Is Agassi the most talented player of the open era?

1477aces

Hall of Fame
I think he is. Based on how he skipped slams left right and center, was more worried about his image than his tennis (at least in his early years), did meth, claimed to "hate tennis", was never that fit, and didn't work much on his serve, along with his penchant for choking big matches (especially early in his career and against Sampras), and the fact that he still won 8 slams (and a career slam in that era) he was remarkably talented. He had arguably the greatest return of serve ever and was able to take the ball early and hit accurately and hard. I think he is the most talented player of the open era.
 

Vensai

Professional
In the words of Lendl, he's a haircut and a forehand.
Joking aside, he's talented but not the most talented.
 

Vensai

Professional
why would you say not?
Depends how you define talent. Agassi was a great returner, but is that really more talented than what other players are capable of doing?
For example, Sampras had a big serve and forehand that complemented all court play. There's also Rios, who is generally agreed to have had tremendous talent despite his slam less results.
 

1477aces

Hall of Fame
Depends how you define talent. Agassi was a great returner, but is that really more talented than what other players are capable of doing?
For example, Sampras had a big serve and forehand that complemented all court play. There's also Rios, who is generally agreed to have had tremendous talent despite his slam less results.
But Agassi was also a very clean ball striker as well. Sampras to me maximized his talent, Agassi not at all. I think Agassi's serve wasn't as good because he simply didn't spend much effort on it, especially early in his career.
 

Vensai

Professional
But Agassi was also a very clean ball striker as well. Sampras to me maximized his talent, Agassi not at all. I think Agassi's serve wasn't as good because he simply didn't spend much effort on it, especially early in his career.
That's not unusual. There are many players who could have done well but didn't maximize their talent. Players like Rios, Safin, Hoad, Vines, etc. could have had better results if they tried more.
 
Last edited:

1477aces

Hall of Fame
That's not usual. There are many players who could have done well but didn't maximize their talent. Players like Rios, Safin, Hoad, Vines, etc. could have had better results if they tried more.
I did say open era. And agassi despite wasting his talent achieved far more than safin or rios did.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Maybe the most talented in certain aspects for sure :

-Taking the ball early
-Hand Eye Coordination impeccable
-ROS
- Ability to get a clean swipe at the ball (Ie hit the ball at the Sweet Spot)
-Arguably best BH of Open era. (Though its arguable there)


etc..

Open Era Wise, I never seen anyone do some of those things better than Andre
 

1477aces

Hall of Fame
Maybe the most talented in certain aspects for sure :

-Taking the ball early
-Hand Eye Coordination impeccable
-ROS
- Ability to get a clean swipe at the ball (Ie hit the ball at the Sweet Spot)
-Arguably best BH of Open era. (Though its arguable there)


etc..

Open Era Wise, I never seen anyone do some of those things better than Andre
Agreed. Andre was ridiculously talented. Though sampras accomplished far more, I think Agassi was the more talented one.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Agreed. Andre was ridiculously talented. Though sampras accomplished far more, I think Agassi was the more talented one.
I agree in a lot of ways I think Andre WAS more talented than Pete. Especially as an all surface phenom.

Andre still has what I would call the only "true" career grand slam as in winning all four slams on completely polar opposite surfaces.

Pete found ways to beat Andre more times than not but I think Agassi also brought the best play out in Sampras than anyone else ever did. Pete was better in some things but Andre was better in others.

Perfect contrast of styles with made the matches so great to watch. Something SEVERELY missing in the men's game today
 
Last edited:

1477aces

Hall of Fame
I agree in a lot of ways I think Andre WAS more talented than Pete. Especially as an all surface phenom.

Andre still has what I would call the only "true" career grand slam as in winning all four slams on completely polar opposite surfaces.

Pete found ways to beat Andre more times than not but I think Agassi also brought the best play out in Sampras than anyone else ever did. Pete was better in some things but Andre was better in others.

Perfect contrast of styles with made the matches so great to watch. Something SEVERELY missing in the men's game today
Sampras Agassi was phenomenal. I also find it noteworthy that if it were not for mental choking against Sampras (Sampras's superior mental state) that Agassi would likely have surpassed Sampras's career accomplishments. Thrice he lost US Open finals to Sampras in which he was favored to win (1990, 1995, 2002), and if he had won those matches they'd have the same number of slams and an even H2H.
 

