'CONFUSING' ?

" Of course my game plan was fatally flawed from the start. Pathetic, really. 
It couldn't work, no matter how long the match, because you can't win the final of a slam by playing not to lose, or waiting for your opponent to lose".
Andre Agassi
( PAGE 152 'OPEN'. )

" What'd you do that for ? I know it's a killer shot, but every shot doesn't have to be killer. Sometimes the best shot is a holding shot, an OK shot, a shot that gives the other guy a chance to miss. Let the other guy play".
Brad Gilbert
( PAGE 189 'OPEN' )

The 1990 French Open Mens Singles Final between Andre Agassi and Andres Gomez was a disaster as far as the Las Vegan showman was concerned because Andre Agassi looked every bit the winner from the start of the event. 
His form was particularly impressive on court as he only dropped 4 sets on the way to the final and he wore a rather loud pink and black outfit complete with hot pink lycra leggings underneath acid- washed shorts.
Agassi was larger than life at the 1990 French Open, the talk of the tournament, a Rock Star of sorts who loved centre stage complete with the long flowing locks which were synonymous of that era's Glam Rock Bands.
The problem wasn't the length of his hair in that tournament, it was the hair piece that held it together as it is now no secret that Agassi wore a wig to hide his balding head and as he has suggested in his book 'Open' he was more concerned about the wig falling off than winning the French Open final.
Anyhow the hair piece is not what I wanted to really talk about, I simply get side tracked easily.
Page 152 of 'Open' states that Andre Agassi had a flawed game plan, a plan that had him waiting for his opponent to lose. Agassi believes that this was all wrong.
Fast forward to page 189 of the same book. 
Andre Agassi states that he liked Gilbert's philosophy of 'letting the other guy play' or 'giving the other guy a chance to miss'.
I find it all very confusing.
Personally I am locally known as a 'hack', a player who simply gets the ball back over the net with either slice on my backhand or topspin from my forehand. I just kick my serve in. I own a two handed backhand though it's pretty average so I only really hit it as a passing shot. In a rally I simply slice it.
No doubt about it, I am a hack tennis player, first to admit it.
In 1988 Mats Wilander made just 37 unforced errors against Ivan Lendl in the final of the US Open, a match that the Swede won in a tick under 5 hours in 5 long sets. I learned to play from watching Mats because I felt that the style he used owned merit. 
After all how many players are good enough to keep hitting winners at any level if their opponent keeps asking them the question with rally balls or 'holding shots' as Brad Gilbert calls them ?
My theory is simple, same as Wilander's was, same as Gilbert's, make the opposition beat you but don't lose, above all DON'T LOSE. Too many matches are lost, not enough are won.
So is it a contradiction from Andre Agassi in his book just 37 pages apart ?
Personally I always find tennis theories the most fascinating part of the sport because every coach owns an idea or two that will quite possibly own merit however it will only ever be used to perfection by a student if that student is technically and mentally gifted.
You can't expect an 'average' club player to implement the Brad Gilbert/Mats Wilander theory of simply waiting for the opposition to lose if that club player does not own the set of shots required to make it work. 
That's stating the obvious.
So in 1990 Andre Agassi played a 'flawed' tennis match against Gomez however was it really as flawed as he suggests ? Almost 4 years later Brad Gilbert told him to basically play the same way as he perhaps did in that French Open final yet this time Agassi embraced the idea.
Interesting.
If I am teaching a junior to play tennis I will simply teach them to keep the ball in play as that surely will be good enough in most instances to at least be competitive and most juniors say under 12 years of age will struggle with an opponent who does not miss much. 
As a player grows technically, physically and mentally he or she will grow in confidence and will naturally develop bigger shots to finish points a little earlier than that of the regular 'hack' player.
So to my point, I believe that tennis has way too many perceptions to ever really be mastered by any particular player, coach or organization and it's why regular success at any level is rare. 
So if someone reads a book by an ex pro who won every Grand Slam available and that ex pro states on one page that he can't expect to win playing a certain style yet within 40 pages states that the style they believe was initially flawed is now not flawed then how do us 'hacks' simply take it all in and say ' Yep that makes sense' ??!!
Confusing ?
That's tennis...........