Would Agassi win 1992 Wimbledon if his opponent was either Sampras or Edberg?

[Thomas195]

What if either Edberg or Sampras reached the 1992 Wimbledon Final instead of Ivanisevic? Would Agassi still win in either case?

Case 1: Edberg:
Edberg in 1992 was not in a great form, and also Agassi's style would cause great trouble for Edberg's kick serves. However, Edberg would be less likely to choke in a Slam Final than Goran, and less likely to dump easy volleys into the net, and he would be more likely to win if the match goes five.

Case 2: Sampras:
Sampras was relatively new on Wimbledon courts. However, Sampras always played well against Agassi on fast courts, even during his early career. Like Edberg, Pete would be less likely to dump easy volleys into the net than Goran.

(both also returned better than Goran, especially Pete)

My conclusion: Agassi would have much greater chance against Edberg, since his aggressive return game would greatly trouble the latter, as demonstrated by the Edberg-Courier match in real-life 1993.

 

[thrust]

What if either Edberg or Sampras reached the 1992 Wimbledon Final instead of Ivanisevic? Would Agassi still win in either case?

Case 1: Edberg:
Edberg in 1992 was not in a great form, and also Agassi's style would cause great trouble for Edberg's kick serves. However, Edberg would be less likely to choke in a Slam Final than Goran, and less likely to dump easy volleys into the net, and he would be more likely to win if the match goes five.

Case 2: Sampras:
Sampras was relatively new on Wimbledon courts. However, Sampras always played well against Agassi on fast courts, even during his early career. Like Edberg, Pete would be less likely to dump easy volleys into the net than Goran.

(both also returned better than Goran, especially Pete)

My conclusion: Agassi would have much greater chance against Edberg, since his aggressive return game would greatly trouble the latter, as demonstrated by the Edberg-Courier match in real-life 1993.

I Agree.

 

[Thomas195]

I Agree.

But I still think that Sampras would eventually prevail if he meet Agassi. He had never been a good matchup for Agassi on fast courts

 

[thrust]

But I still think that Sampras would eventually prevail if he meet Agassi. He had never been a good matchup for Agassi on fast courts

True, I don't think Andre ever beat Pete at Wimbledon or USO, especially in a final.

 

[Thomas195]

And if Agassi lost, he would have gone done in the history below Lendl, Connors and McEnroe. I don't think he would win one after losing this. Also, either Sampras or Edberg winning this match would significantly affect the race to No.1 in 1992.

 

[Waspsting]

I see these types of questions a bit differently than it seems to me most people do

Agassi beat Ivanisevic - fact. So it's set in stone, no?

No. The minute you enter a 'what if' scenario, I see even Agassi - Ivanisevic in terms of a probability ... to put it on the same level as the hypothetical matches that have been brought up

Basically, it was a 50-50 match - and Agassi happened to win

Regarding Edberg and Sampras, I believe Agassi would have been a bigger favourite than he was in the actual final

Versus Edberg because of all the reasons you said

Versus Sampras because frankly Sampras hadn't become THE SAMPRAS he's remembered as

He was up and down and very much prone to cracking under pressure. A bit frail mentally, he himself says it was US Open final loss later in the year that steeled him up (a match he seemed to completely lose heart in midway. .. unrecognisable from the machine-like Sampras that he became and is remembered as)

You say Sampras had a better return game than Goran, I say he couldn't even hold off Goran's return game... how was he going to manage Andre Agassi's??

I'd have backed Boris Becker - who Agassi took out in 5 in the quarters - against Sampras (or Edberg) that year

Conclusion - Andre Agassi - the best player of the tournament, the deserving champion ... and would have been favourite in the final against anyone

 

[Thomas195]

You say Sampras had a better return game than Goran, I say he couldn't even hold off Goran's return game... how was he going to manage Andre Agassi's??

