Andre Agassi...

[Vinay]

The man is really a vintage wine. He just seems to be getting better with age. He is showing no signs whatever of slowing down.

Andre has to be the most talented player ever to play tennis. Too bad he had to come of age the same time as someone so much more powerful and dominating at the net than him in Pete Sampras. Otherwise, I don't think there is any doubt, Andre would have been the winningest player in Men's Grand Slam history. Andre has the best hand-eye coordination in tennis in stroking the ball. All his balls are literally creamed (pardon the pun ).

Tennis lovers have to love Andre!

 

[vijay]

Andre Agassi..He has angered me a lot by beating Becker 8 times in a row after which Becker taught him some baseline tennis in the Wimbledon
SF <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> .Agassi Great player but am not his fan.I liked Becker and Edberg.Sampras is the greatest player ever to've played this game.Agassi <img src="graemlins/nono.gif" border="0" alt="[No No]" /> . The sucess of Agassi nowadays is due to the quality of tennis being played now.Now a days Lendl Muster and wilander could win the wimbledon if they can come out of retirement

 

[Vinay]

Originally posted by vijay_vr:
<strong>Andre Agassi..He has angered me a lot by beating Becker 8 times in a row after which Becker taught him some baseline tennis in the Wimbledon
SF <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" /> .Agassi Great player but am not his fan.I liked Becker and Edberg.Sampras is the greatest player ever to've played this game.Agassi <img src="graemlins/nono.gif" border="0" alt="[No No]" /> . The sucess of Agassi nowadays is due to the quality of tennis being played now.Now a days Lendl Muster and wilander could win the wimbledon if they can come out of retirement </strong><hr></blockquote>

I think Agassi is the most complete ground stroker. He times the ball the best. He has the most devastating shots. He can pick corners the best. He can hit virtually any ball to any corner of the court. He dominates virtually all rallies. And he is the best returner ever in the game.

Sampras only beat Agassi more because of his raw power. But, Sampras does not have half the ball stroking skills of Agassi. Admitted, Agassi is really poor at the net. But, this man has a hand-eye coordination that will not be rivalled.

 

[Raoul]

Agassi and Sampras are definitely the best of the past 15 years and the best since Connors and Borg, and before that Laver and Rosewall. Samprass is probably the best ever, and Agassi the best all surface player ever.

 

[vijay]

Originally posted by Vinay:
<strong>

I think Agassi is the most complete ground stroker. He times the ball the best. He has the most devastating shots. He can pick corners the best. He can hit virtually any ball to any corner of the court. He dominates virtually all rallies. And he is the best returner ever in the game.

Sampras only beat Agassi more because of his raw power. But, Sampras does not have half the ball stroking skills of Agassi. Admitted, Agassi is really poor at the net. But, this man has a hand-eye coordination that will not be rivalled.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why should Sampras worry about ball stroking.He is a serve and volleyer.I've seen Guy Forget Muster and Bruguera playing better tennis than Agassi with more aggressive and accurate groundstrokes with better timing.

 

[vijay]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>Agassi and Sampras are definitely the best of the past 15 years and the best since Connors and Borg, and before that Laver and Rosewall. Samprass is probably the best ever, and Agassi the best all surface player ever.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Agassi started winning GrandSlams after many of his rivals started to retire.He won only 3 grand slams when he was supposed to be at his peak.
I'd rate Sampras Borg McEnroe Connors and Wilander higher than Agassi and Becker Edberg on par with Agassi.The best all surface player ever is Lendl with Connors coming close.They are simply better as they had to compete with high quality players which was not the case with Agassi.Lendl did'nt win wimbledon but had come close many times , had beaten all players on the Grass and had won almost all the tournaments.

 

[Raoul]

Lendl the best all surface player ? He never won Wimbledon. You have to have won all four in you career to be considered the best. In that context only Laver and Agassi should even be considered.

 

[vijay]

Thats what i've mentioned.Lendl did'nt win Wimbledon but he has come close many tmes and has won grass court tournaments.Connors won the US open 5 times when the same tournament was played on four different surfaces.

