Should McEnroe rank above Agassi

[flutzingitaway]

One thing I notice is with most people their all time rankings have McEnroe higher than Agassi. Is this fair though? For the record I am a big fan of both players, I wasn't alive during most of McEnroe's career (especialy prime) but have seen hundreds of tapes of him and he is maybe my favorite player ever to watch, and Agassi was the first player I truly stanned over, men or women. The 95 U.S Open final was such a devastating result for me, I stopped following tennis until the 96 Australian Open gradually got me into it a bit again. So I have no horse in this race, as I love both players.

I can totally see why many rank McEnroe higher. He was more dominant in his best years. He did better at the big 2 slams, even under modern day thinking- Wimbledon and U.S Open. However Agassi has the Career Slam, while McEnroe does not even have 3 of the 4 slams. And while I am well aware of the Australian Open situation of the day, he did play Australian often, he even played it on grass in his prime in 83 and couldn't beat Wilander. Agassi also has 1 more slam, so is both ahead in the slam count with a Career Slam too. His longevity blows McEnroe's out of the water, despite that McEnroe played until 32 it was mostly as a pidding player after age 26/27 or so, with only the odd respectable result (usually needing an easy draw) in a slam here or there ( a quarter or semi). His versatility is well above too as he could win on all surfaces. McEnroe is clearly above in dominance, peak level play, and probably ahead in consistency too although both have some issues there.

Both are incredibly talented and largely viewed as underachievers. McEnroe at his best was mentally much tougher, but he also gave up on his career at a certain point or could not adapt to the changing game while his own skills and abilities were on decline, while Agassi did the hard work to come back in a similar situation. What are some of your thoughts just comparing the two in general.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Agassi for me. As you said, one more slam, Career Grand Slam, etc. McEnroe ahead in weeks at No.1 and total tournaments won, not enough however, in my opinion.

And while I am well aware of the Australian Open situation of the day, he did play Australian often, he even played it on grass in his prime in 83 and couldn't beat Wilander.

Agassi also skipped the AO a total of eight times, so this would even out anyways.

 

[flutzingitaway]

Agassi for me. As you said, one more slam, Career Grand Slam, etc. McEnroe ahead in weeks at No.1 and total tournaments won, not enough however, in my opinion.
Agassi also skipped the AO a total of eight times, so this would even out anyways.

I am not even sure I neccessarily rank Agassi higher (although I might). Just that it is interesting to think there are some good cases to be made for Agassi, so when I think about it I am a bit surprised McEnroe is just so easily ranked higher.

You are right about Agassi and the AO. Not that it would be easy for him to win it the times he missed it pre 95. Red hot Sampras playing his best ever Australian Open in 94, his then nemisis Courier winning in 92 and 93, Lendl who he had not won a match against yet winning in 89 and 90. And much of his in the period Agassi was choking in big slam matches, and underachieving in slams. Still with how great he is there and loves those courts, it is certainly possibly he could have won a couple of ones pre 95 had he played. So as you said atleast negates any what ifs for McEnroe at the Australian Open really.

McEnroe's career looks juicier in many ways with his historic great 84 (which still did not wind up as great as it could have been, he could have truly made it the best year ever and missed out on this), his rivalry with Borg, kind of having his own era or mini era of 81-84 where he was #1 and the best player most of it. In fact technically ending all 4 years at #1, despite that everyone knows Connors was real #1 of 82. Still Agassi's career is more complete and just full in many ways, despite the flaws of his career. Both careers while vastly different are similar in that they have some amazing aspects, and some glaring weaknesses for players of that level too. Both are also possible cases of what if, and could have done more than what they did.

 

[1stVolley]

Tough call. Agassi had much better groundstrokes than Mac. Mac was a better volleyer. Agassi was the better returner. Both men's serves were roughly as effective. Both faced stiff competition in rivals: e.g., Sampras for Agassi, Borg & Connors for Mac. Agassi won 8 slams (including a career grand slam) vs. 7 for Mac. And Agassi was at the top of the game for longer than Mac.

So maybe Agassi has a slight lead.

 

[Winners or Errors]

The fact of the matter is that Agassi was never as dominant as McEnroe. It wasn't even close. That's why slam count is an absurd thing to base these decisions on.

 

[jorjipy]

Not even close....McEnroe by a mile.....FOUR US opens, THREE Wimbledons and THREE YECs. A genuine number 1, not a number 1-when-Pete-was-done-counting-points.

 

[flutzingitaway]

The fact of the matter is that Agassi was never as dominant as McEnroe. It wasn't even close. That's why slam count is an absurd thing to base these decisions on.

Oh I agree there is way too much emphasis on slam count these days. However in this case it is not just Agassi being ahead by 1 in slam count but having the Career Slam. Until recently atleast when it has become much more common, that was a big deal. And McEnroe only having 2 of the 4. Yes I know the Australian Open situation at the time but McEnroe still played there some years he had a good shot of winning, and never won there, even when it was on grass in 83 and 85. And Agassi being a regular major contender to be winning on all surfaces- clay, grass, his pet surface of hard courts, carpet, which again is unusual back in the day. Sampras never was on clay, and McEnroe outside of the 84 French was never a real contender on clay either. Borg sort of was on hard courts, but less than Agassi was on each individualized surface. Yes he never was really a dominant player, even the times he got to #1, but he was a major contender to win everywhere. He could have conceivably won each slam more than once, not saying he should have, just it was plausible when you examine his career.

