Tim Tennis
Professional
You can't be serious. It is Pete, hands down, no contest. I think it is an insult to both of then.
You got to love the game.
You got to love the game.
Who had the better career: Sampras or Agassi?
- Thread starter GotGame?
- Start date
Camilio Pascual
Hall of Fame
Dedans Penthouse said:
You Pavlovian puppetmeister, you! I cannot resist the summons.
Now that I'm retired, you thinkin' mebbe I should give her (her agent) a call?
Well, I'm off to windmill tiltin' practice...
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
A good one to bump since now Agassi has finished his career.
For me, Sampras a better player. Agassi greater career.
I like the more balanced resume of Agassi.
Min no. of W at all 4 Slams: Sampras - 0, Agassi - 1
Min no. of F at all 4 Slams: Sampras - 0, Agassi - 2
Min no. of SF at all 4 Slams: Sampras - 1, Agassi - 5
Min no. of QF at all 4 Slams: Sampras - 4, Agassi - 7
Total no. of GS played: Sampras - 52, Agassi - 61 for some perspective
For me, Sampras a better player. Agassi greater career.
I like the more balanced resume of Agassi.
Min no. of W at all 4 Slams: Sampras - 0, Agassi - 1
Min no. of F at all 4 Slams: Sampras - 0, Agassi - 2
Min no. of SF at all 4 Slams: Sampras - 1, Agassi - 5
Min no. of QF at all 4 Slams: Sampras - 4, Agassi - 7
Total no. of GS played: Sampras - 52, Agassi - 61 for some perspective
Last edited:
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Because he won all 4 majors Kandamrigam? :?
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Updated my post
Yes, more like all round achievement considering all 4 Slams have equal weightage.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Updated my post
But what if they don't though?
No amount of balance can outweigh 6 slam titles IMO.
Bukmeikara
Legend
S
Sirius Black
Guest
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Updated my post
It is universally agreed that Sampras has TWICE the career of Agassi! Even if we agree with you that 4 slams have equal weightage, Sampras still comes up on top with 6 more titles. No amount of 'Image is everything' can compensate for the lack of 6 slams + 5 YE#1 + 200 more weeks at #1.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
When all was said and done, Agassi succeeded. Sampras dominated.
Sampras.
Sampras.
Agassi was the more complete player. Sampras had the best serve in the history of the game...and his volleying wasn't bad either. Both had amazing attributes. But who had the better career?
Well I think the best way of answering this is by identifying who was the happier of the two on retirement. In my view that would be Sampras. I don't think he would swap his achievements for Agassi's bundle of success, whereas Agassi may be thinking about it twice.
People also seem to forget that Sampras wasn't just a serve/volley player. He beat Agassi from the baseline with some points and he was entertaining as well. Also remember when he first won wimbledon beating a prime Courier in the final, winning some great rallies from the back. He never won on clay because his game was simply limited on that surface. But pretty much on every other surface he excelled at.
Personally I think Sampras had the better career, if only for slam dunking his smash
Well I think the best way of answering this is by identifying who was the happier of the two on retirement. In my view that would be Sampras. I don't think he would swap his achievements for Agassi's bundle of success, whereas Agassi may be thinking about it twice.
People also seem to forget that Sampras wasn't just a serve/volley player. He beat Agassi from the baseline with some points and he was entertaining as well. Also remember when he first won wimbledon beating a prime Courier in the final, winning some great rallies from the back. He never won on clay because his game was simply limited on that surface. But pretty much on every other surface he excelled at.
Personally I think Sampras had the better career, if only for slam dunking his smash
donquijote
G.O.A.T.
Next poll:
Who had the better career: Federer or Nadal?
Who had the better career: Federer or Nadal?
The_Mental_Giant
Hall of Fame
YOu should do that question miniumum in the fade of 2016 when both players are 30 or over...
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
1. What is your definition of "universal agreement"? Did you mean "more widely accepted"? Otherwise I dont see it.
2. That's a difference of opinion as to what you weigh higher. For me:
All round capability at the ultimate tennis events on all 3 surface > 6 repeated Slams + 200 weeks.
3. As I said I only say whose career looks more impressive to me, not who really is a better player.
Last edited:
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
9 is more than 3 but 3 is the greater number. YES!!!! Thats what you just said
No, I said Agassi has all of 1 to 4, where as Sampras has 1 to 10 but 3 and 7 missing. In this case I find 4 more impressive considering 1 to 4 are all different. Perspective. Versatility over Specialization.
Last edited:
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
But what if they don't though?
No amount of balance can outweigh 6 slam titles IMO.
Let's disagree. I will choose a career which was a part of 2 Fs and 5 SFs each at all 4 Majors over a career of 0 and 1 respectively. The latter is not something even Nadal or Djokovic has yet.
Not to mention the CGS.
Last edited:
FanOfLu
Professional
33 >>>>> 28 okay?
DerekNoleFam1
Hall of Fame
Balanced career is only part of the equation.
Agassi could not beat Sampras at the height of their careers on a regular basis, Sampras was the dominant one.
Andre did well to have a long career, and kudos for winning AO's and recapturing Number 1 at 33 years of age, but his overall legacy is not in the Sampras league.
He would have more of a case had he have beaten Sampras at Wimbledon, esp during his best and only dominant multi-Slam year of 1999, but was blown away by Pete. Nuf said.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
It's a joke to even compare the two, really. Sampras was just so much more successful than Agassi as a tennis player. He was the world number 1 for most of the 90s era, while Agassi was busy being ranking 140 something... It's not even a contest. Sampras was by far the best player of his era.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
But it is an important part. As to how important surface adaptability is let's have our individual opinion.
But I don't get this 'had Agassi beaten Sampras on latter's best surface bla bla'. You mean like Federer couldn't beat Nadal on clay in 2006? Oh wait where was Sampras in 99 at Roland Garros? Their h2h is skewed at 6-3 because 6 happened at Sampras's fav surface and 3 at Agassi's. I really don't see any domination either way.
Where Sampras has legitimate claim is he won more in less time, and stayed on top for more. For these reasons for me he is a better player. His career resume is not for me.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
I don't think kvitova agrees. Ask jankovic
Of course jankovic is more successful than radwanska and Ivanovic is more successful than both of them. But I think pros will choose Slams first.
Bukmeikara
Legend
I don't think kvitova agrees. Ask jankovic
So they would choose to win 1 tournament for 1-2mln and 2k ranking points and not become number 1 for 5-10mln wih 10k points. How old are you?
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
1. Yes. Kvitova > Jankovic, Johansson > Rios. Ranking shows consistency while Slam shows peak game. Prize money favours former. I am not convinced it's the most important career defining factor.
2. 28. You?
Similar threads
- Poll
