Agassi Sampras French Open 1992

[RafaGates10]

fuck you sampras



[splendid1000]

Sampras really only trained especially hard for the French during the first half of his career, and during all his decent quarter final and semi final runs he played well, only losing to former and future multiple French Open champions and finalists like Agassi, Brugera, Courier, Kafelnikov ...

[splendid1000]

LoL. Its no secret that Fed was better on clay. Sampras had several factors going against him before he even set foot on the court. He strung his racket at 75 - 80 lbs and used an outdated racket with an 85 sq in head which is anything but ideal for slow, high bouncing courts LOL. He also had a legitimate blood - iron defficiency that really did affect him during matches with long rallies. Thats one of the main reasons he started playing a lot more S&V during the second half of his career.

[Scoclamor]

Lets see, we got Sampras with 9 losses, 3rd round or earlier and Fed with 3 so far (2011). But one of them was against Kurten who won this thing three times.

I think Federer wins the argument with Pete here, don't you?

[Scoclamor]

If they had sped up Wimbledon, could it be argued that Fed wins Wimbledon in 2008, so he wins7 STRAIGHT Wimbledon? Could it be argued that Fed wins in 2008 and 2009 Australian Open if they didn't take out the Rebound Ace surface and replace it with Plexicushion Prestige?

I know for a fact Federer would have more French Opens if he played in the 90s. Or came along after Nadal. Hell, look what Novak is doing this year,

until he ran into Fed FO SF!

[911801111801]

Sorry, Nadal'd have beaten Federer on Rebound Ace at the 2009 Australian Open anyway... no matter what ''if'' you put there, that wouldn't change (unless under the ''if Nadal had been limping'' hypothesis...)

[Scoclamor]

Sampras' French Open losses: 1991, Champion (1,3,1 btw), 1992 AGASSI (7-6, 6-2, 6-1, btw, and then Agassi got destroyed by Courier in the SF), 1993 BRUGERA, 1994 COURIER, 1995, Shaller (first round), 1996 (KAFELNIKOV, finally in the SF, but only because Sampras took advantage of a fast clay that year, 99 ACES), 199, Norman, (3rd round), 1998, Delgado (2nd round), 1999, Medvedev (2nd round), 2000 (Phillapouses (first round), 2001, Blanco (2nd round), 2002, Gaudenzi, (2nd round)

[Scoclamor]

Federer's French Open losses: Corretja 2000,2001, Arazi 2002, Horna, 2003, KURTEN, 2004 NADAL, 2005-2008 (and perhaps 2011), Soderling (2010, but he beat him for the title the previous year after Sod beat Nadal!).

[splendid1000]

And I agree with avoiding the 'what-ifs' too. I admit I resort to that too often. Regardless of whether he could or couldn't... he simply didn't. If his condition affected him then so be it, but it cant really be used as an excuse because its all part of the game...part of life. Its a physical ailment just like his incredible athleticism was a physical advantage. It works both ways. You have to look at it not only as a disadvantage but as an actual flaw in his game as well unfortunately.

[splendid1000]

Im obviously not saying it kept him from winning another ten slams. Maybe more like 3 or 4. It mainly affected on either extremely hot days and/or extremely long rallies against the best baseliners in the world like Agassi and other top clay courters he lost to when he did well at the FO. Especially when he had long matches leading up to his losses at AO and FO that compounded his fatigue.

[Mkey29]

Look at these great nike air tech, great shirt, that style so much better than nowadays, wooow soo 90's ! <3

[theblakgeek]

When tennis players were like rock stars.

[brucetorce]

Cloudy rainy day? Nadal would have tour Agassi's asshole out of him before he even arrived on Centre Court! 

[robertk2007]

pete didnt use topsin. hard to hit on clay without topsin

[aleksandrpondios]

Pete did okey in clay court,won 4 tounaments,played 3 q,and 1 semi in rolland garos,beaten all the champions in clay coutrs,but .... i dont know he was not training a lot?he did not try to improve he clay court game?

[championxeneixe]

Agassi's fake hair?

