aliceinpains
Rookie
If he couldn't win it in 84 which was his best year, he wasn't winning it any year. Agassi skipped many slams in his prime as well.
Did Ivan Lendl have the toughest competition among ATG?
- Thread starter BauerAlmeida
- Start date
If he couldn't win it in 84 which was his best year, he wasn't winning it any year. Agassi skipped many slams in his prime as well.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Indeed, Agassi skipped the AO until 1995 and chucked away years of his career on "extracurricular activities". Still think Mac probably lost out on more opportunities and was the superior player everywhere but clay.
aliceinpains
Rookie
Debatable. Agassi won 46 titles on HC and made 6 USO finals.
NatF
Bionic Poster
HC was more prevalent in Agassi's day, Mac won four USO's anyway which trumps winning two and making six finals.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
He was but then again Pete was a way better grass court player than Andre was a clay court player as well so the distance was actually bigger on grass than on clay.
Regarding the status of the Australian Open, during the first week of the 1982 edition, McEnroe, Lendl and Wilander were instead playing in an invitational tournament in Antwerp (a very highly regarded tournament during the 80s) which offered considerably greater prize money. During some of the same years that Borg, Connors and McEnroe were skipping the Australian Open, they were still willing to fly down to Australia at other times of the year to enter the Sydney Indoor grand prix event, and/or the big money invitational events in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth. Connors and McEnroe both entered the Sydney Indoor tournament more times than they entered the Australian Open during their prime years (or in Connors' case during his entire career). That shows how unimportant the AO was during its dark days.
And it's definitely not those players' faults for skipping the AO when it had terrible facilities, awarded poor prize money and ranking points and was held at a very inconvenient time of the year. They didn't have a crystal ball and know that in future generations tennis fans / the tennis media would become obsessed by grand slam counting (a very regrettable trend IMO). Even in 1987, the Miami tournament had a larger draw size and awarded greater prize money and ranking points than the Australian Open. All of that is basically unimaginable nowadays.
And it's definitely not those players' faults for skipping the AO when it had terrible facilities, awarded poor prize money and ranking points and was held at a very inconvenient time of the year. They didn't have a crystal ball and know that in future generations tennis fans / the tennis media would become obsessed by grand slam counting (a very regrettable trend IMO). Even in 1987, the Miami tournament had a larger draw size and awarded greater prize money and ranking points than the Australian Open. All of that is basically unimaginable nowadays.
aliceinpains
Rookie
Nah, pete never came close to winning a French while Andre won wimby.
RS
Bionic Poster
Olympic is less important than a slam tbh and Federer was playing poor in the Olympics match.Always feel that that was a game he could have won though. He got his revenge when they met again on the same court a few weeks later.
aliceinpains
Rookie
Agassi won gold medal on HC. And mac didn't have to play against fed or Sampras. Otherwise Andre would've won more us opens. Agassi won more slams than mac on HC, so I give the edge to Agassi.
Sunny014
Legend
In Mac's time the AO was some inferior trash that journeymen used to win.
If Mac, Connors and Borg knew that 30-40 years later Media and public would drool over slams they would have played the Aus open every year in the 70s and 80s instead of skipping it.
At the FO yes Mac only could reach the final but could not cross it, Agassi is better on Clay.
Otherwise on HCs, Grass and Carpet Mcenroe is the Ultimate Champion.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Djokovic
Lendl
Murray
Had toughest competition.
Lendl
Murray
Had toughest competition.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Yes I understand this but this is not what I said. Pete won seven Wimbledon while Andre only won one French. So Pete is better than Andre on grass by a bigger margin than Andre is better on clay. Pete >>> Andre on grass and Andre > Pete on clay maybe.
On top of that, we are talking H2H here not overall success. Pete’s clay H2H against the big shots was actually good, it was the countless losses to mugs that really hurt him. Against Bruguera, Muster, Kafelnikov, Courier he wasn’t bad and - as I said - against Andre he was only 2-3, winning the last two meetings. So I do not think the H2 would be very different had they played more on clay.
Sunny014
Legend
Murray is in the Patrick Rafter-Hewitt-Roddick-Safin-Beruguera-Stanimal league of 1-3 slam winners.
