PDA

View Full Version : Whose better, Agassi or Mcenroe?


Pages : [1] 2

ACE of Hearts
07-09-2007, 09:40 PM
Your pick plz, whose the better player, Agassi or Mcenroe, two famous tennis americans.

superman1
07-09-2007, 09:48 PM
McEnroe himself says it's Agassi. He puts Agassi at #5 all-time behind Laver, Sampras, Federer and Borg.

ACE of Hearts
07-09-2007, 09:52 PM
I would have said Agassi myself even though Mcenroe played in the 80s, basically the golden era of tennis.Agassi had to deal with Pete Sampras mostly, otherwise who knows how many slams he could have won.

anointedone
07-09-2007, 09:53 PM
Definitely McEnroe. McEnroe at his peak was much more dominant then Agassi, who was never truly the best player even once in his career. McEnroe also mantained being clearly one of the undisputed 2 or 3 best players in the World at any given point in time for 7 straight years from 79-85, something Agassi never did. McEnroe won all 7 of his slams at the big 2 of Wimbledon and the U.S Open as well. Back then players skipped Australia or players like McEnroe would have won more slams. Agassi won half of his slams at the Aussie Open of course, if the event was like it was today, a mostly no show for the big guns, then slams were be 7 for McEnroe to 5 or 4 for Agassi.

McEnroe had Borg, Connors, Lendl, all as competition. Agassi had Sampras, but nobody else really.

Michelangelo
07-09-2007, 09:58 PM
For playing tennis / game, Agassi.
For entertainment, McEnore no doubt!

I personally think McEnroe's swing's a bit odd.

drakulie
07-09-2007, 10:07 PM
McEnroe's "TENNIS" career is far more impressive than Agassi's. When you look at his accomplishments as a singles, doubles, and mixed doubles player, along with his Davis Cup accomplishments>>>> Not Agassi, Borg, Sampras, Connors, Fed, etc or anyone else from that period to now comes close.

martin
07-10-2007, 04:32 AM
Who cares about doubles or mixed doubles.

fps
07-10-2007, 05:07 AM
Better at what? Agassi was better to watch, for me..

callitout
07-10-2007, 05:34 AM
Better at what? Agassi was better to watch, for me..

I'm thinking mens professional tennis. Just a guess.
But Agassi is a far better cook; or so I've read.

THUNDERVOLLEY
07-10-2007, 05:38 AM
McEnroe without question. John was one of the most incredible genius/artists the sport ever witnessed (especially indoors or on grass). Phenomenal talent far above most in history.

Agassi was a bore, and **** away half of his career.

fps
07-10-2007, 05:40 AM
My point is you'll never know because they used different racquets played different surfaces against different people. There is no "better", because they are from two different eras surrounded by different players. But I would rather WATCH Agassi and found his re-emergence at the top of the game late in his career thrilling, whereas Mcenroe, for all his ability, was a whiny brat.

Azzurri
07-10-2007, 06:45 AM
McEnroe's "TENNIS" career is far more impressive than Agassi's. When you look at his accomplishments as a singles, doubles, and mixed doubles player, along with his Davis Cup accomplishments>>>> Not Agassi, Borg, Sampras, Connors, Fed, etc or anyone else from that period to now comes close.

I agree with you. Mac was a "special" player. Just think if never met Tatum (I know he has kids and loves them), but what if he did not have kids so soon. He was amazing pre-Tatum.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
07-10-2007, 06:52 AM
I think Agassi was the better player; ball striker, returns, serve. But McEnroe has the better hands.

johnny ballgame
07-10-2007, 06:55 AM
McEnroe's "TENNIS" career is far more impressive than Agassi's. When you look at his accomplishments as a singles, doubles, and mixed doubles player, along with his Davis Cup accomplishments...

Agree re Mac vs Agassi!

It's a shame that the Australian was kinda off the radar in Mac's day. He only played it 4 times (only twice in his prime years). It was on grass back then, surely he would have a couple more slam titles to his name if he played there every year!

AM28143
07-10-2007, 07:01 AM
Mac was better in his prime, but Agassi put together a better career. He was more dedicated. Agassi was still winning slams in his early 30s. On the contrary, McEnroe did nothing after 1984 (age of 26).

J-man
07-10-2007, 07:03 AM
Aggasi in my opinion

luke_1983uk
07-10-2007, 07:03 AM
Aggasi in my opinion

without DOUBT!


long live andre!

paterson
07-10-2007, 07:30 AM
Both guys let slams get away. McEnroe choked away the 1982 W final and the1984 RG final. Agassi gagged the 1990 & 91 RG finals. The career grand slam beats anything Mac has on his resume. Many players won Wimbledon 3+ times. Also, Agassi had to compete against Sampras. IMO, Sampras > Borg, Connors.

CyBorg
07-10-2007, 08:14 AM
I would have liked to see Agassi counterpunch to a win against Borg in a major.

Moose Malloy
07-10-2007, 09:18 AM
McEnroe himself says it's Agassi. He puts Agassi at #5 all-time behind Laver, Sampras, Federer and Borg.

When did he say that? I don't remember that. And as cocky as Mac may seem, he would never rank himself, it is sorta tacky, & he can be humble about his own career(yet be cocky about his abilities, there is a difference) Just as Laver would never say he's the best ever(I doubt he would have even said it '69, when that was probably the consensus of the majority of fans, media, etc)

Mac was better in his prime, but Agassi put together a better career. He was more dedicated. Agassi was still winning slams in his early 30s. On the contrary, McEnroe did nothing after 1984 (age of 26).

Yet Agassi did nothing before age 26, so how dedicated was he then? I don't understand how anyone can argue Agassi's peak was better than Mac's, Mac was #1 for 4 years, but Agassi only one year. And people need to let the "Sampras prevented Agassi from having a greater career thing" go, Agassi was hardly a consistent #2 behind Sampras during Sampras' best years, Agassi had a lot more preventing him from greatness than Sampras, mainly his own half-assed dedication to the game. Could anyone really question Mac's dedication to the game until he got married & had kids?

One other thing, have any of you noticed how often Fed is tying or breaking some record involving Mac(or Borg), not Agassi(or Sampras for that matter)?

For example:

Fed was 81-4 in 2004, coming very close to tying Mac's open era record win % of 82-3 of 1984.

Mac(& Borg) had the open era record of most consecutive finals won, which Fed broke in 2004.

Mac had the most consecutive sets won in slams record, before Fed broke it at the French this year.

Also Ljubicic came just short of tying Mac's record Davis Cup season in 2005(Mac was undefeated in Davis Cup-singles & doubles in 1982, while Ljubicic had just one DC loss in '05)

And Nadal this year broke Mac's open era record of most consecutive wins on one surface(65 on carpet)

And when Fed was close to the longest match win streak(all surfaces) earlier this year, guess who he passed to get to #3? Mac. Agassi was nowhere near that list.

I'm not saying that these are all important records, but it shows how incredibly dominant Mac was. Agassi was never as dominant as Mac was, anyway you cut it. Not many have been.

The career grand slam beats anything Mac has on his resume.

I'm not sure how this can be considered important considering how few top players played the AO in the 70s/early 80s.

If you asked anyone on tour in 1980 which career would they rather have:

4 AO, 2 US, 1 W, 1 FO

or

4 US, 3 W

Most would say the latter. Probably even Borg(in his autiobiography, its pretty obvious that he values Wimbledon far more than the French Open. He says its the only one that matters. Also when talking about concentrating on the 'majors' in his later years he names the French, Wimbledon, & US, not even calling the AO a major!)
Yeah I bet Mac/Borg/Connors are real jealous of Agassi's 4 AOs.

Just because the 'career grand slam' is a recent invention of the media, you shouldn't use it to judge players from an era where is didn't exist.

THUNDERVOLLEY
07-10-2007, 09:36 AM
And people need to let the "Sampras prevented Agassi from having a greater career thing" go, Agassi was hardly a consistent #2 behind Sampras during Sampras' best years, Agassi had a lot more preventing him from greatness than Sampras, mainly his own half-assed dedication to the game.

Thank you!! How much of Agassi's career was largely hype, before his "dedication" to the game?


One other thing, have any of you noticed how often Fed is tying or breaking some record involving Mac(or Borg), not Agassi(or Sampras for that matter)?

For example:

Fed was 81-4 in 2004, coming very close to tying Mac's open era record win % of 82-3 of 1984.

Mac(& Borg) had the open era record of most consecutive finals won, which Fed broke in 2004.

Mac had the most consecutive sets won in slams record, before Fed broke it at the French this year.

Also Ljubicic came just short of tying Mac's record Davis Cup season in 2005(Mac was undefeated in Davis Cup-singles & doubles in 1982, while Ljubicic had just one DC loss in '05)

And Nadal this year broke Mac's open era record of most consecutive wins on one surface(65 on carpet)

And when Fed was close to the longest match win streak(all surfaces) earlier this year, guess who he passed to get to #3? Mac.

I'm not saying that these are all important records, but it shows how incredibly dominant Mac was. Agassi was never as dominant as Mac was, anyway you cut it. Not many have been.

Well, you cite strong evidence, but hype often blinds people to the true nature of any subject. Oh, well.



Just because the 'career grand slam' is a recent invention of the media, you shouldn't use it to judge players from an era where is didn't exist.

Agreed. In order to make fans/general population thin Agassi's career was somehow greater than it was, I noticed Carillo, P. McEnroe and others blathering on about the so-called career slam to justify speaking of Agassi in the same breath as the legends. The only grand slam is the calendar slam, and Agassi's abilities were not going to allow that landmark to happen.

drakulie
07-10-2007, 10:30 AM
If you asked anyone on tour in 1980 which career would they rather have:

4 AO, 2 US, 1 W, 1 FO

or

4 US, 3 W

Most would say the latter.

Just because the 'career grand slam' is a recent invention of the media, you shouldn't use it to judge players from an era where is didn't exist.

Although I agree with the direction of your post and what you have stated, I disagree with this latter part.

Quite frankly, who cares what players would rather have? In the total scheme of things the fact remains the AO is a slam and has to be counted to totals. I'm sure if you asked players if they would rather have zero AO or 4>> they would say 4. Yes, I believe Wimbledon is the mother of all slams and the most important. But look at the surface now a days and how it plays. Should we say Fed's Wimbledon titles shouldn't count?? Or what would one rather have, 5 Wimbledon's pre or post 2001? Or Fed's AO titles shouldn't count because Mac, Borg, or Connors were too lazy to get off their *** and go play it so for the rest of history we need to ignore that slam? Furthermore, if we don't "count" the AO then wouldn't Laver's calendar grand slams not count because no one was playing the AO back then?

Sorry, but it goes both ways and that argument is very wrong.

Additionally, the career slam that AA achieved is unbelievable considering only 5 players have achieved this and he is the only one in the history of tennis to do it on 4 different surfaces>>> so it is valid. Taking that acvievement away is the same as saying Laver's Calendar Slam doesn't count because he won on 2 surfaces so it shouldn't be used to judge him against other players or his AO wins don't really count because other players weren't playing it.

quest01
07-10-2007, 10:35 AM
I think Agassi is better.

Moose Malloy
07-10-2007, 11:03 AM
Furthermore, if we don't "count" the AO then wouldn't Laver's calendar grand slams not count because no one was playing the AO back then?


The Australian had a great field in '69, top players only started skipping it in '76 or so. Plus has anyone in the Open era won the French, Wimbledon, US in the same year? Had Laver not won the AO that year, it would still be a year for the ages & would elevate him above many others.

And don't forget Agassi didn't play the AO until '95, I think that shows where he ranked it in importance among the slams, regardless of his 4 titles there.

Additionally, the career slam that AA achieved is unbelievable considering only 5 players have achieved this and he is the only one in the history of tennis to do it on 4 different surfaces>>> so it is valid.

Its only considered important now. I'm not trying to diminish it now, but others in this thread are trying to diminish players of the past(specifically Mac) for not having it, when it didn't exist (or wasn't considered important) in their time. The word "career slam" did not exist before Agassi in '99, and 4 other guys had it before him, so how come no one ever used that word in their time? or used it to elevate their careers like they do with Agassi? Fred Perry must be glad in heaven that it is now considered his crowning achievement, all because of AA.

Or Fed's AO titles shouldn't count because Mac, Borg, or Connors were too lazy to get off their *** and go play it so for the rest of history we need to ignore that slam?

To be fair to those players, I don't think it should be used if you are comparing them to Fed. They weren't the only ones who skipped it, hardly anyone in the top 20 played it from '76 to '82. You can't ignore that fact when comparing players from different eras(like this thread is atttempting to do)
Davydenko won the Paris Indoor without Federer, Nadal, or Roddick in the field. Thats kinda what winning the AO meant in 1982. Though no one of Davydenko's calibur was in it then either.

To me, Agassi reaching 4 straight slam finals(especially considering how wildly different the French & Wimbledon were back then) is more impressive than his career slam.

Jonny S&V
07-10-2007, 11:16 AM
Who cares about doubles or mixed doubles.

You are making me angry. "VERY" angry. I would rather watch the Bryan bros play (substitute your favorite dubs team here) then watch a boring Federer - Gonzalez match.

drakulie
07-10-2007, 12:57 PM
The Australian had a great field in '69, top players only started skipping it in '76 or so. Plus has anyone in the Open era won the French, Wimbledon, US in the same year? Had Laver not won the AO that year, it would still be a year for the ages & would elevate him above many others.

Again, I am not necessarily disagreeing you > just look at my first post in this thread. However, if one diminishes the AO open, then in the same way one could start diminishing every possibility. For instance, if we are going to start "diminishing" slams because players decided not to play it then the same could be said of Wimbledon. How many times did "clay court specialist" skip Wimbledon? Should we say Sampras' achievements there don't count because certain players refused to play there? Or say anyone who won the Australian before 1995 doesn't deserve credit for a slam victory because AA refused to play there?

Or anyone who won the French between 74-78 doesn't get credit for a French Open because Connors didn't play there. This would take away 3 of Borg's slams.

Or none of Connor's US open victories before it became a hard court in 78 count?

Once again, sorry, but too many "ifs' in your argument, and they go both ways. The AO is a slam, and has been for a very long time. Whatever the reasons for people skipping it is their fault>>> not the ones who won it.


To me, Agassi reaching 4 straight slam finals(especially considering how wildly different the French & Wimbledon were back then) is more impressive than his career slam.

I agree. To win the French when there were several "clay court specialist", and to win wimbledon when it was very fast and in an era of "grass court specialist" is very impressive.

FEDEXP
07-10-2007, 01:00 PM
Who cares about doubles (at least at Slams)? I'd go with Agassi.

superstition
07-10-2007, 01:06 PM
McEnroe. Agassi was an excellent player, but not as talented as McEnroe.

illkhiboy
07-10-2007, 01:50 PM
Again, I am not necessarily disagreeing you > just look at my first post in this thread. However, if one diminishes the AO open, then in the same way one could start diminishing every possibility. For instance, if we are going to start "diminishing" slams because players decided not to play it then the same could be said of Wimbledon. How many times did "clay court specialist" skip Wimbledon? Should we say Sampras' achievements there don't count because certain players refused to play there? Or say anyone who won the Australian before 1995 doesn't deserve credit for a slam victory because AA refused to play there?

Or anyone who won the French between 74-78 doesn't get credit for a French Open because Connors didn't play there. This would take away 3 of Borg's slams.

Or none of Connor's US open victories before it became a hard court in 78 count?

Once again, sorry, but too many "ifs' in your argument, and they go both ways. The AO is a slam, and has been for a very long time. Whatever the reasons for people skipping it is their fault>>> not the ones who won it.




I agree. To win the French when there were several "clay court specialist", and to win wimbledon when it was very fast and in an era of "grass court specialist" is very impressive.

I 'm with Moose here. There is a big difference in certain non-relevant (because of inferior grass court skills) players skipping Wimbledon in the 90's compared to a third rate field that did not include most top players skipping the Australian Open in the 70's/80's.

Btw Moose, was the Australian Open a non-relevant Slam only from 1976-1987? That would ofcourse mean Agassi's accomplishment isn't great relative to McEnroe but a big achievement anyway considering only 5 men in the history of the sport have achieved this feat.




And don't forget Agassi didn't play the AO until '95, I think that shows where he ranked it in importance among the slams, regardless of his 4 titles there.


Agassi had actually planned to play the Australian in 1993-1994 but wasn't feeling well. He did skip it til 1992 ofcourse but then he also only played his third Wimbledon in '92 - compared to 7 US Opens.

illkhiboy
07-10-2007, 02:09 PM
Its only considered important now. I'm not trying to diminish it now, but others in this thread are trying to diminish players of the past(specifically Mac) for not having it, when it didn't exist (or wasn't considered important) in their time. The word "career slam" did not exist before Agassi in '99, and 4 other guys had it before him, so how come no one ever used that word in their time? or used it to elevate their careers like they do with Agassi? Fred Perry must be glad in heaven that it is now considered his crowning achievement, all because of AA.



To be fair to those players, I don't think it should be used if you are comparing them to Fed. They weren't the only ones who skipped it, hardly anyone in the top 20 played it from '76 to '82. You can't ignore that fact when comparing players from different eras(like this thread is atttempting to do)
Davydenko won the Paris Indoor without Federer, Nadal, or Roddick in the field. Thats kinda what winning the AO meant in 1982. Though no one of Davydenko's calibur was in it then either.

To me, Agassi reaching 4 straight slam finals(especially considering how wildly different the French & Wimbledon were back then) is more impressive than his career slam.

Yeah. Also, it's damn impressive to perform well at these 2 majors in the same year. It's a very demanding task physically and mentally. McEnroe had 4-5 good years at the French/Wimbledon. Agassi had 6-8. And he also managed to win both, making multiple trips to the finals as well.

Btw how well was McEnroe playing at the '92 Wimbledon, was he a contender to win it?

drakulie
07-10-2007, 02:26 PM
I 'm with Moose here. There is a big difference in certain non-relevant (because of inferior grass court skills) players skipping Wimbledon in the 90's compared to a third rate field that did not include most top players skipping the Australian Open in the 70's/80's.

You mean "non relevant players (with inferior grass court skills)" like Agassi??? I will remind you the players you just described could very well be Agassi>>> A player no one gave the slightest chance to do anything the year he won wimbledon>>> but yet he won. And if we are going to be having "If" arguments like the one proposed by Moose, then the argument I just proposed is valid. Those "non-relevant" players could have won in the same way Agassi did. Point is, you never know.

It is farily ignorant when people on these boards say, "Fed is winning Wimbledon because the grass is slower. He should be 'non-relevant' because he is not a real serve and volleyer. "

Fact is, many top players (whether they were clay or grass or hard court specialist) were skipping Wimbledon. Tough luck for them, and tough luck for those who have ever skipped any slam.

And if anyone is going to make up "certain rules" to diminish one slam, then those same rules need to be applied to EVERY player, and EVERY slam>>> not just Agassi.

Whatever, a slam is a slam.

simi
07-10-2007, 02:30 PM
Who cares about doubles or mixed doubles.

You are making me angry. "VERY" angry. I would rather watch the Bryan bros play (substitute your favorite dubs team here) then watch a boring Federer - Gonzalez match.

Actually, I care about doubles. It's an exciting game. Not better than singles, just different. But, Jonny, I'm getting to really like Gonzo's game. He has turned into an enjoyable player to watch since he toned down his 'enthusiasm' in trying to blast the cover off the ball. He still has a little work to do upstairs, between the ears. He's one of the few single players I go out of my way to watch.

kanjii
07-10-2007, 02:32 PM
I like Agassi, but McEnroe was the man. I don't know how fast his serves were, but precision and angles on those with his unique gangsta lean before contact with the ball, it was almost impossible to get a racquet on it. Plus his net play was incredible. I usually root for the baseliners, but Mac over Agassi, I have to confess.

Ultra2HolyGrail
07-10-2007, 02:48 PM
Can anyone explain what happened to mac after 1984? How could he be best player of the year in 1984 and then never win a slam after that.?

araghava
07-10-2007, 02:51 PM
Another thing worth noting. Historians talk about the open and the pre-open era. I think we should also consider the wood and graphite era. The game totally changed when wood was replaced with graphite. Mac unfortunately was on the cusp of the that era. His game was totally designed to be played with wood. Even though he played with graphite from 83 onward, his strokes, style of game and grips were all wood based. With his loose continental grip, he just couldn't handle the power and spin that the younger players were able to generate.

