he's just a tennis player. yeah, just a tennis player who did something that players like connors, mcenroe, borg, federer, etc, etc never have done (won the career grand slam). then you claim that the AO was not a significant tournament when agassi won it. wrong! it became a significant tournament once it switched to hard courts in 1988 and all of top players began playing it. finally, you keep saying that sampras never lost to agassi at the us open. true, but you don't mention that agassi went 3-0 against sampras at the australian and french opens. keep hating dude. keep hating.

 

[U-NO-ME]

jjames,
you're a clown, dude. first you come on here stating facts that are not really facts ("sampras announced his retirement b/f his last us open". nope, check again!). then you make ridiculous claims about agassi like saying he's just a tennis player. yeah, just a tennis player who did something that players like connors, mcenroe, borg, federer, etc, etc never have done (won the career grand slam). then you claim that the AO was not a significant tournament when agassi won it. wrong! it became a significant tournament once it switched to hard courts in 1988 and all of top players began playing it. finally, you keep saying that sampras never lost to agassi at the us open. true, but you don't mention that agassi went 3-0 against sampras at the australian and french opens. keep hating dude. keep hating.

jjames,


You need to pay attention,buddy.

 

[skip1969]

i'm not going to quibble about agassi's importance in the modern game. i'm no drooling fan, but his record speaks for itself. having said that, it's not just the hype during the open that may be bugging some folks. i mean, this whole 'agassi farewell summer tour' thing was (in my view) a bit much. they could have just made a thing of it during the open, which would have been cool and appropriate, and deserved. but they've run it into the ground for some people by now, and at the same time diminished the 'moment' that this slam might have been by turning off some fans that would otherwise have been indifferent to his retirement, but would have gladly cheered him on for his career achievements.

personally, i reached my andre saturation point a while ago, and i admit i WAS rooting for pavel (cos i'm over the hype and cos pavel was playing out of his mind). i'm not whining about it, though. i mute the tv most of the time, anyway. but i do think that the lack of young us stars to cheer for might have a bit to do with so much andre sentimentality. tv people are forced to rely on a bit of fond nostalgia since there's not much else to draw in the viewers. my guess is that if blake or roddick were seeded higher or coming off a lights-out hardcourt summer, more of the focus would be on them.

 

[motrengaw]

I wasn't a big Agassi fan in the early days,lots of talent no substance. He's earned the right for all this attention for what he's done on and off the court. So lighten up and enjoy this great player for the last time.

 

[Guevin]

and you are dilusional. borg played it once, connors only twice, mac skipped it many years. its one of the first tournaments of the season, right around the holidays. you'da thought if andre was so great he coulda beaten pete one time at either the usopen or wimbledon. great usa players , like mac, pete or connors, excel at the us open not the australian open.

the bagman cometh in round two.

Man you're reaching now and it's quite sad. So now the Australian Open isn't a real slam because people in the past skipped it and it's around the holidays? What the hell are you babbling about?

And what does that have to do with Andre never losing to Pete there?

Answer: nothing.

NEWSFLASH: This just in, Agassi is second all-time in wins at the U.S. Open, just thought I'd remind you....

you'da thought if Pete was so great he coulda won the French at least once.

Fixed it for ya.

Career Grand Slam. In men's tennis, those three words make you an all time great.

The truth hurts jjames, the truth hurts.

 

[Papa-Lu]

Ok... if you include all the other stuff you mentioned, Borg wasn't exactly Mr. Anonymous.

I was referring only to the way he just walked out of the game all of a sudden, surprising everyone. The magic was gone for him, and he didn't try to milk it for any more - he just left.
If he would have remained out of the public eye in the years that followed - especially for the negative reasons - then it would have been a perfect ending.

I know Borg was great, but he retired when he lost the number one spot. I could be wrong, I'd like to be wrong, but that says to me that his ego came before love of the game, which is pretty much what's wrong with all sports at all levels.