Murray has a losing H2H to Stan in Slams, do you know that ?
What a weak fellow, outside of Big 3 he is inferior to even Stan in slams and you have the audacity to place him with Lendl ??
R u in your senses ???
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
I mean in terms of competition. Prime big 3 his entire peak years
Sunny014
Legend
In a grand scheme of things that doesn't matter, in other eras too his slam count would be same, he definetly cannot beat Federer in 00s if he were of that gen, he wont be winning french, so what happens to his slam tally ? If in the 90s then he definetly isn't beating Sampras and Agassi, then what happens to his grand slam tally ? Being 3rd wheel never helps in a grand scheme of things, it is just useful to say that hey I reached semis and then lost, some fanboys will say that he could have done better in other eras, thats it but real tennis fans know that his tally would be same in every era.
A real slam winner in any era has to beat the TOP CHAMP, if you need to win WImbledon/USO in the 90s then you have to beat Sampras, if you can beat Sampras (Like Krajicek did) then beating Agassi/Henman/Rafter etc etc would not be an issue, so the question of many players peaking does not affect you if you can beat the Alpha.
Safin beat Federer in the semis of the AO, then was it a issue for him that Hewitt was in the finals ? No because he obv beat a superior player.
Stanimal beat Djokovic in the Qfs of the AO, so was it an issue for him to beat Nadal in the final ??? no ....
So Andy never was in a position to beat the greatest player on that turf, so the other 2 guys being there has no bearing on his greatness
NatF
Bionic Poster
Olympics was irrelevant in Mac's time though. AA did have serious comp at the USO but's not like Mac had it easy. IMO Mac with his serve and all-court abilities reached a higher and more dominant level against his competition than Agassi did - even excluding Pete. Obviously one thing AA does have in his favour is longevity.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Murray in late 80s/early 90s could win 8-10 slams. Same for 98-03 era.In a grand scheme of things that doesn't matter, in other eras too his slam count would be same, he definetly cannot beat Federer in 00s if he were of that gen, he wont be winning french, so what happens to his slam tally ? If in the 90s then he definetly isn't beating Sampras and Agassi, then what happens to his grand slam tally ? Being 3rd wheel never helps in a grand scheme of things, it is just useful to say that hey I reached semis and then lost, some fanboys will say that he could have done better in other eras, thats it but real tennis fans know that his tally would be same in every era.
A real slam winner in any era has to beat the TOP CHAMP, if you need to win WImbledon/USO in the 90s then you have to beat Sampras, if you can beat Sampras (Like Krajicek did) then beating Agassi/Henman/Rafter etc etc would not be an issue, so the question of many players peaking does not affect you if you can beat the Alpha.
Safin beat Federer in the semis of the AO, then was it a issue for him that Hewitt was in the finals ? No because he obv beat a superior player.
Stanimal beat Djokovic in the Qfs of the AO, so was it an issue for him to beat Nadal in the final ??? no ....
So Andy never was in a position to beat the greatest player on that turf, so the other 2 guys being there has no bearing on his greatness
RS
Bionic Poster
Why not over 10?
Sunny014
Legend
Murray would have to beat Becker-Edberg to win Wimbledon.
Murray would have to beat Becker+Edberg + the dominant force Ivan Lendl to win the HC Slams.
Even late 80s and early 90s won't give him more than 2-3 slams at best.
Murray would have to beat late 20s Sampras, Peak Safin, Peak Agassi to win slams in 98-03, he could win 2-3 slams like Hewitt won, that is the max.
See, in every weak era the room is only there for 2-3 slams, not more for Murray.
RS
Bionic Poster
Do you think Federer played well?Ah ah ah. No excuses please.
abmk
Bionic Poster
RE:FO
Mac's prime years were from 79 to 85 roughly. wasn't going to win FO in 79 anyways. So leave it.
Played in 80,81,83,84,85.
So the only real missed chance to play for winning was 82 tbh.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
2011-2016 Murray often lost only to big 3 at the slams, in semi final, final.
Put that player in 1998-2003 and he may win 8-10 slams
AO - wins 98, 99, 00, 02, 03
RG - wins one of 02 or 03
W - wins 01, 02
USO - wins 98, 99
That’s 10 slams.