So it kind of unfair to compare his record to those grew up playing with graphite.

illkhiboy
07-10-2007, 04:09 PM
You mean "non relevant players (with inferior grass court skills)" like Agassi??? I will remind you the players you just described could very well be Agassi>>> A player no one gave the slightest chance to do anything the year he won wimbledon>>> but yet he won. And if we are going to be having "If" arguments like the one proposed by Moose, then the argument I just proposed is valid. Those "non-relevant" players could have won in the same way Agassi did. Point is, you never know.

It is farily ignorant when people on these boards say, "Fed is winning Wimbledon because the grass is slower. He should be 'non-relevant' because he is not a real serve and volleyer. "

Fact is, many top players (whether they were clay or grass or hard court specialist) were skipping Wimbledon. Tough luck for them, and tough luck for those who have ever skipped any slam.

And if anyone is going to make up "certain rules" to diminish one slam, then those same rules need to be applied to EVERY player, and EVERY slam>>> not just Agassi.

Whatever, a slam is a slam.


As far as I'm aware, only players like Muster and Moya - claycourters - were skipping Wimbledon. I 'm not aware of any hardcourt specialists not playing. And let's not pretend that Moya/Muster are in anyway close to Agassi in terms of grasscourt talent. They both had good reasons to skip the tournament, they both felt they were not contendors. No one diminishes the feat of Nadal winning last year's French because Agassi sat it out. But it sure would be different if Federer, Nadal and a slew of other top players skipped the tournament and Djokovic won the tournament.


And..I agree, a Slam is a Slam. It is ludicrious when people discredit Agassi's 4 AO's because it wasn't a big tournament 20 years ago. Agassi won his Australians against a strong field, infact probably the strongest field of any Slam considering Rebound Ace is quite the equalizer.

drakulie
07-10-2007, 04:36 PM
As far as I'm aware, only players like Muster and Moya - claycourters - were skipping Wimbledon.

What about Kuerten? He skipped it a few years, and let's not forget he finished one of those years as the # 1 player in the world, and got that spot by beating Agassi, and Sampras in back-to-back matches on fast indoor courts at the year end championships.

Again, all I'm saying is these trivial little games people like to play go both ways, and I could sit here and using Moose's logic "discredit" in one way or another every slams any player has ever won.

superman1
07-10-2007, 04:38 PM
When did he say that? I don't remember that. And as cocky as Mac may seem, he would never rank himself, it is sorta tacky, & he can be humble about his own career(yet be cocky about his abilities, there is a difference) Just as Laver would never say he's the best ever(I doubt he would have even said it '69, when that was probably the consensus of the majority of fans, media, etc)

Center Court interview with McEnroe: "if I had to name the top five or six guys at this point, I would put Sampras, I would put Laver, I'd have to put Borg up there because he won the eleven, I'd put Federer in there now, I'd put Agassi in there...if I could be thrown in the same breadth as those guys I'd be happy."

I would have liked to see Agassi counterpunch to a win against Borg in a major.

Agassi a counterpuncher? Give Agassi a wooden racquet and he'll hit the ball harder than Borg ever did. Baghdatis said at Wimbledon that Djokovic moves the ball around a lot like Agassi, except he doesn't hit it as hard.

If Borg hadn't quit so early, we would have had the chance to see those two greats go at it. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case.

...And are we still calling the Australian Open a lesser major? First of all, Agassi didn't play the Australian Open until 1995, and he won it on his first attempt, against PETE SAMPRAS in the final. And are people going to denigrate Federer for only having to beat Baghdatis and Gonzalez in his Australian Open finals? Weren't those guys playing phenomenally well those tournaments? Didn't they deserve their spot in the final?

z-money
07-10-2007, 04:40 PM
agassi easily

DNShade
07-10-2007, 11:16 PM
Well let's just say I saw Mac play Agassi (and I've hit with Andre and he's a great guy and great player - and once he got over tendancy to tank - he got that Connors never give up thing) Andre was at the top of his game and in his prime - John was just retired or about to - and all these screaming girls and AA fans were all over the place - and Mac just beat the crap out of him - really made Agassi look kinda pathetic. And it wasn't becuase AA was having an off night - quite the opposite - John was just in one of those Wimbledon Connors match zones where he was just on...and all the little girls went really quiet. So that answered this question in my mind as I sat there courtside watching Junior work his magic.

And remember Mac was playing Borg, Lendl, Connors, Willander, Becker, Edberg on and on....Much deeper time in the game.

chrisdaniel
07-11-2007, 12:25 AM
Agassi wins this one. I think John Mcenroe would agree.

illkhiboy
07-11-2007, 12:31 AM
Well let's just say I saw Mac play Agassi (and I've hit with Andre and he's a great guy and great player - and once he got over tendancy to tank - he got that Connors never give up thing) Andre was at the top of his game and in his prime - John was just retired or about to - and all these screaming girls and AA fans were all over the place - and Mac just beat the crap out of him - really made Agassi look kinda pathetic. And it wasn't becuase AA was having an off night - quite the opposite - John was just in one of those Wimbledon Connors match zones where he was just on...and all the little girls went really quiet. So that answered this question in my mind as I sat there courtside watching Junior work his magic.

And remember Mac was playing Borg, Lendl, Connors, Willander, Becker, Edberg on and on....Much deeper time in the game.

Really?

When was this btw?

urban
07-11-2007, 01:36 AM
McEnroe has a certain mystique, based on his unique playing style. Virtually without backswing, he hit his groundies, as if they were half volleys. His dramatic touch at the net was uncanny. His idiosyncratic serve was lethal, until later in his career, when he made some futile adjustments. He is the modern day Hoad, a genius, who played against the canonized laws of the game, as Torben Ulrich once expressed. In most polls and experts list, he ranks higher than Agassi (and higher than players with a significantly better record like Gonzales or Rosewall), imo mainly because his strange, yet charming style. If you look at the records, he has one big advantage over Agassi: He was the real Nr. 1 for 3 years, and much more dominant than Agassi ever was. His biggest disappointment, which gives him nightmares even today, is his RG loss 1984 to Lendl. And that RG win, Agassi has. Whether he would have won it against a player like Lendl, is another question.

DNShade
07-11-2007, 02:19 AM
Really?

When was this btw?

Not sure - must have been around 1993-94 or so - at the "Fabulous" Forum in lovely Inglewood CA...

Moose Malloy
07-11-2007, 11:10 AM
Agassi a counterpuncher? Give Agassi a wooden racquet and he'll hit the ball harder than Borg ever did.

and make 3 times the amount of errors he normally makes. its baffling to me that so many don't understand that players didn't hit as hard with wood because the %'s weren't in their favor. its kinda like fed comparing todays tennis to 10 years ago, saying strings allow you to swing more freely & not worry about errors.

wood makes that risk vs reward aspect even more obvious. but don't believe me, robredo, ginepri, djokovic all played with wood racquets earlier this year & said they didn't get the same pop or spin with wood & that they would have to play if safer if they had to play with wood. agassi is a talent, but he isn't god, he would have to play it a lot safer if he ever wanted to win a match with a wood racquet.

LttlElvis
07-11-2007, 12:26 PM
McEnroe was better than Agassi.

As far as single year domination, 1984 McEnroe was the most impressive tennis I have ever seen. For me it has only been surpassed by Federer recently, because he has been able to dominate for 3 consecutive years now.

Anyone who has seen McEnroe in his prime playing live, would probably rank him as the greatest ever. Unfortunately, he took time off. What a waste of talent.

chaognosis
07-11-2007, 03:33 PM
McEnroe has a certain mystique, based on his unique playing style. Virtually without backswing, he hit his groundies, as if they were half volleys. His dramatic touch at the net was uncanny. His idiosyncratic serve was lethal, until later in his career, when he made some futile adjustments. He is the modern day Hoad, a genius, who played against the canonized laws of the game, as Torben Ulrich once expressed. In most polls and experts list, he ranks higher than Agassi (and higher than players with a significantly better record like Gonzales or Rosewall), imo mainly because his strange, yet charming style. If you look at the records, he has one big advantage over Agassi: He was the real Nr. 1 for 3 years, and much more dominant than Agassi ever was. His biggest disappointment, which gives him nightmares even today, is his RG loss 1984 to Lendl. And that RG win, Agassi has. Whether he would have won it against a player like Lendl, is another question.

Perhaps an even better comparison is that McEnroe is the modern-day Cochet.

superman1
07-11-2007, 04:37 PM
Well let's just say I saw Mac play Agassi (and I've hit with Andre and he's a great guy and great player - and once he got over tendancy to tank - he got that Connors never give up thing) Andre was at the top of his game and in his prime - John was just retired or about to - and all these screaming girls and AA fans were all over the place - and Mac just beat the crap out of him - really made Agassi look kinda pathetic. And it wasn't becuase AA was having an off night - quite the opposite - John was just in one of those Wimbledon Connors match zones where he was just on...and all the little girls went really quiet. So that answered this question in my mind as I sat there courtside watching Junior work his magic.

You must be smoking something potent. It was exactly the opposite. Agassi, not in his prime, McEnroe, out of his prime, and Agassi just destroyed McEnroe. This was the last match McEnroe played at Wimbledon, and he likened it to Agassi's last match against Nadal, since Agassi was a guy that McEnroe respected and thought deserved to be the one to take him out. Andre and Mac were actually fairly close back then and McEnroe sort of took him under his wing after that. There was a lot of talk about McEnroe coaching him, but that never came to fruition.

anointedone
07-11-2007, 04:39 PM
McEnroe was 8 years past his final slam win at 92 Wimbledon. Agassi had already been in 3 slams finals in the last 2 years. Gee I wonder who was closer to their prime when they played the 92 Wimbledon finals. That is a tough one. :lol:

superman1
07-11-2007, 04:43 PM
and make 3 times the amount of errors he normally makes. its baffling to me that so many don't understand that players didn't hit as hard with wood because the %'s weren't in their favor. its kinda like fed comparing todays tennis to 10 years ago, saying strings allow you to swing more freely & not worry about errors.

Maybe. I saw a clip of him hitting with wood as a kid and he just went after the ball. His Dad taught him to hit it as hard as he could every time. I think he was a better ball striker than Borg. Borg was faster and maybe a bit fitter, not that fitness would matter since neither of them would get tired in a tennis match. Agassi wouldn't be able to break Borg down, so he'd have to hit through him. Yeah, it would be an amazing match.

DNShade
07-11-2007, 05:43 PM
You must be smoking something potent. It was exactly the opposite. Agassi, not in his prime, McEnroe, out of his prime, and Agassi just destroyed McEnroe. This was the last match McEnroe played at Wimbledon, and he likened it to Agassi's last match against Nadal, since Agassi was a guy that McEnroe respected and thought deserved to be the one to take him out. Andre and Mac were actually fairly close back then and McEnroe sort of took him under his wing after that. There was a lot of talk about McEnroe coaching him, but that never came to fruition.

Noooo....Your'e the one smokin' something. I wasn't talking about Wimbledon I was talking about a match I was sitting courtside at in Los Angeles at The Forum. AA was just starting to get on his run and John was just playing now and then etc...And it was soon after that when Mac and Andre became close and talked about coaching etc. Don't tell me what I saw I was there and hung out with both of them afterwards and even Andre was saying John was unbeatable that night.

TheNatural
07-11-2007, 09:43 PM
Mcenroe: slams 7/45 attempts. slam win loss record 167-38
Agassi slams 8/61 attempts slam win loss record 224-53

Agassi takes it.

Azzurri
07-12-2007, 05:35 AM
I think Agassi was the better player; ball striker, returns, serve. But McEnroe has the better hands.

LOL...SERVE? Are you kidding. You obviously never, ever watched Mac play. His serve is better NOW at 47 than Agassi's EVER was. One thing about Mac is he had a great, great serve. Wow....you threw me for a loop on that one.....serve.

Azzurri
07-12-2007, 05:36 AM
Mac was better in his prime, but Agassi put together a better career. He was more dedicated. Agassi was still winning slams in his early 30s. On the contrary, McEnroe did nothing after 1984 (age of 26).

Think about when each was dedicated. mac early on (78-85) and Agassi later on (98?-06). Everyone knows Agassi threw a lot of matches away his first 10 years on the tour.

Azzurri
07-12-2007, 05:42 AM
When did he say that? I don't remember that. And as cocky as Mac may seem, he would never rank himself, it is sorta tacky, & he can be humble about his own career(yet be cocky about his abilities, there is a difference) Just as Laver would never say he's the best ever(I doubt he would have even said it '69, when that was probably the consensus of the majority of fans, media, etc)



Yet Agassi did nothing before age 26, so how dedicated was he then? I don't understand how anyone can argue Agassi's peak was better than Mac's, Mac was #1 for 4 years, but Agassi only one year. And people need to let the "Sampras prevented Agassi from having a greater career thing" go, Agassi was hardly a consistent #2 behind Sampras during Sampras' best years, Agassi had a lot more preventing him from greatness than Sampras, mainly his own half-assed dedication to the game. Could anyone really question Mac's dedication to the game until he got married & had kids?

One other thing, have any of you noticed how often Fed is tying or breaking some record involving Mac(or Borg), not Agassi(or Sampras for that matter)?

For example:

Fed was 81-4 in 2004, coming very close to tying Mac's open era record win % of 82-3 of 1984.

Mac(& Borg) had the open era record of most consecutive finals won, which Fed broke in 2004.

Mac had the most consecutive sets won in slams record, before Fed broke it at the French this year.

Also Ljubicic came just short of tying Mac's record Davis Cup season in 2005(Mac was undefeated in Davis Cup-singles & doubles in 1982, while Ljubicic had just one DC loss in '05)

And Nadal this year broke Mac's open era record of most consecutive wins on one surface(65 on carpet)

And when Fed was close to the longest match win streak(all surfaces) earlier this year, guess who he passed to get to #3? Mac. Agassi was nowhere near that list.

I'm not saying that these are all important records, but it shows how incredibly dominant Mac was. Agassi was never as dominant as Mac was, anyway you cut it. Not many have been.



I'm not sure how this can be considered important considering how few top players played the AO in the 70s/early 80s.

If you asked anyone on tour in 1980 which career would they rather have:

4 AO, 2 US, 1 W, 1 FO

or

4 US, 3 W

Most would say the latter. Probably even Borg(in his autiobiography, its pretty obvious that he values Wimbledon far more than the French Open. He says its the only one that matters. Also when talking about concentrating on the 'majors' in his later years he names the French, Wimbledon, & US, not even calling the AO a major!)
Yeah I bet Mac/Borg/Connors are real jealous of Agassi's 4 AOs.

Just because the 'career grand slam' is a recent invention of the media, you shouldn't use it to judge players from an era where is didn't exist.

Excellet post Moose. People forget Agassi was not a great player his entire career...like Mac he had down time...just in seperate parts of their careers. The AO (I used to think differently) was a non factor until 1985-86, so its not fair to judge Mac on not winning one. He has won the two most important titles in Tennis 7 times. Agassi had a HOF career (a real one, based on standards of baseball and football), unlike Roddick who will probably get it with one or two majors. Agassi and Mac were both great, but Mac ruled the tennis world for over 4 years...Agassi never did.

Azzurri
07-12-2007, 05:46 AM
Although I agree with the direction of your post and what you have stated, I disagree with this latter part.

Quite frankly, who cares what players would rather have? In the total scheme of things the fact remains the AO is a slam and has to be counted to totals. I'm sure if you asked players if they would rather have zero AO or 4>> they would say 4. Yes, I believe Wimbledon is the mother of all slams and the most important. But look at the surface now a days and how it plays. Should we say Fed's Wimbledon titles shouldn't count?? Or what would one rather have, 5 Wimbledon's pre or post 2001? Or Fed's AO titles shouldn't count because Mac, Borg, or Connors were too lazy to get off their *** and go play it so for the rest of history we need to ignore that slam? Furthermore, if we don't "count" the AO then wouldn't Laver's calendar grand slams not count because no one was playing the AO back then?
Sorry, but it goes both ways and that argument is very wrong.

Additionally, the career slam that AA achieved is unbelievable considering only 5 players have achieved this and he is the only one in the history of tennis to do it on 4 different surfaces>>> so it is valid. Taking that acvievement away is the same as saying Laver's Calendar Slam doesn't count because he won on 2 surfaces so it shouldn't be used to judge him against other players or his AO wins don't really count because other players weren't playing it.

Drak..that's the way I felt about the AO. How could people dismiss a major? After reading many posts on how the AO was treated, I started to see why people dismissed it in those days (not that I agree. The AO is a major and should be counted. It's not like it was NOT a major in the 70's and early 80's, then it could be dismissed), but the timing sucked for players and their family. That is a tough debate.

Azzurri
07-12-2007, 05:50 AM
Can anyone explain what happened to mac after 1984? How could he be best player of the year in 1984 and then never win a slam after that.?

Tatum, drugs, music, kids,....I could go on and on. Read his book, its really good.

Azzurri
07-12-2007, 05:52 AM
agassi easily

wow...what insight.;)

Azzurri
07-12-2007, 05:57 AM
McEnroe was better than Agassi.

As far as single year domination, 1984 McEnroe was the most impressive tennis I have ever seen. For me it has only been surpassed by Federer recently, because he has been able to dominate for 3 consecutive years now.

Anyone who has seen McEnroe in his prime playing live, would probably rank him as the greatest ever. Unfortunately, he took time off. What a waste of talent.

That is the problem with too many people on these boards. They did not see mac play in his prime. People are either too young or did not watch tennis at that time. Mac was talked about like Fed is today. He was a Superstar's Superstar. He had gifts no one had before or since. We will never, ever see a player like Mac. If I want to watch Agassi I could see him in almost every match of every round (not taking anything away from Andre, but there are a lot of his clones running around). Bottom line is no one, NO ONE can imitate Mac.

realplayer
07-12-2007, 06:03 AM
Yeah I bet Mac/Borg/Connors are real jealous of Agassi's 4 AOs.

The australian open is a major but in the 70's was not respected by the great players Connors and Borg.

Connors did not play there anymore after 1975 and could have made a great record there. I mean he played it twice and won it in 1974 and in 1975 was the finalist.
Borg played there also only a few times.

It was also won by lesser great in the 70's like Johan Kriek, Vitas Gerulaitis, Brian Gottfried.

What if Connors would have played it more often. He could have won it easily 3 or 4 times in his prime (1974 -1978).

realplayer
07-12-2007, 06:05 AM
Mac just won more tournaments and was longer no. 1 and more dominant then Agassi.

So this should not be even a brainer.

drakulie
07-12-2007, 06:46 AM
The australian open is a major but in the 70's was not respected by the great players Connors and Borg.

Agassi was a great player but missed Wimbledon 4 times to start his career. Should we dimiss those years from Wimbledon because a "great player" chose not to play it and did not respect it??

Connors did not play there anymore after 1975 and could have made a great record there. I mean he played it twice and won it in 1974 and in 1975 was the finalist.
Borg played there also only a few times.

It was also won by lesser great in the 70's like Johan Kriek, Vitas Gerulaitis, Brian Gottfried.

Hmmm, lets look at some of the "lesser players" that won the Australian Open in the 70's.

Arthur Ashe, winner of 3 grand slams
Ken Rosewall (2), winner of 12?? grand slams
John Newcombe (2), winner of 7 grand slams
Jimmy Connors, winner of 8 grand slams
Gerulaitis
Guillermo Vilas (2), winner of 4 grand slams

Now lets look at some of the players that Won the French during that same time:

Jan Kodes (2), winner of 3 slams
Adnres Gimeno, winner of 1 slam
Ile Nastase, winner of 2 slams
Bjorn Borg (4), winner of 11 slams
Adrianno Panatta, winner of 1 slam
Guillermo Vilas, winner of 4 slams

I would say the AO was won by more prestigious players. Does this then mean that Borg's accomplishments are less because he won 6 French opens??



What if Connors would have played it more often. He could have won it easily 3 or 4 times in his prime (1974 -1978).

Agassi missed it 8 years to start off his career. Using your logic, should we then say Agassi would have won it 6 more times???

