Whose better, Agassi or Mcenroe?
- Thread starter ACE of Hearts
- Start date
yikes...
What a hot bed this thread has generated...let me throw more gasoline on it
1) Connors "ineptness" on red clay? Well, not his best surface, but inept is an awfully strong word there...he had some very good wins at RG when he started playing...made the semis 3 or 4 times, as I recall. Not to mention going toe-to-toe with Chang in 1991..to this day, I find that match scary...Connors was nearly 40 and playing at Chang's level on the red stuff. We'll never know if he would've taken out Borg there during his prime years...that ban was a disgrace...'76 USO final suggests "maybe", but really not a definite.
2) In the 70's and early 80's, it is fair to say the both AO and RG fields were a bit spotty...particularly at the AO. Many of the men just did not want to be bothered going over there to play on grass in December...this does not mean that the fields were bad, just that some of the very top guys didn't care about it that much. The emphasis really was on the USO and Wimby, for whatever reason.
3)Agassi and Mac are such totally different players. But, I'd advise all of you Agassi fans to go watch Mac from 1984...aside from the RG fiasco, he was simply amazing...Federer-like. His destruction of Connors in the Wimbledon final was off the charts...and Connors was playing quite well heading into that match. He then took Lendl apart at the USO final. He lost very few matches that entire year...he was just that dominant.
4) Their skill sets are so different as well...would Mac's serve outweigh Agassi's skill returning and playing baseline? Maybe....if he could keep the serve away from Andre. I think it would be a lot like a Mac v. Connors match, with the typical ebbs and flows. I could see Mac at his very best cutting thru Andre....he would just keep the ball away from him and the rallies, if any, very short.
5)On basis of entire career, all events, Davis Cup and dubs included, you have to pick Mac. Plus, 3 wimbledons and 4 US Opens will always be more highly regarded than the agassi's portfolio w/4 AOs in it (sorry, but true). And while Andre had to deal with Sampras, I think that is offset by the trio of Borg/Connors/Lendl....incredibly tough customers across a wide range of surfaces.
6)I do think both Agassi and Mac wasted a lot of their talent during their non-productive "head case" years....Agassi "came back" from what was a non-starter of a career frankly.....his '92 win at Wimbledon was a shocker...
in terms of entire career, Agassi kind of aligns with Connors...success across multiple surfaces, similar skills, good longevity...got the fans behind them firmly in their later years... [you can argue about which one of these 2 are "better" in another thread!]
While I am a big Andre fan, all in all, tho', the nod goes to Mac.
What a hot bed this thread has generated...let me throw more gasoline on it
1) Connors "ineptness" on red clay? Well, not his best surface, but inept is an awfully strong word there...he had some very good wins at RG when he started playing...made the semis 3 or 4 times, as I recall. Not to mention going toe-to-toe with Chang in 1991..to this day, I find that match scary...Connors was nearly 40 and playing at Chang's level on the red stuff. We'll never know if he would've taken out Borg there during his prime years...that ban was a disgrace...'76 USO final suggests "maybe", but really not a definite.
2) In the 70's and early 80's, it is fair to say the both AO and RG fields were a bit spotty...particularly at the AO. Many of the men just did not want to be bothered going over there to play on grass in December...this does not mean that the fields were bad, just that some of the very top guys didn't care about it that much. The emphasis really was on the USO and Wimby, for whatever reason.
3)Agassi and Mac are such totally different players. But, I'd advise all of you Agassi fans to go watch Mac from 1984...aside from the RG fiasco, he was simply amazing...Federer-like. His destruction of Connors in the Wimbledon final was off the charts...and Connors was playing quite well heading into that match. He then took Lendl apart at the USO final. He lost very few matches that entire year...he was just that dominant.
4) Their skill sets are so different as well...would Mac's serve outweigh Agassi's skill returning and playing baseline? Maybe....if he could keep the serve away from Andre. I think it would be a lot like a Mac v. Connors match, with the typical ebbs and flows. I could see Mac at his very best cutting thru Andre....he would just keep the ball away from him and the rallies, if any, very short.
