When you are born in Las Vegas, it's hard to resist a punt. And tennis great Andre Agassi is every bit a Las Vegan. As TOI Guest Sports Editor, the flamboyant former World No. 1 was bold enough to predict that Serbian ace Novak Djokovic will surpass Swiss maestro Roger Federer's Grand Slam tally of 20. In India to support an inclusive literacy product, Agassi, 48, took time out to share his thoughts on a wide range of subjects.
Excerpts...
What about education excites you and do tennis players miss out on it when they're trying to turn pro?
I don't know any sport where you can be the best in the world and not give up a third of your life to not prepare for two thirds of your life. So as a result, this is by definition, a very difficult road to choose, but because I know what it's like not to have an education I also know what it's like not to have a choice because I was forced to play tennis. So when I take no education and no choice in some of the toughest, economically challenged places in the world, it's really sobering what that means for their life. So as a result, my motivation is simply this, it gives me more than I give to it. So when you love what you do, you don't work another day in your life. And this is how it feels when you're pushing your mission that has been so personally inspiring even to my own success because it was because of this that I stayed in tennis when I could have quit. It gave me my second chance. It gave me many more titles, gave me my wife, my children, my platform. This is what I'm grateful for.
.jpg)
What is it about Square Panda that excites you? What made you come on board and what does it mean?
It's been a long journey in education. It started with my foundational school in Las Vegas charter school in the poorest neighbourhood that led to me figuring out ways to scale my mission through the private sector throughout America, managing a billion-dollar real estate infrastructure fund, building schools for best in class operators to wanting to find more global, scalable, sustainable solutions to helping children pursue their objectives and education. And this is where Square Panda comes in four years ago, which is a platform that allows for very personalized teaching of literacy and teaching of second language English which is also important in America. It's also important in China as well as here in India. So I think the earlier you can reach a child, the more you can impact them.
So what are the subjects that interest you?
I think that's as close to the bone as you get to understand why I care about education. Because I don't know. I just know I never had it and, and I know what a crime that is for children not to learn what their passions are, to experience what they want for themselves. If I went to school if that was what I did, and I had a different childhood, I could explore what my life would be, but I don't know that. But my life is what it is and I'm proud of it. I made the most of it, but if I could do it again, I don't know what it will look like. Do I love history? Yes, if the person telling me about history is interesting. I love history because it's so much to learn but you know teachers are important. Math is nice too because you like it when you can solve a problem and there's a real answer.
You played with Sampras, Chang, Edberg, Becker, Courier ... all Slam champions, most of them multiple Slam winners. Coming to the current era, are we witnessing the beginning of the end of a very special generation in men's tennis?
In any sport when you can quantify improvement every 10 years you see improvement. Is the sport better? Yeah, unquestionably it's better. It's different. The rules of engagement are different because of the athlete, because of technology, because of the spin. You have to play the game different. That's why you don't see guys playing a lot like Edberg did, like Rafter used to play, like Pete played. This is not as achievable for very nuanced reasons that I fully appreciate. I don't regret how the game has changed because I understand too intimately what it means to create that kind of change. So these guys are really good to keep people from playing the way we used to play. I think it's a special generation. I mean, I've played Pete 37 times I think. Novak, Roger, Rafa have all played each other 50, 60 times. Three guys have played each other almost twice as much as in some cases as me and Pete. You have three guys that are arguably the best of all time. You have decades and decades of history where only five guys win all four Grand Slams. And then three guys do it in three (actually seven) years. It'll always be sad to see change. You know when it's time to go and Murray will always be remembered for penetrating this generation of greatness and leaving his impression on it which is probably as remarkable an achievement as one can have. I think we're far from seeing Novak being done and I've stopped betting that I know anything about Roger because I've been wrong 50 times.
Paul Annacone who coached Pete and Roger recently said one of the ingredients in and the success of the Big Four, counting Andy as well, other than they have been incredibly gifted is that they don't have to adjust to different styles or surfaces. Would it be fair to say that you completed the Career Slam at a time when there was a greater disparity among the surfaces compared to when Federer, Nadal and Djokovic did it?
I can definitely say that the grass has changed dramatically. But also the game has changed. The reason why it was so difficult for me to win on grass wasn't because it was so fast. I mean fast is OK, the first one to hit a good shot wins the point. Somebody has a good serve, it didn't matter if it was slow or fast. Pete aced me in Paris just as many times as he aced me in New York or in Wimbledon. The problem was guys played coming forward so much, they tore up the court through the middle. And so by the end of the tournament, I'm playing in the back of the court and every time the ball bounces, it's changing direction. So the game changes, guys are playing from the back of the court and bounces are truer, you know. So it's a chicken and the egg I mean, more predictable, better quality the way they grow the grass. It isn't quite as fast. These are true statements but everybody has to adjust to it. So I can't say (my) achievement is harder. Certain elements would be harder for me now too if I'm playing on grass against guys that can move as good as they move. I mean grass is physical. When you play long points on grass it hurts your body. I don't know how I could have held up match after match having to play on grass.