Gizo
07-12-2007, 08:02 AM
Regarding Agassi's career grand slam, admittedly the Australian Open was a lesser tournament prior to 1988 (as it had a significantly smaller draw size than the other 3 grand slams). However even if we take the Australian Open out of the equation, we must still consider the fact that Agassi is the only player that has completed the career French Open/Wimbledon/US Open since the US Open was shifted to the hardcourts at Flushing Meadows. Sampras, Borg, Federer (to date) Connors, Lendl and McEnroe have all failed to emulate this feat, which highlights how fiercely difficult it is to achieve.
However what counts against Agassi is his lack of dominance. The 7 greatest players since the introduction of the computer ranking system in 1973 are (in no particular order), Sampras, Borg, Federer, Agassi, Lendl, Connors and McEnroe. If we look at the years that each of these players were in the best in the world in (not based on year end rankings which were often flawed):
Sampras - 1993-1997
Borg - 1978-1980
Federer - 2004-2006 (As long as Nadal doesn't win the US Open, Federer will add 2007 to his collection)
Agassi - 1999
Lendl - 1985-1987
Connors - 1974, 1976, 1982
McEnroe - 1981, 1983-1984
Therefore Agassi is the only one of these 7 players that wasn't the best in the world for at least 3 seasons, which does hurt his case.
Agassi was more versatile than McEnroe, although Mac wasn't exactly useless on clay, winning 4 titles on har-tru, and reaching a final and semi-final on red clay at Roland Garros. McEnroe was more dominant than Agassi, and won 17 more titles (and it's not as if Mac tried to load up his title haul by playing in mickey mouse events, Mac regularly won presitigious tournaments with competitive or world class fields). My vote goes to McEnroe.

CyBorg
07-12-2007, 10:16 AM
Hmmm, lets look at some of the "lesser players" that won the Australian Open in the 70's.

Arthur Ashe, winner of 3 grand slams
Ken Rosewall (2), winner of 12?? grand slams
John Newcombe (2), winner of 7 grand slams
Jimmy Connors, winner of 8 grand slams
Gerulaitis
Guillermo Vilas (2), winner of 4 grand slams

Now lets look at some of the players that Won the French during that same time:

Jan Kodes (2), winner of 3 slams
Adnres Gimeno, winner of 1 slam
Ile Nastase, winner of 2 slams
Bjorn Borg (4), winner of 11 slams
Adrianno Panatta, winner of 1 slam
Guillermo Vilas, winner of 4 slams

I would say the AO was won by more prestigious players. Does this then mean that Borg's accomplishments are less because he won 6 French opens??

You can't be bloody serious. You have www.atptennis.com - go dig up the draws for these tournaments and tell me with a straight face that the Aussie had better ones than the French.

CyBorg
07-12-2007, 10:19 AM
Just for ***** and giggles:

Aussie Open 1979 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Australian_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles

French Open 1979 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_French_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles

In Borg's prime, The Aussie had the worst draws in its history - the least respect it ever garnered. The tournament had slightly more respectable draws towards the early 70s when old timers like Ashe were still around and Borg actually bothered to go there in '74.

Moose Malloy
07-12-2007, 10:38 AM
Mcenroe: slams 7/45 attempts. slam win loss record 167-38
Agassi slams 8/61 attempts slam win loss record 224-53

Agassi takes it.

maybe my calculator isn't working properly, but doesn't Mac have a better win % in both stats you just listed?

Hmmm, lets look at some of the "lesser players" that won the Australian Open in the 70's.


You should look at draws, not champions to get a better perspective on how good fields are. In 1975 Connors d Newcombe in the AO final, both great players. But they were the only top 20 players in the draw that year!

this is from another post I made in another thread:

Here were the top 10 seeds the 1977 AO(held in January)
Their year end rankings for '76 are in parentheses.
1. Vilas (6)
2. Tanner (11)
3. Ashe (12)
4. Rosewall (13)
5. Edmondson (35)
6. Ruffels (27)
7. Stockton (15)
8. Crealy (38
9. Dent (37)
10. Case (45)

The draws for the rest of AOs held between 1972-1982 are similarly weak. And the FO was weak from '70-'72 as well, many of the top players were banned for being WCT players. But from that point on the French had very good fields(besides Connors)

TheNatural
07-12-2007, 11:56 AM
I didnt use my calculator, but Agassi won more. Agassi won 1 more slam and 57 more slam matches. And Mcenroe wasnt going to win many more slam matches and definitely no more slams no matter how many more he played.

maybe my calculator isn't working properly, but doesn't Mac have a better win % in both stats you just listed?



You should look at draws, not champions to get a better perspective on how good fields are. In 1975 Connors d Newcombe in the AO final, both great players. But they were the only top 20 players in the draw that year!

this is from another post I made in another thread:

Here were the top 10 seeds the 1977 AO(held in January)
Their year end rankings for '76 are in parentheses.
1. Vilas (6)
2. Tanner (11)
3. Ashe (12)
4. Rosewall (13)
5. Edmondson (35)
6. Ruffels (27)
7. Stockton (15)
8. Crealy (38
9. Dent (37)
10. Case (45)

The draws for the rest of AOs held between 1972-1982 are similarly weak. And the FO was weak from '70-'72 as well, many of the top players were banned for being WCT players. But from that point on the French had very good fields(besides Connors)

Moose Malloy
07-12-2007, 12:19 PM
And Mcenroe wasnt going to win many more slam matches and definitely no more slams no matter how many more he played.


Right, Mac would have had no shot to win The Australian Open in '80,'81,'82, or '84, years which he skipped it & was either #1 or 2 in the world(& the AO was on grass those years) Johan Kriek won it 2 of those years.
That's like someone saying Seles wouldn't have won more slams if she wasn't stabbed. Imagine if Federer skipped the Australian for the last 4 years, that's what happened when Mac was in his prime(because Davis Cup was more important to him than the Australian Open)

Here was Mac's winning % in slams from the time of his 1st slam win to the time of his last slam win:

16 slams played from the '79 US Open-'84 US Open, 7 won, won 44% of slams entered in that span. Someone who was winning close to 50% of all slams he entered would have no shot at winning at winning any of the 4 that he skipped in that time?

and for Agassi:

36 slams played from '92 Wimbledon-'03 Australian Open, 8 won, won 22% of slams played in that span

It took a lot longer for Agassi to get to 7 slams than Mac, & Mac was playing less slams per year than Agassi most years.

Tanner77
07-12-2007, 12:23 PM
agassi won all four slams. mcrenoe won 1 less slams. agassi has more records. as far as these stats go agassi was better, but that doesn't mean he was a better player. who would win in a match, who knows.

drakulie
07-12-2007, 07:28 PM
You can't be bloody serious. You have www.atptennis.com - go dig up the draws for these tournaments and tell me with a straight face that the Aussie had better ones than the French.

If you want to look at entire draws, then look at me with a straight face and tell me Laver or any other player of his era had tough draws when he was beating up on amatuers (club players) in early rounds, while racking up tournament wins.

Additionally, he won the AO 3 times, so I suppose we shoudn't count those 3 slams to his total slam count or his two career slams since he had "easy draws".

Point is, the winners of the AO in the 70's were far superior players to the winners of the FO.



You should look at draws, not champions to get a better perspective on how good fields are.

So in other words we shouldn't be talking about total numbers at all. Who cares if Sampras won 14 slams, Laver 11, or Fed 11>>> we should look at who their competition is to figure out who is the better player. :roll:

Moose, I respect your posts, but you are seriously reaching, running in circles chasing your own tail, and changing the rules to benefit your argument.

Let's try and put all the logic you have tried to pass on this thread and see what conclusions we come up with. We will use Sampras as an example.

Sampras won 14 slams. However, 2 of those were at a non important slam that "Borg refused to play" so they shouldn't count. Therfore, He really only has 12 slams.

> He beat Agassi 4 times, and we all know that Agassi won most of his majors at a non important slam. In other words, he played against a weak field, and beat a weak player, so he is now down to 8 slams.

>He beat Ivanisavec ( a one-time slam winner) twice, so we know he is a weak player. He is now down to 6 slams.

>He beat Pioline twice ( zero slams), so we know he was a very weak player. He is now down to 4 slams.

> He beat Courier ( a pure baseliner) at Wimbledon ( a fast grass court). Although Courier won 4 slams, 2 of them were at the non-important slam so he really only beat a baseliner, on a fast court who only won two slams. He is now down to 2 slams.

> He beat Rafter (winner of 2 slams), so he is also a weak player. He is now down to 1 slam.

>He beat Becker, winner of 6 slams, but 2 were at the non important slam, so he really was only the winner of 4. However, Becker also beat Curren (zero slams and crappy player) at the 85 Wimbledon so Becker really only won 3 slams. Anyway, Becker wasn't really that good when he was in his prime, and when Sampras beat him he was well past his primeso Sampras beat a weak old player. He is now down to zero slams.


WOW! I never realized what a sh!!tty player Sampras was. Thanks for giving us "the rules" of how we should "really" look at players careers.

iambt21
07-12-2007, 09:36 PM
This has got to be a joke... have anyone ever looked at how ugly mcenroes forehand is? I cant believve hes a professional tennis player. however i do like his service motion. Agassi would **** on mcenroe.

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 09:38 AM
If you want to look at entire draws, then look at me with a straight face and tell me Laver or any other player of his era had tough draws when he was beating up on amatuers (club players) in early rounds, while racking up tournament wins.

Why would I tell you that and where did I say anything about Laver?

Additionally, he won the AO 3 times, so I suppose we shoudn't count those 3 slams to his total slam count or his two career slams since he had "easy draws".

Okay, your reading comprehension must be a little weak. You are aware that the conversation has centered on AO draws in the 70s and part of the 80s, right? AO draws particularly went downhill in the mid 70s and started recovering circa 1983.

Point is, the winners of the AO in the 70's were far superior players to the winners of the FO.

You could only make that argument about draws up until 1972 or so. Not after. The French Open had exceptional draws for most of the decade as has been pointed out in this thread more than once.

So in other words we shouldn't be talking about total numbers at all. Who cares if Sampras won 14 slams, Laver 11, or Fed 11>>> we should look at who their competition is to figure out who is the better player. :roll:

Yes - you are catching on, my friend. If we look at the total number of majors then we would have to rank Pancho Gonzalez alongside Johan Kriek. Take a bit of time and think about it.

Sampras won 14 slams. However, 2 of those were at a non important slam that "Borg refused to play" so they shouldn't count. Therfore, He really only has 12 slams.

Again, you're not reading the thread. No one is questioning the depth of AO draws in the 1990s. There is nothing wrong with Sampras' AO wins and no one here claims that there is.

WOW! I never realized what a sh!!tty player Sampras was. Thanks for giving us "the rules" of how we should "really" look at players careers.

Frankly this borders on trolling. No one has anything against Pete Sampras' majors.

Moose Malloy
07-13-2007, 10:15 AM
drakulie, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. You're the one who is coming up with strange interpretations of what I said, so its rather pointless in continuing. And you are very misleading even in using your own bizarre arguments(nice that you just picked some AO winners that were 'better' than some FO winners of the 70s/80s, convenient that you skipped Edmonson, Teacher, or Kriek. Not to mention finalists like Sadri & Marks)

Let me get to the main point(& my first point):

It is unfair to judge players of the past by a criteria(such as career slam, total slams, or all surface slams) that didn't exist or that no one cared about in their time. That doesn't mean that Sampras or Agassi or whoever aren't alltime greats & that you should dismiss what is considered important in their era. But try to weigh all the information. It isn't black & white, which apparently is how you view these matters.

you may find these links helpful(& don't forget that whole 'it isn't black & white' thing, since I imagine you'll come back with some bizarre way of arguing that Mac/Agassi/whoever must be rubbish, since he is only ranked X, Y or Z on one of the lists)

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=135592

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis%2C_male_players_statistics

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=118045

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_one_male_tennis_player_rankings#Male_ tennis_players_No.1_or_Co-No._1.2C_since_1913_.28sorted_by_descending_number _of_years.29

and there are some very great bios on players of the 60s/70s that may give you a better perspective as well. check out amazon or ****.

So in other words we shouldn't be talking about total numbers at all. Who cares if Sampras won 14 slams, Laver 11, or Fed 11>>> we should look at who their competition is to figure out who is the better player

I guess you aren't really familar with my past posts, I've said many times that 'total slams' is a very misleading way of judging players. Hell, even Sampras when he broke the slam record said that. Again, read the links. And take ALL the info into account, not just one aspect of it. And I was only referring to 'competition' when talking about the AO fields back then in relation to the other slams(though I did mention that the French experienced bad years from '70-'72 as well), not in comparing players.

And back to the original topic(Gizo summarized very well):

In Agassi's favor:

-won slams on 3 surfaces(clay, grass, hardcourt), while Mac did not.
-was more consistently good at all slams than Mac(specifically the French)
-longevity(over age 30 record), most years in top 10

In Mac's favor:
-was far more dominant(finished #1 more years than Agassi, his play in 1984 has only been equaled by Federer in the Open Era, his 5 year period-'79-84, trumps any 5 year period that Agassi had, & despite Agassi having more top 10 finishes, Mac had more top 5 finishes, which I think is more important at this level of 'greatness')
-while not as consistently good at all slams as Agassi(again I mean the French here), was more consistently great at 2 slams, Wimbledon & the US than Agassi (while Agassi was only consistently great at one-the AO)
-despite lack of longevity, has more total titles than Agassi(& as Gizo & those links show, that total wasn't padded with minor events)

And I feel that Mac was mentally tougher, I've seen Agassi choke so many times in his career, even when it seemed he was past that point(heck, didn't he blow a 4-0, 2 break lead in the 4th set vs Bagdahtis in the Open last year? I doubt Mac, or many of the other greats, ever failed to close out a set in which he had 2 breaks)

Using all the facts, I pick Mac. Though I understand why one would pick Agassi as well, since many are obsessed with surface in judging players more than any other factor these days. And it was impressive what he did.

But I find it hard to rank Agassi in almost any discussion really, he had the strangest career of any great player I can think of, with his up & down nature, & playing his best tennis in his 30s(which really no one else can say, there have been many players that were still great in their 30s, but none I can say that were better in their 30s compared to their 20s except Agassi)

Partly due to Agassi letting himself drop outside the top 100, at an age when he was in his athletic prime, I'm inclined to rank the other great players of the open era ahead of him. Mac & Borg let themself go when they were still young, but they had pretty much accomplished all they wanted & they were also starting families, which has distracted many great athletes over the years. Agassi let himself go when he still young & had so much to prove, which is inexcusable, despite the fact he was able to rebound. Some find that comeback admirable, but I think it shows a bit of disrespect to the game.

And I find it admirable that Mac passed on opportunities to win more slams, because of his dedication to Davis Cup(I mentioned earlier some of the years he skipped the AO, the Davis Cup final was only held a few week earlier, which was a factor in why he passed on Australia)
No other great player of the open era put his country above his own career in the same way.

So to summarize:

Agassi more versatile(good on all surfaces)

Mac more dominant(almost Fed like)

I prefer the latter.

FiveO
07-13-2007, 10:49 AM
I have to agree with Moose here. How do these numbers:

Mcenroe: slams 7/45 attempts. slam win loss record 167-38

That translates to McEnroe winning:

81.5 % of his matches at the majors

and won

15.5 % of the majors he played

Agassi slams 8/61 attempts slam win loss record 224-53

compared to Agassi winning:

80.9 % of his matches at the majors

and won

13.11 % of the majors he played

Agassi takes it.

...equate to Agassi "taking it"?

Gizo
07-13-2007, 12:51 PM
I completely agree with Moose about McEnroe's domination. He simulateneously dominated 2 out of the 3 biggest tournaments, Wimbledon and the US Open, while the only grand slam that Agassi dominated was the Australian Open from 2000-2003 (still very impressive). If we rank to two players' best calendar years alongside each other, this is what I would say(obviously it is highly subjective and you guys might totally disagree):

1 - McEnroe's 1984
2 - McEnroe's 1981 (an underrated year, especially given how fierce the competition was at that time)
3 - Agassi's 1999
4 - McEnroe's 1979
5 - McEnroe's 1983
6 - McEnroe's 1980
7 - Agassi's 1995

The fact that McEnroe contributes 5 out of the 6 best calendar years compiled by these two players combined, highlights how much more dominant he was than Agassi in my opinion, and I consider this to be more important than Agassi's greater versatility. I would also say that McEnroe leads Agassi by a greater margin in the dominance department, than Agassi does McEnroe in the versatility department.

The two players' career win-loss stats:
McEnroe - 864-194 (81.7%)
Agassi - 870-274 (76.0%)

McEnroe had a shorter career than Agassi by several years, but only won 6 matches less than him, which is interesting.

drakulie
07-13-2007, 01:12 PM
Why would I tell you that and where did I say anything about Laver?

No you didn't mention Laver. You began speaking about "weak draws", so I pointed out the obvious>>> that Laver, in all his glory played against extremely weak competition in many, many tournaments he won. People like you only like to talk about what suits your argument.


Okay, your reading comprehension must be a little weak. You are aware that the conversation has centered on AO draws in the 70s and part of the 80s, right?

No, unfortunately YOUR reading comprehension is weak. YOU joined this discussion late, and many points, and counter points have been dicscussed, including the AO, French, Wimbledon, and US Open long before you entered the discussion. By the way, someone else brought up the "70's" AO draws>>> not the 80's as you have just suggested.

AO draws particularly went downhill in the mid 70s and started recovering circa 1983.

You mean kind of like the French Open between 1970 - 1976 ( 7 years) where they didn't allow WTT or WCT players to play, or many of the top players didn't play including the world 1 player Jimmy Connors??

In fact, Connors didn't play the French Open between 74-78. He was the clear # 1 player in the world during this time. He was also 8-4 against Borg during this time, and held a 3-2 advantage over Borg on clay.
As a result of a "weak field/draw" Borg benefited by winning 3 of his 6 French Opens.

You could only make that argument about draws up until 1972 or so. Not after. The French Open had exceptional draws for most of the decade as has been pointed out in this thread more than once.

See above. I just pointed out the French DID NOT have "exceptional draws" during this time, and the AO cummulativley during this time had more prestigious winners than the French.

drakulie
07-13-2007, 01:33 PM
drakulie, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. You're the one who is coming up with strange interpretations of what I said, so its rather pointless in continuing.

Historical revisionist. **YOU**, not me, are the one that dismissed the importance of "certain slams", or "certain years", to benefit your argument.

And you are very misleading even in using your own bizarre arguments(nice that you just picked some AO winners that were 'better' than some FO winners of the 70s/80s,

Someone else brought up the 70's AO draws. Here it is to "refresh" your memory, which is why I did a comparison of the 70's AO champs to the French champs of that same time.

NOTE: No where in this post that I was responding to is their a mention of the 80's.


It was also won by lesser great in the 70's like Johan Kriek, Vitas Gerulaitis, Brian Gottfried.


It is unfair to judge players of the past by a criteria(such as career slam, total slams, or all surface slams) that didn't exist or that no one cared about in their time. That doesn't mean that Sampras or Agassi or whoever aren't alltime greats & that you should dismiss what is considered important in their era. But try to weigh all the information. It isn't black & white, which apparently is how you view these matters.

No I don't view these matters as black and white. YOU, NOT ME are the one that diminished the importance of certain slams and certain years.

And I was only referring to 'competition' when talking about the AO fields back then in relation to the other slams(though I did mention that the French experienced bad years from '70-'72 as well), not in comparing players.

And I was **ONLY** countering your point with my own point>>> that the French, and Wimbledon have had "weak draws" as well. Additionally, around the same period in history where both majors banned certain players ffrom entering those tournaments. Using **YOUR** argument, "Greats" like Borg were the benefactors (especially at the French).

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 01:50 PM
No you didn't mention Laver. You began speaking about "weak draws", so I pointed out the obvious>>> that Laver, in all his glory played against extremely weak competition in many, many tournaments he won. People like you only like to talk about what suits your argument.

I still don't know why you're talking about Laver. I responded to your post that spoke of Aussie draws in the 1970s. Exactly how many of them have Laver in them? I don't disagree that Laver played in his share of tournaments with weak draws. That would explain his 181 career titles.

No, unfortunately YOUR reading comprehension is weak. YOU joined this discussion late, and many points, and counter points have been dicscussed, including the AO, French, Wimbledon, and US Open long before you entered the discussion. By the way, someone else brought up the "70's" AO draws>>> not the 80's as you have just suggested.

As mentioned above, I responded to your comment as to the Aussie draws in the 1970s - this is a fact. This is what the discussion was about and you began to compare these draws to those at the French Open - I took you up on that and proved you wrong. Now you're dancing around the fact, drying to save face.