5)On basis of entire career, all events, Davis Cup and dubs included, you have to pick Mac. Plus, 3 wimbledons and 4 US Opens will always be more highly regarded than the agassi's portfolio w/4 AOs in it (sorry, but true). And while Andre had to deal with Sampras, I think that is offset by the trio of Borg/Connors/Lendl....incredibly tough customers across a wide range of surfaces.
6)I do think both Agassi and Mac wasted a lot of their talent during their non-productive "head case" years....Agassi "came back" from what was a non-starter of a career frankly.....his '92 win at Wimbledon was a shocker...
in terms of entire career, Agassi kind of aligns with Connors...success across multiple surfaces, similar skills, good longevity...got the fans behind them firmly in their later years... [you can argue about which one of these 2 are "better" in another thread!]
While I am a big Andre fan, all in all, tho', the nod goes to Mac.
Bruguera
Banned
And would Johnny Mac of been as great and dominant and at the top of his game if he had Pete to deal with his entire career? No. He would see success but he wouldnt have been head and above as dominant. There were a few years there Andre would have been hands down the best player for a few season and had complete dominance. 1995 and 1999 just a name two and maybe a few others.. Unfortunately, when Andre was playing his best tennis Pete was still there on top stopping Agassi from being the hands down best for a few seasons
Last edited:
Agassi v. Sampras
Mac had a troika of Borg, Connors and Lendl to cope with..not to mention Wilander..absolutely no offense to Pete, but I think those 3/4 are more than enough to deal with day in and day out....as terrific as Pete is/was, you are talking 3 very top tier guys to cope with, not just one...Mac was able to rise above them (even if he could not always sustain it year over year...as in '80/'82/85/87)....
Who did Andre really have to deal with, other than Pete? I think Courier, Rafter and some of the others were really a bit below him, in terms of skills. [yet, he did lose some important matches to those guys....like at the French and Wimby]
I think there are a handful of matches where Agassi should've nailed Pete, but he let him get into his head...particularly that last US Open Final and the stellar quarterfinal match from a few years earlier. For whatever reason, Andre often did not play his best against Pete...I could never quite figure it...[not taking anything away from Sampras, he was a superb player]...but he often smoked Andre/made him look bad....sometimes it looked like Andre had stone feet against Sampras. Maybe he just couldn't "read" his shots....couldn't say for sure. But, I always found it frustrating. I think Andre played better against Federer than Sampras, quite honestly.
Mac had a troika of Borg, Connors and Lendl to cope with..not to mention Wilander..absolutely no offense to Pete, but I think those 3/4 are more than enough to deal with day in and day out....as terrific as Pete is/was, you are talking 3 very top tier guys to cope with, not just one...Mac was able to rise above them (even if he could not always sustain it year over year...as in '80/'82/85/87)....
Who did Andre really have to deal with, other than Pete? I think Courier, Rafter and some of the others were really a bit below him, in terms of skills. [yet, he did lose some important matches to those guys....like at the French and Wimby]
I think there are a handful of matches where Agassi should've nailed Pete, but he let him get into his head...particularly that last US Open Final and the stellar quarterfinal match from a few years earlier. For whatever reason, Andre often did not play his best against Pete...I could never quite figure it...[not taking anything away from Sampras, he was a superb player]...but he often smoked Andre/made him look bad....sometimes it looked like Andre had stone feet against Sampras. Maybe he just couldn't "read" his shots....couldn't say for sure. But, I always found it frustrating. I think Andre played better against Federer than Sampras, quite honestly.
Bruguera
Banned
Well Andre also had to deal with Courier there earlier on .. A very talented player especially at his best who was always a thorn in Andre's side as well.
No doubt Mac had to deal with some greats in his own right.. GUys like Borg connors, lendl etc. At the same time though, I think Mac matched up better with Borg, than he would have Pete. But thats just me.
