President of Serve/Volley
Semi-Pro
He could have easily beaten Sampras in that final and beaten Becker in the 1995 Wimbledon Semifinal, I think that year, he could have beaten Sampras on every surface.
Agassi Underrated
- Thread starter Chopin
- Start date
He could have easily beaten Sampras in that final and beaten Becker in the 1995 Wimbledon Semifinal, I think that year, he could have beaten Sampras on every surface.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
The winner of the Sampras-Ivanisevic semifinal was always going to win Wimbledon 95 over the winner of the Becker-Agassi semifinal. While all 4 were playing very well it is pretty clear that Sampras and Ivanisevic were a level above those other two at that particular Wimbledon. Plus Agassi just isnt nearly as good a grass court player as Sampras. It was an amazing effort to win Wimbledon 92 by beating Becker and Ivanisevic who are both much better grass courter than he is, but Becker is a great matchup for him which is why grass is the only surface Becker even had a shot vs prime Agassi, and Ivanisevic is a finals choker of course.
The two places Agassi got unlucky were the French Open and U.S Open. He was very unlucky to be put as the 2nd semifinal at that years U.S Open. He was hands down the best hard court player that year and despite his overall record vs Sampras at the U.S Open I firmly believe he would have beaten Sampras in that final had it not been for the USTA's ridiculous scheduling and their choice to put Agassi as the night match. He also had a shot at the French Open that year had he not gotten injured vs Kafelnikov in the quarters. He would have beaten Kafelnikov that year, and the semifinal vs Muster would have decided that years champion. I agree he was the best player in 1995 and he was just very unlucky to win only 1 slam and to not end the year ranked #1.
As for actual level of tennis Agassi in 1995 is hands down better than 1999. In 1995 he was unlucky, in 1999 he was very lucky in many ways. Plain and simple.
Last edited:
President of Serve/Volley
Semi-Pro
Agassi in 1999 was lucky because of Sampras's back forced him to pull out of the USO, then I think Pete would have won.
1999 FO, well, Andre did play well, but he was lucky that the other guy choked it away...
But yes, 1995 Andre was the king that year and I would take that Andre over anyone.
Had Goran beaten Sampras in '95, and Agassi beaten Becker, I think I would take Andre just because that year he was without a dobut the best player in the world that year.
1999 FO, well, Andre did play well, but he was lucky that the other guy choked it away...
But yes, 1995 Andre was the king that year and I would take that Andre over anyone.
Had Goran beaten Sampras in '95, and Agassi beaten Becker, I think I would take Andre just because that year he was without a dobut the best player in the world that year.
Last edited:
I agree he was the best player in the World that year but even at his best I dont think he is the best on grass. Like I said his win in 92 avoiding Sampras and with inexperienced Ivanisevic was amazing enough for him on that surface, I dont think it was ever going to happen again atleast not until Sampras and Ivanisevic were past their primes by the early 2000s (Becker was already past his prime by the mid 90s). Who knows for sure though, it is all speculation after the fact.
Wuornos
Professional
Personally I do think Agassi is overrated. Outside the top 30 is stretching things a bit though.
Tim
Wuornos
Professional
Personally I am not a great fan of the official ranking which I feel are fundamentally flawed. Even I must admit though, even allowing for the fact that I feel Agassi is overrated, that he was the top of the game for a period.
Using my methodology he holds the top slot for 2.5 years, albeit at a time when the game was not as strong as other periods.
Tim
Andres
G.O.A.T.
30, actually. 213 aces in 7 matches.
SpaceCadet
New User
The Agassi achievments you list are all true. Unfortunately, what hurts Agassi IMO is he never sat on the #1 ranking long enough to be considered "The Man."
His cycle of reaching dizzying heights and falling to abyssmal lows were really puzzling. Just when you think he's hit his stride, he falls off, and just when you've written him off as washed up, he comes back, big! Arguably, he was more dangerous as a long shot, as opposed to when he was a top seed.
So, when it comes to rating Agassi, the question always in my mind is "Which Agassi?"
This is the right take on Wimby 95; Pete and Goran were playing at another level....'92 was an accomplishment by Andre...he had a little luck in the draw, but nonetheless, you can't take it away from him.
Andre
Considering the Open Era, this ranking feels about right. Andre had great talents, but the results were not always there, as many here have noted. I do think his MIA (head case) years hurt him greatly...he could've been out there winning, instead of home eating donuts and drinking coca-cola (which he bragged about at the time). It seemed that as he got older, he wised up, got fit and determined, and turned out some more GS titles (albeit at the AO, which some place less value on). The '95 USO loss to Pete, I always see as the rain on Andre's parade...really took the air out of his balloon. He was playing absolutely fabulous tennis going into that final, but could not find it that day. The loss to Pete again in '01 is another stinker in my book. Andre lost matches like this on a mental level, I tend to think. Other true points: courier had his number, but he had Becker's, for sure.