You mean kind of like the French Open between 1970 - 1976 ( 7 years) where they didn't allow WTT or WCT players to play, or many of the top players didn't play including the world 1 player Jimmy Connors??

Ummmm... Excuse me but no one here is claiming that the FO draws had all of the ranked players. I can say the same thing about the Masters Events around this time period. They were occasionally boycotted by players, though regardless they had stronger draws than the Australian Open. Again you're dancing around the issue. You made a false comment about Aussie draws being stronger in the 70s than the French draws and now you're just trying hard to avoid the debris of your explosive hubris.

In fact, Connors didn't play the French Open between 74-78. He was the clear # 1 player in the world during this time. He was also 8-4 against Borg during this time, and held a 3-2 advantage over Borg on clay.
As a result of a "weak field/draw" Borg benefited by winning 3 of his 6 French Opens.

Connors was banned from the French in 74, but later skipped it for political reasons (still ****ed about the 74 ban). That, alone, however does not render the French Open draws as weak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_French_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_French_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_French_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_French_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles

Here are the Aussie draws for the same time period...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Australian_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Australian_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Australian_Open_%28December%29_-_Men%27s_Singles

I am also not surprised to see that you don't know the difference between green clay and red clay, because Connors could beat Borg on the much faster green clay in those years, but was inept at best on red (you know, the surface on which they play at RG). The more you know...

See above. I just pointed out the French DID NOT have "exceptional draws" during this time, and the AO cummulativley during this time had more prestigious winners than the French.

Again, you're trying too hard in dancing around the issue by going into the subjectives of 'prestigious' winners.

drakulie
07-13-2007, 03:26 PM
As mentioned above, I responded to your comment as to the Aussie draws in the 1970s - this is a fact. This is what the discussion was about and you began to compare these draws to those at the French Open - I took you up on that and proved you wrong. Now you're dancing around the fact, drying to save face.

No you didn't prove anyone wrong. You stuck your foot in your mouth when you jumped into a conversation without knowing what was being talked about (the 1970's).

Here is my post where I responded to another poster who stated in the 1970's the winner of the AO Open was won by "lesser players than other slams".


Hmmm, lets look at some of the "lesser players" that won the Australian Open in the 70's.

Arthur Ashe, winner of 3 grand slams
Ken Rosewall (2), winner of 12?? grand slams
John Newcombe (2), winner of 7 grand slams
Jimmy Connors, winner of 8 grand slams
Gerulaitis
Guillermo Vilas (2), winner of 4 grand slams

Now lets look at some of the players that Won the French during that same time:

Jan Kodes (2), winner of 3 slams
Adnres Gimeno, winner of 1 slam
Ile Nastase, winner of 2 slams
Bjorn Borg (4), winner of 11 slams
Adrianno Panatta, winner of 1 slam
Guillermo Vilas, winner of 4 slams

I would say the AO was won by more prestigious players. Does this then mean that Borg's accomplishments are less because he won 6 French opens??




Ummmm... Excuse me but no one here is claiming that the FO draws had all of the ranked players. I can say the same thing about the Masters Events around this time period. They were occasionally boycotted by players, though regardless they had stronger draws than the Australian Open.

That is your opinion. Contrary to what you would like everyone to believe, the French open was without many of the top players for the majority of that decade. >>>The same as the Australian. The only difference being that in regards to the French these top players were not allowed to play, whereas the Australian they elected not to play.


Again you're dancing around the issue. You made a false comment about Aussie draws being stronger in the 70s than the French draws and now you're just trying hard to avoid the debris of your explosive hubris.

No, I said the winners of the AO compared to the French in the 1970's were more presitgious players.



Connors was banned from the French in 74, but later skipped it for political reasons (still ****ed about the 74 ban). That, alone, however does not render the French Open draws as weak.

Wrong again. Connors along with nearly 32 top players were banned from the French 1974, 75, and 76. He elected not to play in 70, 71, and then later in 77 and 78 (because he was ****ed).



I am also not surprised to see that you don't know the difference between green clay and red clay, because Connors could beat Borg on the much faster green clay in those years, but was inept at best on red (you know, the surface on which they play at RG).

What is more surprising is for you to assume that Connors was "inept" on a surface he was not allowed to play during three years that he was clear # 1 player in the world. The benefactor of course being Borg. Sucks to be a Borg fan when you know he won 3 of his titles against a weak field.

Moose Malloy
07-13-2007, 03:54 PM
Wrong again. Connors along with nearly 32 top players were banned from the French 1974, 75, and 76.

I wonder if urban or sgt john are reading this. I'm sure its news to them.

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 04:01 PM
a) Jimmy routinely skipped red clay events and often played none in the spring season .. he started playing them in the late 70s once he decided a return to RG would be a good idea .. until then he was inept on red clay, but not for a lack of talent; he had virtually no practice on the surface .. that being said, there was a lengthy thread on these boards about Jimmy's abilities on red clay and it was supported by many that the surface simply didn't suit him and it's true: Jimmy was an attacking player who reacted better to low bouncing balls and liked to attack his opponent .. in his early years he moonballed poorly.

b) The Australian had horrible draws for most of the 70s, as the tournament lost its reputation as one of the 'big four' .. the French picked up steam right around Nastase's win in '73 and got excellent draws ever since .. Borg first played at the French in 1973.

c) Connors was not one of the 32.

d) The fact that Connors was the #1 in the world did not make him adept on red clay (it's kind of like saying that Pete Sampras was great on red clay because he was #1) .. for the most part in the mid-70s Jimmy avoided red clay events, because he knew that he sucked on the surface

e) Borg won all of his six French Open against very strong fields .. the whole "Jimmy would have won" myth was argued against on these boards for a long time .. try the search engine.

drakulie
07-13-2007, 04:07 PM
the whole "Jimmy would have won" myth was argued against on these boards for a long time ..

Which is the same as saying "Borg, Connors, McEnroe" or whomever else "would of, could of" won the AO had they decided to play.

As I have been stating no one knows what could of happened. All we know is what did happen. Case Closed.

You may want to tell your buddy Moose that. He doesn't seem to get it.

Oh, and by the way, Just becase Borg began winning the French doesn't mean it "picked up steam". In fact it began losing steam because of all the players they banned and others who refused to play.

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 04:12 PM
Which is the same as saying "Borg, Connors, McEnroe" or whomever else "would of, could of" won the AO had they decided to play.

Naturally, if the AO had strong fields then the elite players would have gone on to be winners. One would suppose therefore that the likes of Borg, McEnroe and, yes, Connors would have been winners at the event in that time span. All were excellent players on hard and grass courts.

You may want to tell your buddy Moose that. He doesn't seem to get it.

You can learn a lot from Moose. He's one the more informed posters on TW.

Oh, and by the way, Just becase Borg began winning the French doesn't mean it "picked up steam". In fact it began losing steam because of all the players they banned and others who refused to play.

That's historically wrong.

drakulie
07-13-2007, 05:10 PM
Naturally, if the AO had strong fields then the elite players would have gone on to be winners.

Elite players were winners there. Or are you saying Ashe, Connors, Newcombe, Rosewall, Villas, etc weren't elite players? I suppose Vilas wasn't an elite player at the AO, but was an "elite player" when he won the French.


One would suppose therefore that the likes of Borg, McEnroe and, yes, Connors would have been winners at the event in that time span. All were excellent players on hard and grass courts.

One could also "suppose" if Borg would have played the AO in 73 he could have had a career ending injury. Or "suppose" that since he didn't go far in 74, he wouldn't have gone far there his entire career.

These are "what if" arguments, which is how this whole mess got started (by your buddy Moose).

There is a reason professionals or anyone else for that matter play the matches>>> to determine who the winner will be. They don't determine "winners" based on "what if' arguments.


You can learn a lot from Moose. He's one the more informed posters on TW.

I don't disagree, and in fact have stated many times, including in this thread I respect his knowledge of the game. What I don't respect is him or anyone else using a "would of", "could of", "what if" argument in order to undermine the achievements of one player to place their player on a higher platform, which is what he did earlier in this thread, and how this discussion got to this point.

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 05:28 PM
Elite players were winners there. Or are you saying Ashe, Connors, Newcombe, Rosewall, Villas, etc weren't elite players? I suppose Vilas wasn't an elite player at the AO, but was an "elite player" when he won the French.

Use your common sense. If the draws were better the results clearly would have been different. But none of this matters as long as one regards the Aussie of this time period as a second-rate tournament. Instead of the Aussies you would be much better served looking at the results in those years in such tournaments as Dallas, Philadelphia, Boston or Wembley.

One could also "suppose" if Borg would have played the AO in 73 he could have had a career ending injury. Or "suppose" that since he didn't go far in 74, he wouldn't have gone far there his entire career.

That wouldn't be very logical now, would it? You were the one to bring up the idea of pre-supposing results at the Aussie. I don't advocate this - there are many events in the 70s that substitue for the Aussie just fine and I've already listed them above.

These are "what if" arguments, which is how this whole mess got started (by your buddy Moose).

There is nothing iffy about a thread in which informed posters discuss the four most crucial tournaments from year to year. One such thread exists and does not count the Aussie as a vital tournament over this span of years. The fact of the matter is that the AO was sahara for much of the 1970s. There's nothing subjective about this.

There is a reason professionals or anyone else for that matter play the matches>>> to determine who the winner will be. They don't determine "winners" based on "what if' arguments.

Well, certainly. But not all tournaments weight equally, which is why perspective is vital. Without perspective one can actually assume that winning the Aussie in 1976 was more crucial than winning Dallas WCT, for example. Times have changed and so has the relative weight and importance of the Australian Open.

I don't disagree, and in fact have stated many times, including in this thread I respect his knowledge of the game. What I don't respect is him or anyone else using a "would of", "could of", "what if" argument in order to undermine the achievements of one player to place their player on a higher platform, which is what he did earlier in this thread, and how this discussion got to this point.

I suppose I could tell you how wrong you are since you've been spewing subjectives about Jimmy Connors and the French Open the whole day long, but I think that won't be getting me anywhere. You're as stubborn as an ox and about as well informed as one about tennis. It astounds me the way you can't deduce simple logic.

alkibiades
07-13-2007, 06:07 PM
[/B]

That is the problem with too many people on these boards. They did not see mac play in his prime. People are either too young or did not watch tennis at that time. Mac was talked about like Fed is today. He was a Superstar's Superstar. He had gifts no one had before or since. We will never, ever see a player like Mac. If I want to watch Agassi I could see him in almost every match of every round (not taking anything away from Andre, but there are a lot of his clones running around). Bottom line is no one, NO ONE can imitate Mac.

Bingo. And DNShade is right on the money also. Agassi was a great ballstriker on his groundstrokes, had a great return, and especially after he became so fit, was a very consistent, intimidating player. But, best against best, there is simply no comparison. Mac is a freak of nature; no one, including Federer, is as talented. He was the perfect tennis player. His work ethic during his peak years was probably worse than Agassi's during Agassi's worst years. And as impressive as he was on TV, you need to have seen him in person to appreciate his genius. Agassi took the ball early; Mac would literally go entire matches hitting almost nothing but half volleys. The velocity and directional control he had hitting these shots beggars the imagination; you had to see it to believe it. And if anyone thinks that his serve and volley game is outdated, watch him on the senior tour. He is over ten years older than Jim Courier -- Mac is almost fifty -- and he beat him in straight sets.

drakulie
07-13-2007, 07:17 PM
If the draws were better the results clearly would have been different.

Same could be said for the French.

Instead of the Aussies you would be much better served looking at the results in those years in such tournaments as Dallas, Philadelphia, Boston or Wembley.

Once again diminishing one tournament and substituting it for others. We could do the same with the French.

You were the one to bring up the idea of pre-supposing results at the Aussie.

Nice attempt at a spin. YOU and MOOSE are the one's doing this>>> arguing that it had weak draws, and yadayadayada. I've been the one standing firm stating that it is tuff luck some players refused to play there, and just because one would like to think they were elite players doesn't guarantee them a victory.


There is nothing iffy about a thread in which informed posters discuss the four most crucial tournaments from year to year. One such thread exists and does not count the Aussie as a vital tournament over this span of years.

Really? There is nothing "iffy" about someone stating that if Borg would have played the AO he would have won it?? Tell you what, when you prove that, let me know. I'll make sure to pass that "memo" to all the Champions who won it all those years so they could send Borg their trophies and prize money. I will also "CC" the ATP and Hall of Fame so they could adjust their numbers accordingly. LMAO!


The fact of the matter is that the AO was sahara for much of the 1970s. There's nothing subjective about this.

And so was the French.


I suppose I could tell you how wrong you are since you've been spewing subjectives about Jimmy Connors and the French Open the whole day long, but I think that won't be getting me anywhere. You're as stubborn as an ox and about as well informed as one about tennis. It astounds me the way you can't deduce simple logic.

Throughout this thread I have used several players and tournaments as examples>> not just Connors.

You just can't stand the fact that your own argument is being used against you. There are an infinite number of examples that could be used to "diminsh" one players achievements in an attempt to put another player on a higher platform, or say the importance of one tournament is higher than another, or one year in a particular tournament is higher than another, or the surface one year in a particular tournament was "better" than another year, etc, etc, etc. Such as:

> Fed like Borg has won 5 straight Wimbledons, but Borg did it on a faster surface, therefore "Borgs achievements count more" or vice versa.

> Sampras, like Connors won 5 US Opens, but Sampras won all of his on hard courts, and Connors won on 3 different surfaces so his "count more".

> Agassi won the 99 US Open but Sampras wasn't there, so it doesn't really count.

etc, etc, etc.

Do I need to go on?? Because I guarantee you this, any time you or anyone else makes an "if" argument>> I could do the same.

CyBorg
07-13-2007, 07:57 PM
Same could be said for the French.

Not if you look at the draws.

Once again diminishing one tournament and substituting it for others. We could do the same with the French.

I'm not substituting anything. The Aussie was a non-event for nearly 15 years in that time period. The word 'diminish' implies that the Aussie was more than a Mickey Mouse event. It wasn't. As for the French - you're just being stubborn.

Nice attempt at a spin. YOU and MOOSE are the one's doing this>>> arguing that it had weak draws, and yadayadayada. I've been the one standing firm stating that it is tuff luck some players refused to play there, and just because one would like to think they were elite players doesn't guarantee them a victory.

You imply that the Aussie has a fixed elite factor - that's a bad argument. I've already explained why that is.

Really? There is nothing "iffy" about someone stating that if Borg would have played the AO he would have won it?? Tell you what, when you prove that, let me know. I'll make sure to pass that "memo" to all the Champions who won it all those years so they could send Borg their trophies and prize money. I will also "CC" the ATP and Hall of Fame so they could adjust their numbers accordingly. LMAO!

Re-read my post. The Aussie has nothing to do with it. Debating about 70s Aussie results is like going over the list of winners in Houston.

And so was the French.

CyBorg: The earth is round.

drakulie: Nope, flat.

Throughout this thread I have used several players and tournaments as examples>> not just Connors.

You just can't stand the fact that your own argument is being used against you. There are an infinite number of examples that could be used to "diminsh" one players achievements in an attempt to put another player on a higher platform, or say the importance of one tournament is higher than another, or one year in a particular tournament is higher than another, or the surface one year in a particular tournament was "better" than another year, etc, etc, etc. Such as:

> Fed like Borg has won 5 straight Wimbledons, but Borg did it on a faster surface, therefore "Borgs achievements count more" or vice versa.

> Sampras, like Connors won 5 US Opens, but Sampras won all of his on hard courts, and Connors won on 3 different surfaces so his "count more".

> Agassi won the 99 US Open but Sampras wasn't there, so it doesn't really count.

etc, etc, etc.

Do I need to go on?? Because I guarantee you this, any time you or anyone else makes an "if" argument>> I could do the same.

This is not even readable. A post full of sound and fury - signifying nothing.

drakulie
07-14-2007, 09:13 AM
Not if you look at the draws.


I did, and it stands>> the same could be said about the French.

CyBorg
07-14-2007, 10:29 AM
I did, and it stands>> the same could be said about the French.

drakulie's awesome retorts are to...

... Fabrice Santoro's forehand.

ding, ding, ding.

Zimbo
07-14-2007, 10:49 AM
McEnroe himself says it's Agassi. He puts Agassi at #5 all-time behind Laver, Sampras, Federer and Borg.

I have to agree with Superman1. Mac himself said in many times. However, I think it is a little unfair because though they played each other during Mac's later years they were really from different generations. Mac's stroke and game was based on wood racqents while Agassi was based on early graphite. Mac always had problems with big power hitters (Lendl, Becker). IMO Agassi at his best would have a slight edge over Mac at his best. I don't see Agassi having that much problems returning Mac's serve. By the time Agassi was playing well he was returning guys like, Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Goran, etc.. serves so Mac's serve would have not given him as much trouble. Give Agassi a wood racqent and Mac would kill him. With a wood racqent Agassi wouldn't been able to take big chops at the ball and wouldn't have been able to crowd the baseline as much thus Mac would have eaten him up.

anointedone
07-14-2007, 10:54 AM
Agassi is a great player but no way would he have the edge over McEnroe at his best. McEnroe's 84 tennis, or even his 80 and 81 tennis, is superior to anything Agassi ever produced.

superman1
07-19-2007, 02:55 AM
I have to agree with Superman1. Mac himself said in many times. However, I think it is a little unfair because though they played each other during Mac's later years they were really from different generations. Mac's stroke and game was based on wood racqents while Agassi was based on early graphite. Mac always had problems with big power hitters (Lendl, Becker). IMO Agassi at his best would have a slight edge over Mac at his best. I don't see Agassi having that much problems returning Mac's serve. By the time Agassi was playing well he was returning guys like, Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Goran, etc.. serves so Mac's serve would have not given him as much trouble. Give Agassi a wood racqent and Mac would kill him. With a wood racqent Agassi wouldn't been able to take big chops at the ball and wouldn't have been able to crowd the baseline as much thus Mac would have eaten him up.

It's all hypothetical.

One thing is for certain--Mac is not an idiot. He is not basing Agassi's greatness on the one match they played at Wimbledon (Mac had beaten Agassi 2 other times before that match, so it's not like McEnroe thought he was invincible), he is basing it on all of the years that he has sat and watched and commentated on Agassi's matches, and all of the years that Agassi has consistently shown that he can hang with any generation of tennis players, using any equipment, on any surface.

JohnnyF
07-19-2007, 07:46 AM
Really, during McEnroes prime the Masters at Madison Square Garden was considered more important than the Australian open. McEnroe won this title in 1979, 1984, and 1985. McEnroe only played the Australian once in his prime (1983) Both players are icons for a generation so emotions run high on this one.
I'm in the McEnroe camp.
Anybody lucky enough to see McEnroe play tennis in 1984 saw in my opinion the most beautiful tennis every played. It was just downright pretty.

superman1
07-19-2007, 02:44 PM
Not the last 3 sets at the French Open, though. That's the only part of the match I caught, and it was just ugly. Mac couldn't get a first serve in. Imagine if he had won that match. My God, he could have a completely different career. He'd be right up there with Sampras and Laver and Federer, maybe even above them.

Yeah, it's ridiculous how this sport works. One point goes the other way, and suddenly you're not the GOAT.

Azzurri
07-24-2007, 08:16 AM
Really, during McEnroes prime the Masters at Madison Square Garden was considered more important than the Australian open. McEnroe won this title in 1979, 1984, and 1985. McEnroe only played the Australian once in his prime (1983) Both players are icons for a generation so emotions run high on this one.
I'm in the McEnroe camp.
Anybody lucky enough to see McEnroe play tennis in 1984 saw in my opinion the most beautiful tennis every played. It was just downright pretty.

Good point and very true. The MSG Masters was considered a 5th major for quite a few years...very prestigious event. I realize it did not have a full field, but so what. It was the best of the best. Agassi is/was a great player...an all-timer, but he would get beat by Mac 7/10 matches in their prime. Too bad Mac met Tatum "F%^cked me up" O'Neil. That whole O'Neil family was not normal. If Mac stayed to his game for 2-3 more years he would have won 2-3 more majors at least, but we will never know.

Wuornos
08-08-2007, 03:43 AM
I'd go with Mc but Agassi was great player nevertheless.

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-08-2007, 03:52 AM
Anybody lucky enough to see McEnroe play tennis in 1984 saw in my opinion the most beautiful tennis every played. It was just downright pretty.

