Andre Agassi partner

Starting XI of The Best Tennis Players Ever

2020.03.17 18:07 IAmRareBatman Starting XI of The Best Tennis Players Ever

Inspired by [this thread](https://old.reddit.com/soccecomments/fk4lin/oc_starting_xi_of_western_philosophers/), here is the Starting XI of The Best Tennis Players Ever:

GK - **Ivan Lendl** - Standing at a slender 6'2, he's a man on a mission. Nutrition, weightlifting and early-morning aerobics are a standard part of the tennis-player’s regimen, and no detail is too small to consider for the Czech turned American. His height and wingspan gives him the perfect goalie build, but what really gives him the advantage is his cold-blooded face.



CB - **Bjorn Borg** - The Ice Man. The Swede’s hold over the tennis game was so powerful that he decided to leave at the ripe old age of 25. Logical, rational, systematic, and diagnostic, one has to wonder whether Borg is really a human or a robot in disguise. Precise, clean and well-timed tackles support his overall defensive game making him a constant deep nightmare for opponents.



CB - **John McEnroe** - The polar opposite to Borg, McEnroe serves as his partner's balance for the back line. A feisty athlete, McEnroe isn't shy to get into the referee's face every foul called. His speed, stamina, toughness and athleticism are unparalleled. The relentless defensive game when he wants to, and the fire-spitting competitiveness, no player in football has brought such a volatile and brilliant mix of both talent and temper to the game.



RB - **Ken Rosewall** - If there is an award for football's most underappreciated player, the little man affectionately and ironically known as Muscles would be a strong contender. Neither his official statistics, nor his place in the pantheon of Australian legends does him justice. With great football knowledge and mighty legs, Rosewall's stamina is a key strength of his as he always challenges his opponents in heavy sprints across the pitch.



LB - **Jimmy Connors** - The player born to be brash and strutting. Connors always had tennis and football DNA intertwined, and a sixth sense for where to put the ball. Everything about the game, including solving it's constant adaptation, came naturally. With a Roberto Carlos LB build, Connors is there to stabilise the game, take the free-kick, or set you up with a beautiful assist.



CDM - **Mats Wilander** - A true leader on and off the pitch. With mind-numbing consistency and quiet killer instinct, Wilander thrives on his opponents' fear. He give his teammates encouragement when they need it but shows tough leadership when the right time calls for it. He always shows his one-of-a-kind combination of his competitive brain and athletic brawn whenever he's playing.



CM - **Andre Agassi** - With an ambition only similar to the great CR7, Agassi breathes football 24/7. A methodical grinder on and off the ball, Agassi brings in a power game with his lethal right-foot that makes goalkeepers sweat like never before. Agassi's exquisite passing and gloriously extended dribbles give him a blend of effectiveness and aesthetic appeal that's matched by few, if any, other modern-day midfielders.



CAM - **Rafael Nadal** - The man from Mallorca. Naturally dubbed the King of Clay in tennis, he's rightfully dubbed the King of Grass in football. He brings out the artistic, as well as the physical, qualities of the football. Captivating and alluring passing all around, he gracefully pounds the ball into the open spaces, with a tasteful touch. Most important, he dribbles his way with fierce optimism knowing he can conquer what's in front of him. A hybrid mix of Diego Maradonna and Andres Iniesta, there's nothing more to be said.


RW - **Novak Djokovic** - Consistency, flexibility, variety, agility, anticipation, and pitch sense, as well as cruicial mamba mentality directly learnt from the late great Kobe Bryant himself. He is strong enough to stand toe-to-toe with anyone, but fast enough to get back and retrieve nearly any ball. Djokovic at his best is described as “clinical.” With no exploitable weaknesses, he takes his opponents apart, prancing swiflty around the pitch like the legendary Dutchman, Arjen Robben.



LW - **Pete Sampras** - There's a reason his nickname is "Pistol Pete". He drives from wing to wing with only one goal in mind: get the shot in the net. The mix of down-to-earth honesty and unshakeable self-confidence in those words is characteristic of Sampras, who is happy to be known as a tennis/football player rather than a star. He's carefree but unpredictable, in-tune but innovate, calm yet wild. A true force to be reckoned with.


