Agassi has only won two titles in the last two years, but that doesn't stop people from declaring that he rules the world, does it?disturb3d said:Where do you get this shit? Sampras won one title in the last 3 years of his career.
KarolBeckFan said:Agassi has only won two titles in the last two years, but that doesn't stop people from declaring that he rules the world, does it?
The argument that without those players, Andre would have won more slams is pointless and stupid. Those players were there, he didn't win those slams. Tough luck, so sad.AgassiFan said:Gee let's think about this a minute...
Fed and Marat hadn't reached their prime back in early 00's (and even so, Marat still manhandled Pete in '00 and Fed - at '01 Wimbly)..... Otherwise, Pete wouldn't have dreamed of winning either 2000 Wimbledon or 2002 USO were Roger just 3-4 years older.
Now... Take Marat & Roger out of the equation (or at least let Marat be 22 at '04 AO instead of more mature 24) to simulate those same conditions..... and Agassi wins both 2004 and 2005 US Opens, in addition to 2004 and possibly even 2005 Aussie Opens, though I admit Hewitt would have put up a fight in the latter.
That's as many as 4 Slams at the age of 34 and 35 for Dre - 3 of them while playing with a bad back/hip..... In addition to extra "smaller" titles like YEC, Miami, etc that he ended up falling just short of.... That's incredible!
Suffice it to say, Pete wouldn't be "equaling or exceeding" shit at 34-35 yo with in-prime Marat, Roddick and Roger around. Not even close.
Linear thinking much?KarolBeckFan said:The argument that without those players, Andre would have won more slams is pointless and stupid.
KBF never said Pete would EASILY exceed what Agassi has done. If ur gonna present a stupid arguement at least get that much right!AgassiFan said:Linear thinking much?
In the context of your OWN comment that Pete could have easily exceeded what Agassi has done at 34-35 yo, which according to you wasn't anything special since he technically didn't *win* anything... my reply is both SPOT ON and extremely RELEVANT, and if you weren't such a legendarily biased goof when it comes to Andre, maybe you'd recognize the logic behind it and at least re-examine your own assumptions.
Hate to break it to ya, but they were/are here, so sayin that Agassi woulda won more slams if they werent is stupid cos u dont know that he would have! Oh and btw, u notice u said he ALMOST beat them?! Thats not beatin them.So let's try this again, only slowly, so your imagination can catch up:
-Sampras wins last two slams, at 29 and 31 yo respectively. It's inarguable that the two most talented of their generation, Federer and Safin, were not yet in their prime at the time - though they did provide a little "taste" for Pete to enjoy by thwarting his quests for 2000 USO and 2001 Wimbly... I am sorry but Pete flat-out does NOT win either of his final 2 Slams if he had to deal with the 2004-2005 Roger; hell, he probably doesn't get by 2003-2004 version of Roddick at USO or Wimbly, either.... Do you actually contest this?
-Agassi, on the other hand, had to deal with Marat and Roger while at their peak the last 2 years, almost beating them in 3 of the 4 Slam meetings in question (lone exception is Fed's comfortable win at 2005 AO). But take Roger and Marat out of the picture completely - or at least take them out of their primes so we could compare Pete's and Andre's runs on more equal footing - and is there any doubt in anyone's mind that Andre doesn't walk away with both 2004 and 2005 USO's as well as 2004 AO? Hell, look at the form he displayed against Pim-Pim at 2005 AO? Hewitt could have beaten him in the final, true, but making it to the final is not bad, all things considered either and I am not quite sure Llleyton played better necessarily... At the USO, with crowds going out of their minds, Lleyton would not have put up a fight IMO.
-I mean, get a clue will ya? You're talking about Agassi who was by then 3-5 years older than Pete was during his two Slam runs this century... playing with a seriously messed up back, to boot... having to slug through two of the greastest natural talents to ever pick up a racquet, already operating in their PRIME by 2004-2005... Hell, I doubt Pete would have cracked the Top 20 at 34-35 yo and under the conditions Andre had to toil in the last 2 years. So credit where due.
KarolBeckFan said:Second, Lleyton always puts up a fight.
Simple-minded, misguided and not the least bit creative or humorous. In other words, KarolBeckFan business as usual.KarolBeckFan said:Take the top 100 OUT of the picture, insert Pete Sampras, and he would have won the grand slam 10 TIMES! TEN!
Brush up on the reading comp first, sweetie. I clearly wasn't suggesting we revise's Andre's Slam totals. The 'Aging Pete/Ancient Agassi Runs' discussion is meant to have a hypothetical bent to it, but with very realistic underpinning to it.aj_m2009 said:Hate to break it to ya, but they were/are here, so sayin that Agassi woulda won more slams if they werent is stupid cos u dont know that he would have!