Mens Tennis Forums banner

21 - 31 of 31 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,629 Posts
KarolBeckFan said:
Pete Sampras probably could have equaled or bettered Agassi's post-32 results had he continued playing.
Where do you get this shit? Sampras won one title in the last 3 years of his career.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70,027 Posts
disturb3d said:
Where do you get this shit? Sampras won one title in the last 3 years of his career.
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?

And one of those titles that Sampras won was the US Open... over Agassi in the final. Another was Wimbledon. Surely that counts for something?

Also, he threw in two other US Open finals in those last three years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
877 Posts
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?

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.




...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70,027 Posts
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.




...
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
877 Posts
KarolBeckFan said:
The argument that without those players, Andre would have won more slams is pointless and stupid.
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.


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.




.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
575 Posts
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.
KBF never said Pete would EASILY exceed what Agassi has done. If ur gonna present a stupid arguement at least get that much right! :rolleyes:

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.




.
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.;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
877 Posts
KarolBeckFan said:
Second, Lleyton always puts up a fight.

.

Ok, if you believe he would have beaten Agassi at either 04 or 05 USO Finals, whatever makes you happy. Most objective tennis observers would definately give the edge to Agassi, both in terms of level of play displayed up to that point and because of the crowd - hell, even Roger Himself at one point looked like he might lose under those circumstances.

2004 AO - who was in Roger's half of the draw, I forget. Agassi, too, was playing too well, should have beaten Marat even (6-7, 6-7 wasting set points in both sets, before easily taking 3rd and 4th)... Either way, the point is that outside of Marat and Roger, two fantastically gifted players already operating in their prime by then, there WEREN'T any other players in that tourney who you could say were playing as well, let alone better than Andre - whose sciatic hadn't even been acting up at the timem btw.

2005 AO - now that's where Lleyton would have been a slight favorite over Andre. So even if Andre loses in the Final - hey, that's a great accomplishment in itself.

Pete, one of the all-time greats, wouldn't have cracked a top 20 if he continued on in 2003, let alone 2004-2005. So you might as well cut your "Andre still playing? That don't impress me much, lala-lala" crap. Talk to some tennis pros about what it means to be playing at this level, against Roger and Marat in their primes, in your mid-30s and with an inarguably screwed up back limiting your movement/ball-striking, to boot....


...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
877 Posts
KarolBeckFan said:
Take the top 100 OUT of the picture, insert Pete Sampras, and he would have won the grand slam 10 TIMES! TEN!
Simple-minded, misguided and not the least bit creative or humorous. In other words, KarolBeckFan business as usual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
877 Posts
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!
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.

And, yes, I DO know he would have - or at least would have been the clear favourtie in at least 3 of those 2004-2005 Slams in question. Why? Because I understand how this little thing we call 'tennis' works and I am not afraid of objectivity - whether that means lambasting Agassi or sometimes, like in this thread, actually acknowledging that he in fact has been playing remarkably well the last couple of years, under some unenviable circumstances that Pete, luckily, avoided both in '00 and '02.
 
21 - 31 of 31 Posts
Top