all of Agassi's Grand Slam finals wins came against 2nd/3rd Tier opponents [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

all of Agassi's Grand Slam finals wins came against 2nd/3rd Tier opponents

vogus
09-12-2005, 01:11 AM
Clement, Medvedev, Ivanisevic, Schuettler, Martin, Stich. Of course he beat Sampras once in the AO, but Sampras never gave a shit about the Australian Open anyways.

And today, Agassi choked again in a GS final just like he choked those 4 times against Sampras. He was in a great position to win the match, he really was doing everything right, playing perfect tactics against Feds, about to go up two sets to one, at 4-2, 30-0 on his own serve in the 3rd set. But he let it slip, and the opportunity dried up so fast it was like it had never even been there.

megadeth
09-12-2005, 01:19 AM
it wasn't agassi's fault that most of his opponents in the slams he won were not of sampras-caliber.

but hey, if you went back to the 2003 AO (vs rainer), he was so prepared that i think even if he went up with sampras that time, he'll win...

JustmeUK
09-12-2005, 01:24 AM
Clement, Medvedev, Ivanisevic, Schuettler, Martin, Stich. Of course he beat Sampras once in the AO, but Sampras never gave a shit about the Australian Open anyways.


and who was really top tier between 1995 and 2005? Becker and Edberg had retired.. no one else from that era aside from Pete and Andre have distinguished themselves with 5 or more GS titles.

PaulieM
09-12-2005, 01:37 AM
oh come on is a thread like this really necessary

revolution
09-12-2005, 01:38 AM
Sampras never gave a shit about the Australian Open anyways.

Why did he win it twice then if he didn't give a shit?

Flibbertigibbet
09-12-2005, 01:39 AM
OK, stop adding insult to injury and give the man some credit. :rolleyes:

Hingie
09-12-2005, 01:41 AM
Why did he win it twice then if he didn't give a shit?

Cuz he was too good on any surface aside from clay. He could win it even if he didn't give a shiz. Imagine if he cared about it like he cared about Wimbledon and the U.S Open. He wouldn't be holding 14 slams, he'd be holding like 17-18.

revolution
09-12-2005, 01:43 AM
Cuz he was too good on any surface aside from clay. He could win it even if he didn't give a shiz. Imagine if he cared about it like he cared about Wimbledon and the U.S Open. He wouldn't be holding 14 slams, he'd be holding like 17-18.

The sticky courts were more suited to baseliners than Pete's serve and volley style of play, hence less AO titles. Of course he cared about the tournament.

PamV
09-12-2005, 01:44 AM
In '92 when he won Wimbledon, his first major he had to beat Boris Becker (5) QF, John McEnroe (30)SF, and Goran Ivanisevic (8) F to win that title.

In '94 he played Stich, Michael (4) in the USOpen final and won.

All of those guys were top tier players except for McEnroe at the time. Stich was ranked #4 so how could you say he wasn't top tier? Also Andre beat Pete twice in AO finals. He also beat Pete at Indian Wells, and Miami.

Tennis Fool
09-12-2005, 01:46 AM
Clement, Medvedev, Ivanisevic, Schuettler, Martin, Stich. Of course he beat Sampras once in the AO, but Sampras never gave a shit about the Australian Open anyways.

And today, Agassi choked again in a GS final just like he choked those 4 times against Sampras. He was in a great position to win the match, he really was doing everything right, playing perfect tactics against Feds, about to go up two sets to one, at 4-2, 30-0 on his own serve in the 3rd set. But he let it slip, and the opportunity dried up so fast it was like it had never even been there.
Foul mouthed, saying Agass choked.

Hmmm. Are you AgassiFan's brother :p

uNIVERSE mAN
09-12-2005, 01:48 AM
the people that sit there looking at scoreboards are full of shit, you have no idea what it takes to win a point, have some fucking respect, an actual real life sport is played with a billion variables, it's not an online scoreboard with numbers flashing.

rofe
09-12-2005, 01:48 AM
Clement, Medvedev, Ivanisevic, Schuettler, Martin, Stich. Of course he beat Sampras once in the AO, but Sampras never gave a shit about the Australian Open anyways.

And today, Agassi choked again in a GS final just like he choked those 4 times against Sampras. He was in a great position to win the match, he really was doing everything right, playing perfect tactics against Feds, about to go up two sets to one, at 4-2, 30-0 on his own serve in the 3rd set. But he let it slip, and the opportunity dried up so fast it was like it had never even been there.

