Can Agassi finish ahead of Sampras in history? [Archive] -

Can Agassi finish ahead of Sampras in history?

10-01-2004, 08:51 AM
Andre Agassi has 8 slams right now. I feel like he will win the Australian Open considering how close he came this year to beating Safin, plus a lot of players are not on their game in January and Andre is at his absolute fittest after the intense Christmas training. So Australian Open takes it to 9.

I do not think he will win the French Open. I think he can win Wimbledon if Federer is somehow eliminated. I think Agassi would be the favorite against ANYONE in the world on grass apart from Federer. Lets assume that Federer is not eliminated though and Agassi doesn't winning Wimbledon.

I like Andre's chances in the US Open next year, I think he can beat Federer on hardcourts enough for him to beat him in the next US Open. I don't think Roddick would beat Agassi.

So I'm thinking that by the end of next year, barring injury Agassi will have 10 grand slam wins. He will have definitely won the Australian Open, and will win either Wimbledon or the US Open (most likely the US Open).

The key really is the Australian Open. It is his best surface and he is virtually unbeatable down under and was unlucky not to win it this year. Winning the Australian Open each year is his biggest chance at challenging the Sampras slam record.

10 slam wins by the end of next year. And due to that great form obviously there will be no retirement and we'll wait and see if he can add to the 10 after that.

I'm thinking about 11 or 12 is quite possible. Considering he's won all 4 slams on 4 different surfaces and a gold medal I think achieving 11 or 12 slam wins would be enough to overtake Sampras in history and be the Greatest Of All Time.

10-01-2004, 08:57 AM
People will say that the Head to Head record favors Pete too much for Agassi to be considered better. But its irrelevant. Due to styles of play, Head to Head records don't tell you who the better player is. Some players have trouble with lesser ranked opponents due to how they matchup tactically. For example, Agassi is ranked 9, Roddick is ranked 2, however Agassi is 5-1 Head to Head and will most likely continue to beat him next year.

10-01-2004, 09:58 AM
Andre can win Oz and the Open but I don't see him doing it in the same year next year. I really think though that the next Oz is the last shot Andre really has.

10-01-2004, 11:17 AM
If Agassi can make it to 10 Slams then he can be compared to Sampras by the fact that he has won all 4 slams + the Olympics.

However you have to take into consideration that Sampras was a no.1 player for far longer time than Agassi and with emergence of Federer it will be tough for Agassi to reach no.1 again.

So although Agassi is a better all course player he was never as dominant as Sampras.

Now Borg, Emerson & Laver (since 60s) I would put in the same tier as Sampras.
Emerson & Laver have won all four slams and were no.1 for a time
Borg was dominant during his shortish career (11 slams before retiring at 26)

10-01-2004, 12:31 PM
Yoda just perfect. :)

10-01-2004, 12:37 PM
I'm thinking about 11 or 12 is quite possible.

Andre is going to win 1 more slam at the most, and even there he will need a good draw, no long matches and for someone to take out some other players that are major threats.

Andre has had a career going for close to 20 years yet he is going to increase his slam total by a 3rd after the age of 34?

10-01-2004, 01:17 PM
Even if he doesnt win more grand slams, the question is:What is for you the "best players"?
The one that wins more grand slams? Thats Sampras
The one that can play in any surface and win? Andre Agassi
The one that still at 34 prove to be a great one? Andre Agassi
The one that is the most charismatic and make you fell like you are in the court with him, when you really are miles ago watching it on TV? Andre Agassi

Sorry if i have some spelling mistakes my english is not that good

10-01-2004, 04:30 PM
I would love to see him win another slam. But I don't think he will catch Sampras. *sigh* There are plenty of "couldas" surrounding this issue: I think that if Agassi had been more dedicated at certain points in his early career; if he had been able to win some of those finals and semis that he lost; if he had played the Australian Open and Wimbledon more in his early career; I think he could have been in that very top tier of players which Yoda mentioned. But of course, we all know these "ifs" are ultimately meaningless... As it is, I think Agassi should not be aiming to match Sampras, but he does still have a chance to improve his standing among other greats like McEnroe, Connors and Lendl. The fact that we are even having this conversation is rather remarkable, considering that in the beginning of 1999 he was several tiers below all those players.

As kyki84 was suggesting, Agassi's career legacy will have a lot to do with intangibles. He is arguably the best pure ball-striker ever; the best returner. He can play on all surfaces and is pushing 20 years as a top player (with an occasional dip in the rankings). He has won every tournament worth winning (except Montel Carlo and Hamburg) and Davis Cup. His turbulent career has had some amazing comebacks. There is a sense of electricity and excitement when he plays. It's hard to reflect some of these things in statistics.

