Ok, thanks i understand. I just explaneid why i wrote in first place. Top 5 was to high, smile.
Agassi the player with the most surface/conditions versatility in the open era?
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
Is it Federer , Sampras and Djokovic on grass?
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Ok no worries bro. Sorry then if I sounded rude.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Yes it is. You can make an argument for Borg > Djokovic, but two titles is too much of a difference for me so I have Djoko at 3 and Borg at 4.
But we don’t know how Djokovic would go on fast surfaces - Wimbledon is on a medium surface.
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
Fast grass we don't know, but on fast hard courts he's had success.
He won every big event twice so he is one of the best at adapting to surfaces, although not quite like Borg or Agassi level.
He's clearly pretty adept, but we've not had the chance to see him on the fastest of surfaces. Honestly, I often think he struggles the most on hard courts, out of all of them.
Big 3 has broken all the men important record except the following 4 + CYGS + 2 consecutive OSGM by andy murray
en.m.wikipedia.org
"Sampras 14 / 18 = 0.77 win ratio in GS Finals"
Jimmy Connors - Wikipedia
"Sampras 14 / 18 = 0.77 win ratio in GS Finals"
Last edited:
AgassiSuperSlam11
Hall of Fame
The thing about Connors is that if you include many non-ATP Invitational and Cup titles, he is close to 150 singles titles. Those often were small draws and not included with the ATP titles.
As far the thread and surface versality I still think Wilander gets some special mention as he was the only player until Nadal and Djokovic to win 2 or more slams in three different surfaces (despite some downplaying it since he won 2 AO titles when less players attended the AO-DUH DUH). He still had some quality wins and also won a doubles title in Wimbledon. As an aside, Wilander wasn't always playing "defensive style" tennis as some like to promote.
As far the thread and surface versality I still think Wilander gets some special mention as he was the only player until Nadal and Djokovic to win 2 or more slams in three different surfaces (despite some downplaying it since he won 2 AO titles when less players attended the AO-DUH DUH). He still had some quality wins and also won a doubles title in Wimbledon. As an aside, Wilander wasn't always playing "defensive style" tennis as some like to promote.
AgassiSuperSlam11
Hall of Fame
He was dominant in both Rebound Ace and Laykold (won AO 4x despite missing it for years) and still shares the record with Djokovic most Miami titles (6). He also had respectable success in Deco Turf as he won 2 USO titles, Canada 3x, and Cincy 3x. He has a total of 46 HC titles which I think OE is only behind Connors, Fed, and Djokovic.
Women's tennis was always open before 1968. Court won another 90 tournaments from 1960-1968 and has the greatest number of tournaments wins in 2 or 3 seasons. Her winning % before 68 was very close to her % after 68, which was still slightly higher than Evert's.
NAS
Hall of Fame
His reasoning is flawed, he is giving extra points to Agassi because Sampras was injured in 94,99.
I don't see any version of Agassi beating Sampras in us open or Wimbledon.
Borg was unlucky as he was facing prime Connors and then prime Mac back to back years in us open
Borg never got the luxury of both Connors and Mac out of form or out of us open due to injury
mental midget
Hall of Fame
you bring up an interesting point--what factor or combination of factors led to tennis's explosion in that period? tennis wasn't any more or less 'accessible' then, than now...for sure characters/icons like borg, mac, jimmy etc were part of it...but the sport has always had premiere players as well. i believe the fact that the tennis stars were clearly a part of the cultural elite--partying at studio 54 etc., played a key role...but there's a chicken-and-egg thing there, were they famous for who they associated with, or did their fame help them gain entry into that world?
asking because i think a lot about how to elevate tennis's appeal today...globally it's not doing too badly, but has very little of that coolness sheen from those heyday years.
