PDA

View Full Version : Agassi or Connors?


flying24
01-18-2007, 03:51 PM
Alot of people compare the way Agassi and Connors played as extremely similar and talk about them as very alike in their playing styles. Which one of the 2 do you rate as the greater player?

The Gorilla
01-18-2007, 03:57 PM
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=109764

drakulie
01-18-2007, 05:29 PM
Agassi, at his best was a much better player than Connors ever was at his best.

chrisdaniel
01-18-2007, 06:23 PM
AGASSI!!!! two great champs..but I think Agassi has Connors beat by a little bit

oscar_2424
01-18-2007, 06:39 PM
Alot of people compare the way Agassi and Connors played as extremely similar and talk about them as very alike in their playing styles. Which one of the 2 do you rate as the greater player?

I didnt watch Connors, so i have to go with the guy i saw play, AA.

chaognosis
01-18-2007, 09:53 PM
Connors certainly had the more impressive career. Both players won eight majors, but Connors reached more finals and semifinals. Both won majors on grass, clay, and hard courts. Connors won far more titles than Agassi. Most importantly, Connors spent five years atop the pro rankings, as opposed to only one for Agassi. Connors also set the long-standing record for consecutive weeks at No. 1, which is finally due to be broken by Federer. While Agassi may have faced two of the greatest players of all time in Sampras and Federer, Connors played in the same era as three all-time greats: Borg, McEnroe and Lendl. Connors and Agassi were both colorful characters who helped popularize the game, though Connors was arguably the more successful figurehead, as tennis was a much more popular sport in the 1970s and '80s than in the '90s and 2000s. Ultimately, the up-and-down nature of Agassi's career, and his poor record in the biggest matches against his toughest rivals, puts him solidly beneath Connors in historical terms.

rasajadad
01-19-2007, 04:00 AM
I vote for Connors. Anyone who can get two balls in the court in a row with that POK Wilson T2000 has to have been superhuman! ;-)

noeledmonds
01-19-2007, 04:28 AM
Agassi for his career golden grand slam (the only male in hostory to achive this). Agassi also the only man to win the 4 slams on their 4 different surfaces. Agassi has less tournmanets than Connors, but Agassi has more significant tournmanets. Connors was renound for playing even the smallest of tournaments. Agassi holds 17 MS which is more than anyone else in Men's tennis history. Agassi has losing H2H with Sampras, but Sampras is probabely the best player of all time (We will see about Fed at the end of this career). Many people seem to foget that Agassi still won 14 matches agaginst Sampras, including a GS final, many other finals, and some GS semis to.

Noire
01-19-2007, 05:01 AM
I vote for Agassi.

I dont know anything about Connors that much. I'm just being honest. I just grew up watching Andre

LttlElvis
01-19-2007, 06:31 AM
Both are two of my all time favorite players. Matching them stroke for stroke, I think Agassi had the better game. However, I would give my vote to Connors for his contributions to the history of the game. He popularized tennis in the 70s. He helped bring tennis to TV. He popularized the 2 handed backhand. He changed the game from a country club sport to one that could be enjoyed by all. Incredible work ethic, and most importantly, he never gave up. Probably not the greatest player in tennis, but he has to be considered the most important to the game.

chaognosis
01-19-2007, 11:22 AM
Agassi for his career golden grand slam (the only male in hostory to achive this). Agassi also the only man to win the 4 slams on their 4 different surfaces. Agassi has less tournmanets than Connors, but Agassi has more significant tournmanets. Connors was renound for playing even the smallest of tournaments. Agassi holds 17 MS which is more than anyone else in Men's tennis history. Agassi has losing H2H with Sampras, but Sampras is probabely the best player of all time (We will see about Fed at the end of this career). Many people seem to foget that Agassi still won 14 matches agaginst Sampras, including a GS final, many other finals, and some GS semis to.

The problem with all of Agassi's "records" is that they haven't been relevant for that long. The "career Golden Grand Slam" wasn't even a possibility for most of tennis history, when tennis was not an Olympic event. The "career Grand Slam" in general, I think, was invented to give Agassi some credibility, and is not the same thing as the true Grand Slam, which remains the greatest and most prestigious achievement in tennis. The modern surfaces are also a new thing; you can't rank Agassi ahead of past greats by this criterion, b/c this criterion didn't exist in their time. It only proves that Agassi was an all-surface player, which Connors was as well, perhaps even more so. "Masters Series" titles is also a relatively new phenomenon, and this record of Agassi's will not last long; Federer will almost certainly far surpass it. Connors won a great many important events -- probably more than Agassi, and you can't blame him that they weren't called "Masters Series" events at the time.

bluegrasser
01-19-2007, 12:36 PM
From start to finish, I'd have to say Connors, but the final stretch goes to AA.

drakulie
01-19-2007, 12:56 PM
you can't rank Agassi ahead of past greats by this criterion, b/c this criterion didn't exist in their time.

In that case, you could say the same thing about Connors...... "you can't rank the past greats ahead of modern players because the criterion is not the same".

I'm quite certain if all the Slams were played on grass during the Sampras era, Sampras would probably have 20+ slams, etc, etc, etc.

"Pound for pound", Agassi in his prime will kick Connors (in his prime) teeth in..... On any surface.

He had a better serve, better strokes on both sides, and YES a better return.

Dho4001
01-19-2007, 01:17 PM
Agassi all the way. :)

grand slam federer
01-19-2007, 01:39 PM
agassi is better not by much reason is because he played in a harder
decade than connors and tennis is quicker and stronger agassi had players
like the great pete sampras also courier pat rafter m.chang kuerten at
his best the same with marat safin and much more players connors
had not as much apart from mceroe lendl and a bit of borg

urban
01-19-2007, 01:47 PM
Connors won tons of tournaments on all surfaces, which were the equivalents of the Masters Series today: US pro, South Africa Open, US clay, US indoor. Its not true, that he won only quantitity, not quality tournaments.The only title, Agassi has the favor of winning, is RG, when he had the advantage, not to face clay king Kuerten. I personally doubt, that Connors would have won RG in his prime against Borg or Vilas, when he couldn't play it. But he would have won more AO, of he had played there more often. Connors won 5 USO on all surfaces, against some of the best all time. He beat Lendl twice, when past his prime, Agassi could never touch the aging Lendl at USO.

drakulie
01-19-2007, 02:04 PM
The only title, Agassi has the favor of winning, is RG, when he had the advantage, not to face clay king Kuerten.

Why is it that people always make ridiculous comments like this??^^^^^

Well urban, if this is the logic you are going to use to defend your stance, two could make these arguments......Connors had the advantage of not having to play Sampras every year he won the US Open, and Wimbledon.

oberyn
01-19-2007, 02:10 PM
Better game: Agassi

Better career: Very close call, but I'd probably go with Connors.

Condoleezza
01-20-2007, 11:52 AM
Alot of people compare the way Agassi and Connors played as extremely similar and talk about them as very alike in their playing styles. Which one of the 2 do you rate as the greater player?


Connors is not great.
He was and is a truly mean and shallow character.

Condi

capriatifanatic
01-20-2007, 11:44 PM
Connors by far. Agassi is a great player but he isnt top 10 all time, Connors is easily top 10, and maybe top 5. Connors is so underrated by tennis fans who only hype the most recent. Game wise he and Agassi matched up pretty closely maybe but even there I give Connors the slight edge overall, the difference is Connors mantained a peak level of mental and physical dedication to playing his best for 20 years, not the last 7 years of his career with maybe 1 or 2 years out of the 12 before that like Agassi.

Game wise alone:

First Serve-Agassi
Second Serve-Agassi
Return of Serve off first serve-Connors
Return of Serve off second serve-Agassi
Forehand-Agassi
Backhand-Connors
Movement-Connors
Net Game-Connors
Mental Toughness-Connors
Court Smarts-even
Passing Shots-even
Approach Shots-Connors

I honestly think Connors had the slightly better game, but he certainly had the way more consistent career at the highest level. As for competition, Agassi faced Sampras people say but Agassi won only 2 slams during Sampras's prime that he played or that wasnt a French Open. 92 Wimbledon he won before Pete's prime, 99 French Open he won, 99 U.S Open he won when Pete didnt play, then he won 3 Australian Opens over Kafelnikov, Clement, and Schuettler in finals. Who else was there besides Pete, Chang, Kafelnikov, 1 trick pony Ivanisevic, those players make Fed's competition look great by comparision. Connors faced multiple all time greats like Borg, Lendl, McEnroe in their primes and took them all down to win his 8 slams. So competition argument is far in Connors favor too.

Rabbit
01-21-2007, 08:02 AM
There have been 3 players in Open tennis who've had extraordinarly long careers; 1. Rosewall, 2. Connors, 3. Agassi. It's further extraordinary that Rosewall played Connors at the end of his career and Agassi played Connors at the end of his. It would seem that the tour revolves in circles.

I agree with the post above mine assessing the games of Connors and Agassi. I think Connors had more of an all-court attacking game while Agassi was more into controlling the center of the court and making his opponent lose through physical attrition. Connors was always attacking while Agassi was beating his opponents to death.

I think it's really ironic that while their careers roughly paralleled each other, Connors hated Agassi for what Agassi did to him at the Open. If y'all remember, the first 5 set match Agassi won was against.....yep Jimmy Connors. Agassi tanked a set love in an effort to make a match he knew he could win go 5 sets.

Agassi was not all roses and kisses during his career either. He had at least as much attitude as Connors and was just as vicious. Agassi understood PR more than Connors or at least cared about it more. There is little doubt in my mind which player earned more off court anyway. It's all about the dead presidents to both of these guys, don't ever let anyone kid you. Connors was more honest about himself I think than Agassi.

All that aside.....who is best? Well, Connors' best year is easy to pick, 1974. In 1974 he won 3 of the four majors and most likely would have won the French had he been allowed to play it. It's harder, if not impossible to pick Agassi's best year. I could answer the question like a politician and say that Connors maintained a more consistent and higher level of tennis over an extraordinarily long period of time, far longer than Agassi. Agassi, on the other hand, probably had higher peaks than Connors.

In the end, if I had to pick who was better in their prime, it'd be awfully hard to pick anyone as being better than Connors in '74.

drakulie
01-21-2007, 08:31 AM
Game wise alone:

Backhand-Connors

There is no WAY Connors backhand came anywhere near Agassi's. NO WAY! Agassi has possibly the greatest two handed backhand EVER!

Rabbit
01-21-2007, 09:24 AM
I agree that Connors had a better backhand than Agassi. It was a different shot than Agassi's, more geared to putting someone on the defensive. All that aside, when someone asked Pancho Gonsalez about Agassi's forehand, Gonsalez replied "His backhand is his better shot." Gonsalez probably knew a thing or two about Agassi. He was once Agassi's brother-in-law.

bluegrasser
01-21-2007, 10:30 AM
Connors by far. Agassi is a great player but he isnt top 10 all time, Connors is easily top 10, and maybe top 5. Connors is so underrated by tennis fans who only hype the most recent. Game wise he and Agassi matched up pretty closely maybe but even there I give Connors the slight edge overall, the difference is Connors mantained a peak level of mental and physical dedication to playing his best for 20 years, not the last 7 years of his career with maybe 1 or 2 years out of the 12 before that like Agassi.

Game wise alone:

First Serve-Agassi
Second Serve-Agassi
Return of Serve off first serve-Connors
Return of Serve off second serve-Agassi
Forehand-Agassi
Backhand-Connors
Movement-Connors
Net Game-Connors
Mental Toughness-Connors
Court Smarts-even
Passing Shots-even
Approach Shots-Connors

I honestly think Connors had the slightly better game, but he certainly had the way more consistent career at the highest level. As for competition, Agassi faced Sampras people say but Agassi won only 2 slams during Sampras's prime that he played or that wasnt a French Open. 92 Wimbledon he won before Pete's prime, 99 French Open he won, 99 U.S Open he won when Pete didnt play, then he won 3 Australian Opens over Kafelnikov, Clement, and Schuettler in finals. Who else was there besides Pete, Chang, Kafelnikov, 1 trick pony Ivanisevic, those players make Fed's competition look great by comparision. Connors faced multiple all time greats like Borg, Lendl, McEnroe in their primes and took them all down to win his 8 slams. So competition argument is far in Connors favor too.

Good post - agree.....

Moose Malloy
01-22-2007, 11:06 AM
Only one event-the 1974 French Open, which he was banned from playing-is preventing Connors from being mentioned along with Laver, Sampras, Federer as the best of all time.

I can't say the same for Agassi.

And don't forget, Federer is about to pass Connors for one of the sports' most important records(even Federer says he considers it one of his most important records & is looking forward to that week)-consecutive weeks at #1. I wonder where Agassi is ranked on that list.

Connors was year end #1 five times, Agassi 0.

This really isn't a close call, unless you weren't alive throughout most of Connors' career.

Agassi, on the other hand, probably had higher peaks than Connors.


I'm a bit confused, what's your definition of "peaks?" Nothing in Agassi's career came remotely close to Connors' peak-winning 3 of the 4 slams in one year. And Connors had longer streaks ranked at 1,2,3,4,5, than Agassi.

Sagittar
01-22-2007, 11:10 AM
i vote for agassi but admit that i haven't seen connors that much either ..

paterson
01-22-2007, 07:26 PM
The truth about Connors record:


1. He had losing records against Borg, Lendl and Mac. He also lost to Borg 4 times in a row in Wimbledon.

2. Borg didn't become "the computer" No.1 till 1979. The reason was Borg played alot less tournaments compared to Connors. Borg always had a better winning percentage than Connors.

3. 3 of 8 major wins were were against Phil Dent(journeyman) and aging Ken Rosewall (age 39).

4. From 1979-81, when Borg and McEnroe were winning the majors , where was Connors? He was losing to these guys in SFs.

5. When Jimbo came back to RG in 79 why didn't he win it ? How come he could not stop Borg or WIlander or Lendl from winning?

6. Jimbo won only 1 year-end Masters Cup. Lendl has won 5. McEnroe 2. Borg 2.

Conclusion: no doubt he was remarkably consistent. But he was never the
dominant guy. When Borg took over his #1 position Connors had to wait until Borg quit and Mac dropped form to regain his #1 ranking and he still did not hold on it for long.

Rabbit
01-22-2007, 08:30 PM
I'm a bit confused, what's your definition of "peaks?" Nothing in Agassi's career came remotely close to Connors' peak-winning 3 of the 4 slams in one year. And Connors had longer streaks ranked at 1,2,3,4,5, than Agassi.

I was trying to be nice... ;) Agassi has the distinction of winning on 4 distinctly different surfaces. Some would argue that the grass in Oz, Wimbledon and the Open were distinctly different, but they were more similar. Of course, Connors won the Open on 3 distinctly different surfaces.

The truth about Connors record:


1. He had losing records against Borg, Lendl and Mac. He also lost to Borg 4 times in a row in Wimbledon.

No exuses versus Borg. Borg owned Connors and everyone knew it. Borg would struggle against Victor Amaya at Wimbledon and then destroy Connors.

Against Lendl, Connors fell off when he was 32 years old. You have to give him props. Prior to that, the record was 13 - 5 Connors. And, Connors was giving Lendl 8 years. Connors also took a year off due to wrist surgery. He did come back and wasn't exactly blown off the court by Lendl. The comparison may not be all that fair.