But while we all tend to gush at the accomplishments of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic - three guys who hold the top 3 spots in the overall Slam tally - do you think people tend to overlook the factor of how the disparity among surfaces has reduced compared to your time? Or are we just talking about really special guys who would've been dominant in any era?
I had the privilege of playing all three of them. Novak was the worst of them because he was so young and it was an exhibition and he still beat me. We had Laver win two (calendar) Grand Slams (1962 & '69) on two surfaces, grass and clay. Nobody has come close to winning four in the same year. Federer could have done that three times with one match against one guy that he couldn't seem to beat on clay (Nadal). So you're talking about historic achievements. I get it when my generation left, (Andy) Roddick comes in as an American wins a Slam, somebody comes in and wins a Slam, but Federer, it looked like he was this guy coming in at the right time and then he ends up having to compete against two of the greatest ever for the rest of his career and does it. So I feel like these guys just kept raising the bar of tennis. While we can all live nostalgically, it'd be very unfair to not give them the credit they deserve. If you ask anybody who's the greatest of all time, you're going to have people give you an answer and you're going to have people argue it and there's a hell of a chance that they're talking about these guys.
So who do you think is the GOAT?
This is the discussion for sports. How do you define it? We tend to define it in this day and age as numbers, but I can make arguments why numbers don't matter. I mean Borg stopped at 26 after 11 Grand Slams, six French, five Wimbledons back to back for five years, almost won it the sixth year and he didn't play 10 Australian Opens when it was on grass. He played one time. So, who knows, but he didn't care about playing Australia. (Ivan) Lendl didn't play three French Opens because he wanted to win one Wimbledon. Numbers came in in the early 90s when cable TV came. Everybody's fighting for news - Pete Sampras is going to break the record and become the greatest of all time. Who knows whose record he beat, do you know? (Roy Emerson, we answer). You know it because you are avid sports people. You ask that question to 1000 other people that know tennis, they probably don't know the answer. So does that mean Roy Emerson was the greatest of all time before Pete?
Numbers can't be the only criterion. Certainly it speaks volumes. Then you look at what these guys had to do. Fed beat me, Roddick, Hewitt, Moya …There were some guys that he beat to win the early Slams, but then he wins the next ones beating these other guys. Rafa comes in and has to beat Fed and Djokovic to win them. Djokovic comes in and has to beat both Fed and Rafa to win. But if you ask me as a tennis person, being on the other side of the net or what I'm seeing, if somebody is playing their best tennis - which is different from the Best Of All Time - let me make that clear, then the highest standard of tennis that I've ever seen is when Novak is playing his best tennis. The single level, for whatever my tennis IQ is worth, is an unmistakable standard to which everybody will strive to be. It doesn't mean that he has maximized it, but he's not done. I think Fed has made more of his career than anybody. He's more versatile than anybody. Fed probably could have won Grand Slams serve and volleying only, or if not allowed to come to the net, he could have still probably figured out a way to win. Nadal speaks for himself.
Are you happy to see Novak back to his best or do you regret the fact that you had an association with him but it did not last long?
No, I'm not regretful. I am very happy. The reason why I tried to help him or hope that I could help him, was because tennis deserves this. What he was capable of was never in question. He has his own tortured process, as we all do, and I truly believed that I could have helped him and then I truly believed I couldn't help him.
We process differently and as a coach there was a lot for me to learn. It's not what you know, it's what someone you are with learns. But somebody has to be willing to learn and willing to see things differently. So, part of his greatness is his stubbornness. It's a high-wire act. Am I regretful for the time? Absolutely not. I felt like I learnt a lot and I felt like in some way I shook the cage enough that tennis could benefit. To be clear, first night we were together, I told him he doesn't need me. Whatever formula he has with his team is a very powerful one that he relies on because of who he is and it's not something I am capable of doing or pretending or any of that. I am who I am and I only wish him the best and I root for him because tennis deserves it.
When the alliance with Novak ended, you said that you agreed to disagree on most things. What were those disagreements about, training, diet? There were some reports that suggested that his vegan diet did not cut much ice with you because you wanted him to bulk up?
(Laughs) Listen, if there is one thing that I will never change about anybody, it's what his body can do. What his body can do is never the problem. You don't go trying to fix the one thing that's remarkable. He was never healthy two days in a row with his elbow and I live by one clear philosophy, which is if you don't listen to your body, your body is not going to listen to you. So we need to heal. But unlike me, when I played, he loves the game, he wants to play and he wants to run and he wants to find his way to get through the injury and playing injured is just not responsible. That I can't support that because I'd be hurting the very person I'm claiming I care about and I'd be doing the very thing for tennis that I'm trying not to do. I can't be a party to something that I felt was literally going to hurt him and that's where I struggled. You get one body and you get one career and taking chances with this wasn't going to happen on my watch.