Kudzu Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Andre Agassi, veteran of tennis, rebel turned elder statesman, and icon of true sportsmanship, has played his last match on the pro tennis circuit. This thread is intended as one more of many salutes to the legend of tennis, a man who will be remembered, and a man who will certainly continue to contribute in his own way. 'Atta boy, Andre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drumnut Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Agassi's Career Comes to Close With Loss QUOTE NEW YORK (AP) - Worn down and wincing, Andre Agassi could only stand and watch the final shot whiz by. A career for the ages came to a close Sunday when Agassi lost to the 112th-ranked player in the world, with Benjamin Becker serving an ace to finish off a 7-5, 6-7 (4), 6-4, 7-5 third-round victory at the U.S. Open. Playing with the spirit of a champion but a creaky body that needed four injections, the end came with Agassi looking like what he'd become - a 36-year-old man with a bad back, ready for retirement. Agassi teared up on the blue court as he addressed a crowd that showed up early at Arthur Ashe Stadium and tried to spur him all afternoon. "The scoreboard shows that I lost today," he said. "But what the scoreboard doesn't show is what I feel." Becker, who had to win three qualifying matches merely to make it into the Open, applauded as Agassi spoke. Agassi's wife, Steffi Graf, and their two young children looked on. "He was my idol growing up," Becker said. The 25-year-old joined the crowd for a long, loud standing ovation saluting Agassi, who stared out at the crowd from his chair, wiping tears from his eyes. Agassi needed cortisone and anti-inflammatory shots to keep playing this week. Although he pushed himself to the limit, he was just plain shot. Hobbling, grimacing and breathing hard, he frequently stood, watching to see whether Becker's shots landed good. Reduced to hoping rather than hitting, Agassi showed just flashes of the brilliant returns and pinpoint backhands that made him an eight-time Grand Slam winner. apnews.myway.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Yeah one of my favourite players alongside Borg, Mcenroe, Connors, Nastase... I really enjoyed watching his baseline power game and like these other champions he didn't rely on a huge serve to overwhelm the opposition, he played clever tennis instead. His nickname was "the punisher" because his uncanny accuracy allowed him to send guys running from side to side as he sometimes prolonged the point to wear the them down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midway Hawker Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 I watched it today.. Tennis truly has no more greats on the men's side.. Andre was the last great figure in Men's Tennis. Plus he looks like me, so he has to be a legend.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 i have always been a huge agassi fan, i will miss my all time favorite player. i have seen him live a few times over the years. to me tennis is in a down time. i have kinda lost interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 I have to admit: I hated Agassi in those early years up to the late 90s. In those days (especially in the late 80s/early 90s) I can clearly recall him not being so gracious when losing. This happened numerous times. BUT, things changed. I guess he grew up. In that time I think he became a better player and person for it. Though I wasn't cheering for him in those earlier years, I always enjoyed watching him play. And in these last few years, I was wanting him to win more and more. Thanks for all the great years of tennis Andre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 I'm fan of Nadal, he's an exciting swashbuckling type of player and finally after about 70 years we've got a British player who's destined for the very top: Andy Murray so that's exciting for us Brits... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattler2004 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 QUOTE (Midway Hawker @ Sep 4 2006, 01:37 AM) I watched it today.. Tennis truly has no more greats on the men's side.. Andre was the last great figure in Men's Tennis. Plus he looks like me, so he has to be a legend.. What? Roger Federer is well on his way to becoming the greatest tennis player.....EVER. Don't get me wrong...Andre was great, especially when he learned how to play high percentage tennis...yes his groundies where huge....seeing him play live a number of times I can say that the television never fully captured how hard and accurate his shots were, but no more legends in the game...nah, I gotta call that one out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush! Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 I think Federer & Andy Roddick are the 2 best men's players in tennis now, although Roddick acts like a baby when he loses. Andre was indeed a fantastic tennis player, always stuck it out. I will miss his great playing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 QUOTE (rattler2004 @ Sep 5 2006, 08:58 AM)QUOTE (Midway Hawker @ Sep 4 2006, 01:37 AM) I watched it today.. Tennis truly has no more greats on the men's side.. Andre was the last great figure in Men's Tennis. Plus he looks like me, so he has to be a legend.. What? Roger Federer is well on his way to becoming the greatest tennis player.....EVER. Don't get me wrong...Andre was great, especially when he learned how to play high percentage tennis...yes his groundies where huge....seeing him play live a number of times I can say that the television never fully captured how hard and accurate his shots were, but no more legends in the game...nah, I gotta call that one out. I'd agree with this. He definitely has a shot at becoming the greatest. He just turned 25 I think and he's already got 8 grand slams (same number as Agassi...although Andre's set was complete). Federer just needs the French. That one is doable for him and he's got many more years to go. I just hope that he can have longevity as Andre did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Sep 5 2006, 08:33 AM) QUOTE (rattler2004 @ Sep 5 2006, 08:58 AM)QUOTE (Midway Hawker @ Sep 4 2006, 01:37 AM) I watched it today.. Tennis truly has no more greats on the men's side.. Andre was the last great figure in Men's Tennis. Plus he looks like me, so he has to be a legend.. What? Roger Federer is well on his way to becoming the greatest tennis player.....EVER. Don't get me wrong...Andre was great, especially when he learned how to play high percentage tennis...yes his groundies where huge....seeing him play live a number of times I can say that the television never fully captured how hard and accurate his shots were, but no more legends in the game...nah, I gotta call that one out. I'd agree with this. He definitely has a shot at becoming the greatest. He just turned 25 I think and he's already got 8 grand slams (same number as Agassi...although Andre's set was complete). Federer just needs the French. That one is doable for him and he's got many more years to go. I just hope that he can have longevity as Andre did. I rate Federer as a great player but there's one problem I have with him. Right now he's in a similar position in the all time standings, in terms of grand slam wins, as Agassi, Connors and Lendl, all have 8 but what about his opposition? Connors when he came inot the game had Newcombe and a host of Aussie all time great veterans, plus Nastaste and Vilas (who are both on the all time top ten list for most titles won. You also had Roscoe Tanner and Vitus Gerulitus. Then he had Borg, then McEnroe, then Lendl. Lendl had Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Noah. Agassi had Sampras, Courier, Pat Rafter plus the Beckers and Edbergs, Lendl. Who's Federer had to deal with Roddick and Hewitt? 3 grand slam titles between them? Currently ranked 10 and 17. Then you have a raw clay court talent in Nadal who's barely out of his teens who's beat him 4 times this year. The rest of his opponents were over the hill or just a bunch of no namers. Federer can't be ranked the best of all time because his opposition is not good enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 6 2006, 03:19 AM)QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Sep 5 2006, 08:33 AM) QUOTE (rattler2004 @ Sep 5 2006, 08:58 AM)QUOTE (Midway Hawker @ Sep 4 2006, 01:37 AM) I watched it today.. Tennis truly has no more greats on the men's side.. Andre was the last great figure in Men's Tennis. Plus he looks like me, so he has to be a legend.. What? Roger Federer is well on his way to becoming the greatest tennis player.....EVER. Don't get me wrong...Andre was great, especially when he learned how to play high percentage tennis...yes his groundies where huge....seeing him play live a number of times I can say that the television never fully captured how hard and accurate his shots were, but no more legends in the game...nah, I gotta call that one out. I'd agree with this. He definitely has a shot at becoming the greatest. He just turned 25 I think and he's already got 8 grand slams (same number as Agassi...although Andre's set was complete). Federer just needs the French. That one is doable for him and he's got many more years to go. I just hope that he can have longevity as Andre did. I rate Federer as a great player but there's one problem I have with him. Right now he's in a similar position in the all time standings, in terms of grand slam wins, as Agassi, Connors and Lendl, all have 8 but what about his opposition? Connors when he came inot the game had Newcombe and a host of Aussie all time great veterans, plus Nastaste and Vilas (who are both on the all time top ten list for most titles won. You also had Roscoe Tanner and Vitus Gerulitus. Then he had Borg, then McEnroe, then Lendl. Lendl had Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Noah. Agassi had Sampras, Courier, Pat Rafter plus the Beckers and Edbergs, Lendl. Who's Federer had to deal with Roddick and Hewitt? 