You are more than welcome, como siempre. xoxoxo

I understand what Agassi felt compelled to do. He had decades worth of anguish to release and he penned it. I also understand the shock and disdain that many of his contemporaries felt upon release of the book. Anytime there is a controversial subject at hand, someone will feel...something- whether it's anger, resentment, confusion and so on.

Where Agassi went afoul, imo, is the actual naming of names. He worked with Sampras, did charity events with him, filmed promos with him and the like. They built 90's tennis in tandem- and what Andre has done is akin to thumbing his nose at a "partner." At the height of their respective careers, the parts were less important than the whole. Agassi forgot that.

I'm not saying he didn't have the right to express himself. He had a tale to tell and he did so. I just don't agree with the choice to purposefully make someone else look bad for profit, confession, salvation or whatever else.

That's exactly my point, Kelli. Agassi can talk about whatever he wants. It's his story and if he wants to unload so be it. But what he said about Sampras was foul and unnecessary.

Crikey, Cheryl, we're all clear you hate the Agassi book. But despite the claim to have information checked at the top, there are some striking imbalances here.

1) Pete said he HADN"T read the book. What does he think he and Agassi would talk about man to man when he hasn't read it? I couldn't believe that. He can complain all he likes once he's read it, but if he read it he might find himself with a different perspective (see Becker below). He undermines himself completely by admitting he doesn't know what he's talking about. Plus it's so depressing that he isn't a reader at all apparently. Worst stereotype of athletes.

2) Long list of players who aren't fans of the book - you fail to list here players who are fans from current (Roddick) to venerable icons (John Newcombe). This doesn't suit your story line .... but your covergae would be much stronger if it acknowledged there are in fact a range of positions.

3) Most of the players who aren't fans haven't read it. Becker, for instance, indeed came out hot against the book as you say, but a couple of weeks later (apparently with better information and maybe having read it) corrected himself to say what Agassi wrote about him and their relationship in the mid 90s was all true, nothing they were intensely competitive and immature - as Agassi's own account suggests.

4) On the press (even bloggers!) has a line they want to follow - players are upset with Agassi's book - a current very striking issue is Chris Evert's long editorial letter, highly favorable to Agassi in the new issue of Tennis magazine When she used that same forum to slam Serena a couple of months ago, it was very widely covered. Now she writes very positively about Agassi's book and you ignore it. I found her editorial astonishing. Not only is it very sympathetic to Agassi, but she says she had matches she didn't want to win and didn't win (I would say this is probably true of at least 95% of pros of course but still strking for her to say it) and that he's found the peace of mind everyone would like to enjoy (peace of mind perhaps having been elusive for her recently given her own personal rollercoaster the last few years.) Chris Evert, tennis icon extraordinaire, fan of Agassi's book - worth a mention?

I didn't hate the book. I liked it - it was well-written and better than I'd expected in most respects. I do NOT like what he said about Sampras...and whether you like it or not, what Sampras said about the book IS news and will therefore be written about.

And what more precisely do you think Sampras would get out of the book if he read it? It's not as though Andre said lots of NICE things about him in other spots.

Sampras's view is news but it would be far more credible if he bothered to read it - and I think generally Agassi is clearly respectful of his talent, ability to concentrate singlemindedly etc so at least he wouldn't find it all what he seems to have "heard."
Plus my real issue here was your blanket suggestion that all players are upset with Agassi's book when in fact that's far from the case. (Plus players who have read it seem far more likely to be ok with it than players who have formed opinions without having read it. Generally in life, I'd say, there's far far too much of the latter - jump to judgment without any information.)

agassi described sampras well............very dull.
no personality or charisma.

and chris evert is a dirty little wh**e. she cheats with everyones husband opening her legs to every man she sees, i hate that woman. she needs to keep her legs closed.
her opinion is irrelevant as far as im concered. it made me sick when ever i saw her with greg norman another cheat. a shameful aussie this norman.

agassi was a rebel, he always will be. sampras is like the son every mom would want.

i personally like agassi, he had the look, the cool look, the rockstar flamboyant look, the same look borg had and nadal has now. all 3 of these guys are like rockstars.

texastennis -
What you infer is, frankly, not my problem. I did NOT say "all players hate it", I gave a list of a few that were outspoken about it.

Whether or not Sampras has "credibility" in your eyes isn't really the point. He is not responding to heresay. He is responding to actual quotes. It's not as though he misunderstood Andre's message. Andre essentially called him a superficial idiot with no feelings. Pete hardly misinterpreted...

this isn't the first sldeging by agassi directed at sampras. even while they were rivlas on the tour, agassi seized his opportunities to openly call sampras names. you'd think that after leaving nursery, he'd know better. sampras came out above it by not responding. to me, it's clear who's the one without a life!

it's subjective whether you think a player a bore. there are people who think fed and davy are boring where their most ardent of fans would be up in arms about it. just remember that's hardly the point.

absolutely awesome read.

