Courier Agassi French Open 1992

[UchihaGege]

courir was a great player with a lot of technicity but in my opinion as we can see in 1991 final , agassi'w play was much better. but agassi looses his control sometimes , and he wasn't mentally tought to win majors...

[tangerine44]

@UchihaGege EXCEPT FOR THE THAT HE WON? look courier had a career day so what. and gomez too in 1990. oh well what can you do? agassi is a good bit superior overall in his career to courier, get real.

[tws112]

where as courier worked hard, but never improved the weak links in his game causing his career dwindled down. if your the "OLD" and say ur "WISE", you could definitely see this... however I think ur 'blind'.

[Stier19812002]

I am not saying, that I am old and wise, but one thing I can say most definitely, I cannot understand how someone like puts so much agression in a discussion about tennis. You are telling me in every comment how stupid I am and that I do not know anything about tennis and if I react once nearly as you provoked me you are angry.

I like talking about tennis of this period, but its not important enough for me, to waste my time with an exchange of insults.

[tws112]

I disagreed with your opinion as you facts were incorrect, COURIER losing cause of gaining weight? and ur reasons for becker falling of the map in the 90's? My simple explanation was THE PLAYING FIELD GOT TOUGHER, ANd If they didn't improve their games, they would fall off the map easily. Obviously Courier never regained it back as he still had many flaws in his game and Becker improved on his weakness and had a good finish to his career. enough said!!

[Stier19812002]

I cannot know exactly what lead to his downfall. He dominated the tennis world for a short period, but then he fell down thats all I can say definitely. And it is not a normal development that players who were older and having their best times behind them get suddenly better than a 23 year old guy. It was not only Agassi and Sampras who became better than Courier.

[tws112]

Courier's downfall - Did not improve his backhand, kept his forehand side of the court to open. His volleying skills weren't great. He lost interest, remember he started reading a book during a changeover, some ppl started to question his commitment. Boris becker and thomas muster improved on their weekness as a result they played better. if you were a tennis enthisiast you would know this... but obviously You aren't!

[tws112]

not to mention, he lost confidence. Everyone knew his weekness, attack his backhand and hit it to the open court. Courier's returns weren't as dominating as well. It was too short, which became easy for ther other players to attck it. ONCE AGAIN NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS FITNESS or WEIGHT, JUST HIS LACK OF IMPROVEMENT.

[Stier19812002]

You are talking rubbish!!!! Boris Becker's results did not get better, his best times were the end of the 80ies and the early 90ies, but his results get worse much slower than these of Jim Courier.

[tws112]

LOL you obviously aren't a tennnis edicate. Boris becker WON Aussie open 1996. beating a younger michael chang (once again nothing to do with weight) boris changed his coach in 95, improved his return game and attacked his opponents weakness, he reached the wimby final in 95 beating agassi in the semi's, and reached the us open semi. Becker won the 96 aus open and the stuggart masters series (beating pete) however he lost to sampras at hannover in tough five setter. BTW he was in his late 20's!

[Stier19812002]

You are obviously too young to know the career of Boris Becker and do not know much about tennis.

Boris Becker won three titles in Wimbledon 1985, 1986 and 1989. 1989 he won the US Open as well, he was for a short period no. 1 in the world.

He was never that strong again, but if you think you quoted his greatest success I dont want to take you your believe. Your knowledge about tennis seems to be minimal if you cannot see, that Beckers results got worse.

[tws112]

you just proved my point. BECKER WON GS late 80's, against the likes of mcenroe, wilander, lendl edberg. you can't compare them to the like's of sampras, agassi, chang, courier, muster, kafelnikov, stich, krajicek, ivanisevic... the list goes on and one. These players had huge games. BECKER In the midst of this LOST COnfidence, went back to the drawing BOARD, HiRED A COACH, trained hard, worked on his weakness and then Came back. and in this case his results flourished!!!

[Stier19812002]

Ok, concerning this part, you are right. He had two mentionable downs in his career and he got over the last one as you said. If you see his career from a larger perspective, you cannot deny, that his best times were the end of the 80iers and the very early 90ies.

[Stier19812002]

I dont know why you are so upset because of my point of view. I think a player like Courier, baseline specialist, very good on clay and slower hard courts can get serious problems sooner or later. Pete Sampras was a different kind of player in my opinion.

[tws112]

Cuz you keep reiterating that, he was heavy and therefore it let to his downfall. which is absolutely false.

His downfall was due to players getting bigger, hitter bigger on both sides and attacking couriers weak backhand. His movement on the court was subpar throughout his career, and his physical size has nothing to do with his downfall!

[Stier19812002]

Listen man, I made my point clear, I gave you the context in which his weight can be a disadvantage in comparison to other players with a similar style.

You can think that this is bullshit. I think your thesis that all the other players became suddenly better is bullshit. Hallo? He was about 23 years old!!! Many of these players who became better than Courier were much older!!!! Boris Becker? Thomas Muster?

