I'm a huge Andre fan. I believe in many ways, Andre had an even more impressive career than Pete--when you consider his success on all surfaces and his amazing longevity.
But facts are facts. Pete beat him all four times at the Open. Pete won 14 slams. Andre won 8. Pete won 20 of their 34 encounters.
Pete had two weapons that Andre (or anyone else except Becker to a slightly lesser degree and now Federer) simply could not match--the serve and volley and the ability to end points quickly.
Andre has developed a brilliant serve over the years. But it could never match Pete's. Andre has also remarkably improved his volley game--but again, not at Pete's level.
In watching their matches at the Open, it became more clearer to me why Pete came out on top. When he needed to cash in on the few opportunites he had to take control of the match--he did. Mostly, Andre didn't. Forgetting the first meeting between them in the '90 final (where Andre was very nervous and played like crap), their next three meetings were so close. In the '95 and '02 finals and the '01 quarters--it was a few points here and there that decided it.
Why Pete has 14 majors (having won 14 of 17 finals he got to) and why Andre has 8 (winning 8 of the 15 slam finals he got to) is fairly easy to see. When Pete absolutley NEEDED a point, he would get it about 80% of the time. When Andre absolutely needed a point, he'd get it about 60% of the time. In their head to head meetings, Pete was simply the more clutch player. He focused better in the most meaningful of points.
In the '01 quarters, Andre had chances in the tiebreakers and even before getting to them in sets 2, 3 and 4. But, he'd often get a little tight and miss an easy groundstroke, overswing on a volley, etc. Pete would take a risk and come up with a momentum changing shot that would swing things his way.
Andre could have won 12-14 majors. But, early in his career, he was not focused and mature enough and blew matches to Courier and Gomez at the French. Later, he could have won at least one, maybe two finals against Pete (certainly NOT the 2000 Wimbledon final where Pete zoned and destroyed him). But, when the most pivotal moments came in those Open final matches or the '01 quarters, Pete produced the clutch shots--it's that simple. Basically, little really separated them. Andre ends his career with 60 titles to Pete's 70. His winning percentage is as good as Pete's. When it's all said and done, Pete was simply just better enough in the clutch to go down as the better player.
For me, however, I'd still put Andre in the top 5 of all time, behind Pete, Borg, Connors and Fed. Actually, a strong case could be made that while he didn't win as many titles as Connors (who won a TON of rather small events against much lesser players during his career as part of that 109), he was better on clay than Jimmy, had a better serve and an even greater ground game.
Where I believe Andre gets the nod over all four of these men is his impact on the game. Despite his ups and downs and his early underachieving, the man had a brilliant, brilliant career.
But facts are facts. Pete beat him all four times at the Open. Pete won 14 slams. Andre won 8. Pete won 20 of their 34 encounters.
Pete had two weapons that Andre (or anyone else except Becker to a slightly lesser degree and now Federer) simply could not match--the serve and volley and the ability to end points quickly.
Andre has developed a brilliant serve over the years. But it could never match Pete's. Andre has also remarkably improved his volley game--but again, not at Pete's level.
In watching their matches at the Open, it became more clearer to me why Pete came out on top. When he needed to cash in on the few opportunites he had to take control of the match--he did. Mostly, Andre didn't. Forgetting the first meeting between them in the '90 final (where Andre was very nervous and played like crap), their next three meetings were so close. In the '95 and '02 finals and the '01 quarters--it was a few points here and there that decided it.
Why Pete has 14 majors (having won 14 of 17 finals he got to) and why Andre has 8 (winning 8 of the 15 slam finals he got to) is fairly easy to see. When Pete absolutley NEEDED a point, he would get it about 80% of the time. When Andre absolutely needed a point, he'd get it about 60% of the time. In their head to head meetings, Pete was simply the more clutch player. He focused better in the most meaningful of points.
In the '01 quarters, Andre had chances in the tiebreakers and even before getting to them in sets 2, 3 and 4. But, he'd often get a little tight and miss an easy groundstroke, overswing on a volley, etc. Pete would take a risk and come up with a momentum changing shot that would swing things his way.
Andre could have won 12-14 majors. But, early in his career, he was not focused and mature enough and blew matches to Courier and Gomez at the French. Later, he could have won at least one, maybe two finals against Pete (certainly NOT the 2000 Wimbledon final where Pete zoned and destroyed him). But, when the most pivotal moments came in those Open final matches or the '01 quarters, Pete produced the clutch shots--it's that simple. Basically, little really separated them. Andre ends his career with 60 titles to Pete's 70. His winning percentage is as good as Pete's. When it's all said and done, Pete was simply just better enough in the clutch to go down as the better player.
For me, however, I'd still put Andre in the top 5 of all time, behind Pete, Borg, Connors and Fed. Actually, a strong case could be made that while he didn't win as many titles as Connors (who won a TON of rather small events against much lesser players during his career as part of that 109), he was better on clay than Jimmy, had a better serve and an even greater ground game.
Where I believe Andre gets the nod over all four of these men is his impact on the game. Despite his ups and downs and his early underachieving, the man had a brilliant, brilliant career.