I was a little young back in the 70's but a lot of things happened to raise the profile of the game, both for the men and women. Some big credit must go to BJK for that, I think. The Riggs match was simply huge. TV coverage via cable was expanding quickly too. I recall watching matches on public TV channels, not the mainstream channels, but suddenly it goes BOOM. You had BJK and Riggs on sitcom TV for heaven's sake...LOL. Tennis suddenly got hot...Borg was a teen idol, Connors was Nasty's successor as tennis' bad boy/villain, Mac the young upstart (tho' he came a little later). Chrissy was the good girl/ice queen. I mean, they had assigned roles to play!! Big money got into the game...individual events and the tours themselves had some great sponsors (Virginia Slims was huge, regardless of your feelings about smoking). Kids wanted to hit the tennis court and mimic their idols (I know I did). In the US, it surely did not hurt to have Americans at the top of the game...we were TREMENDOUSLY spoiled on both tours to have GOAT level players out there. This helped the game become mainstream...Connors alluded to it in his book...suddenly it was out of the ivy-laden clubs and into arenas...big ones. Tennis was on par with boxing for awhile there (folks forget how big boxing was then too). But by '85, the steam ran out a bit in the US as Boris, Steffi and Germany became the tennis-crazed country. Luckily, we had another GREAT generation of US players to follow, but they were maybe just a bit lower in their appeal to the mainstream viewers/fans. Pete was a little hard to love, in all honesty, and Andre not the most consistent. Chang, well, he was a bit strange. And Courier, somewhat surly, but not in a way that generated fans like Mac did. Some of the ENTERTAINMENT factor had dropped down a notch or two, at least for an average viewer. Let's face it, who didn't watch Mac waiting (and hoping?) for a blow up? That was really part of the fun for some of us, at least.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
good point on the drama around mac. for all the debate about kyrgios, i'm personally a huge fan because for the first time in a while, we started to get just a bit of crossover interest...the sense that something is going on in tennis that's worth following is huge.
i believe playing with the surfaces to encourage a little more cat-and-mouse/variety of play would help too. for the average sporting fan, watching interminable baseline rallies isn't as easy to grasp as the obvious intrigue of varied styles of play...although between poly and frames tech, i think that ship has largely sailed. fed helped a ton, any sporting fan can watch his highlight reel and understand he's doing some tricky, creative, surprising things.
I enjoy Krygios as well. Having seen him in person at the USO, I was just amazed by what he could do w/the ball. Fed was also a magician and a great player to watch. Very enjoyable. I think Carlitos has a lot of flair and variety in his game. The future of the game is on his shoulders.
Galvermegs
Professional
Yes that may well be true concerning grass. Inferior players like todd martin and rafter (obviously still elite level) could serve and volley against him and he couldn't take the net away from them. On clay he could be made to look impatient on a given day but his French open and rome titles are very impressive all the same.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
That is due more to circumstances than his actual adaptability.
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
Connors > Lendl.
LOL “assuming Har-Tru as a clay title.” Does anyone play tennis. Has anyone played on red and green clay. Of course Har-Tru is a clay title.
Last edited:
Laver, Rosewall, and to a lesser extent, Gonzalez were great on all surfaces: Clay, Grass, wood, hard and whatever surfaces they played, on the pro tour. Pancho's clay game did not seem to be as effective as on other surfaces.
The tough thing for Djokovic (or any modern player) is the lack of carpet and old grass + the increasing homogeneity across surfaces. Agassi was great on old grass and carpet. Djokovic likely would have been, but he never got the chance (other than a few carpet matches when he was 16-19).
xFedal
Legend
Djokovic won all events, Agassi didn't win clay events.
Agassi won the French Open, the Italian Open, and Stuttgart, among other clay titles.
Galvermegs
Professional
It may be his weakest surface and yet he never loses early at rg. Even at wimbledon and the hc slams are a few blips. The easy draw for most of the event and bo3 format didnt hurt. Murray had to win his finals in more gruelling fashion.
I'm not even sure I'd put Andre ahead of Borg on hard courts, to be honest.
That's hard to determine as Borg played hardly any outdoor hard in his career (US Open only from 1978, Canadian Open only from 1979 (which he won)). I disagree about Carpet as well. McEnroe/Lendl were the top 2 indoor players of the 1980's but yet Borg had a superior H2H on indoor against McEnroe.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Why do you disagree with Borg > Agassi on carpet on the grounds of him having positive carpet H2H against indoors GOAT Mac?