Last edited:
RS
Bionic Poster
When you say not as bad do you mean Federer was decent?
abmk
Bionic Poster
Fed played like sh*t. -ve W/UE ratio on grass, LOL. Just like Murray played sh*t in WTF 2014 RR vs fed (this was worse though)
Saying one didn't play well is not an excuse. its stating what happened.
I've said repeatedly Murray didn't play well (well = well above average) in 7 of his 11 slam finals (including 2 out of 3 vs fed). Doesn't mean its an excuse.
He played well above average in 4 slam finals - Wim 12, USO 12, Wim 13, Wim 16.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
The guy got destroyed by Murray winning only 7 games in a BO5 match, something not even the best versions of Djokodal have done to him on grass, but sure Federer wasn't as bad as others are making out.
Except we've all said how Murray underperformed and played bad in several matches with Fed. Nobody is propping up Fed's WTF 2014 win over Murray, for example.
Agassi’s a legend but I definitely think that Mac was greater than him. Mac's greater dominance (he had the best record in 3 different years 1981, 1983 and 1984 while Agassi 'only' had the best record in 1 year 1999), is enough to override Agassi's advantages IMO. Also I think that his second best season in 1981 when he dethroned Borg and won 10 titles tops any season that Agassi ever had. Mac also spent longer at no. 2 and no.3 in the rankings, and a longer period of time ranked as the world no. 2 behind Borg than Agassi did ranked as the world no. 2 behind Sampras (in fact Agassi spent more time ranked no. 2 behind Kuerten / Hewitt in the 00s than behind Sampras in the 90s), so 'Sampras stopping Agassi' wouldn't be a relevant factor there.
And I agree that there's no doubt that Mac beat better competition to win his majors than Agassi, notably Borg 3 times, Connors 4 times and Lendl 3 times, simultaneously dominating the two majors that US players typically care about the most.
Throw in other factors such as Mac's incredible indoor record, Davis Cup record (Agassi's was excellent but Mac's was greater), additional titles (he is officially credited with 77 but he won more than that) etc. and it's a clear win for Mac IMO - that's not to denigrate Agassi's achievements which were also amazing of course.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Can you back that claim up? From my memory, he was very loose off the ground and his returning was pretty awful. As mentioned above, he racked up a poor winner-UE ratio on a surface that tends to produce the most winners. Delpo in the SF definitely softened him up for Murray to sweep over.
Sunny014
Legend
You cannot magically pluck someone and put them in the past, murray to be at his peak in 98-03 he will have to be born in 74 or 75, if he is born in this age then he will be physically weaker than he is now, running lesser, his racquet will be non poly, he will not be better than Agassi/Pete/Goran to win those slams.
You cannot magically pluck 1 player and put them in the past, if someone is born in the past then that person will automatically be weaker in physique and be an inferior athlete like the guys of the past.
Andre Agassi, Kafelnikov type guys will still beat Murray, Costa/Gaudio would still beat Murray as Murray would be an inferior baseliners to Europeans from Spain and other regions....Goran would still win wimbledon, USOs would still be taken by Rafter and AGassi... so no chance.
Only Wimbledon 2002 he has a chance at winning.
Sunny014
Legend
Genetics of players of 80s varied from 90s and that varied from those of the 00s
In Becker's time he was 6'3 and a big server who was tall.
Then Goran and other tall hunters arrived in the 90s and 6'3 was not that big a height anymore.
Then later Karlovic, Isner and others arrived and big servers became even taller, now Murray at 6'3 is not a tall big server at all.....
Now even guys who are 6'4-6'5 like Stefanos, kyrgios move very well on court, even Felix at 6'6 moves like lightning ...... back in the 80s and mid 90s guys of his height would not be such good movers.
So you cannot pluck Murray and put him 13-14 years back of his year of birth without he being an inferior athlete.
In Becker's time he was 6'3 and a big server who was tall.
Then Goran and other tall hunters arrived in the 90s and 6'3 was not that big a height anymore.
Then later Karlovic, Isner and others arrived and big servers became even taller, now Murray at 6'3 is not a tall big server at all.....
