Jim courier has a positive h2h CA agassi
- Thread starter penguin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- agassi courier
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I don't agree with this. In my view, Agassi was a more balanced, complete player, and his serve was at least as good as Courier's if not better. What Courier had over Agassi was better mobility, better inside out forehand, and a mental/confidence edge.
big ted
Legend
when courier was on top i remember him overpowering almost everyone with his heavy ball.. but he "only" won 2 AOs and 2 FOs, while agassi won twice as many majors & just about everything at least once...
courier still went deep in tournaments but he wasn't much of a favorite after '94...
courier still went deep in tournaments but he wasn't much of a favorite after '94...
70後
Hall of Fame
Bollettieri's prize star was Agassi.
1991 French Open final. Jim Courier defeated Andre Agassi 3–6, 6–4, 2–6, 6–1, 6–4.
At the time, Courier was unhappy about what happened between the three of them.
As he got older though, he saw things differently.
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014...udge-against-bollettieri-siding-agassi/50783/
1991 French Open final. Jim Courier defeated Andre Agassi 3–6, 6–4, 2–6, 6–1, 6–4.
At the time, Courier was unhappy about what happened between the three of them.
As he got older though, he saw things differently.
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014...udge-against-bollettieri-siding-agassi/50783/
70後
Hall of Fame
http://www.oregonlive.com/the-spin-of-the-ball/index.ssf/2013/10/andre_agassi_jim_courier_power.html
[quote
"From my perspective, I was fighting for attention down at Bollettieri's," Courier told The Oregonian, referring to his teen years training with Agassi. "I took exception to Nick prioritizing Andre, as he should have done. Now, looking back on it, I totally understand it. That was the right thing for Nick to do. But I didn't (understand it) when I was in the thick of battle. I used what I thought was a slight from Nick to fuel my fire."
It was the right thing for Bollettieri to do because Agassi, not Courier, was the phenom. He could routinely hit shots that no one else dared attempt, taking deep, hard-hit balls early and rifling them into the corners. If you didn't beat him with your first shot, he took over the point.
Courier simply didn't have Agassi's pure talent. He worked hard -- much harder than Agassi -- and developed a lethal inside-out forehand, but he couldn't see and strike the ball like Agassi.
"I was pleasantly surprised to find myself in competition with him for major titles," Courier said. "Certainly when I looked across the net I wanted to beat him more than anything else in my life."/quote]
[quote
"From my perspective, I was fighting for attention down at Bollettieri's," Courier told The Oregonian, referring to his teen years training with Agassi. "I took exception to Nick prioritizing Andre, as he should have done. Now, looking back on it, I totally understand it. That was the right thing for Nick to do. But I didn't (understand it) when I was in the thick of battle. I used what I thought was a slight from Nick to fuel my fire."
It was the right thing for Bollettieri to do because Agassi, not Courier, was the phenom. He could routinely hit shots that no one else dared attempt, taking deep, hard-hit balls early and rifling them into the corners. If you didn't beat him with your first shot, he took over the point.
Courier simply didn't have Agassi's pure talent. He worked hard -- much harder than Agassi -- and developed a lethal inside-out forehand, but he couldn't see and strike the ball like Agassi.
"I was pleasantly surprised to find myself in competition with him for major titles," Courier said. "Certainly when I looked across the net I wanted to beat him more than anything else in my life."/quote]
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Not sure I can agree with this. It's the job of a good coach to try to bring out the talent in all his pupils, not just the ones he thinks will go farthest. Agassi may have been the most talented but...so what? His talent would out anyway. Courier obviously proved he was a great champion in his own right and that is something Bolletieri should have seen and noted and encouraged instead of being too busy cosying up to Andre.
I think Courier's first instincts about this were spot on. He had every right to feel aggrieved. At least he was able to channel those feelings in a positive "I'll show you what I can do" way that helped propel him to 4 Slam titles of his own (including a very satisfying win over Teacher's Pet Agassi) as well as the #1 ranking. Well done Jim (and shame on you Nick B.)!
70後
Hall of Fame
Nick B is basically a business man. Agassi was the marquee name who after 1992 Wimbledon must have bought in ship loads of business for his academy. Still Agassi was a mess for a long while until the Gilbert years when he began to matured and then the Cahill years. In those days, Nick's method I thought seemed to quickly and ruthlessly print out highly effective baseliners with similar 2 hand bh and big crushing forehands with not much else well developed in their game who consequently tended to have a short but high peak and burn out fast. Or maybe Nick was looking for a certain type of youngster who already had that big forehand and could be rapidly moulded and shaped his way and thrown as soon as possible into the pro ranks. McEnroe said Nick "knows nothing about tennis." Good for an academy to boast lots of X, Y, Z, .... big names, however. Parents love to send their little darlings with their big starry hopes there. Nick had lots of staff to do the actual coaching. Just imagine though what would have become of Pete if Pete had gone to Nick's instead of having a start with Fischer who insisted on him learning an all court game.
As for Teacher's Pet, well, just read some of the things Agassi said about Nick and the academy in his book.
In the link above that one, Courier, however, said :
“That was a naïve boy’s look at basically someone who had made a business decision and a smart one to align himself more closely with Andre, who could do more for him business wise. And I was very naïve in being bitter because Nick provided another coach from his stable to be with me full time and Nick had given me, I don’t know, how many thousands of dollars in food and shelter and free coaching from the age of 14. Looking back I cringe at how I reacted, although I understand why I reacted that way.” [/quote]
Nick did a lot for a lot of youngsters including Agassi, Courier, Seles. Gave young people opportunities because of the academy. I think most would have nothing but gratitude to him.
