Is Agassi the greatest ALL-COURT(surface) player?
- Thread starter Azzurri
- Start date
batz
G.O.A.T.
Once Rafa does his career (calendar?!) slam then he will be GOATotS. Until then I'd go with Andre.
I did read the title. I just think it can get rather confusing if we start using all-court to mean both all parts of the court AND all surfaces, so I'd rather keep it simple and use it only with the former.
batz
G.O.A.T.
How can you go for Roger when he hasn't won the French? Surely one of the pre-reqs for GOATotS is having won slams on all surfaces?
How can you go for Roger when he hasn't won the French? Surely one of the pre-reqs for GOATotS is having won slams on all surfaces?
Do you honestly think andre would have beaten nadal at the french open?
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
My English is very bad, but I wonder: what is usually called "all-court game", shouldn't better be called "whole-court game", for example?
I know I'm probably wrong, though.
I don't think you're wrong at all. "Whole-court game" is more specific. As is apparent from this thread title, when people see "all-court game" they think either "all of the court" or "all types of court". "Whole-court game" doesn't have that ambiguity.
Traditionally, however, I've always heard "all-court game" used to refer to a game that uses all parts of the court with proficiency (and in about equal quantities).
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
OK, thanks for the explanation. I was just wondering. This board helps me with my English, no doubt.
Bud
Bionic Poster
I'd have to say it's a toss up between Agassi and Connors... I'd like to hear some additional evidence prior to rendering my decision
fedtastic
Hall of Fame
I would say no. But he is in the top 4 list
Greatest All Surfaces player
1)Roger Federer (has won US open,Australian Open,Wimbldon multiple times, Three consecutive fench open finals where he had to face the GOAT of clay) not bad i say. :wink:
2)Rafael Nadal (Has won one grand slam at least on all three surfaces, needs to win multiple hardcourt and wimbledons to move ahead of Federer and I think he will but I might be wrong. I have included him because what I believe he will acheive in the future)
3)Andre Agassi (No 3 is where he belongs on this list. He won wimbledon and french only once each and he beat a nobody Medvedev in the final. Note that was Medvedev's only GS final ever. Medvedev = Tsonga. I wish Federer faced such a guy in FO final instead of NADAL)
4)Ivan Lendl (won multiple slams on clay and hardcourts of AO and USO. Reached two wimbledon finals as well, which is a testament to his greatness. Really unlucky not to win wimbledon)
I don't care about weak era bullcr*p. Thank you
Greatest All Surfaces player
1)Roger Federer (has won US open,Australian Open,Wimbldon multiple times, Three consecutive fench open finals where he had to face the GOAT of clay) not bad i say. :wink:
2)Rafael Nadal (Has won one grand slam at least on all three surfaces, needs to win multiple hardcourt and wimbledons to move ahead of Federer and I think he will but I might be wrong. I have included him because what I believe he will acheive in the future)
3)Andre Agassi (No 3 is where he belongs on this list. He won wimbledon and french only once each and he beat a nobody Medvedev in the final. Note that was Medvedev's only GS final ever. Medvedev = Tsonga. I wish Federer faced such a guy in FO final instead of NADAL)
4)Ivan Lendl (won multiple slams on clay and hardcourts of AO and USO. Reached two wimbledon finals as well, which is a testament to his greatness. Really unlucky not to win wimbledon)
I don't care about weak era bullcr*p. Thank you
Azzurri
Legend
Tud, you are confusing all-around with all-court. the key term is COURT as in SURFACES...you seem to be quite confused. I even input the "surface" as a clue..but don't worry...now why don't you give us your opinion.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
How can you go for Nadal when he hasn't won the US Open? Surely one of the pre-reqs for GOATotS is having won all 4 slams?
sphinx780
Hall of Fame
Agassi was my idol growing up. I would still say both Fed and Nadal trump him as the greatest all-surface players. Yes, Fed doesn't have the FO title and it's looking increasingly tough to get one...but how many FO finals did he play? How many other Clay tournaments did Fed win compared to Agassi?
I have to say that if Nadal takes another hard or grass slam title, then he'd trump agassi too because it would show to me that he could win slams on any surface consistently.
IMHO of course.
I have to say that if Nadal takes another hard or grass slam title, then he'd trump agassi too because it would show to me that he could win slams on any surface consistently.
IMHO of course.
Azzurri
Legend
I would give Rafa the nod if he wins a few USO's or AO's (another words win both at least twice). You see, I still think the amount of titles Agassi has won on different surfaces still looks pretty good.
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
How can you go for Roger when he hasn't won the French? Surely one of the pre-reqs for GOATotS is having won slams on all surfaces?
Federer has made three consecutive FO finals and one semi and always lost to one of the greatest claycourters ever, if not the best.
That's something to take in consideration.
I admire Agassi a lot as a player, he was great, I loved his game, but honestly I don't think he was nowhere near Federer on clay. Even if he won a FO and Fed didn't.
Azzurri
Legend
How can you go for Roger when he hasn't won the French? Surely one of the pre-reqs for GOATotS is having won slams on all surfaces?
I could see if Agassi was a one hit wonder like Gomez, but the guy made 3 finals at RG..I don't see how Fed is a better clay-court player.
All-rounder
Legend
Yes you have a point but have prime agassi up against nadal or federer then its a different storyHow can you go for Roger when he hasn't won the French? Surely one of the pre-reqs for GOATotS is having won slams on all surfaces?
deltox
Hall of Fame
andre may well be the best well rounded player of all time, the most athletic player of all time, and possibly the best conditioned champion of all time considering their entire careers, with the best work ethic, but any and all of those are arguable.
agassi is by far the most respected player of all time by myself, but he was to erradic thruout his career to sustain top notch rankings.
agassi is by far the most respected player of all time by myself, but he was to erradic thruout his career to sustain top notch rankings.
deltox
Hall of Fame
agassi vs nadal on any surface but clay would be more than awesome, and agassi v federer on any surface would be awesome of course using prime career moments for comparison.
