Sampras beats Agassi in Macau exhibition
MACAU (AP)—Pete Sampras edged by Andre Agassi in three sets on Sunday as the two retired American tennis greats revisited one of the sport’s greatest rivalries.
The 3-6, 6-3, 10-8 win in this southern Chinese gambling enclave was the first time the two had played since Sampras won in the 2002 U.S. Open final for his then-record 14th Grand Slam.
The fast indoor surface at The Venetian Macao arena favored Sampras’ attacking style, but it was Agassi who came out strong in the first set. He showed no signs of the bad back that required four injections during his final tournament, the 2006 U.S. Open.
“Somehow when you see Pete, it all comes back to you pretty quickly,” Agassi said. “I just go, ‘Well, I don’t really have much of a choice here.’ It’s just nice to be so familiar with somebody’s game.”
Sampras, who beat Roger Federer at the same venue in an exhibition two years ago, bounced back in the second set, serving an ace and using a delicate pickup volley to draw even.
He continued to have the advantage in the super tiebreaker, overwhelming Agassi with a powerful serve. Trailing 9-6, Agassi saved two match points—the second with a down-the-line backhand winner—but Sampras served out the match with another ace.
“Andre just hits the ball so cleanly, even after being retired for three years. The pace of his shots was very heavy,” Sampras said, noting Agassi served more aces than he did.
“How many times does that happen?” Agassi joked.
The two Americans captivated fans in the 1990s and early 2000s with their contrasting styles and personalities. Sampras led their head-to-head series 20 to 14, including 4 to 1 in Grand Slam finals.
“Pete’s hands are the same as they’ve always been,” Agassi said. “He has great feel for the ball. He surprised me with the number of pickups he made out there. It was like it just came very naturally.”
126 Comments
1 - 25 of 126
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Also, I'd have to put Lendl ahead of Connors. Ivan absolutely OWNED Jimmy for the last four or five years of Jimmy's career and almost won as many professional singles titles.
Finally, I'd absolutely put Becker ahead of Edberg. Yes, Edberg beat him in 2 of 3 Wimby finals (one being kind of luck, IMO), but Boris won more lifetime tournaments and the way he kept pace with Pete in big indoor events was incredible. I just think Boris overall had the better career. Also, keep in mind that Boris had a big edge in their head to head matches. Check the stats. I'd put Edberg at about 12 or 13, also behind Wilander and John Newcomb. Cheers.
Report Abuse
1. federer
2. sampras
3. laver
4. borg
5. connors
6. lendl
7.mcenroe
8. agassi
9. nadal
10. edberg
Report Abuse
Pete, Roger, and John (McEnroe) - the very best EVER!!
Rafa and Novak (Djokovic) two best up and coming.
Report Abuse
I'm just saying that when you objectively look at their careers and the way Andre played from '99-'05, the gap is MUCH CLOSER than people typically think. Again, realizing the Masters series events are not as huge as slams, they both won 25 slam/masters events. And Andre did win in France and was a two time finalist as well. Also, Andre performed well in EVERY slam--even at Wimbledon where he won just the one slam. Many QF's and semis. Pete has a GAPING hole in his resume and that in and of itself closes the gap tremendously. Personally, I think Andre is one of the top 7 players of all time and I'll take on ANYONE who disagrees!!! :)
Report Abuse
I would have responded sooner, but have been on another thread where the Doha tournament is being discussed; so you can imagine how it's blowing up.
Again, Thanks and peace. johnp.
Report Abuse
I stand corrected, you are right & that is what I meant to write :-)
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
1. pete winning 5 year ending world championships to andre's 1
2. pete was year ending #1 player in the world 6 consecutive years ('93-98) where andre only did it one time ('99).
pete and andre both had great careers there is no question about it but andre is one step lower on the ladder than pete.
Report Abuse
Loved your post! You are always SO gracious~ I saw the discrepancy, but knew if johnp saw it he would say something. It simply wasn't my place to do so~
He's so polite, but I understand his fervor as I've been "misquoted" too~I'm sure many of us have been, yourself included~
I think there's no real harm (between) those of us who really seem to know each other on this board, but an outsider could use that as poison against the author. We 'all' know it doesn't take much to ignite a spark~which is terribly sad, but true.
Your post was wonderful and I'm sure John appreciated your clarification~I knew who you meant since I'd been writing him all afternoon too.
Ok, this is a "girl" thing! Did you see the thread about the Eight Ladies on the Fashion Runway in Doha? All were formally dressed and looked so pretty. Some of us enjoyed playing "Fashion's Hits or Misses" with their ensembles~It was fun and hopefully no one took ANY offense as none was intended~at least by me! It IS amazing how lovely all these women are and we don't have much opportunity to see them in this attire :-)
Also I commented (the first one, I think) on Andre's new book "Open" which will be released soon. I'm curious about your opinion on that article too~Having read Pete's and Johnny's no doubt I will read this too.
Take a peek..
Hope you are having a great evening!
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
That is NOT correct. You may have been referring to john paul g who seems to have a preference for Andre over Pete. He does present a strong case.
You must have been in abbreviation mode. Please be careful with that...I don't want any unnecessary problems. I have only been enjoying and learning from all of the knowledgable posters on this thread.