[tangerine44]

awesome to see agassi here just rip apart pete..who could never come close (1 semi?) to winning the french!

[Charonchan]

agassi looks so weird with hair!

I loved watching these two on tv when I was a kid. Between them was an intense battle of stamina and wit that kept me on the edge of my seat. I even got to stay up late for one or two of their matches.

[timafi]

I would have paid $ to see Sampras face Nadal in Paris on a cloudy;rainy day

[365to173repubsPWNED]

it would have been pure ass rape

[daraemkar]

Really? I'm not sure why. A healthy Nadal will destroy him.

[Scoclamor]

@timafi He'd lose 6-0, 6-0, 6-0!

[timafi]

@Scoclamor well maybe not a triple bagel but he'd win a few points by hitting aces

lmao

[Scoclamor]

@timafi He'd hit about...1 ace...how many does Roddick hit on clay?

[timafi]

@Scoclamor not that many buddy

not that many lmao

[mrbobevans]

@timafi I would have paid to see Sampras in his prime play Nadal on a fast Wimbledon court. Sampras would have thumped him.

[jandec73]

@timafi I second that!

[aleksandrpondios]

@jandec73 man Pete beat on clay Courier,Agassi(3-2 against him),Bruggera,Kafelnikov,Gomez­,Costa,Muster,Norman,Coretjia,­check it,nobody did it,check it man.I don saying he is better clay court player than Fed.But in he is day he was was very,good.one semi 3 quatro in rolland.win in rome,another 3 titles.By my opinion he was better player in fast court than Roger and had harder opponents to face.It is my opinion and not only my.so enjoy the tennis .

[jandec73]

@aleksandrpondios But Federer would have beaten ALL the players you mention! He'd of won many more French Opens if he didn't have to face Nadal. Lets see, 1 FO, 3 Finals, 1 Semi-Finals. I'd say that's pretty good!

Harder opponents you say? Do you really believe that Fed would lose to a fading Becker, a very good Courier, an uncommited Agassi, a fading Edberg, An okay Raftner, and some other good players. You underestimate Federer. BTW, don't go around badmouthing any of my friends, or else!

[aleksandrpondios]

@jandec73 fading edberg and becker?uncommited agassi you are 15 teen know nothing about tennis it is last comment i did,because you can not be serious

[89Pleasek]

Exactly, who the fuk is Chang, Courier of Kafelnikov compared to Federer?

[Scoclamor]

@89Pleasek Lets put it this way: On clay, Fed OWNS ALL OF THEM!

[89Pleasek]

ye, im really lolling at the sampras fans who make sampras look as he was unbeatable in his best years, some or so biased that actually claim that pete would defeat federer on clay

[AceGuitarR7]

@89Pleasek lol....... fed would have a few more french opens if it wasnt for rafa... hailed as the best clay court player ever. sampras struggled on clay as much as andy roddick does

[splendid1000]

@AceGuitarR7

Sampras had a blood-iron deficiency that caused anemia. This fatigued him greatly especially on slower surfaces with longer rallies like the French and Australian.

[89Pleasek]

Pete's wins on clay vs the players you mentioned were nothing cause he beat them when they were either very young or years past their prime. He barely beat Courier at the 96 FO but Jim was at his best in 91-93 and even tho Jim beat him at the 94 FO when he was far from his best, Sampras beat Muster at the 91 FO but Muster was a clay court best 5 years later! Pete beat Bruguera at the 96 FO but Sergi was at his best in 93/94. That win means as much as beating Ferrero on clay now.

[splendid1000]

@89Pleasek

ALL of Pete's losses when he did well at the French Open were to the best clay courters and/or French Open champions in the world. Sampras had a blood-iron deficiency that fatigued him much more than other players, and it affected him on slower surfaces with longer rallies like the French and Australian. The heat affected him more than other players too. If he didn't have that condition he would have another 1 or 2 Aussies, at least 1 French, and at least 1 more US Open.

