Agassi Underrated

C

Chopin

Hall of Fame
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.
 
Last edited:
CyBorg

CyBorg

Legend
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.
 
C

Chopin

Hall of Fame
CyBorg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Power Player

Bionic Poster
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.
 
r2473

r2473

G.O.A.T.
CyBorg said:
It's amazing how he's able to achieve this while never being the best at his craft in any given year.
Click to expand...

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?
 
thalivest

thalivest

Banned
CyBorg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

grafselesfan

Banned
CyBorg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

akv89

Hall of Fame
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.
 
CyBorg

CyBorg

Legend
r2473 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

CyBorg

Legend
thalivest said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Sounds like top-five all time to me.
 
CyBorg

CyBorg

Legend
grafselesfan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Tennis Dunce

Semi-Pro
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.
 
R

rod99

Professional
Tennis Dunce said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

thalivest

Banned
rod99 said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
C

Chopin

Hall of Fame
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

grafselesfan

Banned
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.
 
C

Chopin

Hall of Fame
grafselesfan said:
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.
Click to expand...

As much as I normally disagree with you about Federer, your post on Agassi makes perfect sense.

Certain posters value "longevity" of career to such an extreme extent that I'm surprised that they fail to appreciate Agassi. Agassi is the definition of longevity in the modern game. No one has come close. Players like Borg and Mac were made irrelevant by newer generations--not Agassi. Certain posters also fail to realize that Agassi's main rivals were Sampras and Federer (the best of the best).

Also, for those who would argue that in 1999 Agassi wasn't the best, why don't you go ask Sampras if he'd trade a few of those wins over Agassi for a French Open title.
 
grafselesfan

grafselesfan

Banned
Chopin said:
As much as I normally disagree with you about Federer, your post on Agassi makes perfect sense.

Certain posters value "longevity" of career to such an extreme extent that I'm surprised that they fail to appreciate Agassi. Agassi is the definition of longevity in the modern game. No one has come close. Players like Borg and Mac were made irrelevant by newer generations--not Agassi. Certain posters also fail to realize that Agassi's main rivals were Sampras and Federer (the best of the best).

Also, for those who would argue that in 1999 Agassi wasn't the best, why don't you go ask Sampras if he'd trade a few of those wins over Agassi for a French Open title.
Click to expand...

Agassi was the epitome of longevity really. The guy was a teen phenom reaching 2 slam semifinals in 1988, and ending the year at #3 in the World. In 2005 he is in the top 10 with a limited schedule and taking Roger Federer to a grueling 4 set U.S Open final. The year before that in 2004 taking Federer to 5 sets in the U.S Open quarters, after beating the games #2 and #3 players Roddick and Hewitt back to back to win Cincinatti Masters.

Not to take anything away from Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and a few others in that regard as they had simply amazing longevity themselves. However it seems fairly clear longevity was something easier to attain back then. The fact so many different guys, not just the aforementioned greats, were playing well and competitive well into their 30s makes that pretty clear. You almost never see that these days, you do in occasional guys (even non greats like Santoro as some examples) but nowhere near as frequently.

So yes Agassi's longevity in this era which is an almost unparalleled level for what we see these days, and his versatility in winning each title atleast once in the time period of the most polarized playing conditions ever, are both incredible aspects of his career.

I am not blind to some of his holes compared to other greats as well. His consistency is lacking significantly. His dominance is too, although as I said how do you dominate born 1 year apart from Pete Sampras unless you are a clay court specialist. Still for what he has overall achieved in his career in the era he played in, I find he is often undervalued on this forum
 
B

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Somtimes underrated and undervalued on this forum - yes, defintely, at times.

Underrated and undervalued in the larger tennis community - historians, commentators, casual fans - I really don't think so. Between his actual playing record, his good deeds (the foundation, the school, etc.), and his iconic status (both as the brash youngster, and as an elder statesman), Agassi rarely flies under radar. He is much beloved, respected, and talked about. And, commentators almost always address what he did and how he did it, not what he didn't do compared to others.
 
H

Henry Kaspar

Rookie
In my view Agassi can reasoably be ranked between ## 7 and 10 of all players which major successes in the open era.

