Excerpts...

What about education excites you and do tennis players miss out on it when they're trying to turn pro?

READ ALSO:

'Rebel' Agassi now talks of order, but his returns are still as crisp as ever

What is it about Square Panda that excites you? What made you come on board and what does it mean?

So what are the subjects that interest you?

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?

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?

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?

So who do you think is the GOAT?

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?

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?

Have you analysed who's the better returner, you or Novak?

Do you see him surpassing Federer's tally of 20 Slams?

Speaking of Federer, you are right now involved with somebody nicknamed Baby Fed for the similarity in playing styles with Federer,

Grigor Dimitrov

, after promising so much, he has not made it count in big events or Slams? Does he get overawed by big names or is it stage fright?

Do you feel players today are more politically correct in the media and otherwise than your time? Do you feel tennis lacks characters?

On that note, the Colin Kaepernick issue snowballed into a massive controversy in the US and abroad. What did you make of it?

You mentioned players not being politically correct or the media scaring them. How do you think it would be if you and Pete were playing today, for all that went on between you guys, even if all is fine today? Let's say if that Hit for Haiti moment happened now with social media being what it is today.

But are you surprised by how much warmth there is among the great rivals today?

Coming to your Slam wins, which among the eight would you rate your best and most memorable and why?

When you retired, BBC described you as "perhaps the biggest worldwide star in the sport's history." What do you make of that tag?

You just said that Federer is a guy who is impossible to dislike. Just a few months back, we did come across a negative view expressed about the Swiss by French player Julien Benneteau who spoke of how Federer gets special treatment at Slams and gets to choose whether he wants to play at day or night.

The issue of on court coaching triggered the huge controversy involving

Serena Williams

against Osaka in the US Open final. You've said you look at tennis as problem solving and you've also described the tennis court as the most lonely place in the world. What are your views now as a coach on on-court coaching?

The revamping of the Davis Cup has also been a major talking point. How do you feel about the new format?

Some have called for Slams also to be played in the best-of-three set format. For someone who has been part of epic five-setters, do you feel that's the way to go?

Another topic that's always hot is the one concerning equal prize money for both men and women. It was an important issue in your time and it continues even today. What are your thoughts on it?

What have you learnt about parenting from your father, who was quite strict?

Your book Open was a runaway hit because of the refreshing candour you showed while writing it. Is there another one in the pipeline? What advice would you give to people writing autobiographies?

Since we mentioned the book, one of the things you came clean about was your issues with the recreational drug crystal meth. You wrote how you escaped a ban at that time. The revelations as expected didn't go down well with the ATP and the ITF. There is a lingering fear that if a mega star were to be found guilty of a failed test even today, the world wouldn't get to know about it because of the likely financial hit to the sport...

How politically inclined a person are you and how do you rate the Donald Trump presidency?

