Agassi one of the most underrated players?

[big ted]

year end number ones :
connors - 5 years
lendl - 4 years
mcenroe - 4 years
agassi - 1 year (1999)

 

[Cuculain]

The fact that McEnroe also won 10 grand slam doubles titles puts him well ahead of Agassi imo in the all-time stakes. (not to winning slam titles in 3 different decades)

Also, weeks at #1
- McEnroe - 170
- Agassi - 101

Lendl... same number of Slams (but no Wimly) but an insanely more successful career ranking and consistency-wise.

Lendl > Agassi imo.

Interesting point!
Connors also won 2 grand slam doubles titles.. partnering Nastase..what a pairing that must have been, one can only wonder how many more they might have won had they continued to play doubles!

 

[Wilander Fan]

Just my opinion.
Having watched tennis since the late 70s , I dont believe the 90s or the 00s have the same depth as existed in the 70s and 80s, When Borg and Mac and Connors were playing , the depth and talent of the opposition these guys were winning slams in was I think far greater, than the following eras. And lets not forget these guys skipped the Australian open for years. One can only imagine what their final slam tally would be had it had been as recognised as it is now..

I simply feel that Sampras and Agassi , had very little competition from their field of players for the slams..Rafter when he came on the scene and Courier,
but the rest didnt really come close.
Same for Federer, until Nadal came along, he really had no real quality opposition , now there's Djokovic and Murray, challenging as well, but many of his slams were won with mediocre opposition.. and Nadal until recently was a one trick pony , clay.. but credit where it is due, he has adapted his game brilliantly to grass and hardcourts , and can now definately be considered among the greats..
On the other hand you look at the list of players during the era of Borg , Mac and Connors..and when you do in my opinion it makes their number of titles all the more impressive..
and Lendl you could say covered 2 eras.., actually you could say the same for Connors, as he turned pro in 1972! and was a force in tennis reaching semis in grand slams till the late 80s. even in the 90s his legendary run to the semis in the USopen!
So yep its all subjective anyway, but thats my take on it.. Federer and Nadal great players for sure, but as the saying goes how great you are depends on the enemies you defeat..to put that into sporting terms you opposition. and in this category the 3 Kings of the 70s-80s stand above the rest..

I have to agree. More depth but I think the players were mentally tougher since they had to build points and be patient. Even the real heavy hitters like Lendle and Becker had all court games and needed to finish off points at the net. Anyway, there is a clear cutoff IMO somewhere in the early 90s when tennis became a power game due to technology. I dont think you can compare the two eras because of the huge differences.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Problem with Agassi my friend is that he took years off. Remember Lendl had a huge serve and forehand plus I think he was clearly quicker than Agassi.

Lendl at his best over a period of five years won over 90% of his matches. That's with McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Noah, Wilander, Leconte around. He won 146 tournaments (94 ATP but record keeping in Lendl's day was awful) and a ton of Master Level titles. Agassi never won 90% of his matches in any one year. Agassi won less than half the titles Lendl won at 60. They both won eight majors.

I would say that Lendl's had the better career.

McEnroe was unbelievable in 1984. He was 82-3, won Wimbledon and the US Open and was in the finals of the French Open. He won 65.32% of his games for the year, which is a staggering number. Very few in the history of tennis has surpassed that figure. Even Federer hasn't come close to this, peaking in the 61% range. I believe Agassi was around the 61% range there also in 1995. John McEnroe won 13 of 15 tournaments that year.

No doubt Lendl had the better career. I just think Agassi at his best was the better player. He was just as steady as Lendl, was a bigger hitter and took the ball much earlier than Lendl. I also think Agassi's return game was better than Lendl's service game. Conversely, I don't think Lendl's return game gave him an advantage on Agassi's serve. As a result, Agassi would get more service breaks, and wins a majority of matches between them. JMHO, of course.

 

[Cuculain]

I have to agree. More depth but I think the players were mentally tougher since they had to build points and be patient. Even the real heavy hitters like Lendle and Becker had all court games and needed to finish off points at the net. Anyway, there is a clear cutoff IMO somewhere in the early 90s when tennis became a power game due to technology. I dont think you can compare the two eras because of the huge differences.

I agree, but I don't think tennis has benefited from the increased power. some of the skills of touch and and all court coverage has been lost, which is why I believe if the equipment was scaled back to the hey days of the 70 - 80s the top players of the last 10 years would seriously struggle to even make it into the top ten if the likes of Borg , Mac ,Connors , Nastase, Geraulitis, Vilas, Lendl, Tanner, Ashe were in their prime today..