Against McEnroe, Connors was giving away 5 years. He was 14 - 20 with McEnroe and competitive. His losing streak occurred when McEnroe was primed.



3. 3 of 8 major wins were were against Phil Dent(journeyman) and aging Ken Rosewall (age 39).

Yeah, but Rosewall beat a bunch of guys half his age to get to the finals. Ken Rosewall was also a freak of nature continuing to win in his 40s against guys who weren't even born when he won his first Grand Slam at the French. Rosewall was one of the greatest players to ever step on court.

Yeah, but you failed to mention that Connors other 5 wins were against

Borg(2)
McEnroe at Wimbledon on grass
Lendl(2) at the Open on hardcourt when Connors was 30 and 31. Lendl by contrast was 22 and 23.



4. From 1979-81, when Borg and McEnroe were winning the majors , where was Connors? He was losing to these guys in SFs.

Yeah, but 82 - 84 Connors was back in the finals of the same Grand Slams. Winning one against McEnroe at Wimbledon (82), Lendl at the Open (82) and again against Lendl at the Open (83). He was also over 30.


5. When Jimbo came back to RG in 79 why didn't he win it ? How come he could not stop Borg or WIlander or Lendl from winning?

Well, 5 years is a long time. Why didn't McEnroe win Wimbledon in '85 after destroying Connors there?


6. Jimbo won only 1 year-end Masters Cup. Lendl has won 5. McEnroe 2. Borg 2.

And Nastase has 4. What's your point?


Conclusion: no doubt he was remarkably consistent. But he was never the
dominant guy. When Borg took over his #1 position Connors had to wait until Borg quit and Mac dropped form to regain his #1 ranking and he still did not hold on it for long.

I agree. He wasn't dominant like Rosewall wasn't dominant or Agassi wasn't dominant.

But, like the other two, he had longevity.

He had more weeks at #1 than anyone else.

He had more titles than anyone else.

He had more "fire in the belly" than anyone else.

He made the semis of the US Open in 1991 at the age of 39. This alone completely refutes the argument that the competition was less in his prime.

He had arguably the #1 or #2 return of serve all-time.

joeyscl
01-22-2007, 09:30 PM
All of you forgot how much Conners has helped Andy Roddick recently ;)

chrisdaniel
01-23-2007, 12:20 AM
: / to the last comment... yes hes helped Andy... it kinda sucks to compare the two guys...i feel bad about taking away from these guys...

Two Amazing champs that are similiar,thats cool how that can happen...

I love Andre Agassi and see his carreer and style of play as very much like Connors..and if i was born earlier I would probley love Connors the same way.. but when you look at the carreer in numbers,little factors here and there make it very hard to say who is greater..hell,that is why we are asking the question in the first place.... I say these two should go down as two of the greatest players and baseliners of all time...and that means alot!!

martin
01-24-2007, 10:41 AM
Without any doubt: Connors.

It really surprises me that there are people who say that Agassi had the better game/was the better player. Certainly people who didn't see Connors play and call Agassi the better player.

The records: Connors won a record of 109 tournaments and was longer no. 1 than Agassi. Agassi only won about 60 tournaments. Won bigger tournaments and was always at least in the semifinals of Wimbledon and US open.
Also he was longer no. 1 than Borg and Mcenroe and won a lot more tournaments.

The servicereturn of connors was better;
his mentality was better;
and had a better technique.
He was also longer in the top 10.

Agassi was a very good player but not a great player because he was always standing in the shadows of Sampras.
Connors was a great player because he was a ruler in his time.

martin
01-24-2007, 10:50 AM
Connors winning record:

Singles Record: 1222 - 269

Singles Titles: 105

Doubles Record: 173 - 78

Doubles Titles: 15

Prize Money: $8,641,040

Agassi winning record:

Singles Record: 870 - 274

Singles Titles: 60

Doubles Record: 40 - 42

Doubles Titles: 1

Prize Money: $31,152,975

Connors is better period.

drakulie
01-24-2007, 11:40 AM
martin you forgot one stat:

0-2 against Agassi.

noeledmonds
01-24-2007, 12:55 PM
Connors was undoubtably consistant and thats what gave him his number 1 ranking for so long (and his many minor tournaments), but look what happens win he plays the great players.

Head2Heads

Connors vs. Agassi, 0-2

Connors vs. Mcenroe, 14-20

Connors vs. Lendl, 13-22

Connors vs. Sampras, 0-2

Agassi vs. Mcenroe, 2-2*

Agassi vs. Lendl, 2-6

Agassi vs. Sampras, 14-20

*Agassi retired in 1 of Macenroe's victory after winning the 1st set 6-4, traling 3-0 in the 2nd set.

As you can see Agassi performed better against the great players and himself held a 2-0 victory over Connors.

Then look what happens when Connors plays "lesser great players"

Connors vs. Becker, 0-6

Connors vs. Edberg, 6-6

Connors vs. Courier, 0-3

Connors vs. Willander, 0-5

Agassi vs. Becker, 10-4

Agassi vs. Edberg, 6-3

Agassi vs. Courier, 5-7

Agassi vs. Willander, 5-2

Connors continues to fail to impress, without a single winning Head2Head. Agassi has convincing leads over 3 of the 4 players.

OK then, what about players with about just few slams each. There was not much overlap here (Agassi and Connors played different people), but here are some Head2Heads between both players and oponents with 2 or 3 grand slams.

Connors vs. Bruguera, 1-1

Connors vs. Nastase, 8-12

Connors vs. Smith (Stan), 14-4

Connors vs. Ash, 5-1

Agassi vs. Bruguera, 7-2

Agassi vs. Rafter, 10-5

Agassi vs. Kuerten, 7-4

Agassi vs. Kafelnikov, 8-4

Connors finally gets his wins on the board here, but Agassi seems to have a better record, against better oponents too.

Finally the one slams wonders who played both players:

Connors vs. Stich, 1-3

Connors vs. Chang, 0-1

Connors vs. Gomez, 10-1

Connors vs. Noah, 6-2

Agassi vs. Stich, 6-0

Agassi vs. Chang, 15-7

Agassi vs. Gomez, 2-3

Agassi vs. Noah, 1-1


Well Connors sure gave Gomez a thumping anyway :-) , but still trails to Agassi. Connors 2 winning, 2 losing. Agassi 2 winning, 1 losing, 1 drawing

I think we can safely conclude Agassi, although less consistant, was defenitely better.

oberyn
01-24-2007, 01:21 PM
[B]Connors was undoubtably consistant and thats what gave him his number 1 ranking for so long (and his many minor tournaments), but look what happens win he plays the great players.

Head2Heads

Connors vs. Agassi, 0-2

Connors vs. Mcenroe, 14-20

Connors vs. Lendl, 13-22

Connors vs. Sampras, 0-2

Agassi vs. Mcenroe, 2-2*

Agassi vs. Lendl, 2-6

Agassi vs. Sampras, 14-20

*Agassi retired in 1 of Macenroe's victory after winning the 1st set 6-4, traling 3-0 in the 2nd set.

As you can see Agassi performed better against the great players and himself held a 2-0 victory over Connors.

Then look what happens when Connors plays "lesser great players"

Connors vs. Becker, 0-6

Connors vs. Edberg, 6-6

Connors vs. Courier, 0-3

Agassi vs. Becker, 10-4

Agassi vs. Edberg, 6-3

Agassi vs. Courier, 5-7

Connors continues to fail to impress, without a single winning Head2Head. Agassi has convincing leads over 2 of the 3 players.

OK then, what about players with about just few slams each. There was not much overlap here

I'm not disputing your overall conclusion (I don't agree with it, but that's not really the point), but don't you think that a lot of your head-to-heads don't really provide a lot of useful information to the discussion?

I mean, Connors' head to head record against Agassi, Sampras, and Courier?

Connors won 3 majors in 1974. At the time he won the 1974 U.S. Open, he was 22 years old. Agassi and Courier were 4 year old, and Sampras had just turned 3. Is he supposed to be beating guys who were 18-19 years younger than he was? He only had a decade-and-a-half on Becker and Edberg. Come on.

That's like trotting out Agassi's head-to-head records against Federer and Nadal and saying those records mean the same thing as his head-to-head records against Sampras, Courier, Becker, Edberg, Chang, et al.

lambielspins
01-24-2007, 01:22 PM
What a joke, showing Connors head to head vs much younger opponents like Agassi, Becker, Edberg, and Courier as examples. I guess in the future we can compare Agassi to a future great by comparing Agassi's head to heads with Federer and Nadal compared to this younger player to come along in the future, after all we are dismissing age with Connors who actually had a real multi-year peak in his prime age unlike Agassi as well. Agassi never fared particularly well against other great baseliners though.

Agassi vs Federer-Federer leads 8-3, Federer won last 8 meetings. So what if Agassi was a bit older, he still was in the top 10 for every single one of those final 8 meetings and couldnt even win 1 with that many chances. Also considering he won 5 of his 8 slam titles, and spent him most time at #1, from ages 29-33, the "so old" argument for a 33-35 old Agassi has far less value then others his age. Given Agassi's degree of late career success you absolutely can't refer to his age the same way you can for other players.

Agassi vs Lendl-Lendl leads 6-2. In 1988 and 1989 Agassi was already a top 5 player but went 0-5 vs Lendl. Against an old Lendl in 92-93 Agassi won their final 2 meetings.

Agassi vs Courier-Courier leads 7-5 overall, Courier won 6 in a row at one point. In 1989 and 1990 when both were coming up, but Agassi had the much higher ranking and status Agassi led 4-2. During 91-93 when Courier won all 4 of his slam titles, and was either #1 or #2 in the World Agassi lost all 5 matches, despite the fact Agassi himself was playing well enough to win Wimbledon 92 and be runner up(to Courier)in the 91 French Open. On the other hand Courier won his only match with Agassi in 1995 when Agassi had his then-career best year and Courier was in a steady decline that would continue the rest of his career.

It is clear Agassi had alot of trouble playing against any of the other great baseliners he played be it Federer, Courier, and Lendl.

lambielspins
01-24-2007, 01:28 PM
I'm not disputing your overall conclusion (I don't agree with it, but that's not really the point), but don't you think that a lot of your head-to-heads don't really provide a lot of useful information to the discussion?

I mean, Connors' head to head record against Agassi, Sampras, and Courier?

Connors won 3 majors in 1974. At the time he won the 1974 U.S. Open, he was 22 years old. Agassi and Courier were 4 year old, and Sampras had just turned 3. Is he supposed to be beating guys who were 18-19 years younger than he was? He only had a decade-and-a-half on Becker and Edberg. Come on.

That's like trotting out Agassi's head-to-head records against Federer and Nadal and saying those records mean the same thing as his head-to-head records against Sampras, Courier, Becker, Edberg, Chang, et al.

Exactly what I was thinking. Connors was 18-19 years older then some of the players who certain Agassi's backers go on gloating off the head to heads of Connors with, and Connors had a real prime that lasted throughout all his prime years and even held on to win slams past 30 while never veering from the top all his 20s, he did not waste most of his 20s and come back rejuvenated for another comeback at almost 30 like Agassi. Yet these same Agassi backers dimiss his 8 match losing streak with Federer, when Agassi was only 1/2 year-2 1/2 years from his last slam title and last time at #1. Talk about a two faced argument.

noeledmonds
01-24-2007, 01:42 PM
If we look at the great players around in Connors's so called prime he still can't have a winning H2H against any of them. Borg, Macenroe, Newcombe. Connors was crushed by Macenroe in the same way Sampras crushed Agassi, but it is clear that Sampras is supiror to Mcenroe. Borg owned Connors, and the only significant times Connors beat Borg were at the USO, where Borg was defentily at his weakest mentally. Connors beat an aging Laver if that worth anything to you people. If you deny that Connors played any of these great players when he was at his prime, then you admit that he was at his prime in a weak era where he did not have to play the great players.

Comparisons to a player like Federer are irrelevant. I doubt that Connors would have faired well against Federer, and what ever you people say; Agassi's prime was 1995 in my opnion, and this is why:

Agassi won most tournaments (7) in 1995
Had best season wins to losses (72-10), this is better than Sampras's best season! (72-12)
Played Sampras in 5 finals and won 3 of them, including AO
Had best winning streak (26 matches)

Also consider that most of the H2H stated were before Agassi's prime. You keep stating that Agassi played on late, and played better later (no I may not agree with this but if you stick to it, consider this). All the H2H between Agassi and players Connors played were when Agassi was very young. This worked against Agassi you know. Indeed you can hardly say that Agassi's victories against COnnors in 1988 and 1989 were anywhere near Agassi's prime (be that your prime of approx. 2003 or mine of 1995).

Moose Malloy
01-24-2007, 01:50 PM
Connors was undoubtably consistant and thats what gave him his number 1 ranking for so long (and his many minor tournaments)

connors did not pad his record with minor events, he only played 18-20 events a year during his prime years, he just was that dominant & won around 12-15 of them a year. he won many events that were as big as masters series events today, against great fields. I know you're probably new to the game, & the tennis media/atp haven't done a great job of educating new fans about what events were big in the 70s/80s(esp since many no longer exist) & how different the tour's structure was. the US Open & Wimbledon were far more important than the other slams in that time, as evidenced by so many top players skipping the AO & the French.

Several events on tour actually offered more ranking points than the Australian Open back then, so that really blows away your using slam counts as the way to determine who was great in that era as well as your theory that connors played only minor events to stay at #1.
(and 2 slam winner Smith was much more highly regarded in his time than a rafter or kafelnikov was in theirs, the comparison isn't valid) I can't believe you seriously think the olympics, which only became a medal sport in 1988, an important criteria for rating alltime players.

and your head to head stats are a bit absurd. becker/edberg were 15 years younger than connors, agassi/sampras were 18 years younger.

why not show connors' head to head vs the top players of his era? there were other players than borg & mac you know(& not leading the head to head vs them isn't some damning evidence that he was a kafelninov type #1 or something)

look up connors vs newcombe, tanner, panatta, orantes, gerulaitis, rosewall, vilas, gottfried, roche, kodes, okker, ramirez, stockton, dibbs, pecci, solomon, mayer, clerc, kriek.

would be interesting to see how many of these top 10 guys he beat back to win those "minor events" you keep going on about.

lambielspins
01-24-2007, 02:03 PM
I dont think Agassi was in his prime in 1988 and 1989, I agree Agassi was not and Connors was not. However who do you believe was closer to his prime Agassi or Connors? I doubt you will say you honestly believe it was Connors who was closer then Agassi at that point. They also played only 2 matches those 2 years IIRC.

As for Agassi's prime I dont see what is so strange about saying his prime was probably 1999-2003 anyway. Like I said 5 of his 8 slam titles came during this period, his most time spent not only at #1(since I know you will bring up Sampras keeping Agassi from #1)but in the top 3 regularly was during that time. If one says 1994-1995 was Agassi's prime for example, that means he only has a 2 year prime which isnt really an impressive thing when you think about it.

You are right Connors was owned by Borg for a period, but that is the only other great baseliner that was the case. However Connors from 1982-1984 at ages of 31-33 was still doing quite well against Lendl, more then holding his own. I believe Connors at ages 31-33 was as far from his prime as the 33-35 year old Agassi who went 0-8 vs Federer. Connors did very well vs Vilas as well, Courier and Vilas are totally different style of baseliners, but do you consider Courier significantly greater then Vilas?

