Andre Agassi vs Pete Sampras: Who Is Really Better? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Andre Agassi vs Pete Sampras: Who Is Really Better?

laurie-1
02-17-2011, 08:18 PM
After reading Wilander's remarks about the two chaps a couple of days ago, I decided to write an article about it here:

I read recently that Mats Wilander is interviewed in March’s edition of Tennis magazine. Mats Wilander is quoted as saying that Andre Agassi is on the same level as Pete Sampras because Agassi won major titles on all four surfaces even though Sampras won many more titles at Grand Slam level. It got me thinking: can we definitely say who’s better?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/611425-so-who-really-is-better-agassi-or-sampras

viruzzz
02-17-2011, 08:27 PM
(Let's wait for the Fedtard who says Federer).


I think both are excelent players with a different style of play.
It's difficult to know who's better.
They were born for each other, and for tennis.

zerocool_
02-17-2011, 08:27 PM
So 1RG=7 other GS titles? Intresting ;)

jonathancrane
02-17-2011, 08:28 PM
Trollander on coke again

Young 8
02-17-2011, 08:35 PM
Sampras serve was (is) one the most deadly weapon in tennis history

Zagor
02-17-2011, 08:35 PM
Wilander's a solid comentator but some of his statements are pretty hilarious.Nothing against Dre,he was a great player,the best pure ballstriker I've ever seen and the only player to win 4 slams on 4 completely different surfaces(as far as I'm concerned)but Sampras is clearly a level above.A career slam IMO is just not enough to put Andre on the same level as Pete,if he won 10-12 slams and had a few more years at #1 than maybe but that's a lot of ifs.

DrJules
02-17-2011, 08:40 PM
Would need to see full Wilander item to see if it is selective editing.

The answer is rather obvious 14 > 8 even if 8 has achieved the full house.

coonster14
02-17-2011, 08:43 PM
Never cared for Sampras (well apart from the fact that he gets to bone Bridgette Wilson as often as he wants- lucky guy :p), but IMO, Sampras > Agassi, even though Agassi did achieve the Career Golden Slam, Sampras's consistency was just miles ahead of Agassi.

rocketassist
02-17-2011, 09:05 PM
Easily Pete though under 2011 conditions Agassi would be more successful.

Johnny Groove
02-17-2011, 09:08 PM
Sampras, easily.

ossie
02-17-2011, 09:09 PM
fedal is better

Fumus
02-17-2011, 09:09 PM
This question has never been asked before, I can't believe that no one has ever compared the two and asked which one was better considering the amount of times they played each other in big matches and that they were peers similar in age and from the same country. It's truly astonishing given the length of timed they played that no one even asked similar questions during their careers, especially being that they had somewhat of a rivalry as I'm told.

I can't wait to read what some posters thoughts are on this.

Shirogane
02-17-2011, 09:20 PM
Andre lacked Pete's dedication to the game.

loopback
02-17-2011, 09:23 PM
Raonic

dombrfc
02-17-2011, 09:24 PM
Rampras

FairWeatherFan
02-17-2011, 09:28 PM
Sampras, of course.

What a wonderful rivalry this was. Sampras, the big-serving, attacking serve-volleyer, and Agassi the wonderfully precise, clockwork baseliner. And the personalities contrasted just as well: Sampras the focussed introvert, and Agassi the brash but charming extrovert.

This rivalry is a big part of what made 90s tennis an era of legends. I have to laugh when people suggest that Federer v Mugboar is a great rivalry: it cannot even hold the dimmest of candles to Sampras-Agassi. This is a pathetic era of tennis.

rocketassist
02-17-2011, 09:53 PM
fedal is better

:bs: knew you'd come in here and spout your usual faeces.

Sampassi had more great matches than Fedal- only Fedal classics were Rome 06 and Wimbledon 07.

Haelfix
02-18-2011, 12:06 AM
Sampras was a greater player than Agassi. Wilander's comments are so wildly off these days (about everything) that its just difficult to understand what he's talking about. It's like he stopped watching tennis after the 80s and just turned it on again a few months ago, relying on hearsay for the rest.