 

[Limpinhitter]

I agree Agassi is a great player and maybe a little underated, and perhaps on the same level as Lendl, but better that Mac and Connors! no chance..
Agassi had a great return of serve, but Connors was better, and when in his prime faster and took the ball earlier..
those who think Lendl was better, are basing their opinions on wins he had when Connors was past his prime and had slowed , I recently watched the 82/83 USopens , and Connors outplayed , overpowered him and stunned him with his return of serve!
in the 84 USopen semi against Mac, when Mac was sublime , Connors broke his serve many times taking him to a full 5 sets!
someone mentioned tiers earlier, I have been watching tennis since the late 70s and so for me tier 1 is Borg , Mac , Connors. tier 2 Agassi Federer Nadal Lendl Sampras, Nastase , Vilas, Vitas.

I said I thought Mac in 84' was probably better than Agassi at his best. Mac in 84' probably better than all but 4-5 of all time. But, I don't agree that Connors was better than Agassi. I've seen them both play in their primes. Connors was quicker than Agassi and he had a better net game. But, Agassi was more powerful AND steadier from the ground. He also had the only return game better than Connors, and had a better serve. Against each other, Agassi breaks serve more often than Connors and wins most matches between them. JMHO.

PS: I've seen ALL of the best players play live since the late 60's beginning with Rosewall. My first tier is Laver, Sampras, Federer, Borg and Gonzales. My tier 2 would include Ralph, Agassi, Mac, Connors, Lendl, Newcombe, Emerson, Rosewall, and maybe a few more. Nastase is 3rd tier with Edberg, Becker, et al., IMHO. Vitas was a great player, but he was never #1, and, therefore, not in any tier of all time greats, IMHO.

 

[Cuculain]

I said I thought Mac in 84' was probably better than Agassi at his best. Mac in 84' probably better than all but 4-5 of all time. But, I don't agree that Connors was better than Agassi. I've seen them both play in their primes. Connors was quicker than Agassi and he had a better net game. But, Agassi was more powerful AND steadier from the ground. He also had the only return game better than Connors, and had a better serve. Against each other, Agassi breaks serve more often than Connors and wins most matches between them. JMHO.

PS: I've seen ALL of the best players play live since the late 60's beginning with Rosewall. My first tier is Laver, Sampras, Federer, Borg and Gonzales. My tier 2 would include Ralph, Agassi, Mac, Connors, Lendl, Newcombe, Emerson, Rosewall, and maybe a few more. Nastase is 3rd tier with Edberg, Becker, et al., IMHO. Vitas was a great player, but he was never #1, and, therefore, not in any tier of all time greats, IMHO.

Yes Agassi was more powerful , that was the nature of the game at that point, but Connors was hitting the ball hard with that t1000 in the 70s! eg in the 76 usopen final (have it on tape) he was scorching the lines!
and I dont think the two matches against Agassi is a good indication, as he was well past his prime by then, but still took Agassi to 5 sets in their 2nd usopen meeting!
So I still believe Connors was the better returner and better alround player. I really like Agassi as a player but I dont think hes as good as Connors, either in ability and certainly not in mental toughness!

 

[Limpinhitter]

Yes Agassi was more powerful , that was the nature of the game at that point, but Connors was hitting the ball hard with that t1000 in the 70s! eg in the 76 usopen final (have it on tape) he was scorching the lines!
and I dont think the two matches against Agassi is a good indication, as he was well past his prime by then, but still took Agassi to 5 sets in their 2nd usopen meeting!
So I still believe Connors was the better returner and better alround player. I really like Agassi as a player but I dont think hes as good as Connors, either in ability and certainly not in mental toughness!

FYI, the stainless steel Wilson T2000 was the most powerful racquet available at that time, more powerful than some of today's player frames, IMHO. You'll notice Connors hit harder with his T2000 than with his later graphite frames. The T2000 was the most popular club level frame at the time, but, the reason it wasn't more widely used among the pros is the same reason most pros don't use game improvement frames today - can't control them. The T2000, strung with Victor Imperial gut at 65lbs = cannon!

 

[Cuculain]

FYI, the stainless steel Wilson T2000 was the most powerful racquet available at that time, more powerful than some of today's player frames, IMHO. You'll notice Connors hit harder with his T2000 than with his later graphite frames. The T2000 was the most popular club level frame at the time, but, the reason it wasn't more widely used among the pros is the same reason most pros don't use game improvement frames today - can't control them. The T2000, strung with Victor Imperial gut at 65lbs = cannon!

Ah yes but Connors could control it..beautifully..

 

[Limpinhitter]

Ah yes but Connors could control it..beautifully..

Absolutely true. I think the nature of his strokes - very level and flat, with more reliance on upper body rotation than anyone before him, is what allowed him to swing as hard as he did, and still be extremely consistent with that frame.

 

[Mustard]

The thing with Agassi is that he did it all across the course of his career, but he seldom put any kind of dominance together. His biggest rival, Sampras, tended to beat him in the vast majority of their big matches. Agassi's best years of 1995 and 1999 saw Sampras having the last laugh.