Agassi did not choke this match. Get that into your head first before creating an idiotic thread like this. :rolleyes:

Jimnik
09-12-2005, 01:53 AM
Clement, Medvedev, Ivanisevic, Schuettler, Martin, Stich. Of course he beat Sampras once in the AO, but Sampras never gave a shit about the Australian Open anyways.

And today, Agassi choked again in a GS final just like he choked those 4 times against Sampras. He was in a great position to win the match, he really was doing everything right, playing perfect tactics against Feds, about to go up two sets to one, at 4-2, 30-0 on his own serve in the 3rd set. But he let it slip, and the opportunity dried up so fast it was like it had never even been there.
What about Kafelnikov, who he beat in the 2000 AO final? 2 grand slam titles - is he a "2nd/3rd tier" player? If you're going to call Ivanisevic, Martin and Stich "2nd/3rd tier" players then lets have a look at Sampras's final opponents. Pioline twice, Ivanisevic twice, Martin, Chang, Moya, Courier, Rafter. I guess Sampras mostly beat "2nd/3rd tier" players too.

"Sampras never gave a shit about the Australian Open anyways"
Hmm.. well, it is ONLY a Grand Slam, which he won twice btw. Maybe you're right. :rolleyes: In fact, I think he lost to Andre on purpose because he didn't want to have to carry a heavy trophy with him on his way back from Australia.

vogus
09-12-2005, 01:58 AM
The sticky courts were more suited to baseliners than Pete's serve and volley style of play, hence less AO titles. Of course he cared about the tournament.


he didnt care about it nearly as much as he cared about Wimby and the USO. The Aussy Open is the bastard stepchild of the 4 grand slams and Sampras was well aware that people would remember his performances at the other three Slams much more. It's no coincidence that 4 of Agassi's GS titles came at the least important Slam, the AO.

revolution
09-12-2005, 01:59 AM
he didnt care about it nearly as much as he cared about Wimby and the USO. The Aussy Open is the bastard stepchild of the 4 grand slams and Sampras was well aware that people would remember his performances at the other three Slams much more. It's no coincidence that 4 of Agassi's GS titles came at the least important Slam, the AO.

There is no least important Slam, they all have equal importance.

vogus
09-12-2005, 02:03 AM
There is no least important Slam, they all have equal importance.


Keep dreaming. The big three Slams have roughly equal importance, but Australia is a distant fourth in terms of prestige and exposure.

Jimnik
09-12-2005, 02:06 AM
There is no least important Slam, they all have equal importance.
I agree but the problem is that Wimbledon is more famous and more prestigous than the other slams.
If somebody won 7 RG, 5 AO, 2 USO and no Wimby titles would he be considered as big a legend as Sampras? I would rate him equally but most people would probably rate Sampras higher.

Tennis Fool
09-12-2005, 02:06 AM
Keep dreaming. The big three Slams have roughly equal importance, but Australia is a distant fourth in terms of prestige and exposure.
Well, at least in America it is. As I don't have cable and don't get to see it :rolleyes: Thus get to miss Safin because he seems to only play well there.

federer express
09-12-2005, 02:09 AM
Clement, Medvedev, Ivanisevic, Schuettler, Martin, Stich. Of course he beat Sampras once in the AO, but Sampras never gave a shit about the Australian Open anyways.

And today, Agassi choked again in a GS final just like he choked those 4 times against Sampras. He was in a great position to win the match, he really was doing everything right, playing perfect tactics against Feds, about to go up two sets to one, at 4-2, 30-0 on his own serve in the 3rd set. But he let it slip, and the opportunity dried up so fast it was like it had never even been there.

crap thread....what's your point? how can you even try to diminish his achievements in the game. he is simply one of the top 5 or 6 players of all time!

Jimnik
09-12-2005, 02:09 AM
Personally, I think the AO brings out the best champions out of all the slams because it has the perfect surface. Wimbledon and the US Open are very similar fast courts and Roland Garros is very slow. But the Rebound Ace is half-way between clay and grass, I think.

revolution
09-12-2005, 02:10 AM
Keep dreaming. The big three Slams have roughly equal importance, but Australia is a distant fourth in terms of prestige and exposure.

Where's the evidence for this?

Ever seen a packed Rod Laver Arena? And just because the US don't value it doesn't mean the rest of the world don't.

And to your original statement, why would Sampras want to tank a GS final?

Don't forget it's not just about who you beat in the final, it's who you beat all the way there. Henman won TMS Paris beating Pavel in the final, but he beat Federer and Roddick en route so got a lot of credit for it.

