Sampras & Agassi: H2H with attacking players reveals Sampras probably has the most complete game in history
- Thread starter Start da Game
- Start date
RS
Bionic Poster
NatF
Bionic Poster
I'm sure there's lots of things you've never understood...
The Guru
G.O.A.T.
Lol Fed fan logic used against them
RS
Bionic Poster
Wouldn’t bet against any Djokovic vs 2004 Agassi at USO
D
Deleted member 777746
Guest
Rude. Can't say I'm surprised.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Your whole MO here is to bait and troll. You get what you deserve...
ollinger
G.O.A.T.
A match that still sticks in my mind and that should be seen by anyone who questions Sampras' all-court ability was at the Paris indoor tournament when Sampras played Chang, I don't recall the year. Chang was a pretty good baseliner but Sampras just blew him off the court from the backcourt with dazzling groundstrokes off both wings.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Doesn't quite work like that. Agassi was not a GOAT contender no matter how you cut it.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
As always, a bald H2H alone doesn't tell the full story.
Sampras only leads Agassi 11-9 on HC. So it's in his favour but it's really narrow.
Sampras draws his lead from grass (2-0) and carpet (5-2).
Now consider that Agassi wasn't as good an athlete as Sampras. So the best hard court baseliner of the 90s was still someone Sampras could just hang with and prevail. That's why Sampras emphasised outlasting Agassi in long rallies early in the match to kill any hopes Agassi would have of beating him from the back court.
Even granting that Sampras was aging by then, he had more difficulty against Safin or Hewitt because they were quick apart from also returning hard and hitting hot from the baseline.
If that sounds kinda like putting Sampras down, it's because of your claim "most complete game in history". I do not think a favourable H2H with Agassi establishes all THAT,
Start da Game
Hall of Fame
well isn't that 11-9 impressive for a supposedly serve and volley player? it is amazing and severely underrated stat........i have not seen any other player exhibit such domination on all styles of players........it is probably his initial years as a two handed backhand baseliner player that molded him into a complete player.........
hewitt and safin were quite good back then for the transition era but pete at that point needed time to figure them out, something which he would have done in his prime........if i remember correctly he initially owned hewitt and started losing to him after wimbledon 2000........
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
If you don't look at where all the wins came from. Four of those wins came from USO. That sounds amazing until you consider that the only two USO titles won by a baseliner in the 90s were by Agassi. It wasn't just Sampras. Rafter and Edberg also won the title twice in that decade. Sampras also beat him at Los Angeles Open, Cincinnati and in the 99 YEC final (indoor hard). As against this, Agassi beat him in all their meetings at AO and Canadian Open. At IW and Miami, Agassi led 3-2. So slow/medium HC - Agassi leads 7-2. That is in line with what you would expect when you pit a baseliner against an all court player on a surface not especially conducive to the latter.
Depends how you define 'owned'. In '98, Sampras beat a 17 year old Hewitt in straight sets at New Haven. But in '99, at Queens, Sampras needed three sets to beat Hewitt. The Miami meeting in '00 was also difficult for Sampras. From Queens '00 (so slightly before Wimbledon), Hewitt had turned around the H2H. He beat him in straight sets at Queens. Remember Sampras still won Wimbledon that year. So it sounds more like as Hewitt grew more and more into his physical best, he narrowed the gap with Sampras and eventually began to own him. As to whether Sampras would have figured him out...that's an imponderable. But it's worth noting that Sampras never truly figured Krajicek. It was Krajicek who fell away after impressing so much in 96. But Sampras still trailed the H2H with him. His H2H with Stich was a wash, with Stich winning their last meeting. It was Stich who was gone after '95, never getting to Sampras again. What I am saying...it's not clear that Sampras had a track record of figuring out players. He just played his game and prevailed most of the time when it mattered. Against both Safin and Hewitt in those losing USO finals, his issue was he couldn't beat them from the back court. They were both too strong and too consistent from there and forced him to make losing net plays.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Presenting 1990s USO as favouring s&v is terrible retconning. The USO was always the most neutral slam tournament since its switch to HC until the mid-00s slowdown. Sampras won as an all-courter except his last USO in 2002.