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Yeah that was generous to be honest. I am quite sure had Borg played a normal amount of tournaments on HC he would have been more successful than Agassi. However I find it hard to rate him higher based on hypotheticals so I gave Agassi the benefit of the doubt. Agassi never reached three out of four consecutive finals at any HC slam other than AO 2000-2003. Admittedly he won all three while Borg lost all three, but Mac and Connors vs Schüttler, Clement and Kafelnikov, well…
Galvermegs
Professional
At least kafelnikov got to no1 and won doubles slams like mac and connors.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Well I know that of course but I don’t think we need to discuss that Mac/Connors at the USO >>> Kafelnikov at the AO. For the comparison with Schüttler and Clement I think I can’t put enough > in one post.
Galvermegs
Professional
I know you know but its worth reminding everyone kafelnikov is miles ahead of the others and had some decent wins over andre before the final run of generally comprehensive losses. Also dont forget andre hammered mcenroe and connors in majors when young. You can say they were old but it still counts. Edberg couldnt always handle connors (us open 89)
The connors loss in 78 is hard to assess due to a rough injury borg had. He played out of pride but if he was anywhere close to his wimby 78 form then you would think he would avenge his prior defeats on the green clay at the venje.
So there is almost an argument that connors 78 isnt that much harder to play than YK in 00, all things being equal.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Of course YK is light years better than the other two but I don’t see him on the same level as Connors in 78. Connors, while being slaughtered in one, still reached two slam finals which YK never achieved. When we say all things equal we also need to assume Borg isn’t injured in which case he wins this likely. Anyways, I think under a normal HC career (meaning two slams on HC and a “normal” career length) I can see Borg equaling Agassi’s achievements. In any case he would win against comparable competition to Andre’s.
LMAO.....
Um...hard no on that last point. Connnors had a very fine '78...very much on par w/Borg. He still was ranked #1 He also played into form at the USO, so to speak. After the famous Panatta match, he handled Mac easily in the SF (yes, young Mac, yet still dangerous). Plus, he was likely out for a bit of revenge after the drubbing at W. Borg's injury hampered him somewhat (hard to know exactly how much), but Jimmy played very well that day.
Galvermegs
Professional
That is exactly my point but i am not saying yk is better, just that connors would make the same errors yk did after a while against andre. Although waspsting's report suggests stamina was a factor in melbourne
Last edited:
Galvermegs
Professional
I can refer you to vilas.. a great player but still ineffectual against borg. Jimbo was better but all the following matches against borg suggested a turn of the tide. Maybe the thumb injury was delaying that tide. Also borg had even less luck at the uso than lendl at wimby and mcenroe and connors at the french. Some things are just set in stone.
Mcenroe was too young for any major in 78 but in events in fewer rounds he would be very dangerous in form. Again jimmy couldnt handle him at uso after 78. So fair play for dealing with him when he was barely used to the circuit, nonetheless i would rate 78 overall as jimbos most opportunitistic and least impressive uso, not that any of his wins were handed on a platter.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Galvermegs
Professional
I can understand the 2nd and 3rd places but lets face it even federer has admitted the game lacks variety (the style of play included) as time moved on with him and the other elite players.. allowing them to achieve big records somewhat easier.
Surfaces, racquet technology and balls changing has meant the speed gaps have decreased. I do think novak would adapt to fast grass better but he got some real drubbings to an older federer, on indoors/fast hardcourts at times. Even the likes of stepanek frustrating him raise question marks.
Indoor carpet vanishing and the demise of grasscourts (e.g. no davis cup ties in bo5 format putting away teams not used to it under pressure) mean i dont think the open era is a fair way to compare everyone and list just a top 3. Never mind the prize money rising exponentially either.
