Sorry if something like this has already been posted. I didn't see anything. I was daydreaming the other day and wondering to myself how good Agassi could've been (statistically), had he taken Wimbledon and the Australian Open more seriously early on in his career. I mean, hell, he always considered grass to be his worst surface, but then when he won Wimbledon, you had to wonder. And the Aussie Open---he basically just discarded it for the longest time, and it ended up being his best event. So basically he missed seven or eight Aussie Opens and at least three Wimbledons early in his career. That's 10 or so Grand Slams. He could have won at least a few of those, if not more, right? Let's say he wins three or four of the Aussie Opens he missed (I know, assumptions are dangerous and tricky, but I'm playing a bit of a game here and I'm always willing to take Agassi in Australian Open hypotheticals) and let's say, um, either zero or one of the Wimbledons. That would've given him around three to five more Grand Slams. Suddenly instead of eight, he could have 11 to 13, theoretically. Pair that with the fact that he shared an era with Sampras, and his numbers become even more damn impressive. I'm not huge into the "What if" game, but this particular situation is intriguing. This line of thinking, of course, has led me to ask myself a two questions, which I will now ask you: How good could Agassi have been (statically)? Is he one of the most underrated players in recent memory?