I am aware of the drawbacks of Agassi's career too, relative to other greats.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

There are many arguments to be had on both sides (also when it comes to comparing Agassi with Lendl or Connors). My take: McEnroe. Reason: 1984. 82-3 is just ridiculous. It's a peak Fed/2011 Djokovic level season. Even in 99, Agassi had double digit losses. Basically, he was far better than Mac at longevity. I would reward that longevity if he had at least more than one season where he ended at no.1 AND a couple more slams to compensate for how dominant Mac at his best was. That he wasn't and that he is way behind Mac on weeks at no.1 all adds up to Mac having the better career IMO.

 

[flutzingitaway]

There are many arguments to be had on both sides (also when it comes to comparing Agassi with Lendl or Connors). My take: McEnroe. Reason: 1984. 82-3 is just ridiculous. It's a peak Fed/2011 Djokovic level season. Even in 99, Agassi had double digit losses. Basically, he was far better than Mac at longevity. I would reward that longevity if he had at least more than one season where he ended at no.1 AND a couple more slams to compensate for how dominant Mac at his best was. That he wasn't and that he is way behind Mac on weeks at no.1 all adds up to Mac having the better career IMO.

I think if Agassi had won the U.S Open and ended 95 at #1 it would be a big boost to his career. Particularly since I think he plays much better in 96-98 now.

Winning a 2nd Wimbledon or a 3rd U.S Open would have been huge for his legacy in general. To a lesser degree a 2nd French, which was also very doable for him.

He was never going to dominate the way McEnroe did in 84, or be a solid long term #1 as McEnroe was from 81-84. Probably not even without Sampras. His game and mentality just isn't geared to dominate the same way. And a baseliner without a particularly big serve is never going to be dominant really (unless you are Nadal). However doing the things I mentioned would give him a stronger case in this comparision, and give him a better case for his all time ranking in general.

Although if McEnroe somehow was thrown in as a contemporary for Sampras things would be a lot tougher for him it should be noted. He would have a much harder time dominating Wimbledon or the U.S Open, which were his pet events. Then again if Agassi is in the era of Wilander/Lendl not sure if he ever wins a French either, despite that he is overall a much better clay courter than McEnroe who probably should have won the 84 French.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I think if Agassi had won the U.S Open and ended 95 at #1 it would be a big boost to his career. Particularly since I think he plays much better in 96-98 now.

Winning a 2nd Wimbledon or a 3rd U.S Open would have been huge for his legacy in general. To a lesser degree a 2nd French, which was also very doable for him.

He was never going to dominate the way McEnroe did in 84, or be a solid long term #1 as McEnroe was from 81-84. Probably not even without Sampras. His game and mentality just isn't geared to dominate the same way. And a baseliner without a particularly big serve is never going to be dominant really (unless you are Nadal). However doing the things I mentioned would give him a stronger case in this comparision, and give him a better case for his all time ranking in general.

Although if McEnroe somehow was thrown in as a contemporary for Sampras things would be a lot tougher for him it should be noted. He would have a much harder time dominating Wimbledon or the U.S Open, which were his pet events. Then again if Agassi is in the era of Wilander/Lendl not sure if he ever wins a French either, despite that he is overall a much better clay courter than McEnroe who probably should have won the 84 French.

Really couldn't agree more with the bolded part. That loss totally crushed him. Those were three should-have-been-prime years just wiped out due to poor form and disappearing into the wilderness.

 

[King No1e]

Not even close....McEnroe by a mile.....FOUR US opens, THREE Wimbledons and THREE YECs. A genuine number 1, not a number 1-when-Pete-was-done-counting-points.

A number 1-when-borg-was-done-counting-points

 

[King No1e]

I've done a thread on this before, and IIRC the verdict was Agassi by a slim margin. Career Slam, extra GS title, and great longevity/versatility give him the edge in this debate, although Mac was more dominant in his prime.
Mac would be way higher on the BOAT list, but Agassi wins in the GOAT department

 

[jorjipy]

A number 1-when-borg-was-done-counting-points
[/QUOTE]


1981.....Borg was around and trying, wasnt he?

If I am not mistaken, what was the first year Agassi was 'number 1'? 1999? That was the year Sampras didnt play the US or the Australian Open.....and still Sampras won Wimbledon and the YEC, destroying Agassi in both.
I am not an argumentative type, but McEnroe actually beat Borg in 2 slams in the year to become number 1.....Agassi inherited the number 1 ranking in 1999 because Sampras missed the US Open AND Australian Open. Surely you can see my point.....

 

[Dolgopolov85]

A number 1-when-borg-was-done-counting-points

Seriously do not get the Pete bashing lately, lol.