Let's look at the semis:
1990: Sampras, McEnroe, Agassi, Becker
all-court, s&v, baseline, serve-heavy all-court
1991:
Edberg, Lendl, Courier, Connors
s&v, baseline, baseline, baseline
1992:
Edberg, Chang, Sampras, Courier
s&v, baseline, all-court, baseline
1993:
Sampras, Volkov, Pioline, Masur
all-court, baseline, mostly s&v, s&v
1994:
Agassi, Martin, Stich, Novacek
baseline, serve-heavy all-court, mostly s&v, don't remember
1995:
Sampras, Courier, Agassi, Becker
all-court, baseline, baseline, serve-heavy all-court
1996:
Sampras, Ivanisevic, Chang, Agassi
all-court, serve-heavy all-court, baseline, baseline
1997:
Rafter, Chang, Rusedski, Bjorkman
s&v, baseline, s&v, mostly s&v
1998:
Rafter, Sampras, Philippoussis, Moya
s&v, mostly s&v, s&v, baseline
1999:
Agassi, Kafelnikov, Martin, Pioline
baseline, baselin, serve-heavy all-court, mostly s&v
Incidentally the USOs with the greatest dominance of s&v were clearly the weakest in the 90s: 1993, 97, 98. All other editions had a strong baseliner presence in SF, except 1994 I guess but it was won by the lone baseliner semifinalist instead.
Let's look at the semis:
1990: Sampras, McEnroe, Agassi, Becker
all-court, s&v, baseline, serve-heavy all-court
1991:
Edberg, Lendl, Courier, Connors
s&v, baseline, baseline, baseline
1992:
Edberg, Chang, Sampras, Courier
s&v, baseline, all-court, baseline
1993:
Sampras, Volkov, Pioline, Masur
all-court, baseline, mostly s&v, s&v
1994:
Agassi, Martin, Stich, Novacek
baseline, serve-heavy all-court, mostly s&v, don't remember
1995:
Sampras, Courier, Agassi, Becker
all-court, baseline, baseline, serve-heavy all-court
1996:
Sampras, Ivanisevic, Chang, Agassi
all-court, serve-heavy all-court, baseline, baseline
1997:
Rafter, Chang, Rusedski, Bjorkman
s&v, baseline, s&v, mostly s&v
1998:
Rafter, Sampras, Philippoussis, Moya
s&v, mostly s&v, s&v, baseline
1999:
Agassi, Kafelnikov, Martin, Pioline
baseline, baselin, serve-heavy all-court, mostly s&v
Incidentally the USOs with the greatest dominance of s&v were clearly the weakest in the 90s: 1993, 97, 98. All other editions had a strong baseliner presence in SF, except 1994 I guess but it was won by the lone baseliner semifinalist instead.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Every year except 91 does have two S&V/all court players in the semis. And Pioline getting there twice and Martin/Scud/Rusedksi once each suggests one didn't have to be a particularly great S&Ver to make it. The surface did favour S&V in a way it hasn't since the sticky blue paint came to be applied from 2005 onwards. The difference was noticeable right away. It used to be really fast up to 2004.
NonP
Legend
If we're talking in terms of being able to do heavy damage from all parts of the court Pistol is indeed the most complete player since Laver, and possibly ever.
Of course that's only one way to look at it. Here's the infallible Bible on this Q courtesy of moi:
So put a gun to my head and I'd go with Laver myself. But the most complete doesn't necessarily mean the best and I do think Pistol at his peak beats anybody on anything but clay, at least in the biggest matches.
One more thing:
I know the received wisdom says Sampras was a tough matchup for Agassi but I say that's exactly backward. Those individual H2Hs clearly show Dre owned just about every S&Ver/net rusher but Pete, and even here their H2H on HC stands at a tight 11-9. No wonder - watch any of those matches and most of the time you'll see Dre blasting his returns right at Pistol's feet, which would throw most net warriors for a loop, but Pete somehow manages to volley back those fastballs even from behind the service line, sometimes for outright winners to boot.
And we already know how these two fared from the baseline: Dre winning the majority of rallies... until Pistol goes BAM! and gets that one break. Now this is where the bean counters come in and shout "But your boy made more UFEs/had higher UFE-winner ratios!" Well of course he did, Dre was the better baseliner after all. But you ain't grokking what made the Sampras FH so dangerous. The following genius analysis doesn't concern this Q per se but it's relevant here:
Last but not least Dre b!tch-slapping his opponents on 2nd serves was his bread and butter, but turns out Pistol had quite possibly the best 2nd serve in history. Another "matchup advantage" for Sampras.
You could spin all of the above as Pete's particular advantages vs. Dre but then these would be "matchup advantages" for everyone else. That's simply being damn good at many aspects of tennis - or, put more simply, having a complete game. That Agassi was able to keep the H2H so close despite the big gap in achievements actually says more about his game than about Pistol's.
Of course that's only one way to look at it. Here's the infallible Bible on this Q courtesy of moi:
So put a gun to my head and I'd go with Laver myself. But the most complete doesn't necessarily mean the best and I do think Pistol at his peak beats anybody on anything but clay, at least in the biggest matches.
One more thing:
I know the received wisdom says Sampras was a tough matchup for Agassi but I say that's exactly backward. Those individual H2Hs clearly show Dre owned just about every S&Ver/net rusher but Pete, and even here their H2H on HC stands at a tight 11-9. No wonder - watch any of those matches and most of the time you'll see Dre blasting his returns right at Pistol's feet, which would throw most net warriors for a loop, but Pete somehow manages to volley back those fastballs even from behind the service line, sometimes for outright winners to boot.
And we already know how these two fared from the baseline: Dre winning the majority of rallies... until Pistol goes BAM! and gets that one break. Now this is where the bean counters come in and shout "But your boy made more UFEs/had higher UFE-winner ratios!" Well of course he did, Dre was the better baseliner after all. But you ain't grokking what made the Sampras FH so dangerous. The following genius analysis doesn't concern this Q per se but it's relevant here:
Last but not least Dre b!tch-slapping his opponents on 2nd serves was his bread and butter, but turns out Pistol had quite possibly the best 2nd serve in history. Another "matchup advantage" for Sampras.
You could spin all of the above as Pete's particular advantages vs. Dre but then these would be "matchup advantages" for everyone else. That's simply being damn good at many aspects of tennis - or, put more simply, having a complete game. That Agassi was able to keep the H2H so close despite the big gap in achievements actually says more about his game than about Pistol's.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I don't really agree with that. Agassi did not have Nadal or Djokovic's serve (or Federer's, of course). Nor was he as quick as any of them. He specialized in blazing returns and amazing ball striking, and that's it. So I don't buy the premise that there would be no effect on the match up if say Agassi had been a better athlete and a better server than he was. He would then hold more games and put Sampras' serve under more pressure. I would still have Peakpras winning Wimbledon against him (and against just about anyone because there wouldn't be a way past the Sampras serve). But the USO matches would then get a lot more interesting and maybe Sampras doesn't get those IW or Miami wins at all in such a scenario. Another thing: Agassi's volleys were barely better than Djokovic and definitely much worse than Fed or Nadal, taking the option of pulling Sampras wide on the backhand and approaching away. There is a reason why he 'pioneered' the swing volley; he needed it bad. Agassi was wonderful to watch but there were massive holes in his game that he covered well with his strengths, not unlike that of the lady whom he married.
Further, I also don't think the above is particularly about evolution of the game and such because you sort of had a Fedalovic prototype in the 80s and that was Lendl. Given Lendl's own phenomenal consistency in his prime, it would appear that a hypothetical Sampras-Lendl matchup would be tricky as hell.
NonP
Legend
To me that's simply saying Dre would've done better if he were a better player. I say a matchup advantage would be something like Stan's vs. Novak due to that DTL BH of his which isn't as effective vs. Fedal, which is supported by their respective H2Hs. Having a better serve or quicker feet OTOH would translate into better results vs. just about everyone, not just Pistol.