So the way I see it Connors faced 3 great baseliners in Borg, Lendl, and Vilas; Agassi 3 in Courier, Federer, and Lendl. Considering the points in their careers they were at, Connors fared much better vs Lendl and Vilas then Agassi did vs any of the 3.

noeledmonds
01-24-2007, 02:13 PM
So the way I see it Connors faced 3 great baseliners in Borg, Lendl, and Vilas; Agassi 3 in Courier, Federer, and Lendl. Considering the points in their careers they were at, Connors fared much better vs Lendl and Vilas then Agassi did vs any of the 3.

If you are discounting great base liners that Connors was old then he played then you have to discout Federer from Agassi's list. However I feel the more relevant issue here is why single out baseliners? Connors faired remarkably poorely against many Seve Vollyers. Agassi has a better record here.

(Indeed I do consider Connors greater than Villas)

noeledmonds
01-24-2007, 02:19 PM
I dont think Agassi was in his prime in 1988 and 1989, I agree Agassi was not and Connors was not. However who do you believe was closer to his prime Agassi or Connors? I doubt you will say you honestly believe it was Connors who was closer then Agassi at that point. They also played only 2 matches those 2 years IIRC.


Agassi was still a teenager in 1988 and 1989, and an overweight, rebelious cheese burger eating one at that. Connors was in his mid 30s. Connors was renound for his logitivity though so he was still playing well. These 2 matches themselves are of course not that significant though, as they would have needed at leat 10 matches to be able to draw a real conclusion. However they are all factors, and Agassi's H2H counts in his favour.

Moose Malloy
01-24-2007, 02:27 PM
Connors beat an aging Laver if that worth anything to you people.

Laver was ranked #4 the year Connors first ended #1.

Connors was crushed by Macenroe

Its McEnroe, not MacEnroe. And this doesn't look like a crushing head to head to me(also Connors was 7 years older than Mac) All the names you mentioned have a significant edge in age over Connors.

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=M047&playernum2=C044

The win Connors had over Mac indoors in 1989 is rather startling, since Connors was 37 & just about to leave the tour due to injury, while Mac was 30 & the #4 player in the world.

If you deny that Connors played any of these great players when he was at his prime, then you admit that he was at his prime in a weak era where he did not have to play the great players.


That happens when greats are dominant. Like today, Federer wins everything so everyone else looks bad, but they aren't, he's just that good. Ditto Connors. And Connors was still able to win majors with a rival like Borg around (& its a really lame argument to say Borg was mentally weak at the US Open. Sounds like your getting a bit desperate in your quest to put down Connors.

Also consider that most of the H2H stated were before Agassi's prime. You keep stating that Agassi played on late, and played better later (no I may not agree with this but if you stick to it, consider this). All the H2H between Agassi and players Connors played were when Agassi was very young. This worked against Agassi you know. Indeed you can hardly say that Agassi's victories against COnnors in 1988 and 1989 were anywhere near Agassi's prime (be that your prime of approx. 2003 or mine of 1995).


Yeah, no s sherlock. Agassi wasn't in his in his prime at the 1988/89 US Open. And you think Connors was? His prime was 1974-78. He was a huge underdog vs Agassi in those matches, I was at the 1989 match, nobody gave Connors a shot at all.

Agassi was 18/19 in 1988/89 & Connors was 36/37. The fact that Connors was even competitive in those matches makes you wonder what the outcome would be if he was 10-15 years younger.

Connors was the #6 seed in '88 while Agassi was #4. In '89 he was 13 while Agassi was 6. Shortly after 1989 season, Connors had surgery for a wrist injury that was bothering him through 1989. Yet Agassi needed 5 sets to beat a injured 37 year old way past his prime.

noeledmonds, when did you start watching tennis? I doubt you ever saw Connors play.

lambielspins
01-24-2007, 02:45 PM
If you are discounting great base liners that Connors was old then he played then you have to discout Federer from Agassi's list. However I feel the more relevant issue here is why single out baseliners? Connors faired remarkably poorely against many Seve Vollyers. Agassi has a better record here.

(Indeed I do consider Connors greater than Villas)


I was comparing their records against baseliners since they are both baseliners themselves, so it made sense from my standpoint to compare them and how well each fared vs other greats who were that category of player both fit in. Fine though, if Agassi did better vs serve-volley players then Connors, maybe that is something I wasnt taking into account enough. As for how they did vs serve-volleyer examples though do you consider Agassi did better vs Sampras, then McEnroe-Connors for instance? Agassi has never beaten Sampras at Wimbledon or the U.S Open, even if he has a 2-1 vs him at the Australian Open, and 1-0 at the French . Connors has beaten McEnroe at both Wimbledon and the U.S Open more then once IIRC, they did not play at the French until 1984 IIRC, and they never played at the Australian(which both didnt play often). There are other great serve-volley
players, and other very players who were serve-volleyers to go by, but that would be the first comparision between the respective best of each of their eras.

As I said I dont believe Connors in the 2 year span of 1983-1984 facing Lendl was any more "past his prime" then Agassi was in late 2003-late 2005 facing Federer. If you wanted I could bring up other reasons why I believe this. However Connors fared much better vs Lendl those 2 years then Agassi did vs Federer. Of course Federer might be better then Lendl, but I am looking for examples to how they did agaisnt another great baseliners at a similar point in their career. That is 1 for me. So I am not discounting all periods Connors was old like you say, but periods he was at a comparable point in his career relative to his prime to where Agassi was.

noeledmonds
01-24-2007, 03:03 PM
[QUOTE=Moose Malloy;1198445]Laver was ranked #4 the year Connors first ended #1.
QUOTE]
This was hardly Laver's prime. Laver was the undisputed number 1 in his prime. Laver had not won a GS for 5 years. Laver is the oldest ever no.4 at 36 in 1974. He only played selective events on the tour in 1975 and onwards. He was on the border of retirment.


[QUOTE=Moose Malloy;1198445]
That happens when greats are dominant. Like today, Federer wins everything so everyone else looks bad, but they aren't, he's just that good. Ditto Connors. And Connors was still able to win majors with a rival like Borg around (& its a really lame argument to say Borg was mentally weak at the US Open. Sounds like your getting a bit desperate in your quest to put down Connors.
QUOTE]

This is true to a certain extent. But Connors was playing Mcenroe (I appologise for all previous typos but spelling is not my prority) while he was still winning GS. Connors won his last GS after Mcenroe had won his 4th. As for Borg, how else do you explain his 4 finals losses if its not mental. Borg had the game as he proved with his total dominance at the FO and SW19.

[QUOTE=Moose Malloy;1198445]
Yeah, no s sherlock. Agassi wasn't in his in his prime at the 1988/89 US Open. And you think Connors was? His prime was 1974-78. He was a huge underdog vs Agassi in those matches, I was at the 1989 match, nobody gave Connors a shot at all.
QUOTE]

Connors was still top 5 at the begginning of 1974, and still top 10 at the end. I cant have been that huge an underdog.

It is true that I have only seen replays of Connors matches, but that does not make my opnion less valid

noeledmonds
01-24-2007, 03:09 PM
I was comparing their records against baseliners since they are both baseliners themselves, so it made sense from my standpoint to compare them and how well each fared vs other greats who were that category of player both fit in. Fine though, if Agassi did better vs serve-volley players then Connors, maybe that is something I wasnt taking into account enough. As for how they did vs serve-volleyer examples though do you consider Agassi did better vs Sampras, then McEnroe-Connors for instance? Agassi has never beaten Sampras at Wimbledon or the U.S Open, even if he has a 2-1 vs him at the Australian Open, and 1-0 at the French . Connors has beaten McEnroe at both Wimbledon and the U.S Open more then once IIRC, they did not play at the French until 1984 IIRC, and they never played at the Australian(which both didnt play often). There are other great serve-volley
players, and other very players who were serve-volleyers to go by, but that would be the first comparision between the respective best of each of their eras.


You cant just compare players against their own style. They have to be able to play others style to. Agassi did no better against Sampras than Connors against Mcenroe. I would just argue that Sampras was better than Mcenroe. I wont go into all the reasons why now, but I will some other time if you want. Anyway i am off now, and I look forward to some brilliant response for more debate when I return.

drakulie
01-24-2007, 03:35 PM
Agassi has never beaten Sampras at Wimbledon or the U.S Open, even if he has a 2-1 vs him at the Australian Open, and 1-0 at the French .

Actually, Agassi is 2-0 against Sampras at the Australian.

vitasGremembered
01-24-2007, 04:13 PM
I've had the privilege of watching both in their primes, well actually nearly their entire careers.

Agassi would like beat Connors simply because athletes now are better conditioned and physically stronger.

But in terms of how they ranked relative to their peers? Connors hands down. Connors absolutely dominated from his start, early '70s, end of the Aussies (Laver, Newcombe) to the late 70's when Borg and McEnroe came on. Even after Borg and McEnroe, Connors continued to win major titles at the US Open and Wimbledon. Remember, back then, the Aussie was not as prestigious as it is today. The Masters paid more and you did not have to fly Down Under. Plus the French Open was a tad bit less prestigious too. Connors and Evert brought huge $$$ to tennis in the '70s. Connors' ability to sustain his peak years was amazing.

Agassi has won a career Grand Slam, which is amazing. But he only had a couple of real peak years, none of which where he won more than one major. He never dominated, not once, like Connors did for his 7-8 year span.

The Gorilla
01-24-2007, 04:20 PM
I've had the privilege of watching both in their primes, well actually nearly their entire careers.

Agassi would like beat Connors simply because athletes now are better conditioned and physically stronger.

But in terms of how they ranked relative to their peers? Connors hands down. Connors absolutely dominated from his start, early '70s, end of the Aussies (Laver, Newcombe) to the late 70's when Borg and McEnroe came on. Even after Borg and McEnroe, Connors continued to win major titles at the US Open and Wimbledon. Remember, back then, the Aussie was not as prestigious as it is today. The Masters paid more and you did not have to fly Down Under. Plus the French Open was a tad bit less prestigious too. Connors and Evert brought huge $$$ to tennis in the '70s. Connors' ability to sustain his peak years was amazing.

Agassi has won a career Grand Slam, which is amazing. But he only had a couple of real peak years, none of which where he won more than one major. He never dominated, not once, like Connors did for his 7-8 year span.

yeah, imagine if sampras was still around, giving as good as he got to fed and co, even winning grandslams, that was connors.

drakulie
01-24-2007, 04:22 PM
Agassi has won a career Grand Slam, which is amazing. But he only had a couple of real peak years, none of which where he won more than one major. He never dominated, not once, like Connors did for his 7-8 year span.

I think you better go back and check your math. Agassi in 1999 won the French, made it to the finals of Wimbledon, and then won the US Open. Additionally, won the Australian in 2000.

vitasGremembered
01-24-2007, 04:39 PM
I think you better go back and check your math. Agassi in 1999 won the French, made it to the finals of Wimbledon, and then won the US Open. Additionally, won the Australian in 2000.

My mistake, he was dominant in 1999. He actually reached 4 straight finals, which is awesome. But still, even more so, it highlights that his peak years were few.

drakulie
01-24-2007, 04:53 PM
His "peak" years may have been few, but over his career he was a top 10 player in 3 different decades. Only player in history to do that. He is also the oldest # 1 ever.

vitasGremembered
01-24-2007, 05:01 PM
I am amazed at that. But the holes were pretty deep whereas Connors stayed on top for a long time. I mean Connors dominated the scene for nearly a decade. I believe that his dominance was greater than Agassi's ever was. Agassi's greatness is highlighted by his comebacks;

drakulie
01-24-2007, 05:19 PM
As great of a player I think Connors was, his "dominance" as some people choose to call it, does not impress me. Agassi played in an era where perhaps the greatest of all time played (Sampras). Sampras ended the year 6 straight times as the year end #1. Connors never had to contend with someone as great as Sampras during his "dominant" years.

And when he did this was the result:
When Borg and Mcenroe came along his "dominance" was over. He lost 10 of his last 11 matches against Borg, and 12 of his last 14 against Mcenroe.

His year end #1 was severely overrated IMO.

oberyn
01-24-2007, 06:52 PM
His "peak" years may have been few, but over his career he was a top 10 player in 3 different decades. Only player in history to do that. He is also the oldest # 1 ever.

I think the oldest #1 ever is a lot more impressive than the top 10 player in 3 decades. It's a 15-year stretch, which other players have accomplished, Aggassi's 15 years happened to span the end of the first decade and the beginning of the third. It's like George Brett being the only guy to win a batting title in three decades, whereas there were hitters who won multiple batting titles over a longer span of time. Still impressive, but a bit of a "fluke" that Brett was the only player on that particular list whose career arc followed that pattern (i.e. first burst on the scene at the latter half of the first decade, won one in the next decade, and then won a third at the close of his career which coincided with the beginning of the third decade, 1990). Meanwhile, a guy like Ted Williams won his first batting title in 1941 and his last in 1958. A longer span of time between batting titles (and more batting titles at that), but still "only" two decades.

richie65
01-24-2007, 08:21 PM
Excellent post and discussion so far.

I grew up idolizing Connors, I loved his cockiness and competiveness and fashioned my game around his. I loved taking the ball on the rise! When Agassi came on the seen I hated his cockiness and thought he was a wimp who folded in the tough matches. It was obvious that I had matured and realized that actual results matter more than showmanship. I would always consider Connors the better player (and better career) because of his titles, etc. that have been previouly posted. As Agasi aged, I, tended to cheer for him because he got rid of the cocky attitude and let the results speak for themselves. Plus he was smart enough to marry Steffi who has the BEST BODY of ALL TIME!

The one thing that sticks in my mind: 1974 (I was 9 at the time) Jimmy's record was 96-4, and he could not play in the French. The best year ever.

mariarulez
01-24-2007, 08:48 PM
go check the records books, and see whose name comes up the most.

Duzza
01-24-2007, 11:35 PM
Connors just with his Titles.

paterson
01-25-2007, 02:48 AM
Jimbo had big numbers but they are all inflated. His 268 weeks as Number 1 is very much inflated. During the 70s there were three seperate tours - ATP, WCT and Grand Prix. And his 268 weeks are basically only the ATP rankings. Other guys did much better than him (Ashe 75, Vilas 77, Borg 78) but they were never ranked No.1 during those years. His 109 tournaments is also inflated because Borg played mostly in Europe and Vilas in S.America. So most of this titles lacked the competition.

Connors had losing head-head against all his rivals and it counts against him. And he also did not dominate the game once Borg and Mcenroe entered the picture. Connors domination
was a in weak era before these two guys hit the scene.

Jimmy was clearly the #3 player of his generation behind Borg and McEnroe.

bluegrasser
01-25-2007, 03:21 AM
I think it really comes down to those 105 titles, Connors played all the tough tournaments, and the results speak for themselves. IMO he's in the top ten all time for that acomplishment.

breakfast_of_champions
01-25-2007, 02:35 PM
Jimbo had big numbers but they are all inflated. His 268 weeks as Number 1 is very much inflated. During the 70s there were three seperate tours - ATP, WCT and Grand Prix. And his 268 weeks are basically only the ATP rankings. Other guys did much better than him (Ashe 75, Vilas 77, Borg 78) but they were never ranked No.1 during those years. His 109 tournaments is also inflated because Borg played mostly in Europe and Vilas in S.America. So most of this titles lacked the competition.