 

[jjames]

Agreed! So what if Sampras always beat Agassi. These ignorant posers are really good at pointing out the obvious. Agassi has and will always be a bigger name in tennis than Sampras. Why do think Nike paid more attention to Agassi even when Sampras was the reigning champion? Agassi was much more marketable than your average everyday 14 grand slam record holder! Agassi had an edge. He had an image!

PP

agassi a bigger name than pete? since when? andre was just a media god and an underachiever for a good part of his career. so what, he made a bunch of silly commercials, while courier and pete were winning slams and being ranked #1. good thing andre figured out the aussie was the easiest to win.

 

[llama]

agassi a bigger name than pete? since when? andre was just a media god and an underachiever for a good part of his career. so what, he made a bunch of silly commercials, while courier and pete were winning slams and being ranked #1. good thing andre figured out the aussie was the easiest to win.

Did Andre steal your girlfriend?

People might respect Sampras' tennis, but the don't love him.

People respect Agassi's tennis and they do love him.

You complain about the emotional hype surrounding his retirement, but aren't your rants just as emotional?

 

[beernutz]

Agreed! So what if Sampras always beat Agassi. These ignorant posers are really good at pointing out the obvious. Agassi has and will always be a bigger name in tennis than Sampras. Why do think Nike paid more attention to Agassi even when Sampras was the reigning champion? Agassi was much more marketable than your average everyday 14 grand slam record holder! Agassi had an edge. He had an image!

PP

For the record, Agassi was 14-20 lifetime versus Sampras. In slam events he was 3-6, specifically:
0-2 at Wimbledon
0-4 at US Open
1-0 at French
2-0 at AO

 

[NamRanger]

For the record, Agassi was 14-20 lifetime versus Sampras. In slam events he was 3-6, specifically:
0-2 at Wimbledon
0-4 at US Open
1-0 at French
2-0 at AO

Agassi is better then Sampras not because of GS #s, or head to head, but because he won on every surface in the game, and he played against multiple specialist on that surface to win on them. Not only that, he was in the top 10 in three different decades I believe? That goes to show you how good this guy really is.

 

[wimble10]

Anyone know who was the guy sitting next to Cahill during the Pavel match?

 

[slice bh compliment]

Anyone know who was the guy sitting next to Cahill during the Pavel match?

Brown shirt, balding, bit of a goatee? Probably Perry Rogers.

 

[theartoftennis]

Stop whining. Agassi IS by far the most underrated player ever. You've gotta realize, Agassi didn't even CARE about tennis in his prime. Remember what he said: "I'd rather miss out on some good tennis, then some good livin'." Agassi always had 1 amazing year, then 1 crappy year of slacking.

That's besides the point. Too much Agassi? Are you kidding? Agassi playing the same kind of tennis like he did the other day against Pavel minus a few errors and double faults, could definetely defeat some top 5 players.

 

[Guevin]

This thread is done. It had nothing to do with too much Agassi on TV.

It's just one hater who can't stand Andre getting any recognition, how pathetic.

 

[jjames]

Agassi is better then Sampras not because of GS #s, or head to head, but because he won on every surface in the game, and he played against multiple specialist on that surface to win on them. Not only that, he was in the top 10 in three different decades I believe? That goes to show you how good this guy really is.

so agassi's better than pete because he won the fo once, playing a nobody in the final, even though pete won 7 wimbys to andres one, again playing a nobody in the final. sampras's 6 #1's, to andre's 1 #1.

well, enjoy another 10 viewings of pavel-agassi

 

[jjames]

Did Andre steal your girlfriend?

People might respect Sampras' tennis, but the don't love him.

People respect Agassi's tennis and they do love him.

You complain about the emotional hype surrounding his retirement, but aren't your rants just as emotional?

i'm only stating facts. andre is one of the alltme greats, maybe near the bottom ten or so, even though he was never a clearcut number 1, and beat a lot nobodys in the slam finals.

 

[migjam]

Agassi is one of the GOATs

 

[Wondertoy]

Agassi is one of the GOATs

Agassi is the most overated GS winner. How can he be the GOAT when Sampras owned him?