Laver, Federer, Borg, Sampras, Rosewall, Lendl are clearly ahead of him.

Roughly in the same ballpark are Connors, McEnroe and Wilander. All three of them displayed greater peak dominance than Agassi (Connors in 1974, McEnroe in 1984, Wilander in 1988); and all three won higher caliber slams (4 of Agassi's 8 titles where down under, while Connors and McEnroe didn't play the Aussie Open for much of their careers). Agassi beats Wilander and McEnroe in terms of longevity, but not Connors. And then, Agassi had the career slam which some people rate highly, even though Connors also won slams on all three surfaces.

I personally rank #7 Connors, #8 McEnroe, #9 Agassi, #10 Wilander, but have no quibbles if someone flips these a little around.

Agassi is clearly ahead of Becker and Edberg, and also still of Nadal, but probably for not much longer.
 
F

FiveO

Hall of Fame
r2473 said:
Probably true. But, results are what count and Agassi had the better results in 1999.
Click to expand...

Yes better results. However, Sampras missed both the AO and USO with injury in '99 and seemed to make a point of reminding AA where he stood on the court and proverbially "in the locker room" going 4-1 v. AA that year. In fact from London/Queens Club Sampras had won the four events he entered beating AA twice in a row at LA and Cincinatti, and was rolling until herniating a disk in his back at Indy which forced a retirement and withdrawal from the year's USO. AA's single win came in the RR of the now WTF and that was quickly reversed by Sampras in a 3 straight set trouncing for the the Title there which was almost as one sided as their Wimbledon Final earlier in '99.
5
 
Last edited:
drwood

drwood

Professional
Henry Kaspar said:
In my view Agassi can reasoably be ranked between ## 7 and 10 of all players which major successes in the open era.

Laver, Federer, Borg, Sampras, Rosewall, Lendl are clearly ahead of him.

Roughly in the same ballpark are Connors, McEnroe and Wilander. All three of them displayed greater peak dominance than Agassi (Connors in 1974, McEnroe in 1984, Wilander in 1988); and all three won higher caliber slams (4 of Agassi's 8 titles where down under, while Connors and McEnroe didn't play the Aussie Open for much of their careers). Agassi beats Wilander and McEnroe in terms of longevity, but not Connors. And then, Agassi had the career slam which some people rate highly, even though Connors also won slams on all three surfaces.

I personally rank #7 Connors, #8 McEnroe, #9 Agassi, #10 Wilander, but have no quibbles if someone flips these a little around.

Agassi is clearly ahead of Becker and Edberg, and also still of Nadal, but probably for not much longer.
Click to expand...

Remember that Agassi didn't play the Australian for half of his career either -- he turned pro in 86, didn't play until 95, and missed 97 and 02 with injury. All majors are of the same quality -- not the same prestige, but the same quality.
 
drwood

drwood

Professional
grafselesfan said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree that Andre is vastly underrated on these boards -- he was the best player in 99, and if not for choking against Becker in the 95 Wimbledon semis up 6-2 and 4-1 (2 breaks), could have solidified year-end #1 at that tourney (although beating Sampras in the final would have been a tall climb).

Pete would NOT "handle" Roger on fast surfaces -- it would be about equal. Roger is a MUCH better athlete than Agassi, plus Pete would not be able to get into Roger's return games the way he did Andre.

Roger's consistency and excellence on all surfaces far surpasses even Agassi, who dominated Pete at the Aus and French. No way Pete dominates Federer anywhere -- he may be 6-4 on grass, but no more than 6-4 or 5-5 on US Open HC. Plus Roger wins more French Opens than Andre -- no one in the 90s was as consistently great on clay as Nadal. Courier was probably closest (essentially 3 yrs at the top -- 1991 French to 93 final); Muster was essentially 2 yrs, but even the French he won he was down 5-2 in the final before Chang choked, and Guga won only one French in the 90s. Fed would have had at least 3 French Opens in the 90s and maybe more -- winnable years include 90, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99.
 
N

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
I believe Agassi is good no doubt, and he is top 10 all time IMO. However, one cannot overlook the fact that he indeed got a little lucky to win the career slam. One can also not overlook the fact that his longevity stems from the fact that he took a vacation in the middle of his career, etc.



Where I think Agassi succeeds though is that he transcends numbers. Something Pete Sampras IMO was never able to accomplish. Not many people remember Pete Sampras' record breaking Wimbledon, but alot of people do remember Agassi's 99 FO victory.
 
drwood

drwood

Professional
NamRanger said:
I believe Agassi is good no doubt, and he is top 10 all time IMO. However, one cannot overlook the fact that he indeed got a little lucky to win the career slam. One can also not overlook the fact that his longevity stems from the fact that he took a vacation in the middle of his career, etc.

Where I think Agassi succeeds though is that he transcends numbers. Something Pete Sampras IMO was never able to accomplish. Not many people remember Pete Sampras' record breaking Wimbledon, but alot of people do remember Agassi's 99 FO victory.
Click to expand...

I disagree about the luck -- he definitely should have won the 90 French, and if it weren't for the rain delay in the 91 final would have beaten Courier -- things even out.

For Wimbledon, yes Agassi was fortunate to play Ivo and not Sampras in the 92 final, but he was also unfortunate to choke in 95 against Becker in the SF, and to lose really close 5-set SF in 00 and 01 to Rafter where he would have been favored in both finals. Also in 03 he lost a close match to Phillippousis and its arguable whether he would have lost to Federer in the final then -- he owned Fed at that point and it was Feds first GS final.

Transcendance is important. Sampras always said "I'm not a celebrity, I'm just a tennis player" -- therefore, his significance disappears once you leave a tennis court (and once all your tennis records are broken -- now he has to deal with the consequences of his decision to be limited to a tennis court). Agassi isn't defined as much by records, but the fact that he won the career Golden slam firmly stamps his greatness, plus the fact that he STILL uses his fame to help others, something Sampras doesn't do and never really did.
 
N

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
drwood said:
I disagree about the luck -- he definitely should have won the 90 French, and if it weren't for the rain delay in the 91 final would have beaten Courier -- things even out.

For Wimbledon, yes Agassi was fortunate to play Ivo and not Sampras in the 92 final, but he was also unfortunate to choke in 95 against Becker in the SF, and to lose really close 5-set SF in 00 and 01 to Rafter where he would have been favored in both finals. Also in 03 he lost a close match to Phillippousis and its arguable whether he would have lost to Federer in the final then -- he owned Fed at that point and it was Feds first GS final.

Transcendance is important. Sampras always said "I'm not a celebrity, I'm just a tennis player" -- therefore, his significance disappears once you leave a tennis court (and once all your tennis records are broken -- now he has to deal with the consequences of his decision to be limited to a tennis court). Agassi isn't defined as much by records, but the fact that he won the career Golden slam firmly stamps his greatness, plus the fact that he STILL uses his fame to help others, something Sampras doesn't do and never really did.
Click to expand...



I don't attribute mental weakness to luck. I attribute a great draw to luck though, which Agassi received possibly the best draw he could have gotten in one of the most stacked fields in Wimbledon history.



If you carefully analyze Agassi's 92 Wimbledon draw, the only true great grasscourt player he beat (I don't consider Goran "great", I consider him "good") was Boris Becker. However, we must remember that after Becker's first 3 wins over Agassi early on in their H2H, Agassi went 10-1 against Becker. If Agassi was going to face a great grasscourt player, he would want it to be Becker most likely.



The rest of the greats were stuck in the bottom half of the draw where Goran did the majority of the work, beating Lendl, Edberg, and Sampras (I forgot who beat Stich). Meanwhile, Agassi was cleaning house up top beating the likes of Woodforde and an old (but still pretty good) McEnroe.
 
Last edited:
drwood

drwood

Professional
NamRanger said:
I don't attribute mental weakness to luck. I attribute a great draw to luck though, which Agassi received possibly the best draw he could have gotten in one of the most stacked fields in Wimbledon history.
Click to expand...

You still didnt reply to my comments about 00, 01 and 03 Wimbledon where he was unlucky. And no one thought that getting Becker in the QF of Wimbledon in 92 was a great draw; he had made the finals 6 of the previous 7 yrs.
 