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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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.(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.Let me put it this way, if Novak moved like I moved, which is four levels down, he would have the ability of returning even better because he has to. What you see him do as a returner is even less than what he's capable of. He just does what he has to do because he can do so many other things. Tennis is calculated risk.I mean I am from Vegas, so I have to make a bet right, if I have to make a bet, what is he at? 15? So two more for three years? Yes. Now, you also have children, you also have priorities in life, but if he wants to, he will.It's a hard thing for anybody to be compared with Federer. There might have been a modelling of his game, but Fed plays with a lot of wrist, you know, Grigor hits through the strike zone a lot straighter. I believe that he has not seen his best tennis. He had some great results, but he's yet to feel what it's like to really build on a foundation that keeps taking him in the same direction and that has to do not just with tennis, but with how you approach every day. He puts a lot of pressure on himself daily to be what he expects from himself. This is a double-edged sword. What he can do with a tennis ball is remarkable. Physically speaking, as impressive as Novak is, this man is also equally as impressive. Novak is incredibly dangerous even defensively, off both wings. This is a little bit different. But the movement, the versatility, I believe that his best is yet to come.I think you guys scare the crap out of a lot of them. Blame them, blame you, blame whoever you want, but I think being politically correct is not being politically correct. It's a pretty scary proposition these days. In this day and age of social media, something blows out of proportion so easily. When I played, what you said is what you said in its full context but now you are guilty until proven innocent. So it makes everybody a little on edge, I would imagine, especially those that don't even really know themselves yet as they're growing up in the public eye.Yeah, I don't know what his particular stance was. You called it a stance, or called it a kneel I don't know. But in either case, if you want to offend half the people, you know choose one side or the other, but this is not something that I followed greatly. I mean I have a great respect for the American flag, so the connection I could never understand expressed in this way, but those that understand it would need to explain it to me. I don't see a connection.I don't know if social media would have changed me and Pete, because we were always good with each other. But I think the scrutiny now is tough. I mean if people lived in my life, they would like me a lot less, you know, at times. There's mistakes you make, the things you say, I mean it wouldn't be hard to find a moment in our lives where we were less than we should have been. So some of it's timing and some of it's luck. But I don't have any commentary on the context of how all this has changed. I just know that you need to be incredibly thoughtful these days, more so than in the past. In the past you got to be thoughtful, now you better be thoughtful.Yeah, I mean, surprised enough to not know if I should believe it (laughs). I mean, you know, I have the luxury of getting to know Novak and he would never be disrespectful to somebody you know, willingly or knowingly.You know Roger, it's impossible not to like this man. When you talk to him, his consideration to fans, to peers, to media. Same with Rafa, the time that they give, they are professionals all in their own way and I think there's a great deal of respect. You know with me it was different. Everybody knows my story. I was confused, I hated what I did. Sometimes Pete inspired me, sometimes I envied him, sometimes he annoyed me, sometimes I resented it. But I was the one that was (makes up and down gesture). Then when you look back, you see Pete was just Pete. So, as a result, you got three great champions, four when you consider Pete, that didn't seem to have my problems. So I do respect it, assuming it's true, which you never know.The last of the four, so the French Open (1999). The first one I could have won, first one I should have won. The last one that I knew I would never have a chance to win again. So after I fell to 150 in the world, after I got a divorce, I was old enough to understand it. It was a microcosm of my life, that tournament. I was down two sets in the finals and, a lot like life.I was never trying to win a popularity contest (laughs) but, you know, everybody comes to the game at this level bringing something. You don't become, or you don't win multiple slams without doing something different than somebody else did it. My tennis game was the first thing that I brought different at a certain time and, certainly, my rebellion also did. But the transformation of my journey was also unusual. I'm not sure the reason for it but I always felt very keenly connected to people, especially when I played. I was always honest with how I felt, so you knew if I was having a bad day, everybody knew it. If I was having a good day, those are likely more thrilled.You know it is hard. It's hard to become Federer and then it's hard for other guys when you are Federer, you know what I mean! Federer didn't wake up overnight privileged. Federer was Benneteau at one point. So you eat what you kill. And then when you're on the top of the food chain, the jungle tends to listen to you. So everybody fights for the best circumstances daily, you know, from scheduling to what court. I mean I would play third round, fourth round in the US Open, Australian Open. I'd play some guy that was thrilled to win three matches on court 19 and then he comes into the stadium and I already know I'm up a set and a break before he figures out that this court is different than that court. So is that fair? No it's not fair. It's very