 

[superman1]

How can Federer be one of the GOATs when Nadal owns him? How can Sampras be one of the GOATs when Kraijeck owned him? How can Pancho Gonzalez be one of the GOATs when Lew Hoad owned him? How can Jimmy Connors be one of the GOATs when Ivan Lendl owned him? How can Bjorn Borg be one of the GOATs when John McEnroe owned him? How can Boris Becker be one of the GOATs when Andre Agassi owned him?

 

[Wondertoy]

"Greatest" is singular by definition. There is a 13 year history of Sampras owning Agassi, while there is only a 3 year contest between Fed and Nadal. We will have to see it unfold. The Sampras and Agassi careers are comparable as they are of the same era, no overlaps like some of your arguments. Besides superman1, get a life. We are members for a similiar duration but you have almost 10 times the postings. You are averaging 10 post per day, every day since you joined!!! The is more to life than this tennis board!!!

 

[stormholloway]

I completely agree. I never did like the guy, now with all this coverage, I'm getting to hate him. I wished Blake had taken him last year as Nlake had a better chance to beat Federer than Agassi had. The Bagman will end the Agassi media lovefest on Thursday.

I thought Agassi gave Federer a good scare last year. Considering how much more tennis Agassi played (several five setters, many tiebreaks), a fresh Andre could've beaten Roger.

Andre is far more talented than Blake will ever hope to be.

 

[stormholloway]

How can Federer be one of the GOATs when Nadal owns him? How can Sampras be one of the GOATs when Kraijeck owned him? How can Pancho Gonzalez be one of the GOATs when Lew Hoad owned him? How can Jimmy Connors be one of the GOATs when Ivan Lendl owned him? How can Bjorn Borg be one of the GOATs when John McEnroe owned him? How can Boris Becker be one of the GOATs when Andre Agassi owned him?

Borg and McEnroe have an even record dude. Get your facts straight.

 

[breakfast_of_champions]

Borg and McEnroe have an even record dude. Get your facts straight.

they were 7-7 overall, but mac had beaten him in the last 3 slam finals they played in, so the tide had definietly turned.

 

[breakfast_of_champions]

How can Federer be one of the GOATs when Nadal owns him? How can Sampras be one of the GOATs when Kraijeck owned him? How can Pancho Gonzalez be one of the GOATs when Lew Hoad owned him? How can Jimmy Connors be one of the GOATs when Ivan Lendl owned him? How can Bjorn Borg be one of the GOATs when John McEnroe owned him? How can Boris Becker be one of the GOATs when Andre Agassi owned him?

thing is, all these players had their run at at top, held #1 for several years, except agassi. not that agassi isn't one of the alltime greats.

 

[Deuce]

I know Borg was great, but he retired when he lost the number one spot. I could be wrong, I'd like to be wrong, but that says to me that his ego came before love of the game, which is pretty much what's wrong with all sports at all levels.

I think you are wrong. I believe it was far more complicated than you've made it out to be.

Far more.

 

[squints]

agassi is a legend. i bet if you were in his shoes you'd do the same. and if you dont like it i figure you can just turn off the tv or pay attention to something else, and let the rest of the people who do respect and honor what the man has done for tennis enjoy the last open he'll ever play.

 

[adista4]

WTF is this...the guy is a legend...how much agassi can u take?! FOREVER

 

[superman1]

thing is, all these players had their run at at top, held #1 for several years, except agassi. not that agassi isn't one of the alltime greats.

Total weeks at #1 / Consecutive

1. Pete Sampras 286 102
2. Ivan Lendl 270 157
3. Jimmy Connors 268 160
4. John McEnroe 170 58
5. Roger Federer 135 135
6. Björn Borg 109 46
7. Andre Agassi 101 52

Agassi was the oldest #1 in history. Of the guys in that list, only 2 had more Slams than Agassi, and none of them won all 4 Slams.