 

[Raoul]

McEnroe also almost won the French in the mid 80s. He had Lendl down 2 sets to love and ended up losing the final. IMO you have to have won a grandslam on all surfaces in order to be conisdered the best all round.

 

[Jens]

is sampras still playing or just past it now?

 

[Raoul]

He took some time off after his kid was born. He's probably going to come back and play a reduced sched.

 

[vijay]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>McEnroe also almost won the French in the mid 80s. He had Lendl down 2 sets to love and ended up losing the final. IMO you have to have won a grandslam on all surfaces in order to be conisdered the best all round.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Lendl won the Australian open when it was played on Grass as well as on the synthetic surface!

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by vijay_vr:
<strong>
Lendl won the Australian open when it was played on Grass as well as on the synthetic surface!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes but the point is he never won it. I've seen the guy play LIVE before and he's like ballet dancer with a racket. Simply amazing. Unfortunately he never won Wimbledon, which is a must to be considered the best.

 

[sidsutton]

Originally posted by Vinay:
<strong>
Sampras only beat Agassi more because of his raw power. But, Sampras does not have half the ball stroking skills of Agassi. Admitted, Agassi is really poor at the net. But, this man has a hand-eye coordination that will not be rivalled.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You under estimate Pete's ground strokes. Up until say 99, he could blow Agassi off the court from the back of the court. It is only in more recent years that he has become more reliant on serve/volley.

People forget that Sampras is NOT a natural serve/volleyer. As his serve became more devastating, he learnt to follow it on and kill off the point with a simple volley from the weak return.

 

[Vinay]

Originally posted by vijay_vr:
<strong>
Why should Sampras worry about ball stroking.He is a serve and volleyer.I've seen Guy Forget Muster and Bruguera playing better tennis than Agassi with more aggressive and accurate groundstrokes with better timing.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sampras cannot be called the greatest ever simply because he never even came close to winning the French Open. There have been lots of players out there a lot better than Sampras on this premise; Borg, for one, and, for me, definitely Agassi.

Agreed, Bruguerra and Muster did have great ground strokes. But, Vijay, the point is that they never maintained it the way Andre could. Muster was up there for one year. Bruguera too quickly disappeared. Andre is the only one who lasted.

Why do you think, Vijay, it is a discredit to Agassi that he is winning when his folks have retired. He is older to Sampras and I think that in the last US Open, Sampras was totally lucky to beat him. Sampras almost had a red carpet rolled out for him (playing the likes of Tommy Haas who had a near dislocated shoulder etc...), while Agassi faced a tough road, having to beat the little pesky Australian (my favorite player today), Lleyton Hewitt, in a difficult game.

My conviction is that I rank Agassi as better than Sampras, definitely. And Agassi as the best ground stroker ever.

 

[Raoul]

IMO there's a distiction between 'best ever' and 'most complete ever'. Sampras could be considered the best ever if for no other reason than the sheer length of his dominance and his mastery at the most glamourous tournament in the world.

 

[Vinay]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>IMO there's a distiction between 'best ever' and 'most complete ever'. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe.

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>
Sampras could be considered the best ever if for no other reason than the sheer length of his dominance and his mastery at the most glamourous tournament in the world.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

But, really, I don't think it is fair to consider Wimbledon the most important Grand Slam tournament. A Grand Slam tournament is just that, on par with any other one. And for that, I rate a Steffi Graf better than a Sampras. I rate an Andre Agassi better than a Sampras.

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by Vinay:
<strong>

But, really, I don't think it is fair to consider Wimbledon the most important Grand Slam tournament. A Grand Slam tournament is just that, on par with any other one. And for that, I rate a Steffi Graf better than a Sampras. I rate an Andre Agassi better than a Sampras.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Grand Slams are not just Grand Slams. Some have more credibility than others. For instance, if you asked any player on the ATP tour which Slam they would prefer to win, probably none if any would say the Australian and most would say Wimbledon. Its just like the Slam in Golf. Most players want to win the Masters.

As for Agassi v Sampras. Its clear who was the better of the two. Just look at their head to head meetings.