ProRadTour

Semi-Pro
It's a shame Agassi skipped the Australian Open for so long. His slam count probably would have been double digits if he didn't skip it.
 

poofytail

Banned
Just because Agassi was favored to win those finals doesnt mean he would have won them playing well. Sampras played at a level Agassi could not have beaten in the 1990 and 1995 U.S Open finals. 2002 is more questionable I guess but Sampras hit three times the winners that Agassi did in that match which suggests it really was Sampras`s match to win or lose as well, despite not being `favored`. The idea that in retrospect Agassi was ever capable of going 3-0 vs Sampras in U.S Open finals on fast hard courts is purely laughable as well.
 

ProRadTour

Semi-Pro
Definitely the best ball striker in the open error. Given current conditions of surface speed in today's game I think he would have excelled even more.

I also think he under-achieved. If he was as mentally strong and motivated as Pete in breaking records it would have been scary.

Today's game is very physical and grinding, Agassi became a master of grinding his opponents into the ground by moving them side to side. He would have had more time to do that in current conditions.

He was only really dominated by one guy who arguably had the greatest serve of all time in super fast conditions. Big servers don't have the advantage they used to have.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
No. I would say McEnroe was a greater talent. But both squandered opportunities. Haircut and a forehand? He wasn't even a haircut!:)
 

newpball

Legend
I think he is. Based on how he skipped slams left right and center, was more worried about his image than his tennis (at least in his early years), did meth, claimed to "hate tennis", was never that fit, and didn't work much on his serve, along with his penchant for choking big matches (especially early in his career and against Sampras), and the fact that he still won 8 slams (and a career slam in that era) he was remarkably talented. He had arguably the greatest return of serve ever and was able to take the ball early and hit accurately and hard. I think he is the most talented player of the open era.
Agassi life is a big tragedy.

He became a top player because of his dad but he resented him.
He owed all his wealth to tennis but he hated it.
He was in the top but he messed it up with drugs and lack of focus.
He wanted to be a personality but he was wearing a hair piece.
He avoided Wimbledon out of principle but he won it.

I wonder how much harder can you make life be?

At any rate a great player but it my opinion not the best natural talent.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
Not even close. If we're to talk in extremes one might as well argue that Agassi was in fact a one-trick pony who nevertheless found success on all surfaces because he did it better than probably anyone else before or since. There's more to tennis than just baseline ball-striking.

Maybe the most talented in certain aspects for sure :

-Taking the ball early
-Hand Eye Coordination impeccable
-ROS
- Ability to get a clean swipe at the ball (Ie hit the ball at the Sweet Spot)
-Arguably best BH of Open era. (Though its arguable there)


etc..

Open Era Wise, I never seen anyone do some of those things better than Andre
Apart from the last item and perhaps the RoS, all of these mean pretty much the same thing.

Big servers don't have the advantage they used to have.
This, as I've shown many times, is demonstrably false. In fact the truth is quite the opposite.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
No.

I'm not even sure he was more talented than Sampras. People tend to think of Pete as just being a big serve, and maybe having a good running forehand, but he was an excellent all-court player.
 

PhrygianDominant

Hall of Fame
I agree in a lot of ways I think Andre WAS more talented than Pete. Especially as an all surface phenom.

Andre still has what I would call the only "true" career grand slam as in winning all four slams on completely polar opposite surfaces.
I can't believe I am agreeing with 90's Clay, but yes. Also, YEC and olympic gold, if those count for anything. He's one of the only guys to even have that.

And I am not really sure what it's callled......SUPER Golden Career Slam?
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Agassi life is a big tragedy.

He became a top player because of his dad but he resented him.
He owed all his wealth to tennis but he hated it.
He was in the top but he messed it up with drugs and lack of focus.
He wanted to be a personality but he was wearing a hair piece.
He avoided Wimbledon out of principle but he won it.

I wonder how much harder can you make life be?

At any rate a great player but it my opinion not the best natural talent.
His biggest success is in his present marriage. He finally did something right.
 

mavsman149

Hall of Fame
Agassi was incredibly talented but truly in my opinion the most talented player I ever watched was Safin. He could have been the best ever in my opinion if he cared too.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
I can't believe I am agreeing with 90's Clay, but yes. Also, YEC and olympic gold, if those count for anything. He's one of the only guys to even have that.

