What if Agassi had won the 95 U.S open final over Sampras

[ripitup]

How different would mens tennis have been from 1996-1998 and how different would the career of the great Andre Agassi had been had he won that 1995 U.S Open final with Sampras. IMO that result was the most devastating blow to Agassi's career ever and the most devastating blow to the mens game in general. Agassi had gone undefeated on summer hard courts that year and had been overall the best player that year by far. Sampras was also not at his best this year due to his coaches soon to be fatal illness, which Agassi was surely aware of. He really needed to win that event and end the year #1 for the first time to feel vindicated for all the hard work he had done, and for his overall production on the tour that year to that point. Had he managed that, he could have gone forward in the rivalry with his head high, and future defeats (which would surely come at some point) would not have had nearly the same emotional wreckage. When he lost that event and lost the year end #1 to Sampras, who hadnt even been near his best that year, it was too much for Agassi. He never recovered from that moving forward.

As a huge fan of both Sampras and Agassi at the time it was devastating to see Agassi's decline the next several years. It was also devastating to see Becker regain his old form in late 95-early 96 then have his 96 ruined by injuries. 1996 was the start of the decline of the mens game and alot of it was due to Agassi not winning the 95 U.S Open final.

 

[Goosehead]

folk often mention Agassi going AWOL after losing 1995 USO open..but why did it happen though,

whats so devastating about it..ok he lost, no need to lose the plot like he did age 25..

maybe it was burn out having played tennis since his was a child having been forced to by his slightly mental dad.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

You could argue his career was more successful afterwards than up to that point.

 

[ripitup]

You could argue his career was more successful afterwards than up to that point.

Well considering he was only 24, it would make sense. He still had well over half his career ahead of him. This more success did not happen for many years though and 96-98 was pretty much a washout for him. He himself admitted it was mostly due to losing that U.S Open final to Sampras and it took him years to get over it.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Well considering he was only 24, it would make sense. He still had well over half his career ahead of him. This more success did not happen for many years though and 96-98 was pretty much a washout for him. He himself admitted it was mostly due to losing that U.S Open final to Sampras and it took him years to get over it.

Yeah, well, the thing with the 90's is that you had many similar cases going on. Many of the top players (except for Sampras and Chang, to a certain extent) went in and out of form periodically. You could imagine many of these players (such as Becker, Stich, Ivanisevic, Korda at his best, Rafter at his best, Krajicek at his best) being able to dominate the field together with Sampras, but they only managed to do it for a few months here and there, and then they would fall back into oblivion. It was so clearly a pattern in the 90's that I thought - as a child of the 90's (born in the 80's but addicted to tennis in the following decade) - this was "the" normal thing in men's tennis. Only later did I understand that every generation develops its own pattern(s) and that what happened in the 90's couldn't be extrapolated to other eras, just like what's happening now can't be compared to previous generations. I guess what I'm saying is we can play the "what if" game with Agassi - because he was one of the most successful players of the 90's - but this could also be argued for many other players who, like him, didn't have Sampras' consistency at the top. If anything, I think Agassi's career was much more successful than he might have hoped for, especially in relation to what happened to most of his patchy and streaky opponents of the 90's. Sampras was probably the only player in that era who was working on consistency, mental game and resilience to stay at the top. Most of his rivals just seemed content to win a Slam here and there, but unwilling - or unable, due to the depth of the field - to dedicate their lives 100% to tennis.

 

[mattennis]

In fact, at the very beginning of the 90s, when that amazing generation of very young talents arose ( Agassi, Courier, Chang, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Bruguera, Stich, Ferreira,...) I thought at that time that no one would dominate tennis in the 90s.

I remember talking to a coach from Bollettieri academy and he thought Ivanisevic was going to be the real dominator in the 90s (from what he'd seen in young Goran) and I replied that there were so many great young talents in that young generation that it would be impossible for anyone of them to dominate clearly above the rest.