Mac & Pete
well, that match in 1990 at the USO certainly showed what Sampras could do.....he simply stunned Mac (and lendl before that)...but in the final, Andre just seemed terrified and bewildered vs. Pete. I just didn't get it. Andre was the counter puncher to Pete....really, you'd think it's the kind of match up he'd welcome, but at times, it seemed he dreaded it. But, Pete at times, played stratospheric tennis. Guess Andre's peak times never quite aligned w/Pete's...tho' someone did remind me of the AO semi when Agassi tagged him in 5. And yes, Andre had a tough time w/Courier....again, not really sure why....Courier was solid, but Andre, I think had much more weaponry to hurt him with.
well, that match in 1990 at the USO certainly showed what Sampras could do.....he simply stunned Mac (and lendl before that)...but in the final, Andre just seemed terrified and bewildered vs. Pete. I just didn't get it. Andre was the counter puncher to Pete....really, you'd think it's the kind of match up he'd welcome, but at times, it seemed he dreaded it. But, Pete at times, played stratospheric tennis. Guess Andre's peak times never quite aligned w/Pete's...tho' someone did remind me of the AO semi when Agassi tagged him in 5. And yes, Andre had a tough time w/Courier....again, not really sure why....Courier was solid, but Andre, I think had much more weaponry to hurt him with.
caesar66
Professional
Completely agree. People get focused on overall slam count/years as #1/etc, and those are relevant categories for GOAT, but people overlook the overall career of McEnroe. I think his davis cup play, doubles, and mixed doubles titles along with his singles titles make him the most complete player of all time.
federerfanatic
Banned
McEnroe easily. McEnroe's play at the 84 French btw was head and shoulders above Agassi's in winning the 99 French or any other French Open also so the whole career slam thing wouldnt affect my judgement at all.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Mac was much better in the first half of their respective careers (7 slams to 3), Agassi was WAY better than mac in the 2nd half of their respective careers (about their last 8 years of competing) 5 slams to 0. Mac retired when he was 33, but he won nothing in his last 8 years. If its just for men's singles I'll take Agassi.
borg number one
Legend
McEnroe. Though Agassi is in say most top 10 lists due to the career slam, he at no point in his career was the clear #1. McEnroe did dominate, especially in 1984. At his peak, McEnroe was a superior player to Agassi. Agassi was better on clay of course, and won a French, but he lived in an era where Sampras dominated.
borg number one
Legend
I agree with everything above, except the part about McEnroe "forcing Borg into retirement". That's not correct. No one person forced Borg into retirement. Borg was facing general burnout after a meteoric rise and greatness at the top. He just needed to probably take some time off and recommit himself, but he chose his own path, which is certainly his perogative. He didn't owe anything else to the Game, he gave so much to. He ushered in modern tennis in effect.
kiki
Banned
Agassi never won a major indoor title other than one Masters ( to Mc 7).On grass, Mac eats Agassi for breakfast,lunch and dinner.On clay, it is the other way around.On hard, a regular Agassi would possibly win, but a peak Mc vs a peak Agassi, Mc loses one set AT MOST.
Agassi had weaker opposition, in the Australian Open beat 3 knows who and at Paris beat a guy called Medvedev.
Mc´s only weak opposition is Chris Lewis at W and Brad Gilbert at Dallas.
Agassi had weaker opposition, in the Australian Open beat 3 knows who and at Paris beat a guy called Medvedev.
Mc´s only weak opposition is Chris Lewis at W and Brad Gilbert at Dallas.
To me 'better' means more talented, and there's no question that McEnroe was a more talented than player than Agassi. McEnroe is one of the most gifted players that has ever picked up a racket. Agassi was incredibly talented as well, but he is most one dimensional player out of all of the open era greats with the least variety in his game.
'Greater' means better achievements, and I think that McEnroe was also greater than Agassi. Domination is more important than versatility in my opinion. McEnroe was the best player in the world in 1981, 1983 and 1984, while Agassi was only the best player in 1999. Agassi was the least dominant out of the all open era greats.
McEnroe won 17 more titles than Agassi, and regularly won and dominated many of the biggest non-slam tournaments available to him. Throw in McEnroe's outstanding Davis Cup record (though of course Agass's was very good as well but not as good as McEnroe's), and I think that Mac had the better CV out of the two players.