Well, because Goran's serving game was too much for any none-Agassi during this tournament, his rampaging serves alone would put intense pressure on his opponents' serving games. Pete would have fared better during Agassi's service games since he (and Edberg) could trade balls from baseline better than Ivan.

Regarding Pete's serving games, one problem was that Agassi always struggled to read Sampras serves (unlike Becker), and only Pete's serves troubled him. I mean, it would be like the Becker match but now Agassi could not read his opponent's serves. Finally, in the Goran match, Agassi would generally win the point if he could just get the ball back, it wouldn't be case with top volleyers like Edberg or Pete

For Edberg, there are only two cases that he could win: Edberg leading 2-0, or the match going five.

Versus Sampras because frankly Sampras hadn't become THE SAMPRAS he's remembered as

Sampras fared well against Agassi on non-clay even during 1990-1992, when Agassi was already beating other S&V players (other than Edberg) up and down.

I'd have backed Boris Becker - who Agassi took out in 5 in the quarters - against Sampras (or Edberg) that year

You mean Becker in his worst year on outdoor surfaces? These two main No.1 competitors would kick his butt. Especially Pete who did everything better than Boris.
Also, Becker would have suffered the same fate if he met Goran, since no way Boris could handle that serve in 1992.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

The thought about how Pete vs Agassi went at Wimbledon (and their overall rivalry) makes me doubt Andre Agassi's chances in this hypothetical. Even if Pete had not started on his rampage yet. I think to myself that it was not that Pete yet but then I started to wonder, what if Andre beat Pete in 92? Would he go on to beat him in 1993? Would Pete have turned into the same Pete? etc Good ol hypothetical scenarios.

I'd take Agassi over Edberg.

 

[Thomas195]

I'd take Agassi over Edberg.

Yeah, more chance for Andre than for Stefan even on grass.

Even if Pete had not started on his rampage yet

Even before 1993 he always played well against Andre on non-clay.

 

[abmk]

Sampras-Agassi h2h was 3-3 from 90 to 92.
Tough to say who'd have won if Sampras had got past Goran. He had played brilliantly in the QF vs Stich in the match before.

I think Agassi would probably edge out Edberg.

 

[Thomas195]

Sampras-Agassi h2h was 3-3 from 90 to 92.

4-3 for Agassi actually, but 3 of them were on clay. Agassi in his early career were strong and consistent on clay. On non-clay, Sampras' H2H record against Agassi was very impressive compared to other S&V players, unlike say, Becker.

I think Agassi would probably edge out Edberg.

Unless Edberg suddenly played tough like in real life 1992 US Open.

 

[abmk]

4-3 for Agassi actually, but 3 of them were on clay. Agassi in his early career were strong and consistent on clay. On non-clay, Sampras' H2H record against Agassi was very impressive compared to other S&V players, unlike say, Becker.

nope 3 all
Sampras winning in Philly 90, USO 90 and 91 YEC
Agassi winning in YEC 90, Atlanta 92 and RG 92

the other match was in 89.
I was referring to 90-92 period
(Sampras was not top 10 in 89, so I only took from 90 to 92)

Unless Edberg suddenly played tough like in real life 1992 US Open.

yes.

 

[Waspsting]

I appreciate your having read up on the period some, (if I thought you hadn't, I wouldn't bother replying) there are scores of posters around here who just post wild revisionist drivel just... because

All due respect, I don't think you've totally grasped the period in question though

Like Edberg, Pete would be less likely to dump easy volleys into the net than Goran.

Not really

Sampras' volleying in 92 was about the level of Goran - and certainly a hell of a lot closer to Goran than Edberg

At the time, Sampras was the same mold of player as Goran - not just how he was seen but how he actually was

A guy who lived and died off his big serve. His volleying was nothing out of the ordinary. It was a bit clumsy from what I recall

On grass, Goran was basically a better version of Sampras at the time

Pete would have fared better during Agassi's service games since he (and Edberg) could trade balls from baseline better than (Goran)
...Finally, in the Goran match, Agassi would generally win the point if he could just get the ball back, it wouldn't be case with top volleyers like Edberg or Pete
.