[89Pleasek]

yea yea yea, his "blood-iron" deficiency affected him only when he lost, of course it didn't prevent him from winning 7 Wimbledon titles, Sampras played in the perfect period to win the FO, the surface back then was faster and 95 % of the players were fast court specialists. If Sampras played today he wouldn't won more than 5 games against Nadal on clay.

[splendid1000]

@89Pleasek

Maybe because Wimby is twice as fast and the rallies twice as short? LOL

Same with the US Open, only not quite as fast and has a higher bounce which is why he only won it 5 times.Notice how the longer the rallies and the slower the surface the less he wins?

Wimb - 7 titles

USO - 5 titles

AO - 2 titles

FO - 0 titles

Im not saying Pete's the best clay courter of all time, but his condition DID affect him and affected him the most on the slower surfaces like clay.

[89Pleasek]

dude this Sampras illness is a myth, if it really aftected him he wouldn't be playing pro tennis, he had a minor ver of it and he could play freely.

btw I'll tell you 1 thing, I learned it myself through discussion in several places - leave history as it is, don't use the "what if" card cause you're getting nowhere.

Look how I can change your arguement around - if you're giving Sampras additional FO and AO, what if he played today and had to grind his matches out against Nadal and Federer?

[splendid1000]

@89Pleasek

I agree, he'd have less slams. But I highly doubt Fed would have 16 slams at such a young age in the 90s either. I think he's capable of winning on fast 90s grass and US Open but I dont think he'd win as many because of the much harder and more diverse competition between s&v and baseline. I personally dont think the current tour with the slower courts is a real tennis circuit. I think the variety of 90s surfaces is how tennis was meant to be played.

[splendid1000]

BUT, I would want Wimbledon to bounce just a little higher now than it did in the 90s, Just slightly higher, not like it is now. I think I would change the grass from the 90s 70 - 30% perennial rye - creeping red fescue mix, to a 85 - 15% mixture and I'd make the soil a little denser than it was, but not quite as dense as it is now.

[splendid1000]

Nowadays they use 100% perennial rye that grows much thicker than the mix which adds a lot more traction to the ball and slows it down. I'd split the difference and find a soil denser than the 90s soil but not quite as dense as the soil used now. Maybe just mix the two.

[Scoclamor]

@89Pleasek And even Djokovic and Murray the way they're playing this year! Talk about competition! And Federer keeps reaching GS semi-finals. Actually, he's reached 28 straight GS QF! Another record. Even at almost 30, Fed keeps setting records against players that are coming into their own!

[911801111801]

29 straight GS QF now!!!!!

[89Pleasek]

I'd say his Kafelnikov wins on clay were pretty good, beating Norman in 2000 on clay was also pretty tough and that's it. Let's be honest for a player of Sampras' calibre he was a weak clay court player. A 19-year old Nadal on hard courts was better than Pete ever was on clay.

Another thing is that Sampras had the perfect style for the 90's. I mean put him forward in time and he wins half his Slams at most with Wimbledon slowed down, the high bouncing rubber at the AO, no carpet tournies!

[aleksandrpondios]

@89Pleasek PUT HIM BACK 30 YEARS HE WOULD HAD WON 30 GS.IT IS NOT A SERIOUS TO DISCUSS

[89Pleasek]

Who? Sampras? Yea, whatever.

[splendid1000]

@89Pleasek

Yah and put Fed in the 90s and he would not have 16 slams either. Its ALL been slowed down since he started dominating. Im sure Fed would do well no doubt, but he'd be facing TWICE the competition - S&V AND Baseline together, which is much harder than just facing baseliners all the time lol. By slowing the courts and deleting S&V from the picture, you have basically cut the competition in half lol.

[splendid1000]

S&V is also very taxing on the body in terms of injury because of the extreme angles you have to cover on your way in/at net. Sampras battled knee injuries and herniated disks because of the S&V on top of the anemia lol.

[timafi]

@aleksandrpondios let's break things down shall we? Pete's best surface was grass and let's check out his rivals records on grass.