Cyan
Hall of Fame
Yup. Only player to win slams on all four surfaces: slow HC AO, fast HC USO, grass Wimby and clay FO. Plus the Olympic Gold medal in singles plus Davis Cup. He was truly awesome.
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
Besides Courier, Agassi faced Medvedev (sp?) and Gomez, isn't it?
But Federer has faced Rafael Nadal four times in a row.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
nadal has yet to play in a final of a fast hard court slam. (Us OPen)
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
Azzurri
Legend
LOL..just curious, how many FO finals did Coria win?
Besides Agassi's 3 FO fianls, he made 2 SF and 4 QF appearances in a very good clay era...do you know what you are talking about?
Coria made a F and SF...so what? So a guy that has 9 QF or better in the FO and won 7 clay titles in his career is not very good on clay(even vs. good clay courters..what does that even mean??)?
I know you are a bit clueless, but man you are way off on this....all-court is COURT..like the surfaces. All-around is the game..volley, passing shot, etc...a passing shot or overhead or even a volley is not a COURT!!!! man, you are way, way off.
Yup. Only player to win slams on all four surfaces: slow HC AO, fast HC USO, grass Wimby and clay FO. Plus the Olympic Gold medal in singles plus Davis Cup. He was truly awesome.
Wilander won the Australian Open twice on grass and once on Rebound Ace. He won the French Open three times and the U.S. Open once. That's all four surfaces (although I usually consider the Rebound Ace to be a type of hardcourt - and thus, only three surfaces).
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
Exactly. What's your point?
Azzurri
Legend
tradition is wrong then..so what is a passing shot? an overhead? a serve? is this an all-court game????? not everything you hear Mary Carillo say is correct...man.
Azzurri
Legend
Were you born after 1990??
Cyan
Hall of Fame
He never won wimby:-? Wimby has always been the grass slam, just ask Borg...
sphinx780
Hall of Fame
I hear you and agree that if he can't round that corner then the nadal argument loses a lot of luster. Even though it's the end of the year and Nadal's knees seem to break down by then, I could see him turn that corner...couple that with one more of the 3 outside of RG, I'd have to give him the nod over Andre.
Azzurri
Legend
and what does that tell you? its common knowledge that the 90's had a lot of good-very good clay court players. Today is not indicative because look who Nadal has won 3/4 FO against...Federer..I just don't think the players of today are that good on the clay. Show me 3-4 players that are consistently in the SF at the FO over the past 3-4 years?
Hey, feel free to use the term "all-court" however you want. But I prefer not to confuse my readers, so I'll stick with the traditional meaning.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
same as yours.
He never won Wimbledon, but he won two slams on grass (which is one more than Agassi). Whether or not the Australian is/was as prestigious as Wimbledon, you can't argue with the fact that Wilander won on all "four" surfaces before Agassi did.
Azzurri
Legend
sorry, but the AO on grass is not winning Wimbledon. I guess you did not notice that; Wilander never made it past the QF of any Wimbledon, so comparing AO grass to W is not appropriate.
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
Any people with some trace of tennis understanding, knows that besides your head-to-head statistics, Rafael Nadal has an extraordinary powerful claycourt game. Something that goes beyond the simple H2H analysis. He has all the tools and weapons that a claycourt player could dream of. All of them. He's only comparable to Borg. He something like the ultimate claycourt specialist.
That is what Federer faced four times at the FO.
If you don't see this, then we have nothing to discuss here.
I never said he won Wimbledon. Surfaces are surfaces. Grass is grass. Wilander won on all "four". I don't understand what you find objectionable about that statement.
BHud
Hall of Fame
Great insight "turdwell"! Thanks for the contribution.
crazylevity
Hall of Fame
Hear, hear. Conventionally, tennis writers seem to prefer the term 'all-surface' player.
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
What about Borg? I know he didn't win the USO but he made loads of finals there and has titles indoors, outdoor hardcourts, 5 Wimbledons in a row and is considered the best clay courter ever.
fedtastic
Hall of Fame
No. I was born in the 80s. yeah Baby.
If you don't agree with my list, thats fine. It's only my opinion.
All right, maybe "Not a shot in hell" was a little harsh. But Agassi won 6 slams on hard, 1 on grass, and 1 on clay. That doesn't look like his game is equally dominant on every surface. He looks like primarily a hard-court player (which he was). He was talented enough to win on all surfaces, but look, for example, at Wilander, who I've been talking about in my last few posts. He won twice on grass, twice on hardcourt, and three times on clay. That looks a bit more consistent across the surfaces to me (though less overall achievement). Also, consider this statistic: Rod Laver won double digit titles (i.e. at least 10) on all of the following surfaces: grass, clay, wood, carpet, and hardcourt. That's 5 completely different surfaces. Pretty impressive, I think, regarding surfaces.
380pistol
Banned
It's possible. Take Borg (who only won slams on 2 surfaces) or Sampras/Federer (3 of 4). That leaves them all behind Agassi in that regard, as they never accomlished that.
But I'd take Borg over Agassi on clay and grass. Maybe Agassi on hard. I'd take Sampras on 3 of 4 surfaces (incl. carpet, but not on clay) over Dre. But that's just factoring the sum of their parts so to speak. He was never as dominant on one particular surface as others, but he didn't have a surface that was thorn in his side as many others have had.
But like I said if going by what each was able to produce on every surface overall (generally), then Agassi may very well be it.
Last edited:
Similar threads