'Greater' means better achievements, and I think that McEnroe was also greater than Agassi. Domination is more important than versatility in my opinion. McEnroe was the best player in the world in 1981, 1983 and 1984, while Agassi was only the best player in 1999. Agassi was the least dominant out of the all open era greats.
McEnroe won 17 more titles than Agassi, and regularly won and dominated many of the biggest non-slam tournaments available to him. Throw in McEnroe's outstanding Davis Cup record (though of course Agass's was very good as well but not as good as McEnroe's), and I think that Mac had the better CV out of the two players.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Taking the whole career as a package, Agassi, but in terms of dominant periods, McEnroe. Agassi seldom had a period of dominance, and his biggest rival, Sampras, had the last laugh in both of Agassi's best years on tour (1995 and 1999).
McEnroe did have periods of dominance, where he was clearly the best player and owned his rivals, the year of 1984 especially. So the answer to the thread question depends on what you place the greater value on.
McEnroe did have periods of dominance, where he was clearly the best player and owned his rivals, the year of 1984 especially. So the answer to the thread question depends on what you place the greater value on.
Carolina Racquet
Professional
Tough one, but my vote goes to Agassi.
Agassi won on all three surfaces and each of the Grand Slams.
IMO, the difference was the commitment Agassi made to conditioning and such. From what I remember, McEnroe never went down that road.
Mac had the best set of hands. Agassi, the best set of eyes.
Agassi won on all three surfaces and each of the Grand Slams.
IMO, the difference was the commitment Agassi made to conditioning and such. From what I remember, McEnroe never went down that road.
Mac had the best set of hands. Agassi, the best set of eyes.
McEnroe was one of the all-time greats at his peak, but his peak was pretty short compared to Agassi who went up and down a few times in his long career. Agassi was never the dominant player at any time during his career. Since the question is who was better, not who had the better career, it has to be McEnroe.
Wilander Fan
Hall of Fame
Mac. Without a doubt. Agassi was never a dominant player and IMO played in a very weak era that let him hang around and win well past his prime..
+1
I've got to go with McEnroe - far more talented, more versatile, broader range of skills. Mac was a natural talent, Agassi trained hard - or was made to train hard - from the crib to become the talent that he was. One wonders what McEnroe could have done had he trained harder and hadn't lost focus for some years that should have continued as his peak.
Australian Open
But McEnroe did play the Australian Open. He played it in December 1983 ie only a few weeks before his peak year of 1984 and he also played it in December 1985 (The year after his peak year when he was still number 2).
Having said that I agree partially with your point. The WCT Finals (of which McEnroe won 5 times) and the Masters (McEnroe won 3 times) were more like the 4th Major.
But McEnroe did play the Australian Open. He played it in December 1983 ie only a few weeks before his peak year of 1984 and he also played it in December 1985 (The year after his peak year when he was still number 2).
Having said that I agree partially with your point. The WCT Finals (of which McEnroe won 5 times) and the Masters (McEnroe won 3 times) were more like the 4th Major.
McEnroe said that on a few occasions he was offered appearance money to appear at the Australian Open, despite the fact that he only ever played there when the tournament was making a recovery from its bleak 1976-1982 period. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the only reason he showed up there in 1983.
Tennis_Stringman
Rookie
Agassi winning each GS is certainly an accomplishment but way overvalued IMO because in the past players skipped the AO for a decade and Connors and others were not allowed to play the FO when they played BJK's team tennis. Connors was destroying everybody in 1974. Perhaps Agassi is held at such a high level because he only recently retired. IMO McEnroe was clearly more dominant and better. He was the best in the world however Agassi never was.
juan guzman
Rookie
Mac match record 875 198 81.5%
Slams 167 138 81.5%
Versus top 10s 85 64 57%
He was a clear number 1 in 81 83 and 84.He won 3 masters and 5 WCT Dallas Finals a huge tournament in the 70s and 80s.Mac was 9 years in the top 5.
