Andre-type v. Pete-type

[Skip]

Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras. They are contemporaries. Both have had highly successful careers, both on the court and financially. Both are winding down.

Andre - An excellent player, only winner of all 4 majors in a very long time. Very outgoing personality, seems to always be enjoying himself. Immature, fun-loving, somewhat rebellious when younger. Often reviled, especially when younger, for shallowness, lack of focus, and not living up to expectations. Late career renaissance to join the ranks of top players.

Pete - Arguably the greatest player of all time, winner of more majors than anyone ever. Reserved. Very driven and focused throughout his career. Dominant player in the world for most of his career. Universally respected by fans and peers. Only rap is that he's *boring* and doesn't seem to have much fun.

Lets say you're 40 and looking back. Would you rather have been Andre or Pete?

[VNV Nation]

Andre got to serve and volley with Brooke Shields.

[tortured angel]

Originally posted by VNV Nation
Andre got to serve and volley with Brooke Shields.

Yea, but Pete got Brigitte Wilson. But I consider that the only point in his favor. You only get 1 year to be a 25 year old millionaire, why spend it playing tennis? Andre is an idol for those of us with short attention spans.

[gyb13]

Pete. Not only do you get ms. wilson, but it's probably easier to go by unnoticed being Pete than being Andre.

[WiredTiger]

A very tough quandry. I would say it depends on your personality. if you crave the spotlight then you'd want to be Agassi. He was a lot more famous than Sampras ever was.

If you are satisfied with the money, the girl and the championships and don't care about being a celebrity then Sampras is your man. I bet Agassi had fun in his day but I'd rather be Sampras.

[KCBOOMER]

Sampras will always be remembered as the great champion and Agassi will always be remembered for what might have been. I'll go with Pete.

[poorme]

Originally posted by Skip
Lets say you're 40 and looking back. Would you rather have been Andre or Pete?

I Gotta Be Meee..........

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by VNV Nation
Andre got to serve and volley with Brooke Shields.

Well, that solves it! PETE all the way!

Pete. Andre will forever be looked at as a novelty, no matter how successful he was from 98-2000.

[moose]

great question!
pete

[Craig S.]

Originally posted by CpUltravox
Pete. Andre will forever be looked at as a novelty, no matter how successful he was from 98-2000.

First off, the idea that Agassi will always be considered a novelty act is ridiculous. I guess that's how some non-sports fans may feel, but any tennis fan knows that he's one of the greatest players of all time. And if you check the numbers, you'll see he won Grand Slams in 1992, 1994 and 1995, years during which he was extremely effective.

That said, Sampras has had the greater career. I'll always consider him lacking a little because of his failure to win at Roland Garros, but he has been more consistent than Agassi, and his Grand Slam total is incredible.

While Sampras seems to have been miles ahead of Agassi because of Andre's tendency to disappear for long stretches of time, the overall numbers in tournament victories are only 63-53 in Pete's favor. Again, the Slam numbers are heavily in Pete's favor, so he has to get the nod.

As for who I'd want to be, I'd likely go with Pete, only because I envy such steady performance.

Originally posted by KCBOOMER
Sampras will always be remembered as the great champion and Agassi will always be remembered for what might have been.

What might have been? He has 53 titles and the Career Grand Slam! And Babe Ruth might have hit 900 homers if he didn't drink! Where is the line drawn for expectations?

I hate when Agassi is criticized for not fulfilling other people's expectations. Maybe without the downtime he has taken at various points in his career, he would have simply burned out. Kudos to him for not being so consumed by the game that he destroys his life. He's had an incredible career and should be commended for that. Save the "could-have-beens" for Jimmy Arias and Jim Courier.

[VNV Nation]

Craig I was thinking along the same lines..."Isn't Agassi an all-time great?" but i didn't know any of his stats off the top of my head.

Seems to me that Agassi had a lot more fun playing tennis, less pressure and he was much more beloved than Sampras.

[TGwynn19]

Originally posted by VNV Nation

Seems to me that Agassi had a lot more fun playing tennis, less pressure and he was much more beloved than Sampras.

I agree with everthing except 'less pressure'. Nick Boleteri put a lot of pressure on him, but that was 1/10th of what Andre brought upon himself. He was the Cher of tennis. The Nike outfits he wore almost got him thrown out of Wimbelton. The hair, Barbara Streisland( help Skip), long earring, etc he was always the focus of the media's attention.

[Skip]

Wimbledon. Streisand.

Always a pleasure to correct you TGwynn.

I think that's the first time I've been considered a "non-sports" fan. Even played Tennis through HS and college.

Still consider Agassi a novelty act. Didn't take him seriously when he started, got beaten by Michael Chang to the first major, and spent the rest of his career in Pete's shadow.

All this despite being the more naturally gifted of the two.