True. John McEnroe was blessed with superior talent, and is one of the few artists the sport ever witnessed.

There are too many Agassi closes to count--aside from his unique return of serve (in the Connors arena), the rest of his game was simple.

joesixtoe
08-17-2007, 07:02 PM
agassi is an amazing talent, with amazing hitting abilities. Mcenroe is an amazing talent with amazing volley abilities. Who knows who would have won, who really cares. Mac couldn't handle agassi from the baseline at all. mac would have to play serve and volley. sampras beat agassi that way, I don't see why mcenroe since he had a great serve couldn't do it.

superman1
08-18-2007, 07:14 AM
I haven't watched any of their matches together so I can only speculate. The difference between Sampras/Agassi and McEnroe/Agassi is that Sampras had a better serve (Mac's is still one of the best) and was better off the ground. Sampras could hang with Agassi from the baseline whereas Agassi would have Mac moving side to side like a rag doll. On the other hand, McEnroe was better at net than Sampras. Mac could take the ball earlier than Sampras and redirect it (in his autobiography, he says that Agassi was the first guy he saw who took the ball as early as him. The difference was that Agassi hit it twice as hard).

McEnroe is probably more talented, had more potential, but I have to go with AA on this one since he won 8 and won the Grand Slam. McEnroe was a quark away from doing the same, but the fact remains that he couldn't do it. Agassi is also a guy who didn't live up to his potential, so they have a lot in common.

asf
08-18-2007, 01:36 PM
i have to agree that people who pick agassi are too young to have seen mac in his prime. if you had watched tennis at all in 1984 there's no way you could think agassi is better (yes, even including the french final, as long as you also watch the wimbledon final right after). i have still never seen anyone play as well as mac that year.

noeledmonds
08-18-2007, 02:20 PM
This is what McEnroe himself has to say about it:

"If I had to name the top five or six guys at this point, I would put Sampras, I would put Laver, I'd have to put Borg up there because he won the eleven, I'd put Federer in there now, I'd put Agassi in there...if I could be thrown in the same breath as those guys I'd be happy."
John McEnroe

Wuornos
08-22-2007, 04:09 AM
For me I would pick McEnroe as the 'greater' player. He was far dominant of his contemporaries than was Agassi.

McEnroe scored 11-8 in Major Semi Finals and 7-4 in Finals.

While Agassi scored 15-11 in Major Semi Finals and 8-7 in Finals.

Agassi's big successes were spread over a much greater time period also leading one to think he was not as dominant as Mc Enroe. McEnroe scored his 7 major titles over 6 years, while Agassi had 8 titles spread over 12 years.

Just my humble opinion. :D

Vector
08-24-2007, 09:43 AM
Why no poll:confused:

Andre

downthewall
08-24-2007, 09:51 AM
Johnny Mac at his prime = to a 5.5 player today. end of story

snapple
08-24-2007, 10:03 AM
Johnny Mac at his prime = to a 5.5 player today. end of story

I'm assuming this quip was simply meant to ruffle feathers. Mac plays at a ATP professional level TODAY. But thanks for the laugh.

superman1
08-25-2007, 08:29 AM
However, I would rate Agassi as the 'better' player. The game had moved on since McEnroe's days and the general standard was higher. Agassi also had to compete with Sampras. Consequently even though his quality of tennis was probably higher than McEnroe's his impact on the game was probably less.

McEnroe was 2-2 against Agassi. How is his standard lower? His game is deceiving. You'd think he's just pushing the ball with those stick arms of his and trying to get to net. In reality, he had a wicked serve, he was quick on his feet, and he took the ball extremely early (as early as Agassi) and directed it to all the right angles with varying spins, meaning he was very difficult to play against even when he was at the baseline. Then when he got to net, he could take anything you threw at him.

That being said, if I had to play either of these guys in their primes and my life or death goal was to win a few points, I'd play McEnroe. The rule of thumb with Agassi is that if you don't have any huge weapons, he'll crush you into dust.

Mick
08-25-2007, 08:33 AM
the difference between Agassi and McEnroe is:
McEnroe is still playing and Agassi has stopped playing. Agassi's style of play was too hard on his body.

superman1
08-25-2007, 08:58 AM
Killer Cahill says that Agassi is still hitting the gym and is stronger than ever, and could come back on tour and not miss a step. However, the back problems would gradually start to plague him again.

AznHylite
08-26-2007, 08:15 PM
I would say Agassi because he's a much better ballstriker.

Gorecki
08-28-2007, 07:43 AM
the difference between Agassi and McEnroe is:
McEnroe is still playing and Agassi has stopped playing. Agassi's style of play was too hard on his body.

I guess he is just taking a break. he will come back one day for the Blackrock. then we will see these two amazing champs. at least i hope so.

Wuornos
09-06-2007, 03:36 AM
On the Marsh Rating system I use to evaluate past players the breakdown is as follows.

JohnMcEnroe won 7 majors, appeared in a further 4 finals and lost in the semi finals of majors on 8 occasions. Andre Agassi won 8 majors appeared in a further 7 finals and lost in 11 semi finals. Therefore their total achievement points are 123 and 155 respectively. We must therefore consider Andre as the player with the highler level of total achievement.

Looking at the spread of their successes, Andre's major successes were spread over a longer period. The spread factors were calculated as 3.63 to John and 2.25 to Andre. Using this to multiply their achievement points we calculate their level of dominance against their peers. This gives John a Dominance of 447 points and Andre a dominance of 348 points. We can therefore say that John was the more dominant of his peers at his peak.

Looking at the opposition John had to compete against both Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors, while Andre had Pete Sampras and to a lesser extent, Ivan Lendl. The opposition adjuster which is derived from weighted peer dominance factors gives John 2.64 compared with 2.34 for Andre. Multiplying their dominance ratings by these factors gives overall ratings of John 1180 and Andre 814.

In conclusion you would have to rate John as the better player on his performance record. Andre achieved a great amount of success but he just didn’t dominant the game in the way John did.

John McEnroe’s score of 1180 places him 4th on the list of male singles players of the open era.

Andre Agassi’s score of 814 places him 13th on the list of male singles players of the open era.

hjminard
09-06-2007, 05:29 AM
McEnroe ... and I don't think it's even close.

suwanee4712
09-06-2007, 06:27 AM
I'd go with Mac, though I think Lendl's underated. I have mixed feelings about Agassi. I admire him for getting it together later in his career. But I don't look at him in the same way that I look at Mac, Lendl, or Sampras.

Ultra2HolyGrail
09-12-2007, 05:15 PM
The best mac vs the best agassi- agassi wins. One odd fact with mac is he never won a GS title after unbelievable 1984 year.

Ultra2HolyGrail
09-12-2007, 05:16 PM
I would say Agassi because he's a much better ballstriker.

You aint kidden. Plus andre's return game would give mac nightmares.

CEvertFan
09-12-2007, 09:12 PM
McEnroe better at the net by far.

Agassi better from the baseline by far.

I think Agassi's return of serve would have given McEnroe plenty of reasons to throw tantrums if they had played one another in their primes because I think Mac's serve would be very attackable from Agassi. I also think that McEnroe's touch at the net would have served him well against Agassi.


Agassi didn't dominate like Mac did, but he has a career Grand Slam as well as better longevity than Mac. All in all a pretty tough call about who is greater.

Also, if they were playing with modern rackets I would go with Agassi every time but if they were playing with wood I would have to go with Mac.

stormholloway
09-12-2007, 09:34 PM
McEnroe was beating players with very modern games in the 80s lest you people forget. Don't act like his style is outdated and obsolete. Touch will never been obsolete in tennis and nobody in the game has ever had touch like his.

Had McEnroe not taken his hiatus from tennis with his marital problems he'd have 12 slams. He deserves respect as a guy who just won an ATP doubles title at age 48. His game would give any man trouble even now.

As for Mac vs. Agassi? They're both great. Agassi can read a serve well but McEnroe's serve is one of the hardest to read EVER.

My verdict? Depends on the surface.

eman70
09-16-2007, 08:13 AM
Connors is the better

Jackie T. Stephens
09-16-2007, 08:22 AM
I would have to go with Agassi after all McEnroe was really good but Agassi has more weapons in his game.

Amone
09-16-2007, 08:24 AM
I may be biased (big McEnroe fan, but I think that's a result, and not a cause) but I think McEnroe is undeniably better. Who would win if they played? Probably Agassi, considering he's ten years younger. But I think that "in their primes," McEnroe probably would've beaten Agassi with relative ease. Anyone can feel free to argue the point, but I feel like McEnroe was one of the most talented players as we know them now (maybe a more talented bunch will pop out tomorrow morning, eh?)
and he used it in such a way that even though he probably worked less at his skill, I doubt that Agassi would have much chance.

However, if I were to get myself a time-machine or something, I would be entertained to see Federer v. McEnroe. Hey-- a guy can dream.

Jackie T. Stephens
09-16-2007, 08:30 AM
I may be biased (big McEnroe fan, but I think that's a result, and not a cause) but I think McEnroe is undeniably better. Who would win if they played? Probably Agassi, considering he's ten years younger. But I think that "in their primes," McEnroe probably would've beaten Agassi with relative ease. Anyone can feel free to argue the point, but I feel like McEnroe was one of the most talented players as we know them now (maybe a more talented bunch will pop out tomorrow morning, eh?)
and he used it in such a way that even though he probably worked less at his skill, I doubt that Agassi would have much chance.

However, if I were to get myself a time-machine or something, I would be entertained to see Federer v. McEnroe. Hey-- a guy can dream.

I have to agree with the age difference thing that agassi would win but if McEnroe was in his prime then most likely he would beat Agassi.

shutupova
09-16-2007, 01:53 PM
easily it is agassi for me.
in fact, he lies ahead of sampras in GOAT ranking in my mind.

i want to see more actions from agassi.. can he please come back?

superman1
09-17-2007, 04:06 PM
But I think that "in their primes," McEnroe probably would've beaten Agassi with relative ease.

Mac would be the first to laugh at this remark. No one beats Agassi with ease, just like no one beats McEnroe with ease. It's not humanely possible, unless Agassi's back is falling apart, or McEnroe's horse 'roids make him move like Nadal.

witt4ace
09-17-2007, 05:43 PM
Probably Mcenroe.

paterson
09-18-2007, 08:27 PM
Watch the 1992 Wimbledon SF and see Agassi abuse the McEnroe
serve.

Gorecki
09-19-2007, 09:33 AM
wasnt this the Jmacs kingdom and Andre's worst surface? go figure?

i remeber being a kid and seing that hairy guy abusing(well said) the Macs "vicious kick serve" with is "low talented" baseline game and getting delighted.

ps: im ready for the flamming too... after all TT is the connors\mcenroe yard...

Amone
09-19-2007, 02:57 PM
wasnt this the Jmacs kingdom and Andre's worst surface? go figure?

i remeber being a kid and seing that hairy guy abusing(well said) the Macs "vicious kick serve" with is "low talented" baseline game and getting delighted.

ps: im ready for the flamming too... after all TT is the connors\mcenroe yard...

I admit to liking Mac... but there are two things that I do have a problem with. Actually, Wimbledon wasn't Mac's surface, per se.. though I could be wrong about this. So, we'll count. Singles titles only, in this count, though I recognise that Mac was a great doubles player.

Australian : 0
RG : 0
Wimbledon : 3
USO : 4

Finalist in the GS tournaments:

AUS : 0
RG : 1
WIMBLEDON : 2
USO : 1

I'd say that if any tournament was "his" tournament, it'd be the US Open.

Second point, the misconception that people view Agassi as talentless. Of course he was talented-- he got by for the first part of his career on little else, much the same as Mac is still doing now even on the senior tour. The fact that I think Mac had more doesn't translate to Agassi having none.

Gorecki
09-19-2007, 11:43 PM
And besides, Jmac was, is and will always be a total A hole, either on court with is attitude or in the press box with is jack azz comments.

hoodjem
09-20-2007, 05:24 AM
Who cares about doubles or mixed doubles.

I do. It ain't all about singles. Playing doubles shows a devotion to and enjoyment of the game, not just the championships and the money.

Playing doubles also requires a player to have a deeper game with more variety, and do things a singles player might not be able to do (like have a net game). To play doubles one had better be good on the backcourt and at the net, and also in no man's land. You have to have quicker reflexes.

There are more passing shots in doubles, more overheads, and more lobs. And more strategy. Doubles is a more intelligent game. Lots of fun to watch, if one likes more than power.

It ain't all slam, bam, point over.

hoodjem
09-20-2007, 05:37 AM
In order to make fans/general population think Agassi's career was somehow greater than it was, I noticed Carillo, P. McEnroe and others blathering on about the so-called "career slam" to justify speaking of Agassi in the same breath as the legends. The only grand slam is the calendar slam, and Agassi's abilities were not going to allow that landmark to happen.

I agree. The concept of a "career slam" is a joke. It is meaningless.

hoodjem
09-20-2007, 06:04 AM
[/B]

Mac was talked about like Fed is today. He had gifts no one had before or since. We will never, ever see a player like Mac. If I want to watch Agassi I could see him in almost every match of every round (not taking anything away from Andre, but there are a lot of his clones running around). Bottom line is no one, NO ONE can imitate Mac.

I do wish there were more serve-and-volley players around today. Maybe the best thing about the two Borg-McEnroe Wimbledon finals was that their styles were SOOOOOO different. And each was the absolute best at that time of each style: Mac was an unbelievable net player and Borg an incomparable baseliner.

hoodjem
09-20-2007, 06:49 AM
Jimmy routinely skipped red clay events and often played none in the spring season .. he started playing them in the late 70s once he decided a return to RG would be a good idea .. until then he was inept on red clay, but not for a lack of talent; he had virtually no practice on the surface .. that being said, there was a lengthy thread on these boards about Jimmy's abilities on red clay and it was supported by many that the surface simply didn't suit him and it's true: Jimmy was an attacking player who reacted better to low bouncing balls and liked to attack his opponent .. in his early years he moonballed poorly.


d) The fact that Connors was the #1 in the world did not make him adept on red clay (it's kind of like saying that Pete Sampras was great on red clay because he was #1) .. for the most part in the mid-70s Jimmy avoided red clay events, because he knew that he sucked on the surface

Maybe CyBorg is distinguishing between red clay versus green clay.

But it appears that Connors was pretty good on "clay" in the 1970s. He won the US Clay Court Championships in 1974 (defeating Borg), 1976 (defeating Fibak), 1978 (defeating Higueras), and in 1979 (defeating Vilas).

Just a footnote.

djsiva
09-21-2007, 07:33 PM
Agassi's game is nothing special. You see different versions of it in the current pros today.

No one does what Mac does.

This doesn't make him better, but its something to consider.

CyBorg
09-21-2007, 07:52 PM
Maybe CyBorg is distinguishing between red clay versus green clay.

But it appears that Connors was pretty good on "clay" in the 1970s. He won the US Clay Court Championships in 1974 (defeating Borg), 1976 (defeating Fibak), 1978 (defeating Higueras), and in 1979 (defeating Vilas).

Just a footnote.

Yes, I was. They are completely different surfaces.

I was a little harsh, in retrospect. But it is true that Connors was completely untested on red clay for much of the 1970s.

brc444
09-28-2007, 05:59 PM
What happened to all the green clay events? Is green clay just a US surface or does it exist elsewhere? Thanks.

djsiva
10-01-2007, 08:48 PM
I admit to liking Mac... but there are two things that I do have a problem with. Actually, Wimbledon wasn't Mac's surface, per se.. though I could be wrong about this. So, we'll count. Singles titles only, in this count, though I recognise that Mac was a great doubles player.

Australian : 0
RG : 0
Wimbledon : 3
USO : 4

Finalist in the GS tournaments:

AUS : 0
RG : 1
WIMBLEDON : 2
USO : 1

I'd say that if any tournament was "his" tournament, it'd be the US Open.

Second point, the misconception that people view Agassi as talentless. Of course he was talented-- he got by for the first part of his career on little else, much the same as Mac is still doing now even on the senior tour. The fact that I think Mac had more doesn't translate to Agassi having none.

There's really nothing special about Agassi. He just had financial backing in the begining and hype money got him through to end with a decent career.

Look at his game. Flashy at begining. All pros nowadays can hit as hard as he did when he was younger. A mediocre player like Nalbandian is technically much better. So he's nothing special.

Mac was special.

Gorecki
10-02-2007, 12:09 AM
I agree. The concept of a "career slam" is a joke. It is meaningless.

You are absolutely right, it is meaningless along with going to the moon and mapping the dna and discovering the aids cure... and we are all living in a huge spacecraft...

Azzurri
10-02-2007, 06:05 AM
easily it is agassi for me.
in fact, he lies ahead of sampras in GOAT ranking in my mind.

i want to see more actions from agassi.. can he please come back?

So the Sampras 20-14 edge does not enter your mind?

Azzurri
10-02-2007, 06:06 AM
Watch the 1992 Wimbledon SF and see Agassi abuse the McEnroe
serve.

Mac was no where near his prime.;)

Azzurri
10-02-2007, 06:29 AM
There's really nothing special about Agassi. He just had financial backing in the begining and hype money got him through to end with a decent career.

Look at his game. Flashy at begining. All pros nowadays can hit as hard as he did when he was younger. A mediocre player like Nalbandian is technically much better. So he's nothing special.

Mac was special.

8 majors and the career GS....you are correct, NOTHING SPECIAL.

The more I read your dribble the more its...well...dribble.

anchorsteamer
10-02-2007, 10:05 AM
There's really nothing special about Agassi. He just had financial backing in the begining and hype money got him through to end with a decent career.

Look at his game. Flashy at begining. All pros nowadays can hit as hard as he did when he was younger. A mediocre player like Nalbandian is technically much better. So he's nothing special.

Mac was special.

Wow...thats an interesting opinion...your right though...winning a grand slam on all 4 surfaces really is nothing special...

drakulie
10-02-2007, 01:06 PM
8 majors and the career GS....you are correct, NOTHING SPECIAL.

The more I read your dribble the more its...well...dribble.

it's all subjective rhetoric. Including a 14-20 record against arguably the greatest player of all time. Yup, must have been the "hype money" that got him thru those 14 matches, and 8 slams, and career slams, and all those masters shields, and........ :roll:

Azzurri
10-02-2007, 03:51 PM
it's all subjective rhetoric. Including a 14-20 record against arguably the greatest player of all time. Yup, must have been the "hype money" that got him thru those 14 matches, and 8 slams, and career slams, and all those masters shields, and........ :roll:

LOL....forgot about the money. I guess the $5 I was paid last night is the reason me and my partner game back in the 3rd set from 5-0 down to win 7-6 (5).....money will do wonders for your game.

Pleepers
10-02-2007, 05:24 PM
Agassi > Mac

djsiva
10-03-2007, 02:52 PM
Agassi never really dominated like Mac did.

When Agassi was #1 no one thought he was unbeatable. Not even Agassi.

When Mac, Sampras , and Lendl were #1. Everyone knew they were the #1 player. Just like how Federer is feared today.

So Mac is definitely better than Agassi.

Wuornos
10-21-2007, 09:02 AM
My point is you'll never know because they used different racquets played different surfaces against different people. There is no "better", because they are from two different eras surrounded by different players. But I would rather WATCH Agassi and found his re-emergence at the top of the game late in his career thrilling, whereas Mcenroe, for all his ability, was a whiny brat.

I don't see McEnroe as a whiny brat. Yes he challenged calls when he thought they were wrong and so what. The agression McEnroe had was part of his personality and to not challenge what he saw as a legitamtely poor calls would have been beyond him. Without that agression he wouldn't have been McEnroe and his game wouldn't have been what it was either.

Give me McEnroe with all his aggression rather than some watered down diluted version who's standard of tennis was weaker as a result.

I can't really underttand this debate. To me John McEnroe was such a good player and to challenge that on the etiquette of challenging a call just seems irrelevant.

Tshooter
10-22-2007, 12:33 PM
McEnroe for many of the reasons stated.

And I agree with the point that some made that the Australian was a 2nd tier tournament in the 80s (and arguably into the early 90s). It was not the fourth most important tournament by any stretch.

But "challenged calls" doesn't begin to describe McEnroes behavior. And "whiny brat" may be the kindest description of his behavior I've heard.

Aeropro master
10-22-2007, 01:50 PM
Both were good players but the slight advantage goes to mac.