Henry Chinaski
02-18-2011, 12:13 AM
:bs: knew you'd come in here and spout your usual faeces.

Sampassi had more great matches than Fedal- only Fedal classics were Rome 06 and Wimbledon 07.

wimbledon 08 surely? Overrated for sure, but still a classic.

and what jonathancrane said.

betowiec
02-18-2011, 12:49 AM
is this a joke
not even a question

Stephan
02-18-2011, 12:51 AM
every one knows Andre Agassi in the whole world,
who remembers sampras ? :)

paseo
02-18-2011, 01:08 AM
What is this?

Where's SetSampras? SetSampras! SetSampraaas....!! Come out, please. We need you to run amok here.

Mimi
02-18-2011, 01:28 AM
So 1RG=7 other GS titles? Intresting ;)

thats true, also, if i was not mistaken, Pete leads their heads to heads 21:14 something? its pretty obvious that Pete is much better than Agassi:rolleyes:

GlennMirnyi
02-18-2011, 01:38 AM
Sampras and then Rampras.

Macbrother
02-18-2011, 02:25 AM
Would need to see full Wilander item to see if it is selective editing.

The answer is rather obvious 14 > 8 even if 8 has achieved the full house.
I read the article, it's not selective editing -- it's just Wilander at his best - spouting nonsense. Amazing tactical player with a nice all-court game for his time, but his opinions (which can change from month to month) are usually nonsense.

Sampras is clearly and obviously the better player, to even make a comparison is an insult to the work, dedication, and athleticism of Sampras, not to mention the notion that 1 RG is somehow superior to 6 grand slam tournaments. Sampras had the greatest serve of any multi-slam champion in the open era, arguably among the top 5 forehands ever, was all court and moved impeccably. He definitely had a weakness on clay but I don't see how that overshadows all his other great attributes.
Easily Pete though under 2011 conditions Agassi would be more successful.
Quite possibly but I'd have to see it to believe it. :)

Mimi
02-18-2011, 02:45 AM
I read the article, it's not selective editing -- it's just Wilander at his best - spouting nonsense. Amazing tactical player with a nice all-court game for his time, but his opinions (which can change from month to month) are usually nonsense.

Sampras is clearly and obviously the better player, to even make a comparison is an insult to the work, dedication, and athleticism of Sampras, not to mention the notion that 1 RG is somehow superior to 6 grand slam tournaments. Sampras had the greatest serve of any multi-slam champion in the open era, arguably among the top 5 forehands ever, was all court and moved impeccably. He definitely had a weakness on clay but I don't see how that overshadows all his other great attributes.

Quite possibly but I'd have to see it to believe it. :)

thank you, great post. :bigclap::bigclap:

RagingLamb
02-18-2011, 05:02 AM
every one knows Andre Agassi in the whole world,
who remembers sampras ? :)

Agassi

nobama
02-18-2011, 06:04 AM
Raonicyes. wel all know he'll be better than Laver, Borg, Sampras and Federer combined.

Shade
02-18-2011, 06:43 AM
If Agassi had Sampras' focus to the game instead of going around after parties, fame, drugs, and caring so much about his hair that loses GS finals, their rivalry would've been a whole lot different.

Statistically, Sampras is better than Agassi (even though Andre has a far more complete resume), but I admire Agassi much more.

Ibracadabra
02-18-2011, 06:52 AM
At peak, agassi.

Start da Game
02-18-2011, 07:15 AM
"Going into the matches(against Sampras), several times I felt I was playing at a very high level, felt unbeatable, but then there was Pete who used to come out of nowhere and send me packing."

- Andre Agassi

hadouken!
02-18-2011, 07:20 AM
um Sampras why is this even a question.

Zagor
02-18-2011, 10:00 AM
At peak, agassi.

Agassi never even head a peak,by the time he was finally focused,fit and mentally tough he was too old(in tennis tearms atleast).I think he achieved his highest level of play in 1995 but that was just one year.

