As great as both Andre and Pete were, the difference between them and Roger, Rafael, and Novak, is that those three have the motivation to CONTINUE winning. Whereas Andre and Pete were both burned out at some point.
@@anthonygonzalez9422 I loved Agassi, and Pete Sampras, but that's not the difference. The difference is ability. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are the three best players to ever play the game, and INEC TBH. Even someone like Andy Murray would've dominated Agassi and Sampras, simply by running down everything they hit. You might say it's an era thing, but I don't think it is. OK, training methods get better etc, but the quality of a field, no matter what the arena, _always_ improves massively when there is a big increase in competition. That's what's caused the sudden leap in quality - nowadays there are many more people taking sport seriously and dedicating themselves to it. Trust me, there are over 1 billion males - of a young enough age - in the world, if all of them had dedicated themselves totally to tennis, statisically there is practically zero chance Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic would even meet the standard to be professional players, let alone the best (which would be a 1 in a billion shot). That's why players now are _so_ much better than previous generations, the more people to compete with, the better the overall standard gets, and that standard rises out of sight of what came before.
@@futurez12 I think you straw manned my argument. I rejected the opinion that 'Andre couldn't continue because he lacked the motivation to keep winning.' Not sure who you're responding to with all that.
Terrible comparison. You can't compare players from different eras because the advancement in training, rackets and strings is gigantic. Agassi and Sampras played for as long as their bodies allowed them to be competitive. Like the person above me said Agassi's hips and back were completely done by the end.
I am in the process of reading the last 20 pages of "Open" and I think that the story of his using meth is not, although important, the most interesting one. I enjoyed the book a lot.
Cristiano De Lucrezia its always the childhood thats the most important and defining thing to onow about a person. andres and steffis werent so different. his being beaten by his dad and calling the ball machine "the dragon", give you a good hint about what is really going on in his mind.
the funny thing with the drugs is.. when you have money and fame, drugs are everywhere. When you are poor and nothing.. drugs are everywhere. When you are middle class and nothing, drugs are nowhere but in the news, they are so shocking and awful, how could anyone do them!!
Anyone who thinks that using crystal meth is in any way an advantage to an athlete obviously has no experience with meth users or use. Try staying up a few days while taking something that wreaks havoc on your body and then go compete at the highest level for hours on a tennis court. If anything it would hurt your ability to concentrate and perform.
I really dont see such a big deal of him using drugs. I mean, if u read the book, he didint use those drugs to improve his tennis, infact he played crap that yr. Yes, he shudve admitted to the officials, but the reaction of everyone is quite surprising. a lot of ppl use drugs, most ppl get addicted, he didnt... Give him credit, he was in a deep hole. i m not saying wat he did was right, but it wasnt THAT bad...
Hated it, made 35+ million dollars in tennis winnings. Has a net worth of 200+ million dollars with Steffi. Is 50 YO, and has been retired for 15 years (about age 35). Nice guy, but tough to feel his pain