Connors had losing head-head against all his rivals and it counts against him. And he also did not dominate the game once Borg and Mcenroe entered the picture. Connors domination
was a in weak era before these two guys hit the scene.

Jimmy was clearly the #3 player of his generation behind Borg and McEnroe.

connors was 4 years older than borg 7 years older than mcenroe. connors owned everyone from 74-78, including borg. and again in 82 and 83. connors was the best player of his era. borg and mcenroe came after connors. connors domnated borg in his prime, 74-78, borg dominated connors in his prime, in 79-81. had connors played all the slams every year, he'd probably be up there with pete.

flying24
01-25-2007, 03:43 PM
Saying Connors dominated Borg in 77 and 78 is an outright lie. In 1977 Borg went 2-1 vs Connors, including winning the Wimbledon final, their biggest meeting that year. In 1978 Borg went 2-1 vs Connors, with Borg winning the Wimbledon final easily and Connors the U.S Open final easily. In 1977 Vilas won the French Open and U.S Open(beating Connors in the final), Borg won Wimbledon, Connors nothing. In 1978 Borg won the French Open and Wimbledon, Connors the U.S Open. Vilas or Borg was the true #1 in 1977, Borg definitely the true #1 in 1978. Connors's #1 ranking at the end of both of those years was a reflection of a flawed ranking system, and in no way did Connors dominate Borg by 1977 and 1978 going a combined 2-4 with Borg those two years, losing 1-2 record both years.

drakulie
01-25-2007, 04:01 PM
flying, thanks for jumping on that. As I said earlier in this thread, his #1 ranking is was overhyped as he was clearly not the best player from 77 on.

breakfast_of_champions
01-25-2007, 04:31 PM
Saying Connors dominated Borg in 77 and 78 is an outright lie. In 1977 Borg went 2-1 vs Connors, including winning the Wimbledon final, their biggest meeting that year. In 1978 Borg went 2-1 vs Connors, with Borg winning the Wimbledon final easily and Connors the U.S Open final easily. In 1977 Vilas won the French Open and U.S Open(beating Connors in the final), Borg won Wimbledon, Connors nothing. In 1978 Borg won the French Open and Wimbledon, Connors the U.S Open. Vilas or Borg was the true #1 in 1977, Borg definitely the true #1 in 1978. Connors's #1 ranking at the end of both of those years was a reflection of a flawed ranking system, and in no way did Connors dominate Borg by 1977 and 1978 going a combined 2-4 with Borg those two years, losing 1-2 record both years.

so what, the sytem was different in the 70's. but, tennis aint scored like boxing. when you play on a circuit, you play the tournaments that will improve your ranking the most. not just play the smaller tournaments then just complain about it later, and then say the system was rigged. its all public information. borg and vilas both knew what tournaments were the most valuable. it was no secret. connors won several other important tournaments in 77 and made the finals of the two slams he entered. vilas was fortunate the uso was on clay, which was a total joke, btw. vilas chose to play smaller clay court tournaments in 77. he didnt deserve #1. connors was number 1 every single week between 74-78,except one. thats domination. connors also beat borg on clay in 1976 in a slam final with #1 on the line. connors was 8-4 with borg between 74-78. borg had 0 wins on hardcourts against connors during that period.

i guess if you can't win by the rules then just say the system was rigged. lol. connors won 3 slams in 82, 83 to mac's 0, yet mac was still ranked #1. thats the system pard.

anointedone
01-25-2007, 05:58 PM
It is true that Connors was a bogus #1 in 1977, 1978, and maybe 1975 but he was still the true #1 in 1974, 1976, and should have been in 1982. So that makes him the true #1 atleast 3 times, even excluding some of his bogus #1 years like 1977 and 1978.

Agassi was only the computer or true #1 1 year, that was 1999. Yeah Sampras was there but Agassi contended for the year end #1 in 1995(against Sampras), 2001(not against Sampras), 2002(not against Sampras), 2003(not against Sampras)and failed to get it each time. As for him being way past his prime at that point, since those were 3 of the only 5 years he contended for the year-end #1 ranking it is hard to see that he was way past it.

paterson
01-25-2007, 06:53 PM
Open Era Grand Slam Records

Player ....................... WON .... RU .... SF .... QF

Pete Sampras USA .......... 14 ...... 4 ..... 5 ..... 6
Bjorn Borg SWE ............... 11 ..... 5 ..... 1 ..... 4
Roger Federer SUI ............. 9 ..... 1 ..... 2 ..... 2
Ivan Lendl TCH ................. 8 .... 11 .. .. 9 ..... 6
Jimmy Connors USA 8 7 16 10
Andre Agassi USA 8 7 11 10

paterson
01-25-2007, 06:59 PM
Open Era Grand Slam Records

Player ....................... WON .... RU .... SF .... QF

Pete Sampras USA .......... 14 ...... 4 ..... 5 ..... 6
Bjorn Borg SWE ............... 11 ..... 5 ..... 1 ..... 4
Roger Federer SUI ............. 9 ..... 1 ..... 2 ..... 2
Ivan Lendl TCH ................. 8 .... 11 .. .. 9 ..... 6
Jimmy Connors USA............ 8...... 7.....16......10
Andre Agassi USA.............. 8....... 7..... 11.... 10

Agassi and Connors have similar slam records. Jimbo made 5 more
SF appearances.

driger
01-25-2007, 07:02 PM
Connors just with his Titles.

and most uso titles
and alltime match wins 1st
and consecutive years ranked in the top 10 1st
and consecutive years in the top 5 1st
and consecutive weeks ranked at #1 1st
and yearend #1's 2nd
and weeks at #1 3rd

these are not obscure records

driger
01-25-2007, 07:04 PM
Open Era Grand Slam Records

Player ....................... WON .... RU .... SF .... QF

Pete Sampras USA .......... 14 ...... 4 ..... 5 ..... 6
Bjorn Borg SWE ............... 11 ..... 5 ..... 1 ..... 4
Roger Federer SUI ............. 9 ..... 1 ..... 2 ..... 2
Ivan Lendl TCH ................. 8 .... 11 .. .. 9 ..... 6
Jimmy Connors USA............ 8...... 7.....16......10
Andre Agassi USA.............. 8....... 7..... 11.... 10

Agassi and Connors have similar slam records. Jimbo made 5 more
SF appearances.


connors played the ao only twice and skipped the fo for 5 years in his prime.

drakulie
01-25-2007, 07:31 PM
connors played the ao only twice and skipped the fo for 5 years in his prime.

Are you implying Connors' statistics would have been better if he had played those tournaments the years he skipped. Because if that is the case here is a look at Agassi:

Skipped the AO 8 years in a row and a total of 11 years. By the way, his best surface.

Skipped the FO 4 years.

Skipped Wimbledon 7 years.

Just food for thought.

driger
01-25-2007, 07:40 PM
Are you implying Connors' statistics would have been better if he had played those tournaments the years he skipped. Because if that is the case here is a look at Agassi:

Skipped the AO 8 years in a row and a total of 11 years. By the way, his best surface.

Skipped the FO 4 years.

Skipped Wimbledon 7 years.

Just food for thought.

skipped em because he had attitude problems or no chance at winning em mostly, not because he was banned or the system was just different. only 2 uso's and 1 wimby win. those are the biggys.

drakulie
01-25-2007, 08:44 PM
"no chance at winning em mostly"?? LMAO!

He had a better chance at winning more AO slams, than Connors had at winning the French (even once).

By the way, as a little punk he beat your boy twice IN JIMBO"S BACKYARD.

And don't even come back with, "jimbo was already old". Because if that is your excuse, then he shouldn't have been there in the first place.

jjames
01-25-2007, 09:16 PM
"no chance at winning em mostly"?? LMAO!

He had a better chance at winning more AO slams, than Connors had at winning the French (even once).

By the way, as a little punk he beat your boy twice IN JIMBO"S BACKYARD.

And don't even come back with, "jimbo was already old". Because if that is your excuse, then he shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Most experts agree, Connors probably would have won the French in 74 and maybe 75, 76. He owned Borg in those years.

driger
01-25-2007, 09:22 PM
"no chance at winning em mostly"?? LMAO!

He had a better chance at winning more AO slams, than Connors had at winning the French (even once).

By the way, as a little punk he beat your boy twice IN JIMBO"S BACKYARD.

And don't even come back with, "jimbo was already old". Because if that is your excuse, then he shouldn't have been there in the first place.

and connors beat an older laver, rosewall. and becker beat an older agassi. so what. agassi s problem was he was never a big match player. connors beat legends, lendl, mcenroe, newcombe, rosewall, and borg in slam finals with the #1 ranking on the line. and laver and newcombe in winner take all challenge matches. agassi was always the bridesmaid to sampras, courier, lendl, and federer. never really won against his nemisis on the big stage to take over #1. agassis slam finals opponents were usually lesser players. agassis specialty was winning the ao the less prestigeous of the slams. especially during his era.

you can argue about who was the best in their prime, but statistically connors get the nod.

noeledmonds
01-26-2007, 01:45 AM
Most experts agree, Connors probably would have won the French in 74 and maybe 75, 76. He owned Borg in those years.

What is this about Connors owning Borg? Connors only beat Borg at the USO (of the slams). We all know that Borg struggled mentaly at the USO (losing 4 finals) and stuggled with the noisy crowds, and the night play under the lights. Connors was owned by Borg at SW19, where he lost to Borg 4 times (2 finals and 2 semis), and never beat him. Sure Connors dominated Borg at the USO, but Borg still won a semi against him there.

As for winning the FO, who are these so called "experts"? Borg would have ground Connors into the dirt. In Borg we are talking about a man who won 6 of the 8 FOs he entered. A man who only lost at the FO to one player. A man who won 2 FO without losing a set (noone has won any GS without losing a set since).

capriatifanatic
01-26-2007, 01:54 AM
"no chance at winning em mostly"?? LMAO!

He had a better chance at winning more AO slams, than Connors had at winning the French (even once).

By the way, as a little punk he beat your boy twice IN JIMBO"S BACKYARD.

And don't even come back with, "jimbo was already old". Because if that is your excuse, then he shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Well there are two sides to every story. One could turn around and say dont forget Federer beat Agassi two straight years in Agassi's backyard, and then add just as you said "dont even come back with Agassi was already old, as then he should not have been there in the first place." Unlike was the case with Connors and Agassi, it was only Agassi's backyard, Federer was the villian guest, the toughest environment to play in, where as Connors and young hotshot Agassi shared the crowds love even in Connor's advancing age.

Agassi did not have a good shot of winning any of the slams he missed that werent due to injuries. The slams he missed with injuries dont matter, injuries are part of the game. He missed the Australian from 1987-1994(no Australian in 1986). From 1987-1989 there was a guy like Lendl who was 6-0 vs Agassi those years(5-0 in 88 and 89), in 1990 and 1991 they did not play but Lendl was higher ranked and regarded much more highly as a big match player then Agassi still. Courier went 6-0 vs Agassi in 6 matches starting in 91 ending in 95, Courier won the Australian in 92 and 93 and was in the semis in 94 of course. Then you have a guy named Sampras reaching the semis in 93 and winning in 94, Sampras was 4-1 vs Agassi in 93-94. Edberg was 3-3 vs Agassi in 6 matches played from 1989-1992(all their matches from 86-93), and he was a big contender at the Australian from 1986-1993 as well. Not to mention guys like Wilander and Becker were major contenders some of those years too. In 1987 he would wasnt even a top 20 player so forget it, in 1988 Wilander who won 3 slams that year and Lendl were the 2 finalists. In 1989 and 1990 Lendl was the Champion. In 1991 Becker was the Champion, but Lendl was a finalist, and Edberg a semifinalist, ignoring the Agassi "choke" factor in a big event in 1990-1991 he would have had low chance vs Lendl, very good chance vs Becker, mediocre chance vs Edberg, then combine that with the Agassi "choke" factor should he even reach the semis or finals that year and imagine him beating 2 or 3 of them in a row to win it.
In 1992 Courier was the Champion, and 1993 Courier was the Champion, 1994 Sampras was the Champion. His only shot was maybe in 91, but still a very small one, the other years guys who he couldnt touch at the time were certainties in the path.

Agassi winning Wimbledon in 1986, 1988-1990 is also a far fetched thought over guys like Edberg and Becker who were. In 1992 he did win that shock Wimbledon, but in 1991 he lost in the quarters to Wheaton, and in 1987 lost in the first round to Leconte, and in 1990-1991 he choked and went 0-3 in slam finals which he was favored to win each. In 92 when he won he did not play Sampras or Edberg, and at the time went into his 92 quarterfinal with Becker with a 5-match winning streak with him on other surfaces(still took 5 sets, their only match in a 8-match winning streak Agassi had over Becker that went the distance, a streak that ended with their second meeting on grass which Becker of course won in Wimbledon 95). In 1990 it was Becker and Edberg in the final, Edberg winning, as it turned out. In 1990 he would have gone into Wimbledon with only a 1-match winning streak and an overall 1-3 vs Becker, who he had much trouble with at Wimbledon(5 set win in 92, loss in 95)even during a later stretch of time he had established dominance over Becker on every other surface, and Agassi also choked badly his 2 slam finals that year. Agassi went in Wimbledon 1990 1-2 vs Edberg, none of those matches on grass. Lendl also was a major contender at Wimbledon that year, would have gone into Wimbledon with a 6-0 vs Agassi lifetime and was the #1 guy in the World, uncomfortable on grass just as Agassi at that point, and mentaly on a different planet then Agassi at that point. 1990 odds of a Wimbledon title look bleak enough, they only go down in 1989 and 1988 needless to say.

Just for the record the slams he missed through injury were the 93 French, 97 Australian, 97 French, 97 Wimbledon, 2002 Australian Open, 2004 Wimbledon 2005 Wimbledon, 2006 Australian, 2006 French. The only one of those he had much chance of winning was the 2002 Australian. 93 he was out of shape and didnt do much that year even when he played, there were also better clay courters like Courier and Bruguera, and Courier owned him totally then; 97 he was mostly a joke that year even when healthy and fell out of the top 100, 2002 Australian a very good shot perhaps, 2004 and 2005 Wimbledon-he loses to Agassi 8 straight times including some hard court matches in the U.S and cant even beat him in the hostile anti-Federer U.S Open environment either year, of course he has no prayer beating Federer at Wimbledon on grass either year, 2006 Australian or 2006 French-any sight of Agassi playing in 2006 should suffice for reasoning.

