Who is greater: Agassi or Sampras?

Who is greater?

  • Agassi

    Votes: 8 11.4%
  • Sampras

    Votes: 62 88.6%

  • Total voters
    70
  • Poll closed .

thrust

Hall of Fame
#51
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.
The greatest tennis player is the won who wins more slams and ranks higher than another particular player, therefore, Pete is the greater tennis figure than Agassi.
 
#52
Easily Sampras. But Agassi vas very talented so who knows what would have happened if he had worked harder. He wasn’t as disciplined as Sampras.
 
#54
If Agassi can be compared to Sampras , Murray can be compared to Djokovic
Between Djokovic and Murray, there is a bigger, even double difference in number of GS titles than in Sampras-Agassi's rivalry. Further, Djoker owns a career and non-calendar Grand Slam, so besides Olympic gold, Djoker has all the arguments on his side.
I understand it was a trolling attempt from you.
 
Last edited:
#55
Agassi.

Anyone with a Head racquet (especially a Radical) is automatically superior than a Wilson player (especially a ProStaff).

Thread.
Ha Ha! Pete is definitely the superior player, but as a kid who started playing tennis in the early 90s Agassi was the guy we all watched and cheered for.
 
#56
Between Djokovic and Murray, there is a bigger, even double difference in number of GS titles than in Sampras-Agassi's rivalry. Further, Djoker owns a career and non-calendar Grand Slam, so besides Olympic gold, Djoker has all the arguments on his side.
In terms of magnitude / scale , the difference is in the same ball park given the inflated weak era /surface homogenization era we are in
 
#57
At his best Sampras had the more complete game with both better defensive skills and the best transition game until Federer showed up. They both had plenty of offense. Plus, Pete was by far the more clutch player of the two.

The trick to beating Agassi was to make him take more than two steps vs. Sampras at his best was great on the run or centered. Plus, Pete has several conniving wins on clay versus Agassi has zero wins on grass - although Andre did have a decent win one year indoors at the Masters.

I respect Andre ( especially what he's done in retirement ) but Pete by a wide margin.
 
Last edited:
#58
The greatest tennis player is the won who wins more slams and ranks higher than another particular player, therefore, Pete is the greater tennis figure than Agassi.
Which is why I voted for Pete. My point there was essentially that if Pete had been more present in the tennis scene since his retirement, and perhaps had retired at an older age, then the gap in greatness between him and Andre would have been even wider for me. But because of his decisions, it was a closer call in my opinion.
 
#62
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?
He didn’t have as good a return as Agassi, not where his passing shots so stinging, so grass was tougher for him. But Agassi did get a bit lucky that ivanisevic beat Sampras in the 92 semis
 
#64
Obviously Sampras is greater.
In a trivial way, it could be said that the substantial difference was made by the 7 Wimbledons at 1.o_O
But not even so trivially. In reality if Agassi had won 7 Wimbly at 1 the Pete would have been greater.
If they won 4 Wimbly each I don't know ...:rolleyes::confused:
But the weight of Wimbledon in this rivalry has been enormous.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
#65
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.
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.
I've struggled with the Lendl question as well. I never felt that S&V suited him, but then I look at some of his matches, like the 84 semi against Connors and say, well, he's at a disadvantage staying back. I don't think Lendl's game was anything like Agassi, aside from them being baseliners. Connors and Agassi are much more similar in certain respects.
 
#67
I don't think Lendl's game was anything like Agassi, aside from them being baseliners. Connors and Agassi are much more similar in certain respects.
I would completely subscribe to that. Both Connors and Agassi would stay close to the baseline and take the ball on the rise, taking time away from their opponents and moving them side to side. Both had extraordinarily strong return games, and two of the best THBH ever seen.
 
#75
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.
How come Corretja faced Moya in the final? Chang beat Sampras 95? Courier beat Sampras 92? Bruguera made sf 95?
Baseliners had good chances.
 
#77
How come Corretja faced Moya in the final? Chang beat Sampras 95? Courier beat Sampras 92? Bruguera made sf 95?
Baseliners had good chances.
Chang is not a clay courter, he is better on hard courts than clay despite his RG title.

Courier is just as good on hard courts, especialy slower hard courts, as he is on clay.

They are baseliners yes but they are agressive baseliners, well Chang an agressive counterpunching baseliner but a resilient one who was willing to do anything including attack the net to win.

Corretja-Moya was the strangest, but Moya had a huge forehand and big first serve and a lot of good results on hard courts.
 
#78
Sampras had an attribute more conducive to winning slams - he played his very best on crucial points, and he could lock guys like Agassi down by having the worlds best hold-game.

Agassi was a more complete and versatile player, evident by his superior clay court record.

But since winning matches is all that matters in the end, we have to give it to Sampras.
 
#79
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.
I think this is a pretty good assessment.

