I just read the Andre Agassi autobiography "Open". A fairly good read; the problem with autobiographies is that for them to be any good, the writer has to share some private thoughts which are probably best left not shared. In this book Brooke Shields and Pete Sampras suffer that fate. He is not particularly kind to either of them. Agassi was a somewhat typical child prodigy; spoiled and without many skills other than his specialty. For that little pipsqueak to end up with the Teutonic warrior-woman Steffi Graf is amazing.
One of the most interesting aspects of the book is his rivalry with Sampras. Starting in 1990 they played 34 official matches through 2002 when Sampras retired. It was as close as 17-14 until Sampras won the final 3 and ended up with a 20-14 overall edge. Agassi had a grudging respect for Sampras while he just hated Boris Becker. The whole thing got me thinking about judging the all-time greats and how important it is to have a true rival to be compared against.
In tennis and golf we have a couple of good examples of what I'm talking about. Both Roger Federer and Tiger Woods suffer in my opinion because they had issues with their contemporaries. Tiger never had a close rival like Nicklaus did. There were no Palmers, Trevinos, Players, Watsons to measure Tiger against. He had 14 majors and his closest rival had 3. Federer has a different issue; he had no rival for a while, then when one came along (Nadal), the rival started whipping him. Nadal is currently 14-8 vs. Federer.
I did a quick comparison of Sampras and Federer. Federer now leads in major 16-14. But, as I mentioned, he had no contemporary who was winning majors to compare him against, until Nadal arrived. Can you be considered the best ever when your chief rival has a big edge on you head to head? On the other hand Sampras foughts against Agassi (8 majors), Becker (6), Stefen Edberg (6), etc. Sampras went 20-14 against Agassi, 12-7 vs. Becker, 8-6 vs. Edberg, and 12-4 vs. Patrick Rafter.
Because Sampras and Nicklaus both won while competing against rivals who had the talent and mental strength to win multiple majors, I have a hard time accepting that Federer or Woods have surpassed them in any way.
S
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
When I read excerpts from this book, I was intrigued.
I hope you post some of the prickly things he said about his rivals and wife.
I agree with Sampras over Roger. Can you do a breakdown on Laver also.
j
Post a Comment