Andre AGASSI (USA) v Pete SAMPRAS (USA)

1989 Rome Clay (O) 32 Andre AGASSI 6-2 6-1
1990 Philadelphia Carpet (I) 16 Pete SAMPRAS 7-5 5-7 Retired
1990 U.S. Open Hard (O) FR Pete SAMPRAS 4-6 3-6 2-6
1990 ATP Finals Carpet (I) RR Andre AGASSI 6-4 6-2
1991 ATP Finals Carpet (I) RR Pete SAMPRAS 3-6 6-1 3-6
1992 Atlanta Clay (O) FR Andre AGASSI 7-5 6-4
1992 French Open Clay (O) QF Andre AGASSI 7-6 6-2 6-1
1993 Wimbledon Grass (O) QF Pete SAMPRAS 2-6 2-6 6-3 6-3 4-6
1994 Lipton-Key Biscayne Hard (O) FR Pete SAMPRAS 7-5 3-6 3-6
1994 Osaka Hard (O) SF Pete SAMPRAS 3-6 1-6
1994 Paris Indoor Carpet (I) QF Andre AGASSI 7-6 7-5
1994 ATP Finals Carpet (I) SF Pete SAMPRAS 6-4 6-7 3-6
1995 Australian Open Hard (O) FR Andre AGASSI 4-6 6-1 7-6(6) 6-4
1995 Indian Wells Hard (O) FR Pete SAMPRAS 5-7 3-6 5-7
1995 Lipton-Key Biscayne Hard (O) FR Andre AGASSI 3-6 6-2 7-6
1995 Canadian Open Hard (O) FR Andre AGASSI 3-6 6-2 6-3
1995 U.S. Open Hard (O) FR Pete SAMPRAS 4-6 3-6 6-4 5-7
1996 San Jose Hard (I) FR Pete SAMPRAS 2-6 3-6
1996 Stuttgart Indoor Carpet (I) QF Pete SAMPRAS 4-6 1-6
1996 ATP Finals Carpet (I) RR Pete SAMPRAS 2-6 1-6
1998 San Jose Hard (I) FR Andre AGASSI 6-2 6-4
1998 Monte Carlo Clay (O) 32 Pete SAMPRAS 4-6 5-7
1998 Canadian Open Hard (O) QF Andre AGASSI 6-7 6-1 6-2
1999 Wimbledon Grass (O) FR Pete SAMPRAS 3-6 4-6 5-7
1999 Los Angeles Hard (O) FR Pete SAMPRAS 6-7 6-7
1999 Cincinnati Hard (O) SF Pete SAMPRAS 6-7 3-6
1999 ATP Finals Hard (I) RR Andre AGASSI 6-2 6-2
1999 ATP Finals Hard (I) FR Pete SAMPRAS 1-6 5-7 4-6
2000 Australian Open Hard (O) SF Andre AGASSI 6-4 3-6 6-7(0) 7-6(5) 6-1
2001 Indian Wells Hard (O) FR Andre AGASSI 7-6(5) 7-5 6-1
2001 Los Angeles Hard (O) FR Andre AGASSI 6-4 6-2
2001 U.S. Open Hard (O) QF Pete SAMPRAS 7-6(7) 6-7(2) 6-7(2) 6-7(5)
2002 Houston Clay (O) SF Pete SAMPRAS 1-6 5-7
2002 U.S. Open Hard (O) FR Pete SAMPRAS 3-6 4-6 7-5 4-6

Pete SAMPRAS (USA) leads 20 : 14

 

[Vinay]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>

Grand Slams are not just Grand Slams. Some have more credibility than others. For instance, if you asked any player on the ATP tour which Slam they would prefer to win, probably none if any would say the Australian and most would say Wimbledon. Its just like the Slam in Golf. Most players want to win the Masters.

As for Agassi v Sampras. Its clear who was the better of the two. Just look at their head to head meetings.