Agassi beat many great players along the way to his 60 titles so how can you dismiss his achievements?

deliveryman
09-12-2005, 02:12 AM
The fact that the AO is played in January, makes that entire tournament retarded.

Honestly, having a grandslam tournament less than 2 months after the tennis season "ends." Like the tournament is stuck in the middle of no where...

Mid november, tennis season ends...

break

"starts" back up in January, have the AO...

break

Then the "real" season starts on the HC's in the U.S. in March/April

Stupidest slam, ever.

MisterQ
09-12-2005, 02:14 AM
Keep dreaming. The big three Slams have roughly equal importance, but Australia is a distant fourth in terms of prestige and exposure.

Sampras was chasing Emerson's record of major titles. I guarantee you he wasn't picky about which ones he was able to win! ;)

Pete was deeply disappointed in 2000 when he lost to Andre in the semis in Australia, because that would have been the one that broke the record. It was fitting in a way that his 13th ultimately came at Wimbledon... but I'm sure that Pete would have liked to have taken care of it in Australia.

R.Federer
09-12-2005, 02:14 AM
This thread is in poor taste, especially given timing. Andre has just lost a very tough match, no need to bring this stuff up. Its not even true all of it. He loses to Sampras and the you say Sampras dont care about that .

vogus
09-12-2005, 02:45 AM
Sampras was chasing Emerson's record of major titles. I guarantee you he wasn't picky about which ones he was able to win! ;)
.


that's the only reason he played Australia, because it mattered in the record chase.

I'm just saying, it would be nice if Agassi had gotten a big win in a USO/Wimby final over Sampras or Federer or Becker or Rafter, the other greats of the era. Instead he mostly beat players who were just happy to be in a GS final.

revolution
09-12-2005, 02:58 AM
that's the only reason he played Australia, because it mattered in the record chase.

Well it means he did give a shit, proving your original 'theory' wrong.

AZILANA
09-12-2005, 02:59 AM
stop the rubbish, you'd think andre will continue to play if he didn't like his chances...

selesfan
09-12-2005, 03:00 AM
Keep dreaming. The big three Slams have roughly equal importance, but Australia is a distant fourth in terms of prestige and exposure.

True. It has only become more important again in recent years. In the past this was the slam most players skipped.

Tennis Fool
09-12-2005, 03:22 AM
crap thread....what's your point?
What's your point in this another thread!
Sheesh.
You're becoming as tiresome as that Sampras RBS commercial. :silly:

Tennis Fool
09-12-2005, 03:24 AM
The fact that the AO is played in January, makes that entire tournament retarded.

Honestly, having a grandslam tournament less than 2 months after the tennis season "ends." Like the tournament is stuck in the middle of no where...

Mid november, tennis season ends...

break

"starts" back up in January, have the AO...

break

Then the "real" season starts on the HC's in the U.S. in March/April

Stupidest slam, ever.
Few people on MTF agree that the season is too long. I can't believe it.
Regarding Sampras and the AO, in 1999 he skipped it to play golf :lol:

Action Jackson
09-12-2005, 03:38 AM
vogus, man I so agree with this high quality thread.

Tennis Fool
09-12-2005, 03:41 AM
Hey George, you've been about but not in the USO threads. Did you get to see the final or any of the tournament?

JeNn
09-12-2005, 03:45 AM
Agassi has won eight slams.

Sampras speaks for himself.

Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic and Stich are about as second tier as Hewitt, Roddick and Safin.

Martin and Medvedev are Philippoussis, Pioline types - second tier players.

Schuettler and Clement - ok they are third tier players. But atleast in 2001 he beat Rafter in the semifinals. 2003 was one of the softest GS wins I have ever seen.

Action Jackson
09-12-2005, 03:48 AM
Hey George, you've been about but not in the USO threads. Did you get to see the final or any of the tournament?

Yes, I saw quite a lot of the US Open actually, and apart from the 2 main problems that I have with it, can't complain about how it ended or the fact that Agassi was good enough to make the final.

Scotso
09-12-2005, 03:49 AM
Stich is 1st tier. He should have done more in his career, but he's German.

JeNn
09-12-2005, 03:51 AM
Stich is 1st tier. He should have done more in his career, but he's German.

Agree.

Tennis Fool
09-12-2005, 03:52 AM
Yes, I saw quite a lot of the US Open actually, and apart from the 2 main problems that I have with it, can't complain about how it ended or the fact that Agassi was good enough to make the final.
Your answer surprised me. I'm glad you liked something American.