CF - **Roger Federer** - Like Messi, the ball seems to stick to his feet – as if he was born with it. He uses his stylish play to balance the substantive, polish the conventional, the artistic with the effectual, the elegant with the dominant. He possesses measured, metronomic dribbles; in his ability to outlast his opponents on his way to the goal. Federer makes the tennis commentators feel like they are in heaven, and show that, at least in this sport, there is use for beauty, after all.


Manager - **Rod Laver**

[XI Preview](https://i.imgur.com/qbj8Mim.png)
submitted by IAmRareBatman to tennis [link] [comments]


2020.03.17 18:05 IAmRareBatman [OC] Starting XI of The Best Tennis Players Ever

Inspired by this thread from dubtonn, here is the Starting XI of The Best Tennis Players Ever:
GK - Ivan Lendl - Standing at a slender 6'2, he's a man on a mission. Nutrition, weightlifting and early-morning aerobics are a standard part of the tennis-player’s regimen, and no detail is too small to consider for the Czech turned American. His height and wingspan gives him the perfect goalie build, but what really gives him the advantage is his cold-blooded face.
CB - Bjorn Borg - The Ice Man. The Swede’s hold over the tennis game was so powerful that he decided to leave at the ripe old age of 25. Logical, rational, systematic, and diagnostic, one has to wonder whether Borg is really a human or a robot in disguise. Precise, clean and well-timed tackles support his overall defensive game making him a constant deep nightmare for opponents.

CB - John McEnroe - The polar opposite to Borg, McEnroe serves as his partner's balance for the back line. A feisty athlete, McEnroe isn't shy to get into the referee's face every foul called. His speed, stamina, toughness and athleticism are unparalleled. The relentless defensive game when he wants to, and the fire-spitting competitiveness, no player in football has brought such a volatile and brilliant mix of both talent and temper to the game.

RB - Ken Rosewall - If there is an award for football's most underappreciated player, the little man affectionately and ironically known as Muscles would be a strong contender. Neither his official statistics, nor his place in the pantheon of Australian legends does him justice. With great football knowledge and mighty legs, Rosewall's stamina is a key strength of his as he always challenges his opponents in heavy sprints across the pitch.

LB - Jimmy Connors - The player born to be brash and strutting. Connors always had tennis and football DNA intertwined, and a sixth sense for where to put the ball. Everything about the game, including solving it's constant adaptation, came naturally. With a Roberto Carlos LB build, Connors is there to stabilise the game, take the free-kick, or set you up with a beautiful assist. ​
CDM - Mats Wilander - A true leader on and off the pitch. With mind-numbing consistency and quiet killer instinct, Wilander thrives on his opponents' fear. He give his teammates encouragement when they need it but shows tough leadership when the right time calls for it. He always shows his one-of-a-kind combination of his competitive brain and athletic brawn whenever he's playing.
CM - Andre Agassi - With an ambition only similar to the great CR7, Agassi breathes football 24/7. A methodical grinder on and off the ball, Agassi brings in a power game with his lethal right-foot that makes goalkeepers sweat like never before. Agassi's exquisite passing and gloriously extended dribbles give him a blend of effectiveness and aesthetic appeal that's matched by few, if any, other modern-day midfielders.

CAM - Rafael Nadal - The man from Mallorca. Naturally dubbed the King of Clay in tennis, he's rightfully dubbed the King of Grass in football. He brings out the artistic, as well as the physical, qualities of the football. Captivating and alluring passing all around, he gracefully pounds the ball into the open spaces, with a tasteful touch. Most important, he dribbles his way with fierce optimism knowing he can conquer what's in front of him. A hybrid mix of Diego Maradonna and Andres Iniesta, there's nothing more to be said.

RW - Novak Djokovic - Consistency, flexibility, variety, agility, anticipation, and pitch sense, as well as cruicial mamba mentality directly learnt from the late great Kobe Bryant himself. He is strong enough to stand toe-to-toe with anyone, but fast enough to get back and retrieve nearly any ball. Djokovic at his best is described as “clinical.” With no exploitable weaknesses, he takes his opponents apart, prancing swiflty around the pitch like the legendary Dutchman, Arjen Robben. ​
LW - Pete Sampras - There's a reason his nickname is "Pistol Pete". He drives from wing to wing with only one goal in mind: get the shot in the net. The mix of down-to-earth honesty and unshakeable self-confidence in those words is characteristic of Sampras, who is happy to be known as a tennis/football player rather than a star. He's carefree but unpredictable, in-tune but innovate, calm yet wild. A true force to be reckoned with. ​
CF - Roger Federer - Like Messi, the ball seems to stick to his feet – as if he was born with it. He uses his stylish play to balance the substantive, polish the conventional, the artistic with the effectual, the elegant with the dominant. He possesses measured, metronomic dribbles; in his ability to outlast his opponents on his way to the goal. Federer makes the tennis commentators feel like they are in heaven, and show that, at least in this sport, there is use for beauty, after all.

Manager - Rod Laver
XI Preview
submitted by IAmRareBatman to soccer [link] [comments]


2017.07.13 09:40 dropshot How surprising has the Wimbledon men's singles been?

On Monday, we went from thinking that we could have a final four that included the big four to today where we're thinking Roger's path has been cleared for his 19th Slam.
Ironically, while Roger's path has been made easier because all his top opponents are out, it makes the likelihood a "big four" can win less likely. However, we were in something of a similar situation last year where 2 of the big four made it to the semis and one made it to the final.
Let's rewind back to the start of the tournament. At the time, Murray's health was questionable, particularly his hip. I think Murray winning (to me) was unlikely, and that if he reached the semis, that would be the best he could do. Murray finds ways to do well at Slams even if he's not 100%, and his hip held up well enough for four rounds, even with opponents trying to drop shot and test it out. Really, Murray probably exceeded expectations, and he still had some opportunities to reach the semis if he had been able to close out the quarters in straight sets.
The big question for Murray now is how long does he need to recover, and will he be in good shape by the US Open. The other question I have is how long his partnership with Lendl lasts. Lendl kinda waltzed in to a great situation last year, and Murray finished the year as number 1, and because Djokovic has had his own issues, Murray will retain number 1.
Djokovic entered the tournament with mental issues. Would adding Agassi, then Mario Ancic, help? Turns out it might have, but he also had a physical ailment that I hadn't heard of until the fourth round. So Djokovic retiring (back in the day, he used to retire a lot, but mostly due to exhaustion, not injury) was a surprise.
In this respect, 2014 US Open was more surprising. At the time, Nishikori had to weather several five setters (against Raonic and Wawrinka), and no one expected him to beat Djokovic, and Djokovic didn't retire. I believe the heat may have affected Djokovic back then.
When Nadal entered the tournament, I'm sure many felt that he would continue the trend of losing early (Nadal haters fall in this camp) even if few addressed why Nadal had lost early so often despite having won the title twice and reached the final three other times. The guy should be able to play on grass.
To address that, I think several factors are involved. Most importantly is an anti-Sampras explanation. Sampras may have been dominant on grass, but his body, especially late in his career, was a bit fragile. He had the kind of game to win any one Slam, but he might have to give up regular titles to achieve it. Toward the end, it seemed he focused on reaching the Wimbledon final and the US Open final and pretty much nothing else.
To that end, he began to sacrifice the French Open. He would lose early. I think the appeal of the career Slam was good for a while, but the one year he went deep (1996), he didn't win Wimbledon, so I think he opted not to try to win the French and keep his energy high to win Wimbledon.
For Rafa, it's the opposite. He puts all his energy in the clay season and hopes he has leftover energy for Wimbledon. When he was young, he had this energy, but he continues to go through a grueling schedule in clay, and while it paid off this year with a French title and one of his best clay seasons yet, it cost him last year with an injury at the French and having to skip Wimbledon.
I suspect part of Rafa's results at Wimbledon has been his efforts on clay, leaving him less able to stand the rigors of Wimbledon and being more vulnerable than ever to big hitting players. This year did seem different however. He wasn't hurt like last year. He seemed pretty confident. Was he as good as he was 5 years ago? Probably not.
Still, of the "big 4", he played the closest match, and really only got edged out by a veteran that played clutch tennis. Yes, Rafa kinda got in a hole early on by dropping the first two sets, so psychologically or physically, he's still a bit vulnerable on grass, but he still came back to win two sets, and was really close. Now, would he have beaten Cilic? In hindsight, maybe not. Even though he was the earliest of the "big 4" to lose, behind Federer, he seemed the most likely to go deep.
Federer came into Wimbledon looking good. Yes, he lost to Haas in Stuttgart, but he won Halle, and beat Zverev, so again, the decision to skip the clay to increase his chances at Wimbledon look prescient. Federer had never needed long breaks before, and it seemed a bit odd to do so, like it was the beginning of the end, but now it's looking like genius.
So, really, we started Wimbledon thinking Federer is the huge favorite, and we have to wait and see on everyone else in the "big 4". Now, some were optimistic about the other top contenders, most notably, a chance for Wawrinka to complete the career Slam, but that fizzled almost immediately. What was surprising was a similar big stroker in Thiem did make it through a few rounds, but he doesn't take chances nor has the ups and downs of a Wawrinka.
Here's another surprise. Tomas Berdych. He's in the semis of Wimbledon. And the key? He was there a year ago.
Berdych is one of a few players that used to be stalwarts of the top ten. Not good enough to be in the "big 4", but good enough to stay in the top ten for years. The other players in this group would be Ferrer and Tsonga. These three guys found ways to stay top ten strong.
Berdych had been with a little known coach, Tomas Krupa, and after a while, felt his chances at a Slam were slipping, so he went coach hunting. He really wanted to work with Lendl, but for whatever reason, Lendl didn't want to work with Berdych, but he did recommend Dani Vallverdu.
Vallverdu was someone that had played on tour, but more importantly, was there with Andy Murray when he was young in the Sanchez-Casals academy in Spain, and became the designated hitting partner of Andy Murray.
When Lendl split with Murray a few years ago, Murray eventually selected Amelie Mauresmo who was a controversial choice, to say the least. Those who disdain women's tennis asked what a woman knows about men's pro tennis, but had little to say about Uncle Toni's knowledge of the men's pro game.
Murray ultimately sided with Mauresmo and jettisoned most of his team, and Vallverdu was one of the victims. Vallverdu went on to partner with Berdych and that went OK for a while (he upset Nadal at the Australian Open in 2015), but fizzled when Berdych lost to Goffin love and love.
Berdych then paired up with Ivanisevic, who had split with Cilic after he worked with Cilic and Cilic won the US Open. They recently split, and Berdych went with a Czech player named Martin Stepanek.
Anyway, I had completely forgotten that Berdych reached the Wimbledon semis last year. In my mind, his game was like Tsonga or Ferrer. He had slipped, and now was going through the motions. But apparently, he's still fighting.
Before I talk about Federer, I want to talk injuries. Some feel that if you're injured, you shouldn't play, but of course, in many sports, you do play. I recall hearing about basketball player, Derrick Rose. He was a star player, but sat out for something like 2 years due to injuries. I think fans believe that maybe if you're that good, you need to play in pain, and maybe you're faking it.