And I am not really sure what it's callled......SUPER Golden Career Slam?
I think he's the ONLY GUY who achieve this feat. Nadal lacks YEC and Federer lacks Olympic Gold singles. Andre is the only player who won all.
 

LiquidWhip

Rookie
I'm not sure he is the most naturally talented guy in the open era as there have been some standout examples, most notably Federer, but there is no doubt he was one of the most talented.

As 90's clay pointed out rarely have I seen anyone strike the ball so cleanly, especially on the backhand side (IMHO, one of, if not the best double handed backhands of all time). His anticipation, hand to eye coordination, and ability to take the ball earlier were also uncanny.

Sadly for Agassi and the tennis world, he didn't fully nuture his natural talent (i.e. avoiding certain tournaments) and his somewhat self destructive personality meant that he spent large parts of his career not fully realising his potential.
 

Blocker

Professional
IMO Sampras was more talented. If you youtube some Sampras Agassi matches, and there's alot of them, you'll see Pete often stay back and rally with Agassi, ie playing Agassi's game. Not only did he rally with Agassi, he often out rallied him. So Sampras could play Agassi at the net and from the back whereas Agassi was one dimensional like. And as good as Agassi's return was, more often than not, he just couldn't find an answer to Pete's serve.
 
IMO Sampras was more talented. If you youtube some Sampras Agassi matches, and there's alot of them, you'll see Pete often stay back and rally with Agassi, ie playing Agassi's game. Not only did he rally with Agassi, he often out rallied him. So Sampras could play Agassi at the net and from the back whereas Agassi was one dimensional like. And as good as Agassi's return was, more often than not, he just couldn't find an answer to Pete's serve.
To say that Sampras could hang with Agassi from the baseline shows you know absolutely nothing about tennis. Nothing. Sampras won his slams because of his serve, volley and superior mental game. Agassi was more talented and chose to spin his serves in (Nadal does the same) and hang back and bash. Have you seen him volley? His touch volley's were insane! Pete had a great running forehand because it forced him to make it more like a modern forehand.

Please don't make comments that are blatantly wrong
 

hawk eye

Hall of Fame
To say that Sampras could hang with Agassi from the baseline shows you know absolutely nothing about tennis. Nothing. Sampras won his slams because of his serve, volley and superior mental game. Agassi was more talented and chose to spin his serves in (Nadal does the same) and hang back and bash. Have you seen him volley? His touch volley's were insane! Pete had a great running forehand because it forced him to make it more like a modern forehand.

Please don't make comments that are blatantly wrong
This is quite a harsh conclusion isn't it... Agassi might have been more balanced in terms of consistently punishing with backhand and forehand , but Sampras was quicker and a better mover, plus his game matched up very well with Agassi from the baseline. Agassi probably still had an edge, but not to that extend that someone who says "Sampras could hang with him" is saying anything outrageous and 'knows nothing' about tennis.

Agassi uncanny ablity to hit take the ball early consistently early is not only due to his talent, but also very much from the fact that from the day he could stand on two feet his father put in him front of a ball machine and made him hit countless balls inside the baseline every day, with the goal to turn him into the baseline hugging machine which he indeed became.
Sampras developed his game in more relaxed, playful way and that can also have contributed to the fact that was more of an allcourter than Agassi, and mastered a wider variety of shots.
 

MachiA.

Banned
Sampras won against Agassi more rallys from the baseline than he lost.

In his childhood Agassi was forced to play against a tennis machine his father had build.

This machine shot canon balls and its energy source was the Earth's inner core.

Hard training and less talent is the reason for Agassi´s success.

Stich was the most talented.

He started very late with tennis and was distracted by his superior intellect.

KR
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Talent

I do think Agassi was extremely talented but sometimes I think we fail to define what truly is tennis talent. I see so many argue Federer is definitely more talented than Nadal or Nadal is definitely more talented than Federer but no one explains why! I think this post by Borg Number One gives a great definition of what is the elements of tennis talent.

How does one define tennis talent? It's helpful to analyze what constitutes tennis talent. Here are some things to consider:

1. Mobility- Does a player move well and reach tough shots? Great players tend to have great and mobility. Not many great players have even average mobility. Also, consider the ability of a player to hit great shots on the run. What about footwork and the ability to always get in proper position quickly in various spots all over the court?

