New Agassi film Reveals the Reasons Why He Lost to Pete Sampras in the 1990 US Open Finals

[BTURNER]

Dre lost because nobody in history would've beaten Pistol that day. Not necessarily because the 19-year-old Pete played the best tennis ever - though it's up there - but because his opponent would be so floored and intimidated by the level of all-court genius from this lanky teen the poor bloke would struggle to respond accordingly. Easily one of the all-time greatest performances, regardless of age.

great admirer of Pete's game. I never found anything 'dull' or boring in what he did or who he was. Just classic s/v tennis performed by the kind of athlete that the style richly deserves.

 

[Mustard]

Miami ‘94, that was the year Andre agreed to a delay in start time so Pete could recover…instead of taking the title in a walkover. At the time, I had a lot of respect for Andre making that choice…even more now.

And Sampras won the match after that. A similar thing happened to Agassi 2 years later in the 1996 Miami final. Ivanisevic had taken out Sampras in the semi final to set up a final with Agassi, which was hyped up as a repeat of the 1992 Wimbledon final, especially with Miami finals returning to best of 5 sets for the first time since Agassi beat Edberg in 1990. Unfortunately, Goran slept very awkwardly the night before the 1996 Miami final and woke up with a neck so stiff that it felt like it was made of stone. The final was delayed for 45 minutes while Goran had treatment. The final ended early, with Agassi 3-0 up in the first set and 40-0, when Ivanisevic retired, to a load of boos. Agassi even out-aced Ivanisevic 3 to 0, and Ivanisevic hit 2 double faults. Such a shame because that final could have been great. I think Ivanisevic was playing better than Agassi at that particular time.