Andre Agassi's OPEN: An Autobiography

Andre Agassi has always been one of my favorite tennis players and will remain so. More so, after the controversial autobiography that hit stands today. Contrary to some, I see no reason why Andre should not come up with his autobiography at this point. I feel he had got the time to look back and make sense of his life. He knew he made some mistakes and put an effort to come out clean. It is easy to comment on a book or a person but spare a thought for that individual. Agreed, it is absolutely wrong to hide the 'meth' episode and lie to ATP. Lesser individuals may not have survived that scare. As the book claims, Andre was reborn then. Till then he hated tennis. He hated tennis as a kid, hated tennis as a teen and in 1997 after he hit an all-time low rank of #141, that's when he had to choose. Choose between a professional career in tennis or mundane enjoyments of life. And to the delight of millions of tennis fans, he chose tennis. Else, we wouldn't have witnessed some of the best tennis matches and his magical returns.

In the hindsight, it all makes sense. I recall watching Agassi with his mane (which was infact a postiche!!!). He was more of a showman than a tennis player. I haven't seen the much talked about Australian Open 1996 semi-finals which Agassi claimed to have tanked, but I have seen couple of other matches during the same time. 1992 Wimbledon comes to mind first. That five set final again Goran Ivanisevic was just talent at its best. And en route the final he blasted Boris Becker and John McEnroe. But I never noticed his 'lack of intensity' or his 'dislike for tennis'. But as a tennis fan, you can definitely feel Agassi's pain in the 1995 US Open loss to Pete Sampras. Agassi termed it as an uber-loss. And post 1998 when he rose from ashes to #1, his game was there for all to see. His passion was evident. I fondly remember 1999 in which he won all three grand slams sans Wimbledon. (And then there was Pete! 6-3 6-4 7-5)

Though I haven't yet read the book, it looks like one more thing (in addition to not confessing drugs) that I will not like about 'OPEN' is that it is overtly straightforward in expressing Agassi's views on his rivals. Especially Pete Sampras, whom I equally admire. Agassi's satirical comment on Sampras' dullness is in poor taste. So are his comments on Chang, Muster, Nastase. But I guess the quotes can be put into perspective by viewing them as feelings of the immature Agassi (pre-1997). Post 1998, a different Agassi evolved and I doubt he would have thought of his rivals as described in the book.

As a final word, I feel OPEN is, as the name suggests, an outpour of Agassi's emotions that have accumulated over the last 39 years. No wonder he said living this book was cathartic. I came across some articles where some curious readers had questions if Agassi took drugs during Grand Slams and if meth or other drugs contributed to his victories. Those are ludicrous questions. I don't think you can question the talent of Agassi. It was always a question of mental strength and he gained control of himself post meth-episode. Also, 'meth' as described in websites and in the book, is an performance depressant and would have adversely affected him during matches, if at all he took them. So, current players need not necessarily crucify him. Instead, I think the book serves as a good lesson to all budding tennis professionals what to do and what not to do.