So, now that a player is hurt, people say they should rest and not play, but there are reasons why maybe they should. In fact, lots of players have managed pain to win titles. Andre Agassi won his only French title when Gilbert infamously said "You can't win if you don't play" to Andre, so Andre eventually relented, and he's probably happy he did because he did something Sampras didn't do, which was win the career Slam. Ironically, he did it on the surface everyone thought he'd win first, the French.
Nishikori was also hurt in his run to the 2014 US Open final, but Chang convinced him to play, and he stuck through two grueling 5-setters to pull off a huge upset of Djokovic. Heck, even Federer was hurt last year, but found a way to beat Cilic, but not Raonic. Remember he took off 6 months afterwards. The point is, Wimbledon is huge, and players play through pain. Fans may not be happy that players may be risking their health, but players in sports are always risking their health. It's part of the game.
OK, back to Federer. Now that Rafa and Novak and Andy are out, it seems like a cakewalk. Except Federer has seen this script before. US Open 2014 where Nishikori upset Djokovic in the first semi, and all Federer has to do is beat Cilic who had shown promise a few years ago, but wasn't expected to bother Federer. Only Cilic did bother Federer. Or 2009 US Open when Federer played del Potro. Yes, del Potro was dangerous, but Federer was only a few years removed from his glory years.
Let's look at Federer's potential opponents. First up is Tomas Berdych.
As mentioned before, Berdych was a top ten player for many years, but as he's aged, and as coaches have changed, Berdych's ranking has slipped, but he's kept at his game, and grass seems to be his best surface.
Berdych had a few years where he gave Federer all sorts of trouble. Most of these occurred from 2010-2013 where he beat Federer 5 times. But otherwise, Federer has had a huge head to head lead, 18-6. Not as dominant as Djokovic 25-2, but then it's Berdych in the semis, not Djokovic. The biggest problem for Berdych against Federer is that Federer has won their last 7 meetings, and unlike Novak, Fed is not only healthy, but playing some of his best tennis.
Even so, because of past history, it's not totally forgone that Berdych could make Federer work for it.
Federer's biggest challenge to the title most likely resides in Cilic. History shows Federer lost to Raonic in last year's Wimbledon, but maybe the reason he lost is because Cilic challenged him in an earlier round. /tennis used to claim Cilic was the worst Slam winner, mostly because /tennis has a really short memory (thus leading to claims that Andy Murray was the worst number 1 ever, which is only helped by Novak being a worse number 2).
I remember back in 2010 or so when people actually touted Marin Cilic as a better player than del Potro. Few expected del Potro to get hurt and now barely able to stay on tour without numerous breaks to recover. His story is truly a sad one. Cilic gave Murray difficulties in the Australian Open back in 2010, then kinda faded, then kinda got banned.
It's interesting we're talking Cilic and not a next-gen player (and Berdych and Querrey). I think Wimbledon is rewarding players who have been around a while. Anyway, all of a sudden, with a decent grass season, Ivanisevic, who predicted Cilic was third favorite (behind Federer and...Nadal/Djokovic?) isn't looking too shabby. Right now, Cilic is the second favorite based on form. Yes, Berdych has the better pedigree, better history, but Cilic has a Slam win too, and has played better recently.
Let's get to Sam Querrey. One interesting common aspect of all players left besides Roger is their height. Cilic is 6'6". So is Querrey. Tomas Berdych is 6'5". All fit the profile of the modern men's player. They are tall and hard hitting. 40 years ago, these players would be serve and volleyers, and yet they're quick enough to play baseline.
Querrey and Donald Young have a history. They played in Kalamazoo, Michigan (yes, it's a real place) in 2005 with Young coming on top as the winner. Young had been a top rated junior, up there with, you guessed it, Marin Cilic. But Cilic and Querrey had something Young didn't have, which is height.
Querrey's dad is an ex-baseball player who regretted going to college and not turning pro. Querrey decided to turn pro, had early success, reached the top 20, won a few titles, and for a while, was the second best American behind Andy Roddick. Despite his upset win over Djokovic last year, Querrey hasn't been all that great at Slams.
That upset plus another win lead to Querrey's only quarterfinal at a Slam. Querrey has rarely been to the fourth round of a Slam. His big strengths have been his big serve and forehand, but it was John Isner with a seemingly more restricted game that has had better success. Isner's serve is just bigger, and he wins tiebreaks.
Querrey has been seen as a laid back Californian without the fire in his belly to win. He has power, and certainly better speed than Isner, but he lacks the kind of magic that makes the top players who they are. He lacks the retrieving skill of a Nadal or Murray or Djokovic. He lacks the magic of Federer. Even so, a player like Robin Soderling or Stan Wawrinka who play the game like blunt trauma weapons, show that you don't need huge speed or genius to win at the game.
Right now, if you had to list who has the best chance to win, you'd say Federer, Cilic, Berydch, and Querrey. And Querrey ought to be the worst by far, except he might not be. Maybe he hasn't won all the close matches. He's 4-0 down to Cilic, but 2 of the losses were at Wimbledon, and both went to 5 sets. He knows he can hang with Cilic. If he had a disappointing loss to Tsonga in 2014 Wimbledon, losing 14-12 in the fifth, his loss to Cilic in 2012, 17-15 in the fifth, must have been just as bad. And, Querrey found his way to victory over Tsonga.
Cilic will be favored, of course. He has the better head to head. He's only played one 5-setter while Querrey is on his third 5-setter. The only plus for Querrey was the 5-setter against Murray was pretty lopsided in sets 4 and 5. Still, Muller came into his match off one lengthy five setter, and while he managed to push the match to a 5-setter, Cilic was the winner.
Still, Querrey has some hope to believe that he has the game to compete with Cilic, so while Cilic is favored, Querrey could give him trouble and yes, he could upset him.
So, this Wimbledon is becoming a bit like the 2009 French Open. Back then, Djokovic and Nadal were the two big contenders for the title, and both had lost early. This left Federer the favorite to win the one Slam he lacked, but the pressure lead to two five-setters, one against Haas, where he had to fend off match point, and one against del Potro, before he beat Soderling in the final.
So, I think there are two surprises this Wimbledon. First, the big 4 remains a bit fragile outside of Federer who took a seemingly risky move by skipping the clay season, but now seems like genius for doing so, and second, the remaining semifinalists aren't the next-gen group but the players with more experience, who have been at this for a number of years. How much things have changed in two years.
On to the semifinals!
submitted by dropshot to tennis [link] [comments]