Last edited:
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Courier faded too fast to be an All Time Great.
I remember his #1 run well. He reached 7 out of 11 Slam finals in the 91-93 period, overtook Edberg and Becker as the worlds premier player and dominated Agassi (who was being heralded as the future of tennis).
I saw a bunch of Agassi-Courier matches and Courier would boss him about from the baseline the way Agassi bossed most everybody else.
---
I don't remember this specifically, but part of the reason for Courier's fall was his rather limited game. He'd camp on the backhand side and just hit forehands all the time (though I felt his backhand was pretty good). That's not a great long-term strategy - and he never balanced it out.
Sampras did for him more than anybody - no shame in that.
I remember his #1 run well. He reached 7 out of 11 Slam finals in the 91-93 period, overtook Edberg and Becker as the worlds premier player and dominated Agassi (who was being heralded as the future of tennis).
I saw a bunch of Agassi-Courier matches and Courier would boss him about from the baseline the way Agassi bossed most everybody else.
---
I don't remember this specifically, but part of the reason for Courier's fall was his rather limited game. He'd camp on the backhand side and just hit forehands all the time (though I felt his backhand was pretty good). That's not a great long-term strategy - and he never balanced it out.
Sampras did for him more than anybody - no shame in that.
This coach player situation sounds similar to the Hopman-Hoad-Rosewall story. In Hopman's eyes Hoad had the most potential to be a top player and paid more attention to Lew than Ken, which like Courier, Ken resented. Hoad had one great amateur and one or two great years on the pro tour but was overtaken by Ken in 60, losing 4 pro slam finals to Ken 60-63. Agassi, the coach's favorite, finally turned things around and had the better career than Courier. In Hopman's defense, Lew did seem to have more potential that Ken, being considerably bigger, stronger and seemingly having as much or more talent than Ken did at the beginning of their tennis development. In the end, Ken had the superior career, by far.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Yes....Rosewall is ranked No 7 all time, Hoad maybe in the top 30.
Tennisbase ranks Rosewall #3 all time, accomplishment wise, taking into account all official and pro slams and other important tournament and various court surfaces won.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Good for tennisbase...
Better for Rosewall-lol!
Mainad
Bionic Poster
It's understandable that a coach or a tutor will have favourites and rate some pupils more than others. But a good coach or tutor will never PLAY favourites or show it in such a way as to make other pupils resentful. Clearly Hopman and Bolletieri failed to do this in the eyes of Rosewall and Courier.
Courier, damn underrated.
TennisDawg
Hall of Fame
One thing I've never forgotten was the time he decided to read a book during changeovers. Who does that? As if he was bored with it all. That does not promote the game of tennis. It reinforces the impression that Tennis is for snobbish, condescending elites. He has that persona to me. I give him credit for his titles and accomplishments but he's not one of my favorites. One can dislike McEnroe, Connors, Goran Ivanisevic, Safin, etc. but there was no question they showed passion for the game.
someone who wants to take his mind of things?
during the rgf91 i felt that jim would win somehow, although agassi was favourited and 2-1 sets up. courier simply had the unbreakable will to win. the way he clinched his racket in his fists, the way he fired his strokes to the other side of the net, the way his eyes sent sent focussed flashes. all that gave me the impression that this guy wouldnt lose... courier had the game to hurt agassi just like lendl did before. stiff service, powerful groundies coming to the net only to end the point. so agassi couldnt dictate from the baseline or hit passing winners what wore him down in the end.
five years later courier was 2-0 sets up vs agassi aoqf, but after losing the 3rd set i saw it coming that agassi (not in his best shape)would win. there was still the redheaded guy with the basecap on, still the baseball-like double fisted backhand and the powerforehand. but the ultimate determination somehow was missing and courier had missed to do the necessary adjustments in his game. agassi (serve) or sampras (physicality) and others upgraded their game while courier looked a little outdated.
i think the watershed for jim was the wimbledon final 93. he had just beaten edberg, but in the final sampras (his first wimbledon final) showed where the limitations in courier's game were. i think courier knew that this had been his only chance to win the greatest title in the game, what cracked his will for over a year.
courier could never handle sampras. his compatriot denied him the access to the upper ranks of alltime greatness. 4 gs tourney titles, several more finals (rg, wimbledon, uso, yec), ye#1, masters1000 equivalent titles. with all these achievements i rank him right behind wilander/edberg/becker and a tad above vilas/wawrinka/nastase/newcombe.
five years later courier was 2-0 sets up vs agassi aoqf, but after losing the 3rd set i saw it coming that agassi (not in his best shape)would win. there was still the redheaded guy with the basecap on, still the baseball-like double fisted backhand and the powerforehand. but the ultimate determination somehow was missing and courier had missed to do the necessary adjustments in his game. agassi (serve) or sampras (physicality) and others upgraded their game while courier looked a little outdated.
i think the watershed for jim was the wimbledon final 93. he had just beaten edberg, but in the final sampras (his first wimbledon final) showed where the limitations in courier's game were. i think courier knew that this had been his only chance to win the greatest title in the game, what cracked his will for over a year.
courier could never handle sampras. his compatriot denied him the access to the upper ranks of alltime greatness. 4 gs tourney titles, several more finals (rg, wimbledon, uso, yec), ye#1, masters1000 equivalent titles. with all these achievements i rank him right behind wilander/edberg/becker and a tad above vilas/wawrinka/nastase/newcombe.