Now even guys who are 6'4-6'5 like Stefanos, kyrgios move very well on court, even Felix at 6'6 moves like lightning ...... back in the 80s and mid 90s guys of his height would not be such good movers.
So you cannot pluck Murray and put him 13-14 years back of his year of birth without he being an inferior athlete.
RS
Bionic Poster
Time travel matches - add closeness.
1. Murray Wim 12 final vs Djokovic Wim 14 final
2. Federer AO 08 SF vs Murray AO 13 SF
3. Nadal Wim 07 final vs Murray Oly 12 final
4. Hewitt AO 05 final vs Murray AO 13 final
5. Federer Wim 09 final vs Federer Wim 17 final
6. Del Potro RG 09 SF vs Soderling RG 10 QF
7. Hewitt USO 04 final vs Federer Oly 12 final
8. Hewitt AO 05 final vs Nadal AO 17 final
9. Roddick Wim 05 final vs Murray Wim 11 SF
1. Murray Wim 12 final vs Djokovic Wim 14 final
2. Federer AO 08 SF vs Murray AO 13 SF
3. Nadal Wim 07 final vs Murray Oly 12 final
4. Hewitt AO 05 final vs Murray AO 13 final
5. Federer Wim 09 final vs Federer Wim 17 final
6. Del Potro RG 09 SF vs Soderling RG 10 QF
7. Hewitt USO 04 final vs Federer Oly 12 final
8. Hewitt AO 05 final vs Nadal AO 17 final
9. Roddick Wim 05 final vs Murray Wim 11 SF
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Bwahahahahaha....
RS
Bionic Poster
I knew you would respond"Probably not at his best..."
The clown for this circus has arrived
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
In this case, there is no GOAT, only greatest of your own era.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Beckerserve
Legend
Your butthurt is awesome. Nadal and Federer way clear. Club 20 budNd Nadal is 4th of all time @Beckerserve
Federer, Djokovic and Sampras are the top 3.
Nadal the 1 trick pony a close 4th
Beckerserve
Legend
May i ask do you watch much tennis? Or sort of just use the force when commenting?
Sunny014
Legend
Even if I have not watched a lot of tennis in the 90s it is evident from stats that Sampras had a weak next gen and he could not capitalize vs them, the gen after him were so crap that Safin-Hewitt won early slams in the vacuum era which was meant for the sampras's next gens to win slams before Fed arrived.
Thats how weak Sampras of 00s and the next gen of Sampras were.
It is like Tsitsipas starting to beat Thiem/Novak in 2017-2018 itself, how would that look on Novak's resume or on Thiem's ????
RS
Bionic Poster
Brave!
Mainad
Bionic Poster
The guy got destroyed by Murray winning only 7 games in a BO5 match, something not even the best versions of Djokodal have done to him on grass, but sure Federer wasn't as bad as others are making out.
And naturally none of that had anything at all to do with Murray, right?
You may have acknowledged how bad he may have been but I have rarely ever noticed him given a pass for a bad performance like so many of you are quite willing to accord Fed and the other Big 3.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
It's hard not to feel at least a little bad for them when you read threads like this where people will put Andre ahead of Mac on the basis of having 1 more slam. I've heard players like him not necessarily regret their decisions, but definitely bemoan the fact that years later their entire careers got boiled down to a single number with no other context.
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
Sampras won every time they played at USO and Wimbledon, Agassi at AO and RG. They played more at the former. Yes, at the AO the match was close, just like at the USO in 2001 or Wimbledon in '93.
And Agassi on grass is miles better than Sampras on clay. Not only he won Wimbledon, but he also made an extra final and a few other SFs, that missing it a few times during his prime.
I agree Sampras would have a positive H2H regardless of the hypotheticals, but it would be closer than 20-14.
Agassi at his best made 4 slams finals in a row winning 3. That's still pretty dominant.
I would agree with that...he really had to stare down several GREAT players during his career. Murderer's row, to say the least early on, midway and even later. His losses are to pretty outstanding guys, arguably Cash being the 'weakest' of the bunch.
it's really quite dumb....70's, even early 80's, were not about GS count
Similar threads
- Poll
