Agassi is just the better player overall, who didn´t focus as much on his career in his early days. He skipped the AO until 1995 and still won it 4 times! He didn´t attend Wimbledon until 1991. That´s not Novak´s fault, but Agassi is just the better talent and he won the French Open. C´mon Novak would have never won Wimbledon or the US Open in the 90´s, the competition was much tougher and his current style wouldn´t fit for Wimbledon back then.
If he were the better talent against his peers he would have been number one for more than just one year.
There is one, and only one way to show that you are better than the rest. Winning and becoming number one.
Again:
He was not the guy who aimed to dominate tennis for many years. When he "returned" in 1999 he was like 30. And the competition was just tougher through out the 90´s, since there were different styles and court-surfaces.
Ok. But since the only thing that we can compare across eras is relative dominance then the only conclusion we can reach is that Nole had better results than Agassi.
Agassi however has slam wins an all surfaces when different surfaces actually meant something. Agassi should always get a mention in a top 8 list. Djokovic too. Agassi won in a time of specialists, I seriously doubt anyone from this era could win the grand slam in the 90's. Federer would never win the FO, Nadal would never win Wimbledon, and Djokovic would never win Wimbledon. Not saying they wouldn't have won a lot of slams, just not all 4.
For me, they are both in the same category. Novak has better #1 stats and won more YECs but Agassi has the Career Slam and won it when it was a lot tougher to do because of the different conditions between slams in those days.
Novak had his chance to move ahead of Agassi once and for all by winning this FO but he failed for now.
Just a question, why do you think that Federer wouldnt win the French in the 90`s? He did fairly well in the early 00`s with good players around like Coria, Ferrero and Kuerten. Bruguera and Muster would hardly cause as much problems for him as Nadal not to mention that he would get a couple of "free" years without meeting them.
I Don't know. Its close. I value Andre's career grand slam under the most polarized conditions in history over maybe any achievement in men's history.. Bar Laver's 2 calendar slams anyways or Nadal's 2010 3 slam year under 3 different surfaces in a row.
Not to mention, Andre has the unfortunate circumstance of being the same age as Sampras thereabouts so had to deal with him his entire career which cost him quite a few Wimbledons and definitely more USO titles (maybe 3-4 anyways).
Nole these days is not competing against much yet still isn't raking in the slams like he should
Agassi however has slam wins an all surfaces when different surfaces actually meant something. Agassi should always get a mention in a top 8 list. Djokovic too. Agassi won in a time of specialists, I seriously doubt anyone from this era could win the grand slam in the 90's. Federer would never win the FO, Nadal would never win Wimbledon, and Djokovic would never win Wimbledon. Not saying they wouldn't have won a lot of slams, just not all 4.
Well you have to add guys like Berasategui, Courier, Costa, Gustafson, Chang, Medwedjew, Kafelnikov and even Agassi into the equation because they were still very competitive. Once you face 3 of those guys in a row you don´t have much left in your tank, esp. as a non clay specialist.
Without a #FO win, there is no way that #Novak can be rated higher than #Agassi on clay. #Novak could win 30 #masters clay events, but if he cannot win the #FO, he's not more accomplished on clay than #Agassi.In the last few years Nole has become not just the best player in the world but also the only player to consistently threaten Nadal on clay. Nole won 4 of the last 12 clay masters, while Nadal won five. No one else won more than one. Nole did not win the FO but reached three finals.
I don't know the details of Agassi's clay career but Agassi never faced a clay opponent like Nadal on a regular basis and still manage to win tournaments. It seems to me that Nole has a much better clay record than Agassi, not to mention a much better overall record.
Fed was very competitive against Nadal on clay in his prime (only two wins but almost every match was super close). No one in the 90s would come even close to troubling Fed as much, so I say 2 FO for Fed in the 90s at lest.
Also, I don't really understand how you can call Fed a "non clay specialist". His game is perfectly suited to clay (he grew up on it). Huge, heavy forehand, amazing movement, great defense, one of the best dropshots, ability to open up the court on both wings...