Connors beat Borg in 1974-1976 on every surface. He would have had a great shot of winning all of the 1974, 1975, and 1976 French Opens. Borg's win at Wimbledon 1977 broke a 6 match losing streak vs Borg, and it was a 5-setter. Had the top players played the Australian Open back then Connors would have had a good shot of winning 1 or 2 out of the 3 Australian Opens played(there were 2 in 1977)in 1976-1977. 12 slams had it not been for legit circumstances like he not been barred from the French from 1974-1978(2or 3 more French)and had top players all played the Australian then(1 or 2 more Australians)seems like a fair estimate. Agassi on the other hand would have been hard pressed to even win 1 more slam out of those 13 he chose to miss for no qualified reason whatsoever, as top players did play the Australian by the time he was pro. Looking at slams he missed due to injury, which are pretty much irrelevant as injuries are part of the game, at best he could only pray to win 1 of those-2002 Australian Open.

noeledmonds
01-26-2007, 01:55 AM
and connors beat an older laver, rosewall. and becker beat an older agassi. so what. agassi s problem was he was never a big match player. connors beat legends, lendl, mcenroe, newcombe, rosewall, and borg in slam finals with the #1 ranking on the line. and laver and newcombe in winner take all challenge matches. agassi was always the bridesmaid to sampras, courier, lendl, and federer. never really won against his nemisis on the big stage to take over #1. agassis slam finals opponents were usually lesser players. agassis specialty was winning the ao the less prestigeous of the slams. especially during his era.

you can argue about who was the best in their prime, but statistically connors get the nod.

Becker actully holds a 4-10 defecit to Agassi (or 1-4 in slams). Connors was owned by Lendl (H2H 13-22), and beat him in just 1 slam final. Agassi beat Sampras in 1 slam final too. Connors's H2H with Mcenroe is the same as Agassi's with Sampras, both traling 14-20. But who was better Mcenroe or Sampras? I think you know the answer.

capriatifanatic
01-26-2007, 02:07 AM
What is this about Connors owning Borg? Connors only beat Borg at the USO (of the slams). We all know that Borg struggled mentaly at the USO (losing 4 finals) and stuggled with the noisy crowds, and the night play under the lights. Connors was owned by Borg at SW19, where he lost to Borg 4 times (2 finals and 2 semis), and never beat him. Sure Connors dominated Borg at the USO, but Borg still won a semi against him there.

As for winning the FO, who are these so called "experts"? Borg would have ground Connors into the dirt. In Borg we are talking about a man who won 6 of the 8 FOs he entered. A man who only lost at the FO to one player. A man who won 2 FO without losing a set (noone has won any GS without losing a set since).

You are right Connors did not own Borg, he only owned him from 74-76, and Borg dominated Connors from 1977 onwards. However Connors did own Borg from 74-76 and beat him 3 different times on clay during that time too, once in 1974, once in 1975, and once in 1976.

noeledmonds
01-26-2007, 02:49 AM
You are right Connors did not own Borg, he only owned him from 74-76, and Borg dominated Connors from 1977 onwards. However Connors did own Borg from 74-76 and beat him 3 different times on clay during that time too, once in 1974, once in 1975, and once in 1976.

All the times Connors beat Borg on clay where in the USA, 2 were at the USO. Borg was a different man in the US. Borg did not like the noisy crowds, the night sessions under lighting, and of course it was Connors's home crowd.The FO different. This was the clay that Borg was completly comfertable on. In fact Connors only beat Borg once outside the USA (at Stockholm). These weaknesses at the USO do of coures detract from Borg's greatness, as there was clearly a mental issue here. However at the FO Connors would have been very unlikely to beat Borg, and Borg was not the only player in the draw he would have to beat to win the FO.

martin
01-26-2007, 05:41 AM
People just seem to forget that age was an important factor. Connors was 4 years older then borg, 7 years older than Mcenroe and 8 years older than Lendl. He was better than lendl until 1984. Connors was past his prime although still good. Not nearly as good as he was. His winning percentage would be much more impressive if he stopped in 1984 or 1985 but he went on and lost more matches which is normal as he got older. Those matches against Agassi is ridiculous as comparison. Connors was 37 and Agassi 18 or 19. Agassi had already reached the semi-final of the french open when he was 17 and blew everyone of the court with his lethal forehand. Ofcourse Agassi was not in his prime but he was much closer to his prime than Connors who was way past his prime with his old body but still he got to five sets and don't tell me that Agassi tanked that fourth set. He never said that and had a lot more respect for Connors after this match. If he was so much better he would not have lost one against the old man.
People come up with riduculous arguments

driger
01-26-2007, 06:32 AM
Becker actully holds a 4-10 defecit to Agassi (or 1-4 in slams). Connors was owned by Lendl (H2H 13-22), and beat him in just 1 slam final. Agassi beat Sampras in 1 slam final too. Connors's H2H with Mcenroe is the same as Agassi's with Sampras, both traling 14-20. But who was better Mcenroe or Sampras? I think you know the answer.

Connors beat Lendl in two slams finals and dominated lendl until he was age 32-33, when most players are retired. Mac in 80-84 or sampras? who knows.

and give agassi some 70's era equipment, i would agassi 0% chance of beating connors had the two played in there primes.

driger
01-26-2007, 06:39 AM
What is this about Connors owning Borg? Connors only beat Borg at the USO (of the slams). We all know that Borg struggled mentaly at the USO (losing 4 finals) and stuggled with the noisy crowds, and the night play under the lights. Connors was owned by Borg at SW19, where he lost to Borg 4 times (2 finals and 2 semis), and never beat him. Sure Connors dominated Borg at the USO, but Borg still won a semi against him there.

As for winning the FO, who are these so called "experts"? Borg would have ground Connors into the dirt. In Borg we are talking about a man who won 6 of the 8 FOs he entered. A man who only lost at the FO to one player. A man who won 2 FO without losing a set (noone has won any GS without losing a set since).

europe was borgs home court, the usa connors. you still see with that todays players. in 1974 connors was 99-4 and won 3 slam titles. he also beat borg the next 6 or 7 times they played. even connors biggest haters would admit his chances would have been pretty good at the FO. you talk like you never saw connors play in his prime.

drakulie
01-26-2007, 07:59 AM
agassi s problem was he was never a big match player.

HMMM?? Let's see. not a big match player?? 8 slam wins. Not sure if you noticed but the slams are one of the HIGHEST stages in Tennis. He won all 4, and on 4 different surfaces. Did Connors ever win on the red dirt?? NO!

Also, one of the best records in Davis Cup History. No bigger stage in TENNIS than Davis Cup. But as a Connors fan you wouldn't know about that would you? LMAO! Tell me, with all the records Connors has (cough) how many Davis Cup wins did he accumulate in his "illustrious" career? How many Davis Cup Champions was he a member of??


connors beat legends,

"legends"? You want to talk about "legends"? Agassi beat perhaps the greatest player of all time 14 TIMES! Ho many times did connors beat him? ZERO!

Oh yeah, since you consider Connors a "legend", Agassi has an undefeated record against him (2-0).

driger
01-26-2007, 08:08 AM
HMMM?? Let's see. not a big match player?? 8 slam wins. Not sure if you noticed but the slams are one of the HIGHEST stages in Tennis. He won all 4, and on 4 different surfaces. Did Connors ever win on the red dirt?? NO!

Also, one of the best records in Davis Cup History. No bigger stage in TENNIS than Davis Cup. But as a Connors fan you wouldn't know about that would you? LMAO! Tell me, with all the records Connors has (cough) how many Davis Cup wins did he accumulate in his "illustrious" career? How many Davis Cup Champions was he a member of??


"legends"? You want to talk about "legends"? Agassi beat perhaps the greatest player of all time 14 TIMES! Ho many times did connors beat him? ZERO!

Oh yeah, since you consider Connors a "legend", Agassi has an undefeated record against him (2-0).

connors rarely played davis cup. he was at odds with the tennis establishment most of his career, over his banning at the french open. agassi never beat sampras at the us open or wimbledon.

and connors beat legends at or near their prime, in slam finals, with the #1 ranking on the line, not at age 37, and then gloat about it.

drakulie
01-26-2007, 08:39 AM
connors rarely played davis cup. he was at odds with the tennis establishment most of his career, over his banning at the french open. agassi never beat sampras at the us open or wimbledon.

And Sampras never beat Agassi at the French or Australian, while in his prime. Oh, and in case you have not noticed those two legends (Sampras and Connors) never won the French open. LMAO! In fact, Sampras was seeded 6 times # 1 and never made it to a final.

By the way, with all the records of Connors you have quoted, you have yet to say how many Davis Cup Champions he was a part of?? You know?? THE BIGGEST STAGE IN ALL OF TENNIS???

Or is it he was too busy playing all those crappy little tournaments to hold onto his bogus number 1 ranking??

martin
01-26-2007, 08:49 AM
Drakulie

When Connors played Agassi he could easily have been his father. There's an age gap of two decades or do you think that doesn't make any difference!!!!Connors skipped Roland Garros in his prime and that's why he did not win on the red clay. He actually won the US open on clay. In that period the french was not as important as it is now and the australian open didn't count as well and in my opinion is still the least important grand slam and that's the one Agassi has won four times.

driger
01-26-2007, 09:35 AM
And Sampras never beat Agassi at the French or Australian, while in his prime. Oh, and in case you have not noticed those two legends (Sampras and Connors) never won the French open. LMAO! In fact, Sampras was seeded 6 times # 1 and never made it to a final.

By the way, with all the records of Connors you have quoted, you have yet to say how many Davis Cup Champions he was a part of?? You know?? THE BIGGEST STAGE IN ALL OF TENNIS???

Or is it he was too busy playing all those crappy little tournaments to hold onto his bogus number 1 ranking??

lol, you don't play crappy little tournaments too hold on to number 1. ask vilas in 77. how much does davis cup pay. and did agassi have any teamates or was he the only guy on the team. and sampras won enough important matches to keep his #1 ranking 6 straight years. agassi never could take #1 from him. thats domination. sampras won when it mattered. and i wonder what a young jimmy connors would have done to a 37 year old agassi. doubt it would have gone 5 sets. unless they were in wheelchairs.

drakulie
01-26-2007, 10:05 AM
Connors skipped Roland Garros in his prime and that's why he did not win on the red clay.

I was not aware "skipping a tournament" equated to "he would have won it". In that case, as I stated before, Agassi "skipped" the AO 11 times, "skipped" the French 3 times, and "skipped" Wimbledon 7 times.

Wow, if Agassi would not have "skipped" those tournaments he would have won not 8 slams but 29 slams.

try again.....

drakulie
01-26-2007, 10:13 AM
lol, you don't play crappy little tournaments too hold on to number 1.

Connors did. It is well documented.

and sampras won enough important matches to keep his #1 ranking 6 straight years.

Wrong again. At least two years Sampras entered crappy tourneys at the end of the year to retain his number # 1 ranking. Just like Connors.

agassi never could take #1 from him.

Once again,,,,,WRONG!!! Agassi finished 1999 ranked # 1, and it ended Sampras' streak. Bye, Bye!!

You have yet to tell me how many Davis Cup Championships Connors helped the USA win???? LOL

oberyn
01-26-2007, 10:47 AM
Once again,,,,,WRONG!!! Agassi finished 1999 ranked # 1, and it ended Sampras' streak. Bye, Bye!!

Your better argument is that, if not for an injury, Agassi was pretty much a cinch to finish 1995 ranked #1. In 1999, Sampras beat Agassi handily at Wimbledon and was undefeated (including two more victories over Agassi) from Queen's Club on heading into the U.S. Open. Sampras had taken over the #1 ranking heading into the U.S. Open. An injury kept Sampras from playing. Agassi had clinched number one for the year by the time they played the Masters Cup. Sampras, who hadn't played a tournament in several months, lost to Agassi in Round Robin play and then beat him handily again in the final.

You have yet to tell me how many Davis Cup Championships Connors helped the USA win???? LOL

Again, this is not a particularly compelling argument, IMO. It's like ragging on Agassi for his doubles record. It would be one thing if Connors played in a lot of Davis Cup ties and had a bad record. The point is that he hardly played Davis Cup at all. Certainly one can give points to Agassi for his outstanding Davis Cup record, but using Connors' Davis Cup record against him (for anything other than a commentary about possible lack of patriotism) seems rather ridiculous to me.

ETA: I agree with you with respect to the "what if" game with respect to major championships. Both Connors and Agassi made their choices during their playing careers, and "woulda, shoulda, coulda" can't (reasonably) be factored into the equation.

noeledmonds
01-26-2007, 10:53 AM
Connors beat Lendl in two slams finals and dominated lendl until he was age 32-33, when most players are retired. Mac in 80-84 or sampras? who knows.

and give agassi some 70's era equipment, i would agassi 0% chance of beating connors had the two played in there primes.

I stand corrected it was 2 finals. Mcenroe or Sampras? Come on Sampras has 6 years end number 1, compared to Mcenroe's 3, Sampras had many more weeks at number 1, Sampras had more year end tournaments (5 in total). Sampras had twice as many single slams, and even if you take out the AO (that was not really a slam in Mcenroe's day), he still had more slams. He has over twice as many SW19 titles, and more USO titles. Neither player won the FO. Whats the arguement?

Give Connors some modern equipment from today and he would be pummled by Agassi. How is it relavant that COnnors would win with a wodern racket. The point is they did play twice and neither were at their prime, and Agassi won twice.

noeledmonds
01-26-2007, 10:58 AM
europe was borgs home court, the usa connors. you still see with that todays players. in 1974 connors was 99-4 and won 3 slam titles. he also beat borg the next 6 or 7 times they played. even connors biggest haters would admit his chances would have been pretty good at the FO. you talk like you never saw connors play in his prime.

Europe was not Borg's home court. Borg was Sweedish, you can't generliase an entire continent. That like saying Brazil is COnnors's home court, because its in South America, part of America. The point is I am saying Connors is far more likely not to have won the FO than won it.

Just read this again:As for winning the FO, who are these so called "experts"? Borg would have ground Connors into the dirt. In Borg we are talking about a man who won 6 of the 8 FOs he entered. A man who only lost at the FO to one player. A man who won 2 FO without losing a set (noone has won any GS without losing a set since).

The really important point is COnnors did not win the FO, and Agassi won the whole lot.

drakulie
01-26-2007, 11:29 AM
oberyn, great post. I agree about the davis Cup. The only reason I bring it up is because of the ridiculous "what if, would/could have, etc" argument's, which you pointed out. In addition, I brought it up because in TENNIS (outside the US) the Davis Cup IS the biggest stage a player could compete in. And driger stated AA "was not a big match player" .

As for the 1999 argument, I agree Sampras played out of this world in the Year End Championships (One of my favorite matches to watch). However, Sampras not being able to play the US Open that year does not equate to him winning it. Agassi, ended at #1 and it is what it is. Injuries, as well as deciding not to play tournaments are part of the game.

You can't give credit to someone who was not able to , or chose not to play tournaments.

oberyn
01-26-2007, 11:39 AM
oberyn, great post. I agree about the davis Cup. The only reason I bring it up is because of the ridiculous "what if, would/could have, etc" argument's, which you pointed out. In addition, I brought it up because in TENNIS (outside the US) the Davis Cup IS the biggest stage a player could compete in. And driger stated AA "was not a big match player" .

Ok. Gotcha. Obviously, I agree with this completely.

As for the 1999 argument, I agree Sampras played out of this world in the Year End Championships (One of my favorite matches to watch). However, Sampras not being able to play the US Open that year does not equate to him winning it. Agassi, ended at #1 and it is what it is. Injuries, as well as deciding not to play tournaments are part of the game.