Andre AGASSI (USA) v Pete SAMPRAS (USA)

1989 Rome Clay (O) 32 Andre AGASSI 6-2 6-1
1990 Philadelphia Carpet (I) 16 Pete SAMPRAS 7-5 5-7 Retired
1990 U.S. Open Hard (O) FR Pete SAMPRAS 4-6 3-6 2-6
1990 ATP Finals Carpet (I) RR Andre AGASSI 6-4 6-2
1991 ATP Finals Carpet (I) RR Pete SAMPRAS 3-6 6-1 3-6
1992 Atlanta Clay (O) FR Andre AGASSI 7-5 6-4
1992 French Open Clay (O) QF Andre AGASSI 7-6 6-2 6-1
1993 Wimbledon Grass (O) QF Pete SAMPRAS 2-6 2-6 6-3 6-3 4-6
1994 Lipton-Key Biscayne Hard (O) FR Pete SAMPRAS 7-5 3-6 3-6
1994 Osaka Hard (O) SF Pete SAMPRAS 3-6 1-6
1994 Paris Indoor Carpet (I) QF Andre AGASSI 7-6 7-5
1994 ATP Finals Carpet (I) SF Pete SAMPRAS 6-4 6-7 3-6
1995 Australian Open Hard (O) FR Andre AGASSI 4-6 6-1 7-6(6) 6-4
1995 Indian Wells Hard (O) FR Pete SAMPRAS 5-7 3-6 5-7
1995 Lipton-Key Biscayne Hard (O) FR Andre AGASSI 3-6 6-2 7-6
1995 Canadian Open Hard (O) FR Andre AGASSI 3-6 6-2 6-3
1995 U.S. Open Hard (O) FR Pete SAMPRAS 4-6 3-6 6-4 5-7
1996 San Jose Hard (I) FR Pete SAMPRAS 2-6 3-6
1996 Stuttgart Indoor Carpet (I) QF Pete SAMPRAS 4-6 1-6
1996 ATP Finals Carpet (I) RR Pete SAMPRAS 2-6 1-6
1998 San Jose Hard (I) FR Andre AGASSI 6-2 6-4
1998 Monte Carlo Clay (O) 32 Pete SAMPRAS 4-6 5-7
1998 Canadian Open Hard (O) QF Andre AGASSI 6-7 6-1 6-2
1999 Wimbledon Grass (O) FR Pete SAMPRAS 3-6 4-6 5-7
1999 Los Angeles Hard (O) FR Pete SAMPRAS 6-7 6-7
1999 Cincinnati Hard (O) SF Pete SAMPRAS 6-7 3-6
1999 ATP Finals Hard (I) RR Andre AGASSI 6-2 6-2
1999 ATP Finals Hard (I) FR Pete SAMPRAS 1-6 5-7 4-6
2000 Australian Open Hard (O) SF Andre AGASSI 6-4 3-6 6-7(0) 7-6(5) 6-1
2001 Indian Wells Hard (O) FR Andre AGASSI 7-6(5) 7-5 6-1
2001 Los Angeles Hard (O) FR Andre AGASSI 6-4 6-2
2001 U.S. Open Hard (O) QF Pete SAMPRAS 7-6(7) 6-7(2) 6-7(2) 6-7(5)
2002 Houston Clay (O) SF Pete SAMPRAS 1-6 5-7
2002 U.S. Open Hard (O) FR Pete SAMPRAS 3-6 4-6 7-5 4-6

Pete SAMPRAS (USA) leads 20 : 14</strong><hr></blockquote>

Pete Sampras beats up on Andre. He is stronger than Andre. But, do I prefer Sampras as a tennis player over Andre? No. If I want to learn tennis; if I want to learn how to take the ball early; if I want to learn how to time it; if I want to learn how to return it; everything, that is, there is to do in tennis, I learn from Andre. That is where I say Andre is better than Pete. You don't want to learn Pete's strokes. They are not half as good/elegant as Andre's. What Pete puts in his strokes is just raw power, as a bigger guy... That's not something you learn. What you learn is what Andre does. That is my point.

 

[vijay]

Originally posted by Vinay:
<strong>

Sampras cannot be called the greatest ever simply because he never even came close to winning the French Open. There have been lots of players out there a lot better than Sampras on this premise; Borg, for one, and, for me, definitely Agassi.

