Sampras in 1995 and Federer in 2005 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Sampras in 1995 and Federer in 2005

RonE
09-13-2005, 07:08 PM
In both those years the aforementioned players beat Agassi in the U.S. Open championship match.

In 1995 Agassi was on top of the world, all but unbeatable on hardcourts carrying a 4 title and 26 match winning streak since Wimbledon going into the final. It was a hard fought final with Pete prevailing in four sets. That defeat really seemed to knock the wind out of Agassi for a while- for a long time he was not the same player. He only played one more match for the rest of the year, in 1996 he dropped to #8 in the rankings and in 1997 seemed to lose interest in the sport and dropped out of the top 100 before recomitting himself to the game.

Now, with Agassi in the twilight of his career, having put in a superhuman effort to reach the final again finds himself beaten in a hard fought match after playing his very best. Do you think this defeat will have a long term impact like the 1995 defeat did or will Agassi bounce back quickly? Discuss.

Lee
09-13-2005, 07:15 PM
With Agassi's age, there's hardly any long term impact on his tennis career. :shrug:

And in 1995 and 1996, I think it's more because of his wrist injury and his marriage to Shields than losing to Pete.

disturb3d
09-13-2005, 07:22 PM
He was the best player in the world, back in '95.
So a final loss to break his 26-winning streak, is probable to tear you apart.

But going into the final with Roger, he was scheduled to get destroyed in 3 easy sets.
It won't have nearly the effect it had a decade ago.

If he isn't placed on Roger's side of the draw at the AO, an Appearance in the finals won't be too much to ask.

RonE
09-13-2005, 07:24 PM
With Agassi's age, there's hardly any long term impact on his tennis career. :shrug:

Let me rephrase the question: how much did this loss really hurt him? Would it have impacted his future decisions about his career differently had he won the match?


And in 1995 and 1996, I think it's more because of his wrist injury and his marriage to Shields than losing to Pete.

There is no doubt there were a lot of things going on in Andre's personal life at the time. However, I have wondered for a while now had Andre won that 1995 final and finished the year ranked #1 in the world would his slump have been as fast and as far (if at all)?

RonE
09-13-2005, 07:28 PM
But going into the final with Roger, he was scheduled to get destroyed in 3 easy sets.
It won't have nearly the effect it had a decade ago.


Yes, but there is another factor to take into consideration. Agassi went through a lot of pain and took chortisone shots for his back- he knew that with his body in addition to hard work he would have to make meticulous planning and possibly risk major injury just to give himself a decent chance of competing at the Open. All this was done before he even stepped onto the court and struck a ball.

Now add to that the herculean effort he put in during the event both mental and physical, playing at the peak of his abilities yet coming up short.

With all those factors combined would Andre still be willing to go through the whole ordeal again just to give himself another crack at a major title?

Lee
09-13-2005, 07:33 PM
Let me rephrase the question: how much did this loss really hurt him? Would it have impacted his future decisions about his career differently had he won the match?

Only Agassi knows his own mind. But to hazard a guess, he's much wiser and older now and goes through the ups and downs in tennis life, (compare to 1995, there's only ups) a win or a loss won't have much impact on anything in his life.



There is no doubt there were a lot of things going on in Andre's personal life at the time. However, I have wondered for a while now had Andre won that 1995 final and finished the year ranked #1 in the world would his slump have been as fast and as far (if at all)?

His wrist injury was a serious one so slumping so far down the ranking was not surprising. Look at Guga, he finished #1 in 2000 and the way he was playing in 2001, he would likely be #1 again if not of his hip injury.

disturb3d
09-13-2005, 07:35 PM
Yes, but there is another factor to take into consideration. Agassi went through a lot of pain and took chortisone shots for his back- he knew that with his body in addition to hard work he would have to make meticulous planning and possibly risk major injury just to give himself a decent chance of competing at the Open. All this was done before he even stepped onto the court and struck a ball.

Now add to that the herculean effort he put in during the event both mental and physical, playing at the peak of his abilities yet coming up short.

With all those factors combined would Andre still be willing to go through the whole ordeal again just to give himself another crack at a major title?Apparently, the challenge is what keeps him playing tennis.
As said in a recent interview. If anything, the loss is only gonna motivate him further.

Remember, long after Andre's prime... he's still capable of pushing Roger to play his best tennis. What more can you ask for at 35?

MisterQ
09-13-2005, 07:37 PM
Here you can view the most famous point in that excellent 1995 final: (Sampras won it to take the first set)

http://www.heineken.com/usa/cc/usa/usopen2004/votingmain.html

Lee
09-13-2005, 07:41 PM
Here you can view the most famous point in that excellent 1995 final: (Sampras won it to take the first set)

http://www.heineken.com/usa/cc/usa/usopen2004/votingmain.html

Thanks Q! I need to bring up this clip everytime someone said Sampras backhand sucks. :lol:

Dirk
09-14-2005, 06:00 AM
Pete just didn't keep up with his BH in his later years but during his prime it was great. I think the Chang lost at Oz also did Andre in because then he had nothing left slam wise. He was very close to Pete in the rankings and had he kept Oz (he would have killed Becker in the finals) then he might have had more motivation to keep going. I thought he had the wrist surgery in 94?

thrust
09-14-2005, 02:01 PM
Andre was never as good a player as Sampras. His only advantage was that he probably was more consistant with his ground strokes. Andre was a great player but Pete, like Roger, was a more complete player. If at 35 he needs to keep on playing despite consistant injuries, I think that is rather sad. He certainly does not need the money, he seems to have a very happy family life, so what^s the point? He will never win another slam. The only goal I think is attainable for him, is to pass Pete in carrer wins. I think Pete has 62, Andre 60.

PamV
09-14-2005, 03:31 PM
With Agassi's age, there's hardly any long term impact on his tennis career. :shrug:

And in 1995 and 1996, I think it's more because of his wrist injury and his marriage to Shields than losing to Pete.

Yeah, I had also thought that his marriage to Shields and all the Hollywood hob-knobbing is what took his attention away from tennis for a while.