Would Andre have managed the GS record without Sampras around

[GameSampras]

Many will disagree obviously which is fine, but I think there could be some merit to the fact that Sampras ruined some of Andre's chances to win more slams. Much as Nadal has done to Roger. A couple questions are raised. Sampras ruined Becker's chances of winning any more wimbeldons and its widely regarded that Sampras sort of indirectly or directly depending on how u look at it made Becker retire since he knew he would never win any more slams especially wimbeldon with Pete around. Could Sampras of played in part of the downfall for Andre in which was supposed to be part of Andre's prime years 96-98 where he went MIA? Andre had a strong year in 95 statistics wise then went off the map and returned to top form rededicated to the game winning 2 of the 4 slams and reaching the Wimbeldon final who without Pete around could have given Andre that wimbeldon.

While Agassi was never a true dominant consistent force, he managed the career slams and 8 slams. It would be reasonable to suspect that Andre would have gotten another 6 breaking Emerson's record had Pete not been around. Just as it would be reasonable that Fed would be calendar slam champ many times over had it not been for Nadal.

Personal problems aside for Andre and without Pete around I would see Andre having no problem getting the 14 slams. Being that he managed 8 slams and the career slam while a few years there he was off the radar.

 

[McLovin]

In short: No.

In long: Without Pete to push Andre, he never would have reached his full potential. Had Andre realized this earlier in his career, he might have won a few more, but without Pete, he would have ended up w/ only a few (ala Safin).

 

[bluetrain4]

Well, these sorts of questions are tough. I mean, are we presuming that everything is the same for Andre and the field except for the absence of Pete.

Of course, "everything" can't be the same, because if's Pete's not in the field, everyone's seed changes and the draw changes.

But, for the sake of argument, I'd assume Agassi has same career arc - periods where he played great, followed by periods where he wasn't committed (until the last years, when he became a fitness freak and was committed full-time).

Pete beat Andre 6 times in Slams, so of course it's easy to just say Andre gets those 6 Slams (especially the 4 where Pete beat him in the final). But, I don't think it's that easy. I just don't think it's that automatic. There's more pressure on Agassi, other guys would presumably have more Slams themselves because of Pete's absence (Lendl, Becker, Courier etc.) and would be more confident.

I'm guessing Andre gets no more than 12 Slams without Pete (and that's being extremely generous), and I say that fully realizing that it's just a guess.

 

[GameSampras]

In short: No.

In long: Without Pete to push Andre, he never would have reached his full potential. Had Andre realized this earlier in his career, he might have won a few more, but without Pete, he would have ended up w/ only a few (ala Safin).

I always thought it was Andre who pushed Sampras to get better. Sampras admitted, Andre was the best he ever played against and Andre was the reason Sampras developed the big 2nd serve and made Pete raise his game. It seemed like when Agassi was on the other side of the net, Sampras raised his game to great heights. Moreso than against any other player made him during that time period

 

[drakulie]

^^^They without question motivated one another to become better players. bluetrain, summed it up nicely.

 

[ESP#1]

One could also argue that Agassi gains more confidence without Pete around and wins alot more slams than just the ones that he lost to Pete. Who knows, these things are hard to tell

 

[McLovin]

Agassi started his run in late 1994. Until then, he had been a pro for over 7 years with only 1 major. However, Pete had already racked up 5, along w/ the #1 ranking.

I honestly believe if Pete hadn't been dominating, Andre probably would have been happy w/ a few more wins & a couple mil in the bank. Sure, later on Andre pushed Pete to play better, but I'm not convinced Andre would have fought as long as he had w/o Pete pushing him, especially w/ the wrist & hip injuries.

 

[boredone3456]

I really doubt it. Agassi struggled to win some of his slams against players Like Martin, Medvedev, and Ivanisevic, all of whom are immensely talented but a grade or more below Sampras. Agassi, while talented, was not the same as Sampras is terms of mental fortitude, consistancy and other things tha go along with that. Without Pete, I doubt Agassi realizes his full potential at all, because without someone to really motivate him like Pete did, he might not have become what he did. I doubt Agassi gets 6 of Pete's 14 majors even without Pete there to stop him, especially since in his career with Pete he only made 15 slam finals. That is a lot but the record of 14 would be a mighty feet for Andre if he still only made these 15 slam finals without Pete around. I would agree with Blue, Andre without Pete at most would get 12 slams...but I would actually think he gets one or 2 less than that.