Agassi Fan
10-01-2004, 04:32 PM
Andre is going to win 1 more slam at the most, and even there he will need a good draw, no long matches and for someone to take out some other players that are major threats.

Andre has had a career going for close to 20 years yet he is going to increase his slam total by a 3rd after the age of 34?

I am with you kyki:-)
I never liked Sampras, Andre is the best.

10-01-2004, 04:40 PM
Believe me, I would love Agassi to get to 12 Slams.....and then I would argue his case as being a better player than Sampras.

But until then Sampras, Borg, Laver & Emerson are on a tier above the rest when it comes down to tennis achievements.

However when it comes down to Longevity - then Agassi is definitely up there but still not on the level to Connors (again concerning players since 60s).

Charisma - This is down to the individual. I love Agassi demeanor and humility (something that age has improved). Whilst some people like the in your face exuberance of Roddick :rocker2: , or haphazardness of Safin. :retard:

If Federer gets knocked early in any slams I'll be rooting for Agassi :clap2:

10-01-2004, 04:44 PM
A question which can be applied today is the following:

How does Agassi's career fare vs. that of McEnroe, Connors and Lendl? Personally I would have trouble ranking those four players. There are many arguments for and against each one... :)

10-02-2004, 02:34 PM
Lendl said once that he considers Agassi greater than him, because of Agassi's career slam.



10-04-2004, 05:22 AM
Andre looks set to play at least 3-4 more events this year. Him and Federer have had 2 close matches this year. I think the next match Andre will take him out. Its mostly indoors and Andre's serve will be very difficult to break. Hope he further improves his net game and even serve and volleys on crucial points. He will make Fedrere play low percentage .
I think he will carry this momentum into 2005 and win a few big tournaments. Easily Andre is the 2nd best today.

Andre should start attacking Federers serve from the first game itself.Stand within the baseline and just block the serve , deny Federer any angles. Once Federer starts working the angles on his serve , its a no win situation. Federer must not get into a service rythm.

I have bought a tuner card for my laptop and will record every Agassi match from now on ....

10-04-2004, 05:39 AM
Rogi will just S&V on Andre then if Andre can block them back by standing inside the baseline. Oz is really Andre's last chance next year. I would love to see him win another title this year.

10-04-2004, 05:40 PM
I don't think he can finish ahead of Sampras, but to have won eight slams overall and, most importantly, the career grand slam, means that he is definitely up there with the all-time greats of tennis history. :) And the fact that Agassi won five of his eight slams after he turned 29, and was the world number one as late as the age of 32, is amazing. :worship:

And I still think he can still win another slam; AO would be his best chance and it's only a few months away. :) Winning his ninth slam would also separate him from the others who have also won eight, and put him alone into sixth place on the all-time Grand Slam winners table. :)

10-04-2004, 07:16 PM
Agassi can't make up for Lendl's consistency though. I would always rate Lendl ahead of Agassi.

10-05-2004, 02:45 AM
I think Andre will catch Sampras.

10-26-2004, 07:50 AM
I think Andre will catch Sampras.

This is unreal if we're talking about GS tittles. But if you mean about quality of play, you are right - Agassi catched Sampras many years ago :-).

12-07-2004, 08:22 PM
This is unreal if we're talking about GS tittles. But if you mean about quality of play, you are right - Agassi catched Sampras many years ago :-).

I am afraid to burst your bubbles Spooky - Andre will never match Pete, either in GS tittles or quality of play - you want to know why, both goes hand in hand. :wavey:

12-10-2004, 08:47 PM
- Andre will never match Pete, ....:wavey:

and do you want to know why?
Pete is history...He can not play enymore...

And Andre still does, and he demonstrates highest quaility!
:wavey: Andre Agassi forever :wavey:

12-11-2004, 06:59 PM
Dream on my friend - you say Pete is history - you are so right - what is Andre though. :p :eek:

12-11-2004, 08:08 PM
Dream on my friend - you say Pete is history - you are so right - what is Andre though. :p :eek:
I mean he is alreday in the past...
Old-old history, nobody remembers him...
:wavey: Andre Agassi forever :wavey:

Perpetual Burn
12-12-2004, 08:48 PM
Well, Andre will, obviously, never pass Pete is GS Titles. I thnik Sampras was a greater player overall. He was no.1 longer and dominated the tour in a greater fashion. Maybe if Andre had beaten Pete in the '02 US Open, he could have been considered greater and he would have been two slams closer to Pete's record. And since he had one all 4 Slams, he could have had a great argument in that he is/was better.

And from now on, it's pretty much going to be downhill for Andre. He could still win the Australian Open next month but, he'll have a hard time beating Roddick and Federer on a regular basis anymore. So, he won't be able to dominate really after Sampras has quit.