Paul Banks
09-12-2005, 03:55 AM
What makes me laugh is how people take comedic threads of vogus, Sam L, ys (unsurprisingly, all wtaworlders) seriously.

Hello.

Action Jackson
09-12-2005, 03:55 AM
Your answer surprised me. I'm glad you liked something American.

For once you asked me a legit question, so I answered it :) . Actually there were other things going on and now Bucharest has started I'll be focused on watching the tennis closer than I have been.

federer express
09-12-2005, 03:58 AM
For once you asked me a legit question, so I answered it :)

something legitimate from the aptly-named tennis fool? you sure?

Tennis Fool
09-12-2005, 04:00 AM
What makes me laugh is how people take comedic threads of vogus, Sam L, ys (unsurprisingly, all wtaworlders) seriously.

Hello.
I can't believe I'm defending ys, but he's actually an original ATPWorld (rip)/MTF member. He's just been saying the same thing for 3 years.

Paul Banks
09-12-2005, 04:02 AM
I can't believe I'm defending ys, but he's actually an original ATPWorld (rip)/MTF member. He's just been saying the same thing for 3 years.

Huh, how does it contradict what I said? A wtaworlders is a regular wtaworld poster, and ys is.

Tennis Fool
09-12-2005, 04:02 AM
aptly-named tennis fool? you sure?
If you are trying to be clever by ripping my username. YOU'RE TOO LATE. Glad to get that out. :p

Tennis Fool
09-12-2005, 04:03 AM
Huh, how does it contradict what I said? A wtaworlders is a regular wtaworld poster, and ys is.
:sigh:

We are all original WTAWorlders. MTF started after WTAWorld. Ripping him for being a member of that site just doesn't work.

Paul Banks
09-12-2005, 04:07 AM
:sigh:

We are all original WTAWorlders.

No.

MTF started after WTAWorld. Ripping him for being a member of that site just doesn't work

Yes it does, because regular wtaworld members generally don't know much about mens tennis, or tennis in general for that matter.

fenomeno2111
09-12-2005, 04:10 AM
the people that sit there looking at scoreboards are full of shit, you have no idea what it takes to win a point, have some fucking respect, an actual real life sport is played with a billion variables, it's not an online scoreboard with numbers flashing.
:worship: :worship: You are so damn right!!! Some people (usually the ones who doesn't play the sport in a competitive way) have no idea what it takes to win a point against any Porfessional player....I'm starting to play competitive tennis now and it takes a shit load of work to win 1 POINT, YES!!! JUST ONE!!!! So stop the BS if he was just a 'regular' player he wouldn't be playing a GS Final at age 35....Before you post some stupid shite like that think about all the dedication and time that it takes to be Agassi!

NYCtennisfan
09-12-2005, 04:11 AM
I was at the final today. Agassi did not choke. Period. Fed raised his level of play. In that third set, Fed was close to breaking on every service game Agassi had except at 4-4.

NYCtennisfan
09-12-2005, 04:11 AM
Originally Posted by uNIVERSE mAN
the people that sit there looking at scoreboards are full of shit, you have no idea what it takes to win a point, have some fucking respect, an actual real life sport is played with a billion variables, it's not an online scoreboard with numbers flashing.

Exactly.

federer express
09-12-2005, 04:12 AM
[QUOTE=fenomeno2111.Before you post some stupid shite like that think about all the dedication and time that it takes to be Agassi![/QUOTE]

they could think about the required dedication ...or just take their medication!

Tennis Fool
09-12-2005, 04:15 AM
No.

I'm talking about the ones who migrated to MTF when it first started. We were at WTAWorld.

NYCtennisfan
09-12-2005, 04:52 AM
Where's the evidence for this?

Ever seen a packed Rod Laver Arena? And just because the US don't value it doesn't mean the rest of the world don't.

The current tournament is excellent but what they can't make go away is the past. The AO was held at the end of the year at a time when there was NO off-season on the ATP tour. NONE> Not even teh paltry 5 weeks or so we have now. The players had to make their own off seasons and most chose to do it when the Australian grass season started.

Borg never played the tourny. Mac barely played it. Connors a few times. Nastase once or twice I think. For a while there from the mid-seventies to the mid-80's the best players didn't play the AO. TAke a look at the some of the results. You had byes in the 1st round, a few times some of the rounds were played as best 2 out of 3, you ahd a few Australian Open II tournies, etc. etc. etc. Edberg, Wilander and Lendl started changing that when they played down under. There is no question that the AO is behind the other three majors in prestige but Agassi won his when everyone was playing so the original point is kind of moot.