Courtier was 28-17.1-0 for Sampras at W .Agassi 50-18.2-0 for Sampras at W

Brugera 5-5. Kafelnikov was 46-20 .Costa 2-7 .Muster 7-10 .Norman 7-8

Coretja 4-7 and 1-0 against Sampras

as for your boy Pete on clay?90-54.He did beat Becker to win Rome and Becker was 120-61 on clay and NEVER won a title on clay

Federer is 152-46.9 MS and 4 FINALS in Paris and 1 win

[aleksandrpondios]

@timafi first of all don call me boy SECOND I DID NOT SAY THAT HE IS BETTER CLAY COURT PLAYER THAN FED.THIRD I SAD THAT PETE HAD VERY GOOD WINS ON CLAY AND UNTILL 27 HAD A PRETTY GOOD RESULTS AND BEAT ALL 90 GREAT CLAY COURT PLAYERS ON CLAY.IT IS A FACT

[timafi]

@aleksandrpondios he won Atlanta in 98 beating Aussie Jason Stoltenberg; Rome in 94 beating Becker who NEVER won a title on clay and NEVER made a FO finals

Kitzbuhel in 92 beating Mancini

[89Pleasek]

to be honest, Sampras would get owned by Nadal on any type of clay court, just think of Nadal's constant tactic of hammering Sampras' backhand (which was worse than Federer's) for the whole match. Nadal wins comfortably in straight sets.

[picus11]

@timafi I would have paid xxxxxxxxxxx to see Nadal play Sampras in Wimby in Sampras´ heydays.

[AriIsGold]

@timafi raaaaaaaaaaaaaaape



[VerdascoFan]

@timafi Why? It'd be domination..

[timafi]

@VerdascoFan yes and I'd enjoy the humiliation of the so-called "greastest"

[6083748]

i have lose 1992+1993.ich darft kein opfer mehr sein

[dogshouse]

both legends of the game

[canigetawitness1]

If agassi had a sampras serve he would have won 30 grand slams, sampras was a great player but his serve was his weapon, the boring cunt.

[pps1fan]

Sampras wasn't boring...how can you call someone that talented boring...you are so ignorant and don't appreciate real talent when you see it! Pete Sampras was and still is a true great champion!

[Swordsman808]

I acknowledge prodigious talent when I see it. Pete had such a talent. Federer has more, and his talent is more dazzling than Pete's. Pete had a lot of talent but it was boring talent. Sorry you lose.

[pps1fan]

My Gran had a very appropriate saying the best answer to an idiot is not to say anything at all think this saying is so true of your pathetic response to my comment...

Oh by the way I don't lose on this argument Pete Sampras is NOT BORING...Only ignorant people would call such a talented player such a thing!

[Swordsman808]

Federer and Pete are both massive talents, although Fed a bit more. Federer has more dimensions to his game, not to mention his personality. Pete and his game were as boring as a peanutbutter & jelly sandwich. The only person in my mind who tops Pete in a boring contest is Andy "Slamless" Murray.

[pps1fan]

The more you try to explain your reasons for finding Pete Sampras boring the more stupid and ignorant you sound!

Thankfully, you are in the minority of people who think this way...the true tennis fans who are knowledgable and respectful of the greats of the game would never label a legend of the game as boring!

For the record there was nothing "one dimensional" about Pete Sampras...come on he could do EVERYTHING battle from baseline - come into the net and execute a killer volley! SERVE!

[Swordsman808]

Pete Sampras: Boring game: Serves big then rushes for an easy volley (MASSIVELY BORING!) Boring personality: Single-minded and monotone (knows nothing about the variety of life like Federer, only gave a shit about tennis) Boring wardrobe. Wears the same outfit pretty much from the day he's born. Sampras and his game had about as much charisma as an old dead fish! Hahahahaha!

[pps1fan]

You lack any respect for others talent & speaking as a person who has had the privelege to not only meet but speak with Pete Sampras you are so wrong on him lacking charisma or wardrobe style! He is a charismatic guy, who is humble & a really classy guy! When he played he was graceful and along with his power on serve had great feel and touch with volleys. He wasn't all about power as you think!

