Sampras and Agassi (no real comparison)

[Grigollif1]

I mean Andre Agassi is without a doubt one of the most talented players to play tennis and helped shape the game we see nowdays but, I have read in a few places and some people actually believe that he is more talented then Sampras. Which in my view is nonsense, I mean Sampras had it all and a little, just could dominate in so many ways, Serve, Volley, Baseline,Mental toughness.

Agassi is amazing as well but, In my view is ultmitaley a Unidimensial Player, problably the best to ever play Tennis. I mean his game was really nice to watch but, it was one Trick Poney. In numbers It shows as well every important statistical Number Sampras had plenty of margin, the only thing that Agassi has the edge is at the French Open, where people that Like to make the case of Agassi having a Greater in impact Overated so much...Lol they almost make it Sound like 1 French Open is more important than 3 Wimbledons and 2 US opens, right. For those who say that Agassi had a way better game from the baseline against Sampras I would Argue that the Margin was not as big and Pete could would many times have the edge from the back as well, as this videos shows for example..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wZaT4YZcKg&feature=related

 

[Moose Malloy]

Talent is something that one really can't prove one way or another. When many say Agassi is more talented, they usually mean that he is perhaps the purest ball-striker of alltime who took the ball earlier than anyone else.

I have no problem with anyone who thinks Sampras was more talented, but there are a lot of things that Agassi did that defy all logic.

First of all, that he was able to win Wimbledon(& post many other quality finishes there) from the baseline in an era where everyone else was S&Ving &/or hitting 20-30 aces a match is amazing. Even Courier when he made the final there in '93 was S&Ving on every 1st serve. Not Agassi.

Then we have all the majors he won from extremely low points/slumps, etc like '92 W, '94 US(unseeded), '99 FO. He was beyond Safin-like in his ability to beat top players when he had no business doing so.

Then there's that whole dropped to 140 in the world got back to #1. Absolutely no one thought he would ever be an elite player again when he dropped that low, let alone #1, and yes a lot of that was hardwork, but even more was that he was just so damn talented. I have trouble believing any other #1 in the Open Era could have done that. When you drop like that, you are pretty much done.

And early in his career he basically half-assed it, but still made the FO finals in '90/'91 without absolutely no claycourt warmups. He even just flew into Paris the day before the event in '90! Talk about talent.
Oh, and he hardly played on clay going into the '99 FO as well(even thought about not playing due to injury)

Its a shame most here only know what Agassi was like when he decided to just be a human backboard, he was a shotmaker as well through a lot of his career, not just a Nalbandian type player.

But I do think Sampras was a far better athlete, who had a far better career(no historian considers Agassi's career in the same ballpark, really. The whole 'career' slam thing was not an important criteria in ranking greats not too long ago. Winning many Wimbledons(despite the obsolete nature of the surface today) was always a bigger deal.

And I think Agassi was somewhat fragile mentally. His lack of big results earlier in his career wasn't just due to him not working hard enough.

 

[superman1]

Moose, as usual, is absolutely right. Sampras was a natural world class athlete, he was cat-like in the fluidity of his movement. Agassi was not a natural athlete, he admits it himself in interviews (though I think he underrates himself a bit). Yet the margin between them wasn't that big. When they were both in their primes, it was a toss-up. I don't know what the odds were on their '95 US Open final, but it must have been about even.

In the end, Sampras had a more efficient game (especially since the surfaces and strings didn't favor Agassi), and Agassi had a bunch of personal problems ("Daddy issues") that kept him from achieving everything he could have.

 

[sapient007]

just look at roddick and saffin

 

[tricky]

And I think Agassi was somewhat fragile mentally. His lack of big results earlier in his career wasn't just due to him not working hard enough.

I don't think he completely overcame this. I felt that his mental strength prevented him from winning multiple French Opens during his peak era. You can kinda tell how he was feeling by his serve.

Even though his game wasn't as aggressive as Sampras, I felt that Agassi was a better tactician. His ability to defeat younger opponents, most who played a variation of the baseline game he played, reflected this.

In terms of talent, I guess it's kinda up-in-the-air. It's not just his ability to return serves, he's one of the few guys who seemed to be able to really rally against Federer regardless of surface advantage. Federer likes to vary spin, ball height, and pace to throw off the other guy; this even works against Nadal. But Agassi seemed to pretty much strike everything back with clean authority. That's something.