Last edited:
N

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
drwood said:
You still didnt reply to my comments about 00, 01 and 03. And no one thought that getting Becker in the QF of Wimbledon in 92 was a great draw.
Click to expand...



I totally disagree, you are inflating Agassi's grasscourt skills by a little bit too much. Agassi would not be a favorite in 2000 against Pete Sampras, and he certainly would have his hands full against Goran, who was serving like a machine that tournament. Oh, and I doubt Agassi could have beaten Federer in 03, when Federer fed Agassi a bagel that year on HCs, which is Agassi's best surface.



If Agassi was going to play anyone at Wimbledon out of a list of the great grasscourt players, I'm sure Becker would either be at the top or near the top of the list. Agassi simply owned Becker.
 
drwood

drwood

Professional
NamRanger said:
I totally disagree, you are inflating Agassi's grasscourt skills by a little bit too much. Agassi would not be a favorite in 2000 against Pete Sampras, and he certainly would have his hands full against Goran, who was serving like a machine that tournament. Oh, and I doubt Agassi could have beaten Federer in 03, when Federer fed Agassi a bagel that year on HCs, which is Agassi's best surface.

If Agassi was going to play anyone at Wimbledon out of a list of the great grasscourt players, I'm sure Becker would either be at the top or near the top of the list. Agassi simply owned Becker.
Click to expand...

Goran was serving like a machine in the 92 tournament, also -- remember what happened? You can't say playing Goran was a gift in 92 and a difficulty in 01. Sampras in 2000 was playing on one leg -- remember Gimelstob took a 6-2 set off him that tournament, for goodness sakes. Good point about Fed in 03, but Agassi would have had a shot in the final given his experience.

I agree that Agassi owned Becker, but that doesn't mean he got a gift by playing him on his best (and Agassi's worst) surface at Becker's favorite tournament. Plus at that time, Becker was better on grass than Lendl (by far), Edberg (barely), and Sampras (barely).
 
Last edited:
N

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
drwood said:
Goran was serving like a machine in the 92 tournament, also -- remember what happened? You can't say playing Goran was a gift in 92 and a difficulty in 01. Sampras in 2000 was playing on one leg -- remember Gimelstob took a 6-2 set off him that tournament, for goodness sakes. Good point about Fed in 03, but Agassi would have had a shot in the final given his experience.

I agree that Agassi owned Becker, but that doesn't mean he got a gift by playing him on his best (and Agassi's worst) surface at Becker's favorite tournament.
Click to expand...



Well, I'm certain that Agassi would rather play Becker over Sampras, Edberg, or Federer. Just saying.



Goran was serving better in 2001 than in 92. He was a man on a mission with mental strength that I have never seen from him before. 2001 Goran is not the same Goran as the 92 one. In fact, I'm almost certain he set the ace record for a single tournament that year. Yes, Goran was a better player in 2001 than in 92. It is not a given that Agassi would have won that match; in fact, I would say that there was no way Goran was going to lose that tournament. He was simply serving at a level that was and still is unparalleled.
 
drwood

drwood

Professional
NamRanger said:
Well, I'm certain that Agassi would rather play Becker over Sampras, Edberg, or Federer. Just saying.

Goran was serving better in 2001 than in 92. He was a man on a mission with mental strength that I have never seen from him before. 2001 Goran is not the same Goran as the 92 one. In fact, I'm almost certain he set the ace record for a single tournament that year. Yes, Goran was a better player in 2001 than in 92. It is not a given that Agassi would have won that match; in fact, I would say that there was no way Goran was going to lose that tournament. He was simply serving at a level that was and still is unparalleled.
Click to expand...

No way was 2001 Goran better than 92 Goran -- the draws they played can't be compared -- Lendl, prime Edberg, nearly prime Sampras (who had just destroyed defending champ Stich) vs. pre-prime Roddick, Safin (who was always terrible on grass), and post-prime Henman -- there's no comparison. 01 Goran doesn't make the final against the 92 Goran's draw.

I didn't say it was a given that Andre would win -- its just that if you persevere long enough, things even out; as fortunate as he was in 92, he was equally unfortunate in 00, 01 and 03 (but especially 01).
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
What ever.