3 grand slam titles between them? Currently ranked 10 and 17. Then you have a raw clay court talent in Nadal who's barely out of his teens who's beat him 4 times this year. The rest of his opponents were over the hill or just a bunch of no namers. Federer can't be ranked the best of all time because his opposition is not good enough... I disagree with this. He's so much better than the opposition because he's so much better. And not because the opposition is not good enough. Besides, his career is barely at the halfway mark. The 2nd half will be the telling part. Also, if Federer can win the French and surpass Sampras' record number of slams, you STILL wouldn't rank him as the greatest (due to his opponents)? I'd strongly disagree with you then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 6, 2006 Share Posted September 6, 2006 QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Sep 5 2006, 08:31 PM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 6 2006, 03:19 AM)QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Sep 5 2006, 08:33 AM) QUOTE (rattler2004 @ Sep 5 2006, 08:58 AM)QUOTE (Midway Hawker @ Sep 4 2006, 01:37 AM) I watched it today.. Tennis truly has no more greats on the men's side.. Andre was the last great figure in Men's Tennis. Plus he looks like me, so he has to be a legend.. What? Roger Federer is well on his way to becoming the greatest tennis player.....EVER. Don't get me wrong...Andre was great, especially when he learned how to play high percentage tennis...yes his groundies where huge....seeing him play live a number of times I can say that the television never fully captured how hard and accurate his shots were, but no more legends in the game...nah, I gotta call that one out. I'd agree with this. He definitely has a shot at becoming the greatest. He just turned 25 I think and he's already got 8 grand slams (same number as Agassi...although Andre's set was complete). Federer just needs the French. That one is doable for him and he's got many more years to go. I just hope that he can have longevity as Andre did. I rate Federer as a great player but there's one problem I have with him. Right now he's in a similar position in the all time standings, in terms of grand slam wins, as Agassi, Connors and Lendl, all have 8 but what about his opposition? Connors when he came inot the game had Newcombe and a host of Aussie all time great veterans, plus Nastaste and Vilas (who are both on the all time top ten list for most titles won. You also had Roscoe Tanner and Vitus Gerulitus. Then he had Borg, then McEnroe, then Lendl. Lendl had Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Noah. Agassi had Sampras, Courier, Pat Rafter plus the Beckers and Edbergs, Lendl. Who's Federer had to deal with Roddick and Hewitt? 3 grand slam titles between them? Currently ranked 10 and 17. Then you have a raw clay court talent in Nadal who's barely out of his teens who's beat him 4 times this year. The rest of his opponents were over the hill or just a bunch of no namers. Federer can't be ranked the best of all time because his opposition is not good enough... I disagree with this. He's so much better than the opposition because he's so much better. And not because the opposition is not good enough. Besides, his career is barely at the halfway mark. The 2nd half will be the telling part. Also, if Federer can win the French and surpass Sampras' record number of slams, you STILL wouldn't rank him as the greatest (due to his opponents)? I'd strongly disagree with you then. Well we'll see, Nadal might just knock him off his pedestal yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 Roddick is playing his semi-final match against an unknown Russian and he's already lost the first set... Federer whipped another another Russian earlier to make the final... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 9, 2006 Share Posted September 9, 2006 QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 9 2006, 02:59 PM) Roddick is playing his semi-final match against an unknown Russian and he's already lost the first set... Federer whipped another another Russian earlier to make the final... Ok so Roddick won through, but has he any chance against Federer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 10 2006, 07:25 AM)QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 9 2006, 02:59 PM) Roddick is playing his semi-final match against an unknown Russian and he's already lost the first set... Federer whipped another another Russian earlier to make the final... Ok so Roddick won through, but has he any chance against Federer? Of all the players out there, I think him and Nadal have the best chance of beating Federer in Grand Slam Final. You still have to give the edge to Federer but yah, Andy's got a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Sep 10 2006, 10:02 AM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 10 2006, 07:25 AM)QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 9 2006, 02:59 PM) Roddick is playing his semi-final match against an unknown Russian and he's already lost the first set... Federer whipped another another Russian earlier to make the final... Ok so Roddick won through, but has he any chance against Federer? Of all the players out there, I think him and Nadal have the best chance of beating Federer in Grand Slam Final. You still have to give the edge to Federer but yah, Andy's got a chance. Roddick has lost the first set but he's got a break in the second... Andy is not talented enough really to challenge Federer on a regular basis, his game is big serving and a huge forehand and not much else and that's not enough to compete with the multifaceted Federer. He's improved over the last few weeks because Jimmy connors has motivated and inspired him but that effect is only going to last for so long. Still despite the offical rankings (Roddick is 10) I think in actuality Roddick is the current 3rd best player out there, so in effect you're correct JB... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted September 10, 2006 Share Posted September 10, 2006 QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 10 2006, 04:32 PM) QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Sep 10 2006, 10:02 AM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 10 2006, 07:25 AM)QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 9 2006, 02:59 PM) Roddick is playing his semi-final match against an unknown Russian and he's already lost the first set... Federer whipped another another Russian earlier to make the final... Ok so Roddick won through, but has he any chance against Federer? Of all the players out there, I think him and Nadal have the best chance of beating Federer in Grand Slam Final. You still have to give the edge to Federer but yah, Andy's got a chance. Roddick has lost the first set but he's got a break in the second... Andy is not talented enough really to challenge Federer on a regular basis, his game is big serving and a huge forehand and not much else and that's not enough to compete with the multifaceted Federer. He's improved over the last few weeks because Jimmy connors has motivated and inspired him but that effect is only going to last for so long. Still despite the offical rankings (Roddick is 10) I think in actuality Roddick is the current 3rd best player out there, so in effect you're correct JB... That's it Federer whoops Roddick for the 7th time in a row, 11 out of 12 times in all... Talk about having his number... That's three straight US Opens, 9 grand slam titles in all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 11 2006, 08:18 AM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 10 2006, 04:32 PM) QUOTE (JohnnyBlaze @ Sep 10 2006, 10:02 AM) QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 10 2006, 07:25 AM)QUOTE (treeduck @ Sep 9 2006, 02:59 PM) Roddick is playing his semi-final match against an unknown Russian and he's already lost the first set... Federer whipped another another Russian earlier to make the final... Ok so Roddick won through, but has he any chance against Federer? Of all the players out there, I think him and Nadal have the best chance of beating Federer in Grand Slam Final. You still have to give the edge to Federer but yah, Andy's got a chance. Roddick has lost the first set but he's got a break in the second... Andy is not talented enough really to challenge Federer on a regular basis, his game is big serving and a huge forehand and not much else and that's not enough to compete with the multifaceted Federer. He's improved over the last few weeks because Jimmy connors has motivated and inspired him but that effect is only going to last for so long. Still despite the offical rankings (Roddick is 10) I think in actuality Roddick is the current 3rd best player out there, so in effect you're correct JB... That's it Federer whoops Roddick for the 7th time in a row, 11 out of 12 times in all... Talk about having his number... That's three straight US Opens, 9 grand slam titles in all... Plus he's been in the finals of the last 6 Grand Slams (that's never been done before in the Open Era). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.