AgassiFan
09-12-2005, 07:02 AM
.all of Agassi's Grand Slam finals wins came against 2nd/3rd Tier opponents

Not only that but Agassi's people clearly had those 2nd/3rd tier players paid off to throw those Finals. And not just Finals, either - Quarters and Semis in some instances. The lone exception is his win over Pete at '95 AO, but that's mostly due to steroids Andre took just for the occasion.

Vogus, you clearly know too much; your life may be in grave danger. Run!

disturb3d
09-12-2005, 07:11 AM
but Sampras never gave a shit about the Australian Open anywaysBullshit. Sampras' game was built for the faster slams.
So he couldn't dominate the AO, or RG.

AgassiFan
09-12-2005, 09:06 AM
dp

AgassiFan
09-12-2005, 09:07 AM
Agassi or Mussolini?

Too close to call; let the replay decide.

trixy
09-12-2005, 09:19 AM
I don't really post here anymore and this is why.

Stupid thread. I'm sure the guy who posted this thread, has won 8 grand slams, been number and can show Agassi how not to 'choke'

vogus
09-12-2005, 03:52 PM
Borg never played the tourny. .


exactly, if Borg had played the AO, HE would be the GS record holder, the Peetster wouldn't even have been able to come close to him.

AgassiFan
09-12-2005, 04:18 PM
exactly, if Borg had played the AO, HE would be the GS record holder, the Peetster wouldn't even have been able to come close to him.

If Borg had his magical shoes working that day, he might have even been able to avoid getting bageled head to head against Pete.

jtipson
09-12-2005, 04:21 PM
Keep dreaming. The big three Slams have roughly equal importance, but Australia is a distant fourth in terms of prestige and exposure.

Not any longer. The AO used to be the poor relation until the early 80s, but not since. It used to have a smaller draw and far fewer top players than the other slams, but it hasn't been that way for 20 years.

Action Jackson
09-12-2005, 04:22 PM
Not any longer. The AO used to be the poor relation until the early 80s, but not since. It used to have a smaller draw and far fewer top players than the other slams, but it hasn't been that way for 20 years.

Stop using facts, it's not fun doing that. :)

andre the great
09-12-2005, 06:30 PM
In 95 Sampras was playing with the strain of his coach falling ill. But he played like a man and got through some tough five set matches to play in one of the finest GS finals that I have seen. The point is Sampras cared a lot at that tournament as well as in 2000 in the semis when he and Dre played one of the best semis in recent years. Dre played superbly against a highly motivated Sampras and to diss these results would be both tasteless and just plain wrong.

brujyster
09-12-2005, 06:41 PM
IMHO, Ivanisevic is definitely a class better than all the others you named.

Jimnik
09-12-2005, 06:51 PM
exactly, if Borg had played the AO, HE would be the GS record holder, the Peetster wouldn't even have been able to come close to him.
Borg didn't like playing under the lights at Flushing Meadows. Maybe he would have had the same problem for the Australian Open night sessions.

vogus
09-12-2005, 06:51 PM
In 95 Sampras was playing with the strain of his coach falling ill. But he played like a man and got through some tough five set matches to play in one of the finest GS finals that I have seen. The point is Sampras cared a lot at that tournament as well as in 2000 in the semis when he and Dre played one of the best semis in recent years. Dre played superbly against a highly motivated Sampras and to diss these results would be both tasteless and just plain wrong.


i just think it's unfortunate that Andre's only two big wins against the Peetster came at the Australian instead of at Wimby or the USO, which were the two tournies where Sampras drew his line in the sand. Andre was 0-6 against him at USO/Wimby, including 4 finals, and only one of those matches even went 5 sets. That's not exactly coming up big against your rival who you match up pretty well against.

JennyS
09-22-2005, 09:53 PM
he didnt care about it nearly as much as he cared about Wimby and the USO. The Aussy Open is the bastard stepchild of the 4 grand slams and Sampras was well aware that people would remember his performances at the other three Slams much more. It's no coincidence that 4 of Agassi's GS titles came at the least important Slam, the AO.

I disagree 100%. The general public doesn't remember which Slams people win, REGARDLESS if that major is Wimbledon. If you asked 100 random people on the streets to name the Slams Pete won, I'm guess a lot would either not know or perhaps even ask who Pete Sampras is.

