3 reasons why Andre Agassi, and not Pete Sampras, is the greatest American men's tennis player in history
Both Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras dominated world tennis in 1990s. Sampras retired from the game after winning the US Open in 2002, while Agassi continued playing tennis for a few more years before calling. With less than a year separating them, the two have won a total of 22 Grand Slam titles among them.
Sampras is ahead in terms of important statistics like Grand Slam titles (14-8), weeks as the No. 1 and head-to-head (20-14). However, there might be more to it than mere stats and Agassi has a solid claim to be the greatest male tennis player US has ever produced. There are other contenders like John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors as well, but the greatest US tennis player among men has to be between Agassi and Sampras, given their impact and dominance.
In this article, we will look at three reasons why Andre Agassi might be the best tennis player to have come out of the United States:
#3. Agassi has a better record while playing for his country:
Agassi has a decidedly better record than Sampras while playing in Davis Cup. He was a member of three Davis Cup winning teams in the 1990s and has a career win-loss record of 30-6 in the tournament. In comparison, Sampras has a significantly inferior win-loss record of 19-9.
Moreover, Agassi also won the Olympic gold in singles in 1996, which Sampras never managed to do. Hence, the older American enjoys a significantly better record than his arch-rival when representing his country.
#2. Agassi having more longevity as a player than Sampras:
As mentioned already, Agassi spent a few more years in the circuit than Sampras. Sampras had some injury-issues in the latter part of his career and simply could not continue as a tennis player beyond the age of 32. He suffered at the hands of much younger rivals like Marat Safin and Lleyton Hewitt towards the end of his career.
In comparison, Agassi played tennis professionally until the age of 36. Even during his twilight years, he gave stiff competition to the likes of Roger Federer, who was in his prime at that time. Agassi’s better longevity compared to Sampras is another reason why the former is a greater player.
#1. Andre Agassi winning the career Grand Slam
The US men have a reputation of being ordinary players on clay. None of Lendl, McEnroe and Connors managed to win the French Open title on clay, neither did Sampras. For all his brilliant serve and prowess on faster courts, Sampras looked ordinary on the slowest surface.
His one-handed backhand was troubled frequently on clay and it did not come as a surprise that he never managed to reach a French Open final, let alone winning the title. Winning a lone Italian Open title and helping US win a Davis Cup tie against Russia on clay remain his only notable achievements on the surface.
In comparison, Agassi won the career Grand Slam by winning a French Open title in 1999. He also reached the final; at Roland Garros on two other occasions. Agassi’s better return of serve made him a better player on clay. Yes, Sampras was a much better player on grass, but Agassi won a Wimbledon title, too.