View Single Post
Old 05-16-2007, 05:44 PM   #19
Azzurri's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Next door to Elisha Cuthbert.
Posts: 7,884

Originally Posted by drakulie View Post
I'll explain. Similar to what I stated about Fed, even though Agassi doesn't have as many slams as Borg, I think he was the better player.

Honestly, the list gets rough for me between 2-5. For example, I will say I'm far more more impressed with McEnroes accoomplishments in TENNIS as a whole, than I am with Pete's 14 singles slams. If Pete would of played both singles and doubles would he have as many doubles slams as Mc? Would it have had an impact on his singles totals? That goes for all those guys (Agassi, Borg, Lendl, etc).

On the other hand, I think one of, if not the most impressive achievements is Borg's French and Wimbledon success. I think that feat has proven to be far harder to obtain than total # of slams. Quite frankly, I don't see that feat ever being duplicated (even with the slower grass). I do see the total # of slams being surpassed.

As too many arguments could be made, my list finally came down to taking numbers out of the equation and going by who I thought was the better singles player in their prime.
I see...good way of choosing. Now that I think about it, a 28 year old Agassi probably would have beat Borg in his prime, but not sure on clay. As for the other surfaces Agassi and Borg would be a great great match!
Azzurri is offline   Reply With Quote