 

[heninfan99]

If anyone he's rated too high on most lists.

 

[NadalAgassi]

The thing with Agassi is that he did it all across the course of his career, but he seldom put any kind of dominance together. His biggest rival, Sampras, tended to beat him in the vast majority of their big matches. Agassi's best years of 1995 and 1999 saw Sampras having the last laugh.

Yes this is painfully true. However who would have gotten the better of prime Sampras? For all we know Federer might never have, I am not saying this is the case, but it isnt inconceivable either. Lendl certainly did not face a Sampras caliber threat during his "reign", his toughest rival was Becker who couldnt even make a slam final outside of Wimbledon at that point. McEnroe overcame Borg, but in 1983/1984 his main threats were an aging Connors and a still maturing Lendl. Connors in his best year ever faced a 40 year old Rosewall in the Wimbledon and U.S Open finals. How would the Agassi of 1995 and 1999 have fared in those years in their place?

Agassi was not blessed with the great fortune of his wife who managed to dominate 30-something former legends and Vicarios or Sabatinis for years. Those rare times faced with real competition or even milder competition who hit a hot stretch of form she proved as incapable of dominance as he was, maybe even moreso. Yet she is hailed as the GOAT of her gender, while he is dismissed as barely top 20 due to his peak coinciding with the arguably mens GOAT. It just puts into perspective how important timing is, as Mr and Mrs. Agassi represent the two extremes of it.

 

[mtommer]

Is Agassi one of the most underrated players ever? It seems he does not get the credit he deserves from people anymore. The guy might have had the best return of serve and groundstrokes ever, he was a huge threat to win on all surfaces. And he might have won over 20 slams if Sampras didnt exist, if he played Australia every year, if he didnt choke those early slam finals, and if he hadnt wasted his talent from 96-98 and to a lesser degree some other years.

No he is not underrated. Mental fortitude is a part of the game and he simply didn't and doesn't have it. Please don't play into Agassi's self-lamantation and self-delusion that he's more important than he is.

 

[jrepac]

No he is not underrated. Mental fortitude is a part of the game and he simply didn't and doesn't have it. Please don't play into Agassi's self-lamantation and self-delusion that he's more important than he is.

and this is just one more reason I cannot put him in front of Jimbo....one of the mentally toughest guys ever to pick up a racket...

 

[pjonesy]

No he is not underrated. Mental fortitude is a part of the game and he simply didn't and doesn't have it. Please don't play into Agassi's self-lamantation and self-delusion that he's more important than he is.

I don't feel that he is in the same class as Laver, Sampras, Borg, Nadal or Federer. It was unfortunate (for him) that he had to play during the Sampras era and the Federer/Nadal era. Just like Sampras had little time to enjoy his 14 grand slams singles record, Agassi had very little time to enjoy the stature of his career grand slam accomplishment. By duplicating Agassi's feat just a few years later, Federer and Nadal made it seem a little less special.

Competitively, I do not put him at the very top. However, I consider him a revolutionary player, regarding his style of play. Agassi improved upon the power baseline game of Connors and Lendl. His impact and influence is very evident in the power baseline games we see today. What separated him from the previous generation, was his ability to take the ball very early off both sides and hit his 2hander with as much control, spin and power, as his forehand. The control and pace of his shots were as good as it gets. Now practically everyone on the men's tour plays Agassi's game. Even the big guys are playing 2HBHs.

On the other hand, I do not think his name is synonymous with tennis, in the way that Muhammad Ali is to boxing. Aggasi is often given credit for being the greatest personality is the history of tennis. IMHO that distinction still belongs to John McEnroe.

 

[The-Champ]

Baseline master class from master Agassi! Heavy hitting with Kafelnikov. What if Agassi could defend like a Nadal or Borg? Kafelnikov is no slouch btw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgScOlDlZWY

 

[Big Dave]

i defintiely think Agassi coulda/shoulda won more GS, and he's definitely in the top 10 GOAT. anyone who says differently is a fool.

 

[BashTheMashIsBack]

10 chars. s. s.

 

[hoodjem]

Maybe I'm a fool (Lear shoud have listened to me), but Agassi's record does not justify any higher than second-ten IMO.

 

[maxplymac]

LMAO...Agassi is not in GOAT 10.

 

[DMan]

Is Agassi one of the most underrated players ever? It seems he does not get the credit he deserves from people anymore. The guy might have had the best return of serve and groundstrokes ever, he was a huge threat to win on all surfaces. And he might have won over 20 slams if Sampras didnt exist, if he played Australia every year, if he didnt choke those early slam finals, and if he hadnt wasted his talent from 96-98 and to a lesser degree some other years.