Injuries are a part of the game, you're right. I was actually (and obviously unsuccessfully) trying to say that if someone argued that Agassi didn't "deserve" the #1 ranking in 1999 and only got it because Sampras got hurt, then one can also argue that he did deserve it in 1995 and only lost it because he got hurt. But to state that he never really took the #1 ranking from Sampras is inaccurate.

drakulie
01-26-2007, 11:46 AM
oberyn, gotcha! I agree with your last comments.

driger
01-26-2007, 03:43 PM
Once again,,,,,WRONG!!! Agassi finished 1999 ranked # 1, and it ended Sampras' streak. Bye, Bye!!

yup, and the single time in agassi's 20+ year career, he finished yearend number 1, he needed help from a sampras injury. thats says it all. even courier did it twice. connors was the official yearend #1 five times, and arguably #1 two other years.

and tell how many slam doubles titles did agassi win? how bout connors? hmmmmmmmmmmm? and what does that say about their net games?

i think that about sums it up.

drakulie
01-26-2007, 03:50 PM
yup, and the single time in agassi's 20+ year career, he finished yearend number 1, he needed help from a sampras injury. thats says it all. connors was the official yearend #1 five times, and arguably #1 two other years.

He may have only ended the year # 1, one time, but he still won as many GS as Connors. Goes to show you important that sttistic is. In addition, won a French Open, which Connors with his 100+ titles, 5 year end # 1's was never able to do.

By the way, Connors with all his wins, titles, slams, year end #1's, weeks at # 1, and yada, yada, yada .....and etc, etc, etc ....

How many times did he beat Agassi? LMAO

driger
01-26-2007, 04:02 PM
....

How many times did he beat Agassi? LMAO

geez then think of all the nobodys that beat agassi in the last couple years of his career. i guess they'd all have to be ranked above agassi. and lets put connors above rod laver since he beat him at 36.

case closed

drakulie
01-26-2007, 04:05 PM
geez then think of all the nobodys that beat agassi in the last couple years of his career. i guess they'd all have to be ranked above agassi. and lets put connors above rod laver since he beat him at 36.

case closed

case re-opened. All those "nobodys" don't have 8 slams. Nor do they have a French Open Title. OOPs, neither does Jimbo. LOL

driger
01-26-2007, 04:10 PM
connors did actually beat agassi in an exhibition. and the thing that struck me was how much better connors was at finishing points at the net.

connor has 10 slams

2 in doubles

oops agassi has 0 in doubles.

martin
01-26-2007, 04:16 PM
Connors skipped the french 10 times and the australian open 21 times. He skipped the french five times in his prime years. Agassi skipped the french four times in total and two times in his prime years.(1993,1997)
Agassi missed Wimbledon only once in his prime years(1997) Before that he was not good enough on grass. We're talking about prime years right?

driger
01-26-2007, 04:17 PM
Connors skipped the french 10 times and the australian open 21 times. He skipped the french five times in his prime years. Agassi skipped the french four times in total and two times in his prime years.(1993,1997)
Agassi missed Wimbledon only once in his prime years(1997) Before that he was not good enough on grass. We're talking about prime years right?

no were talking about since agassi was born.:-D

drakulie
01-26-2007, 04:19 PM
connors did actually beat agassi in an exhibition. and the thing that struck me was how much better connors was at finishing points at the net.

LMAO, you are getting desperate when you start reaching for exhibitions.

Do you remember the exhibition when a young Agassi whooped Connors ass?? here is a pic to refresh your memory. I think this is when Connors was # 1 in the world. LOL

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v736/drakulie/agassi_childhood.jpg

driger
01-26-2007, 04:24 PM
LMAO, you are getting desperate when you start reaching for exhibitions.

Do you remember the exhibition when a young Agassi whooped Connors ass?? here is a pic to refresh your memory. I think this is when Connors was # 1 in the world. LOL

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v736/drakulie/agassi_childhood.jpg


gotta give it you. you are funny.

drakulie
01-26-2007, 04:29 PM
alright driger, you are pretty cool too. We'll call it a draw OK? With the ever so slightest edge to Agassi. LOL

driger
01-26-2007, 04:31 PM
was happy to see agassi say something good about connors on tv the other day. i really dont like comparing players of different era's. i just think statiscally, all things considered, connors gets the nod. who was the best had conditions been the same, and they had met in there primes the world will never really know.

martin
01-26-2007, 04:45 PM
[QUOTE=noeledmonds;1204489]Europe was not Borg's home court. Borg was Sweedish, you can't generliase an entire continent. That like saying Brazil is COnnors's home court, because its in South America, part of America. The point is I am saying Connors is far more likely not to have won the FO than won it.

Connors and Borg have met five times on clay. Connors won three out of five. From 1974 till 1976 he won three times and Borg zero. This was Connors best chance to win the FO. Certainly not unlikely.

driger
01-26-2007, 04:50 PM
very likely in fact. connors was in a zone in 74. only lost 4 matches all year. there isn't that much difference between green and red clay. a shame connors was denied a run at the grand slam.

AndrewD
01-27-2007, 01:14 AM
Which one of the 2 do you rate as the greater player?

Connors, and it's not even close.

noeledmonds
01-27-2007, 05:55 AM
very likely in fact. connors was in a zone in 74. only lost 4 matches all year. there isn't that much difference between green and red clay. a shame connors was denied a run at the grand slam.

What there is a big difference in is Borg playing in the USA, and Borg playing in Europe. All Connors victories against Borg on Clay were in the USA. Borg was a different man outside the USA, meanwhile Connors lacked his home support. Connors only beat Borg once outside the USA. Borg reigned supreme at the FO, holding numerous open era records there.

If you look at Connor's record against another great clay courter Villas. He has never beaten Villas outside the USA . Connors would have found if very difficult to win the FO. His only real chance would have been 1976, when Panatta won, but I still rate his chances as slim.

drakulie
01-27-2007, 08:21 AM
very likely in fact. connors was in a zone in 74. only lost 4 matches all year. [b]there isn't that much difference between green and red clay.[/b a shame connors was denied a run at the grand slam.

Can't agree with you on this one. There is a world of difference. Anybody who has hit on the two knows. Red Clay plays much, MUCH!!! slower, than the green stuff here in the US.

Just ask Roddick. He has won the US Clay Court Championships twice?? and he has never even come close to making a dent in France.

noeledmonds
01-27-2007, 09:27 AM
Can't agree with you on this one. There is a world of difference. Anybody who has hit on the two knows. Red Clay plays much, MUCH!!! slower, than the green stuff here in the US.

Just ask Roddick. He has won the US Clay Court Championships twice?? and he has never even come close to making a dent in France.

Exactly right. Green Clay is undoubtably signifcantly faster than red clay. Also Connors and Roddick have a home crowd in the USA, and climate conditions they are used to.

stormholloway
01-27-2007, 12:58 PM
Keep in mind that just because Connors was #1 didn't mean he was the best player. Borg was better than Connors.

I don't see why there are so many Agassi haters. People say he isn't top 10 of all time? Yeah right. Just because he had a rocky career doesn't mean he wasn't pure greatness. At his best he is easily top 10 and creeping into top 5.

Also, any matches Agassi had against Federer when Fed came into his own are moot because Andre was on the way out.

stormholloway
01-27-2007, 01:00 PM
Connors skipped the french 10 times and the australian open 21 times. He skipped the french five times in his prime years. Agassi skipped the french four times in total and two times in his prime years.(1993,1997)
Agassi missed Wimbledon only once in his prime years(1997) Before that he was not good enough on grass. We're talking about prime years right?

Didn't Agassi win Wimbledon after playing there only twice? Surely he would have been a contender in the years before he won Wimbledon when he skipped it.

martin
01-27-2007, 01:26 PM
You're right Stormholloway but from 1973 till 1978 he was better than borg. He had a winning record of 7 -3.
Then Borg became the better player that is true but he was a few years younger. Same happened to Borg when Mcenroe took over as he was a few years younger

stormholloway
01-27-2007, 01:38 PM
You mean from 74-76 he was better, because in 73 Borg beat Connors and in 77 Borg won Wimbledon and had more titles, which I don't understand because Connors was #1 in 77 if I'm not mistaken.

In 77 Borg had the winning record and had more titles.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could be.

martin
01-27-2007, 01:46 PM
When Leconte thrashed him Agassi skipped Wimbledon for three years. He missed the years 88,89,90
1990 maybe. He reached two grand slam finals that year. Do you think he was good enough already to beat Edberg or Becker on grass?

stormholloway
01-27-2007, 01:53 PM
No, I agree with you there. Where were Edberg and Becker in 1992 though? Who beat them the year Andre won?

Also, if you wanna see the difference (as people were talking earlier) between green and red clay just watch the Vilas/Borg FO Final compared to the Vilas/Connors USO Final. The difference in pace is enormous. I like the way green plays from the looks of it though I've never hit on red clay.

martin
01-27-2007, 02:45 PM
Connors was the number one at the end of the year but i think he was number one because the clay tournaments were not awarded with a lot of rankingpoints. Vilas and Borg played a lot more matches on clay. Vilas played 142 matches. Connors only 77.
Vilas won 16 titles with two grand slams. Vilas won Roland Garros and the US open. I think he should have been number one at the end of the year. Connors won 7 tournaments. He also won the masters and reached two grandslam finals but it gave him a lot of ranking points..
In 1992 Edberg lost to Ivanisevic in the quarterfinal and Becker lost to Agassi in the semi-final.

drakulie
01-27-2007, 03:11 PM
When Leconte thrashed him Agassi skipped Wimbledon for three years. He missed the years 88,89,90
1990 maybe. He reached two grand slam finals that year. Do you think he was good enough already to beat Edberg or Becker on grass?

Yes he was. In fact, he went 2-2 against Edberg in 1990. Beating him in the finals at key Biscayne and the year end championships. They didn't play again until 1992 and last played in 1995. During that time he went 4-0 against him.

Against Becker he went 3-0 in 1990. Beating him at the US Open, Indian Wells, and US Open. From 91 - 99 they played 8 more times. Agassi won 7 of those, including a quarterfinal victory over him at Wimbledon in 92.

peluzon
01-27-2007, 04:36 PM
both were Rios son

Regards :)


rios - agassi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UlWD1z4MjU

rios - courier

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7705106707222047028&q=marcelo+rios

driger
01-27-2007, 05:35 PM
You mean from 74-76 he was better, because in 73 Borg beat Connors and in 77 Borg won Wimbledon and had more titles, which I don't understand because Connors was #1 in 77 if I'm not mistaken.

In 77 Borg had the winning record and had more titles.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I could be.

the tournaments connors won had more ranking points. plain and simple. borg also missed the us open and french. vilas meanwhile was playing really small clay court tournaments. vilas was the king of clay but that was it.

bluegrasser
01-28-2007, 04:07 AM
the tournaments connors won had more ranking points. plain and simple. borg also missed the us open and french. vilas meanwhile was playing really small clay court tournaments. vilas was the king of clay but that was it.

Vilas was the ' King Of Clay " that is, until he got smoked by Borg in the final of the FO.

justineheninhoogenbandfan
01-28-2007, 04:21 AM
Yes he was. In fact, he went 2-2 against Edberg in 1990. Beating him in the finals at key Biscayne and the year end championships. They didn't play again until 1992 and last played in 1995. During that time he went 4-0 against him.

Against Becker he went 3-0 in 1990. Beating him at the US Open, Indian Wells, and US Open. From 91 - 99 they played 8 more times. Agassi won 7 of those, including a quarterfinal victory over him at Wimbledon in 92.

Yeah but Agassi lost to Gomez in the 1990 French Open final, a match he was heavily favored to win, to Sampras in the 1990 U.S Open final, another match he was heavily favored to win-although this one I will cut him some slack since Sampras was amazing, and the 1991 French Open final to Courier, a match he was heavily favored and should have won since he was up. Agassi also lost in 91 Wimbledon quarters to David Wheaton, not a horrable loss, but still a seemingly winnable match for a potential champion.

Agassi took 5 sets to beat Becker at Wimbledon 92, Becker was much more right on top of the game in 1990 then 1992, and Agassi was more mature by 92. Agassi lost to Becker in 4 sets in Wimbledon 95, by now Agassi was even more of a champion player. So even when Agassi was a more ready champion, and Becker was diminishing from his place in the game of 1990, Agassi still was 1-1 vs Becker on grass.

Like you said he was about even with Edberg in head to head play on hard courts at that point. That probably means on grass Edberg has the edge, and especialy vs Agassi in a big match at that point, again looking at his 3 slam finals in 90-91, Edberg is that much more likely the winner.

drakulie
01-28-2007, 07:36 AM
JUSTINE, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? someone asked how he did against becker and edberg, and you come up with this??

Why don't you stop reaching and stay focused for once??!!

Nick Irons
01-28-2007, 11:36 AM
I am a fan of both players

My rambling thoughts are:

Connors was always the most inspiring player for me, simply due to his energy and will on the court. He was the true entertainer and the stuff he did in the 1991 U.S. Open is for the ages.

Agassi was always a sort of disapointment and underachiever and I take away points for this reason. Everyone knows he could have been better and everyone knows he should have been better earlier in his career.

Connors was the more dominant player and Agassi always a bit to streaky for me. When you look at the WIki chart on Andres Slams; it's as if someone threw darts at it with his only true consistency being 1999 - 2000 where he got 3 of the 4 slams in sucsession, but even those dates are marred with early round exits

Connors on the other hand was dominat even when he lost and rarely ever suffered an early round exit.

Agassi won the career slam but Connors won the U.S. Open all of the surfaces; and for this I give big points too him for.

At the end of the day I give the edge to Jimmy simply for his consistent dominance of the sport, the titles won, the record weeks at number 1 ...

noeledmonds
01-28-2007, 12:12 PM
Agassi won the career slam but Connors won the U.S. Open all of the surfaces; and for this I give big points too him for.



The US Open was only played on 3 surfaces, it was never played on Rebound Ace. Agassi won all 4 Grand Slams, each on different surfaces. He also won on red clay which is far more contrasting to the other surfaces than green clay.

breakfast_of_champions
01-28-2007, 01:59 PM
The US Open was only played on 3 surfaces, it was never played on Rebound Ace. Agassi won all 4 Grand Slams, each on different surfaces. He also won on red clay which is far more contrasting to the other surfaces than green clay.

green and red clay are only slightly different. not to mention it was bjorn borg he beat on clay. connors was also banned from playing the french.

paterson
01-28-2007, 05:26 PM
Jimbo's weaknesses:

Connors was somewhat inconsistent off the ground. He tended to falter during long rallys (20 shots). Thats how Borg beat him. He would run down everything and not miss.

Ashe and others exposed his biggest weakness. They kept the ball sliced low and short to Jimmy's flat forehand. Since he hit the ball flat, he had no
spin to get the ball to "drop" into the court. Lots of unforced errors
followed.

noeledmonds
01-29-2007, 09:26 AM
green and red clay are only slightly different. not to mention it was bjorn borg he beat on clay. connors was also banned from playing the french.