Agassi's comments about Sampras were some of the most entertaining parts of the book. Right behind Agassi's section about Berdych, which was the clear-cut best part.

ricky can u tell briefly what he said abt berdych???

ricky can u tell briefly what he said abt berdych???

YEAH...wat abt berdych??

I don't agree with Ricky on the Berdych comments, but what he said was this (I found the quote in my book)

"Berdych was one fo the best tennis players I'd faced all year. I beat him in Australia and felt fortunate...Now, surprisingly BErdych hasn't improved much since then. His decison making still needs work. He's like me before I met BRad:thinks he needs to win every point. He doesn't know the value of letting the other guy lose"

now that I've picked the book back up again, I realize that Agassi would probably be a good commentator if he so chose. He has an interesting way of viewing the game.

I actually like Gilbert as a commentator. He's SO different than Darren Cahill...

AGASSI THE BEST EVER! HE ONLY SAID WHAT IS TRUE ABOUT PETE GREAT TENNIS PLAYER YEAH BUT NO PERSONALITY! At the end of the book he said when pete announced his retirement he would miss him grow up Pete its not like your best friends. I hate Boris Becker he should keep his mouth as well as his trousers closed judging other people!!!!

Agassi as a commentator.. thats an interesting observation

I have read the book and really enjoyed it. And I never felt that Agassi was taking shots at Sampras or anyone else, it just all fitted in with the context. His remarks of other players seemed perceptive, albeit subjective, rather than insulting.

I started reading Agassi's book, up to about page 60 all he did was moan about tennis, I felt so down about the whole thing that I've put it down for now. If everyone says it was interesting I'll try again, after the AO.

I think that a big part of people who have a problem with this book is all the "sound bites" that are floated around casually, when what is really missing is the context. I'm not going to say that Agassi was necessarily reverential to Pete, but it was clear that he respected him, and viewed him as a main rival. I never believed that it was about "taking shots" at anyone, more a way of explaining the contrast between the two players (which I don't think that anyone would doubt exists) but also the different ways that they grew: Sampras from teenage years developed into a mentally strong player with a great serve, who always had a higher gear to kick into, while Agassi felt existential about his life, and made questionable life decisions, taking longer to find himself. It struck me that he was envious that Pete was able to find himself so quickly, whereas Andre went through all of his "rebellious" stages because he couldn't find himself at all. I have a feeling that if Sampras were to actually read the book, cover to cover, he'd walk away with a different view, since it's so hard to divine context and inflection out of an isolated sentence, or even paragraph.

i have yet to read his book. i'm hoping it won't be a let down after all the stuff i've read about it :P

Sib, it's a good read, really - especially if you followed him closely as I did. As I said before, it is quite well written (I suspect he had a ghost writer).

I thought the book was brilliant. There was no personal attacks and if anything Andre praises Sampras's shall we say stability. As for 1 dollar story it was funny and why not pull the piss a little.

I think Agassi needs to grow up! and he was not ready to write a book!!

@carrie
I felt exactly the same way when I started.. and thats why you need to read the whole book. When you read the last chapter you will realize why the contradictions are necessary..

I also agree that its all abut the context. If you are a player giving your 110% and when the other guy consistently beats you.. you do tend to let out fustration in strong words.. but that is okay within the context!

Great piece this. All said and done, it was unworthy of Agassi to take shots at the best player who's ever played this game. Pete himself has never been anything but complementary towards Agassi. Bottomline: Pete was a winner and Agassi wasn't. And now Andre just seems bitter about it..

Who cares about Agassi - he is trying to cash in on some notoriety and he has placed the sport into disrepute.

If he is so sorry about his antics - give the money he has won back to the ATP and shut the F up

The book is interesting and fun to read. What Andre says of players such as Pete Sampras doesn't in my eyes take anything away from who Pete is. A great tennis player! Andre is honest in describing people and himself the way he sees it.
Andre and Pete have been great for the sport of tennis. Andre was not always a winner and was obviously tormented by the way of life. Never had a normal life as a child and struggled to understand his own feelings.

I agree that the part about Pete being cheap was not necessary to be included in the book. That is a cheap shot. But Andre and Pete gave us a lot of good entertainment. People always got their money's worth when they were playing together. Loved them both!

Agassi had it tough and he kept at it through injuries and losses and in spite of all the criticism. Give him a brake!