Irregular bounce also gave Lendl a whole heap of trouble - something that is far less of an issue on today's grass courts compared to the 80s.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#82
Sampras: 14 Slams, 5 WTFs, 11 Masters = 30 Big Titles. CGS = 0. Olympic Titles = 0. #1 Ranking = 286 weeks, Y/E #1s = 6.

Agassi: 8 Slams, 1 WTF, 17 Masters = 26 Big Titles. CGS = 1. Olympic Titles = 1. #1 Ranking = 101 weeks, Y/E #1s = 1.

Sampras obviously has the edge but it's closer than some people would allow. Sampras is obviously ahead in Slams and WTFs but the overall H2H in Big Titles is quite close. He obviously leads in weeks at #1 and in Y/E #1s. Agassi obviously falls short of Sampras' record in most respects but, on the other hand, he can claim a CGS (only other player in the open era who can do so apart from Laver and the Big 3) and his Olympic title means that, unlike Sampras, he has won practically everything there is to win in tennis. His spread of titles is consequently greater than those of Sampras.

Sampras ahead but Agassi with some impressive records of his own. IMO closer than you might think.
 
#83
Sampras: 14 Slams, 5 WTFs, 11 Masters = 30 Big Titles. CGS = 0. Olympic Titles = 0. #1 Ranking = 286 weeks, Y/E #1s = 6.

Agassi: 8 Slams, 1 WTF, 17 Masters = 26 Big Titles. CGS = 1. Olympic Titles = 1. #1 Ranking = 101 weeks, Y/E #1s = 1.

Sampras obviously has the edge but it's closer than some people would allow. Sampras is obviously ahead in Slams and WTFs but the overall H2H in Big Titles is quite close. He obviously leads in weeks at #1 and in Y/E #1s. Agassi obviously falls short of Sampras' record in most respects but, on the other hand, he can claim a CGS (only other player in the open era who can do so apart from Laver and the Big 3) and his Olympic title means that, unlike Sampras, he has won practically everything there is to win in tennis. His spread of titles is consequently greater than those of Sampras.

Sampras ahead but Agassi with some impressive records of his own. IMO closer than you might think.
Speaking like a typical Murray fan boy.
 
#85
Agassi was on peds after 1999, atp let him because of his popularity. Dude couldnt last 3 sets then does meth for 6months and becomes the fittest man on tour? People cant be that dumb. 3 grand slams in my book.

Sampras on the other hand was a classy champion
 
#86
Not what I would call a convincing counter-argument.
6 slam gap and 185 weeks as world number one (which is nearly three times less! Also finished the season as world number one only once, compared to Sampras, who did it a record 6 times! Not even Djokovic himself broke it yet and Federer didn't even equal it! LOL)...these two happen to be the most important statistics achievements-wise for any tennis player! So...THAT is your "convincing counter-argument"?! WEAK!...everything else, CGS, overall titles, Masters Tournaments (especially these, since i don't think Sampras took it as seriously as Agassi did...if he wanted he could have easily won at least 20 with his talent and probably beating Agassi for it several times along the way and stripping him off some of his 17 masters titles!) these are all just small tie-breakers to decide, who is better, when two players won same amount of grand slams and their weeks as world number one stat is very close too...none of these is the case so...
Also olympic tournament! LMAO ...just stop embarassing yourself already!...
 
Last edited:
#87
6 slam gap and 185 weeks as world number one (which is nearly three times less! Also finished the season as world number one only once, compared to Sampras, who did it a record 6 times! Not even Djokovic himself broke it yet and Federer didn't even equal it! LOL)...these two happen to be the most important statistics achievements-wise for any tennis player! So...THAT is your "convincing counter-argument"?! WEAK!...everything else, CGS, overall titles, Masters Tournaments (especially these, since i don't think Sampras took it as seriously as Agassi did...if he wanted he could have easily won at least 20 with his talent and probably beating Agassi for it several times along the way and stripping him off some of his 17 masters titles!) these are all just small tie-breakers to decide, who is better, when two players won same amount of grand slams and their weeks as world number one stat is very close too...none of these is the case so...
Also olympic tournament! LMAO ...just stop embarassing yourself already!...
Brilliant. The Murray fan likes Agassi because he’s use to playing 2nd fiddle supporting Murray. Oh sorry Murray was the 5th best player of his era. So he’s use to playing 5th fiddle.
 
#89
He didn’t have as good a return as Agassi, not where his passing shots so stinging, so grass was tougher for him. But Agassi did get a bit lucky that ivanisevic beat Sampras in the 92 semis
Without Ivanisevic though, Edberg plays Sampras in the 92 semis, likely beats Sampras, and Agassi probably still beats Edberg. So Agassi still wins Wimbledon without Ivanisevic.
 
#93
Sampras has 6 more slams, 5 more YE #1's, 180+ more weeks at number one, 4 more YEC but Agassi keeps it close with a few more masters and an Olympic Gold :-D:-D
The Career Slam would be the only argument for Agassi closing the gap even a bit. In fairness said poster did reference that as well.
 
#94
The Career Slam would be the only argument for Agassi closing the gap even a bit. In fairness said poster did reference that as well.
If Agassi had won multiple Wimbledons and Roland Garroses, instead of 4 Australian Opens (Which is known to be weakest grand slam tournament even NOW, when its prestige grown exponentially ever since 90's!), then we could talk! But instead he "lucked out" in that RG final barely surviving, cuz his oponent choked! And won his sole Wimbledon title, when Sampras wasn't even at his peak yet! LOL Outside of AO, he has won 1 RG, 1 Wimbledon and 2 US Open titles! That makes all the claims of being greater tennis player over Sampras laughable! Not only that, but Sampras is currently only 3 of all the people, who has won 2 different grand slams 5 times or more! (On two different surfaces mind you!) But even if THAT is still not convincing to you amongst all the things, then how about perfect finals win rate at the Wimbledon like 7 out of 7?! LMAO What about his grand slam win-loss rate overall, like 14 out of 18 (about 77% overall??!) Looking at these stats how can you still say Agassi is better?! Thats crazy man! His only "argument" of having achieved the so called "Super Career Slam" by being the only person in tennis with that designation looks weak as hell all things considered! If we were to make an open era list of 10 best players Agassi barely makes it into the bottom of the list barely scratching it! Whilst Sampras is most certainly top-5 player of entire open era (there is no arguments about that, no matter how you try to spin it!), while before big-3 he was the best man only next to Laver!
 
#95
If Agassi had won multiple Wimbledons and Roland Garroses, instead of 4 Australian Opens (Which is known to be weakest grand slam tournament even NOW, when its prestige grown exponentially ever since 90's!), then we could talk! But instead he "lucked out" in that RG final barely surviving, cuz his oponent choked! And won his sole Wimbledon title, when Sampras wasn't even at his peak yet! LOL Outside of AO, he has won 1 RG, 1 Wimbledon and 2 US Open titles! That makes all the claims of being greater tennis player over Sampras laughable! Not only that, but Sampras is currently only 3 of all the people, who has won 2 different grand slams 5 times or more! (On two different surfaces mind you!) But even if THAT is still not convincing to you amongst all the things, then how about perfect finals win rate at the Wimbledon like 7 out of 7?! LMAO What about his grand slam win-loss rate overall, like 14 out of 18 (about 77% overall??!) Looking at these stats how can you still say Agassi is better?! Thats crazy man! His only "argument" of having achieved the so called "Super Career Slam" by being the only person in tennis with that designation looks weak as hell all things considered! If we were to make an open era list of 10 best players Agassi barely makes it into the bottom of the list barely scratching it! Whilst Sampras is most certainly top-5 player of entire open era (there is no arguments about that, no matter how you try to spin it!), while before big-3 he was the best man only next to Laver!
I agree Sampras is clearly greater, but I do need to point out the Career Slam was more highly touted and felt like a bigger deal at the time Agassi managed it than it does now. Federer, Djokovic, Nadal all managing it has made it look a lot easier.
 

FD3S

Hall of Fame
#96
Stanimal?

You mean the Stanimal that's tied with Murray in majors and has noticeable gaps in virtually every other category that's measurable? The Stanimal that was an afterthought for the first 75% of his career on tour? The Stanimal that's never shown up at Wimbledon? The Stanimal whose introduction in most hypothethical scenarios is led with the phrase 'at his best' because if he's at anything less he can and does get rolled by comparative nobodies? That Stanimal?

Let's be real here. Wawrinka's an awesome talent with fantastic wins under his belt and a very high peak level of play, but it's gonna take some very, very creative spin to present his career as superior to Murray's.
 
#97
I would completely subscribe to that. Both Connors and Agassi would stay close to the baseline and take the ball on the rise, taking time away from their opponents and moving them side to side. Both had extraordinarily strong return games, and two of the best THBH ever seen.
But then Borg played more like Lendl than Connors/Agassi and he won 5 Ws in a row.

Without Ivanisevic though, Edberg plays Sampras in the 92 semis, likely beats Sampras, and Agassi probably still beats Edberg. So Agassi still wins Wimbledon without Ivanisevic.
Ivanisevic blew his last game by handing Agassi 2-3 free points including dumping a sitter volley into the net at match point. He also missed most of his first serves in that game despite having 76% 1st serve pct over most of the match. That is the difference between Ivanisevic and the ATGs. Agassi won because he met a bigger mental flake than himself.

Edberg in 1992, after all, was better than himself since 1993 and thus he might have actually beaten Agassi had they actually met. And if Sampras got past Edberg, well, the chance of Agassi beating Sampras in a BO5 on fast court was always near zero.
 
Last edited:
Top