Sampras ‘disappointed’ by remarks in Agassi’s book

What? Sampras is the reason AA "hates" tennis?

Yeah think about it, if it was the reverse, AA owning Pete, Andre wouldn't be so bitter about tennis. Pete robbed him at the 1990 USO when Andre was criusing and was the overwelming favorite. No one knew who Sampras was in that final. AA was 2nd fiddle thoughout his entire career. If he won that first final and dominated Pete, he would have been happy as a pig in ****e.
 

35ft6

Legend
[chopin on nadal versus sampras]

Yeah it would be interesting. It would probably come down to how well Nadal returned. I've seen Rafa get a bit bothered when he can't get a rhythm when he's playing a really aggressive player. Tsonga and Blake come to mind. And Pete's game is way more a-rhythmic than they could ever be. Pete could potentially drive Nadal crazy with the way he would go from playing like a guy ranked 100 in the world to GOAT and back again in a set. Rafa would definitely take advantage of Pete's backhand, but with all that spin, a person could say Nadal's balls would be easy pickings for Pete's volleys, but Nadal is one of the finest 2 shot passers I've ever seen. He knows if he hits a ball with all the spin he can generate, even if they get their racket on it, it's going to be a tough shot. So right behind Nadal's returns, the next most important determining factor might be how Pete can handle Nadal's spin on volleys.

If Sampras' stop and go, stuttering, a-rhythmic style of play doesn't mentally bother Nadal, physically, I don't think there's much Pete can do against Nadal from the baseline. He's got explosive shots, but Wayne Ferreira showed how a good athlete can neutralize that explosiveness, and Nadal is a way better retriever than Wayne. Plus, Nadal has an amazing ability to take short slice balls and rip them with his forehand, something I've seen him do so many times against Federer. Physically, Nadal is capable of handling anything Pete can throw at him from the baseline.

In the end, Pete wasn't doing awesome against some of the new generations best. Past his prime? Maybe or definitely, but even from the beginning, Hewitt, even at age 17, played Sampras tough, and at the end of their head to head, Hewitt had won 5 of their last 6 matches, including the last four. Hewitt hits a very different type of ball, one that is probably easier for Sampras to deal with. Maybe Leyton was better at returning with his flatter, more compact return swings, but just saying, with each generation, people have been taking bigger and bigger cuts on the return, and can pull passing shots off from more difficult positions.

But I like Pete's game a lot more than I used to. I never really liked watching him play. Pete's matches were like a dialogue intensive independent film in a lot of ways, you really have to watch the whole thing to follow the plot and appreciate it. Pete's point management throughout a match was insane. We may never see anything like it again. Downside of that was if you just randomly pick a few minutes of Sampras to watch, it could be really boring.
 
Last edited:

35ft6

Legend
Yeah think about it, if it was the reverse, AA owning Pete, Andre wouldn't be so bitter about tennis. Pete robbed him at the 1990 USO when Andre was criusing and was the overwelming favorite..
Probably true. And man, maybe Agassi would have turned into the biggest jerk in sports if he would have won all of the Grand Slam finals he first got into. Instead of the biggest philanthropist in sports.
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
Yeah think about it, if it was the reverse, AA owning Pete, Andre wouldn't be so bitter about tennis. Pete robbed him at the 1990 USO when Andre was criusing and was the overwelming favorite. No one knew who Sampras was in that final. AA was 2nd fiddle thoughout his entire career. If he won that first final and dominated Pete, he would have been happy as a pig in ****e.

Eh--I'm not saying that AA would not have been thrilled to be the greatest of his generation, but I think much of what AA is talking about in his book has a lot to do with his relationship with his father growing up, being forced to play tennis day in and day out, not having the opportunity to get a real education outside of tennis, his struggles to come to terms with his sense of "self." I think those are some of the big reasons he hated tennis. I don't think it was just about winning or losing for AA. Besides, he accomplished too much for me to think that he's "bitter" about his accomplishments, you know? I mean only he and Federer have won all four slams in the modern game.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Very interesting analysis.

I think that Nadal-Sampras would be such an interesting dynamic on the new grass at Wimbledon and Australian Open. It would be a great matchup on those two surfaces (once again, new grass).

Nadal is such a dominant presence on the court, both in terms of his body language and play that it would be interesting to see how Sampras would react to that.

Ah, too bad I can only imagine!

I actually think Nadal-Sampras would be such a fun matchup because of the constrasts:

Old Grass--Sampras
New Grass--Toss-Up
Clay--Nadal
U.S. Open--Sampras
Australian Open--Toss-Up

yep, would be very interesting to see them play on today's grass and on rebound/plexicushion
 

8F93W5

Rookie
Say, has anyone else read Spadea's book?

I rather enjoyed aspects of it, if for nothing more than Spadea's amusing, "outsider" view of pro tennis.

I read it. I liked it, but think the press exaggerated things when they said it was a tell all book with locker room secrets or things like that. They made it sound like he had told tons of stories that should be kept secret. I didn't really see what they were talking about, but it sure sold some books
 
Top