 

[NatF]

McEnroe for me. Didn't play in a full four slam era, was more dominant with way more time at number one - dominated the indoor events, if you add the defacto 4th major to his tally he definitely eclipses Agassi. To his credit Agassi has the superior record on clay and longevity in his favour, but I favour Mac's peak dominance.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

A number 1-when-borg-was-done-counting-points



1981.....Borg was around and trying, wasnt he?

If I am not mistaken, what was the first year Agassi was 'number 1'? 1999? That was the year Sampras didnt play the US or the Australian Open.....and still Sampras won Wimbledon and the YEC, destroying Agassi in both.
I am not an argumentative type, but McEnroe actually beat Borg in 2 slams in the year to become number 1.....Agassi inherited the number 1 ranking in 1999 because Sampras missed the US Open AND Australian Open. Surely you can see my point.....

He reached #1 in April 1995

 

[jorjipy]

Yeah, reached.....momentarily

McEnroe REACHED number 1 in March 1980 but we all know he wasn’t the true number 1......

let’s stick to year ending number 1.....

I had better retire from this message board......its reputation is accurate

farewell, lovely posters

 

[Karma Tennis]

Agassi has a Career GRAND SLAM .... not a bad achievement.

McEnroe, that fourth set in the 1980 Wimbledon Final, beating Borg at the US Open, and then ending Borg's Wimbledon run in 1981 was pretty amazing. But you had to live through that to appreciate it.

Agassi, along with Borg, Nadal and Djokovic, probably the best counter-punching returner the game has ever seen. Possibly the best Return of Serve the game has seen.

McEnroe? Well, that can opener lefty serve to the Ad Court, simply stunning. The touch at the net, probably the greatest of all.

And both have done some great non-tennis related things off the court after Retiring from the main game.

Hard to separate the two.

Playing for the Planet on ...

Red Clay - Andre
Grass - Mac
Hardcourt (Slow) - Andre
Hardcourt (Fast) - Mac

 

[zagor]

McEnroe for me. Didn't play in a full four slam era, was more dominant with way more time at number one - dominated the indoor events, if you add the defacto 4th major to his tally he definitely eclipses Agassi. To his credit Agassi has the superior record on clay and longevity in his favour, but I favour Mac's peak dominance.

AO wasn't really a full fledged slam in Agassi era either, he skipped firsdt 5 of them in his career and Pete skipped it in 1999 to play golf because he was tired mentally (can you imagine him doing the same for Wimbledon/USO?).

 

[NatF]

AO wasn't really a full fledged slam in Agassi era either, he skipped firsdt 5 of them in his career and Pete skipped it in 1999 to play golf because he was tired mentally (can you imagine him doing the same for Wimbledon/USO?).

Top players mostly started attending the AO from the mid-late 80's. Deffo didn't have the same prestige but it's not the same as in Mac's day.Though granted Andre did skip it until 1995 and he would have had a good chance at winning at least a couple in his early career.

 

[Karma Tennis]

AO wasn't really a full fledged slam

Let me guess, you are from the Northern Hemisphere.

The Australian Open was, is, and always will be a fully fledged Major Tournament. The AO has ALWAYS welcomed International Players to play. Just because many of them decided not to come had nothing to do with the status of the tournament. (It is mainly because LTAA and then TA refused to pay players large Appearance Fees to come down and play. Some would argue the AO was the purest tournament of the four.)

Perhaps we should question the validity of the US Open in the 1970s which shifted from Grass to Green Clay to Hard Court in a matter of a few years. LOL.

 

[buscemi]

He was never going to dominate the way McEnroe did in 84, or be a solid long term #1 as McEnroe was from 81-84. Probably not even without Sampras. His game and mentality just isn't geared to dominate the same way.

He wouldn't have dominated like McEnroe in 1984, but that stretch from the 1999 French Open-2000 Australian Open might have ranked among the greatest of all time. Without Sampras, it's not hard to see Agassi winning the French Open, Wimbledon, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, Washington, the U.S. Open, Paris, WTF (undefeated), and the Australian Open.

 

[jrepac]

While the career slam is impressive, no question, if I look at the entirety of his career, I will always put Mac, Lendl and Connors ahead of Andre. Andre had one of the most erratic careers ever, which he redeemed with a bunch of AO wins late in the game. And he does get kudos for longevity...right up there (and maybe even moreso) than Connors. But, Mac and Connors have pretty sweet US & W wins between them...both more than Andre. And Lendl was strong at the FO. All 3 of those guys spent more time at No. 1 and have more titles. Not to mention Mac's superb doubles career. And, to be honest, Andre could not beat Pete when it really mattered...'95 and '02 were 2 prime examples of that. Mac, Lendl, Connors and Borg, all had critical wins over one another, from time to time. Whereas it seemed like you knew what was going to happen in the Sampras/Agassi match up before they hit a ball, unless you are talking red clay. After '95 USO, I pretty much figured he'd never beat Pete again in a big match up...and aside from a single AO win, that was true. Their H to H reminds me a bit of Connors v. Borg, but at least Jimmy had several big USO victories in that H2H.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Yes.

