Agassi Underrated

[Chopin]

Andre Agassi is incredibly underrated by the TW Historians. One guy once tried to tell me that AA fell outside the top 30 all time. What? I mean, what more do you guys need?

--8 grand slam titles
--Career Grand Slam (Only one outside of Federer to do it in the modern game on different surfaces and not in a grass court park)
--17 Masters Series titles (most in history of tennis)
--Masters Cup winner
--Davis Cup Winner
--#1 Ranking
--Great competition (the BEST)
--Incredibly long career where AA was never made irrelevant (this guy competed against everyone from Mac and Connors to Sampras and Federer).
--Olympic Gold Medal
--And lots more

This guy is easily top 10, and imo, top 5 of all time.

Before you guys jump on me, I'd like to point out that people who know tennis agree with me--and not you (yes, I'm talking to you, TW Historians). Both Mac and Wilander listed Agassi in the top 5 greatest player to ever play. And Tennis magazine ranked him at #7.

[CyBorg]

The Tennis magazine list accounted for the past 40 years (open era). #7 is probably not unreasonable, this considered.

There are many Agassi threads here. I suggest you utilize the search button next time.

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

The Tennis magazine list accounted for the past 40 years (open era). #7 is probably not unreasonable, this considered.

There are many Agassi threads here. I suggest you utilize the search button next time.

Thanks for the suggestion, Cyborg. He's top 5 though--all time.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by Chopin

Thanks for the suggestion, Cyborg. He's top 5 though--all time.

It's amazing how he's able to achieve this while never being the best at his craft in any given year.

By some divine act of God, this must be.

[Power Player]

What about the year when he went 27-1 in Major competition?

I think he is the best because he is my favorite. Pure fan boy bias. But he also ushered in a whole new style of play that is now the standard.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by Power Player

What about the year when he went 27-1 in Major competition?

I remember that year. It was called 'never'.

[r2473]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

It's amazing how he's able to achieve this while never being the best at his craft in any given year.

I don't understand this. He was year-end #1 in 1999. Won US Open and the French that year (completing the career grandslam).

Who was better that year?

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by r2473

I don't understand this. He was year-end #1 in 1999. Won US Open and the French that year (completing the career grandslam).

Who was better that year?

Great post. Who was better that year?

[thalivest]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

It's amazing how he's able to achieve this while never being the best at his craft in any given year.

By some divine act of God, this must be.

In 1995 I sort of felt like he was the best player overall for the year but Pete bettered him straight up when it counted most so at the end of the day the honor would have to go to Pete.

Then in 1999 he had the best record but was completely owned by Pete everywhere, and his slam title came with Pete missing with injury, so even this year hard to give him that title.

[grafselesfan]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

It's amazing how he's able to achieve this while never being the best at his craft in any given year.

By some divine act of God, this must be.

Why shouldnt he be recognized as the best for the year 1999? The guy won 2 slams and reached 3 slam finals so clearly had the best record. I am a huge Pete fan but I give Agassi kudos as the top dog that year. Yes Sampras had his number head to head but head to head doesnt determine who is best always. If so Nadal was the best player ever since 2005 and not Federer. Yes Pete missed the U.S Open with injury but injuries are part of the game unfortunately. Super bad luck for Pete and I definitely feel he would have won that Open, but he didnt, Andre ended that year as French Open Champion, Wimbledon runner up, and U.S Open winner, so clearly the best at his craft for 1999.

In 1995 he really did look the best player in the World almost all year. It wasnt until the U.S Open final that Sampras beat him, which Agassi had been favored to win, that he lost that title in peoples minds. However most of the year people were looking at him as the best player in the World.

Also lets be fair to Agassi. How many guys would ever be the best at their craft having their primes at the same time as the great Pete Sampras. Agassi is an excellent clay court player but he isnt a dominant clay courter that is going to dominate the clay season or win 4 or 5 French Opens up against clay court greats like Muster, Bruguera, and Courier. His next best surfaces after rebound ace are surfaces like decoturf and the old fast grass, and those are the surfaces Sampras is virtually untouchable on, arguably the greatest ever on those surfaces. So that doesnt leave Andre many places to go, only rebound ace really. How often would even Federer have been the best of his craft if he was born almost the same year as Pete. Pete would handle Roger on fast surfaces just like he did Andre, Roger like Andre would do well on clay but would never dominate the deep 90s clay court field, so one could argue Federer might very rarely been the best had he been born at the time same time as Andre as well.

[akv89]

In the open era, there's Sampras, Federer, Borg, Lendl, and Connors. I don't see Agassi as better than any one of those guys. I'd put him above Mcenroe. So he'd probably be #6.

[ChuDat]

you forgot olympic gold medalist

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by r2473

I don't understand this. He was year-end #1 in 1999. Won US Open and the French that year (completing the career grandslam).

Who was better that year?

Sampras. Sampras was almost always better, save the very early 90s and early 00s.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by thalivest

In 1995 I sort of felt like he was the best player overall for the year but Pete bettered him straight up when it counted most so at the end of the day the honor would have to go to Pete.

Then in 1999 he had the best record but was completely owned by Pete everywhere, and his slam title came with Pete missing with injury, so even this year hard to give him that title.

Yeah. Sorta-kinda-maybe-he-was-maybe-he-wasn't.

Sounds like top-five all time to me.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

Why shouldnt he be recognized as the best for the year 1999? The guy won 2 slams and reached 3 slam finals so clearly had the best record. I am a huge Pete fan but I give Agassi kudos as the top dog that year. Yes Sampras had his number head to head but head to head doesnt determine who is best always. If so Nadal was the best player ever since 2005 and not Federer. Yes Pete missed the U.S Open with injury but injuries are part of the game unfortunately. Super bad luck for Pete and I definitely feel he would have won that Open, but he didnt, Andre ended that year as French Open Champion, Wimbledon runner up, and U.S Open winner, so clearly the best at his craft for 1999.