He said no one ever had a serve like that of Goran (and at that time Goran was around 18 or 19 years old) and he was so quick and flexible for his height and also had very good groundstrokes (at least when that young).

I said to him that for me Stich was the very special one and Sampras too but I thought Sampras would have eternal mental/focus problems (that he had when young).

It is so funny how things develop with time.

Curiously enough, about 10 years later (at the end of the 90s beginning of the 00s) I was talking with another coach and this time I said the same thing about Federer (that I have said about Sampras 10 years earlier to that other coach), that Federer was the most talented player (and he was around 19 years old) I had seen since Stich and Sampras, but that he had serious mental/focus problems and that would hinder his future career.

At the end both Sampras and Federer learnt to control their minds, their focus, and they both managed to fulfill their immense potential, whereas many other so talented players did not.

 

[ripitup]

Becker was at the tail end of his career by that point.

Meanwhile the likes of Stich, Ivanisevic, Korda, Rafter,Krajicek, never had Agassi's potential or even close to it. They were very good players and some of them maybe had potential to win another slam or two, but they none of them had potential to be dominant or consistently contending for #1 type players; and almost all of them were surface related specialists too. Agassi was not that, he was someone who had the potential to be #1, maybe not continously facing Sampras, but to be there at various times over the 90s, and to win atleast 1 slam pretty much every year. He was a contender on every surface and had potential to be the real year after year rival that Sampras lacked. He should have continued a rivalry with Sampras similar to 95, and had he won the 95 U.S Open final I am sure he would have. He would not have taken future losses as hard since he already had atleast 1 year winning 2 majors, being year end #1, and that would have taken a huge load off his mind, and reaffirmed the hard work he put in that year (which was the first year his life he had ever really done that to date).

 

[mattennis]

And yes, I believe had Agassi won that 1995 US OPEN final things would have been possibly different.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Well, had he won his first Slam earlier - any or all of the 3 finals he lost before winning the first in 1992 - things could also have been different. You could say that at pretty much any point in his career. As mattennis says, there's really no way to predict when a player will develop his potential. That's why I disagree that Agassi showed so much more promise than any of the others. In 1991, Stich, Courier and Chang had already won their first Slam. Nobody could say he was the favorite to rule the game and expect not to be challenged on that assumption.

And if Andre was so fragile in the mental department to the point where a loss against his great rival - which wasn't exactly a "surprise" - made him crumble and fall down the rankings, then he didn't really deserve to keep that number 1 status for much longer. That loss was bound to happen anyway, be it there at the US Open or in any other setting. He suffered from putting too much pressure on himself and imagining himself to be invincible after that incredible hardcourt stretch in the summer. I remember him saying something like "Pete, if you're watching, I'm coming!". It all sort of blew in his face, which was a shame. But it's telling of his up-and-down career that he put so much weight on that particular match, rather than seeing his career as a whole and building it slowly in solid blocks, as Sampras did. Two great champions, but very very different minds.

 

[Mustard]

folk often mention Agassi going AWOL after losing 1995 USO open..but why did it happen though,

It didn't happen overnight. Agassi was utterly devastated by his loss in the 1995 US Open final, and felt that Sampras was now number 1 for 1995, despite Agassi having won 7 tournaments in the year. In 1996, Agassi seemed to go through the motions a lot and had many poor losses, but he did still manage to win Miami, Cincinnati and Olympic singles gold in Atlanta. But his thrashing by Chang in the 1996 US Open semi final, seemed to send Agassi's career spiralling downwards for the next year. And then his wrist injury from 1993 started to resurface again, and his whole relationship/marriage with Brooke Shields.

It got to the point in October 1997, when Brad Gilbert told Agassi to start again from scratch by playing at least a couple of challenger events, or to quit tennis altogether. And fair play to Agassi, because from November 1997 onwards, with his ranking down at 141 in the world, Agassi then became very dedicated to tennis until the end of his career in September 2006.