Just because he didn't wear outfits like Federer on court doesn't make him boring or lack style!

[joyholmes11]

Spot on mate

[pps1fan]

I'm more interested in a players talent then I'm in their fashion statements! I find Federer's outfits, especially at Wimbledon comical, 09 he resembled a valet guy from a posh country club!

I also found his jacket at the finals with #15 stitched on really tackless! Showed no respect to the past great Grand Slam record holders who were present, especially towards Pete Sampras who flew in especially for the final. I hate these acts of showmanship - should be about the game and nothing else!

[Swordsman808]

Well if your more interested in talent, than Federer is inifinitely more fascinating than Sampras with his one-two serve and volley combo (YAWNNNNN...) As for Fed's outfits, I'm not saying Sampras should of worn a tuxedo during his Wimby warmups, but for fucks sake but another fucking outfit. For fuck's sake, man! Sorry Pete you're a great guy and a great champion, no doubt, but you're about as interesting as tumbleweed in the Texas desert (YAWNNNNN...)

[Scoclamor]

@Swordsman808 Amen again!

[Scoclamor]

@pps1fan He was given the shirt by nike to wear in the final! Sampras had plenty of comments that irked everyone! His book was that of an egotistical jerk!

I remember when he lost to Rafter at Cincy in '98. What did Pete have to say? About the difference between him and Rafter was, "About 10 slams".

Then about Rafter being #1, "It pisses me off!"

After lossing to Sergi Bruguera in Miami in '97. "Its a match I win 8 times out of 10"!

Never would admit he sucked @ the French Open!

[pps1fan]

@Scoclamor First of all the comments regarding Rafter, Sampras and Rafter cleared the air unlike many others they were both man enough to sit down and speak without media around, Rafter and he are on good terms now! Of course he wasn't happy not being No.1 what great champ if honest is bet Federer isn't right now with Nadal at the top again?! So many players make comments in heat of moment doesn't mean they're bad people grow up will you!

[Scoclamor]

@pps1fan Don't worry about Fed no being #1...he will be again...soon. I remember back in 2008 everyone said that Fed would A) Never win another slam with Nadal around and B) Never be #1 again.

Well, well, well, 2009 came along. Don't worry Fed will be #1 again, and I can't wait for a book by him to come out...it will be insightful

[pps1fan]

@Scoclamor I think Federer even though still great has lost that aura of invicibility and also perhaps some of his hunger for winning, he can be forgiven this as he's achieved/won everything! My question is will he be able to know when is best to stop playing pro? Sampras at least can say when he stopped he was US Open Champion no other player has done that in the open era!

[aleksandrpondios]

stop your comment about pete everyone who really likes tennis knowes that he is a great champion,sometimes you speak like jerk. to visit he is video and to leave bad bad comments.you have no to do anything in your life?

[Scoclamor]

@aleksandrpondios I learn how to spell and go to pro tennis tournaments! Is that a life? I also read tennis books. Many of them! Graduate from College twice, write a blog.

What do YOU do other than fire at EVERYONE who has the courage to speak the truth. They're are web sites out there that bash Michael Jordan, what does that say?

Why not fire back at timafi? He makes a good point here!

Never said Sampras wasn't great! Fed is better, plain and simple. ACCEPT THAT!

[aleksandrpondios]

@Scoclamor man you must have some problem with pete,sure.where are so many people consider pete greatest all time,a lot.for me pete in fast courts is greatest ever 100000000000000000 %.and sure roger is a great champion.and might be rod laver is greatest ever,who knows.Man stop it and enjoy the tennis

[Scoclamor]

@aleksandrpondios I enjoy tennis all the time. See my trophy case for details!

[aleksandrpondios]

@Scoclamor okey man i enjoy tennis to,but i thinke 10 years before tennis was more intresting it is my opinion(boxing and basket to 10 years ago agree?