In 1995 he really did look the best player in the World almost all year. It wasnt until the U.S Open final that Sampras beat him, which Agassi had been favored to win, that he lost that title in peoples minds. However most of the year people were looking at him as the best player in the World.

Also lets be fair to Agassi. How many guys would ever be the best at their craft having their primes at the same time as the great Pete Sampras. Agassi is an excellent clay court player but he isnt a dominant clay courter that is going to dominate the clay season or win 4 or 5 French Opens up against clay court greats like Muster, Bruguera, and Courier. His next best surfaces after rebound ace are surfaces like decoturf and the old fast grass, and those are the surfaces Sampras is virtually untouchable on, arguably the greatest ever on those surfaces. So that doesnt leave Andre many places to go, only rebound ace really. How often would even Federer have been the best of his craft if he was born almost the same year as Pete. Pete would handle Roger on fast surfaces just like he did Andre, Roger like Andre would do well on clay but would never dominate the deep 90s clay court field, so one could argue Federer might very rarely been the best had he been born at the time same time as Andre as well.

It's simpler than you make it out to be. Sampras was better. 1993 through 2000.

[Tennis Dunce]

Agassi is more like #12 - #14 all-time. I would certainly take Edberg over Agassi, and him in the top 10 or (gasp) top 5 (!) is ridiculous.

Hell of a ball-striker, great hand-eye coordination, and the best return of serve ever. Helluva ballplayer, no doubt about it.

[rod99]

Originally Posted by Tennis Dunce

Agassi is more like #12 - #14 all-time. I would certainly take Edberg over Agassi, and him in the top 10 or (gasp) top 5 (!) is ridiculous.

Hell of a ball-striker, great hand-eye coordination, and the best return of serve ever. Helluva ballplayer, no doubt about it.

and why would edberg be considered better than agassi? yes, edberg was #1 longer but he also didn't play in the prime of sampras. edberg's best years were when lendl was past his prime and sampras hadn't reached his. agassi's advantages over edberg:
- more grand slams
- the career grand slam
- longevity
- more titles
- more success on clay

other than more time at #1, i don't know of one single category i'd give edberg the advantage (i guess better grass court player, with 1 additional wimbledon).

[thalivest]

Originally Posted by rod99

and why would edberg be considered better than agassi? yes, edberg was #1 longer but he also didn't play in the prime of sampras. edberg's best years were when lendl was past his prime and sampras hadn't reached his. agassi's advantages over edberg:
- more grand slams
- the career grand slam
- longevity
- more titles
- more success on clay

other than more time at #1, i don't know of one single category i'd give edberg the advantage (i guess better grass court player, with 1 additional wimbledon).

Edberg vs Agassi:

-Edberg better on grass
-Edberg better indoors
-Agassi better on slow to medium hard courts. Although Edberg would have (most likely) won 3 Australian Opens himself without his injury in the 1990 final, and reached 5 total finals there (should have been 6, he blew match point I think in the 91 semis)
-Agassi better on clay
-Edberg as good or better on fast hard courts (both have 2 U.S Opens but if anything Edberg beat better people to win them)

-Edberg more consistency in his prime years and overall by far
-Agassi more longevity of course
-More dominance? Hard to say. Agassi's 99 was a better year than any of Edberg's but as CyBorg said Agassi was never really considered the best. Edberg was considered the best player in the World in 1990 and 1991, the bonafide #1, especialy 1991.
-Edberg had many more big wins to win his 6 slams than Agassi to win his 8.
-Agassi had more versatility across all surfaces with his career slam

Also Edberg won 3 of his 6 slams and reached multiple other finals from 1985 to 1989 when Lendl was in his prime. Becker is another great player who was in his prime with Edberg. Wilander is another great player in his prime until the end of 1988 with Edberg. In addition to a still formidable Becker and Lendl, Edberg also had to deal with peaking Courier, rising Agassi, and rising Sampras from 1990 to 1993 also.

Agassi did play in the prime of Sampras but most of his victories were not in the prime of Sampras. The prime of Sampras was 1993-1997 probably, even if it were 1993-1999 you can basically write off 1999 since Sampras is not a threat at the French and went out early as usual, and had to miss the U.S Open Agassi won with injury so he essentialy wasnt even there for Agassi's 2 slam wins that year. He won 5 of his 8 slams during the period between the Sampras reign and the start of the Federer reign, which wasnt all that great a time period with clay courter Kuerten, Hewitt (twice), and Roddick as the other year end #1s beside Agassi.

That being said I would rank Agassi over Edberg since he has 2 more slams and the career slams but I dont think he has the edge in virtually every category at all.

[Chopin]

Great thread guys. Keep up the fine posting. Glad to see the former pro player boards are back in order with me at the helm.

[grafselesfan]

Well I agree Agassi is very underrated on this forum. The fact many arent willing to credit him for being the best player of 1999 with his year end record just confirms that further for me.

His career slam is dismissed as overrated by some people. Maybe some people overrate it but it still an amazing feat at the time he did it. He played at the time surface conditions were the most polarized in history. A relatively short window where the 4 slams were played on true rebound ace, red clay, true fast grass, decoturf, and the year end Championships were usually played on a fast indoor court. In those conditions and in an extremely deep field he won everything there was to win. All 4 slams, Davis Cup, Olympic singles gold. I for one consider that an incredile feat.

To be born only 1 year apart from Sampras unless you are a clay court specialist is the worst luck imaginable. Imagine what Agassi would have achieved on todays playing conditions vs the current field of baseliners.