You are seriously, seriously undervaluing Ivanisevic's game ... Do you see him as a an out and out serve-bot who couldn't volley, hit groundstrokes or return?

He breadsticked Lendl, Edberg and Agassi that tournament - and gave Sampras a 6-2

He and Sampras were both pushed to tie-breaks 4 times going into their semi

Goran was serve-heavy (like Sampras) but he was more than able in other areas (like Sampras)... there's no reason to think Sampras could have done all these things (return, volley, rally) better than Goran did at the time and on that surface

Sampras fared well against Agassi on non-clay even during 1990-1992.

As did Ivanisevic - who hadn't lost a set to the man from Las Vegas going into the Wimbledon final

You mean Becker in his worst year on outdoor surfaces? These two main No.1 competitors would kick his butt. Especially Pete who did everything better than Boris.
Also, Becker would have suffered the same fate if he met Goran, since no way Boris could handle that serve in 1992.

No, I mean Becker who raised his game for Wimbledon regardless of the year he was having

I mean Becker who toppled a peak, GOAT-ing level Agassi who could read his serve 3 years later against all expectations

I mean Becker, the most experienced grass courter in the world against a grass court novice (Sampras) or a guy he thoroughly owned (Edberg)

(I'm screwing around a bit with the arguments here but yeah... never count out Boris on grass, don't take the year he had in retrospect too seriously. He would have started favourite against Sampras and to a lesser degree, Edberg that Wimby)

And Sampras did not "do everything better than Boris"... it's a cute quote but isn't true

Boris returned better, had a more potent backhand and chip-charged much better. In 1992, he volleyed significantly better too

---

Let me tell you how these guys were and how they were seen round about that time - and how that changed over time

Agassi was noticed as a potential ATG from the get go. At 18 years of age, he finished world #3 in 1988 - ahead of big established stars Edberg and Becker - and that's with missing half the Slams

Yeah he was an idiot with his head screwed looser than his wig, but still

Sampras was a talented kid with a big game who happened to have had a big breakthrough win (USO 1990). Lived and died by his serve (just like Goran)

What changed is Pete matured into a focused, dedicated, consistent cum clutch machine oozing confidence (of game, his net play got much better), while Andre remained uber talented of game but la dee da dee da of mind

This didn't happen til after 1992 Wimbledon. At that event, Agassi's talent was on a crest of the wave phase while Sampras was tepidly finding his grass feet

---

Of course Sampras (or Edberg) could have beaten Agassi, just as Ivanisevic could have... When someone starts talking about "would have" (in whichever direction), they're not being reasonable

But I maintain Agassi would have been the favourite

You're opinion, it seems to me, is distorted by two things -

- a blurring of how things were at the time with a more general, time independent impression of the players in question

- a significant under-estimation of Goran Ivanisevic

 

[California]

What if either Edberg or Sampras reached the 1992 Wimbledon Final instead of Ivanisevic? Would Agassi still win in either case?

Case 1: Edberg:
Edberg in 1992 was not in a great form, and also Agassi's style would cause great trouble for Edberg's kick serves. However, Edberg would be less likely to choke in a Slam Final than Goran, and less likely to dump easy volleys into the net, and he would be more likely to win if the match goes five.

Case 2: Sampras:
Sampras was relatively new on Wimbledon courts. However, Sampras always played well against Agassi on fast courts, even during his early career. Like Edberg, Pete would be less likely to dump easy volleys into the net than Goran.

(both also returned better than Goran, especially Pete)

My conclusion: Agassi would have much greater chance against Edberg, since his aggressive return game would greatly trouble the latter, as demonstrated by the Edberg-Courier match in real-life 1993.