[mrbobevans]

Pete also has the condition called Thalassemia Minor which effected his endurance. It is safe to say that the condition made Pete more focused so he could get through matches. Pete has always been private about it so he would not use it as an excuse for losing. Roger had the mono which hurt him during that period, but was nothing like what Pete had to endure.

[Scoclamor]

@mrbobevans Sampras had a condition called I Can't Win The French Open!

[mrbobevans]

Pete is way more fun to watch than Roger. His game was pure serve and volley. Pete is more of a swashbuckler, throwing his game behind a full attack. Roger is more of an artist with timing and precision. Just to me personally, I like Pete's style more because it was more unpredictable.

[Swordsman808]

Serve and volley? Unpredictable. What kinda stupid fucking moron am I talking to here? Serve and volley is the most boring style ever in the history of the sport. Good riddance. You don't see too many people morning it's loss other than McEnroe who wouldn't even have won a slam had he been forced to play a generation later.

[mrbobevans]

You need to watch the Laver Youtube videos. Awesome what I guy of the stature could do on a tennis court. Laver's volleys are textbook. Except for possibly Federer, Laver would have stomped all current pros in a match only using wood racquets.

[Swordsman808]

Saw videos of Laver. Very Federeresque. Although Laver undeniably has phenomenal hand-eye coordination and "natural" mechanics, his lack of size would have inhibited from reaching the same status in today's game.

[mrbobevans]

You may be right about Laver's height being a detriment. But take Cilic and Querry for instance, their game would be too one dimensional against Laver. Laver's variety of shot would be in their heads from the first game. Laver's arm strength would possibly make up for his size.

[Swordsman808]

Yes I agree, Cilic and Querrey and most other tallies playing with wooden racquets in Laver's time woulda been lunchmeat!

[Scoclamor]

@Swordsman808 Watch 'em in 62 and 69!

[aleksandrpondios]

@Scoclamor if your really dont likehim dint visit he is video,everyone getting tired about you comments

[jandec73]

@aleksandrpondios I don't mind his comments one bit. You're boy Pete had his faults, BTW. I looked up what he said about Raftner, it happened. Also, why don't you take time out of your worthless life and note that you are not "everyone!" I am among everyone, and I say, let him say whatever he wants.

It is a well known fact that Sampras sucked on clay. That's why Fed is better. Can you not accept that? Apparently!

[Scoclamor]

@Swordsman808 AMEN!

[theredandtheblack1]

pete was a lazy bum the l;ast 5 years

[Scoclamor]

@mrbobevans Federer is more fun to watch than Sampras. Sampras wasn't unpredictable at the French. I knew he'd always lose!

[supertrex2]

first time ive seen video of aggassi beating sampras. lol.

[drwood04]

1995 Australian Open, 2000 Australian Open also.

[pitoloco]

AGASSI IS GOD SAMPRAS IS NOTHING

[gioutube]

Sampras vs Agassi head to head:

20-14

When Sampras was in the zone he was better than Agassi. Check some macthes like: san Jose 96, wimbledon99, masters 99. Agassi did not see the ball.

[aseret64]

if agassi was so focused then in his game, he would definetely beaten sampras' record of 13 slams. i love both of them but what i am saying is, agassi is a rebel player and concentrated on his game on the latter part of his career

[ibwangin]

his fault for slacking off then.

[thrillamf]

The problem with this is that Agassi always went far in the fastcourt tournaments whereas Pete was useless in the slow court tournaments. Therefore whenever they met it was usually on a faster court like US Open or Wimbledon which suited Sampras more. If they played 10 games on grass and 10 on clay, Agassi would easily win all 10 clay games and at least 2 grass court games.

[RichardHumphries2006]

laver didnt win on all surfaces aussie open and us open was played on grass back then

[kennylondon30]

clearly u dont know much about tennis. i am a huge agassi fan myself but laver won the grand slam twice, i.e. he won on all surfaces !!!!

[thrillamf]

This shows that without his serve, which is pretty useless on clay, Sampras is not so special. Agassi won all 4 on 4 different surfaces, something Laver did not do.