BTW, shouldn't this be in the Former Pro Player Talk section?

 

[edmondsm]

Yes, Sampras was more physically gifted for sure, but it is impossible to determine how much of his physical gifts were nature and how much was nurture. The same goes for Agassi. Agassi had probably the greatest hand to eye coordination that the game has ever seen. The unanswerable question again is how much of that was genetics and how much was learned.

Agassi is the only player in the modern game to achieve the career slam. This is something that he has on every other player out there, even Sampras.

 

[Grigollif1]

Moose

I respect your opinion but, I have an issue with it. It seems that you only taking in consideration what a player can do with the Arsenal that he already has, such as saying that even tohugh Agassi has a one dimensional game he was able to win Wimbledon and this or that. Which is fine, and is one aspect of talent but, in my view even more so is to be able to build your game. I mean Sampras palyed the Juniors with a two handed Backhand and until the fisrt years that he Played pro, he was playing from the baseline, his game didn't look anything like we see in Wimbledon Later on, so isnt that a very amusing as well. That he was able to construct a near perfect sv game, just because as he says It would be "nice" for Wimbledon.

In my view, yes talent is also being able to do the most with what you have builded already like Agassi but, even more so, is creating your game arsenal like Sampras did. Which is basically developing every shot in the game...

 

[edmondsm]

I respect your opinion but, I have an issue with it. It seems that you only taking in consideration what a player can do with the Arsenal that he already has, such as saying that even tohugh Agassi has a one dimensional game he was able to win Wimbledon and this or that. Which is fine, and is one aspect of talent but, in my view even more so is to be able to build your game. I mean Sampras palyed the Juniors with a two handed Backhand and until the fisrt years that he Played pro, he was playing from the baseline, his game didn't look anything like we see in Wimbledon Later on, so isnt that a very amusing as well. That he was able to construct a near perfect sv game, just because as he says It would be "nice" for Wimbledon.

In my view, yes talent is also being able to do the most with what you have builded already like Agassi but, even more so, is creating your game arsenal like Sampras did. Which is basically developing every shot in the game...

You say that Agassi was one-dimensional, ok fair enough, but you could say the same about Sampras who did all of his winning with his s&v style. True Samp was great from the baseline, but not nearly on the level of Agassi and others, which is why Agassi has such a greater slow court resume.

And I don't see why Sampras is better just because he changed his style at a young age. That seems incidental to me. Sampras changed because it was observed that he was developing a world class serve and that his game would be most effective based around that.

 

[mista-k]

eh edberg is better...
agassi is 2nd on my list...

 

[Moose Malloy]

Grigollif1, I didn't actually say I thought Agassi was more talented, just saying why I thought that those who thought he was aren't completely nuts.

And certainly no one would call Agassi a 'complete' player, while many called Sampras one, if that is how one defines talent.

I don't think he completely overcame this. I felt that his mental strength prevented him from winning multiple French Opens during his peak era. You can kinda tell how he was feeling by his serve.

Yeah, I agree. He lost many big matches he was in position to win(or get close to winning) after he reinvented himself, like vs Rafter at '01 W(served for it, & couldn't make a 1st serve) Grosjean at the French(just fell apart after blowing Grosjean out in the first) He would get that 'deer in the headlights' look.
And of course he served for a 5-2(I think?) lead in the 3rd set vs Fed in the USO final, when it was a set all. His serve went way off in that game.
I think he was in position to go up 2-1 in sets vs Ferrero at the '02 French as well(he had won Rome that year & was in great form)

Federer likes to vary spin, ball height, and pace to throw off the other guy; this even works against Nadal. But Agassi seemed to pretty much strike everything back with clean authority. That's something.

It certainly is. Do you think Safin strikes cleanly when he plays Fed as well?

 

[noeledmonds]

I believe Agassi was more talented than Sampras although Sampras achived more in his career and is therefore the greater player.

Many people seem to foget that Agassi played a completely different game in his come-back in 1999 then what he used to play pre-1996. Agassi's later game that people tend to assosiate with him is superb stactical play, his ability to work points, his ability to be aggressive while still playing high percentage shots and his gentlemanly behaviour on and off the court.

However this bears little to now resemblence his pre-1996 game style. Agassi was unfit, a selfconfessed junk food lover, attempted ridulous low percentage winners from all over the court as his stamina would not stand up in constant long ralleys and was a bit of a brat on and off the court with no respect for anyone.