Edberg was not in great form in 1992? He won the US Open, obviously after Wimbledon, and he was a finalist at the Aussie Open. He also won Hamburg on clay in 92. I think he was playing well. He dropped off after 1993.

I think Agassi would have had a tough time on grass in 92 against either or them. He wasn't a natural grass player and the other 2 were. Goran was basically all serve and decent ground strokes and a weak vollier. He also wasn't a great returner, plus weak mentally. Agassi was fortunate to play him in the final and not either Pete or Stefan. Agassi also had trouble at Wimbledon with Rafter who played a similar game to Stefan, just at a lower level.

Back in the days of fast grass with unpredictable bounces I wouldn't favor a baseline player to win Wimbledon.... today is a totally different story.

 

[Moose Malloy]

I followed tennis very closely in 1992(to put it mildly) and attended Wimbledon that year. I also agree with the OP and believe that Sampras would have been a big favorite vs Agassi, much more so than Goran. I'm not even sure Goran was the favorite vs Agassi, think the oddsmakers had that match pretty much even.

There are many factors why Sampras would have been favored:

Would have had less nerves than either Goran or Agassi since he already had a major.

Had a psychological edge over Agassi since he beat him in the USO final that no one expected him to win. I'm sure Agassi would be more likely to choke vs Sampras than Goran if the match got close.

While he wasn't yet the Pete Sampras, he certainly didn't have a rep for being a choker like Agassi and Goran. His slump in '91 was largely due to shin splints. New coach Gullickson also made him more of a % player.

And really, then and in his prime he most feared big servers on fast surfaces. As he said a few years ago, he was licking his chops anytime he would play someone who stayed back.

Also re Becker, he was in poor form and physically struggling in 92, I wasn't that surprised when he lost to Agassi.

And I think Agassi would have beaten Edberg in the final, Edberg was an old school player like Mac, who Agassi destroyed. players like Agassi helped make S&V obsolete(sampras and Goran were very different animals)
Agassi matched up well with Edberg, see his wins over him in 1990, esp at YEC.

I was pretty disappointed at the way sampras gave up near the end of his semi, Goran's serve really got to him that day. There really was no serve on tour like it at the time.

 

[jorjipy]

Either Edberg or Sampras would have been a lock to win that final against Agassi.....at the time Edberg and Agassi were even in their H2H, why wouldnt Edberg have had the advantage on grass if they played....?

Agassi never beat Sampras at Wimbledon or the US, ever.....from 1990 to 2002, Sampras always came out on top at those venues, why would the 1992 final have been any different?

 

[hoodjem]

What if either Edberg or Sampras reached the 1992 Wimbledon Final instead of Ivanisevic? Would Agassi still win in either case?

Case 1: Edberg:
Edberg in 1992 was not in a great form, and also Agassi's style would cause great trouble for Edberg's kick serves. However, Edberg would be less likely to choke in a Slam Final than Goran, and less likely to dump easy volleys into the net, and he would be more likely to win if the match goes five.

Case 2: Sampras:
Sampras was relatively new on Wimbledon courts. However, Sampras always played well against Agassi on fast courts, even during his early career. Like Edberg, Pete would be less likely to dump easy volleys into the net than Goran.

(both also returned better than Goran, especially Pete)

My conclusion: Agassi would have much greater chance against Edberg, since his aggressive return game would greatly trouble the latter, as demonstrated by the Edberg-Courier match in real-life 1993.

Maybe in 1989 or 1990 Stefan would have won, but not by 1992. The last time Edberg beat Agassi was in the RR of the WTF in late 1990. After that, it was all Agassi. (By 1992 Edberg tended to lose to a power baseliner like Courier or Agassi.)

Sampras is a different matter. Around 1992-93 Agassi won on clay, mostly. Sampras tended to win on hard court or grass (see 1993 Wimbledon Quarters).

I believe that in 1992 Agassi was lucky that Goran had taken out Pete in the semis, and that he was not facing Sampras in the final.

