[ys]

My take - at least another two Grand Slam tournaments, with French and W included. Then he'd have a double career Slam..

 

[Sjengster]

Ain't gonna happen - Ferrero's going to beat him at RG, and Sampras will do likewise at Wimby.

Just a theory, mind (but I still fervently hope he doesn't do it).

 

[Lee]

Nothing! For AA fans, he is better and for the rest, Pete is better. IMO

 

[JuaNQui FoReVeR]

I honestly don't think Andre can come out with the better career than Pete. The only thing I can see topping Pete is maybe winning the true Grand Slam this year.

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

Well if he did win the next two slams, I would think that would put him awfully close.

That would make him have 10 slams, which would be 4 short of Petes.

However, he would have won three slams in one year, he's already reached 4 slam finals in a row (99-00), he would have the career double slam as ys put it - all things that Pete has never done.

Furthermore, he would surely end the year number one if that happened.

Of course this is all hypothetical, seeing as I concur with Sjengster that it "ain't going to happen".

 

[J. Corwin]

I would say that he either top Pete's 14 Slam wins (which is highly unlikely) or wins this years' Grand Slam. A career slam plus a calendar year Grand Slam...with 11 slam titles IMO would put him at about Pete's level.

 

[drf716]

i think it's not about QUANTITY BUT QUALITY!
so many factors need to be considered in deciding who's best...that includes fans!

 

[wraith]

Exactly. If Andre were to win one more FO and one more Wimby, then with a career double Slam there would definitely be "talk".

Most tennis observers, I think, can see that AA has a much deeper game-- he does more things "well" in tennis. The problem is the things Pete does "well", he does extremely well, including by far the most important skill in tennis: the serve.

Beyond that, Agassi's two biggest problems when his career is stacked against Pete is his lack of consistency and their head-to-head record, particularly in Grand Slams.

While knowledgeable tennis fans recognize that head-to-head is among the least important factors in determining which player is "better", Andre's lack of consistency relative to Pete, is hard to overlook.

 

[Tennis Fool]

Actually, a lot of people already believe Andre's career is considered greater, due to his success at all four slams.

 

[Lindsayfan]

Pete is the best not only for the 14 slams but also cos he finished year as n.1 for 6 years in a row and u know it's the consistency that u have to look,apart from results.

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

Well it's my opinion that Andre career is certaintly more interesting.

But at the moment, I can't think of any objective measure by which I could say that it's "greater".

That one slam title at the FO, doesn't make up for the deficit in slams, years at number one, etc.

But that's why it's just a matter of opinion

 

[Beulah]

Andre can't do jack about it. Pete's beaten him in the most prestigious slams (Sorry AO and FO supporters) and the head to head? - Fuggetaboutit!

But I like the fact that Andre won all four slams and an Olympic medal. I wish he wouldn't have squandered his talent all those years but his accomplishments aren't anything to sniff at either.

 

[tennischick]

'Dre needs to win another Slam or two for his accomplishments to approximate the 'Droids. if he gets the Double Slam, the 'Droid is history. if he doesn't, the 'Droid will get the edge. grrrrrr...

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

Andre can't do jack about it. Pete's beaten him in the most prestigious slams (Sorry AO and FO supporters)

These comments get really tiresome.

To this day, I'm waiting for somebody to tell me why WImbledon - and now the US Open? - are more "prestigious" and important than the other slams.

And no - "because it's in England, the 'birthplace of tennis'" (wasn't that really France?), and "because the USA rocks!" - are NOT good enough answers.

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

If Wimbledon is the most "important" slam, that ALL players want to win, then why is it that more players in the top 10 have games that are honed for Roland Garros, as opposed to Wimbledon?

Why would they not have grown up, molding their games for succces on the oh so "prestigious" grass?

 

[Dissident]

I cant get enough of that shit.....

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

I also can't.

I like to debate it every single time though, just to humour myself with the responses.

Along with the ones that I already gave, there is also:

"That's just the way that it is!"

"ALL the players agree with me!"

"Most of the players agree with me!" (if this is the case, why so many - not jsut top ten - but top 100 players with games honed for Roland Garros?)

"Everybody else is saying it"

I could go on

 

[Dissident]

YAY! Long live Wimbledon and the US.!!!
French what???? Who wants to win that shit anyway.... ?

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

The same writers who agree with the "fact" that Wimbledon is the most "important" slam, are often the same ones who think that the ATP tour is "a bunch of guys named Fernando"

 

[Dissident]

And what do they have against that beautiful name???
Would they prefer the tour to be full of "Andy"s and "Pete"s?? How cooooooool!!!