Fed was very competitive against Nadal on clay in his prime (only two wins but almost every match was super close). No one in the 90s would come even close to troubling Fed as much, so I say 2 FO for Fed in the 90s at lest.
Also, I don't really understand how you can call Fed a "non clay specialist". His game is perfectly suited to clay (he grew up on it). Huge, heavy forehand, amazing movement, great defense, one of the best dropshots, ability to open up the court on both wings...
The fact is, Agassi is highly overated. An all-time great and an awesome player OK but his stats will show you that he beat a bunch of nobodies.
Connors, Lendl, and Agassi all have 8 grand slams. Agassi also have the career slam with an olympic gold medal. Some bias media pundits will rank Agassi ahead of Lendl.
But look carefully and you'll see Agassi beat a bunch of nobodies. His French Open case would've been more compelling had he beat Courier (a 4 time grand slam winner and a peer) than beating Medvedev in 1999.
Check out Agassi's lineup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Agassi_career_statistics
Who the heck are these people? Sounds more like a list of KGB agents than opposing tennis players.
Andres Gomez
Andrei Medvedev
Todd Martin
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Arnaud Clément
Rainer Schüttler
Then a couple of his other slam victories came against
Michael Stich
Goran Ivanišević
Quality guys but really, these guys only have 1 slam on their resume.
Connors, Lendl, and Djokovic should rank way much higher than Agassi. These guys battle, lost, and beaten legends at their grand slams finals (the McEnroes, the Borgs, the Wilanders, the Federers, and Nadals).. basically guys with 6 or more slams.
The American media can be bias.. ranking Connors and Agassi ahead of Lendl. Connors is more understandable but I would rank Connors and Lendl fairly close because both hold long tenures at number 1 and each can boast impressive records and statures over the other.
Agassi should not be in the same discussion with Connors, Lendl, or Djokovic.
#Novak doesn't even hold a career slam yet. Until then, he'll always be an historical step behind #Agassi.Agassi's old news since Novak passed him already. Connors and Lendl are the next players he should have in his sights over the next year or so.
#Novak doesn't even hold a career slam yet. Until then, he'll always be an historical step behind #Agassi.
#AngiesLyst
Yeah, and let's ignore that Nole had Nadal and Federer(2011) to deal with at the FO.
The fact is, Agassi is highly overated. An all-time great and an awesome player OK but his stats will show you that he beat a bunch of nobodies.
Connors, Lendl, and Agassi all have 8 grand slams. Agassi also have the career slam with an olympic gold medal. Some bias media pundits will rank Agassi ahead of Lendl.
But look carefully and you'll see Agassi beat a bunch of nobodies. His French Open case would've been more compelling had he beat Courier (a 4 time grand slam winner and a peer) than beating Medvedev in 1999.
Check out Agassi's lineup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Agassi_career_statistics
Who the heck are these people? Sounds more like a list of KGB agents than opposing tennis players.
Andres Gomez
Andrei Medvedev
Todd Martin
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Arnaud Clément
Rainer Schüttler
Then a couple of his other slam victories came against
Michael Stich
Goran Ivanišević
Quality guys but really, these guys only have 1 slam on their resume.
Connors, Lendl, and Djokovic should rank way much higher than Agassi. These guys battle, lost, and beaten legends at their grand slams finals (the McEnroes, the Borgs, the Wilanders, the Federers, and Nadals).. basically guys with 6 or more slams.
The American media can be bias.. ranking Connors and Agassi ahead of Lendl. Connors is more understandable but I would rank Connors and Lendl fairly close because both hold long tenures at number 1 and each can boast impressive records and statures over the other.
Agassi should not be in the same discussion with Connors, Lendl, or Djokovic.
He didn't have Nadal to deal with this year did he? He disposed of Nadal like I dispose of my trash daily and then what did Novak do? He went on to lose the title anyway. LOL.
Bestchancegone?