Red clay is significantly slower than green clay. Connors also had his home crowd on green clay in the USA. Connors never beat Borg on clay outside the USA, and only beat Borg outside the USA once at all. Borg also hated playing in America. He was mentally weak there, and despised the noisy crowds, and the late night sessions under the lights. Borg lost 4 finals at the USO you know. At the FO Borg was a different character. Borg holds numerous records at the FO. He won 6 of 8 FOs he played there, not dropping a set on 2 occasions. In 8 years Borg only lost to 1 player at the FO. Roddick has won Houston 3 times, and reached the final on a further 2 occasions. This is played in the USA on green clay. However Roddick has only ever reached R32 of the FO (on 1 occasion only too). Try telling Roddick the surfaces are the same. Connors is lucky really that he did not get the chance to play at the FO in his prime years, as this way people will always say, "He could have won it".

martin
01-29-2007, 02:05 PM
If he couldn't beat Borg on the red clay he still would have a chance to win the FO in 1973(Nastase), 1976(Panatta) or 1977(Vilas)
Yes he could have won it and he could have beaten Borg as well as Borg really started to dominate in 1978.

Moose Malloy
01-29-2007, 02:24 PM
did someone say agassi was ready to beat edberg & becker on fast grass of wimbledon in 1990 after 3+ years of not playing one grass court match? wow, i think even mike agassi would have a laugh at that one..

jaggy
01-29-2007, 03:41 PM
Agassi blew in and out of the game, Conners put everything out there every time, Agassi maybe well probably more talent but Conners is way ahead of him as a champion

stormholloway
01-29-2007, 06:28 PM
did someone say agassi was ready to beat edberg & becker on fast grass of wimbledon in 1990 after 3+ years of not playing one grass court match? wow, i think even mike agassi would have a laugh at that one..

No actually, nobody said that. Thanks for chiming.

breakfast_of_champions
01-29-2007, 09:13 PM
Jimbo's weaknesses:

Connors was somewhat inconsistent off the ground. He tended to falter during long rallys (20 shots). Thats how Borg beat him. He would run down everything and not miss.

Ashe and others exposed his biggest weakness. They kept the ball sliced low and short to Jimmy's flat forehand. Since he hit the ball flat, he had no
spin to get the ball to "drop" into the court. Lots of unforced errors
followed.

ashe beat connors only 1 time in 6 trys. i think that 75 wimby is overhyped. connors manager claimed he was injured. borg didn't really have an edge on connors until connors had a run of 5 years at #1, and connors had settled and gotten married. i remember watching borg play connors from 74-75, borg would basically quit. theres no question connors had an excellent chance of winning the french in 74, and maybe 75, and 76, as well.

chrisdaniel
01-29-2007, 11:11 PM
Agassi!!! head to head beat connors... and then made it all the way to Roger Fed in modern times,beat him a few times,and then gave him some tough matches. racking up all the grandslams...a decent head to head versus the greatest (Sampras)... Agassi wins

Maco_Andrej
01-31-2007, 12:02 AM
agassi is one of the worlds most known players if u tell someone that dosnt known much about tennis to name a tennis player they will say federer or agassi not connors

bluegrasser
01-31-2007, 05:54 AM
agassi is one of the worlds most known players if u tell someone that dosnt known much about tennis to name a tennis player they will say federer or agassi not connors

Wrong ! - If you're 15 maybe, but us mature :p players thinks Connors.

Trinity TC
01-31-2007, 12:05 PM
They are both great but Connors had that one year (1974) where he was dominant against great competion. Agassi had the long career with a lot of Slam wins but I don't think he had a dominant year where it looked like he could win all four Grand Slams.

drakulie
01-31-2007, 06:59 PM
They are both great but Connors had that one year (1974) where he was dominant against great competion. Agassi had the long career with a lot of Slam wins but I don't think he had a dominant year where it looked like he could win all four Grand Slams.

UHMM?? 1999 he won the french, made it the finals of wimbledon, won the us open, and then won the australian in 2000. 4 completely different surfaces. I would say that is pretty dominant.

noeledmonds
02-01-2007, 09:54 AM
They are both great but Connors had that one year (1974) where he was dominant against great competion. Agassi had the long career with a lot of Slam wins but I don't think he had a dominant year where it looked like he could win all four Grand Slams.

Agassi is the only player who has won the 4 grand slams on four different surfaces. Agassi also reached 4 consecutive players grand slams finals and spent over 100 weeks at number 1. Its funny that Agassi didnt look like the one how could win all the grand slams, because Agassi did win them all, and Connnors, Sampras, Mcenroe, Lendl, Federer (to date), Edberg, Becker, Willander all failed to win them all. Even if you discount the AO as a slam before the rebound ace years, none of these players won the other 3 GS.

Trinity TC
02-01-2007, 05:40 PM
UHMM?? 1999 he won the french, made it the finals of wimbledon, won the us open, and then won the australian in 2000. 4 completely different surfaces. I would say that is pretty dominant.
Great year, no doubt but he did lose to Spadea at the 1999 Australian and was straight setted by Pete at Wimbledon...but he was ranked #1 at the end of the year. I'm weighing it against Connors 1974 season where he won the three Slams that he played in and I think lost only 4 matches that year. Granted, Connors played Riordan's circuit and not the WCT in 1974.

Having said that, it's a virtual tie in my mind and Agassi did have a great run after splitting with Brooke (I think?). It's a tough call...they're both great.

scineram
02-02-2007, 03:16 PM
Most wins, almost as consistent as Borg from twice as many matches.

1. Björn Borg .823 576-124
2. Jimmy Connors .820 1,222-269
3. Ivan Lendl .818 1,070-238
4. John McEnroe .817 864-194
5. Roger Federer* .797 490-125
6. Pete Sampras .774 762-222
7. Boris Becker .769 713-214
8. Guillermo Vilas .766 920-281
9. Andre Agassi .760 870-274

Talk about longevity. Not even close.

lambielspins
02-02-2007, 05:32 PM
Agassi is the only player who has won the 4 grand slams on four different surfaces. Agassi also reached 4 consecutive players grand slams finals and spent over 100 weeks at number 1. Its funny that Agassi didnt look like the one how could win all the grand slams, because Agassi did win them all, and Connnors, Sampras, Mcenroe, Lendl, Federer (to date), Edberg, Becker, Willander all failed to win them all. Even if you discount the AO as a slam before the rebound ace years, none of these players won the other 3 GS.

I guess it depends if you are refering to a calender year, or a year span that can span between two different years. Obviously Agassi's 1 year of most dominance looks better if you mean the latter, since it would then have the year period start sometime between Australian-French in 1999 and end up sometime between Australian-French 2000. That way his 1999 Australian Open 4th round loss to Spadea is replaced by the title in 2000 where he beats Sampras in the semis.

illkhiboy
02-13-2007, 11:26 AM
Red clay is significantly slower than green clay. Connors also had his home crowd on green clay in the USA. Connors never beat Borg on clay outside the USA, and only beat Borg outside the USA once at all. Borg also hated playing in America. He was mentally weak there, and despised the noisy crowds, and the late night sessions under the lights. Borg lost 4 finals at the USO you know. At the FO Borg was a different character. Borg holds numerous records at the FO. He won 6 of 8 FOs he played there, not dropping a set on 2 occasions. In 8 years Borg only lost to 1 player at the FO. Roddick has won Houston 3 times, and reached the final on a further 2 occasions. This is played in the USA on green clay. However Roddick has only ever reached R32 of the FO (on 1 occasion only too). Try telling Roddick the surfaces are the same. Connors is lucky really that he did not get the chance to play at the FO in his prime years, as this way people will always say, "He could have won it".

Roddick's wins in Houston were on red clay, which was the EXACT same as the Roland Garros clay uptil 2004. BUT...the balls used in the US are much faster.

BeckerFan
02-21-2007, 11:18 AM
They were similar players in many ways: two-handed backhands, known for their service returns, won on all surfaces, tremendous longevity. In terms of rivalries, both had losing records to other great players: Connors to Borg, McEnroe and Lendl; Agassi to Lendl, Sampras and Federer. Both were compelling personalities. Almost uncanny.

Most experts would pick Connors in a heartbeat, but I will be contrary and say Agassi. Agassi's pure talent was certainly greater than Connors's; his ballstriking was cleaner and more impressive. He won the French, though Connors didn't compete there during his best years. The key for me is that Agassi was the more influential player, in terms of style. He helped bring the game to a new level, in a way Connors never really did. Connors had a huge impact on the game, no doubt, but it had to do more with his tenacity than with anything technical. People noticeably started playing the game differently after Agassi came along, like they did after Borg.

sandy mayer
03-19-2007, 03:26 PM
There's no doubt Connors had the better career. They won the same number of grandslams but in Connors' day Wimbledon and the US Open were far more important than the other 2, so Connors in his peak years played fewer grand slams than Agassi (often only 2 a year as opposed to Agassi's 4 a year) so Connors' 8 grandslams is the greater achievement.
And Connors won more tournaments, was no.1 much longer, was top ten longer (though by only 1 year), was top 3 longer, and in his peak years never went outside the top 3 let alone outside the top 100 as Agassi did.

drakulie
03-19-2007, 03:35 PM
so Connors in his peak years played fewer grand slams than Agassi (often only 2 a year as opposed to Agassi's 4 a year) so Connors' 8 grandslams is the greater achievement.


Agassi early in his career did not play the Australian. In fact he missed it the first 8 years of his career and 11 total.

He also missed Wimbledon 4 years early in his career and 7 in total.

By the way, "8" equals "8">>> any way you choose to add it up.

sandy mayer
03-19-2007, 04:02 PM
Agassi would never have won Wimbledon in the years he skipped it. He had no chance from 88-90. He had no chance of winning any slam in 97, the year he was well out of the top 100. He had little chance of winning Wimbledon when he missed it the year Federer won.
Agassi would have had a chance in the Australian from about 1990-94, but really he didn't have that much consistency in those years. I doubt he would have won it in those years. In 2002 he probably would have won the Oz had he been fit.
Agassi missed 6 slams he might have won.
Connors missed double the number of potential slams: 76-83 Oz, 74-77 French. It is certain he would have won several Oz Opens, and probably a French. I reckon he would have won 1 French (1 of 74-76), and 4 more Oz Opens to finish on about 13 (probably 76-77, 82-83).
I reckon Agassi would have won the 2002 Oz and that's it.

drakulie
03-19-2007, 04:33 PM
^^^ LMAO. So Connors would have won the slams he missed, but Agassi wouldn't have won the ones he missed. You are hysterical.

sandy mayer
03-19-2007, 04:40 PM
Connors was higher ranked than Agassi in the periods they missed slams so i think Connors would have won a higher percentage of missed slams than Agassi, and he missed more than Agassi so it's reasonable to conclude Connors would have won more slams if both Agassi and Connors had played all the available slams.

drakulie
03-19-2007, 04:47 PM
LOL. You get more and more ridiculous. So now your variables change and the player who was "higher ranked" when they missed a slam woudl have had a better chance of winning them?

How about this for a ridiculous theory, that using your logic would conclude it as a fact>>>> If Connors would have played the AO early in his career he would have torn his leg compeletly apart and we woudln't be discussing him right now.

sandy mayer
03-20-2007, 12:22 AM
I don't think it's reidiculous or controversial to say Connors would have won more grand slams if both men had played all the slams. You can't argue with the fact Connors played alot fewer slams in his peak years than Agassi did in his peak years. And Connors was more consistent.

Personally I would rather win Wimbledon or the US Open than Australia. Even today I think most pros would say that. So I think Connors 2 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens makes Connors' grandslam collection more impressive than Agassi's.

kingdaddy41788
03-20-2007, 12:28 AM
Game wise alone:

First Serve-Agassi
Second Serve-Agassi
Return of Serve off first serve-Connors
Return of Serve off second serve-Agassi
Forehand-Agassi
Backhand-Connors
Movement-Connors
Net Game-Connors
Mental Toughness-Connors
Court Smarts-even
Passing Shots-even
Approach Shots-Connors


I have to disagree on backhand and 1st serve return. Connors probably had better movement, but that may be in part due to Agassi's height. Over their whole careers, Connors was more mentally tough, but Agassi was much more mentally tough towards the end of his career. I think overall Agassi is the better player and has the better career.

bluegrasser
03-20-2007, 04:10 AM
They were similar players in many ways: two-handed backhands, known for their service returns, won on all surfaces, tremendous longevity. In terms of rivalries, both had losing records to other great players: Connors to Borg, McEnroe and Lendl; Agassi to Lendl, Sampras and Federer. Both were compelling personalities. Almost uncanny.

Most experts would pick Connors in a heartbeat, but I will be contrary and say Agassi. Agassi's pure talent was certainly greater than Connors's; his ballstriking was cleaner and more impressive. He won the French, though Connors didn't compete there during his best years. The key for me is that Agassi was the more influential player, in terms of style. He helped bring the game to a new level, in a way Connors never really did. Connors had a huge impact on the game, no doubt, but it had to do more with his tenacity than with anything technical. People noticeably started playing the game differently after Agassi came along, like they did after Borg.

Connors Did take it to a new level, he changed the game from a hoity' toity country club game and brought it to the masses, where it was cool to play tennis and the stigma of it being a sissy sport was removed some. He was called the ' brash basher' and gave the sport a more blue collar look, in your face.

bluegrasser
03-20-2007, 04:12 AM
I don't think it's reidiculous or controversial to say Connors would have won more grand slams if both men had played all the slams. You can't argue with the fact Connors played alot fewer slams in his peak years than Agassi did in his peak years. And Connors was more consistent.

Personally I would rather win Wimbledon or the US Open than Australia. Even today I think most pros would say that. So I think Connors 2 Wimbledons, 5 US Opens makes Connors' grandslam collection more impressive than Agassi's.

If Connors just played the AO, he would of won at least two more slams IMO.

drakulie
03-20-2007, 05:41 AM
I don't think it's reidiculous or controversial to say Connors would have won more grand slams if both men had played all the slams. You can't argue with the fact Connors played alot fewer slams in his peak years than Agassi did in his peak years. And Connors was more consistent.

I agree Connors was more consistent, and he still only ended up with 8 slams. Agassi being less consistent, ended up with 8.

Like I said before >>> "8" is "8" >> any way YOU try to cut it.

I'm not going to even bother addressing the rest of your post.

federerfanatic
03-20-2007, 03:28 PM
Agassi would never have won Wimbledon in the years he skipped it. He had no chance from 88-90. He had no chance of winning any slam in 97, the year he was well out of the top 100. He had little chance of winning Wimbledon when he missed it the year Federer won.
Agassi would have had a chance in the Australian from about 1990-94, but really he didn't have that much consistency in those years. I doubt he would have won it in those years. In 2002 he probably would have won the Oz had he been fit.
Agassi missed 6 slams he might have won.
Connors missed double the number of potential slams: 76-83 Oz, 74-77 French. It is certain he would have won several Oz Opens, and probably a French. I reckon he would have won 1 French (1 of 74-76), and 4 more Oz Opens to finish on about 13 (probably 76-77, 82-83).
I reckon Agassi would have won the 2002 Oz and that's it.

I agree. The particular slams Agassi missed, when you look at where he was at each point in time, are not slams he would have won anyway. Although I agree Agassi would have probably won the Australian Open in 2002 had he played.

I dont think he would have won Australian Opens before 1995 when Lendl, Courier, and Sampras all owned him before that year. Or winning Wimbledons before 1991 when he first played. Or winning a Wimbledon in 2004 or 2005 which Fed won, if he couldnt beat him at the U.S Open then Feddy boy would have made mincemeat of him on grass in England. Or winning a slam in 1997 for example. I just dont see it.