Report Abuse
Was able to "visit" with the baby tonight on the webcam..so much fun! He's such a sweetie, had the hiccups :-)
I think this particular thread and (most) of it's postings have been some of the most informative, showing great clarity and true civility and making points without being rude. It's been wonderful reading back and forth and john paul g does have an immense knowledge of facts & statistics and we know he's an Andre fan & I do respect his manner in which he's posted. He's shown great composure when writing passionately about his favorite as I think we do when we write about Pete. I honestly do appreciate that so much.
Most do not show this kind of decorum.
Every time I read one of your posts I realize you've been so very fortunate to have seen Pete play so many times over his career! I'm just a wee be envious :-) but very happy you've been able to do that.
I've only seen him play twice..as mentioned to you before. At the US Open and Wimbledon.
Both were just amazing and I feel blessed to have been able to see Pete win two of his Slams. I would have loved to have seen him play more (live), but am grateful for TV! I recorded that entire match at Wimbledon when he went up to his parents..such a lovely family. That was very emotional for all of them, very special.
I have watched that moment many times.
I agree with you in that I think had Pete not retired when he did he could have won more, naturally we'll never know about that~but I like to think so.
I think what I really have an issue about (regarding Pete) is the 'not' winning the French.
Somehow some people seem to want to "define" Pete's total career by "not" doing something (winning that Slam) as opposed to all the titles he did win. Just being #1 for 6 years straight years is simply mind-boggling to me!
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he the only one to do that, so far?
The facts and stats are many with both Andre and Pete..Roger and Rafa as well & of course both Williams sisters and many others in our era of tennis. Some truly stellar and stunning records for both men and women!
I hope one day there will be others in our sport who will shoulder & share this huge honor & new players to watch and faces to remember.
Records are made for breaking and for me to know Pete, after watching Roger win the semi at Wimbledon, took the 'red-eye' to London for the Final and saw Roger beat Andy and win was simply one more thing that galvanizes his place in tennis history. Being there at THAT moment showed class beyond words. You KNOW part of his heart was disappointed, he's HUMAN, but I think he genuinely likes and respects Roger and wanted to be there in the event he did win. After the match when I saw Pete standing with Rod Laver, his favorite, I thought it's a full-circle now for Pete. How satisfying for him~
That match was one of the best I've ever seen. Both Roger and Andy left it all out there on that court, especially during that long 5th set! Very special indeed, as was when Rafa beat Roger in 5 (in the dark) the year before. Just magnificent tennis by extraordinary players~
Thank you, I went back and read your post. Yes, that sounds like Pete, giving credit where credit is due, especially to the Almighty~And I personally don't think one necessarily must be a "religious" person to have faith and to be spiritual. I think that's between a person and his God.
Well, as always topseed it's been a wonderful day of sharing our memories and great fondness for our Pistol Pete! Like you I will NEVER tire of doing that :-)
I look forward to reading your next post, as they always set a "higher" standard for all who post here~
Have a good night~
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Yes, his record was broken by Roger (another favorite of mine next to Pete), but his 14 GRAND SLAM TITLES will never ever be forgotten whether he is is a favorite or not!!! Yes, Andre has won the 4-Grand Slam titles which Pete never did- but that was broken too by Roger- when he won the French Open- Pete never did have another chance to play more matches because he retired much earlier that Andre. If they both retired at the same year maybe their statistics would be the same. I think they are in the same footing- the only difference is they have different fans- that recognize that both of these players have contributed so much in the history of TENNIS!!!
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Report Abuse
Andre won six more Masters' events than Pete and was 17-5 in finals. Pete was 11-8. They both had about a 77% lifetime winning percentage.
So, Andre won more Master's series events than Pete, six more than him--the same number of majors won more than Andre. So, in the biggest of big events, they each won 25, but Pete gets the edge because he won more Wimbledons and US Opens. Andre won all four slams and was always a factor in EACH one. How many quarters, semis and finals did he get to at the US? He was in 3 QF's, 4 semis, 6 finals, winning twice. 13 times he reached the QF or better. 10 times he made it to the final four.
At Wimbledon, he was in two QF's, 3 semis, and 2 finals, winning one. Had was abset quite a number of years there. At Australia, he only played 9 times, winning 4, getting to a semi, two QF's and two 4th rounds. At the French, he got to three finals, winning one and losing two, 2 semis and 4 QF's. His record in Paris blows Pete's away.
Andre also won Olympic Gold, something Pete didn't do. So, while Pete clearly got way the better of Andre at Wimbledon and the US Open, Andre was no slouch in those two big events. ****ANDRE WAS BETTER THAN PETE AT THE AUSTRALIAN, AT THE FRENCH, IN MASTERS SERIES EVENTS AND FOR DAVIS CUP. AND HE WON A GOLD MEDAL THAT PETE DIDN'T. CAN YOU SEE OBJECTIVELY HOW CLOSE THESE TWO WERE IN TERMS OF CAREER EXCELLENCE. ONLY BY ANDRE LOSING FOCUS EARLY IN HIS CAREER DID HE NOT SURPASS PETE.
Report Abuse
1 - 25 of 126