To make this incredible transformation shows enormous tallent in my opnion. Sampras was undoubtably very tallented also. You talk about Sampras changing from a 2 handed backhand to a 1 handed backhand at the age of 14, which is impressive. However Agassi completely changed his service action much later in his career after he won Wimbledon in 1992. If you examine footage from Agassi's Wimbedon matches in 1992 you will notice the action was completely different from the one he used after his come-back.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Many people seem to foget that Agassi played a completely different game in his come-back in 1999 then what he used to play pre-1996. Agassi's later game that people tend to assosiate with him is superb stactical play, his ability to work points, his ability to be aggressive while still playing high percentage shots and his gentlemanly behaviour on and off the court.

However this bears little to now resemblence his pre-1996 game style. Agassi was unfit, a selfconfessed junk food lover, attempted ridulous low percentage winners from all over the court as his stamina would not stand up in constant long ralleys and was a bit of a brat on and off the court with no respect for anyone.

Not sure about this timeline. He hooked up w/Gilbert in '94 & started playing % tennis(which got him to #1 in '95), but he still had some of the flair/shotmaking aspects of his game as well. Plus he had Brooke. This was my favorite version of Agassi.

When he cameback(again) to the top in '99, he almost completely got rid of the flashy shots(& his hair, before he left some on top) & became a human backboard. Still hit the crap out of the ball though.

But as far as Agassi between '88-'93, yeah that was the junkfood, low percentage Agassi.

There's an interesting thread in Former Pro Player about the '88 FO SF between Agassi & Wilander. Wilander won in 5, but Agassi came to net 110 times! Was pretty shocked to read that, who could have ever imagined that stat with Agassi. Guess it showed how much of a pain it must have been to play Wilander on clay back then. You couldn't get the ball by him from the back. Young Agassi was willing to try anything.

However Agassi completely changed his service action much later in his career after he won Wimbledon in 1992. If you examine footage from Agassi's Wimbedon matches in 1992 you will notice the action was completely different from the one he used after his come-back.

I did not notice a big difference in his motion in '92 to his motion in '99, other than the brief period in '93 when he did that 'go straight to the backscratch motion.'

tricky?

 

[AgassiAssault]

Let Me State This Is Laymen's Terms Without The Words:

Agassi Was A Better Player Than Sampras He Just Didn't Have As Great Of A Service.

 

[fastdunn]

The more I play/follow tennis (20 years now), the more I find how good "returner" Agassi was.

He somehow pulled off wins on Wimbledon and Master's final (on super fast carpet) in 90's, arguably the most heterogenized era(in terms of surfaces speeds and playing style).

And he somehow pulled off wins on all slams on technically all truely differennt surfaces. I think he is the only one in history. And now his record will remain longer than Sampras'. At least it apears that way now...

 

[laurie]

Let Me State This Is Laymen's Terms Without The Words:

Agassi Was A Better Player Than Sampras He Just Didn't Have As Great Of A Service.

Yeah right! You're just looking for a silly argument. I wont be bothered to oblige you but someone will no doubt.

Nice to see the videos I'm putting on youtube is causing debates. That first point is an outragoeus topspin forehand by Sampras, that match was a great baseline battle but I also love these two clips from the same match.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtgLwGUAdGY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31IHfaRL1X0

 

[Grigollif1]

Alright, I respect every ones Opinions but, I must say that Agassi achiviements and game are very much Helped by his Charima/Personality. I belive, that if he had the Peronality of a Lendl or Sampras he woulndt nearly receive as much Praises. Also, I keep hearing every time about Agassi's game as referred about his Clean Ball striking habilities. Well, fair enough the guy from the Baseline and Return is as cleans as it can get but, Ball stringing is not just Forehands and Backhands. Is Serve, Slice, dropshot VOLLEY, Overheads... that is also Ball striking. In that sense, I mean Agassis Vollyeys earlier in his career were almost amateurish like, most of the time non eficcient. If he had to move two steps to volley, It was a framer.

I am not trying to take anything away from Agassi, he is a great but Much of his Tennis career is very much help by his Persona....

 

[hyogen]

The more I play/follow tennis (20 years now), the more I find how good "returner" Agassi was.

He somehow pulled off wins on Wimbledon and Master's final (on super fast carpet) in 90's, arguably the most heterogenized era(in terms of surfaces speeds and playing style).