Last edited:
One point that is often lost about Martina, was that her strongest surface was seen as clay, as a newbie. She was within a few games of winning the German open final as early as 1974 against Helga Mastoff, and reached the finals of the 1974 Italian losing to Chris, the finals at Amelia Island losing to Chris, a second final at the Italian in 1975 losing again to her nemesis, and took Evert to three sets at RG and finishes 1975 clay season with a semifinal loss to Evert at the first Open on har tru. Martina is arguably the second best clay courteron the tour in 1974 and 1975.
Meanwhile she's getting to the semis at Eastbourne, and losing in the 1st RD at Wimbledon in 1974, then 3rd Rd at Newport, and 3rd Rd US OPen ( last yr on grass). She starts well reaching her first grass slam final in January 1975 Aussie losing to Evonne, loses in the 2nd Rd of Eastbourne, and a QF loss to Court,
She developed this serve/ volley game of hers on clay so moving and rallying on it was completely natural. She has a potent forehand, and that ever present slice off her backhand. In that sense she was an 'all court player' at 16, 17, and 18. The only stroke missing from her arsonal was a good topspin backhand. If she concentrated well, and kept her emotions in check, she could rally with anyone, but she was emotionally immature. mentally fragile. No doubt about it, clay was her best surface when she first showed up. It was her Aussie final in 75 that looked like a fluke result, not her RG final in 75.
Those are really interesting points....a little too early for me in my tennis viewership, as she was becoming the Queen of Grass when I started tuning in. Perhaps speaks to Evert's supreme skills on the surface, to make MN look so inferior. She did lose on grass to Evert in the early days.....
pierceforehands
Rookie
Djokovic plays in the worst grass field ever. Even if you don't feel the current field is the worst ever as most do, there can be no doubt at all the grass field is the worst ever. I would challenge even a Djokovic fanatic to deny that. The last 5 Wimbledons atleast have been downright painful to watch. There was easily a world Shapopalov and Berrettini both might have won Wimbledon. The fact Nadal who even in his absolute peak was not some dominant grass courter, even tried to play Wimbledon and win it, and reached the semis, when he was so injured at that point he could barely move, tells you all you need to know.
I do see your point 5 > 7 is hard, but if there is ever a time it would be justified it is here. Not only due to the field, but Borg winning 5 in a row, which Djokovic never came close to doing, even in this worst grass field in history he has gotten to feast in. The most he ever won in a row was 2, nowhere near 5.
Angrybirdstar
Semi-Pro
Djokovic won '18, '19, '21, and '22, and made the '23 and '24 finals, with '20 not being held, so I would say that's genuinely close. '11-'15 with 3 wins, 1 final, and 1 semifinal loss to the eventual winner is also pretty close if not too meaningful given the lack of a streak
that being said, obviously if you put '76-'81 Borg in either of Djokovic's runs (extending the first to '16), 5 in a row looks very doable for both and 6 in a row for the first period is not out of the question
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
Break To Win
Semi-Pro
Agassi is criminally underrated. A timeless tennis player.
MissileBackHand99
Semi-Pro
Amazing that he is underrated. Having lived through his career, I would never have thought he would be..he was the last truly GREAT American male singles player. The era of the Big 4 truly has warped the minds of tennis fans of the last 15 years. Winning 20+ Slams is NOT the standard
MissileBackHand99
Semi-Pro
Are we REALLY comparing Borg beating Nastase, Connors x2, Tanner (in a tough 5-setter), and of course the famous 1980 Final vs McEnroe to Djokovic's "run"?? vs Anderson (gassed off a 26-24 fifth set vs Isner), vs Fed (who choked at 40-15), vs Berettini, and vs Nick Kyrgios?? CONTEXT is definitely needed when comparing lol
The last of the great ones? I kind of put him and Sampras together. Even if Sampras retired a bit early. We had a great run w/Chang, Courier, Sampras and Agassi. A wealth of talent, down to one guy...Roddick. Who could've won more GS if not for Fed. I have some hope for Fritz, Paul and Shelton, even Big Foe, but the clock is ticking. Lerner Tien may be the next great player...other promising guys along the way have not panned out :-(
Similar threads