(Even with Jesus, Chang is a one-slam wonder. Without him, he is not much. )
 
Last edited:
N

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
drwood said:
No way was 2001 Goran better than 92 Goran -- the draws they played can't be compared -- Lendl, prime Edberg, nearly prime Sampras (who had just destroyed defending champ Stich) vs. pre-prime Roddick, Safin (who was always terrible on grass), and post-prime Henman -- there's no comparison. 01 Goran doesn't make the final against the 92 Goran's draw.

I didn't say it was a given that Andre would win -- its just that if you persevere long enough, things even out; as fortunate as he was in 92, he was equally unfortunate in 00, 01 and 03 (but especially 01).
Click to expand...



No, Henman was well within his prime in 01. This is pretty funny. 2001 Goran by the numbers is clearly a better player. I don't see how you can even argue this, as 2001 Goran actually won where 92 Goran came up short. Goran averaged something over 24 aces per match. He came from 2 sets down against Henman to win. He showed mental fortitude and held his nerve finally in the end against Rafter. Goran in 2001 was so determined to win that tournament he was not going to lose short of his shoulder blowing on him.
 
Last edited:
grafrules

grafrules

Banned
drwood said:
I disagree about the luck -- he definitely should have won the 90 French, and if it weren't for the rain delay in the 91 final would have beaten Courier -- things even out.

For Wimbledon, yes Agassi was fortunate to play Ivo and not Sampras in the 92 final, but he was also unfortunate to choke in 95 against Becker in the SF, and to lose really close 5-set SF in 00 and 01 to Rafter where he would have been favored in both finals. Also in 03 he lost a close match to Phillippousis and its arguable whether he would have lost to Federer in the final then -- he owned Fed at that point and it was Feds first GS final.

Transcendance is important. Sampras always said "I'm not a celebrity, I'm just a tennis player" -- therefore, his significance disappears once you leave a tennis court (and once all your tennis records are broken -- now he has to deal with the consequences of his decision to be limited to a tennis court). Agassi isn't defined as much by records, but the fact that he won the career Golden slam firmly stamps his greatness, plus the fact that he STILL uses his fame to help others, something Sampras doesn't do and never really did.
Click to expand...

In 1995 the Sampras-Ivanisevic semifinal which Ivanisevic could have easily won was the real final. The winner of that semi was going to thrash either Becker or Agassi in the final. Watching the two semis and the subsequent final it is clear Sampras and Ivanisevic were a cut above the other two at that Wimbledon. How was Agassi unlucky? He had a big lead briefly and was still badly outplayed by a determined Becker the rest of the way. That is not unlucky. He couldnt even beat Sampras in the U.S Open final later that yearon his beloved hard courts, despite his red hot streak going in. He was going to get destroyed by him on grass, it would have looked like the 99 final.

Agassi beating Federer at Wimbledon 2003!?! Sorry just NO. Federer was playing perfect tennis at that Wimbledon, one of his best performances ever, and is a much better grass court player than even prime Agassi. Later that year in a best 3 of 5 set match on a medium paced hard court Agassi was dressed down and humiliated by Federer, getting only 7 games in 3 sets. Their RR match was close but it was a best 2 out of 3 and the first match for both of the event. He owned Federer in matches in 2001-early 2002, which does not relate whatsoever to the start of the real Federer at Wimbledon 2003, or how Federer played at Wimbledon 2003 on grass.

You say he would have been favored in both finals in 2000 and 2001?! Are you forgetting Pete Sampras was waiting in the 2000 Wimbledon final. On what planet will Agassi ever be the favorite vs Sampras on grass. Agassi wasnt even playing nearly as well in 2000 as 1999 when Sampras schooled him in the final. Pete wasnt either, but he wouldnt have needed to. 0% chance Agassi wins that final, he is 0-6 vs Sampras at Wimbledon and the U.S Open combined, and wasnt even playing very well in 2000 between Australia and the year end Masters. Not to mention Agassi was lucky to not go out to Todd Martin in the 2nd round of Wimbledon 2000 with Martin choking when serving for it.