 

[woodrow1029]

I always thought it was Andre who pushed Sampras to get better. Sampras admitted, Andre was the best he ever played against and Andre was the reason Sampras developed the big 2nd serve and made Pete raise his game. It seemed like when Agassi was on the other side of the net, Sampras raised his game to great heights. Moreso than against any other player made him during that time period

It was a 2 way street.

 

[flying24]

No, No, and no.

 

[Rickson]

Absolutely not.

 

[380pistol]

It's a catch 22. Without Sampras it certainly opens the door to more slams for Agassi, no question. Agassi does not go into his funk in 1997, as there is no US Open final loss to Sampras that sets the wheels in motion.

But the flipside, there's no Sampras to motivate and/or push him. Pete always said Dre made him a better player. So it depends on how much you feel each side factors in.

 

[thalivest]

I dont think so. First of all he definitely would not have won all 6 slams where he lost to Sampras. The 1990 U.S Open no way, 1993 Wimbledon iffy at best and proabably no as he was out of shape at the time. 1995 U.S Open is not a certainty with Courier and even Becker, especialy when you consider Agassi's typical nerves in big finals. 2001 and 2002 U.S Opens are possabilities, but he has tough competition with Hewitt and a # of others potentialy. If he wins 3 of the 6 I say he does pretty well.

There are also other slams he might not have won had Sampras not intervened or Sampras not been there, Australian Open 1995 if Sampras had not taken Courier out for Agassi for example. Who knows if he still wins Wimbledon 1992 with a different draw, as he, Becker, Edberg, Ivanisevic, Stich (on a good day), and as it was Sampras were all pretty equal on a given day that year on grass, and capable all capable of beating each other on a given day that year.

Does he slump after 1995? Who knows with Agassi, did anyone ever figure that guy out really. Sampras wasnt the reason for his various slumps in years before 1995. If he had put more effort into 1996-1998 he may have had somewhat less for 1999-2001 (and even less in the subsequent years). In tennis it is not so much about age but about mileage. As the overall mens field was getting increasingly weaker for awhile from 1998 onwards Agassi may have unknowingly been best of saving up for a later time period anyway. It was alot nicer to run into Medvedev, Todd Martin, Clement, Schuettler in slam finals while still having some late career kick left than running into Sampras, Rafter, Becker, Chang, Krajicek, Ivanisevic in slams finals and semis from 96-98. Not that Agassi couldnt beat some of those but tougher pickings than the first group I mentioned who he often got in those later years where he had his late resurgence.

In every respect I would say no.

 

[Michael Bluth]

Let's say Andre has the same career arc, to keep things simple.

1990 USO: No way, Lendl owned him and he played a bad final.

1993 Wimbledon: Out of shape and Courier owned him. No

1995 USO: Probably not, Courier would have beaten him I think.

1999 Wimbledon: Yes most likely.

2001: Tougher call but I say he would.

2002 USO: Yes.

Also, he might lose 95 AO since he would almost surely face Courier in the final and Jim was the king of Rebound Ace who owned Agassi at that time.

 

[theagassiman]

I would love to say that Agassi would have managed the grand slam record. But however much I love watching Agassi (I really do), I just can't.
For one thing, he just wasn't consistent enough.

But I think he would have been able to acheive a calender grand slam.
Especially in 1999.

 

[lambielspins]

How would he have achieved a calender slam in 1999? Vince Spadea thumped him in Australia. That had nothing to do with Sampras (who didnt even play the event by the way). That was just, well the consistency thing you referred to basically. As it turned out Sampras missed the U.S Open as well, and made his usual early exit at the French, so apart from the Wimbledon final it was if he wasnt ever there for Agassi in the slams that year anyway.