Argento full
09-10-2009, 02:32 AM
Mc Enroe >>> Agassi
end of story

Bruguera
09-10-2009, 07:41 AM
Johnny Mac with the more dominant peak.. Overrall career and longevity and overrall achievements Andre IMO.

Both great in their own ways

jrepac
09-10-2009, 07:44 AM
What a hot bed this thread has generated...let me throw more gasoline on it

1) Connors "ineptness" on red clay? Well, not his best surface, but inept is an awfully strong word there...he had some very good wins at RG when he started playing...made the semis 3 or 4 times, as I recall. Not to mention going toe-to-toe with Chang in 1991..to this day, I find that match scary...Connors was nearly 40 and playing at Chang's level on the red stuff. We'll never know if he would've taken out Borg there during his prime years...that ban was a disgrace...'76 USO final suggests "maybe", but really not a definite.

2) In the 70's and early 80's, it is fair to say the both AO and RG fields were a bit spotty...particularly at the AO. Many of the men just did not want to be bothered going over there to play on grass in December...this does not mean that the fields were bad, just that some of the very top guys didn't care about it that much. The emphasis really was on the USO and Wimby, for whatever reason.

3)Agassi and Mac are such totally different players. But, I'd advise all of you Agassi fans to go watch Mac from 1984...aside from the RG fiasco, he was simply amazing...Federer-like. His destruction of Connors in the Wimbledon final was off the charts...and Connors was playing quite well heading into that match. He then took Lendl apart at the USO final. He lost very few matches that entire year...he was just that dominant.

4) Their skill sets are so different as well...would Mac's serve outweigh Agassi's skill returning and playing baseline? Maybe....if he could keep the serve away from Andre. I think it would be a lot like a Mac v. Connors match, with the typical ebbs and flows. I could see Mac at his very best cutting thru Andre....he would just keep the ball away from him and the rallies, if any, very short.

5)On basis of entire career, all events, Davis Cup and dubs included, you have to pick Mac. Plus, 3 wimbledons and 4 US Opens will always be more highly regarded than the agassi's portfolio w/4 AOs in it (sorry, but true). And while Andre had to deal with Sampras, I think that is offset by the trio of Borg/Connors/Lendl....incredibly tough customers across a wide range of surfaces.

6)I do think both Agassi and Mac wasted a lot of their talent during their non-productive "head case" years....Agassi "came back" from what was a non-starter of a career frankly.....his '92 win at Wimbledon was a shocker...
in terms of entire career, Agassi kind of aligns with Connors...success across multiple surfaces, similar skills, good longevity...got the fans behind them firmly in their later years... [you can argue about which one of these 2 are "better" in another thread!]

While I am a big Andre fan, all in all, tho', the nod goes to Mac.

Bruguera
09-10-2009, 08:46 AM
And would Johnny Mac of been as great and dominant and at the top of his game if he had Pete to deal with his entire career? No. He would see success but he wouldnt have been head and above as dominant. There were a few years there Andre would have been hands down the best player for a few season and had complete dominance. 1995 and 1999 just a name two and maybe a few others.. Unfortunately, when Andre was playing his best tennis Pete was still there on top stopping Agassi from being the hands down best for a few seasons

jrepac
09-10-2009, 12:40 PM
Mac had a troika of Borg, Connors and Lendl to cope with..not to mention Wilander..absolutely no offense to Pete, but I think those 3/4 are more than enough to deal with day in and day out....as terrific as Pete is/was, you are talking 3 very top tier guys to cope with, not just one...Mac was able to rise above them (even if he could not always sustain it year over year...as in '80/'82/85/87)....

Who did Andre really have to deal with, other than Pete? I think Courier, Rafter and some of the others were really a bit below him, in terms of skills. [yet, he did lose some important matches to those guys....like at the French and Wimby]

I think there are a handful of matches where Agassi should've nailed Pete, but he let him get into his head...particularly that last US Open Final and the stellar quarterfinal match from a few years earlier. For whatever reason, Andre often did not play his best against Pete...I could never quite figure it...[not taking anything away from Sampras, he was a superb player]...but he often smoked Andre/made him look bad....sometimes it looked like Andre had stone feet against Sampras. Maybe he just couldn't "read" his shots....couldn't say for sure. But, I always found it frustrating. I think Andre played better against Federer than Sampras, quite honestly.

Bruguera
09-10-2009, 09:14 PM
Mac had a troika of Borg, Connors and Lendl to cope with..not to mention Wilander..absolutely no offense to Pete, but I think those 3/4 are more than enough to deal with day in and day out....as terrific as Pete is/was, you are talking 3 very top tier guys to cope with, not just one...Mac was able to rise above them (even if he could not always sustain it year over year...as in '80/'82/85/87)....

Who did Andre really have to deal with, other than Pete? I think Courier, Rafter and some of the others were really a bit below him, in terms of skills. [yet, he did lose some important matches to those guys....like at the French and Wimby]

I think there are a handful of matches where Agassi should've nailed Pete, but he let him get into his head...particularly that last US Open Final and the stellar quarterfinal match from a few years earlier. For whatever reason, Andre often did not play his best against Pete...I could never quite figure it...[not taking anything away from Sampras, he was a superb player]...but he often smoked Andre/made him look bad....sometimes it looked like Andre had stone feet against Sampras. Maybe he just couldn't "read" his shots....couldn't say for sure. But, I always found it frustrating. I think Andre played better against Federer than Sampras, quite honestly.



Well Andre also had to deal with Courier there earlier on .. A very talented player especially at his best who was always a thorn in Andre's side as well.


No doubt Mac had to deal with some greats in his own right.. GUys like Borg connors, lendl etc. At the same time though, I think Mac matched up better with Borg, than he would have Pete. But thats just me.

jrepac
09-11-2009, 08:04 AM
well, that match in 1990 at the USO certainly showed what Sampras could do.....he simply stunned Mac (and lendl before that)...but in the final, Andre just seemed terrified and bewildered vs. Pete. I just didn't get it. Andre was the counter puncher to Pete....really, you'd think it's the kind of match up he'd welcome, but at times, it seemed he dreaded it. But, Pete at times, played stratospheric tennis. Guess Andre's peak times never quite aligned w/Pete's...tho' someone did remind me of the AO semi when Agassi tagged him in 5. And yes, Andre had a tough time w/Courier....again, not really sure why....Courier was solid, but Andre, I think had much more weaponry to hurt him with.

caesar66
09-14-2009, 11:24 AM
McEnroe's "TENNIS" career is far more impressive than Agassi's. When you look at his accomplishments as a singles, doubles, and mixed doubles player, along with his Davis Cup accomplishments>>>> Not Agassi, Borg, Sampras, Connors, Fed, etc or anyone else from that period to now comes close.

Completely agree. People get focused on overall slam count/years as #1/etc, and those are relevant categories for GOAT, but people overlook the overall career of McEnroe. I think his davis cup play, doubles, and mixed doubles titles along with his singles titles make him the most complete player of all time.

hoodjem
09-14-2009, 11:33 AM
18. McEnroe
19. Newcombe
20. Agassi

IMO

federerfanatic
09-14-2009, 11:33 AM
McEnroe easily. McEnroe's play at the 84 French btw was head and shoulders above Agassi's in winning the 99 French or any other French Open also so the whole career slam thing wouldnt affect my judgement at all.

Wuornos
09-14-2009, 09:21 PM
I would say John McEnroe

1 John McEnroe 2751
2 Andre Agassi 2708

Which means adjusting for the quality of oppostion faced I would expect John McEnroe to progress on average 0.86 of a round further per event at their respective peaks.

Tim

TheNatural
09-17-2009, 04:47 PM
Mac was much better in the first half of their respective careers (7 slams to 3), Agassi was WAY better than mac in the 2nd half of their respective careers (about their last 8 years of competing) 5 slams to 0. Mac retired when he was 33, but he won nothing in his last 8 years. If its just for men's singles I'll take Agassi.

Chopin
09-17-2009, 06:40 PM
Easy, easy answer: AA. No comparison.

borg number one
09-17-2009, 09:15 PM
McEnroe. Though Agassi is in say most top 10 lists due to the career slam, he at no point in his career was the clear #1. McEnroe did dominate, especially in 1984. At his peak, McEnroe was a superior player to Agassi. Agassi was better on clay of course, and won a French, but he lived in an era where Sampras dominated.

Wondertoy
09-17-2009, 09:23 PM
Agassi was never as dominate as McEnroe during their respective careers. Sampras owned Agassi. McEnroe in his prime would also own Agassi. Borg is better than Agassi and McEnroe forced Borg into retirement.

borg number one
09-18-2009, 12:57 PM
I agree with everything above, except the part about McEnroe "forcing Borg into retirement". That's not correct. No one person forced Borg into retirement. Borg was facing general burnout after a meteoric rise and greatness at the top. He just needed to probably take some time off and recommit himself, but he chose his own path, which is certainly his perogative. He didn't owe anything else to the Game, he gave so much to. He ushered in modern tennis in effect.

kiki
01-07-2011, 12:20 PM
Agassi never won a major indoor title other than one Masters ( to Mc 7).On grass, Mac eats Agassi for breakfast,lunch and dinner.On clay, it is the other way around.On hard, a regular Agassi would possibly win, but a peak Mc vs a peak Agassi, Mc loses one set AT MOST.

Agassi had weaker opposition, in the Australian Open beat 3 knows who and at Paris beat a guy called Medvedev.

Mcs only weak opposition is Chris Lewis at W and Brad Gilbert at Dallas.

Gizo
01-08-2011, 01:33 AM
To me 'better' means more talented, and there's no question that McEnroe was a more talented than player than Agassi. McEnroe is one of the most gifted players that has ever picked up a racket. Agassi was incredibly talented as well, but he is most one dimensional player out of all of the open era greats with the least variety in his game.

'Greater' means better achievements, and I think that McEnroe was also greater than Agassi. Domination is more important than versatility in my opinion. McEnroe was the best player in the world in 1981, 1983 and 1984, while Agassi was only the best player in 1999. Agassi was the least dominant out of the all open era greats.

McEnroe won 17 more titles than Agassi, and regularly won and dominated many of the biggest non-slam tournaments available to him. Throw in McEnroe's outstanding Davis Cup record (though of course Agass's was very good as well but not as good as McEnroe's), and I think that Mac had the better CV out of the two players.

adista4
01-08-2011, 02:31 PM
Andre no doubt

Mustard
01-08-2011, 02:36 PM
Taking the whole career as a package, Agassi, but in terms of dominant periods, McEnroe. Agassi seldom had a period of dominance, and his biggest rival, Sampras, had the last laugh in both of Agassi's best years on tour (1995 and 1999).

McEnroe did have periods of dominance, where he was clearly the best player and owned his rivals, the year of 1984 especially. So the answer to the thread question depends on what you place the greater value on.

Carolina Racquet
01-08-2011, 02:55 PM
Tough one, but my vote goes to Agassi.

Agassi won on all three surfaces and each of the Grand Slams.

IMO, the difference was the commitment Agassi made to conditioning and such. From what I remember, McEnroe never went down that road.

Mac had the best set of hands. Agassi, the best set of eyes.

NLBwell
01-08-2011, 10:19 PM
McEnroe was one of the all-time greats at his peak, but his peak was pretty short compared to Agassi who went up and down a few times in his long career. Agassi was never the dominant player at any time during his career. Since the question is who was better, not who had the better career, it has to be McEnroe.

Wilander Fan
01-08-2011, 10:48 PM
Mac. Without a doubt. Agassi was never a dominant player and IMO played in a very weak era that let him hang around and win well past his prime..

SusanDK
01-09-2011, 01:32 AM
To me 'better' means more talented, and there's no question that McEnroe was a more talented than player than Agassi. McEnroe is one of the most gifted players that has ever picked up a racket.


+1

I've got to go with McEnroe - far more talented, more versatile, broader range of skills. Mac was a natural talent, Agassi trained hard - or was made to train hard - from the crib to become the talent that he was. One wonders what McEnroe could have done had he trained harder and hadn't lost focus for some years that should have continued as his peak.

timnz
01-09-2011, 01:55 AM
Back then players skipped Australia or players like McEnroe would have won more slams.

But McEnroe did play the Australian Open. He played it in December 1983 ie only a few weeks before his peak year of 1984 and he also played it in December 1985 (The year after his peak year when he was still number 2).

Having said that I agree partially with your point. The WCT Finals (of which McEnroe won 5 times) and the Masters (McEnroe won 3 times) were more like the 4th Major.

Gizo
01-09-2011, 02:18 AM
McEnroe said that on a few occasions he was offered appearance money to appear at the Australian Open, despite the fact that he only ever played there when the tournament was making a recovery from its bleak 1976-1982 period. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the only reason he showed up there in 1983.

Tennis_Stringman
01-09-2011, 04:20 AM
Agassi won on all three surfaces and each of the Grand Slams.

Mac had the best set of hands. Agassi, the best set of eyes.

Agassi winning each GS is certainly an accomplishment but way overvalued IMO because in the past players skipped the AO for a decade and Connors and others were not allowed to play the FO when they played BJK's team tennis. Connors was destroying everybody in 1974. Perhaps Agassi is held at such a high level because he only recently retired. IMO McEnroe was clearly more dominant and better. He was the best in the world however Agassi never was.

juan guzman
01-09-2011, 06:03 AM
Mac match record 875 198 81.5%
Slams 167 138 81.5%
Versus top 10s 85 64 57%

He was a clear number 1 in 81 83 and 84.He won 3 masters and 5 WCT Dallas Finals a huge tournament in the 70s and 80s.Mac was 9 years in the top 5.

Agassi Match Record 870 274 76%
Slams 224 53 80.9%
Versus top 10 109 90 54.8%

He was number 1 in 99 but he lost 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras in 99.
16 years in the top 10 is awesome and 8 in top 5 not bad but less than even Edberg and Becker.

Flink, Drucker and Collins the 3 US tennis best writers pick Mac over Agassi.

No question in my mind Mac is better than Agassi and had a better carrer.

Azzurri
01-09-2011, 05:14 PM
Agassi had longer career in terms of winning his first to his last major. But Mac was a dominant player that Agassi never was. who was more consistent..Agassi but the better player is Mac. Both are my favorite players of all time, but Mac owned tennis for almost 5 years..Agassi never owned it.

Azzurri
01-09-2011, 05:16 PM
McEnroe was one of the all-time greats at his peak, but his peak was pretty short compared to Agassi who went up and down a few times in his long career. Agassi was never the dominant player at any time during his career. Since the question is who was better, not who had the better career, it has to be McEnroe.

he was ta his peak for a good 6 years and dominated for almost 5..I think that is a long time to be at the top.

timnz
01-09-2011, 05:28 PM
Agassi never won a major indoor title other than one Masters ( to Mc 7).On grass, Mac eats Agassi for breakfast,lunch and dinner.On clay, it is the other way around.On hard, a regular Agassi would possibly win, but a peak Mc vs a peak Agassi, Mc loses one set AT MOST.

Agassi had weaker opposition, in the Australian Open beat 3 knows who and at Paris beat a guy called Medvedev.

Mcs only weak opposition is Chris Lewis at W and Brad Gilbert at Dallas.

"Agassi never won a major indoor title other than one Masters ( to Mc 7)" not sure what this means. Who is Mc 7 that Agassi lost to.

"Paris beat a guy called Medvedev" Medvedev was one of the best clay players of the 90's (when he was playing well). His form was patchy. But during that tournament he brought his A game. So he was at a very very high level during that tournament.

cc0509
01-09-2011, 07:25 PM
I think you have to give it to McEnroe in his prime in terms of sheer natural talent alone. When he was on he was unbelievable.

kiki
01-10-2011, 10:48 AM
"Agassi never won a major indoor title other than one Masters ( to Mc 7)" not sure what this means. Who is Mc 7 that Agassi lost to.

"Paris beat a guy called Medvedev" Medvedev was one of the best clay players of the 90's (when he was playing well). His form was patchy. But during that tournament he brought his A game. So he was at a very very high level during that tournament.

I think Mac had a bit higher degree of opposition in the big titles he won and that also includes 7 major Indoor Titles and 7 GS in singles.I know Agassi had 8 GS and I do not want to take anything from him - I like the guy and is an AT Great by any means-.But, Agassi seldom beat Sampras, the n 1 of his era while Mac beat Borg, the n1 of his era more often in the big finals.

At the end, we are talking about personal opinions,to me a peak Mac is better, not by much but better than a peak Andre.I think many people forget how good Mc Enroe was against toes like lendl,Borg,Connors,Wilander when he was at his top.Agassi, on the other hand, had kind of a complex vs Sampras.

In all, Agassi was clearly better on clay, Mac on grass and Id give a bigger advantage to Mac on indoors than Id give to Agassi on hard.But I understand others can argue differently.

rudester
01-10-2011, 10:56 AM
Opinions will go on forever, so i will add mine. I think they were equally as good, but in different ways. Agassi had better ground strokes, Mcenroe better volleys, we will never know for sure.

kiki
01-10-2011, 10:59 AM
Opinions will go on forever, so i will add mine. I think they were equally as good, but in different ways. Agassi had better ground strokes, Mcenroe better volleys, we will never know for sure.

yes, a mixture of Mcs S&V and AA baselining produces an almost unbeatable player.Though, menthally wise, they needed to be tunned on, yous never know.

rainingaces
01-10-2011, 11:00 AM
You can not compare the two.

Gizo
01-10-2011, 11:30 AM
While Agassi was more accomplished on hard courts than Mac (of course he had more far more opportunities to wins slams and tour titles on the surface), I think that peak Mac on hard courts was better than peak Agassi on the surface in my opinion.

I felt that the tennis that McEnroe played to win his 4 US Open titles was generally of a much higher standard, than the tennnis Agassi played to win his 2 titles there, or his titles in Melbourne for that matter.

Of course Agassi was very lucky to win both of his US Open titles. Sampras played the tournament with an ankle injury in 1994, and he had been playing the best tennis of his career from Wimbledon 93 to Wimbledon 94 before that injury struck. He missed the tournament altogether in 1999, and his 24 match winning streak in the summer of 99 was his second best period/standard of tennis during his career. Plus Agassi had lightweight draws at Melbourne in 2001 and 2003. His title there in 2000 was impressive though. Both his semi-final and final were excellent matches.

kiki
01-10-2011, 11:38 AM
Mac in 84 was nearly untouchable.

Gizo
01-10-2011, 11:52 AM
Also at the US Open Mac had 3 wins over the Connors who is the open era king of that tournament, 2 over Borg and 1 over Lendl. Agassi on the other hand lost all 4 of this matches against Sampras there, despite being the pre-match favourite to win all of them.

And I think I said this earlier on this thread, but the fact that Mac's second best year, 1981, was more impressive than any year that Agassi had carries quite a lot of weight.

kiki
01-10-2011, 11:58 AM
Also had the US Open Mac had 3 wins over the Connors who is the open era king of that tournament, 2 over Borg and 1 over Lendl. Agassi on the other hand lost all 4 of this matches against Sampras there, despite the being the pre-match favourite to win all of them.

Sorry, 2 over Lendl ( 1980 Qf and 1984 F).In 1980 while not still the terrific player he later became, Lendl was the 4 th best player of the world, without any doubt, as proven by his 1980 Masters Final.

And he also kicked off the *** of Gerulaitis ( n 4 in the ATP rankings in 1979) in both 1979 and 1981 ( this one a classic 5 setter ) and also killed Wilander in their 185 SF ( he lost to Lendl in the F)

kiki
01-10-2011, 12:00 PM
Is that Medvedev the guy ruling Russia right now ?

Gizo
01-10-2011, 12:15 PM
Sorry, 2 over Lendl ( 1980 Qf and 1984 F).In 1980 while not still the terrific player he later became, Lendl was the 4 th best player of the world, without any doubt, as proven by his 1980 Masters Final.

And he also kicked off the *** of Gerulaitis ( n 4 in the ATP rankings in 1979) in both 1979 and 1981 ( this one a classic 5 setter ) and also killed Wilander in their 185 SF ( he lost to Lendl in the F)

Thanks for the correction I forgot about that QF in 1980. So he had at least 2 wins at the US Open over each of his 3 main rivals which was impressive.

Mac's 5 set win over Wilander in 1985 was a very enjoyable match despite the brutal heat that day. He recovered well very after going a break down in the 4th and 5th sets.

kiki
01-10-2011, 12:34 PM
Thanks for the correction I forgot about that QF in 1980. So he had at least 2 wins at the US Open over each of his 3 main rivals which was impressive.

