PDA

View Full Version : Agassi- The complete package!


noeledmonds
01-24-2007, 09:01 AM
I belive Agassi has the most complete singles record of any male tennis player (looking at open era achivements only). This is why in my mind he will always be a contender for the GREATEST player. Note I say GREATEST, not BEST.

Agassi has the Career Grand Slam, the Olmympic Gold, the End of Year Tournament, and 7 of the 9 Master Series (more than any other player), Davis Cup

In terms of completeness: Borg lacked the USO, Macenroe the FO, Sampras the FO, Lendl SW19, Connors FO, Federer FO.

They all also lacked the Olympic Gold, which although some people think is worthless in tennis I think it has a value. Agassi has more different MS than both Sampras and Federer, undoubtably a worthy achivement as far as completness is concerned. He also has the Davis Cup, although this is a questionable achivement as if you have a good team you have a far better chance of winning (although Agassi's Davis Cup record of 30-6 [W-L] is undoubtably exceptional).

Moose Malloy
01-24-2007, 02:49 PM
the Olmympic Gold

and 7 of the 9 Master Series (more than any other player),

I'm more impressed by him winning the Legg Mason Classic more than Borg, Connors & Laver combined! That alone should make him GOAT!

noeledmonds
01-25-2007, 08:16 AM
I'm more impressed by him winning the Legg Mason Classic more than Borg, Connors & Laver combined! That alone should make him GOAT!

Your sarcasim achives nothing. "Greatest" is a very subjective term. The fact that I think the completeness of Agassi's record makes him a GOAT contender is not a ridulous conept. Clearly the main element here is his career grand slam, but have you never heard the expression; "golden grand slam". This expression of course describes career grand slam + olypimc gold. The fact that this expression is coined at all, and in regular use, shows that there is value to an Olympic Gold. The main reason that I highlighted Agassi's lesser achivments where to show other board users who were maybe not aware of Agassi's record.

Incidentally I belive the GOAT contenders are Laver (his dominance in his era and his Grand Slam), Borg (his dominance at SW19 and the FO). Sampras (his record GS and Wimbledon titles), Agassi (his Career Golden Grand Slam [with all GS achived on different surfaces]).

Federer is denintely not there yet, but he may be soon. He may even become the definitive GOAT if he beats the slam record and wins the career grand slam.

Swissv2
01-25-2007, 08:28 AM
how can you get to the level of greatest, if you can't even get to the level of best? But, then again, the two are synonyms to a certain extent..

prostaff18
01-26-2007, 04:20 PM
I would say that Agassi had one of the most complete games of all time. But his record was great and I think that Agassi doesnít get enough credit for his career because he could never really get ahead of Pete at any point. I know he beat his some and they had some great matches but anyone from the Sampras-Agassi area isn't going to be given full credit because there was a guy named Sampras that was playing. Like players of today wont get any credit because there is a guy named Federer. I think that the years that Hewitt was number one and even Roddickís year were Agassi's years to really win a lot and he really didnít. I know that he was getting older but he could have, I just think that was his chance.

But anyway I would put Agassi in the top ten of all time any day.

driger
01-27-2007, 05:55 PM
i'd say his lack of slam doubles titles, and his lone one yearend #1 ranking would be weak spots compared to other greats. would have also like to have seen some wins against sampras at the uso.

The Gorilla
01-27-2007, 06:19 PM
I would say that Agassi had one of the most complete games of all time. But his record was great and I think that Agassi doesnít get enough credit for his career because he could never really get ahead of Pete at any point. I know he beat his some and they had some great matches but anyone from the Sampras-Agassi area isn't going to be given full credit because there was a guy named Sampras that was playing. Like players of today wont get any credit because there is a guy named Federer. I think that the years that Hewitt was number one and even Roddickís year were Agassi's years to really win a lot and he really didnít. I know that he was getting older but he could have, I just think that was his chance.

But anyway I would put Agassi in the top ten of all time any day.



I disagree, I think agassi was very very limited, but he was the very best at what he did, hitting the ball hard and on the rise, be it returning serve or off a groundstroke that was what made him one of the greatest players to ever play the game.

drakulie
01-27-2007, 06:26 PM
I disagree, I think agassi was very very limited, but he was the very best at what he did, hitting the ball hard and on the rise, be it returning serve or off a groundstroke that was what made him one of the greatest players to ever play the game.

yeah, Agassi was "very, very litmited". That is why he is the only player in the history of the sport to be able to transend his game to all the surfaces, and master all of them.

Go back to eating you boogers Gorilla.

breakfast_of_champions
01-27-2007, 06:40 PM
I disagree, I think agassi was very very limited, but he was the very best at what he did, hitting the ball hard and on the rise, be it returning serve or off a groundstroke that was what made him one of the greatest players to ever play the game.

yep, agassi could have come to net a little more off his groundstrokes, although he started to a little bit later in his career.

remember lendl's "a forehand with a haircut."

prostaff18
01-27-2007, 07:40 PM
I disagree, I think agassi was very very limited, but he was the very best at what he did, hitting the ball hard and on the rise, be it returning serve or off a groundstroke that was what made him one of the greatest players to ever play the game.