12-12-2004, 09:01 PM
Lets see

Agassi has a gold medal, Sampras doesn't
Agassi has the French Open, Sampras doesn't
Agassi has the career slam, Sampras doesn't

It's so simple that even Sampras himself thought that without the French Open, he might not be regarded as No. 1 all-time, no matter how many Slams titles he won.

I got that from here

Perpetual Burn
12-12-2004, 09:43 PM
Sorry BAM but, anybody can throw out random facts that can make either look better. Plus, when Sampras was thinking that he might not be considered the best, he could have been thinking of other players, besides Agassi, like... Borg.

Let's take a look at the facts.

12-12-2004, 09:51 PM
Yeah I've seen that before, 20-14 Sampras vs. Agassi, it doesn't lie.

So does 14 slams to 8 Sampras, But i'll only admit that Sampras is the best ever who never won the grand slam. Plus why didn't Sampras play in the olympics for Greece or USA

Perpetual Burn
12-12-2004, 10:16 PM
Because Olympic tennis is an amatuer event. When Andre played, it was kind of shocking to the tennis world, that someone of his level would play down to that level of competition... and beat the crap out of them, thus embarassing the Olympic tennis tournament.

01-01-2005, 12:12 AM
There is no greater Agassi fan than myself, but you've got to be fair.
Sampras is the greater player. What he did for a decade was truly amazing. He beat Andre in most of their big matches, especially the grand slams. The only times Andre beat Pete was at the AO (twice) and at the FO (once) He's never beaten him at Wimbledon or the USO, where he was 0 for 3.

Again, Andre is my favorite player ever, but Sampras was the king, and is still the king imo.

If he were playing today at his peak, he'd be right up there with Federer and would probably win most of their contests as well. The thing that made Sampras so much better than the others was his serve when he was down 0-40, 30-40, 15-40. It doesn't matter. You know what was coming 90% of the time; it was ace, ace, ace, game over. I never enjoyed watching Sampras play, (especially when he was breaking Agassi's heart so many times), but I've learned to respect the man. The guy was just good. No, not just good, he was great, the greatest competitor aside from Michael Jordan imo.

Until this day I've never seen anybody come up big in pressure situations or handle adversity like Pete did so many times. Even Federer.

Anyway, that was my 2 cents.

01-01-2005, 12:24 AM
Oh...and I don't like to compare different generations of players, I think that should be left in the air. Tennis has changed so much over the years. To be honest, you bring, Borg, Lendl, Connors and McEnroe to today's tennis and I'm not so sure they would be the same players. Guys hit the ball so much better these days, they are such better athletes, the coaching has improved, the equipment has improved. Borg's moonballs would get crushed, Mcenroe's 100mph first serves would get smashed back to his face. Connors would get manhandled by any solid baseline player of today. Lendl would find out really quickly he can't dictate play the way he did in the 80s.

That's why I don't make different generations comparisons. It's even iffy to compare Federer to Sampras, but it's not as bad as comparing Sampras to a Laver or Lendl.

Different game.

J. Corwin
01-01-2005, 01:23 AM
Agassi can finish ahead of Sampras if he wins the Calendar Grand Slam next year. ;) That would put him at 12 slams, two Career Grand Slams, and one Calendar Year Grand an extra year at #1, many more weeks at #1.....and plus the usual Andre great stats (Davis Cup, Olympic Medal, TMS...etc, etc). ;);)

But of course in all seriousness, it's a no, unforuntately. :( Right now he's a 2nd-tier great, IMO. Along with Rosewall, McEnroe, Connors, and Lendl. I'd put these in this order:

McEnroe (just barely under Andre)

If Andre wins another major I'd put him at the top, just barely. :)

There's a lot of talk of Andre being greater than Pete if Andre reaches double digit slams and wins two career Grand Slams. I tend to imagine what it would be like had he won just one of those French Open finals of 90 and 91. ;) But I don't see him winning another RG or Wimbledon.

01-01-2005, 02:50 AM
I think if and only if he wins 10 slams, then the debate between Sampras and Agassi will be stronger than ever. He doesn't need a career slam. If that happens, then most people would rate Agassi and Sampras 1A and 1B of the greatest players of the 1990's era

01-05-2005, 03:37 PM
I think Andre had the potential to win another couple of Grand Slams and I would hope he could win them at the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the U.S Open I think that if Agassi wins the U.S Open again in my personal opinion I think he will retire from tennis.

01-05-2005, 04:44 PM
In terms of the record for Slams, Sampras will be tough to beat. In addition to his finishing the year as #1, "six times in a row."

I do think that Agassi might be good for one more and personally I would love to see him win another one and then announce his retirement.

However in terms of career earnings and marketability, Agassi has done far better than Sampras.

Although Sampras was the first player to pull down over $6M in winnings, in a season. A record Federer has also just attained.