 

[flutzingitaway]

He wouldn't have dominated like McEnroe in 1984, but that stretch from the 1999 French Open-2000 Australian Open might have ranked among the greatest of all time. Without Sampras, it's not hard to see Agassi winning the French Open, Wimbledon, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, Washington, the U.S. Open, Paris, WTF (undefeated), and the Australian Open.

Good point come to think of it. He would not have won almost every tournament like McEnroe but he would have won so many big events in a row.

He got so lucky at the 99 French (not just talking the final, so many times in the tournament. I still think he deserved a French for all his play there over the years. Win is a win though.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

Tough call. Agassi had much better groundstrokes than Mac. Mac was a better volleyer. Agassi was the better returner. Both men's serves were roughly as effective. Both faced stiff competition in rivals: e.g., Sampras for Agassi, Borg & Connors for Mac. Agassi won 8 slams (including a career grand slam) vs. 7 for Mac. And Agassi was at the top of the game for longer than Mac.

So maybe Agassi has a slight lead.

"Both men's serves were roughly as effective."

McEnroe was the world's best server in the late '70s and first half of the '80s. You are way off. Did you ever see McEnroe play?

 

[flutzingitaway]

Let me guess, you are from the Northern Hemisphere.

The Australian Open was, is, and always will be a fully fledged Major Tournament. The AO has ALWAYS welcomed International Players to play. Just because many of them decided not to come had nothing to do with the status of the tournament. (It is mainly because LTAA and then TA refused to pay players large Appearance Fees to come down and play. Some would argue the AO was the purest tournament of the four.)

Perhaps we should question the validity of the US Open in the 1970s which shifted from Grass to Green Clay to Hard Court in a matter of a few years. LOL.

I would have to disagree. Just look at some of the mens and womens winners in the 60s and 70s. Vilas who sucked on grass, and has a horrible record at Wimbledon, won it twice in empty fields. Mark Edmunston who was a janitor ranked outside the top 200 at the time won it. Barbara Jordan, the far weaker sister of Kathy Jordan who never won a slam, won it. Brian Teach, William Bowrey,

Johan Kriek won it back to back years, beating Steve Denton in the finals both times. Sure sounds like a possible Wimbledon and U.S Open final doesn't it?

The losing finalists 4 straight years at one stretch were John Lloyd, John Marks, John Sadri, Kim Wawrick. The losing womens finalists 5 straight years at one point were Renata Tomanova, Dianne Fromholtz, Helen Gourlay, Betsy Nagelsen, Sharon Walsh. Fromholtz is the only one of all of those who was a pretty good player on tour.

Jan Lehane reached 4 straight finals there once, the reason most lowball Court's 11 Australian Open finals, as Lehane was her finals opponent an amazing 4 years straight. Lehane not surprisingly never once made it past the quarters of any non Australian Open slam.

Even some of the better winners of the time like Vitas Gerulaitis, Keri Melville and Roscoe Tanner won their only career singles slam there.

The doozy of all is Chris O Neill, a player with a 19-52 career tour record won the Australian Open.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I've done a thread on this before, and IIRC the verdict was Agassi by a slim margin. Career Slam, extra GS title, and great longevity/versatility give him the edge in this debate, although Mac was more dominant in his prime.
Mac would be way higher on the BOAT list, but Agassi wins in the GOAT department

I used to think this way, but interestingly, I have been swayed recently into ranking McEnroe higher.

I think one of the things that swayed me was a stat I saw which showed that Agassi really didn't beat top players very often in slams. A lot of his later winning runs in particular involved him defeating relatively mediocre players - i.e. Medvedev to win the 1999 FO, Martin to win the 1999 US, Clement to win the 2001 AO, and Schuettler to win the 2003 AO. These are just the final opponents, but most of the other players he defeated were not that special. He was of course always overshadowed by Sampras when they were both at peak - with the arguable exception of 1995 up until the US Open final. However, he was also second best to Lendl in the late 1980s at the USO, to Federer in the 2000s in hard court slams - and even to guys like Courier at the 1991 FO, and to Hewitt (in ranking terms) during 2001/02.

McEnroe OTOH was the true dominator of the early 80s. He knocked Borg off his perch, then maintained dominance over Connors and Lendl (despite the slip up at Wimbledon 1982). He has much more time at No 1 than Agassi, despite never contending for the position after his mid 20s.

Agassi's trump cards are one more slam (and the career slam), an Olympic gold, plus greater longevity at the top of the game. These are important, but I think, not enough to push him ahead of Mac for me - consider that the Olympics not being played in Mac's era, whereas he won more YECs than Agassi, and the fact that Mac himself was only one set away from winning the FO, but was up against Lendl rather than Medvedev. I used to rank Agassi ahead of Mac for a long time though, so fully understand why people would do so.

 

[travlerajm]

One thing I notice is with most people their all time rankings have McEnroe higher than Agassi. Is this fair though? For the record I am a big fan of both players, I wasn't alive during most of McEnroe's career (especialy prime) but have seen hundreds of tapes of him and he is maybe my favorite player ever to watch, and Agassi was the first player I truly stanned over, men or women. The 95 U.S Open final was such a devastating result for me, I stopped following tennis until the 96 Australian Open gradually got me into it a bit again. So I have no horse in this race, as I love both players.

I can totally see why many rank McEnroe higher. He was more dominant in his best years. He did better at the big 2 slams, even under modern day thinking- Wimbledon and U.S Open. However Agassi has the Career Slam, while McEnroe does not even have 3 of the 4 slams. And while I am well aware of the Australian Open situation of the day, he did play Australian often, he even played it on grass in his prime in 83 and couldn't beat Wilander. Agassi also has 1 more slam, so is both ahead in the slam count with a Career Slam too. His longevity blows McEnroe's out of the water, despite that McEnroe played until 32 it was mostly as a pidding player after age 26/27 or so, with only the odd respectable result (usually needing an easy draw) in a slam here or there ( a quarter or semi). His versatility is well above too as he could win on all surfaces. McEnroe is clearly above in dominance, peak level play, and probably ahead in consistency too although both have some issues there.

Both are incredibly talented and largely viewed as underachievers. McEnroe at his best was mentally much tougher, but he also gave up on his career at a certain point or could not adapt to the changing game while his own skills and abilities were on decline, while Agassi did the hard work to come back in a similar situation. What are some of your thoughts just comparing the two in general.

Both underachievers. I think Agassi’s style of play lent itself to being able to get back to his peak level after an absence, while Mac’s style was harder to do that. Serve-and-volley is so dependent on very subtle reflexes.

 

[1stVolley]

"Both men's serves were roughly as effective."

McEnroe was the world's best server in the late '70s and first half of the '80s. You are way off. Did you ever see McEnroe play?

The quality of your serve is also measured by the quality of the receivers. Service return was much improved by Agassi's prime. Larger racquets and better training. That's not to say that some of the receivers Mac faced, like Connors, were mediocre returners, but the average quality of the returners he faced was, IMHO, below what Agassi faced.

Another issue in evaluating service effectiveness is that, in this case, we're comparing a serve and vollyer's game vs. an aggressive baseliner's. So probably the best way to provide a reasonable basis for comparisons is to compare aces/winners/double faults. I don't have those statistics handy, but my impression is that in terms of these three categories neither player stood out from the other.

And, yes, I saw MANY of Mac's games. I'm older than he is.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Agassi is the one I grew up with. Saw all his slam wins. My favorite player.

Have to give Johnny Mac the edge.

 

[Karma Tennis]

I would have to disagree. Just look at some of the mens and womens winners in the 60s and 70s.

But that had nothing to do with the players who participated. They could only play against who they played.

If many of the top players simply decided not to attend the US Open, presumably you would label it a lesser Major? Of course not!

It could be argued that the first few Major Tournament Titles that Federer won were during a time when the serious competition was quite weak relative to the period when Nadal and Djokovic arrived on the scene. Does that mean Federer's titles are lesser than his later ones? Of course not.

Personally, I find it narrow minded and insulting to label one of the four Majors as being inferior simply on the basis that many top players of the day didn't bother to attend it because A/ They weren't paid enough Appearance Money B/ They did not like Australian Playing Conditions C/ They were too lazy to get on a plane and fly to the other side of the world.

The ones that did bother, were rewarded handsomely with Grand Slam Major Titles.

 

[flutzingitaway]

If many of the top players simply decided not to attend the US Open, presumably you would label it a lesser Major? Of course not!

Absolutely I would label and consider the U.S Open a lesser major if it got the kind of fields Australian Open got in the 60s, 70s, and even some into the 80s. No question at all. Same thing with Wimbledon.

You can think what you want but let me ask you this. Court has 24 majors. And 62 combined majors, which is also a record. Why does literally nobody label her the GOAT, instead considering it Serena, Graf, or Navratilova. Why is that? I can give you a little hint, it has something to do with what we a certain tournament we are discussing.

Or even better why is Johan Kriek not in the Hall of Fame. 2 singles majors almost always gets you in, many 1 time singles major winners are even in. Why has he never even been on the ballot list. He has 2 fully legit majors right, and his name has not even once been on the ballot list, there is literally no other 2 singles slam winner who has never atleast been on the ballot list.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Absolutely I would label and consider the U.S Open a lesser major if it got the kind of fields Australian Open got in the 60s, 70s, and even some into the 80s. No question at all. Same thing with Wimbledon.

You can think what you want but let me ask you this. Court has 24 majors. And 62 combined majors, which is also a record. Why does literally nobody label her the GOAT, instead considering it Serena, Graf, or Navratilova. Why is that? I can give you a little hint, it has something to do with what we a certain tournament we are discussing.

Or even better why is Johan Kriek not in the Hall of Fame. 2 singles majors almost always gets you in, many 1 time singles major winners are even in. Why has he never even been on the ballot list. He has 2 fully legit majors right, and his name has not even once been on the ballot list, there is literally no other 2 singles slam winner who has never atleast been on the ballot list.

Yeah, it's nothing against the Australian Open per se. I think the AO moved up steadily in profile right from the time the Melbourne Park venue opened. But it still took some cajoling on the men's side for the old myths that AO was not important to go. That is not the fault of the tournament, it's on the players but in this discussion, we are evaluating who won what so the fact that the players saw one slam as less important matters. The anti-AO argument does not apply pretty much from 1988 up on the women's side; the top players in the WTA didn't generally skip AO for flimsy reasons after it found a good venue and a good spot in the calendar. Graf-Seles 93 was one of the all time great slam finals on the women's side at least as at that point and the Hingis-Capriati and many other memorable finals as well as SF/lower round matches have followed. On the men's side, only in the noughties did it really become as important (for the players) as the other slams. Fed did a lot to legitimise all four slams rather than this "because I hate clay/grass, I will skip and bash the hell out of the slam played on that surface" business. And from the time Melbourne Park moved to Plexipave (though not necessarily because of that surface), AO has reliably been the best or at least the second best slam on the calendar, only getting shaded by Big Four bouts at Wimbledon finals. AO is my favourite slam TODAY but historically, it's absolutely true that players skipped it. They were dumb to, but they did and so it goes.

 

[flutzingitaway]

Yeah, it's nothing against the Australian Open per se. I think the AO moved up steadily in profile right from the time the Melbourne Park venue opened. But it still took some cajoling on the men's side for the old myths that AO was not important to go. That is not the fault of the tournament, it's on the players but in this discussion, we are evaluating who won what so the fact that the players saw one slam as less important matters. The anti-AO argument does not apply pretty much from 1988 up on the women's side; the top players in the WTA didn't generally skip AO for flimsy reasons after it found a good venue and a good spot in the calendar. Graf-Seles 93 was one of the all time great slam finals on the women's side at least as at that point and the Hingis-Capriati and many other memorable finals as well as SF/lower round matches have followed. On the men's side, only in the noughties did it really become as important (for the players) as the other slams. Fed did a lot to legitimise all four slams rather than this "because I hate clay/grass, I will skip and bash the hell out of the slam played on that surface" business. And from the time Melbourne Park moved to Plexipave (though not necessarily because of that surface), AO has reliably been the best or at least the second best slam on the calendar, only getting shaded by Big Four bouts at Wimbledon finals. AO is my favourite slam TODAY but historically, it's absolutely true that players skipped it. They were dumb to, but they did and so it goes.

It is like if in a fantasy universe Serena starts a WTA campaign that Indian Wells is racist after her 2001 experience rather than just a self imposed Williams family boycott. And people actually listened, cared, and followed (which btw would not have happened even if they tried this). And on average only 3 or 4 of the top 15 played each year. It would be deemed an inferior Premier Mandatory now during that period.

The players can single handedly determine the caliber of the event during a period. Like it or not.

 

[Rosstour]

Agassi. CGS, a fascinating fall and rise (Mac just fell), being the only guy who could really trouble Pete, and incredible longevity for someone of his era. He was actually older than Pete and played for another 5ish seasons, well enough to find himself in a Slam Final against Pete’s successor.

Mac had a higher peak but I go for sustained excellence over flashes of brilliance every time.

 

[KG1965]

McEnroe got so high v Borg and Connors. He reached such a high level that I find it hard to find another example. With the old rackets I have never seen play like this (maybe Laver and Borg, maybe). Then came 1984.
I place Supermac near Rosewall, Borg, Sampras, Connors. And with a little margin in front of Lendl.

Agassi was a great character, perhaps a little too discontinuous.

 

[dominikk1985]

Tough to say. Mac really had a more dominant period and agassi did benefit from the weak early to mid 00s period (transition time between Pete and fedal) late in his career. But of course he also did face Pete and had his personal problems which maybe cost him a slam or two.

Mac had no cake walk either with lots of strong opponents. I'm leaning Mac because of his shorter dominance while agassi was a bit opportunistic

Slam final opponents in wins

Mac
Gerulaitis, borg, borg, borg, Chris Lewis, Connors lendl

Agassi
Goran, stich, Pete, Medvedev, Martin, kafelnikov, Clement, schüttler

Obviously the first 3 were extremely tough but I feel the late ones are a bit opportunistic because 2000 to 2005 was so weak (if not for the emergence of Roger he might have won another 2 uso) while Mac had 2 very weak opponents in Gerulaitis and Lewis, but the other all were very strong.

 

[Olli Jokinen]

The quality of your serve is also measured by the quality of the receivers. Service return was much improved by Agassi's prime. Larger racquets and better training. That's not to say that some of the receivers Mac faced, like Connors, were mediocre returners, but the average quality of the returners he faced was, IMHO, below what Agassi faced.

Another issue in evaluating service effectiveness is that, in this case, we're comparing a serve and vollyer's game vs. an aggressive baseliner's. So probably the best way to provide a reasonable basis for comparisons is to compare aces/winners/double faults. I don't have those statistics handy, but my impression is that in terms of these three categories neither player stood out from the other.

And, yes, I saw MANY of Mac's games. I'm older than he is.

I cannot agree with you. Agassi's serve was – at best – mediocre. At times he did win points on his beefed-up 1st serve, but it never had any real consistency in terms of free or semi-free points (easy set-up for the forehand). I'm pretty sure Agassi would have liked to have McEnroe's serve anytime.

 

[Sabrina]

McEnroe for me.

 

[Karma Tennis]

Absolutely I would label and consider the U.S Open a lesser major if it got the kind of fields Australian Open got in the 60s, 70s, and even some into the 80s. No question at all. Same thing with Wimbledon.

So you base the status of a Major on the quality of the field. I base it on History and Tradition. The Big 4 Tournaments, Best of 5 Sets stand together alone regardless of who is playing them. As I said prev. most of the AOs that you are thinking about resulted from the National Associations refusal to pay player big dollars just to compete. If you don't respect the importance of a Major, you don't deserve to get money for nothing.

Court has 24 majors. And 62 combined majors, which is also a record. Why does literally nobody label her the GOAT, instead considering it Serena, Graf, or Navratilova.

GOAT is subjective. Up until Smith-Court started espousing her personal beliefs, most tennis fans in Australia viewed her as the female GOAT. But regardless, she has won the most Titles. If you compare her PLAYING career with those of the others you mentioned, she respected the Sport over the course of her entire playing career a lot more than either Serena or Martina N did. However, I do agree that Steffi probably has the most legitimate claim to being the female GOAT given her success, and the way she conducted herself both on and off the court during her Playing Career.

Hall of Fame

Are you talking about the "International Hall of Fame"? The one created by Americans that has no real ties with the ITF?

Johan could have won a dozen Majors in the 1970s. He still wouldn't be in a USA Based Hall of Fame. Just look at what is happening in the USA at the moment.

 

[flutzingitaway]

So you base the status of a Major on the quality of the field. I base it on History and Tradition. The Big 4 Tournaments, Best of 5 Sets stand together alone regardless of who is playing them. As I said prev. most of the AOs that you are thinking about resulted from the National Associations refusal to pay player big dollars just to compete. If you don't respect the importance of a Major, you don't deserve to get money for nothing.

I think it is fairly simple. No matter a tournaments history, if most top or semi noteable players refuse to play for a period (regardless the reasons) that event loses value for that period. If you feel differently that is fine, but most people don't recognize the Australian Open titles in that period as the same value as other slams. In fact Wimbledon and the U.S Open are seen as considerably above the French to many during that period too; in part since the French also got some depleted fields. It simply was not the same as today where all 4 slams are equal, back then not the case.

GOAT is subjective. Up until Smith-Court started espousing her personal beliefs, most tennis fans in Australia viewed her as the female GOAT.

That is interesting to learn. I can only ensure you here in North America she was never considered the female GOAT by hardly anyone, atleast by the time Navratilova was through the bulk period of her career, and Graf was playing. And from the many BBC telecasts I have seen pretty sure not there either.

But regardless, she has won the most Titles. If you compare her PLAYING career with those of the others you mentioned, she respected the Sport over the course of her entire playing career a lot more than either Serena or Martina N did. However, I do agree that Steffi probably has the most legitimate claim to being the female GOAT given her success, and the way she conducted herself both on and off the court during her Playing Career.

Fair enough.

Are you talking about the "International Hall of Fame"? The one created by Americans that has no real ties with the ITF?

Johan could have won a dozen Majors in the 1970s. He still wouldn't be in a USA Based Hall of Fame. Just look at what is happening in the USA at the moment.

Kafelnikov is one of the least popular multi slam winners ever in the U.S, does not even have a Masters title, and had the most pathetic rise to his brief stint at #1 ever (6 straight 1st round losses) and even he made Tennis Hall of Fame. So I strongly disagree with you here. Kafelnikov's 2 slams are the Australian Open and French Open, but they are now in the era all 4 slams are totally equal. I think if Kriek had won 2 Australian Opens in 91 and 92 instead of 81 and 82, he is almost certain to make the Hall of Fame eventually.

Helena Sukova who does not even have a singles slam, has a good but not legendary doubles career, and is basically an unknown in the U.S was also inducted.

1 slam winner Stich who plays almost no doubles, and never got to #1, also was inducted. Again someone not popular and barely known in the U.S.

I agree with you the Hall of Fame isn't all that and mostly an overhyped money making scheme, but Kriek not even being considered (not being on any ballot, nor has anyone ever argued he should be, heck I bet you have never once argued he should be) despite technically being a 2 slam winner who even defended his slam, speaks volumes to the Australian Open rating of the time.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

While the career slam is impressive, no question, if I look at the entirety of his career, I will always put Mac, Lendl and Connors ahead of Andre. Andre had one of the most erratic careers ever, which he redeemed with a bunch of AO wins late in the game. And he does get kudos for longevity...right up there (and maybe even moreso) than Connors. But, Mac and Connors have pretty sweet US & W wins between them...both more than Andre. And Lendl was strong at the FO. All 3 of those guys spent more time at No. 1 and have more titles. Not to mention Mac's superb doubles career. And, to be honest, Andre could not beat Pete when it really mattered...'95 and '02 were 2 prime examples of that. Mac, Lendl, Connors and Borg, all had critical wins over one another, from time to time. Whereas it seemed like you knew what was going to happen in the Sampras/Agassi match up before they hit a ball, unless you are talking red clay. After '95 USO, I pretty much figured he'd never beat Pete again in a big match up...and aside from a single AO win, that was true. Their H to H reminds me a bit of Connors v. Borg, but at least Jimmy had several big USO victories in that H2H.

Well said.

"Both men's serves were roughly as effective."

McEnroe was the world's best server in the late '70s and first half of the '80s. You are way off. Did you ever see McEnroe play?

Yeah, McEnroe had a very dangerous serve--strong and difficult to read due to three things: artistry, a left handed serve and knowing how to keep opponents off balance in trying to read him. He is several levels above Agassi where serves are concerned.

 

[HBK4life]

Agassi paid the price in the gym. John did not. John was the kid that could get all As without study but sometimes there was a class that he couldn’t get away with just memorizing things and he struggled. Agassi has to work hard at his fitness that complemented his ball striking talent. Agassi for me.

 

[mightyrick]

I have to say McEnroe. He was YE#1 for three years. Agassi only one.

Agassi facing a GOAT constantly notwithstanding. McEnroe faced his share of GOATs too.

 

[McLovin]

Not to mention Mac's superb doubles career.

To me this is the tipping point. Its funny how so may people on these forums poo-poo doubles results when it comes to ranking a player's 'greatness', yet doubles is what most people play these days.

Its widely regarded throughout the sport that the best doubles team in the Men's game was "McEnroe and <fill in the blank>". I'd like to see how many majors Fed/Nadal/Djoker, or even Agassi & Pete would have had if they had played (and won) as many doubles tournaments as McEnroe:

77 Doubles titles (99 Doubles finals)​

9 Doubles Majors (12 finals)​

7 Masters (in a row...78->84)​

4 Davis Cups (Technically 5, but he only played doubles w/ Sampras in the finals of that one)​

He also has a mixed French w/ Carillo.

​

 

[flutzingitaway]

Agassi paid the price in the gym. John did not. John was the kid that could get all As without study but sometimes there was a class that he couldn’t get away with just memorizing things and he struggled. Agassi has to work hard at his fitness that complemented his ball striking talent. Agassi for me.

Good point there. Agassi in his best years put in the really hard grind in a way I doubt McEnroe ever did even in his best years.

On the flip side though McEnroe never totally bagged in effort level to the unprofessional levels, even during his Tatum or slump/decline years. Agassi literally let himself so completely go for stretches, literally had a beer gut which is just embarassing for any top pro, and you never saw from McEnroe. So I would say Agassi at his best had a much more intense work ethic, but at his worst he also had a much worse one than McEnroe had at his worse.

 

[jrepac]

The quality of your serve is also measured by the quality of the receivers. Service return was much improved by Agassi's prime. Larger racquets and better training. That's not to say that some of the receivers Mac faced, like Connors, were mediocre returners, but the average quality of the returners he faced was, IMHO, below what Agassi faced.

Another issue in evaluating service effectiveness is that, in this case, we're comparing a serve and vollyer's game vs. an aggressive baseliner's. So probably the best way to provide a reasonable basis for comparisons is to compare aces/winners/double faults. I don't have those statistics handy, but my impression is that in terms of these three categories neither player stood out from the other.

And, yes, I saw MANY of Mac's games. I'm older than he is.

Jeepers. You SAW Mac live and in person and you think his serve is the equivalent of Andre's? I don't see how that is humanly possible. Not to mention that Mac faced Borg and Connors and Lendl...all pretty good returners, Connors being exceptional. And Mac aced the living daylights out of all of them when he was on his game. I'm not sure I agree w/the quality of the returners argument either, perhaps only in the sense that there were far fewer S&V players in Agassi's era, and more counter punchers (Courier, Chang, etc.). Andre's skills were the complete opposite of Mac's (more like Connors than anyone) and I'm not demeaning him, but Mac was a S&V giant, alongside Edberg from the 90's. Mac shone more brightly than Agassi for a shorter amount of time, but he was consistent over that time ('79-84) and damn stellar...Agassi, to me, had more ups and downs. Mac just never rebounded fully after '86 or so (tho' he did make it back to #4 in '89, I recall).

 

[jrepac]

Good point there. Agassi in his best years put in the really hard grind in a way I doubt McEnroe ever did even in his best years.

On the flip side though McEnroe never totally bagged in effort level to the unprofessional levels, even during his Tatum or slump/decline years. Agassi literally let himself so completely go for stretches, literally had a beer gut which is just embarassing for any top pro, and you never saw from McEnroe. So I would say Agassi at his best had a much more intense work ethic, but at his worst he also had a much worse one than McEnroe had at his worse.

totally agree w/your assessment.

 

[jrepac]

Agassi paid the price in the gym. John did not. John was the kid that could get all As without study but sometimes there was a class that he couldn’t get away with just memorizing things and he struggled. Agassi has to work hard at his fitness that complemented his ball striking talent. Agassi for me.

maybe later in his career....not midway through when he admitted eating a dozen donuts at one sitting....