As a general rule I don't buy that matchup advantages exist at ATG levels, and if they do they can be countered by retooling the rest of the disadvantaged opponent's game. We tend to exaggerate these matchup issues with respect to lesser players because their relative success vs. ATGs naturally becomes more noticeable, but ATGs themselves almost by definition have a rather complete game of their own which can mitigate those effects.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Oh! No, I meant more in the context that Sampras beating Agassi does not, for me, establish that he would necessarily beat great baseliners in general because not all baseliners are made the same. It just means he beat the best baseliner in his era. Which is great, even amazing. But it doesn't establish for me what all the OP claimed. To me, intuitively the most complete game seems to be, yeah, Laver or maybe Borg. Winning both RG AND Wimbledon those many number of times is crazy but then Borg WAS crazy. He was from another planet.
NonP
Legend
You might dig these 2 dissertation of mine:
Borg was from another planet. There has been no one quite like him before or since. I mean to average 63.2% of games won in his runs to Slam finals, LOL... and more than half of 'em on grass and HC for good measure!
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
He played primarily from the baseline, think early/mid way through the 3rd set he had ventured forward about 20 times. I'd say at least half, probably even more, would have been S/V play which he started to do after losing the first set. S/V 1-2 times per service game at the beginning of the 2nd.
Stich was serve/volley, slowly morphing into servebot as the match progressed. I remember the post match interview (with Vitas as one of the hosts, only a week or so before his tragic death even), he talked about the wind affecting the quality and his serve in the 1st set, barely lost a point on serve after he broke back in the 2nd. Truly sublime serving, though I can't say much about Novacek's returning....
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 777746
Guest
Yes. Much easier. Look at Fed - not any players that I'm aware of that truly follow his mold either. There's Dimitrov and Tsitipias who people point to, but neither attack shortballs and move forward as smoothly and naturally as either Fed or Pete before him did.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
I flat out do not see any sense in getting into in depth arguments about how two ATGs from different eras would stack up against each other - which is why GOAT discussions just annoy me - I think it's safe to say that Borg and Rafa are/were simply on another level on clay, which is why when I think of clay those are the first two players I think of.
By the way, to me the "most complete game" is the one that beats the most players or wins the most big matches on every surface. That's pretty impossible to sum up, but you might come close by analyzing wins on the slowest surface and the fastest surface and seeing how those compare. Part of this is also probably the ability to win ugly on the least favorite surface.
Question: when it comes to greatest forehand, who would you rate above Laver while players still had to play with wood? That forearm of his was freakish. His left hand looked like Popeye's. Could anyone else deliver that much topspin in that era?
Just watch that leftie down the line passing shot, then think about the club he was using. Seems to me Laver more than anyone else developed the topspin forehand first, which Borg built upon. Crazy idea?
Last edited:
A little off topic, but Agassi was the first player I just loved as a kid. I was obsessed with his game. I think Pete just had a mental thing over him. Pete was amazing, no doubt. But he was NOT 20-14 better than Andre. I think that if Andre has mentally toughened up in, say 95 instead of 99? He'd have a few more Slams and a few more wins over Pete.
jl809
Legend
“He was really good on the baseline”. Yeah ok cool. He only had one good run at RG ever and won minimal clay tournaments and don’t tell me that’s because he lost to a peaking clay specialist every time
He is not in a serious discussion for the most complete player of all time at all. Greatest fast court player, very possibly
He is not in a serious discussion for the most complete player of all time at all. Greatest fast court player, very possibly
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
Considering his all court game.. He certainly has an argument for most complete player ever
matmoran
New User
For having this debate in the 90s maybe. But I think that even Nalbandian was more complete than Pete.
Crazy Finn
Hall of Fame
I don't consider leaning heavily on a serve and crashing the net at any opportunity as a "complete" game and being a non-factor on the second most prevalent surface on the tour as really making the grade as a "complete" player.
I'm no fan of Djokovic and he definitely lags behind Pete in a few areas. However, it's hard to say that he doesn't have a more adaptable and complete game - evidenced by being able to succeed at the very highest level on hard courts, grass, and clay.
It's hard to compare different eras, but both Laver and Borg playing on the clay, hard courts, and grass of their era is hard to debate as being exceptionally complete.
Similar threads