BlueSwan
02-18-2011, 12:59 PM
Wilander is a moron.

You could argue that Agassi was a more naturally gifted player than Sampras, was a better pure ballstriker and certainly was the better of the two on clay. You might even argue that his peak level was higher than Sampras' (although I'm not sure you'd be right).

However, you could say exactly the same about Marcelo Rios and claim that he was "better than Sampras".

You could also dissect the Sampras game and claim that he was "all serve" and a decent forehand.

By doing so you would ignore many of the facets that makes a truly great tennis player. Amongst these are dedication to the game, mental strength, ability to play your best at crunchtime, willingness to do whatever you can to be the best year in and year out. In these aspects Sampras reign supreme over Agassi, Rios and most other players in the history of the game and he's got the record to prove it.

Sampras >> Agassi

thrust
02-18-2011, 01:33 PM
um Sampras why is this even a question.

I AGREE! Did not read Wilander's article, but perhaps Andre's game gave him more trouble than Pete's? I know Andre gave Becker a tough time and usually won whenever they played.

jrm
02-18-2011, 02:21 PM
Whoever says Agassi doesn't know a thing about tennis!

Myrre
02-18-2011, 02:41 PM
Sampras is really better.

madmax
02-18-2011, 02:51 PM
More talented - Agassi
More opportunistic - Shampras

Hope this helps

Sophocles
02-18-2011, 03:44 PM
Depends what "better" means. If you mean "reached greater heights of excellence", then there is a case to argue, although the 1999 Wimbledon final is a rather awkward sticking point. If you mean "capable of reaching greater heights of excellence", the argument will always be inconclusive, although there's no doubt Sampras put more into his tennis than Agassi did, so Agassi's record has more potential for improvement. If you mean "has a better record", I agree with previous posters that the career slam, however great an achievement, fails to make up the 6-slam deficit, not to mention 180-odd-weeks-at-Number-One deficit. Had Sampras won 1 or 2 more slams & spent only slightly more time at No. 1, then perhaps.

betowiec
02-20-2011, 02:28 AM
Whoever says Agassi doesn't know a thing about tennis!
:worship:

bobrocks
02-20-2011, 02:46 AM
Wilander is a moron.

You could argue that Agassi was a more naturally gifted player than Sampras, was a better pure ballstriker and certainly was the better of the two on clay. You might even argue that his peak level was higher than Sampras' (although I'm not sure you'd be right).

However, you could say exactly the same about Marcelo Rios and claim that he was "better than Sampras".

You could also dissect the Sampras game and claim that he was "all serve" and a decent forehand.

By doing so you would ignore many of the facets that makes a truly great tennis player. Amongst these are dedication to the game, mental strength, ability to play your best at crunchtime, willingness to do whatever you can to be the best year in and year out. In these aspects Sampras reign supreme over Agassi, Rios and most other players in the history of the game and he's got the record to prove it.

Sampras >> Agassi

what he said.

Haelfix
02-20-2011, 10:06 AM
I'm not even quite sure how you can list Sampras as having less talent than Agassi. Pete naturally was a better mover, a better server (both first and second), he hit a better forehand and his touch and feel at the net was decidedly superior.

Agassi meanwhile had a better backhand, better returns and well thats it.

What Andre had that Pete never did, was an understanding of the baseline game and how to play it and win when you aren't playing perfectly. Thats less about talent and more experience and tennis IQ.

vn01
02-20-2011, 01:01 PM
Sampras ;)

nobama
02-20-2011, 01:46 PM
:bs: knew you'd come in here and spout your usual faeces.

Sampassi had more great matches than Fedal- only Fedal classics were Rome 06 and Wimbledon 07.This. Most fedal matches are crap. Though I would add one match to your list - TMC 06. But that's about it.

Leo
02-20-2011, 04:51 PM
At peak, agassi.

LOL.

Go back and watch the '99 Wimbledon final.

Allez
02-20-2011, 04:56 PM
Silly question. Do the math as the saying goes :rolleyes: