Who is greater: Agassi or Sampras?

Who is greater?

  • Agassi

    Votes: 8 11.4%
  • Sampras

    Votes: 62 88.6%

  • Total voters
    70
  • Poll closed .

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
I would like to get opinion of TTW on this important matter.
Very interested to see you take this stance (I noticed you wrote it in another thread).

I'm conceding a pretty heavy bias here, because he is one of my favourite ever players, but for me it's Pete.
 

axlrose

Professional
PWS? How on earth a pro player needs the PWS to enhance stability? It's for amateur.

Notice:This photo is used for illustration purpose only, not to insult/attack any particular person.

 

Kobble

Hall of Fame
It depends on surface. Agassi lead Pete on the slower surfaces. Pete dominated Agassi on faster courts. It is tough to call, but in the context of what people valued in tennis at the time, I guess Sampras.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
This. As much as I love Andre, it is not even close. The only thing Andre had over Pete is winning RG once. And, I think his Davis Cup record is outstanding. But otherwise it is Pete all the way.
Agassi was generally better outside the Slams. He won 6 more Masters, 2 more non-Slam titles in general and Olympic Gold. This and the CGS including RG should count for something.

But of course Sampras is still on top of him overall. I think even Agassi himself would agree, because besides talking some unnecessary private stuff about Pete in his biography he highly respected him as a tennis player.
 

Kalin

Legend
Agassi was generally better outside the Slams. He won 6 more Masters, 2 more non-Slam titles in general and Olympic Gold. This and the CGS including RG should count for something.

But of course Sampras is still on top of him overall. I think even Agassi himself would agree, because besides talking some unnecessary private stuff about Pete in his biography he highly respected him as a tennis player.
I knew I was forgetting something, the Olympic Gold. Good point on the non-Slam performance. It has to also be noted that Andre lost what should have been his prime years to injuries and, let's face it, due to putting style over substance for a good portion of his career.

On the other hand, Pete also had some health issues in later years and retired much earlier than Andre who had a late career resurgence.

Both were great but Pete was just that bit better :)
 

joekapa

Legend
Sampras obviously is greater in terms of titles and accolades.

Agassi, however, has had a larger impact on the way the game is played today. Agassi is the father of Djokovic, Nadal etc. Lendl is the grandfather.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
I cannot believe that this is even a serious question. It’s clearly Agassi, simply because he had more practice. Duh!!!!!

The YE #1, slam titles, total weeks at #1 are cool for Pete. Most of the experts use those to weigh greatness. But practice makes perfect.

2006 Agassi >>>>>>>> 1994-1999 Sampras. Case closed!
 

guitarra

Semi-Pro
Sampras obviously is greater in terms of titles and accolades.

Agassi, however, has had a larger impact on the way the game is played today. Agassi is the father of Djokovic, Nadal etc. Lendl is the grandfather.
Who is the mother then?
 
Sampras obviously is greater in terms of titles and accolades.

Agassi, however, has had a larger impact on the way the game is played today. Agassi is the father of Djokovic, Nadal etc. Lendl is the grandfather.
I think Becker alongside Lendl has a good case for the being the father of the modern power game.
 

joekapa

Legend
I think Becker alongside Lendl has a good case for the being the father of the modern power game.
No. Lendl is in a stratosphere on his own. Of all the players of his era, he has had the biggest impact of the way it is played today. Becker was a powerful serve and volleyer. That game has virtually died now.

Lendl showed how a powerful BASELINE AND ALL COURT game should be played. He also brought in the fitness factor, which todays player adhere too. He is arguably the greatest player of his generation, and the one who changed the way the game was to be played in the future.
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
It's a toss-up for me, but since Pete was a much more generous tipper, I'll give it to him.
...
In all seriousness, Agassi was an ATG, who captured the CGS and Olympic Gold, but no, he didn't match Pete's career accomplishments. A worthy rival in a legendary rivalry, and a great player in his own right? Certainly.
 

Noletheking

Hall of Fame
It's a toss-up for me, but since Pete was a much more generous tipper, I'll give it to him.
...
In all seriousness, Agassi was an ATG, who captured the CGS and Olympic Gold, but no, he didn't match Pete's career accomplishments. A worthy rival in a legendary rivalry, and a great player in his own right? Certainly.
Not just that but he never posed a big threat to him at slams.
 