The diehard tennis/sports fans are really the only ones who remember that kind of stuff anyway and there is plenty of stuff tennis fans remember about the AO in recent years. One of them is one of PETE's greatest matches- the QF against Courier in 1995, which is mentioned constantly. Tennis fans also remember Jennifer Capriati's comeback and saving 4 championship points the next year, not to mention that amazing 21-19 Andy/Younes match.

AgassiFan
09-22-2005, 10:11 PM
dp

AgassiFan
09-22-2005, 10:12 PM
That's the thing - to me Andre's NON-wins at 2004-2005 USO/AO were arguably more impressive, all things considererd (age, injury status, competition) than some of his USO and AO wins in 1999/2001/2003.

Hell, Andre's loss to Pete at 2001 USO quarters = one of his best matches of his career, that I'd much rather watch than his many blow-outs of infeiror opponents.

JennyS
09-22-2005, 10:15 PM
I also have to disagree about Australia being inferior to the other Slams. This is based entirely on the fact that the top players used to skip the event. Heck, if you use that logic today, doesn't that make Wimbledon the least important major since so many claycourters refuse to play? And how about all the players who played Beijing right after the Open? If it were that special to them, would they be playing in a tournament that starts the day after?

A lot of people consider the 70's and 80's the golden age of tennis and since the players of that generation were winning mostly Wimbledons and US Opens, those were the Slams that "counted." However, that was the wood racquet, serve and volley era and things have changed.

Because of that "golden age" a lot of people don't think that winning the Australian Open is an equal acheivment to winning Wimbledon, even though the fields at the Australian Open are equal to the other majors (and often better than Wimbledon's, at least on the men's side). Roger and Marat certainly had Grand Slam worthy draws when they won the AO in 04 and 05 respectfully.

I rarely hear people calling Madrid the least important Masters event because it's the newest. Yet a lot of people can't accept that the Australian is as much of a Slam as Wimbledon. It may not have the long history of Wimby, but it is building a nice history now.

And here's something a lot of people don't consider. In many ways, the Aussie is becoming more important, due to the boom in popularity of tennis in the Asian market. Tennis Australia knew what they were doing by calling it the Grand Slam of Asia/Pacific. Of all 4 Slams, only the Australian is held during great timezones for the Asian viewers to tune in. That's a huge market that the Aussie can reach that the others don't (when Paradorn played Andre at the AO in 04 they estimated that 90% of Australia was watching!!!!)

And most importantly, the Australian Open is a much bigger event in Australia than the US Open is in the US.

JennyS
09-22-2005, 10:21 PM
That's the thing - to me Andre's NON-wins at 2004-2005 USO/AO were arguably more impressive, all things considererd (age, injury status, competition) than some of his USO and AO wins in 1999/2001/2003.

Hell, Andre's loss to Pete at 2001 USO quarters = one of his best matches of his career, that I'd much rather watch than his many blow-outs of infeiror opponents.

Great points. You don't always have to win the whole thing to have a great event. WHen 2 players are playing unbelievable tennis, one of them has to lose. Andre didn't "choke" in any of those instances.

AgassiFan
09-22-2005, 10:23 PM
AO is the most fun and most balanced (both servers and baseliners have a legit shot) and most "exotic" Slam... that's, nonetheless, by far the least prestigious of the 4.


Of all 4 Slams, only the Australian is held during great timezones for the Asian viewers to tune in. That's a huge market that the Aussie can reach that the others don't (when Paradorn played Andre at the AO in 04 they estimated that 90% of Australia was watching!!!!)

And most importantly, the Australian Open is a much bigger event in Australia than the US Open is in the US.

Agreed.

Just Cause
10-22-2006, 02:22 AM
That's some strong words. However, Federer does outshine his opponent in his finals, and will on clay next year.

guga2120
10-22-2006, 02:35 AM
Goran is 2nd tier at wimbledon?, he did beat JMac and Becker before,no big deal. And in 95 and 00 he beat Sampras in Australia, it was not the fact that Sampras did not care, it was just a slower surface and if you slowed his serve down he was VERY beatable, did you ever see Sampras on clay. Agassi had a winning record against him in Master Series head to head, and he won 17, and never lost to him in Australia or Paris. And Andre beat Moya in 99 in Paris who was 2 in the world i think, but clearly #1 on clay in 99 and Agassi took him out. This thread is a joke. Andre until Federer came along was the best overall player ever, meaning like Federer it did not matter whether you were playing on clay,hardcourt, or glass, he had a chance to win, Federer i think has passed him, and will one day win the French and take the title of the greatest player ever, but good luck to him beating Nadal over there.