[aseret64]

totally agree with you. agassi is the only man in the open era who has that record, however, there is nadal and federer. I think nadal comes in second and then federer (after winning the 2009 French Open). When Agassi retires, I lost interest in watching tennis. Probably I have to wait for Christian Sampras and Jaden Gil Agassi to play tennis lol

[ulizinho]

And Noah Becker...or Fed´s child....???

Hahaha. The next superstar will be the result of genetic engineering. something like Pete´s wrist , Nadals body, Gorans arm, Karlovic size, Federes brain & eyes and Mac´s mouth. And got to be a lefty.

[daraemkar]

Sampras's shoulders, Santoro's legs, and Mac's hands

[ulizinho]

yeah, good selection. Feds moves, Beckers eyes, Serenas butt....

[theelectricman]

I remember watching this match live back in '92. I so wanted Andre's outfit, but couldn't get it. Anyway, he went on to have an embarassing loss against Courier the very next match in the semi's. But, it was a good enough result to carry to Wimbeldon where he won the title that year.

[Ayrton1982]

Andre the giant!!!!...

[Zozim57]

I was not shocked that Pete never won RG until I saw him play on clay. Pitty he never won the french. His game is for the complete opposite of clay. It's unbelievable how different he is on clay and grass. His game is meant for attack not for long rallies. On clay he's a very ordinary player while on grass, he's the greatest of all time, a genius.

[ispaht]

I agree and the stark contrast between his RG and Wimbledon record is just amazing. He won seven titles in Wimbledon while his best performance in RG was a SF showing in 1996 -- after which -- never got past the third round ever.

[Halochieftain117]

if only he had increased his pro staffs headsize. its difficult to hit the ball precisely in the sweetspot every time with a prostaff 85, but thats what you have to do at RG. Using even a 90 inch headsize i think pete would have dominated

[kinglear]

Agassi's forehand return at 1:17 is amazing stuff. His backswing is so short, and he rips that forehand so early.

[stell29]

That shot is stupid good. There will be another ball striker or service returner like Agassi. He was sick

[kinglear]

yup! Agassi could hit flat, low winners, as well as topspin winners. He could do it all.

[lukeinarizona]

not sure why the arguing.They are both amazing players.if anythng sampras was nevr a claycourt player and yet he acomplished reaching the semis of RG,which may not be much for him cause anythin short of winning a slam was bad for him,but i guarantee y'all that most european players wish they would reach the semis of RG.Sampras dominated the curcuit way longr than Agassi did,yet Agassi did somethin i dont see anyone else doing(not for a while),being the best in his 30s. best rivalry ever.period.

[cyberz098]

In time of sampras and agassi many players are tough but now tennisters are stink only federer nadal djonkovic are strong other players are just display. I like the past tennis than now!

[nalgasnad]

andre rapes all

[thalivest]

Wow you guys make me laugh!!! Sampras > Agassi end of story.

SLAMS - Pete 14, Andre 8

YRS @ #1 - Pete 6 (conecutively), Andre 1(and that one he was aided by Pete missing 2 slams that year with injury)

WEEKS @ #1 - Pete 286, Ander 100 or so

GRASS - Sampras

HARD - Sampras

CLAY - Agassi

CARPET - Sampras

So if the played 5 matches on each surface, who comes out ahead?? Agassi may come out ahead on clay, but Pete overall. Agassi was was great but Pete is above him.

[timafi]

Sampras might have won 14 majors and Agassi 5 less but Agassi did something that Sampras now wishes he could have won and that is to have won ALL 4 majors!

Sampras made it to just 1 semis in Paris his whole career!

only a handful of players in the history of men's tennis have been able to do what Agassi did.

why do you think Sampras talks about not winning Paris with nothing but regrets?it's because he knows that winning RG would have solidified his legacy as the GOAT!

[zzzzzzyyyy]

If you were a player you would rather be Agassi as he won everything. Sampras didn't.

[zzzzzzyyyy]

Sampras's inability on clay means he can never be considered the best. Agassi, by winning all the slams, is ahead of him in terms of greatness.