[Stier19812002]

Courier was the best player at the tour in these times, but I think because of his weight and his preferration of slow surfaces he was too often injuried to keep the top position in the world.

[tws112]

WTF are you talking about, Courier was never injured, and he played well on all surfaces except for maybe the grass courts. He lost confidence and other players got bigger and stronger. Remeber Courier played pete sampras quite a number of times. If it wasn't for pete, courier could've dominated a few more years and could've finished with 7 or 8 grandslams.

[Stier19812002]

"WTF are you talking about,..."

I can give back this question. Look at his results and you will see on which surfaces he had his best results.

He was the best player in the early 90ies and falling down after 1993. Not only Sampras became better, but a lot of players in a relatively short time.

[tws112]

"falling down after 1993.."

Like I said pete sampras took over, look at the losses he had to pete in 94, 95, 96 etc

Semi finals at aus open 94 lost to sampras, semi finals 94 french lost to brugura, qtrs 95 aus open lost to sampras, semi final US open95 lost to sampras, 96 aus open qtr lost to agassi, 96 french opn qtr lost to sampras... lost to sampras at many of the master series events usually in semis and or qtrs. Was ranked within the top 25 for 5 or 6 years and top 10 for 4 or 5 yrs !

[Stier19812002]

I am talking about Jim Courier, who was by far the best tennis player in the world 1992. He fell down after 1993, winning not one grand slam title again, being no longer in the TOP 10, fighting hard in his first round matches in Roland Garros, a tournament in which he did not loose more than one single set in 1992. Agassi, Muster, there was no match for him! You want to tell me, reaching some quater- or semi-fianls (also loosing first round matches in between) is no falling down?

[tws112]

he had tough matches in 91,92 & 93, no biggie same thing in 94 and 95 96, however he got past most of them, unlike 91 or 92. In 94,95,95 he lost to some heavy hitters, he game gradually started maybe wear down on him after 96. sure in 94& 95 he didn't win a gs etc however he was always considered a threat to win one. started in wimby 96 is where his game started to go down and he never looked the same.

[tws112]

"I think because of his weight" He was one of the fittest players on the tour what are u talking about "BECAUSE OF HIS WEIGHT"? C'ON

[Stier19812002]

I did not say, he was unfit, I said because of his weight. Have a look at other players who dominated from the base line and preferred slower surfaces. He was heavy and you can tell your bones that you have your ideal weight, your knees will be unhappy by taking 75 kg or more over the court, even if it is your ideal weight.

Listen man, you can tell me what you want, I have seen many of his matches and the courier 91-93 was not at the slightest comparable to that one of the later years.

[tws112]

it has nothing to do with his weight! he was fit. however his movement wasn't as great. Usually staying behind his back foot from the baseline. He took great pride his is physical ability, however he lacked the cat like movement of sampras &/or chang. Agassi got away with it, cuz he could hit hard from both sides, jim's forehand wore down on him and players just caught up to his game.! btw I have seen and I do have many of his matches too.. and I can tell ya it had nothing to do with his weight.

[Stier19812002]

Maybe Chang's movement was better, but Jim Courier was without a doubt much heavier than Michael Chang e.g.

Sampras was not generally a baseline player and I dont know many baseline players of that weight. That he was fit is clear, I dont think that an unfit player would have a chance to play on the highest level, but his bones had to wear another weight than these of Michael Chang for example.

[tws112]

chang height 5'7

courier 6'1. their weights are ideal for their height. courier was at 175 all muscle fatlow body

roddicks 6'1 - weighs 185 low bodyfat

if you were going to compare someone to courier it should be sampras, they were the same height and weight. i would understand if they were in their mid 30's but during their prime, c'on they were lean, mean tennis machines.

[Stier19812002]

I would compare Courier rather with Chang than with Sampras, cause they were nearly the exact opposite. Courier was in his best times on clay unbeatable, Sampras on grass, Couriers best results were on slow surfaces, he won French and Australian Open, Sampras best Grand Slams were Wimbledon and US Open.

A typical baseline specialist and an allrounder who was about to deny long baseline duels, if possible under good circumstances.

[Smythtown94]

Wow. Incredible that only a few weeks later Agassi would be holding the Wimbledon trophy...

[THES0L0IST]

You don't see these anymore. Americans in the late stages of the French Open.

[Smythtown94]

That's for sure... and it's a real shame. I grew up on Agassi, Courier, Chang, etc. going deep at the French Open. It's been pretty slim pickings since Agassi's championship run in 1999. Unfortunately, Roddick or Blake don't have the game to turn this trend around any time soon...

[tws112]

the current american squad (male only) would give up the clay court season and focus on the hard courts only. It pathetic to tell ya the truth, that they don't have any ambition to improve their games on clay and/or the mindset to do well at roland garros.

[Ayrton1982]

Andre "the best" period.