What made his game so appealing to me is that he was so solid. Look at his backhand, that thing was so reliable it would never let him down. What I should say is that he knew what he could do and he executed perfectly. He's not like many that may be more talented but they arenít able to execute the way that they may be able to. I think that Agassi become better with age because he kind of realized what he did well and he centered his game around it and he got the most out of his game. He was able to adapt to all surfaces because his game wasnít that difficult it was very easy to duplicate under tough situations and it hardly ever let him down. Just look at his last few years, he was clearly not able to keep up with the younger guys but he knew his game so well that he was able to win. I think that Federer is kind of the same way. At a younger age he didnít realize how much game he has and now he has realized what he has and he is using it very well. Same with Agassi, maybe not the best all around player ever but he had a simple game and he played it very well and it showed. He had very few things that could go wrong and they very rarely did.

capriatifanatic
01-28-2007, 02:40 AM
I belive Agassi has the most complete singles record of any male tennis player (looking at open era achivements only). This is why in my mind he will always be a contender for the GREATEST player. Note I say GREATEST, not BEST.

Agassi has the Career Grand Slam, the Olmympic Gold, the End of Year Tournament, and 7 of the 9 Master Series (more than any other player), Davis Cup

In terms of completeness: Borg lacked the USO, Macenroe the FO, Sampras the FO, Lendl SW19, Connors FO, Federer FO.

They all also lacked the Olympic Gold, which although some people think is worthless in tennis I think it has a value. Agassi has more different MS than both Sampras and Federer, undoubtably a worthy achivement as far as completness is concerned. He also has the Davis Cup, although this is a questionable achivement as if you have a good team you have a far better chance of winning (although Agassi's Davis Cup record of 30-6 [W-L] is undoubtably exceptional).


Actually I never realized Agassi had as complete a record compared to those others as much now that you break it down. Thanks for doing that, while my opinion of him as an all time great is still there maybe it goes up more now that you break down the diversity of his achivements compared to other greats being somewhat more then I thought it was.

The one thing though I will question is your using the Olympic Gold, not so much what I think of its value but did all of those guys on your list have a chance at achieving it? I believe in 84 the Olympics was a demonstration sport, not a full medal sport, and the only players who entered it were younger players or something, I remember Graf winning it when she was only #22 in the World or something, and Edberg who was around that kind of ranking as well winning it, it seemed to be a youngsters event that year. Then in 88 of course some of those players were either gone or already past their prime, actually even in 84 some of them were.

Kane
01-28-2007, 12:06 PM
Can you feel me now> Federer has probably has it

Nick Irons
01-29-2007, 09:18 AM
The Olympic Gold, although a sweet bonus, occurs only ever 4 years. I wonder how many players it just did not work out for due to thier ability and the time of the olympics contrasting ?

-

Agassi is the great underachiever of American Tennis. Underachieving and inconsistent

In another thread I mentioned his lack of dominance throughout his career and even when he won 3 of 4 entered slams around 2000, that period was marred by early round exits.

I am stoked on his career golden slam, I am stoked on his 'comeback' from mediocrity, but he should have won more slams and should have been more committed. Too much Hollywood and glam for the lad and too many excuses.

I love him, he is an icon and a great chapter in tennnis history and I do rank him in my personal TOP 10 but I spent my whole life watching him play and being let down time and time again.

illkhiboy
01-31-2007, 04:43 AM
What made his game so appealing to me is that he was so solid. Look at his backhand, that thing was so reliable it would never let him down. What I should say is that he knew what he could do and he executed perfectly. He's not like many that may be more talented but they arenít able to execute the way that they may be able to. I think that Agassi become better with age because he kind of realized what he did well and he centered his game around it and he got the most out of his game. He was able to adapt to all surfaces because his game wasnít that difficult it was very easy to duplicate under tough situations and it hardly ever let him down. Just look at his last few years, he was clearly not able to keep up with the younger guys but he knew his game so well that he was able to win. I think that Federer is kind of the same way. At a younger age he didnít realize how much game he has and now he has realized what he has and he is using it very well. Same with Agassi, maybe not the best all around player ever but he had a simple game and he played it very well and it showed. He had very few things that could go wrong and they very rarely did.

I agree about the part that even though it was hard for Agassi to hang with the young generation, his awareness of his own game (and his opponent's) had him pulling out wins with consistency in his later years (04-05).
Agassi, though he had a pretty awesome backhand, was not really able to hit the down-the-line stroke with consistency. It was a given that he would hit it crosscourt.