And he somehow pulled off wins on all slams on technically all truely differennt surfaces. I think he is the only one in history. And now his record will remain longer than Sampras'. At least it apears that way now...

some very wise and keen people we have on these boards Agassi is #1 in my book. I almost got a chance to talk to Agassi while calling into Agassi College Preparatory Academy while trying to get in as a vendor to sell them IT products...apparently he's frequently at his school hanging out with the kids and seeing over the school. What a guy -_-

I think that is true also--Agassi's record will stand for much longer than Sampras' will. Sampras has only been gone a few years...and someone's already able and will surpass his # of slams. After Federer, there surely will be another. Think about this... Agassi is only one of 5 people in the history of tennis to win all 4 slams....and Agassi is the ONLY one to do it on all 4 different surfaces.

No disrespect meant to Sampras--in an interview he said his greatest dream/achievement would be to beat Agassi in the French Open finals.

 

[lambielspins]

Nobody knows how good Agassi should have been since he only decided to fully commit himself late in his career when he was past his physical peak which is sad. If he had been as commited throughout the entire 90s as he was from 1999-onwards it really would have been something to see how great he could have become.

 

[AgassiAssault]

Yeah right! You're just looking for a silly argument. I wont be bothered to oblige you but someone will no doubt.

Nice to see the videos I'm putting on youtube is causing debates. That first point is an outragoeus topspin forehand by Sampras, that match was a great baseline battle but I also love these two clips from the same match.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtgLwGUAdGY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31IHfaRL1X0

You have great videos. You are no doubt a die hard sampras fan. Can you admit at least that Sampras is worst than Agassi on clay court? Thank you.

 

[lambielspins]

Let Me State This Is Laymen's Terms Without The Words:

Agassi Was A Better Player Than Sampras He Just Didn't Have As Great Of A Service.

Let me state it in simple words even a moron should be understand: The serve is part of the game, maybe the most imporant part of the game. Sampras's far superior serve is a big part of why he was the better and more dominant player. End of story.

 

[AgassiAssault]

Let me state it in simple words even a moron should be understand: The serve is part of the game, maybe the most imporant part of the game. Sampras's far superior serve is a big part of why he was the better and more dominant player. End of story.

You can also counter-point that the return of the serve is part of the game, maybe the most important part of the game. And also, Agassi's amazing return of serve is why he was the best. Not end of story. Why didn't Sampras win on Roland Garros???? Clay is part of the game, and Agassi has won on all surfaces, making him the more complete player and thus the best. END OF STORY.

 

[laurie]

You have great videos. You are no doubt a die hard sampras fan. Can you admit at least that Sampras is worst than Agassi on clay court? Thank you.

People like you can be as dull as dishwater sometimes. I really haven't got the time to get into this nonsensical debate. After over 1,500 posts I really can't be bothered to get into this with you just because you are new and looking to argue the same issue people have been arguing about for over 7 years.

Sorry about that but this discussion is mindnumbingly dull after all this time. Its been done to death.

By the way, is your real name AgassAsault? No I didn't think so. People know who I am but I have no idea who you are, but if I'm supposed to be a diehard Sampras fan then I must assume by this silly message board name that you are a diehard Agassi fan - whoever you are since I have no idea who you are because you guys always hide behind silly message board names.

In other words, I'm almost inclined to tell people like you to get stuffed!

 

[AgassiAssault]

People like you can be as dull as dishwater sometimes. I really haven't got the time to get into this nonsensical debate. After over 1,500 posts I really can't be bothered to get into this with you just because you are new and looking to argue the same issue people have been arguing about for over 7 years.

Sorry about that but this discussion is mindnumbingly dull after all this time. Its been done to death.

By the way, is your real name AgassAsault? No I didn't think so. People know who I am but I have no idea who you are, but if I'm supposed to be a diehard Sampras fan then I must assume by this silly message board name that you are a diehard Agassi fan - whoever you are since I have no idea who you are because you guys always hide behind silly message board names.

In other words, I'm almost inclined to tell people like you to get stuffed!

Agassi = 1 roland garros, Sampras = 0 roland garros. END OF STORY. AGASSI FOREVER.

 

[FedForGOAT]

Moose, I agreed with pretty much every word you said. I think Agassi is one of the biggest wasted talents (along with Safin and McEnroe) and could have definitely won more GS. If you ask me, the best Agassi would be young aGassi's game with old agassi's fitness+mentality.