Agassi's old news since Novak passed him already. Connors and Lendl are the next players he should have in his sights over the next year or so.
The fact is, Agassi is highly overated. An all-time great and an awesome player OK but his stats will show you that he beat a bunch of nobodies.
Connors, Lendl, and Agassi all have 8 grand slams. Agassi also have the career slam with an olympic gold medal. Some bias media pundits will rank Agassi ahead of Lendl.
But look carefully and you'll see Agassi beat a bunch of nobodies. His French Open case would've been more compelling had he beat Courier (a 4 time grand slam winner and a peer) than beating Medvedev in 1999.
Check out Agassi's lineup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Agassi_career_statistics
Who the heck are these people? Sounds more like a list of KGB agents than opposing tennis players.
Andres Gomez
Andrei Medvedev
Todd Martin
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Arnaud Clément
Rainer Schüttler
Then a couple of his other slam victories came against
Michael Stich
Goran Ivanišević
Quality guys but really, these guys only have 1 slam on their resume.
Connors, Lendl, and Djokovic should rank way much higher than Agassi. These guys battle, lost, and beaten legends at their grand slams finals (the McEnroes, the Borgs, the Wilanders, the Federers, and Nadals).. basically guys with 6 or more slams.
The American media can be bias.. ranking Connors and Agassi ahead of Lendl. Connors is more understandable but I would rank Connors and Lendl fairly close because both hold long tenures at number 1 and each can boast impressive records and statures over the other.
Agassi should not be in the same discussion with Connors, Lendl, or Djokovic.
You're praying it is. :twisted:
Novak has not surpassed Agassi without a FO title.
They are in the same tier at the moment. Novak has the better number one stats and more YECs but Agassi has the Golden Career Slam and thus has a more complete slam resume.
Novak has not surpassed Agassi without a FO title.
They are in the same tier at the moment. Novak has the better number one stats and more YECs but Agassi has the Golden Career Slam and thus has a more complete slam resume.
And those number one stats are what place him above Agassi. Tennis isn't only about eight weeks of the year.
Well, there's no universally accepted method to rank players across time so it's all made up anyway.
All we can look at and measure is how each player did against his contemporaries. In this Nole has a much stronger record than Agassi. And the record will only get stronger since Nole continues to rack wins and weeks and years at #1.
Nope. It is a trade-off between Novak's better number one stats and Agassi's superior and more complete slam resume with his Career Slam. They are in the same tier at the moment. Not a bad place to be.
It seems ridiculous to say that Djokovic needs to win the FO to be above Agassi. I mean what if he wins another Wimbledon, USO and AO? Will he still be below him just because he failed to win RG? I mean seriously?!
They're in the same tier but Djokovic is above him. More slam finals, more WTFs, more Masters, more YE#1, more weeks at #1 etc. Come on ccO.
But ultimately Novak has to win more slams to surpass Agassi. Again, this was Novak's best shot to leap frog over Agassi by winning the FO. He failed. They are in the same tier.
Check out Agassi's lineup:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Agassi_career_statistics
Who the heck are these people? Sounds more like a list of KGB agents than opposing tennis players.
Andres Gomez
Andrei Medvedev
Todd Martin
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Arnaud Clément
Rainer Schüttler
Then a couple of his other slam victories came against
Michael Stich
Goran Ivanišević
Quality guys but really, these guys only have 1 slam on their resume.
Nobody is saying that. But right this moment, they both have the same number of slams. Novak has the better number one stats and more YECs and Andre has the more complete slam resume and the OG. Thus, they are in the same tier.
Yet, the #ITHOF has determined that winning #ITF-sanctioned grand slam events is a main qualifying determinant for inclusion. Tour-level events cannot singularly get former players into the #ITHOF. Only #ITF-sanctioned grand slam events.Well, there's no universally accepted method to rank players across time so it's all made up anyway.
All we can look at and measure is how each player did against his contemporaries. In this Nole has a much stronger record than Agassi. And the record will only get stronger since Nole continues to rack wins and weeks and years at #1.