 

[Gizo]

It is impossible to imagine Sampras ever losing to Agassi in a Wimbledon (or US Open) final.

I know 1999 was a different story to 1992, but I remember how relaxed Sampras was between his semi-final victory over Henman and the final against Agassi. There was no way that he was going to let Agassi beat him on his court. He probably would have been more nervous about facing Rafter than Agassi.

 

[George Turner]

Pete in 1992 wasn't the Pete from 1999, the 1992 Pete was prone to mental lapses and even tanking. Even in 1993 he took five sets to beat Andre there and That Andre was well below par. in 1992 Andre Wins, despite being Pete's bunny on fast courts in reality.

As for Edberg, if Rafter was able to get two wins over prime Agassi at Wimbledon i believe Edberg in 1992 would have had the edge.

Agassi beats Sampras but not Edberg in 1992.

 

[Thomas195]

I think Agassi would have had a tough time on grass in 92 against either or them.

Not sure, in Wimbledon 1993, Courier adopted Agassi's playing style against Edberg and won. Agassi's returns and backhands were way better than Courier, although Jim was more tactical. Agassi would jump on Edberg serves and return as hard as possible, like Courier actually did in Wimbledon 1993.

Edberg was not in great form in 1992? He won the US Open

Well, you do know that he struggled throughout the US Open 1992. In 1991, he straight-setted Lendl. In 1992, it turned into a five-set match against a Lendl who was just "bunting the ball back".

As for Edberg, if Rafter was able to get two wins over prime Agassi at Wimbledon i believe Edberg in 1992 would have had the edge.

Rafter serves actually had more pace.

Sampras could have done all these things (return, volley, rally) better than Goran

Sampras had demonstrated in other hard court and indoor events (US Open 1990, The Master/Tour Finals 1991) that he could volley, rally and return better than Goran. Oh, and Sampras had great slices, too. Goran had decent backhands, but his forehands and slices were above average at best.

 

[abmk]

It is impossible to imagine Sampras ever losing to Agassi in a Wimbledon (or US Open) final.

I know 1999 was a different story to 1992, but I remember how relaxed Sampras was between his semi-final victory over Henman and the final against Agassi. There was no way that he was going to let Agassi beat him on his court. He probably would have been more nervous about facing Rafter than Agassi.

no way.
This is very revisionist.

Agassi beat Rafter convincingly in the semi and was in clearly better form. Sampras would've probably beat Rafter even worse had they faced off in the final.

Pretty sure , it was very possible to imagine Sampras losing to Agassi in a US Open final. Agassi was the higher seed in all the 4 USO matches.
At the very least, Agassi was favored in the USO 90 and 95 finals.

Just because it didn't happen, doesn't mean it was impossible to imagine Sampras losing to AGassi in a Wimbledon or USO final.

 

[Thomas195]

Just because it didn't happen, doesn't mean it was impossible to imagine Sampras losing to AGassi in a Wimbledon or USO final.

Given the fact that every version of Sampras did well against Agassi in particular and nearly all baseliners of his generation in general on fast courts and against all baseliners (of his generation) on grass (actually S&V/all-court players always posed greater trouble for Sampras than baseliners), the probability of Sampras winning would be well above 50%.

 

[California]

Not sure, in Wimbledon 1993, Courier adopted Agassi's playing style against Edberg and won. Agassi's returns and backhands were way better than Courier, although Jim was more tactical. Agassi would jump on Edberg serves and return as hard as possible, like Courier actually did in Wimbledon 1993.

True, it wouldn't be a easy match up for Edberg but I think he would pull it off. He was playing better in 92 than 93, plus Courier was a better athlete, taller , and stronger mentally than that version of Agassi.


Well, you do know that he struggled throughout the US Open 1992. In 1991, he straight-setted Lendl. In 1992, it turned into a five-set match against a Lendl who was just "bunting the ball back".