Agreed, Bruguerra and Muster did have great ground strokes. But, Vijay, the point is that they never maintained it the way Andre could. Muster was up there for one year. Bruguera too quickly disappeared. Andre is the only one who lasted.

Why do you think, Vijay, it is a discredit to Agassi that he is winning when his folks have retired. He is older to Sampras and I think that in the last US Open, Sampras was totally lucky to beat him. Sampras almost had a red carpet rolled out for him (playing the likes of Tommy Haas who had a near dislocated shoulder etc...), while Agassi faced a tough road, having to beat the little pesky Australian (my favorite player today), Lleyton Hewitt, in a difficult game.

My conviction is that I rank Agassi as better than Sampras, definitely. And Agassi as the best ground stroker ever.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Agassi is the finest returner this game has ever seen.Great player.Best baseliner of the decade interms of consistency IMO.The point i tried to make was Agassi started winning more GrandSlams when players like Rios Moya Henman Rafter etc started to enter the top 10.During 1989-1997 Agassi found it difficult to beat many players as he was blown away big servers in the US and Wimbledons and outplayed from the baseline in the French and the Australian opens.He still managed to win lot of tournaments beating all the top players but was considered only as good as Courier.As for this Hewitt kid if he had played in the 80's or 90's he would've been another MichealChang or Pat Cash may be a Jim Courier not more than that.
1)Sampras
2)Lendl
3)Borg
4)McEnroe and Agassi
5)Wilander Edberg Becker Connors

 

[vijay]

I'd rate Lendl Agassi and Connors more complete than Sampras or Borg as they had won tournaments on all different turfs.

 

[Vinay]

Originally posted by vijay_vr:
<strong>I'd rate Lendl Agassi and Connors more complete than Sampras or Borg as they had won tournaments on all different turfs.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Agassi more so than any of the others, I would say....

And speaking of greats, I think it is so much more glamorous to win the French Open and Wimbledon than any other Grand Slam. Based on that, I think the one guy who qualifies the best as the greatest player ever has to be Bjorn Borg in view of the fact that he has won the two tournaments that most guys find difficult to win together. Only a handfull of people have won both Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Borg has won each one at least five times (5 Wimbledons - on the trot, please - and 6 Roland Garroses). Now, this is a record you can bet, no one will equal ever! That is really great.

Sampras' too may never be equalled. But, I would rate Borg's as less achievable as Sampras'.

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by vijay_vr:
<strong>I'd rate Lendl Agassi and Connors more complete than Sampras or Borg as they had won tournaments on all different turfs.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes but none of the above except maybe Connors could rival Pete's dominance of the sport over a long period of time.

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by Vinay:
<strong>

Agassi more so than any of the others, I would say....

And speaking of greats, I think it is so much more glamorous to win the French Open and Wimbledon than any other Grand Slam. Based on that, I think the one guy who qualifies the best as the greatest player ever has to be Bjorn Borg in view of the fact that he has won the two tournaments that most guys find difficult to win together. Only a handfull of people have won both Roland Garros and Wimbledon. Borg has won each one at least five times (5 Wimbledons - on the trot, please - and 6 Roland Garroses). Now, this is a record you can bet, no one will equal ever! That is really great.

Sampras' too may never be equalled. But, I would rate Borg's as less achievable as Sampras'.</strong><hr></blockquote>


Wimbledon, US Open, and French have a much greater market share because of their locations. More people tune in to see them than the Aussie Open. You could make an arguement that this is why different tournaments have more glamour than others. Winning in Key Biscayne has just about the same visibility as winning down under.

 

[vijay]

The most versatile(sorry for the word COMPLETE which i've mentioned before) players might be Lendl Agassi or Connors as they've won on all different surfaces.But the most complete or talented players of the open era has to be Sampras and Becker.Both have not won tournaments on the clay courts but they have fluent service action(big servers),powerful ground strokes and excellent control on vollies.Both play comfortably either from the baseline or from the net.The era in which Pete and Boris won their Grandslams was more competitive and had greater number of world class opponents.Sampras is better than Boris, probably the best and most complete player of all time.

