I ask the question because Agassi IS getting into the Tennis Hall of Fame, according to Yahoo Sports. I’ve been watching the Australian Open lately, so tennis has been on my mind. When I heard about Agassi, I was happy for him but I started to think about the different sets of standards that sports have for their Halls of Fame. Agassi, you remember, admitted in his book that he used drugs and lied about it. Here’s the pertinent quote from the Yahoo article.

If Derek Jeter took crystal meth, failed a drug test and lied about it, would that disqualify him from – or, at the very least, hurt his chances of – getting into the Hall? I can’t imagine anything disqualifying him, but the baseball writers are pretty tough when it comes to drugs, aren’t they? Or do they just draw the line at steroids? All I know is that Agassi was such a fun player to watch and his matches against Sampras were great for the game. Talk about a rivalry. 

Federer vs. Nadal is always exciting, but I thought Agassi and Sampras brought out the best in each other, given their completely opposite styles and personalities. 

As for the women’s side, I miss Evert vs. Navratilova too. I mean do I really care about Wozniacki against Clijsters? At least the really noisy grunters are out of the tournament. I can’t even watch Sharapova anymore without muting the TV. Ugh.