Agassi Match Record 870 274 76%
Slams 224 53 80.9%
Versus top 10 109 90 54.8%
He was number 1 in 99 but he lost 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras in 99.
16 years in the top 10 is awesome and 8 in top 5 not bad but less than even Edberg and Becker.
Flink, Drucker and Collins the 3 US tennis best writers pick Mac over Agassi.
No question in my mind Mac is better than Agassi and had a better carrer.
Slams 167 138 81.5%
Versus top 10s 85 64 57%
He was a clear number 1 in 81 83 and 84.He won 3 masters and 5 WCT Dallas Finals a huge tournament in the 70s and 80s.Mac was 9 years in the top 5.
Agassi Match Record 870 274 76%
Slams 224 53 80.9%
Versus top 10 109 90 54.8%
He was number 1 in 99 but he lost 4 out of 5 matches against Sampras in 99.
16 years in the top 10 is awesome and 8 in top 5 not bad but less than even Edberg and Becker.
Flink, Drucker and Collins the 3 US tennis best writers pick Mac over Agassi.
No question in my mind Mac is better than Agassi and had a better carrer.
Azzurri
Legend
Agassi had longer career in terms of winning his first to his last major. But Mac was a dominant player that Agassi never was. who was more consistent..Agassi but the better player is Mac. Both are my favorite players of all time, but Mac owned tennis for almost 5 years..Agassi never owned it.
Azzurri
Legend
he was ta his peak for a good 6 years and dominated for almost 5..I think that is a long time to be at the top.
Questions
"Agassi never won a major indoor title other than one Masters ( to Mc 7)" not sure what this means. Who is Mc 7 that Agassi lost to.
"Paris beat a guy called Medvedev" Medvedev was one of the best clay players of the 90's (when he was playing well). His form was patchy. But during that tournament he brought his A game. So he was at a very very high level during that tournament.
"Agassi never won a major indoor title other than one Masters ( to Mc 7)" not sure what this means. Who is Mc 7 that Agassi lost to.
"Paris beat a guy called Medvedev" Medvedev was one of the best clay players of the 90's (when he was playing well). His form was patchy. But during that tournament he brought his A game. So he was at a very very high level during that tournament.
kiki
Banned
I think Mac had a bit higher degree of opposition in the big titles he won and that also includes 7 major Indoor Titles and 7 GS in singles.I know Agassi had 8 GS and I do not want to take anything from him - I like the guy and is an AT Great by any means-.But, Agassi seldom beat Sampras, the nº 1 of his era while Mac beat Borg, the nº1 of his era more often in the big finals.
At the end, we are talking about personal opinions,to me a peak Mac is better, not by much but better than a peak Andre.I think many people forget how good Mc Enroe was against toes like lendl,Borg,Connors,Wilander when he was at his top.Agassi, on the other hand, had kind of a complex vs Sampras.
In all, Agassi was clearly better on clay, Mac on grass and I´d give a bigger advantage to Mac on indoors than I´d give to Agassi on hard.But I understand others can argue differently.
kiki
Banned
yes, a mixture of Mc´s S&V and AA baselining produces an almost unbeatable player.Though, menthally wise, they needed to be tunned on, you´s never know.
rainingaces
Legend
You can not compare the two.
While Agassi was more accomplished on hard courts than Mac (of course he had more far more opportunities to wins slams and tour titles on the surface), I think that peak Mac on hard courts was better than peak Agassi on the surface in my opinion.
I felt that the tennis that McEnroe played to win his 4 US Open titles was generally of a much higher standard, than the tennnis Agassi played to win his 2 titles there, or his titles in Melbourne for that matter.
Of course Agassi was very lucky to win both of his US Open titles. Sampras played the tournament with an ankle injury in 1994, and he had been playing the best tennis of his career from Wimbledon 93 to Wimbledon 94 before that injury struck. He missed the tournament altogether in 1999, and his 24 match winning streak in the summer of 99 was his second best period/standard of tennis during his career. Plus Agassi had lightweight draws at Melbourne in 2001 and 2003. His title there in 2000 was impressive though. Both his semi-final and final were excellent matches.