No. Lendl is in a stratosphere on his own. Of all the players of his era, he has had the biggest impact of the way it is played today. Becker was a powerful serve and volleyer. That game has virtually died now.

Lendl showed how a powerful BASELINE AND ALL COURT game should be played. He also brought in the fitness factor, which todays player adhere too. He is arguably the greatest player of his generation, and the one who changed the way the game was to be played in the future.
This is what people do on this forum, they anchor bias.

The fact is Lendl did plenty of serve and volley too, in his efforts to win Wimbledon.

Likewise Becker with his long extended ground strokes of both wings, with a degree of power hitherto not seen helped shaped the modern power game alongside Lendl.
 
I said Sampras because of his obviously superior career achievements, but I must say that Pete's virtual absence from the tennis scene since he retired and the fact that he retired at 30 (31?) really makes me think less of him in terms of his greatness. At least Agassi stuck it out till 35/36 and has been on the scene more e.g. coaching Djokovic. It makes me respect him more as a tennis figure than Pete.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Andre Agassi vs Pete Sampras: Who Is Really Better?
TRIBAL TECHFEBRUARY 17, 2011

Andre Agassi and Pete SamprasAl Bello/Getty Images
I read recently that Mats Wilander is interviewed in March’s edition of Tennis magazine. Mats Wilander is quoted as saying that Andre Agassi is on the same level as Pete Sampras because Agassi won major titles on all four surfaces even though Sampras won many more titles at Grand Slam level. It got me thinking: can we definitely say who’s better?
I thought it would be interesting to look at the case for both players, and then weigh them up to determine who’s better.
 

joekapa

Legend
This is what people do on this forum, they anchor bias.

The fact is Lendl did plenty of serve and volley too, in his efforts to win Wimbledon.

Likewise Becker with his long extended ground strokes of both wings, with a degree of power hitherto not seen helped shaped the modern power game alongside Lendl.
I grew up during this era, and remember many matches.
 

Rhino

Legend
For me it's Agassi. He was just too distracted for much of his career to build up stats like Pete, but I feel like he had a better all round game.
 

Sport

Legend
I highly doubt that the Career Grand Slam compensates 6 less Grand Slams. Thus, I go with Sampras. Yes, he never won Roland Garros but he has 6 extra Majors over Agassi. And the number of Grand Slams is the most relevant all-time great criterion, generally speaking.
 
Last edited:

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
No. Lendl is in a stratosphere on his own. Of all the players of his era, he has had the biggest impact of the way it is played today. Becker was a powerful serve and volleyer. That game has virtually died now.

Lendl showed how a powerful BASELINE AND ALL COURT game should be played. He also brought in the fitness factor, which todays player adhere too. He is arguably the greatest player of his generation, and the one who changed the way the game was to be played in the future.
Despite liking Becker more (he was just electrifying on court) I agree with you to some degree.

However, do you think Lendl made a mistake by trying serve and volley too much when he attempted for a Wimbledon title? Would his chances have been better if he stayed back more often like Agassi’s style of 1992?
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
For me it's Agassi. He was just too distracted for much of his career to build up stats like Pete, but I feel like he had a better all round game.
I'd say the fast surfaces hurt him more. If he played against Sampras in today's era? Man Sampras would lose so often. The guy was hopeless on any surface slower than medium and 80% of today's surfaces if not more are exactly that.
 
I'd say the fast surfaces hurt him more. If he played against Sampras in today's era? Man Sampras would lose so often. The guy was hopeless on any surface slower than medium and 80% of today's surfaces if not more are exactly that.
Ummm he won Rome and beat multiple RG champions at RG and Russia in the Davis Cup final with a prostaff. Give him a bazooka racket and he'll be unstoppable.
 

EasyGoing

Professional
I'd say the fast surfaces hurt him more. If he played against Sampras in today's era? Man Sampras would lose so often. The guy was hopeless on any surface slower than medium and 80% of today's surfaces if not more are exactly that.
Way too harsh - Pete has wins against Agassi, Muster (Bo5), Corretja, Canas, Rios, Bruguera at his peak (Bo5 at RG), Kafelnikov and Courier (Bo5 at RG) on clay. Now he didn't win all of them in their best situation, but he wasn't completely useless even on clay, let alone slower HC.