 

[Vinay]

Originally posted by vijay_vr:
<strong>Sampras is better than Boris, probably the best and most complete player of all time.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Can't digest this. Why has Pete been so impotent on clay then????

 

[vijay]

Its nothing do with how many clay court tournaments he was able to win.Tell me how many serve and volleyer's were sucessfull on the clay courts?My point was he could play well from the baseline as well as from the net.So he was more complete!

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by vijay_vr:
<strong>Its nothing do with how many clay court tournaments he has won.Tell me how many serve and
volleyer's were sucessfull on clay courts?My point was he could play well from the baseline as well as from the net.So he was more complete!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Lendl, Conners, and Agassi weren't really that good at the net. They predicated their games more on groundstrokes rather than volleys. Becker, Edberg, and Sampras were pure serve and vollyers, hence their success on grass and hard.

 

[Vinay]

Originally posted by vijay_vr:
<strong>Its nothing do with how many clay court tournaments he was able to win.Tell me how many serve and volleyer's were sucessfull on the clay courts?My point was he could play well from the baseline as well as from the net.So he was more complete!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Play well from the baseline, yes, agreed. But, Sampras being the player from whom I learn strokes of tennis? No, not for me. I would learn from Andre any day.

Tell me Vijay, yourself, would you learn your ground strokes from Sampras? Not exactly the most elegant, is he? Or close to the best from the baseline?

 

[Vinay]

I would admit, though, that in agility and net play no one even compares with Pete. Some can come somewhat close - Rafter, Becker, Ivanisevic (maybe), not many others. But, I want to learn tennis, I would learn it the Agassi way.

Would you not agree? The thing being that what Sampras does at the net cannot be taught. But what Agassi does can be mastered.

 

[Raoul]

Originally posted by Vinay:
<strong>

Play well from the baseline, yes, agreed. But, Sampras being the player from whom I learn strokes of tennis? No, not for me. I would learn from Andre any day.

Tell me Vijay, yourself, would you learn your ground strokes from Sampras? Not exactly the most elegant, is he? Or close to the best from the baseline?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I see we've shifted the discussion from 'who is the greatest player' to 'who would I like to teach me ground strokes'. Personally I'd like to learn the game from Lendl, because he was technically the best player and (along with Agassi) was the fittest player of all time - BUT that doesn't make him the greatest. There's a big difference. Sampras is universally conisdered to be better than Agassi, simply by virtue of his grandslam victories.

 

[Vinay]

Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>

Sampras is universally conisdered to be better than Agassi, simply by virtue of his grandslam victories.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I, obviously, don't make up that universe you are talking about. Because I don't think Sampras is better than Agassi.

I would learn my tennis from who I think is the best. And for me that is Agassi, Raoul.

But, I agree that your points are fair too. Two ways of seeing the situation. And I believe both ways are legitimate.

 

[vijay]

Originally posted by Vinay:
<strong>

Play well from the baseline, yes, agreed. But, Sampras being the player from whom I learn strokes of tennis? No, not for me. I would learn from Andre any day.

Tell me Vijay, yourself, would you learn your ground strokes from Sampras? Not exactly the most elegant, is he? Or close to the best from the baseline?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sampras is not as good as Agassi from the baseline..Agreed..If we can call Agassi Lendl as the best baseliners and Edberg and Becker as the best serve and volleyers then we can say Sampras as the most complete player ever.

 

[rOnaldo[7]]

yeah..i think pistol pete's style cannot be learn..

 

[MelvinYeo]

Apparently Agaasi has gone no.1

 

[Vinay]

Originally posted by Melvinyeo:
<strong>Apparently Agaasi has gone no.1</strong><hr></blockquote>

Punk that he is. Trying to dislodge that great Australian kid! Old dictator, ain't he?

 

[vijay]

Originally posted by Melvinyeo:
<strong>Apparently Agaasi has gone no.1</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes He is the best player in the world and he deserves the spot.