Edberg definitely played better at the US Open in 91 versus 92, but he still fought and won the title in 4 sets over Sampras! So while he wasn't at his peak, he still won it all so he wasn't that off his form.


Rafter serves actually had more pace.

Rafter did serve harder for certain, but holding games is much more than serve speed alone. In fact that is the only thing I would say he could do better than Edberg. Plus Edberg was a much, much better returner, and would break his opponent much more often.


Sampras had demonstrated in other hard court and indoor events (US Open 1990, The Master/Tour Finals 1991) that he could volley, rally and return better than Goran. Oh, and Sampras had great slices, too. Goran had decent backhands, but his forehands and slices were above average at best.

True, it wouldn't be a easy match up for Edberg but I think he would pull it off. He was playing better in 92 than 93, plus Courier was a better athlete, taller , and stronger mentally than that version of Agassi.

Edberg definitely played better at the US Open in 91 versus 92, but he still fought and won the title in 4 sets over Sampras! So while he wasn't at his peak, he still won it all so he wasn't that off his form.


Rafter did serve harder for certain, but holding games is much more than serve speed alone. In fact that is the only thing I would say he could do better than Edberg. Plus Edberg was a much, much better returner, and would break his opponent much more often.

Sampras was a much better player than Goran, and I don't see Agassi beating him on grass. Other surfaces, maybe, grass? No.

 

[abmk]

Given the fact that every version of Sampras did well against Agassi in particular and nearly all baseliners of his generation in general on fast courts and against all baseliners (of his generation) on grass (actually S&V/all-court players always posed greater trouble for Sampras than baseliners), the probability of Sampras winning would be well above 50%.

that's still very different from "not being able to imagine Sampras losing to Agassi in a USO or Wimbledon final"

Agassi was the fav going into the USO 90 final. He was clearly the better and more established player at that time. Agassi played a mediocre final (nerves) and Sampras played freely and brilliantly.

He was favorite going into the USO 95 as well. was undefeated in the summer HC season (winning Canada, Cincy, New Haven and Washington)
He was 3-1 vs Sampras on HC that year until then (beating Sampras at AO, Miami and Canada and losing in IW.
But he peaked early and Sampras peaked at the right time.

2002 USO -- Agassi was clearly the better player that year. His chances went down thanks to the semi vs Hewitt.

 

[Gizo]

no way.
This is very revisionist.

Agassi beat Rafter convincingly in the semi and was in clearly better form. Sampras would've probably beat Rafter even worse had they faced off in the final.

Pretty sure , it was very possible to imagine Sampras losing to Agassi in a US Open final. Agassi was the higher seed in all the 4 USO matches.
At the very least, Agassi was favored in the USO 90 and 95 finals.

Just because it didn't happen, doesn't mean it was impossible to imagine Sampras losing to AGassi in a Wimbledon or USO final.

It’s not revisionist theory to claim that something that never happed could never have happened as the actual evidence is clearly on my side there.

Sampras stated that he wished he faced Agassi more often at Wimbledon and I believe him. While against Ivanisevic at Wimbledon in 1992 or any other year, he was at the mercy of Goran’s huge service, against Agassi on grass he knew that the match was completely on his racket. If he played well and delivered the goods he would win, regardless of what Agassi brought to the table. Agassi was a better match-up for him at Wimbledon than an elite serve-volleyer.

In 1992 Sampras as you said had looked awesome during his QF demolition of Stich and was finally living up to his potential on grass, and was happy and enjoying his time with Gullikson. In a hypothetical 1992 final, he would have nerves in trying to win his first Wimbledon title. But Agassi would have even greater nerves trying to finally win his first major. By that stage Sampras already had a major win (destroying Agassi the 1990 USO final when Agassi was the heavy favourite), while Agassi had to watch Chang, Sampras and Courier win majors before him. So Sampras would have the match-up, surface and ‘mental nerve’ factors on his side. 3 out of Agassi’s 4 victories over Sampras by that stage had come on clay and there was nothing to give him any sort of advantage on grass.