His baseline game is, apparently, very underestimated by some. And I disagree with your assessment Pete would lose often today - if Rog could consistently S&V and net rush 98% of the field in 2014/15, so could Pete.
 

flanker2000fr

Professional
Despite liking Becker more (he was just electrifying on court) I agree with you to some degree.

However, do you think Lendl made a mistake by trying serve and volley too much when he attempted for a Wimbledon title? Would his chances have been better if he stayed back more often like Agassi’s style of 1992?
Lendl was not a natural serve and volley player, that's true. But staying at the back of the court, the way Agassi did, wouldn't have served him. Agassi's baseline strokes were more compact than Lendl's, and he had better hand / eye coordination. So he could be highly effective from the back of the court, even in that era when playing conditions in Wimbledon were much faster than now. Lendl could not shorten his strokes and take the ball on the rise the way Agassi did, hence this tactics wouldn't have worked for him against the big serve and volley players of that time.
 

Roddick85

Hall of Fame
2 of my favorite player's ever but it's Pete over Andre here. It's not only about the slams but also year in/year out consistency and Sampras is ahead of Agassi in both departments which is why he's the best player of his era IMO. When things mattered, Sampras won most matches over Agassi.
 

joekapa

Legend
Way too harsh - Pete has wins against Agassi, Muster (Bo5), Corretja, Canas, Rios, Bruguera at his peak (Bo5 at RG), Kafelnikov and Courier (Bo5 at RG) on clay. Now he didn't win all of them in their best situation, but he wasn't completely useless even on clay, let alone slower HC.

His baseline game is, apparently, very underestimated by some. And I disagree with your assessment Pete would lose often today - if Rog could consistently S&V and net rush 98% of the field in 2014/15, so could Pete.
True about Sampras. He could play baseline with the best of them, no doubt.
 

Towny

Professional
Agassi was generally better outside the Slams. He won 6 more Masters, 2 more non-Slam titles in general and Olympic Gold. This and the CGS including RG should count for something.
Not sure I agree that Agassi was better outside the slams. He has 52 titles to Pete's 50 with 6 more masters and OSG. But Pete has 5 ATP YEC to Agassi's 1 and 2 Grand Slam Cups to Agassi's 0. I'd actually probably give Pete the edge overall, or at least have it as a toss up.

I agree with your overall conclusion though
 
Last edited:

thrust

Hall of Fame
I said Sampras because of his obviously superior career achievements, but I must say that Pete's virtual absence from the tennis scene since he retired and the fact that he retired at 30 (31?) really makes me think less of him in terms of his greatness. At least Agassi stuck it out till 35/36 and has been on the scene more e.g. coaching Djokovic. It makes me respect him more as a tennis figure than Pete.
Not all players want tennis to be their whole life, or need to be in the public spotlight to be happy. Pete was rather shy, even when he was at the top of the game, whereas, Andre has always craved the spotlight. To each his own!
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Not sure I agree that Agassi was better outside the slams. He has 52 titles to Pete's 50 with 6 more masters and OSG. But Pete has 5 ATP YEC to Agassi's 1 and 2 Grand Slam Cups to Agassi's 0. I'd actually probably give Pete the edge overall, or at least have it as a toss up.

I agree with your overall conclusion though
You are right. After rethinking about the 90s Masters tournaments which were not mandatory I tend to change my opinion. Nowadays I wouldn’t value the WTF over normal Masters tournaments with the full field present, but back then it was different. However, in the 90s era of diversity there sometimes were clay specialists in the field at the WTF who hadn’t any chance from the beginning.
 
Not all players want tennis to be their whole life, or need to be in the public spotlight to be happy. Pete was rather shy, even when he was at the top of the game, whereas, Andre has always craved the spotlight. To each his own!
Right, to each his own. And if that's what Pete wanted to do then fine. But if we're talking about who I think is a 'greater' tennis figure, then I think his decisions in those regards are fair game.
 
Top