2. Stamina- Can a player sustain a high level of play and great mobility even after several hours of play? How about playing long matched back to back, which is recovery? That speaks to a certain resilience.

3. Reflexes- Does a player have the ability to handle shots well that are hit right at them with pace? How about the ability to quickly react and reach shots that may seem out of reach to most other players?

4. Racquet speed-Can a player generate great power and spin through high racquet speed?

5. Rallying/Ballstriking - Is a player able to hit the ball solidly and consistently over and over again, without having strokes break down? Hitting screaming winners once in a while and going on hot streaks can be wonderful for a player, but how about sustaining long rallies? How about maintaining consistency over the course of long matches and over the course of entire tournaments? Does a player have the ability to hit those great shots under pressure?

6. Balance off both wings- Does the player have the ability to attack and play well on both sides, not just one side or the other? Opponents should not be able to simply concentrate on one side of an opponent in order to neutralize strengths. A player should be able to consistently attack on both sides.

7. Touch- Does a player have the the ability to lob, drop shot, hit angles, be quickly deceptive, and change pace?

8. Serving - A player does not necessarily have to hit extremely hard serves, Consistency and placement are critical. The ability to hit a great variety of serves is very important , as is the ability to hit great first and second serves. How about the players ability to serve under pressure (break points, big points/match points)?

9. Are you a left handed or right handed? - Nadal is a special case of course, but let's face it, being a lefty is a advantage in tennis. This can be viewed as a talent, just like being born with great physical gifts. So many GREAT players, such as Laver, McEnroe, Vilas, Nadal, Navratilova, Roche, Drobny, Ivanisevic, Seles, Rios, Orantes, and Muster are lefties.

10. Mental Strength/Mental Game- This can be tough to define, but mental strength is critical for a great tennis player. Mental strength is also a talent. Like the rest of this list, it tends to be partly genetic, yet socialization/training also plays a huge role. It takes BOTH. Even the ability to work very hard can be considered a talent. It's a talent that is developed over time.

For example, Jimmy Connors had great mental strength. He was a huge fighter. Yet, it's not that simple. He also had the ability to hit the correct shot at the right time. Jack Kramer, Ken Rosewall, Rafael Nadal and Jimmy Connors are all great in terms of mental strength. Ken Rosewall instinctively knew where to position himself to hit the best possible shot. This is also related to the mental game. Many players just hit away at the ball and really have no logical plan at all. They just go for it and "hope for the best". The truly great ones do that at times as well and of course some are better than others, but they also tend to have plans B, C, and D.

When you look at all these aspects of tennis talent, I think it gives you a framework for evaluating players. It's just not as simple as well, I think player A looks more talented than player B. Well, what exactly does that mean? Player A may be more talented in certain ways than Player B and vice versa. Then, you have to make an assessment as to which player is more talented overall.
So look at your player and compare him or her to another and check the list above. It may give you a good idea if you're right or wrong.

In this case I would give Sampras numbers 1, 8 and 9 clearly. I think number three may be Sampras because of his reflexes at the net and running forehand ability. Number four is tough because I think Sampras can get great racquet speed on the forehand, perhaps more than Agassi so I may give that to Sampras. Sampras may get number seven also because of his touch around the net. And I would lean toward Sampras for mental strength.

I think Agassi clearly gets numbers 2 (stamina), 5 (ball striking), 6 (balance off both sides).

So I think the final score is six for Sampras, three for Agassi and no one gets number nine for obvious reasons.
 
Last edited:

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Definitely the best ball striker in the open error. Given current conditions of surface speed in today's game I think he would have excelled even more.

I also think he under-achieved. If he was as mentally strong and motivated as Pete in breaking records it would have been scary.

Today's game is very physical and grinding, Agassi became a master of grinding his opponents into the ground by moving them side to side. He would have had more time to do that in current conditions.

He was only really dominated by one guy who arguably had the greatest serve of all time in super fast conditions. Big servers don't have the advantage they used to have.
I actually wonder if today's surfaces would help or hurt Agassi, or really not make a difference overall.

Common wisdom to think - he's (generally) a baseliner, great ballstriker, great returner, and slower surfaces help all of this (at least that's a general assumption).