2017.05.23 02:51 WD51 Which Big 4 members are likely to stay involved in the tour as coaches or commentators?

It is very common for star players across all sports to continue to be involved in the sport after they retire from high level play. Who would be better to mentor the next generation and give personal insight to viewers than the players that have played at the highest level?
In tennis, there are many examples of high level coaches coming with decorated playing pedigrees. All Big 4 members have spent some time being coached by former Grand Slam winners. Federer partnered with Stefan Edberg (6x GS winner) for a year, Nadal with Carlos Moya (1x GS winner) starting this season, Murray with Ivan Lendl (8x GS winner) on and off for about 4 years total, and Djokovic with Boris Becker (6x GS winner) for 3 years and now exploring a possibly partnership with Andre Agassi (8x GS winner). Pete Sampras (14x GS winner) has mentioned in the past being interested in coaching up-and-coming young players in the future. Often, these are temporary relationships where the coaches come into the team to offer a different perspective/style and serve to help fine tune a player. On the commentator side, who can forget 8x GS winner and tennis bad boy John McEnroe and 3x GS winner Mary Joe Fernandez? There's a revolving door for former players as guest commentators as well.
These are attributes I think would factor into coaching:
  1. Style of play: Some coaches were all-around players, others brought a specific style to the table.
  2. Career Experiences/Personal Growth: Sometimes players need a life mentor more than tennis tips.
  3. Long Term vs Short Term: Some coaches are brought in to bump players to the next level, others expect a long term relationship as a mentor.
These are attributes I think would factor into commentating:
  1. Passion for the sport: Makes listening much more enjoyable if you can tell the commentator is enthused about the match.
  2. Knowledge of sport and history: Former players give you insight into what it's like to be on the court or in the locker room that goes beyond just watching.
  3. Eloquence and Poise: I don't expect the commentator to be Bill Walton, but they better not be Reggie Miller.
Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray have spoiled us with a golden era of tennis. Which of them do you see coming back to the sport as a commentator or coach after retirement? Any other roles you can see them playing as ambassadors of the sport? Have any of them said anything about interest in such activities?
Will include my opinion in comments.
PS: I am American and mostly follow men's tennis so I apologize if my examples are male/US media centric.
submitted by WD51 to tennis [link] [comments]


2012.06.01 03:50 Hapalochlaena Andre Agassi, of the Jog-a-Dog program at the local no-kill shelter. He's a great running partner. I wish I could take him home =(

Andre Agassi, of the Jog-a-Dog program at the local no-kill shelter. He's a great running partner. I wish I could take him home =( submitted by Hapalochlaena to dogpictures [link] [comments]