I felt that the tennis that McEnroe played to win his 4 US Open titles was generally of a much higher standard, than the tennnis Agassi played to win his 2 titles there, or his titles in Melbourne for that matter.
Of course Agassi was very lucky to win both of his US Open titles. Sampras played the tournament with an ankle injury in 1994, and he had been playing the best tennis of his career from Wimbledon 93 to Wimbledon 94 before that injury struck. He missed the tournament altogether in 1999, and his 24 match winning streak in the summer of 99 was his second best period/standard of tennis during his career. Plus Agassi had lightweight draws at Melbourne in 2001 and 2003. His title there in 2000 was impressive though. Both his semi-final and final were excellent matches.
Last edited:
Also at the US Open Mac had 3 wins over the Connors who is the open era king of that tournament, 2 over Borg and 1 over Lendl. Agassi on the other hand lost all 4 of this matches against Sampras there, despite being the pre-match favourite to win all of them.
And I think I said this earlier on this thread, but the fact that Mac's second best year, 1981, was more impressive than any year that Agassi had carries quite a lot of weight.
And I think I said this earlier on this thread, but the fact that Mac's second best year, 1981, was more impressive than any year that Agassi had carries quite a lot of weight.
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Sorry, 2 over Lendl ( 1980 Qf and 1984 F).In 1980 while not still the terrific player he later became, Lendl was the 4 th best player of the world, without any doubt, as proven by his 1980 Masters Final.
And he also kicked off the ass of Gerulaitis ( nº 4 in the ATP rankings in 1979) in both 1979 and 1981 ( this one a classic 5 setter ) and also killed Wilander in their 185 SF ( he lost to Lendl in the F)
Thanks for the correction I forgot about that QF in 1980. So he had at least 2 wins at the US Open over each of his 3 main rivals which was impressive.
Mac's 5 set win over Wilander in 1985 was a very enjoyable match despite the brutal heat that day. He recovered well very after going a break down in the 4th and 5th sets.
kiki
Banned
Yeap¡ I forgot it was that close.I got confused with their Masters Sf a few month before.Still, beating Mats in a 5 sets match is no minor feat, by any means¡¡
Only true tennis fans, I guess.
If you compare just singles it would have to be Agassi. But overall as a tennis player, playing doubles and singles it would have to be Mcenroe. I defintely think in both their primes on any surface Agassi would knock Mcenroe off the court, very easily. Too much power and pace, even at Mcenroe's prime. You can even see this since '85 when Lendl finally figured how to beat Mc's volleying by overpowering him and lobbing him. And Agassi was pretty much a clone of Lendl.
kiki
Banned
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
This is a very true statement, maybe more so than we realize.
It seems to me that a lot of the younger, newer, more vitriolic fans on here love the present era of tennis exactly because of its power and bashing, its fist-pumping and semi-barbaric machismo, its competitive subjugation.
I do wonder if these persons are more general sports fans, or more general athletics fans and less true (specifically) tennis fans.?
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Sadly neither of them can be up with even Connors and Lendl overall. Which is a shame as both have just as much talent or more than those two men, but they simply did not utilize it to their fullest. Agassi I think suffered emotionally from some of his tough losses to Sampras which took awhile to recover from, and of course had an overbearing father and some other issues. McEnroe had too many off course issues to even begin, a crazy wife/ex wife, drug problems, motivational problems, injury problems.
Agassi, aside from playing baseline tennis, was not like Lendl at all. That's kind of like saying Connors was the same as Lendl. All 3 played the baseline game, but differently. 1984 McEnroe, could pretty much take on anyone/everyone....Mac could deflect pace quite well when he was on top of his game. Only if he was "off" a bit, could Lendl and Connors take him down...he was really THAT good. So, prime Andre vs. prime Mac, and taking the mental factors into consideration? I'd pick Mac every time....he beat some of the very best to get his 7 GS (aside from Chris Lewis, LOL)
Similar threads