Mac's 5 set win over Wilander in 1985 was a very enjoyable match despite the brutal heat that day. He recovered well very after going a break down in the 4th and 5th sets.

Yeap I forgot it was that close.I got confused with their Masters Sf a few month before.Still, beating Mats in a 5 sets match is no minor feat, by any means

adidasman
01-10-2011, 01:01 PM
Who cares about doubles or mixed doubles. Only true tennis fans, I guess.

subban
01-10-2011, 01:11 PM
If you compare just singles it would have to be Agassi. But overall as a tennis player, playing doubles and singles it would have to be Mcenroe. I defintely think in both their primes on any surface Agassi would knock Mcenroe off the court, very easily. Too much power and pace, even at Mcenroe's prime. You can even see this since '85 when Lendl finally figured how to beat Mc's volleying by overpowering him and lobbing him. And Agassi was pretty much a clone of Lendl.

kiki
01-10-2011, 01:21 PM
Only true tennis fans, I guess.

Right on the spot.:)

kiki
01-10-2011, 01:31 PM
The problem with Mc is that he stayed out of shape ever since 1985.when he was top form, like 1984 or 1983, but also in his first years he could chase down many balls and would give off pace babies to Agassi.

hoodjem
01-10-2011, 01:51 PM
IMO

19. McEnroe
20. Agassi

hoodjem
01-10-2011, 01:58 PM
Only true tennis fans, I guess.This is a very true statement, maybe more so than we realize.

It seems to me that a lot of the younger, newer, more vitriolic fans on here love the present era of tennis exactly because of its power and bashing, its fist-pumping and semi-barbaric machismo, its competitive subjugation.

I do wonder if these persons are more general sports fans, or more general athletics fans and less true (specifically) tennis fans.?

NadalAgassi
01-10-2011, 02:24 PM
IMO

19. McEnroe
20. Agassi

Sadly neither of them can be up with even Connors and Lendl overall. Which is a shame as both have just as much talent or more than those two men, but they simply did not utilize it to their fullest. Agassi I think suffered emotionally from some of his tough losses to Sampras which took awhile to recover from, and of course had an overbearing father and some other issues. McEnroe had too many off course issues to even begin, a crazy wife/ex wife, drug problems, motivational problems, injury problems.

jrepac
01-10-2011, 03:07 PM
If you compare just singles it would have to be Agassi. But overall as a tennis player, playing doubles and singles it would have to be Mcenroe. I defintely think in both their primes on any surface Agassi would knock Mcenroe off the court, very easily. Too much power and pace, even at Mcenroe's prime. You can even see this since '85 when Lendl finally figured how to beat Mc's volleying by overpowering him and lobbing him. And Agassi was pretty much a clone of Lendl.

Agassi, aside from playing baseline tennis, was not like Lendl at all. That's kind of like saying Connors was the same as Lendl. All 3 played the baseline game, but differently. 1984 McEnroe, could pretty much take on anyone/everyone....Mac could deflect pace quite well when he was on top of his game. Only if he was "off" a bit, could Lendl and Connors take him down...he was really THAT good. So, prime Andre vs. prime Mac, and taking the mental factors into consideration? I'd pick Mac every time....he beat some of the very best to get his 7 GS (aside from Chris Lewis, LOL)

pjonesy
01-10-2011, 05:34 PM
If you compare just singles it would have to be Agassi. But overall as a tennis player, playing doubles and singles it would have to be Mcenroe. I defintely think in both their primes on any surface Agassi would knock Mcenroe off the court, very easily. Too much power and pace, even at Mcenroe's prime. You can even see this since '85 when Lendl finally figured how to beat Mc's volleying by overpowering him and lobbing him. And Agassi was pretty much a clone of Lendl.

Good post. I think if you look at their competitive careers, its about even. McEnroe came up at the perfect time for him to rise to the top with a left handed serve and volley touch game. He just got better and better until he peaked in '84. Up to that point, I feel that he could have beaten any player the world on any surface. Then the power baseline game started to rule the game and McEnroe did not have the means to handle the pace and topspin of the players like Lendl, especially on slower surfaces.

Agassi, also came at the right time. I agree, he adopted Lendl's power baseline template, but took the ball earlier and used the ultra stable 2hbh to control the ball from inside the baseline. His talent from the baseline allowed him to play for 20 years and stay competitive in the sport until he hit his last ball.

McEnroe is still a bigger name in my opinion, as he has continued to stay in the game through broadcasting. McEnroe also had a more unique game than Agassi, that will probably never be forgotten or duplicated. But, Agassi has done more to advance the style of tennis we see currently. 90% of the guys on the tour are playing Agassi's basic power baseline game. Agassi was very influential in that respect.

Competitive career: push
Unique game style: McEnroe
Influential game style: Agassi
Head to Head: Agassi
Historical Value: McEnroe

That's how I see it. I like McEnroe more, so I could say McEnroe is better. But honestly, I see them as dead even.

kiki
01-10-2011, 09:31 PM
IMO

19. McEnroe
20. Agassi

I agree with your quote about tennis fans or just barbaric sport hooligans.But, should I understand you rate Mc the 19 th best ever and Andre the 20 th? In this case, I could not agree at all.Both should be at the very least, in the top 12-15.

kiki
01-10-2011, 09:36 PM
Good post. I think if you look at their competitive careers, its about even. McEnroe came up at the perfect time for him to rise to the top with a left handed serve and volley touch game. He just got better and better until he peaked in '84. Up to that point, I feel that he could have beaten any player the world on any surface. Then the power baseline game started to rule the game and McEnroe did not have the means to handle the pace and topspin of the players like Lendl, especially on slower surfaces.

Agassi, also came at the right time. I agree, he adopted Lendl's power baseline template, but took the ball earlier and used the ultra stable 2hbh to control the ball from inside the baseline. His talent from the baseline allowed him to play for 20 years and stay competitive in the sport until he hit his last ball.

McEnroe is still a bigger name in my opinion, as he has continued to stay in the game through broadcasting. McEnroe also had a more unique game than Agassi, that will probably never be forgotten or duplicated. But, Agassi has done more to advance the style of tennis we see currently. 90% of the guys on the tour are playing Agassi's basic power baseline game. Agassi was very influential in that respect.

Competitive career: push
Unique game style: McEnroe
Influential game style: Agassi
Head to Head: Agassi
Historical Value: McEnroe

That's how I see it. I like McEnroe more, so I could say McEnroe is better. But honestly, I see them as dead even.

I agree with your perspective and the way you approach.However, I should add that Mac Enroe is one of the very, very, very few geniousses this sport has produced and we cannot compare a genious with a normal mortal.I dont writte it to praise Mc, it is just that the criteria to compare is, in those cases, very difficult to compare.

But Agassi has never played in his life, even dreamt of like mac played in 1984 and in many other moments (USO 1980,WCT 1979,W 1983,USO 1981).

pjonesy
01-11-2011, 06:40 PM
I agree with your perspective and the way you approach.However, I should add that Mac Enroe is one of the very, very, very few geniousses this sport has produced and we cannot compare a genious with a normal mortal.I dont writte it to praise Mc, it is just that the criteria to compare is, in those cases, very difficult to compare.

But Agassi has never played in his life, even dreamt of like mac played in 1984 and in many other moments (USO 1980,WCT 1979,W 1983,USO 1981).

I can't really disagree with you. He is most certainly a genius on the tennis court, but when more athletic power players came on the scene, McEnroe could not adjust. He was beatable and certainly not the perfect tennis player. However, when you look at how competitive he is on the Champions tour, you realize what a genius he really is on the tennis court.

But, for all his accomplishments on the court, he holds a much bigger place in the hearts of all tennis fans. John McEnroe is simply the greatest personality this sport has ever known. I would put him in the same category as Babe Ruth, Muhammad Ali, Pele or Michael Jordan. When I think of tennis, the first image or name that pops in my head is John McEnroe. There have been better tennis players and more popular tennis players, but McEnroe is synonymous with tennis. I'm not saying that he is the greatest representative or that his image is the best for the sport, but he is ingrained in the tennis world like no other.

hoodjem
01-12-2011, 05:58 AM
I agree with your quote about tennis fans or just barbaric sport hooligans.But, should I understand you rate Mc the 19 th best ever and Andre the 20 th? In this case, I could not agree at all.Both should be at the very least, in the top 12-15.Ok, fine. Not a problem. It's just an opinion.

"We can disagree without being disagreeable."

pc1
01-12-2011, 06:09 AM
I agree with your quote about tennis fans or just barbaric sport hooligans.But, should I understand you rate Mc the 19 th best ever and Andre the 20 th? In this case, I could not agree at all.Both should be at the very least, in the top 12-15.[/QUOTE

[QUOTE=hoodjem;5314779]Ok, fine. Not a problem. It's just an opinion.

"We can disagree without being disagreeable."

People off the top of my head who I believe may have accomplished more than Agassi or McEnroe--Tilden, Gonzalez, HL Doherty, Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Connors, Kramer, Sampras, Federer, LaCoste, Cochet, Budge, Perry, Vines, Hoad.

It's a push. I can see either fitting in among them or below all of them. I don't think Nadal has accomplished as much as Agassi yet but I think he will surpass him.

hoodjem
01-12-2011, 06:15 AM
I'd pick Mac every time....he beat some of the very best to get his 7 GS (aside from Chris Lewis, LOL)En route to his 1983 Wimbers title Mac beat Brad Gilbert, Bill Scanlon, Sandy Mayer, and Lendl. (Connors was beaten by Kevin Curren. Lendl took out Tanner. Vilas, Edberg, Gerulaitis, Wilander were all there but lost in early rounds. )

kiki
01-12-2011, 11:12 AM
[QUOTE=kiki;5312106]I agree with your quote about tennis fans or just barbaric sport hooligans.But, should I understand you rate Mc the 19 th best ever and Andre the 20 th? In this case, I could not agree at all.Both should be at the very least, in the top 12-15.[/QUOTE



It's a push. I can see either fitting in among them or below all of them. I don't think Nadal has accomplished as much as Agassi yet but I think he will surpass him.

They were all greats but we also should put in perspective, not just single records, but the eras and the competition they had in front.I mean, Doherty would only have to give an effort when playing his brother or one more guy.Lacoste,Tilden and Cochet did not have strong fields until the SF there were easy put aways - without diminishing their great talent, but at least, Mc has as much as any of them and probably more-.

If you balance number of big titles ( not just GS but Masters and WCT too) and that competitive context, guys like Mac but also Newcombe,Wilander,becker&Edberg, still Nadal deserve to be spelled in the same breath, at the very least as some of those other names.In tennis, I think, there are many " ex aqueo"

kiki
01-12-2011, 11:15 AM
En route to his 1983 Wimbers title Mac beat Brad Gilbert, Bill Scanlon, Sandy Mayer, and Lendl. (Connors was beaten by Kevin Curren. Lendl took out Tanner. Vilas, Edberg, Gerulaitis, Wilander were all there but lost in early rounds. )

Yes, he did beat Lendl easily in his Sf.To me, and I know I may be repeating myself ( it is the last time, promised) his most astonishing perf was beating, one after the other, lendl,Connors and Borg at the 1980 USo.1 Tb and 1 set lost to Lendl, a 5 setter ended in TB vs Connors, a 5 setter with 2 TB against Bjorn...probably one of the greatest feats in any professional sport that one can recall ( it is like winning the world cup beating Italy then Germany then Brazil...with all their top stars in the team)

kiki
01-12-2011, 11:20 AM
The best or one of the best definitions ever made for Mcs game was this one from that very smart and literated man called Arthur Robert Ashe:

"When you play top form Borg or Connors, you feel like you are hammered mercilessly.When you play that kid (Mc), you feel like you are cut with a scalp.One slice here, one top spin approach there, one deft volley later...he cuts you into pieces.The wounds arent deep, but you bleed to death"

I really love it.


Another one: " He just inventes shots that were not in the textbook, and he writtes them off the textbook afterwards"

CityTennis22
01-12-2011, 12:43 PM
McEnroe was a great player in the history of power serving and volleying. Agassi was ahead of his time though, because he had to construct points with his groundies. It made tennis fun to watch and gave us an inkling of how entertaining tennis could become with Federer and Nadal. Don't get me wrong. I love watching old tennis, but baseline tennis did give us the greatest match of all time at Wimbledon '08. Between the two, I think McEnroe was a better player in his prime.

Datacipher
01-12-2011, 12:45 PM
. Agassi was ahead of his time though, because he had to construct points with his groundies. It made tennis fun to watch and gave us an inkling of how entertaining tennis could become .

.....ROFL! ;-)

hoodjem
01-12-2011, 03:38 PM
I don't think Nadal has accomplished as much as Agassi yet but I think he will surpass him.Hmmmm.

You might be right. I certainly do respect your opinion. But I have Nadal already ahead of Agassi on my list.

NadalAgassi
01-12-2011, 04:04 PM
I don't think Nadal has accomplished as much as Agassi yet but I think he will surpass him.

Nadal is clearly ahead of Agassi. More slams, more Masters titles, an addition year end #1, a 3 slam year, slams on every surface, atleast one slam 6 years in a row. I am a big fan of both but sorry it isnt even close at this point.

Moose Malloy
01-12-2011, 05:01 PM
En route to his 1983 Wimbers title Mac beat Brad Gilbert, Bill Scanlon, Sandy Mayer, and Lendl. (Connors was beaten by Kevin Curren. Lendl took out Tanner. Vilas, Edberg, Gerulaitis, Wilander were all there but lost in early rounds. )

Edberg was just some unknown kid ranked in the 300's at the time of 1983 Wimbledon. I wouldn't use his prescence in the field as an indication of the quality of the field.

Yes, he did beat Lendl easily in his Sf

He only broke Lendl twice, not that easy a match. Lendl served great that day(over 70%)

I may be repeating myself ( it is the last time, promised) his most astonishing perf was beating, one after the other, lendl,Connors and Borg at the 1980 USo.1 Tb and 1 set lost to Lendl, a 5 setter ended in TB vs Connors, a 5 setter with 2 TB against Bjorn...probably one of the greatest feats in any professional sport that one can recall

its even more impressive when you hear what his schedule was like the last 4 days of the tournament:

Thursday night: QF with Lendl
Friday: 5 set doubles final
Saturday night: SF with Connors
Sunday final, 4 pm start time: Final with Borg

SusanDK
01-13-2011, 02:24 AM
Edberg was just some unknown kid ranked in the 300's at the time of 1983 Wimbledon. I wouldn't use his prescence in the field as an indication of the quality of the field.



I was thinking the same thing. What was Edberg, 17 years old at the time? Wasn't 1983 the year that Edberg won the Junior Grand Slam? So did he compete in both the Juniors and main draw the same year?

kiki
01-13-2011, 10:35 AM
Edberg was just some unknown kid ranked in the 300's at the time of 1983 Wimbledon. I wouldn't use his prescence in the field as an indication of the quality of the field.



He only broke Lendl twice, not that easy a match. Lendl served great that day(over 70%)



its even more impressive when you hear what his schedule was like the last 4 days of the tournament:

Thursday night: QF with Lendl
Friday: 5 set doubles final
Saturday night: SF with Connors
Sunday final, 4 pm start time: Final with Borg

Oh yeah what a nightmare schedule.Just after writting that, I realized I should also be fair to Borg.He won the 1979 Masters ( 3 set matches) beating: first Tanner,Next Connors,following mac, closing up with Vitas.it is really amazing and might be the best tennis Borg ever played.He beat n 5,3,2,4 of the world in 4 consecutive days.His rr vs Connors and Sf vs Mac are considered 2 of the all time great indoor games.

Tennis Dunce
01-13-2011, 11:15 AM
I love in the new Agassi book that it was actually Mac who had his hands on those denim jeans shorts when a Nike rep was handing out gear and he uttered something to the effect..."what the **** is this ****?" and then handed them to Agassi. The rest is history...

Imagine if Mac had kept them LOL.

kiki
01-15-2011, 02:54 AM
Its been just very few years ago that Agassi retired.Mac did so almost 20 years ago.So, in the mind of fans, memories of Andre still weight more than memories on Mac.But, in my opinion, even though both have been players that define or hep define their eras, Mc Enroe will always be of a more special breed than Agassi, he was a bigger personality.

In terms of technichal legacy, however, it is almost impossible to have another JMac, while most of today players look like a modern version of Agassi ( though quite lesser talented than Andre,IMO)

db379
01-15-2011, 04:34 AM
McEnroe was clearly the better player, and will remain as such in history. When McEnroe was at the top he was dominant, as much as Federer, Nadal or Sampras. He was the main rival of the greatest player of the late 70s and early 80s, Bjorn Borg. These two were really consistently at the top. For 4-5 years in the early 80s, McEnroe was THE man to beat (although his clay game was not that great). McEnroe won 77 singles ATP titles vs. 60 to Agassi, even though Agassi played longer than Mac.

Agassi was a phenomenon and he should have achieved more than he did. The problem with Agassi is that he was too inconsistent, he had the potential to be #1 for longer than he did, but he had so many ups and downs, probably due to his personal demons in his early years. He really should have won his first two French open finals, but just let them get away.

kiki
01-18-2011, 12:58 PM
Mc Enroe retired in 1992, the year Agassi won his first slam at Wimbledon.

Agassi lasted more years at the top of the echelon ( 1990-2005) but he hardly reached or was able to reach the level a peak Mac offered ( unfortunately for us, he almost went off tennis by 1986)

NadalAgassi
01-18-2011, 01:25 PM
Agassi for me is greater than McEnroe since he fought back from adversity and downs and kept on going. Once things got tough for McEnroe he just gave up.

Agassi also has 1 more slam despite that McEnroe was a frequent participient at all the slams for many years (even if he skipped some earlier on). Heck Agassi probably skipped or missed more slams in his career than McEnroe and still won 1 more slam. Not to mention McEnroe hasnt won 2 of the 4 slams, compare that to Agassi who of course won all 4. And missing some French or Australians is not an excuse, look at all the Australians and Wimbledons that Agassi skipped and still won at both venues.

ATP100
01-18-2011, 01:50 PM
Your pick plz, whose the better player, Agassi or Mcenroe, two famous tennis americans.


Steffi Agassi was better.

Datacipher
01-18-2011, 05:18 PM
Agassi for me is greater than McEnroe since he fought back from adversity and downs and kept on going. Once things got tough for McEnroe he just gave up.


Wow...honestly..you have to be a real fanboy to give Agassi much credit for this. Besides the issue of whether coming back from adversity is a critical measure of "greatness", the VAST MAJORITY of Agassi's "adversity" was simply self-created BS drama.

Agassi also has 1 more slam despite that McEnroe was a frequent participient at all the slams for many years (even if he skipped some earlier on). Heck Agassi probably skipped or missed more slams in his career than McEnroe and still won 1 more slam. .

WHAT?! Agassi had to have played more slams than Mcenroe!! Weird.

NadalAgassi
01-18-2011, 05:28 PM
Wow...honestly..you have to be a real fanboy to give Agassi much credit for this. Besides the issue of whether coming back from adversity is a critical measure of "greatness", the VAST MAJORITY of Agassi's "adversity" was simply self-created BS drama.

Of course slumps arent a great thing. The difference is Agassi always came back from his slumps and they never lasted more than a couple years max. McEnroe began a bad slump at around age 26 and never left it the remainder of his still long career.

And McEnroe's drug use, crazy wife, wandering motivation, werent self created BS drama as well?

WHAT?! Agassi had to have played more slams than Mcenroe!! Weird.

I am pretty sure Agassi missed or skipped more slams than McEnroe. If he played more it is only because he had an even longer career, staying very competitive until 36, which is not something that should be held against him obviously.

drakulie
01-18-2011, 05:35 PM
Wow...honestly..you have to be a real fanboy to give Agassi much credit for this. Besides the issue of whether coming back from adversity is a critical measure of "greatness", the VAST MAJORITY of Agassi's "adversity" was simply self-created BS drama.


WHAT?! Agassi had to have played more slams than Mcenroe!! Weird.


agassi missed 22 slams.

mcenroe missed 19 slams, although he played less total slams.

borg number one
01-18-2011, 05:36 PM
Looking at the numbers, Agassi played in 61 major tournaments and won 8 majors (looking on the ATP site). Meanwhile, McEnroe won 7 majors total, but played in 45 major tournaments. That's a 13.1% win rate for Agassi vs. a 15.6% win rate for McEnroe. McEnroe only played in the Australian Open on five occasions during his career, which spanned from 1977-1992. In 1977, he lost in the second round at the French Open to Phil Dent, father of Taylor Dent. At his last major tournament, in 1992 at the US Open, he lost in the Round of 16 to Jim Courier.