At the US Open the fact that Agassi was the clear favourite ahead of all of their 4 matches there (according to pundits and bookmakers), but still lost every-time proves that he was never going to beat Sampras there in any scenario (unless Sampras turned up with a huge, debilitating injury). Heck he couldn’t even take Sampras to 5 sets there, let alone beat him.

Also another significant factor, and one that Courier has mentioned, was that Sampras was always extra hyped up when facing another US player there, whether it was Agassi, Chang, Martin, Roddick etc. He absolutely loved to beat his compatriots at Flushing Meadows and put them in their place, i.e. firmly behind him in the pecking order. It’s no surprise that he had a life-time 18-2 record against other US players at the USO, and was completely undefeated against them there after his 1991 QF defeat to Courier.

 

[abmk]

Sampras stated that he wished he faced Agassi more often at Wimbledon and I believe him. While against Ivanisevic at Wimbledon in 1992 or any other year, he was at the mercy of Goran’s huge service, against Agassi on grass he knew that the match was completely on his racket. If he played well and delivered the goods he would win, regardless of what Agassi brought to the table. Agassi was a better match-up for him at Wimbledon than an elite serve-volleyer.

In 1992 Sampras as you said had looked awesome during his QF demolition of Stich and was finally living up to his potential on grass, and was happy and enjoying his time with Gullikson. In a hypothetical 1992 final, he would have nerves in trying to win his first Wimbledon title. But Agassi would have even greater nerves trying to finally win his first major. By that stage Sampras already had a major win (destroying Agassi the 1990 USO final when Agassi was the heavy favourite), while Agassi had to watch Chang, Sampras and Courier win majors before him. So Sampras would have the match-up, surface and ‘mental nerve’ factors on his side. 3 out of Agassi’s 4 victories over Sampras by that stage had come on clay and there was nothing to give him any sort of advantage on grass.

Sampras himself did exhibit some nerves in his next slam final - vs Edberg at the USO. He was serving for the 3rd set and got broken. Didn't recover from that in the 4th set. Edberg raised his level and ran away with it.

I can see the logic behind giving Sampras the edge in a hypothetical final, but to say you can't imagine Agassi winning it -- that's going too far. That is what you'd call revisionism.

It’s not revisionist theory to claim that something that never happed could never have happened as the actual evidence is clearly on my side there.

At the US Open the fact that Agassi was the clear favourite ahead of all of their 4 matches there (according to pundits and bookmakers), but still lost every-time proves that he was never going to beat Sampras there in any scenario (unless Sampras turned up with a huge, debilitating injury). Heck he couldn’t even take Sampras to 5 sets there, let alone beat him.

no, it doesn't mean that. All it means is that it didn't happen.
If a fair, unbiased coin shows 4 heads in a row, doesn't mean it couldn't have been tails each and every one of those times.
Saying you can't imagine Agassi winning any of those USO matches when he was considered the favorite is revisionism.
Only the first match was non-competitive, the rest were competitive, esp the 2001 QF.
For each of those, you have to see the situation at that time and what had happened previously, but not what happened afterwards.

To draw a parallel, a more recent example : Fed vs Nadal at RG.

Federer is 0-5 vs Nadal at RG. doesn't mean people thought he had no chance of beating Nadal at RG in 05, 06, 07 and 11 at that time. Just that it didn't happen. (lets leave 08 out of this )

Also another significant factor, and one that Courier has mentioned, was that Sampras was always extra hyped up when facing another US player there, whether it was Agassi, Chang, Martin, Roddick etc. He absolutely loved to beat his compatriots at Flushing Meadows and put them in their place, i.e. firmly behind him in the pecking order. It’s no surprise that he had a life-time 18-2 record against other US players at the USO, and was completely undefeated against them there after his 1991 QF defeat to Courier.

fair enough, but doesn't change what I said above.