Had Agassi won the 1995 US Open final, I think he would have had an excellent period as number 1, but Sampras would have responded to this challenge a hell of a lot better than what Agassi did after losing the final.

 

[TennisAddiction]

He would have 9 majors instead of 8...

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Had Agassi won the 1995 US Open final, I think he would have had an excellent period as number 1, but Sampras would have responded to this challenge a hell of a lot better than what Agassi did after losing the final.

Yes. As I said previously, you can't really think about it in "what if" terms because Agassi's career is defined by that up-and-down-the-rankings motion. He's at his best when he's coming back from the dead: fortunately for him, that last stretch starting in 1998-99 lasted until the end of his career. What made him strong and capable of coming back and win the French Open in 1999 (to me, his greatest achievement) did not occur despite his meltdown and fall in the rankings, but as a result of it. He thrived in proving himself when the chips were down. Wondering about what would've happened had he been a player like Sampras (eg. a player who knows how to be on top and remain there) is ultimately useless, because that's not what he was all about. Sampras was good at defending a fortress under attack, whilst Agassi was better at rebuilding it once it had been destroyed.

 

[Mustard]

And if Andre was so fragile in the mental department to the point where a loss against his great rival - which wasn't exactly a "surprise" - made him crumble and fall down the rankings, then he didn't really deserve to keep that number 1 status for much longer. That loss was bound to happen anyway, be it there at the US Open or in any other setting.

It hurt Agassi because of its timing. First of all, Agassi was world number 1, defending US Open champion, and had beaten Sampras 3 times out of 4 in 1995 going into the tournament, including the recent Canadian Open final in Montreal. Agassi also went into the 1995 US Open final having won 26 matches in a row. Then, Sampras beat him, in the most important match of all. Suddenly, Sampras had 2 majors to Agassi's 1, and had dominated on grass that year. Agassi had failed to turn quantity into quality at the crucial moment. Sampras hit Agassi hard at the perfect time.

Oh, and Agassi was certainly favourite to win the final going in, as he was for all 4 of their US Open matches, even though Sampras won all 4.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

It hurt Agassi because of its timing. First of all, Agassi was world number 1, defending US Open champion, and had beaten Sampras 3 times out of 4 in 1995 going into the tournament, including the recent Canadian Open final in Montreal. Agassi also went into the 1995 US Open final having won 26 matches in a row. Then, Sampras beat him, in the most important match of all. Suddenly, Sampras had 2 majors to Agassi's 1, and had dominated on grass that year. Agassi had failed to turn quantity into quality at the crucial moment. Sampras hit Agassi hard at the perfect time.

Oh, and Agassi was certainly favourite to win the final going in, as he was for all 4 of their US Open matches, even though Sampras won all 4.

Still, if he lost it wouldn't be a shock for anyone. His favoritism was common sense. But common sense doesn't always equal truth. In 2002 I remember Agassi was also the consensual favorite. But by then, any reasonably knowledgeable fan of the sport knew that when Sampras was the underdog against Agassi in a Slam, he usually ended up winning.

 

[Cup8489]

It hurt Agassi because of its timing. First of all, Agassi was world number 1, defending US Open champion, and had beaten Sampras 3 times out of 4 in 1995 going into the tournament, including the recent Canadian Open final in Montreal. Agassi also went into the 1995 US Open final having won 26 matches in a row. Then, Sampras beat him, in the most important match of all. Suddenly, Sampras had 2 majors to Agassi's 1, and had dominated on grass that year. Agassi had failed to turn quantity into quality at the crucial moment. Sampras hit Agassi hard at the perfect time.

Oh, and Agassi was certainly favourite to win the final going in, as he was for all 4 of their US Open matches, even though Sampras won all 4.

In many ways it parallels the Nadal federer rivalry in that pete, like Rafa, could be playing terrible tennis until he saw agassi on the other side of the net, and would win in the biggest matches despite as you say agassi often being favored.