NadalAgassi
01-18-2011, 05:38 PM
Looking at the numbers, Agassi played in 61 major tournaments and won 8 majors (looking on the ATP site). Meanwhile, McEnroe won 7 majors total, but played in 45 major tournaments. That's a 13.1% win rate for Agassi vs. 15.6% win rate for McEnroe.

Well he could have played until 36 as Agassi did, won none of his remaining slams (obviously) and then his win % would be slightly worse than Agassi.

Datacipher
01-18-2011, 07:46 PM
Well he could have played until 36 as Agassi did, won none of his remaining slams (obviously) and then his win % would be slightly worse than Agassi.

OR...Mac could have stopped playing in 85 and had a record completely untouchable by Agassi.

No, C'mon now, your argument: slams vs slams played, was already ridiculous (WAY too many variables to make a valid argument)....now with the projected slams played, you're off into silly-land.

PS. Actually I love a 30 year old Mac's chances had he faced a Arnaud Clement, Rainer Schuettler, OR Andre Medvedev in finals.

Chopin
01-18-2011, 08:07 PM
OR...Mac could have stopped playing in 85 and had a record completely untouchable by Agassi.

No, C'mon now, your argument: slams vs slams played, was already ridiculous (WAY too many variables to make a valid argument)....now with the projected slams played, you're off into silly-land.

PS. Actually I love a 30 year old Mac's chances had he faced a Arnaud Clement, Rainer Schuettler, OR Andre Medvedev in finals.

Data, I might agree that Mac would have had a chance against Andre Medvedev, but I'm pretty sure he'd be out cold against the other Medvedev.

http://topnews.in/law/files/dmitry-medvedev-vladimir-putin.jpg

NadalAgassi
01-18-2011, 08:10 PM
OR...Mac could have stopped playing in 85 and had a record completely untouchable by Agassi.

No, C'mon now, your argument: slams vs slams played, was already ridiculous (WAY too many variables to make a valid argument)....now with the projected slams played, you're off into silly-land.

PS. Actually I love a 30 year old Mac's chances had he faced a Arnaud Clement, Rainer Schuettler, OR Andre Medvedev in finals.

OK lets just stick to the facts then. 8 slams vs 7. Winner of all 4 slams vs a guy who didnt even win 2 of the 4 slams ever. Advantage Agassi. The only reason I brought up all the slams Agassi missed is I was sure that would be brought up as McEnroe's excuse for say not winning the Australian when he played it many times, even if not all in his prime (he failed to win it even on grass vs someone like Wilander in his prime in 1983 though).

abmk
01-18-2011, 08:28 PM
PS. Actually I love a 30 year old Mac's chances had he faced a Arnaud Clement, Rainer Schuettler, OR Andre Medvedev in finals.

medvedev ? really ? considering how well he was playing and how agassi had to lift his game to come back into the match along with medvedev's level dropping to an extent

NadalAgassi
01-18-2011, 08:46 PM
Medvedev beat Kuerten in straight sets at that French Open in one of many years Kuerten was heavily favored to win. I dont even want to imagine what he would do with a 30 year old McEnroe who had been past his prime for 4 years plus on clay.

Mustard
01-18-2011, 09:02 PM
Medvedev won 4 masters titles (1994 Monte Carlo, 1994 Hamburg, 1995 Hamburg, 1997 Hamburg) and lost to eventual champion of the French Open in 1992 (Courier), 1993 & 1994 (Bruguera), 1995 (Muster), 1997 (Kuerten) and 1999 (Agassi).

Medvedev is one of the best clay-court players never to win the French Open.

Datacipher
01-18-2011, 10:46 PM
medvedev ? really ? considering how well he was playing and how agassi had to lift his game to come back into the match along with medvedev's level dropping to an extent

That's true, he was playing exceptionally well....for a while. In the end...he didn't have it when it really counted...he never did. That's what seperates the great champs...and in that sense....even though Agassi was largely outplayed...it was no surprise that in the end, he was left standing.

But, I wasn't analyzing to the detail of THAT particular match....after all...it's pretty meaningless....even in some strange universe where everything else was exactly equal, who knows how Medvedev might have reacted to going out, and playing against Mcenroe.

Even if I did, I might expect the same small cracks in his zoned play, against a champ like Mac.....then of course there's the issue of style. Mac obviously was not at his best on clay, but man, he could play on it....he certainly was capable of even outplaying a Lendl on clay. In terms of style, it actually helped Med against Agassi. Basically he played the same game, and because he was a bigger man, in the zone, he was outhitting Andre, and Andre didn't really a big way to turn it around....he can vary his groundies....from more top to less....and....that's about it....again...well within Med's baseline bashign comfort zone. Even in the zone, the wily Mcenroe, with his SV, dinks, chips, angles, net rushes, pushing, drops, etc. might have pulled Med out of that zone.....who knows?

In any case, I would always highly favour a Mac or Agassi against Med, no matter how well Med CAN play when in the zone....Mac or Agassi in the zone, is still probably better...and they are more likely to be there....especially when it really counts. Might Med beat them in a particular match? SURE. Is it likely...in his first slam final....NOPE. Really....credit to Med for coming that close, and playing well that long.

Datacipher
01-18-2011, 10:49 PM
Medvedev beat Kuerten in straight sets at that French Open in one of many years Kuerten was heavily favored to win. I dont even want to imagine what he would do with a 30 year old McEnroe who had been past his prime for 4 years plus on clay.

LOL! Well....this is where we find out who really understands tennis. You're probably one of those kids who thought "Man! Tsonga's going to win this AO!!!" or...."this is Fernando Gonzalez's year!!!" He's going to CRUSH the other guy in the final!!!

Gizo
01-18-2011, 11:40 PM
For me Agassi should have won the French Open in 1991 (even Courier admits that without the rain delay he would have lost the final), but shouldn't have won it 1999, so his luck balanced out there, and winning one French Open title was exactly right for him.

Of course the quarter-final results in 1999 worked out perfectly for him with Kuerten (the best player on clay that year), Rios (a very bad match-up for him) and Corretja (who was ill) all being eliminated. I've heard a lot of people think that before his illness, 1999 was Corretja's real chance to win the French Open, even ahead of the years when he was a runner-up of semi-finalist.

And despite Agassi's longevity McEnroe only won 6 matches less than him. Mac did have 10 top 10 finishes which means his longevity wasn't exactly bad either, but of course Agassi's 16 top 10 finishes is incredibly impressive. Amazingly Connors effectively had 17 top finishes in a row from from 1972 to 1988 (there was no ATP ranking computer in 1972 but he was clearly a top 10 player that year).

I do think peak McEnroe was better than peak Agassi on grass, indoor and hard courts (Mac played a much higher standard of tennis at the US Open than Agassi did at the Australian Open). Of course Agassi was better on clay. Mac wasn't useless on the surface though. In McEnroe's best years at the French Open he was eliminated twice by Lendl and twice by Wilander, who are the 3rd and 4th best players on clay of the open era.

I think that McEnroe's greater domination of the game at his peak, record at the non-slam events and Davis Cup record outweighs Agassi's one extra grand slam title and career grand slam. Agassi's lack of domination with him only having one year as the best player in the world is why I rank him below Connors, Lendl and McEnroe.

borg number one
01-19-2011, 10:03 AM
As far as peak performance, I'd give the edge to McEnroe over Agassi. In terms of overall records, see their numbers below.

McEnroe
Majors- 167-38 (81.5%)
Overall- 875-198 (81.5%)
Total Titles-77
Majors-7 (3 W, 4 US Open)

Agassi
Majors-224-53 (80.9%)
Overall-870-274 (76%)
Total Titles-59
Majors-8 (4 AO,1 W, 1 FO, 2 US Open)

borg number one
01-19-2011, 10:04 AM
I think that McEnroe achieved a level of play that was above anything I ever saw from Agassi. Agassi was a great player, but I would give the edge to McEnroe if I had to choose between the two on every surface besides red clay. Even there, I think McEnroe would have his chances against Agassi on a given day. Through 1985, he had to face off against very tough clay courter greats such as Borg, Vilas, Clerc and Lendl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_bWEg0UuBw ('83 Davis Cup)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE-VX_7H0GE&playnext=1&list=PL4E3BD6717BC80760&index=21 ('81 FO QF)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE-VX_7H0GE&playnext=1&list=PL4E3BD6717BC80760&index=21 ('84 FO Final)


McEnroe was #1 for three years, which is important to consider. He also faced a ton of competition, starting with Connors, Borg, and Lendl. I have had a chance to watch both of them play live in Houston. In close matches, as far as the mental aspect, I'd give the edge to McEnroe if we consider McEnroe until about 1985.

NadalAgassi
01-19-2011, 10:05 AM
LOL! Well....this is where we find out who really understands tennis. You're probably one of those kids who thought "Man! Tsonga's going to win this AO!!!" or...."this is Fernando Gonzalez's year!!!" He's going to CRUSH the other guy in the final!!!

Hardly. Federer was a far better hard court player than Nadal in early 2007. I would have been shocked if Gonzalez had beaten Federer in the 2007 final. I felt the 2008 final between Tsonga and Djokovic was close to a toss up with a slight edge to Djokovic, and lo and behold Djokovic won in 4 tough sets so I was about right. So your point is what exactly?

NadalAgassi
01-19-2011, 10:13 AM
That's true, he was playing exceptionally well....for a while. In the end...he didn't have it when it really counted...he never did. That's what seperates the great champs...and in that sense....even though Agassi was largely outplayed...it was no surprise that in the end, he was left standing.

But, I wasn't analyzing to the detail of THAT particular match....after all...it's pretty meaningless....even in some strange universe where everything else was exactly equal, who knows how Medvedev might have reacted to going out, and playing against Mcenroe.

Even if I did, I might expect the same small cracks in his zoned play, against a champ like Mac.....then of course there's the issue of style. Mac obviously was not at his best on clay, but man, he could play on it....he certainly was capable of even outplaying a Lendl on clay. In terms of style, it actually helped Med against Agassi. Basically he played the same game, and because he was a bigger man, in the zone, he was outhitting Andre, and Andre didn't really a big way to turn it around....he can vary his groundies....from more top to less....and....that's about it....again...well within Med's baseline bashign comfort zone. Even in the zone, the wily Mcenroe, with his SV, dinks, chips, angles, net rushes, pushing, drops, etc. might have pulled Med out of that zone.....who knows?

In any case, I would always highly favour a Mac or Agassi against Med, no matter how well Med CAN play when in the zone....Mac or Agassi in the zone, is still probably better...and they are more likely to be there....especially when it really counts. Might Med beat them in a particular match? SURE. Is it likely...in his first slam final....NOPE. Really....credit to Med for coming that close, and playing well that long.

Reality check, you were talking about a 30 year old McEnroe not a prime McEnroe: Actually I love a 30 year old Mac's chances had he faced a Arnaud Clement, Rainer Schuettler, OR Andre Medvedev in finals.

McEnroe played the French Open 4 times age 28 or older. He lost 1st round in 3 of the 4 to De La Pena, Nicolas Kulti, and Andrei Cherkasov. Only one he made the 4th round and lost to Lendl in straight sets. Yet this version of McEnroe was going to beat an on fire Medvedev at the French, LOL! Thanks for the laughs.

As for even being certain of beating Clement and Schuettler (who was a top 10 player that year)in slam finals at that age would you like me to post McEnroe's slam results and losses at the other 3 slams by that point too.

Datacipher
01-19-2011, 11:34 AM
Hardly. Federer was a far better hard court player than Nadal in early 2007. I would have been shocked if Gonzalez had beaten Federer in the 2007 final. I felt the 2008 final between Tsonga and Djokovic was close to a toss up with a slight edge to Djokovic, and lo and behold Djokovic won in 4 tough sets so I was about right. So your point is what exactly?

Unreal. I assume you're a very young man....we're not talking x's and o's here....read my reply to abmk. If you don't get it... you don't get it.

abmk
01-19-2011, 04:32 PM
That's true, he was playing exceptionally well....for a while. In the end...he didn't have it when it really counted...he never did. That's what seperates the great champs...and in that sense....even though Agassi was largely outplayed...it was no surprise that in the end, he was left standing.

But, I wasn't analyzing to the detail of THAT particular match....after all...it's pretty meaningless....even in some strange universe where everything else was exactly equal, who knows how Medvedev might have reacted to going out, and playing against Mcenroe.

Even if I did, I might expect the same small cracks in his zoned play, against a champ like Mac.....then of course there's the issue of style. Mac obviously was not at his best on clay, but man, he could play on it....he certainly was capable of even outplaying a Lendl on clay. In terms of style, it actually helped Med against Agassi. Basically he played the same game, and because he was a bigger man, in the zone, he was outhitting Andre, and Andre didn't really a big way to turn it around....he can vary his groundies....from more top to less....and....that's about it....again...well within Med's baseline bashign comfort zone. Even in the zone, the wily Mcenroe, with his SV, dinks, chips, angles, net rushes, pushing, drops, etc. might have pulled Med out of that zone.....who knows?

In any case, I would always highly favour a Mac or Agassi against Med, no matter how well Med CAN play when in the zone....Mac or Agassi in the zone, is still probably better...and they are more likely to be there....especially when it really counts. Might Med beat them in a particular match? SURE. Is it likely...in his first slam final....NOPE. Really....credit to Med for coming that close, and playing well that long.

would have agreed if it were prime mac we were talking about, but not 30 year old mac.

agassi had to play more aggressive and really raised his level of play , it wasn't that medvedev had a huge collapse or sth like that, his level came down, but it wasn't a huge drop ....

coming down from 2 sets down in a grand slam final is a fine fine feat ... Just curious, how many have done it in the open era ?

pc1
01-19-2011, 04:53 PM
coming down from 2 sets down in a grand slam final is a fine fine feat ... Just curious, how many have done it in the open era ?
Besides Agassi in 1999 Borg did it in 1974 against Orantes in the French Open.
Lendl did it against peak McEnroe in 1984 in the French Open.
Gaudio won against Coria in the 2004 French Open.

Aside from Agassi it all seems to be at the French with years ending in four. I suppose we have a good chance to see a two set comeback in the 2014 French Open final. lol.

It's not the Open Era but the most incredible series of comebacks in a major has to be Henri Cochet in the 1927 Wimbledon. Cochet was down by two sets in each of the last three matches and won the tournament.

Cochet's semi against Bill Tilden was incredible. Cochet lost the first two sets and was down 5-1 to Tilden in the third set and won 17 straight points to win the set. He obviously won the last two sets to advance to the final against Jean Borotra.

Cochet as I wrote before lost the first two sets in the final. He won the next two sets to tie the match but was in a major crisis again in the fifth set. He survived 6 match points to win the final 7-5 in the fifth. He was also down 3-5 in the fifth.

krosero
01-19-2011, 06:16 PM
Besides Agassi in 1999 Borg did it in 1974 against Orantes in the French Open.
Lendl did it against peak McEnroe in 1984 in the French Open.
Gaudio won against Coria in the 2004 French Open.

Aside from Agassi it all seems to be at the French with years ending in four. I suppose we have a good chance to see a two set comeback in the 2014 French Open final. lol.Hey don't laugh. It could happen and then we'll have to revive this thread! LOL

pc1
01-19-2011, 07:36 PM
Hey don't laugh. It could happen and then we'll have to revive this thread! LOL

If that happens I could be the first tennis futurian. :)

krosero
01-19-2011, 07:48 PM
If that happens I could be the first tennis futurian. :)You'll have to study up on the future first. Crack open those books. It's a very, very serious business.

pc1
01-19-2011, 08:01 PM
You'll have to study up on the future first. Crack open those books. It's a very, very serious business.

It's tough getting those time machines to get future books. And the future books are expensive.

To get a bit on topic, I may just rank McEnroe a little ahead of Agassi in career accomplishments and peak level. Mac won actually around 100 tournaments plus 7 majors. But the thing is that he played in an era when the players played in essentially 3 majors a year, if that. Tournaments like the Year End Masters and the WCT championship were really majors in those days and Mac won 3 Year End Masters plus 5 WCT finals.

Agassi won 60 tournaments in his career plus 8 majors. Agassi won 1 Year End Masters also.

krosero
01-19-2011, 09:17 PM
It's tough getting those time machines to get future books. And the future books are expensive.

To get a bit on topic, I may just rank McEnroe a little ahead of Agassi in career accomplishments and peak level. Mac won actually around 100 tournaments plus 7 majors. But the thing is that he played in an era when the players played in essentially 3 majors a year, if that. Tournaments like the Year End Masters and the WCT championship were really majors in those days and Mac won 3 Year End Masters plus 5 WCT finals.

Agassi won 60 tournaments in his career plus 8 majors. Agassi won 1 Year End Masters also.I'm glad you're mentioning the WCT Finals in Dallas. Mac had some big wins there over Borg, Connors, Lendl, Edberg (even Agassi in a retirement). You could argue his 5 Dallas titles count more heavily than his 3 Masters, but it's his Masters that are generally remembered today -- because the Masters still exists as a tournament, while Dallas is gone.

McEnroe recalled himself how big an event Dallas was when he won it in '79. Maybe it wasn't as big as in the days that Rosewall and Laver played it, but no doubt it was huge.

Interesting that when Mac won Dallas in '79, he had won the Masters a few months earlier. But Sports Illustrated described the Dallas victory, not the Masters, like the moment when McEnroe really "arrived" at the top of the game.

borg number one
01-19-2011, 10:18 PM
PC1, I like the futurian idea, that's great, or perhaps you're a tennis futurist? Krosero, that's a good point about the WCT tournament! McEnroe had some great results there, winning 5 of 8 finals. The WCT Finals Tournament was a big money, very prestigious event held in Dallas, Texas as you know. Lamar Hunt was so influential back then. The Masters at Madison Square Garden was another big event, which was treated much like a major back then. For example, Borg did well at the '79 and '80 Masters YEC events, played in Jan. of '80 and '81. He won both of those events indoors, facing Lendl, Connors, and McEnroe and going 5-0. Both he and McEnroe were great indoor players, as was Lendl, and Connors as well of course.

See this info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCT_Finals


http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/101027522.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921A343B2C87A49D8F5B1E660DAD1F3D71A AD7D44EFF8EDEC3BF5FCC381ED7C4212E30A760B0D811297

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/hs321.snc4/41564_150208455019991_1061_n.jpg


1971 Ken Rosewall d. Rod Laver 6–4, 1–6, 7–6, 7–6
1972 Ken Rosewall d. Rod Laver 4–6, 6–0, 6–3, 6–7, 7–6
1973 Stan Smith d. Arthur Ashe 6–3, 6–3, 4–6, 6–4
1974 John Newcombe d. Bjrn Borg 4–6, 6–3, 6–3, 6–2
1975 Arthur Ashe d. Bjrn Borg 3–6, 6–4, 6–4, 6–0
1976 Bjrn Borg d. Guillermo Vilas 1–6, 6–1, 7–5, 6–1
1977 Jimmy Connors d. Dick Stockton 6–7, 6–1, 6–4, 6–3
1978 Vitas Gerulaitis d. Eddie Dibbs 6–3, 6–2, 6–1
1979 John McEnroe d. Bjrn Borg 7–5, 4–6, 6–2, 7–6
1980 Jimmy Connors d. John McEnroe 2–6, 7–6, 6–1, 6–2
1981 John McEnroe d. Johan Kriek 6–1, 6–2, 6–4
1982 Ivan Lendl d. John McEnroe 6–2, 3–6, 6–3, 6–3
1983 John McEnroe d. Ivan Lendl 6–2, 4–6, 6–3, 6–7, 7–6
1984 John McEnroe d. Jimmy Connors 6–1, 6–2, 6–3
1985 Ivan Lendl d. Tim Mayotte 7–6, 6–4, 6–1
1986 Anders Jrryd d.Boris Becker 6–7, 6–1, 6–1, 6–4
1987 Miloslav Mečř d. John McEnroe 6–0, 3–6, 6–2, 6–2
1988 Boris Becker d. Stefan Edberg 6–4, 1–6, 7–5, 6–2
1989 John McEnroe d. Brad Gilbert 6–3, 6–3, 7–6