[uscstudent13]

agreed

[splendid1000]

Agassi's inability to dominate hard court and grass like Sampras did means he can never be considered the best.

[splendid1000]

Sampras, by winning seven wimbledons vs agassi's one, is ahead of him in terms of greatness....

[lagerandapacketcrisp]

the reason sampras didnt do well on clay was largely down to his poor fitness which wasnt helped by his anaemia

[robertk2007]

also he couldnt serve and volley on clay

[canigetawitness1]

bullshit, face reality clay is a slower surface therefore his serve aint so potent mate. Check out the rain which made the service even slower an agassi kicked his arse.

[wankstavd]

Най-добрите завинаги.

[Smythtown94]

Agassi gets ranked below Sampras on the All-Time Great List largely b/c Sampras was undefeated against him at Wimbledon and the US Open. However, a little known fact is that Agassi was undefeated against Sampras at the French Open and Australian Open. Additionally, despite being a "slower court baseliner", Agassi still managed to win Wimbledon and the US Open. Sampras was basically a non-factor at the French Open, and on clay generally.

[splendid1000]

not in the early part of his career before he became s&v. He made semis and quarters

[Samprasisthebest]

You mean he made "semI" not semiS. Even though I remain firm in my conviction that Sampras is the best, I was always disappointed by his defeats at Rolland Garros. I felt he could have won the title once. That would have shut up all these people that rank Agassi above him because Agassi won on clay.

[splendid1000]

yah i know it was just one Semi, they just call it semis cuz there are two matches.

[Samprasisthebest]

Oh, I see. Apologies.

[MattJones1418]

a little know fact... well a well known fact... u are a douche bag and sampras PWNS

[Samprasisthebest]

Well, before he delve into the scrupulous details, lets look at the Grand Slam results you refer to which are of course, most important.

US Open + Wimbledon : Sampras:6 Agassi:0

Aussie Open + French Open: Sampras:0 Agassi:3

While both were undefeated against each other at their select tournaments, Sampras had the better record in Grand Slam tournaments. Agassi was obviously better on clay than Pete, but other than that I feel Pete always had a chance to beat Andre at the Aussie open.

[Samprasisthebest]

Wow, Pete got a real thumpin here, didn't he? He never really could play on the clay, his biggest problem, IMO, was getting a feel for how to hit the ball. If you watch some of his other notable clay matches, its apparent that he made ALOT of unforced errors on clay.

[chidikaagu]

If this were in 94 the story would be the same coz sampras was a crappy player on clay period.

timgruuf said everything.

[cammpinno]

Wonder that Andre could have easily won more than 1 RG. Pity for him.

[quiet1234]

Pete was a bit foolish staying back and trying to outrally andre on clay, he could do it on hard courts (only person who could outhit him shot for shot on fast courts) but his game was not yet fully developed enough to allow him to rally with him on clay. if this were 94 however it woulda been a different story

[timgruff]

Actually, that's not really true. Pete couldn't hit shot for shot with Andre consistantly, even on hard courts. That's why he attacked so much against him. Occasionally when he was really feeling confident he'd swing that big forehand and out hit him here and there, but Pete would never try to live on the baseline shot in shot out with Andre.

[Samprasisthebest]

Actually, Pete played a lot of matches where he came in and stayed back at the baseline 50-50. When his forehand was on, he could stay with Andre shot for shot and outhit him consistently. Watch Wimby 99, he stayed back several points and out hit Andre. Watch US Open 1995 finals, he stayed back and outhit Andre about 50-50. Pete was an all-court player, not just a S&V, thats why he won the Aussie Open twice(on rubber ), something other notable S&V like Rafter, Krajicek,Ivanisevic didn't do.

[MattJones1418]

how can u OUT hit someone 50-50?

[starshower776]

Even in 1994, I doubt the result would have been different. Agassi was always the superior clay court player to Sampras. Their career results prove this. Sampras' game just never could translate well to clay, while Agassi could adjust his game to play competently on any surface.