As for Wimbledon 2001 the most unlucky ones were Henman and Rafter, not Agassi who failed to hold onto a 5th set lead vs Rafter and lost to him for the 2nd straight year at Wimbledon, so obviously wasnt a fluke. Henman very unlucky that the rain delay cost him beating Ivanisevic in the semis, and consequently Rafter unlucky since he ended up losing to Ivanisevic in the final and would have been clearly favored over Henman.

I agree he should have won the 1990 French Open final but he was outplayed. That is not being unlucky, performing poorly or/and being outplayed is in no way bad luck. I do agree he was unlucky with the rain delay in the 1991 final though.
 
Last edited:
drwood

drwood

Professional
NamRanger said:
No, Henman was well within his prime in 01. This is pretty funny. 2001 Goran by the numbers is clearly a better player. I don't see how you can even argue this, as 2001 Goran actually won where 92 Goran came up short. Goran averaged something over 24 aces per match. He came from 2 sets down against Henman to win. He showed mental fortitude and held his nerve finally in the end against Rafter. Goran in 2001 was so determined to win that tournament he was not going to lose short of his shoulder blowing on him.
Click to expand...

First of all, Goran was not down 2 sets in the SF agianst Henman. And yes, his draw in 01 to get to the final was MUCH easier than his 92 draw to get to the final. Its easier to put up bigger numbers against weaker competition.

I was VERY happy that Goran won...he should have won in 92 and 98 as well.
 
grafrules

grafrules

Banned
Goran should have won in 92, 95, and 98. I remember the 95 semifinal well, Goran definitely outplayed Sampras that day though both played very well, but erred on all the big points. The winner was going to beat either Becker or Agassi in the final, that should be clear by how badly Becker was trounced by Sampras and had been trounced by Ivanisevic the previous year. People say Federer has been lucky a few times, which is very true, but by the same token Pete was lucky someone like Goran was such a mental midget or he would have had a few slams taken from him, particularly at Wimbledon. That is what sets the greatest apart from the rest, they dont choke under pressure, most very good point but not great players do at some point.
 
DunlopDood

DunlopDood

Semi-Pro
I think The hype around Agassi is just right, he is neither underrated nor overrated. If anything Lendl was underrated. 8 slams 19 slam finals. This guy didn't get the respect he deserved, at least in the USA.
 
C

Chopin

Hall of Fame
FiveO said:
Yes better results. However, Sampras missed both the AO and USO with injury in '99 and seemed to make a point of reminding AA where he stood on the court and proverbially "in the locker room" going 4-1 v. AA that year. In fact from London/Queens Club Sampras had won the four events he entered beating AA twice in a row at LA and Cincinatti, and was rolling until herniating a disk in his back at Indy which forced a retirement and withdrawal from the year's USO. AA's single win came in the RR of the now WTF and that was quickly reversed by Sampras in a 3 straight set trouncing for the the Title there which was almost as one sided as their Wimbledon Final earlier in '99.
5
Click to expand...

Good points, but it's not AA's fault that Sampras was hurt--injuries are part of the game. AA himself wasted some opportunities early in his career with his behavior and dedication--it's just how it goes.
 
anointedone

anointedone

Banned
drwood said:
Remember that Agassi didn't play the Australian for half of his career either -- he turned pro in 86, didn't play until 95, and missed 97 and 02 with injury. All majors are of the same quality -- not the same prestige, but the same quality.
Click to expand...

There isnt a year Agassi missed the Australian Open he would have been likely to win at all. Lets break it down:

1986 and 1987- he wasnt even on the radar then
1988- He was too young and owned by Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, and the top players of the time.
1989- Lendl who completely owned him in 88-89 was the winner.
1990- Read the same as 1989, plus he would choke his first 3 slam finals over the next year and a half.
1991- Probably his best shot as he does well vs this years winner Becker. However again he choked all 3 of his slam final from the 90 French to the 91 French and would have had all of Becker, Edberg, Lendl to contend with here.
1992- Courier who owned him completely for years after his come from behind win at the 91 French was the winner.
1993- Again his master of the time Courier was the winner.
1994- Sampras won, a much different Sampras than the emotionally spent one of 95 and injured one of 2000, while Agassi to start 1994 was nowhere near those Agassis.