But, he hit hard and flat and got people out of position with pace/weight of shot, and a big part of his game was redirecting pace. His own serve was fine but not great, so he benefited on serve from more slippery lower bouncing surfaces. Does his serve become more of a liability on today's surfaces?

Of course, it's all still just tennis, it's not like surfaces are SO slow and SO different that none of what made him great before wouldn't translate, and none of his weaknesses would be magically eliminated.

Overall, I think it would be a draw.

We can't really know. Are we just theoretically transporting today's surfaces backwards in time and assuming everyone from Agassi's era has the exact same game as they did in real life? That's really not realistic because if today's surfaces were the norm back them and players grew up playing on them, it's likely players would have developed their games differently.
 

ProRadTour

Semi-Pro
I actually wonder if today's surfaces would help or hurt Agassi, or really not make a difference overall.

Common wisdom to think - he's (generally) a baseliner, great ballstriker, great returner, and slower surfaces help all of this (at least that's a general assumption).

But, he hit hard and flat and got people out of position with pace/weight of shot, and a big part of his game was redirecting pace. His own serve was fine but not great, so he benefited on serve from more slippery lower bouncing surfaces. Does his serve become more of a liability on today's surfaces?

Of course, it's all still just tennis, it's not like surfaces are SO slow and SO different that none of what made him great before wouldn't translate, and none of his weaknesses would be magically eliminated.

Overall, I think it would be a draw.

We can't really know. Are we just theoretically transporting today's surfaces backwards in time and assuming everyone from Agassi's era has the exact same game as they did in real life? That's really not realistic because if today's surfaces were the norm back them and players grew up playing on them, it's likely players would have developed their games differently.
Fair points. We will never know. I think Agassi's game was more suited to adapt to current conditions in comparison to Pete. Not saying Pete couldn't adapt, he was a champion and would have adapted. I just think the surface speeds suit the baseliner now vs the Serve Volley game. Pete would have to make more significant changes to his game and his backhand would require a lot of work if he was playing drawn out rallies continuously.

I think your point about redirecting pace is interesting. Agassi did use the opponents pace of shot against them. Would Agassi be just as devastating from the baseline in his prime today not sure, but given he was very competitive and in the top ten till he was 35 suggests a 25 year old Agassi would love the current conditions.

His serve wasn't great, but he had a very good kick serve. When you look at what Andy Murray gets away with on his second serve I think Agassi's serve would have held up just fine and would have been backed up with his excellent return game.

His biggest weakness would have been movement/defense. I don't think he covered the court anywhere near the level that the top guys do today. He didn't really defend, he just attacked.

Also, Agassi did a hell of a lot better at the Aus Open cause conditions were slower there than the US Open. The opposite was true for Pete.
 
Last edited:

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
1477aces: have you read Agassi's biography? It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. Beginning in the mid-90s, for example, Agassi was the fittest player on the tour, and by the start of the 2ks, he was the strongest. He was also never "more worried about his image than his tennis". Read the book before tossing off crap like this.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Agassi was very talented clearly, best combined ground strokes of any player ever IMO. He wasn't an all round player though which is what I look for when accessing talent personally.
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
Agassi very talented, without a doubt. But, I don't think he's top 5 solely based on talent alone, in the Open Era.

My Talent Pool, in no order:
Federer
Rios
Safin
Laver
Djoker
Borg

Again, this is based on talent, not wins and loses. You need more that just talent to be a champion.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
That is an incomplete and not fully balanced list for 'talent' anyway, as alluded to by their own admission that the list represents just 'some things to consider', ergo not yet complete.


There should be somewhat of a demarcation between more sporting talent and just generic physical talents.

Footwork is a talent very specific and important to tennis and speed much less so (look at Monfils speed and how he doesn't put it together adequately with footwork), however this list doesn't so much suffer from that, however:

5. and 6. are just generally confusing. Nadal and Federer's baseline combination including their ability to come up with miraculous winners far outstrips Djokovic's greater balance across wings. Some categories need to be further honed and some further ones added, such as tactical ability among other things. You also have two dedicated categories for baseline play and at best 1/4 of one for volleys (touch).