unfair. It makes it easier when you're on top to maintain your advantage, but you have to get on top. So do I begrudge it? No, because, you know, somebody is the best in the world and it's not you, it's that person (points to illustrate).When I played the Australian Open, I would look at the draw and I would say 'OK, who do I not want to play at night? Because my biggest advantage was the day. So I would take my easiest potential match and I would start requesting that this round, I want to play at night. You know, everybody fights for. and they can't always do it. Sometimes there are so many decisions in scheduling, but one of the decisions is players asking for what they prefer. And that works out more for some than others for sure.I don't believe the sport should have coaching. I think it's one thing that separates our sport from so many. It's one thing that brings out the real Gladiator part of it. I think, because coaching happens, the unfortunate part in Serena's case was the crowd didn't understand what had happened. And then when she got the warning for the abuse of the racket, Serena didn't realize that that comes on top of the coaching, so now it was a point penalty. And I can understand even as a player in the emotion that these things are linked together and it costs you a point. Of course, the rules are the rules and one should know it. But I'll tell you what I'd like to see, if I could see anything was that if a coach gets caught coaching, it should be a warning to the coach. Second time it happens, the coach should be kicked out. Why a player should be penalized for a coach attempting to insert themselves?I mean, change is hard. I understand the reasons for it, but there's so many disadvantages to it. They're trying to get top players to play. I don't know if this is going to be the deciding factor for them. So we have to wait and see. I guess generally speaking, I don't like any change in the game that puts an asterisk next to historical accomplishments, if that makes sense. Like I don't like seeing a day off between the semis and the finals of the US Open. I think that changes lot of history. You know, what would have happened if somebody just had the day off? It was always one of the most difficult things to do, go back to back semis to finals of the US Open.Changing the colour of the ball at Wimbledon, OK big deal, you know, it's yellow or it's white, doesn't really change anything historically. So I think there's buckets of change that people can abide in. But I think the difficult changes are the ones that change an accomplishment for the full appreciation of how difficult an accomplishment is. Travelling the world, playing away on surfaces that your opponent gets to choose, environments that your opponent gets to choose. This makes winning Davis Cup special. So now winning Davis Cup, I don't know what it's going to mean, we have to see, but it does change it drastically.I think you can get lucky and win a two or three set match. I don't think you can get lucky when you have to win three out of five. And if you can get lucky for that long, it has to be a really special lucky day. Then you deserve it (laughs). So for me, three out of five is a different animal. That's a change that will be difficult for me to see.Well I don't follow the debate but remember we are not talking about a humans right issue. We are not talking about atrocities, we are talking about a pretty blessed life and we are talking about a business decision made by some guys running a business. So, if you are paying someone based on the gender, there's no place for that. But if you are making a business decision on who you are trying to incentivize to be the content or the product of what you're delivering, then it's your right as a business to decide who you are going to value and what you are going to value. For all I know, more people watch Serena than Nadal, but it's not for me to say that they will or they won't. But if I ran a business, and somebody was going to come and watch Serena more than Nadal, I would pay Serena more than Nadal, because it's my business and vice versa.I have learnt what I don't want to be. Sometimes we spend all our time giving our kids what we never had and forget to give them what we do have you know. So this is a delicate balancing act. But I think choice is important mostly. I never had a choice. I give my kids choice but hold them accountable.No, there's no book I have lined up. The advice I would like to give people is: choose wisely, because words live longer than you do. You can't get out what you put into it, so if you do it, do care about it.I understand the paranoia but let me be the first one to say I was the reason why this changed. It used to be internal governance that was legitimate as was mine when I was caught. We were able to leverage it on some level but once we outsourced governance, there's no turning back. What is beyond reproach is the anonymity about how they test anybody or anything. It wouldn't be possible to cheat in tennis and get away with it in my estimation. From 1998 on I probably averaged 20 plus drug test a year. Three out of competition where they knock on your door even on vacation. Every 24 hours they get to know where you are going to be in the forthcoming 24 hours. So everyday, they have an address and they don't care whether you are in the Maldives or at home and so it's not easy. But it's the right thing for the integrity of the sport. But it's not easy on the players to be under such duress and little things have to be taken care of.I think we live in an incredibly polarized society and most cultures I absolutely believe that the environment is a result of being polarized and that's a result of many people and many things coming together and a crazy intersection, including everybody having a platform to speak. You know, this does not make it easier when everybody's opinion can be heard. Having said that I think people can be hurtful and self-interested on both sides. To make the record straight, I am a registered independent.