I would be surprised if he had won any of those, in fact I doubt it. People like to harp how it is his best surface but it did not suddenly become his best surface until the early 2000s. At the end of the 90s he had 1 Aussie, 1 French, 1 Wimbledon, and 2 U.S Opens. While he had missed alot of Aussies, his overall record there wasnt great in his limited play outside his win at the time- 96 semifinal spanking to Chang, 98 3rd round loss to Berasetegui, 99 4th round loss to Spadea (in his best year ever). 95 and 99-2002 were his best years of tennis ever and 3 of his 4 titles came there, he was not the same fit and confident player before 1995 as he was those year, and his draws in 2002 and 2003 were also a complete joke.
 
C

Chopin

Hall of Fame
anointedone said:
There isnt a year Agassi missed the Australian Open he would have been likely to win at all. Lets break it down:

1986 and 1987- he wasnt even on the radar then
1988- He was too young and owned by Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, and the top players of the time.
1989- Lendl who completely owned him in 88-89 was the winner.
1990- Read the same as 1989, plus he would choke his first 3 slam finals over the next year and a half.
1991- Probably his best shot as he does well vs this years winner Becker. However again he choked all 3 of his slam final from the 90 French to the 91 French and would have had all of Becker, Edberg, Lendl to contend with here.
1992- Courier who owned him completely for years after his come from behind win at the 91 French was the winner.
1993- Again his master of the time Courier was the winner.
1994- Sampras won, a much different Sampras than the emotionally spent one of 95 and injured one of 2000, while Agassi to start 1994 was nowhere near those Agassis.

I would be surprised if he had won any of those, in fact I doubt it. People like to harp how it is his best surface but it did not suddenly become his best surface until the early 2000s. At the end of the 90s he had 1 Aussie, 1 French, 1 Wimbledon, and 2 U.S Opens. While he had missed alot of Aussies, his overall record there wasnt great in his limited play outside his win at the time- 96 semifinal spanking to Chang, 98 3rd round loss to Berasetegui, 99 4th round loss to Spadea (in his best year ever). 95 and 99-2002 were his best years of tennis ever and 3 of his 4 titles came there, he was not the same fit and confident player before 1995 as he was those year, and his draws in 2002 and 2003 were also a complete joke.
Click to expand...

AA could have challenged Courier in 92 and 93. Yes his results are poor, but it isn't as though he didn't have wins against Courier.
 
Last edited:
anointedone

anointedone

Banned
Chopin said:
AA could have challenged Courier in 92 and 93. Yes his results are poor, but it isn't as though he didn't have wins against Courier.
Click to expand...

After Courier's from behind win over Agassi in the 91 French Open final in their next 4 matches not only would Courier win but he would win 10 sets to only 1 for Agassi. That is complete domination. It is clear Courier gained confidence and momentum from that win, while Agassi lost some particularly vs Courier, and it would be many years for Agassi to turn back the tide in that rivalry. No Agassi at that point in his career would not have beaten a confident top form Courier who was around then owning him in the 92 or 93 Australian Open finals, no way.
 
C

Chopin

Hall of Fame
anointedone said:
After Courier's from behind win over Agassi in the 91 French Open final in their next 4 matches not only would Courier win but he would win 10 sets to only 1 for Agassi. That is complete domination. It is clear Courier gained confidence and momentum from that win, while Agassi lost some particularly vs Courier, and it would be many years for Agassi to turn back the tide in that rivalry. No Agassi at that point in his career would not have beaten a confident top form Courier who was around then owning him in the 92 or 93 Australian Open finals, no way.
Click to expand...

There's no way of proving or disproving this. It's pointless. I'm judging AA on what he accomplished anyways, which is way more than Courier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

King No1e
Agassi or McEnroe?
2
Replies
68
Views
3K
Benben245
Benben245
A
Andre Agassi Is Still The Best!
Replies
9
Views
1K
Tennis-Chris
Tennis-Chris
Pheasant
  • Poll
What was better, Federer from 2008-2022, or Agassi's entire career?
Replies
21
Views
644
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
M
If Agassi wins the 2002 USO vs Sampras…
Replies
15
Views
625
Mustard
Mustard
Tchocky
Agassi Fun Facts from TTC
Replies
2
Views
2K
MaximRecoil
M
Top