Vast improvement required. May come up with a much improved list based on the solid opening work of borg number one later.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Image is everything"

Say what you want but there isn't enough single malt scotch in this man's world to have caused Sampras, Rafter, Edberg, Krajicek or Becker to even consider tapping this:


which Agassi not only did but who made a 'kiss & tell' spectacle out of himself in the process...and this while wearing a hair piece-lol! Where's the talent there?

 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
That is an incomplete and not fully balanced list for 'talent' anyway, as alluded to by their own admission that the list represents just 'some things to consider', ergo not yet complete.


There should be somewhat of a demarcation between more sporting talent and just generic physical talents.

Footwork is a talent very specific and important to tennis and speed much less so (look at Monfils speed and how he doesn't put it together adequately with footwork), however this list doesn't so much suffer from that, however:

5. and 6. are just generally confusing. Nadal and Federer's baseline combination including their ability to come up with miraculous winners far outstrips Djokovic's greater balance across wings. Some categories need to be further honed and some further ones added, such as tactical ability among other things. You also have two dedicated categories for baseline play and at best 1/4 of one for volleys (touch).

Vast improvement required. May come up with a much improved list based on the solid opening work of borg number one later.
I don't take the balanced on both sides being necessarily incorrect or inaccurate. Djokovic can hit tremendous winners on both sides except he doesn't have to run around a shot and compromise himself as some players might. Also a player as balanced off both sides doesn't have a weakness one can concentrate on as for example a John Newcombe with his backhand or others. Jimmy Connors could hit winners on both sides as could Laver. Newcombe might leave a shot to his forehand for a winner if his forehand shot wasn't forcing enough.

Look at happens when Nadal tries to hit his looping topspin forehand to Djokovic's backhand. Djokovic drives it right back crosscourt often putting Nadal on the defensive which is something most players cannot do. Djokovic can also look for the opening down the line for a winner if Nadal runs around his forehand and hits it too short.

The thing here is that we're discussing innate talent. Volleying in some ways is innate talent because it's quick reflexes at the net. The balance on both sides is in my opinion innate talent also even if it is stroke ability.

Actually Borg Number One covered footwork when he used the term mobility. Read number one again and you'll see he mentions footwork.
 
Last edited:
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Firstly, the comment on footwork was a general point when considering tennis talent. If you read the post carefully, you'll see that it wasn't a direct complaint about this particular list.

Having balance on both sides is a choice, but doesn't mean that player will be a better baseliner than another (Nadal a more talented and superior overall baseline player to Djokovic despite being substantially less balanced across wings). So I find it to be a very questionable facet. It's a choice rather than a talent level and sometimes that choice actually comes through necessity -- for example, not having a killer weapon off the ground in the first place.

References to volleys and tactical ability are inferences for the lack of balance in the current proposed list which, though a nice attempt, is hardly complete. An example of a balance issue regarding the used criteria can be highlighted by looking at things such as 5. and 6. which dedicate two aspects to baseline play (one of which I find highly questionable) in comparison to something like volleys which has no dedicated category and also things like mental strength, which is so vital in tennis but in my opinion currently takes up too little of the quota of categories under the assumption that all would be weighted equally. As such, splitting it into something like mental strength as resilience and mental capacities regarding problem solving/tennis IQ seems sensible.


There is another old thread where people judged players ability in a number of aspects which numbered into the 20's. It would be good to fish for that and combine it with the list you've provided in order to better fine tune a potential set of 'talent criteria' that is more thoroughly thought through regarding the balance of criteria used.

As a concept, I think it's interesting.
 

Boom-Boom

Hall of Fame
Say what you want but there isn't enough single malt scotch in this man's world to have caused Sampras, Rafter, Edberg, Krajicek or Becker to even consider tapping this:


which Agassi not only did but who made a 'kiss & tell' spectacle out of himself in the process...and this while wearing a hair piece-lol! Where's the talent there?

Ahh ah nuff said.

case closed as far as this thread is concerned :)
 

Blocker

Professional
To say that Sampras could hang with Agassi from the baseline shows you know absolutely nothing about tennis. Nothing. Sampras won his slams because of his serve, volley and superior mental game. Agassi was more talented and chose to spin his serves in (Nadal does the same) and hang back and bash. Have you seen him volley? His touch volley's were insane! Pete had a great running forehand because it forced him to make it more like a modern forehand.

Please don't make comments that are blatantly wrong
You are a ******. That is all.
 
Top