Sampras' streak at #1 was from '96-'98, Agassi's Brooke Shields years. Agassi comes back in '99, gets to 4 Slam finals and wins 3. Admittedly he gets blown away by Sampras at Wimbledon. I don't put too much emphasis on # of Slams and weeks at #1 with Agassi, because the guy was a flake. Crashed out of a few French Open finals, didn't play the Australian for 9 years, had a steady hamburger diet. Yet his stats are still astounding. The fact remains that he's among the greats.

 

[Papa-Lu]

I think you are wrong. I believe it was far more complicated than you've made it out to be.

Far more.

That's fine, I'm not trying to throw bombs at Born. The fact that he tried to make a comeback speaks better of him (though the wooden racket thing wa noble but sad). I'd be interested in more info if anybody cared to fill in.

 

[adista4]

Andre Agassi is the man... huge forehand, great personality...he took tennis to a new level, he built the road to the new generation of hard hitters... to all you losers who don't like him, quit tennis, you're nobody

 

[sweetiepiedoll]

When Agassi retires, he is going to be eligible for the Hall of Fame in 2012, right? I wonder if Steffi will give a speech at his induction and make him tearup. (ete will eligible for the Hall of Fame in 2008).

 

[mctennis]

This time next week you will not see Agassi on the tube. End of story. 21 years of playing, give him his final curtain call and give him praise for entertaining us for all those years. Better than the all the stupid hype we got from the William sisters.....they need to go.....

 

[Kaptain Karl]

Andre Agassi is the man... huge forehand, great personality...he took tennis to a new level, he built the road to the new generation of hard hitters...

While I agree with the latter, I think your former statement is a bit "off". "Huge FH" isn't how he even describes his own game. Andre says he was a pioneer in having "big" strokes off both sides ... but "huge FH?"

Gonzo, Roddick or Llendl ... now they have "huge" FHs. AA's FH and BH are both very solid; no weakness....

- KK

 

[breakfast_of_champions]

Total weeks at #1 / Consecutive

1. Pete Sampras 286 102
2. Ivan Lendl 270 157
3. Jimmy Connors 268 160
4. John McEnroe 170 58
5. Roger Federer 135 135
6. Björn Borg 109 46
7. Andre Agassi 101 52

Agassi was the oldest #1 in history. Of the guys in that list, only 2 had more Slams than Agassi, and none of them won all 4 Slams.

Sampras' streak at #1 was from '96-'98, Agassi's Brooke Shields years. Agassi comes back in '99, gets to 4 Slam finals and wins 3. Admittedly he gets blown away by Sampras at Wimbledon. I don't put too much emphasis on # of Slams and weeks at #1 with Agassi, because the guy was a flake. Crashed out of a few French Open finals, didn't play the Australian for 9 years, had a steady hamburger diet. Yet his stats are still astounding. The fact remains that he's among the greats.

connors won the us open and became #1 at 31. how old was andre when he became #1? also, many on that list didnt play all the slams, particular mac, borg, and connors. borg and connors, no doubt, would have won several more slams. connors may have had a grand slam in 74, if been allowed to play the fo.

 

[Kaptain Karl]

"Shoulda, woulda, coulda...."

- KK

 

[stormholloway]

and you are dilusional. borg played it once, connors only twice, mac skipped it many years. its one of the first tournaments of the season, right around the holidays. you'da thought if andre was so great he coulda beaten pete one time at either the usopen or wimbledon. great usa players , like mac, pete or connors, excel at the us open not the australian open.

the bagman cometh in round two.

You think Pete coulda beaten Andre at the French? Shoot if Pete were good enough to have seen Andre on clay a significant number of times Andre surely would have smoked him. Pete couldn't even reach the finals.

The fact that Andre won a slam on every surface proves the versatility of his game. Pete's game is more 1 dimensional by comparison. His best shot, his serve, is the only shot in tennis where you decide where the ball will be when you hit it.

I'll take Andre over Pete any day. People are complaining about the Agassi coverage? Well if there were any other interesting tennis stories going on right now I'm sure they would edge in on the coverage. I don't see how the coverage effects you. If Andre loses, he never plays another professional match. That's not interesting?