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.
Dedans Penthouse said:Camilio: what's Amanda Coetzer up to these days?
A good one to bump since now Agassi has finished his career.
For me, Sampras a better player. Agassi greater career.
Because he won all 4 majors Kandamrigam? :?
Updated my post Yes, more like all round achievement considering all 4 Slams have equal weightage.
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
Updated my post Yes, more like all round achievement considering all 4 Slams have equal weightage.
Next poll:
Who had the better career: Federer or Nadal?
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.
9 is more than 3 but 3 is the greater number. YES!!!! Thats what you just said
But what if they don't though?
No amount of balance can outweigh 6 slam titles IMO.
Next poll:
Who had the better career: Federer or Nadal?
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
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.
But it is an important part. As to how important surface adaptability is let's have our individual opinion.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.
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.Sampras was clearly the #1 of his era, which is the point of being a tennis professional IMO.
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.
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.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?