That is not to say Agassi wasnt a great player but I dont believe at all he was hurt by the slams he missed as much as Connors when you look at where Connors was at the time he missed those slams.

Noveson
03-20-2007, 03:40 PM
Most wins, almost as consistent as Borg from twice as many matches.

1. Björn Borg .823 576-124
2. Jimmy Connors .820 1,222-269
3. Ivan Lendl .818 1,070-238
4. John McEnroe .817 864-194
5. Roger Federer* .797 490-125
6. Pete Sampras .774 762-222
7. Boris Becker .769 713-214
8. Guillermo Vilas .766 920-281
9. Andre Agassi .760 870-274

Talk about longevity. Not even close.

So because of a win percentage Jimmy Connors is the better player? How can you base all of this over one stat. Roger Federer and Pete Sampras are the 5th and 6th best players of all time? I don't think so:p

supertennis
03-20-2007, 08:56 PM
I'm a fan of Connors

CyBorg
03-20-2007, 11:25 PM
So because of a win percentage Jimmy Connors is the better player? How can you base all of this over one stat. Roger Federer and Pete Sampras are the 5th and 6th best players of all time? I don't think so:p

Yeah - Connors' winning percentage is a worthless figure.

He played so many pansy tournaments against terrible competition it's not even funny. At least 40 of his titles are lightweight.

Still a fantastic player but the winning percentage is inflated.

TGV
03-21-2007, 08:04 AM
Agassi would never have won Wimbledon in the years he skipped it. He had no chance from 88-90. He had no chance of winning any slam in 97, the year he was well out of the top 100. He had little chance of winning Wimbledon when he missed it the year Federer won.
Agassi would have had a chance in the Australian from about 1990-94, but really he didn't have that much consistency in those years. I doubt he would have won it in those years. In 2002 he probably would have won the Oz had he been fit.
Agassi missed 6 slams he might have won.
Connors missed double the number of potential slams: 76-83 Oz, 74-77 French. It is certain he would have won several Oz Opens, and probably a French. I reckon he would have won 1 French (1 of 74-76), and 4 more Oz Opens to finish on about 13 (probably 76-77, 82-83).
I reckon Agassi would have won the 2002 Oz and that's it.

When Agassi first played Wimbledon in 91 after a 3-year absence, people probably were telling him - as per the conventional wisdom then - that with his baseline game he would have no chance on grass. That year he beat Krajicek in straights and lost a 5-setter to Wheaton after leading 2 sets to one; the next year he won Wimbledon beating Becker, McEnroe and Ivanisevic.

So if Agassi had played in 88 and 89, that experience coupled with the realization that his baseline game could be successful on grass, would have given him a very good shot in 90 and 91. Moreover, the players who dominated Wim in 90 and 91 were Edberg, Becker, and Stich, all of whom Agassi was very comfortable playing against. It was Courier, Lendl and Sampras that Agassi could never get past in those years.

noeledmonds
03-21-2007, 09:36 AM
Yeah - Connors' winning percentage is a worthless figure.

He played so many pansy tournaments against terrible competition it's not even funny. At least 40 of his titles are lightweight.

Still a fantastic player but the winning percentage is inflated.

I 3rd this. It is not just his winning percetage that was inflated. Connors's weeks at number 1 were inflated too. The ranking system kept Connors at number 1 in 1977 when Vilas really deserved the number 1 ranking, followed by Borg. Vilas won the FO and the USO. Vilas also won 16 tournaments (2nd most won ever in open-era after Laver's '69. This is not to mention the 46 match winning streak that Federer failed to beat, and the clay court streak that only Nadal has beaten. Both these streaks were ended illegaly IMO by a player (Natalse) using a racket that was banned from ATP competition the very next day. Connors did not even win a slam this year. Borg won Wimbledon and beat Vilas several times. The ranking body then actually named their player of the year Borg, going against their own rankings system (but strangely going against what the majority thought should be number 1, i.e Vilas). In 1978 it was the same story, Connors ended year number 1, despite Borg winning both the FO and Wimbledon. Borg was named player of the year again by the ranking body.

sandy mayer
03-21-2007, 12:16 PM
When Agassi first played Wimbledon in 91 after a 3-year absence, people probably were telling him - as per the conventional wisdom then - that with his baseline game he would have no chance on grass. That year he beat Krajicek in straights and lost a 5-setter to Wheaton after leading 2 sets to one; the next year he won Wimbledon beating Becker, McEnroe and Ivanisevic.

So if Agassi had played in 88 and 89, that experience coupled with the realization that his baseline game could be successful on grass, would have given him a very good shot in 90 and 91. Moreover, the players who dominated Wim in 90 and 91 were Edberg, Becker, and Stich, all of whom Agassi was very comfortable playing against. It was Courier, Lendl and Sampras that Agassi could never get past in those years.

Agassi never played Edberg and Stich on grass, and in 90-91 I tgink Agassi would have found it hard to beat him. In 90-91 Agassi and Edberg had a close rivalry on other surfaces: I doubt Agassi would have beaten him at Wimbledon. Becker and Agassi were 1-1 on grass: I doubt Agassi would have beaten him at Wimbledon in 90-91.
You've also got to consider that Lendl was a semifinalist in 90 so Agassi may have had to get past him.
At the end of the day Agassi didn't win Wimbledon in 91 and so we shouldn't speculate he would have done if he'd played grass in 88-90. Personally I don't think Agassi's missed Wimbledon years is a factor in his winning only 1 Wimbledon title. 1 title reflects Agassi's grass court abilities. In my view Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Federer were/are all better grass court players.

A.Davidson
03-21-2007, 12:19 PM
So what are Connors' accomplishments? Playing weak competition and using a racquet that no one thought was any good? If that's so, I would go with Agassi (actually, I would no matter what) - he had such a drive for tennis and a competitive fire like no one else.

Tennis old man
04-21-2008, 03:49 PM
Jimmy was best. He played against better players (with Sampras respect)

tenn_smoothie
07-14-2008, 08:29 AM
i must say i'm a little stunned at some of the comments i'm reading on this thread about who was better - jimmy connors or andre agassi ??

i never even considered this comparison since i don't see Agassi as even being on the same level as Jimmy Connors......... Connors being an easy choice for top 10 of all time and Agassi maybe being in the top 25 - maybe. it may just be that you have a lot of tennis fans around these days who are too young to have seen Connors' career.

Jimmy was #1 for three straight years and then rallied after his prime to regain the #1 ranking in 1982. also, connors had to compete against several future hall of fame players to get to the top - newcombe, ashe, laver, smith, borg, orantes, vilas, rosewall, mcenroe, lendl, etc. who did agassi have to beat - sampras for sure, maybe a few other good but not great players. agassi never had a run of dominance in his prime the way connors did and he had a nice run later in his career when sampras faded a little.

someone made the comment that agassi would win in a match with both players at their prime ......... kinda laughable. did you ever see connors at his prime? lawdy, lawdy, he was good............ along with all those years @ #1, connors stayed at the top 3 of tennis for 10 full years.

Connors vs Agassi ?? not even close.

superman1
07-14-2008, 04:17 PM
Connors being an easy choice for top 10 of all time and Agassi maybe being in the top 25 - maybe.

That sentence alone ruined all of your credibility.

Please name the 24 people who have better stats than Agassi.

CyBorg
07-14-2008, 04:50 PM
That sentence alone ruined all of your credibility.

Please name the 24 people who have better stats than Agassi.

If we're talking about the open era alone, then maybe. But all-time it isn't obvious that Agassi is top 25, although he would make it on my list.

Connors isn't top 10 all-time but he is top 10 in the open era.

Nickognito
07-14-2008, 04:55 PM
That sentence alone ruined all of your credibility.

Please name the 24 people who have better stats than Agassi.

I think Agassi is one of the best 20 players of alltime...

But i'm not sure, and maybe he's only #25: it's possible.

24 people better than Agassi? Tilden, Lacoste, Cochet, Vines, Budge, Perry, Kramer, Sedgman, Gonzales, Hoad, Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal (in the future) and two of the pre-Tilden players.

It's not my opinion, but it's not an absurd opinion, i think.

(in my opinion Agassi is the #15 alltime)

But Connors as a sure top10 alltime is more absurd, in my opinion :)

c.

cork_screw
07-14-2008, 05:18 PM
Agassi, at his best was a much better player than Connors ever was at his best.

I agree. But connors could really get the crowd going and he played into his forties. He definetly has much more in career wins than agassi, but connors had a lot of heart and passion, I guess that's what carried him into his later years.

matchmaker
07-14-2008, 07:36 PM
Connors certainly had the more impressive career. Both players won eight majors, but Connors reached more finals and semifinals. Both won majors on grass, clay, and hard courts. Connors won far more titles than Agassi. Most importantly, Connors spent five years atop the pro rankings, as opposed to only one for Agassi. Connors also set the long-standing record for consecutive weeks at No. 1, which is finally due to be broken by Federer. While Agassi may have faced two of the greatest players of all time in Sampras and Federer, Connors played in the same era as three all-time greats: Borg, McEnroe and Lendl. Connors and Agassi were both colorful characters who helped popularize the game, though Connors was arguably the more successful figurehead, as tennis was a much more popular sport in the 1970s and '80s than in the '90s and 2000s. Ultimately, the up-and-down nature of Agassi's career, and his poor record in the biggest matches against his toughest rivals, puts him solidly beneath Connors in historical terms.

Good and solidly argumented analysis.

tenn_smoothie
07-14-2008, 07:56 PM
i'm not too wrapped up in what you think of my credibility. i do, however, have serious doubts about anyone's credibility if they think agassi was better than connors. as i mentioned earlier, i'm guessing the gen-x crowd are making some judgements here based on a limited perspective.

i don't go around comparing johnny unitas to peyton manning because i didn't see unitas play. i understand my own limits in such a comparison.

i'm amazed that this connors/agassi comparison came up at all because connors belongs in a group of players that is a level above agassi.i don't know how you compare someone who was #1 for much of his career against vastly superior competiton against someone whose career was up & down against good but not great players (b/s sampras). compare the top 10 of connors' time against the top 10 of agassi's - no comparison.

also - connors is easily top 10 of all time, not just open tennis. of course he still does hold the record, by a wide margin, for all time tournament titles. while some of those wins did come on the 'riordan tour' - most came during the tennis' toughest era ........ the fact that connors is still ranked in the top few players all time for such records as consecutive weeks @ #1, total weeks @ #1, match winning %, total matches won, etc. should put him in anyone's top 10.

CyBorg
07-14-2008, 10:35 PM
also - connors is easily top 10 of all time, not just open tennis.

Not really

of course he still does hold the record, by a wide margin, for all time tournament titles.

He doesn't.

the fact that connors is still ranked in the top few players all time for such records as consecutive weeks @ #1, total weeks @ #1, match winning %, total matches won, etc. should put him in anyone's top 10

Top 15.

Nickognito
07-15-2008, 02:57 AM
They both won 8 grand slam tournament, so we can compare them... In my opinion they are tied in an alltime ranking, about #14 and #15 alltime.

carlos djackal
07-15-2008, 07:51 AM
Connors by a hair......

tenn_smoothie
07-18-2008, 04:44 PM
CyBorg - better study your tennis history and get your facts straight.

connors is in the top 5 all-time of several stat categories and his 109 tournament titles is far ahead of any other player in history - i believe lendl is second to jimmy @ 94.

as far as grand slams go, i have no doubt that connors' 8 were against a much superior field (borg, mcenroe, lendl, ashe, vilas, rosewall, etc) to the one that agassi won his (sampras, ??????).

one last note ........... this all-time ranking breakdown cited at wikipedia:

The tennis historian Raymond Lee did a statistical analysis account of the question, counting tournament wins totals and percentages of career match wins and wins in a 5 year period. His alltime list ranks Laver ahead of Borg and Tilden (tie), Federer, Gonzales, Rosewall, Budge, Lendl, Connors, Sampras in the top ten.

didn't see andre's name mentioned there.

CyBorg
07-18-2008, 04:50 PM
CyBorg - better study your tennis history and get your facts straight.

connors is in the top 5 all-time of several stat categories and his 109 tournament titles is far ahead of any other player in history - i believe lendl is second to jimmy @ 94.

This isn't true. I could give you the details, but you can find all of the info yourself.

www.google.com

tenn_smoothie
07-18-2008, 07:23 PM
gosh Cy - thanks for that google link - i've been wondering how to gain access there.

so maybe you could enlighten me as to who owns the record for men's singles titles since you insist on ignoring the ATP record books:

ATP Career Summary: Captured an Open Era record 109 singles titles and ranked No. 1 for five consecutive years (1974-78) and a total of 268 weeks, third all-time…Won eight Grand Slam singles crowns, including five US Opens, and only player to win that title on three different surfaces.

jeffreyneave
07-19-2008, 02:46 AM
tennis existed before the atp. never rely on the atp for reliable stats for players active before 1973. LAVER EASILY HOLDS THE RECORD AT 185 (prob has a few more yet to be found) see wikipedia; connors has about 139


jeffrey

tenn_smoothie
07-19-2008, 10:17 AM
thx jeffrey - i'm a big fan of Laver's.

just link me to the info and i'll give Laver all credit.

whatever records Laver might hold doesn't make Agassi better than Connors.

Jimmy Connors won more tournaments than any player in men’s tennis history. His 109 titles are 15 more than his closest competitor (Ivan Lendl-94) and over 30 more than the 77 of third-place John McEnroe.

Connors played his best in the biggest events. Despite playing during the same time period as Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi, Connors won more matches at both the United States Open and Wimbledon than any of them. As a matter of fact, Connors has won more matches at the game’s two greatest tournaments than any man in any era—Open or not.

Jimmy Connors was the most consistent player in the history of the Open Era. In a thirteen-year period between 1973 and 1985 he reached the semifinals or better of both the U.S. Open and Wimbledon a remarkable 24 of a possible 26 times. In 19 US Opens between 1973 and 1992 he missed the quarterfinals once. He finished the year ranked in the top five players in the world a record 15 consecutive times.

Jimmy Connors is the only player to win the U.S. Open on three different surfaces—grass in 1974; clay in 1976 and cement in 1978, 1982 and 1983. His five wins came over three of the greatest players of all-time—Ken Rosewall, Lendl and the great Borg, who he defeated on the Swede's favorite surface – clay, in 1976. He is currently tied with Sampras for the most championships in Open history (five).

In addition to the records mentioned above, Connors has held many other records that have since been either tied or broken by various players. No player, however, has dominated in so many categories. In addition to remaining the all-time leader in tournament victories and matches won at both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, Connors held the records at his retirement in 1993 for Most Weeks Ranked Number One; Most Consecutive Weeks Ranked Number One; Most Years Ranked Number One; Most Consecutive Years Ranked Number One; Most Years Leading in Prize Money and Most Consecutive Years Leading in Prize Money.

CyBorg
07-19-2008, 10:48 AM
tennis existed before the atp. never rely on the atp for reliable stats for players active before 1973. LAVER EASILY HOLDS THE RECORD AT 185 (prob has a few more yet to be found) see wikipedia; connors has about 139


jeffrey

Yes. Connors does have a very impressive volume of accomplishments accounting for the open era, but he's still not top-five for these forty years, all things considered. His longevity is astounding though.