Written like a true Selestial.

"might have"
"if" someone else didn't exist
"if" he did this
"if" he didn't choke
"if" he hadn't wasted his talent.

Face it. Agassi is not even in the top 200 all-time. No how. No way. Look, he faced the weakest competition of anyone. Did he beat Connors to win a major? HA! Federer? Nadal? McEnroe? Lendl? Pancho Gonzalez? Come on, Pancho was his brother-in-law? Why couldn't Agassi beat prime Gonzo in a major final? Agassi struggled against #100 Andrei Medvedev in the French final! 100th ranked Medvedev. You call that "competition"?! He only won when Todd Martin (never won a major) CHOKED! Agassi barely beat Goran Ivan-choke-avic in a Wimbledon final for God's sake! HE got crushed by a baby faced, barely out of the womb Sampras. And Grampa Gomez in the 1990 French final!

Rainer Schuettler? Arnaud Clement? These are bush league players!

Agassi was a waste of a lesser talent. Obviously! Anyone with any tennis knowledge knows that! I mean it's always, and only, all about how you fared from 1990-1993! And that's it. And who your competition was in major finals.

I mean, c'mon folks. We're all in agreement here, right! Agassi, underrated? Please Agassi is the most OVERRATED player in history!!!! Why do you think he married Mrs Overrated Player in History, Steffi Graf!!!

Oh Ms NadalAgassi, I love you so much!!! :razz:

 

[pc1]

I think his "legacy" is fine.

Late second-tier or low in the third.

Certainly not top-10 all-time.

Just for accomplishments in tennis history alone here are some of the players I think may have done more than Agassi so far.

Sampras (of course)
Lendl (more than double the tournament victories, same amount of majors, higher lifetime winning percentage, more dominant at his best)
Federer
Laver
Rosewall
Gonzalez (Agassi versus Gonzalez would be interesting for several reasons. It would a a player who has been called the greatest all time service returner versus a player often called the greatest server of all time. Also it would be the battle of two former brother in laws.)
Tilden
McEnroe (a bit tougher here. McEnroe won around 100 tournaments and seven majors. He played in an era when top players routinely skipped the Australian)
Connors (Same amount of majors but Connors won 148 tournaments to Agassi's 60. Connors, despite a longer career had a higher lifetime winning percentage. Connors is clearly better for accomplishments. It's not close.)
Borg
Budge-(This one is very debatable in my mind. He won the Grand Slam in 1938 but it was an amateur Grand Slam. He was somewhat dominant in the amateurs but not to the level of some of the others on the list. Budge was excellent but I can see Agassi being named over him. Agassi probably won more tournaments in his career than Budge overall.)
Kramer-(Another debatable one but he was number one for years and won many head to head tours.)
HL Doherty

 

[Joe Pike]

Is Agassi one of the most underrated players ever? It seems he does not get the credit he deserves from people anymore. ...

Mrs. Agassi is way more underrated, IMO.
Andre himself at least thinks she is the "greatest lady ever" to play tennis.

 

[pc1]

Mrs. Agassi is way more underrated, IMO.
Andre himself at least thinks she is the "greatest lady ever" to play tennis.

I heard a story that years ago Agassi and Courier were playing golf and Steffi tagged along. I don't think Graf and Agassi were married yet. Anyway Agassi and Courier were discussing how many majors each one had. Agassi said a certain number and Courier mentioned how many he won. They turned to Steffi and asked her how many majors she won and she said "twenty-two." Courier and Agassi laughed because Steffi won more majors than the both of them combined!

 

[hoodjem]

Just for accomplishments in tennis history alone here are some of the players I think may have done more than Agassi so far.

Sampras (of course)
Lendl (more than double the tournament victories, same amount of majors, higher lifetime winning percentage, more dominant at his best)
Federer
Laver
Rosewall
Gonzalez (Agassi versus Gonzalez would be interesting for several reasons. It would a a player who has been called the greatest all time service returner versus a player often called the greatest server of all time. Also it would be the battle of two former brother in laws.)
Tilden
McEnroe (a bit tougher here. McEnroe won around 100 tournaments and seven majors. He played in an era when top players routinely skipped the Australian)
Connors (Same amount of majors but Connors won 148 tournaments to Agassi's 60. Connors, despite a longer career had a higher lifetime winning percentage. Connors is clearly better for accomplishments. It's not close.)
Borg
Budge-(This one is very debatable in my mind. He won the Grand Slam in 1938 but it was an amateur Grand Slam. He was somewhat dominant in the amateurs but not to the level of some of the others on the list. Budge was excellent but I can see Agassi being named over him. Agassi probably won more tournaments in his career than Budge overall.)
Kramer-(Another debatable one but he was number one for years and won many head to head tours.)
HL Doherty

And Rosewall!