I honestly believe that Sampras and Agassi produced the more interesting three-dimensional tennis. In terms of gamestyles, it was maybe an even better match up than Fedal. You had the flashy big server, fearlessly approaching the net at any opportunity, and then you had the nuggety returner finding a way to pass him at every turn. It was explosive and it was unpredictable. Sure, Federer and Nadal have fewer weaknesses than either Sampras or Agassi and their shots a more finely tuned and well-drilled, and they've produced even more memorable and climactic moments than Sampras Agassi, but the tennis just isn't quite so exciting. Rafa drills Fed's backhand x100000 and that's about it. It's a great tactic because it works but that's not why Sampras approached the net. He came in to volley because it was a necessity for him to win, it was his only option. It was a huge risk against the best returner who's ever played the game, but he had to back himself because he couldn't match Andre at the baseline. Similarly, there was huge pressure on Agassi to put the return right at Pete's feet virtually every ball otherwise, chances were, he'd lose. In this sense, there was a more interesting dynamic to the points they played that is somewhat lacking in the current rivalry. Federer and Nadal are undoubtedly the better players, there's no real arguing with that, but their tennis just doesn't invoke the natural excitement and entertainment that their predecessor's seemed so effortlessly able to produce. I think it's something to do with the fact that their games seem to be built on ruthless common sense and prudence and vigilance where Pete and Andre's were founded on flair and instinct and panache. What do you guys think? How do these two rivalries, arguably the best in tennis history, square up? PS Don't just turn this into another **** **** thread. What I'm asking is, which rivalry produced THE MORE EXCITING BRAND OF TENNIS?