Tennis Forum banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
i was reading in tennis magazine about them comparing pete to andre.....and they asked both marat and ferrero this question...... who will go down in history as the better player, andre aggasi or pete sampras?.... marat said sampras is the best. no one else has won 14 grand slams he hasnt won the french but he was on top of the world for six years, thats no picnic, thats no joke. agassi is a good player but sampras has done the most. he's a classic!......ferrero responded agassi is better because he won all four grand slams including the french open. sampras won more slams, but seven of those came at wimbledon. what agassi had done is the best!........ok did ferrero get his boxers stuck in a bunch or what??.......did he forget that half of AGASSIS slams came from australian?......how can he say that hes better because he won all four slams.....so what who cares theirs no comparison......pete has won the most of us open and wimbledon the two best and agassi the australian and french the more "unimportant ones in my opinon"......petes won 14 andre 8.....pete 286 no.1 for all time.....andre 88 no. 3 of all time...... tell me what YOU think?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
wait im really confused......why would he be better just because hes playing this season so he can TRY to catch up with pete???.....you lost me on that one
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,406 Posts
Well it's the classic issue of quantity and quality, isn't it? It's obvious that they both have one Slam, Wimbledon and the AO, that they dominated consistently, but I don't see what's wrong with Ferrero championing Agassi as the greater player because he was able to win on all surfaces. You might expect that from him considering that Sampras never came close to winning RG, which is of course Ferrero's most treasured Slam, but his point still stands. To win on more surfaces when he had to work much harder for most of his points than Sampras is a great achievement.

But anyway, I'm thoroughly sick of this argument because it seems so pointless - why debate which one is better when they will both go down as two great players in their very different ways? The way I look at it: Agassi had the better stiff-legged walk, but Sampras had the better tongue action on his serve. Both are surely attributes of greatness.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
very true...but i still think that sampras is better.....no one has won 14grand slams........like marat said thats no picnic thats no joke!!!.....i dont think someone better if they won more variety like four instead of 3 it just got on my nerves how ferrero said that he wasnt that half of his were wimbledon when half of aggasis were australian when of course wimbledon is WAY better to win.....geez.....aggasi just need to bugger off and retire...sorry
 

· Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
that completely sounded like gibberish cause i left out words so i need to start over.......it got on my nerves when ferrero said hes not that good since have were wimbledon acting like its bad to do so well at one of the best tournaments......like saffin said.....he was on top of the world for six years.....thats no picnic thats no joke......what has aggasi done thats this great??
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,406 Posts
Well personally, I don't see one Slam as being necessarily more valuable or prestigious to win than any other. Agassi's four Australian Opens are just as big an accomplishment as Sampras' seven Wimbledons, especially when you consider that he had to work a lot harder to get them. However, I do agree with you on the significant point that it is indeed time for Agassi to bugger off and retire.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
26,690 Posts
I would go with Sampras because he has won almost all their big matches apart from that OZ open final - I think the head to head is comparible in this case because they both peaked at the same time.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Hendouble....you're full of it???? Ummm...Sampras' 7 Wimbledon's were easier to get than Agassi's 4 Australians?? That is so much bafunery!!!

First of all 7>4
Second of All....Sampras' Wimbledon's came against fierce competitors...the likes of Agassi, Rafter....just to mention a few.


It is no question that Sampras is a far greater accomplished player.

TO ME....the greatest player EVER!!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,406 Posts
Let me guess, you're a Sampras fan, is that right?

I don't care how the numbers add up, the fact is that it's much easier to win a Grand Slam on grass with Sampras' game than it is for anyone else to win any other type of Slam. For heaven's sakes, the guy went unbroken for something like 120 service games! I'm not referring to mental toughness or quality of opponents, I'm referring to physical workload, pure and simple, and it's obvious that Agassi's game requires him to do much more of that than Sampras.

Note: I am not a confirmed fan of either player.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,406 Posts
BTW, I should add that Agassi also had to beat the likes of Sampras and Rafter to win his AO titles - he had to beat Sampras twice in the years he won it, just as Sampras beat him twice during the years he won Wimbledon. The parallels are remarkable, not only an incredibly dominant record, but also a rather ignominious final defeat; as we all know, Sampras' last match at SW19 ended in a loss to Bastl, while Agassi's last taste of defeat at the AO was to My Cousin Vinnie himself, Spadea.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
640 Posts
This is a debate I've read very often. I respect the arguments for both players. Statistically speaking, I think Sampras will always come out on top. But, in addition to his great on court achievements, the 80s "image is everything" Agassi brought a lot of spark to the game. His longevity and "respectability" today adds yet another dimension to his legacy while still focusing the world's attention on tennis. Even with his breaks through the years, Agassi has always been a great ambassador for the sport.

As far as all time greats, I still pay homage to the older guys like Laver, Borg, etc.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
7,659 Posts
It's so annoying when people say that Sampras' 14 slams mean less then Agassi's 8 because half of his slams were Wimby titles. I mean, isn't 4 half of 8???
For me Sampras will always be the greater player. More World Champion titles, more weeks at #1, more titles, & most importantly, SIX more Grand Slams.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,954 Posts
i think sampras will be told as the better player simply because he has more grand slams but imo andre should be because he has won all the grand slams on the 4 different surfaces. but i think sampras will be considered as the better player because of the number of slams he has.
 

· In my new place!!
Joined
·
22,957 Posts
Wow, I just came in, sorry Tennischick but Im just going to say, Pete.
 

· In my new place!!
Joined
·
22,957 Posts
great smash said:
Comparing is never easy. In order to be called the greatest ever I think it's a big handicap not being able to win the French, and not even coming close!
Ok I wouldnt say he was the best ever, but I personally think his career has been better than Andre's, not by much but.. if Andre hangs around and pulls in more tourneys, Grand Slams, you never know but as of right now you gotta give The Frenchless Pete the edge IMO...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
480 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
thats the thing....their careers are of great difference sampras still holds the title of 6more slams!!!......and even if he never came close to just ONE grand slam he has still accomplished so much more......and the funny thing is that andre is TRYING to stick around and catch up with him being the sad fact that he NEVER will!!!......i mean sampras has already made twice as much money yet aggasi is living off of royalty private jet and all!!!..... :rolleyes:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,406 Posts
Good Lord, does this issue really mean so much to you that you felt the need to negative rep me over it? All I was trying to say was that physically and tactically, Sampras' seven Wimbledons were a lot less demanding than Agassi's four Australian Opens. And I'm not on anyone's side in the whole pointless Sampras-Agassi debate, but I will just say that you can't always use stats to measure whether someone is a greater player than someone else. Tennis isn't that simple.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top