sandy mayer
Professional
With some rivalries it isn't clear cut who was the greater. A good example would be Borg-McEnroe which is why their rivalry was so special. But Sampras-Agassi this is not the case. I seriously don't understand why some people argue Agassi is greater. The only explanation I can think of is that there are people who like Agassi more as a player and aren't objective when evaluating the 2.
Is there anyone who would rather win 4 Australians, 1 French Opens, Wimbledon and 2 US Opens than 2 Australians, 7 Wimbledons, and 5 US Opens? I don't think having won all 4 grand slams makes up for the difference of 6 between the final tallies. A difference between 6 is an awful lot. And tthis was not an era where players missed grand slams for political reasons. Wer'e not comparing Roy Emerson (who won 12 grand slams in the absence of professionals) to Pancho Gonzalez (who hardly won any grand slams because he hardly played any due to turning pro).
And even today Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament. The Australian Open has caught up alot in the Agassi-Sampras era but even now it's simply not as prestigious as the French and US Opens (which are perhaps not easy to pick between). If were'e looking at the big 3 Sampras has 12 to Agassi's 4: a huge difference.
People talk as if Sampras didn't care about the no.1 ranking. That isn't true. He did. Sampras nearly killed himself in the autumn of 1998 to finish no.1. He sensibly decided after that to pretty much forget about the no.1 ranking and add to his grand slam tally, realising that with increasing injury problems he couldn't realistically do what was needed to finish no.1
But Sampras finished as no.1 6 times to Agassi's one off. Even the year Agassi finished no.1 he still was behind Sampras head to head and probably only finished the year no.1 because Sampras missed the US Open and much of that autumn due to injury.
Sampras' 6 year reign as no.1 must not be ignored. I've heard Agassi fans say Agassi's career grand slam means we can disregard Sampras's record at no.1 I think that is an unsustainable argument. Sampras's vastly superior record to Agassi in year end rankings tells us that he was the better player. And Sampras never had dips in his rankings like Agassi who in the 90s fell outside the top 100.
And Sampras was 20-14 in head to head meetings, 6-3 in grand slams and 4-1 in grand slam finals. I've heard Agassi fans say that Agassi won their only 3 meetings at the Australian and French as if this compensates for the 6 matches he lost to Sampras at Wimbledon and the US. Well anyone would rather win 6 matches at Wimbledon and the US than 3 at the Australian and the French.
And most perhaps importantly of all there was something strange about their rivalry, which in my view lessens it and makes it inferior to the rivalry between Borg and McEnroe. Sampras won their most important matches at Wimbledon and Flushing Meadows and when I looked at Agassi in these matches I always felt his body language betrayed a lack of confidence. In their US and Wimbledon finals he always looked as if he knew he was going to lose. Even in the 2002 US Open final when Sampras hadn''t won a tournament for 2 years and Agassi was much higher ranked Agassi still looked as if he knew he was going to lose. I'll never forget the 1999 year end championships when Sampras returned after a bad injury and got badly beaten by Agassi and then came back just a few days later to beat Agassi in the final. There was almost something inevitable about that. Sampras was mentally stronger and that's why he won 4 out of their 5 grand slam finals.
So Sampras has a much better record in grand slams, a much better record in the rankings, a better head to head and a much better head to head on the big occasions. Agassi's career grand slam doesn't make up for this. I don't dispute Agassi's greatness, only that unlike in the case of the Borg-McEnroe rivalry, there's no question Sampras was greater than Agassi.
Is there anyone who would rather win 4 Australians, 1 French Opens, Wimbledon and 2 US Opens than 2 Australians, 7 Wimbledons, and 5 US Opens? I don't think having won all 4 grand slams makes up for the difference of 6 between the final tallies. A difference between 6 is an awful lot. And tthis was not an era where players missed grand slams for political reasons. Wer'e not comparing Roy Emerson (who won 12 grand slams in the absence of professionals) to Pancho Gonzalez (who hardly won any grand slams because he hardly played any due to turning pro).
And even today Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament. The Australian Open has caught up alot in the Agassi-Sampras era but even now it's simply not as prestigious as the French and US Opens (which are perhaps not easy to pick between). If were'e looking at the big 3 Sampras has 12 to Agassi's 4: a huge difference.
People talk as if Sampras didn't care about the no.1 ranking. That isn't true. He did. Sampras nearly killed himself in the autumn of 1998 to finish no.1. He sensibly decided after that to pretty much forget about the no.1 ranking and add to his grand slam tally, realising that with increasing injury problems he couldn't realistically do what was needed to finish no.1
But Sampras finished as no.1 6 times to Agassi's one off. Even the year Agassi finished no.1 he still was behind Sampras head to head and probably only finished the year no.1 because Sampras missed the US Open and much of that autumn due to injury.
Sampras' 6 year reign as no.1 must not be ignored. I've heard Agassi fans say Agassi's career grand slam means we can disregard Sampras's record at no.1 I think that is an unsustainable argument. Sampras's vastly superior record to Agassi in year end rankings tells us that he was the better player. And Sampras never had dips in his rankings like Agassi who in the 90s fell outside the top 100.
And Sampras was 20-14 in head to head meetings, 6-3 in grand slams and 4-1 in grand slam finals. I've heard Agassi fans say that Agassi won their only 3 meetings at the Australian and French as if this compensates for the 6 matches he lost to Sampras at Wimbledon and the US. Well anyone would rather win 6 matches at Wimbledon and the US than 3 at the Australian and the French.
And most perhaps importantly of all there was something strange about their rivalry, which in my view lessens it and makes it inferior to the rivalry between Borg and McEnroe. Sampras won their most important matches at Wimbledon and Flushing Meadows and when I looked at Agassi in these matches I always felt his body language betrayed a lack of confidence. In their US and Wimbledon finals he always looked as if he knew he was going to lose. Even in the 2002 US Open final when Sampras hadn''t won a tournament for 2 years and Agassi was much higher ranked Agassi still looked as if he knew he was going to lose. I'll never forget the 1999 year end championships when Sampras returned after a bad injury and got badly beaten by Agassi and then came back just a few days later to beat Agassi in the final. There was almost something inevitable about that. Sampras was mentally stronger and that's why he won 4 out of their 5 grand slam finals.
So Sampras has a much better record in grand slams, a much better record in the rankings, a better head to head and a much better head to head on the big occasions. Agassi's career grand slam doesn't make up for this. I don't dispute Agassi's greatness, only that unlike in the case of the Borg-McEnroe rivalry, there's no question Sampras was greater than Agassi.