When you consider the greats of the 80's, it is hard to put Andre ahead of Connors, Mac and Lendl. Even putting him ahead of Wilander, is somewhat debatable, tho' I would tend to put Andre ahead of Mats. Andre COULD have accomplished a lot more, which I think is what holds back some from rating him more highly. Plus 1 Wimby and 2 USOs combined w/1 French and 4 AO's maybe not viewed as favorably (1 more Wimby or USO, instead of the AOs, would've made a big difference, I think). His longevity was great, up there w/Jimmy's, but the overall results (total tournaments) somewhat lacking. Oddly (or not?), his skill set is very comparable to Connors's as well...Andre having a better serve I feel; both could play all 3 surfaces quite well (andre better on clay perhaps, Jimmy better on grass). But, Jimmy had 5 USOs and 2 Wimby's in the mix...plus 100+ titles...the "raters" will always put more weight upon the USO and W titles. Mac had 7 GS, all from US or W...again, that will get weighted more heavily, as well as Mac getting some "points" for caliber of competition during the era (prime Borg/Connors/Lendl/Wilander).
Regardless, I think Andre is within top 12 or so, which is pretty respectable.
Considering the Open Era, this ranking feels about right. Andre had great talents, but the results were not always there, as many here have noted. I do think his MIA (head case) years hurt him greatly...he could've been out there winning, instead of home eating donuts and drinking coca-cola (which he bragged about at the time). It seemed that as he got older, he wised up, got fit and determined, and turned out some more GS titles (albeit at the AO, which some place less value on). The '95 USO loss to Pete, I always see as the rain on Andre's parade...really took the air out of his balloon. He was playing absolutely fabulous tennis going into that final, but could not find it that day. The loss to Pete again in '01 is another stinker in my book. Andre lost matches like this on a mental level, I tend to think. Other true points: courier had his number, but he had Becker's, for sure.
When you consider the greats of the 80's, it is hard to put Andre ahead of Connors, Mac and Lendl. Even putting him ahead of Wilander, is somewhat debatable, tho' I would tend to put Andre ahead of Mats. Andre COULD have accomplished a lot more, which I think is what holds back some from rating him more highly. Plus 1 Wimby and 2 USOs combined w/1 French and 4 AO's maybe not viewed as favorably (1 more Wimby or USO, instead of the AOs, would've made a big difference, I think). His longevity was great, up there w/Jimmy's, but the overall results (total tournaments) somewhat lacking. Oddly (or not?), his skill set is very comparable to Connors's as well...Andre having a better serve I feel; both could play all 3 surfaces quite well (andre better on clay perhaps, Jimmy better on grass). But, Jimmy had 5 USOs and 2 Wimby's in the mix...plus 100+ titles...the "raters" will always put more weight upon the USO and W titles. Mac had 7 GS, all from US or W...again, that will get weighted more heavily, as well as Mac getting some "points" for caliber of competition during the era (prime Borg/Connors/Lendl/Wilander).
Regardless, I think Andre is within top 12 or so, which is pretty respectable.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 64872
Guest
Like Seles, I think Agassi is one of those "What if?" players. What if Agassi hadn't been so lackadaisical in his prime? I think he certainly would have garnered even better stats. I'd put Agassi in the top 10, but not in the top 5.
navratilovafan
Banned
If Agassi had been fully commited his whole career he would have been burnt out and less effective at age 29 and older where he won 5 of his slams. Given that the field he won his late slams against was lackluster at best, and his early and mid career tanking allowed him to be at his prime level into his early 30s and take advantage of it, it may have worked out best for him the way he went about it anyway.
I've been looking for a video clip of Agassi and Hewitt in the semifinals of the 2002 U.S. Open. They have a long rally, then Agassi hits a lame dropshot. Hewitt comes in, puts the ball seemingly out of Agassi's reach. Agassi tracks it down, hits it back. Hewitt volleys. Agassi rips a swinging volley winner.
It was the most incredible point. Does anyone have a video clip? I can't find anything on youtube or dailymotion.
--Tyro
http://tenniswire.wordpress.com
It was the most incredible point. Does anyone have a video clip? I can't find anything on youtube or dailymotion.
--Tyro
http://tenniswire.wordpress.com
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
I agree...and I would add that Agassi in my opinion was also helped along by Sampras. If Sampras hadn't come along I don't think Agassi would have got his rear in gear....so to speak..and started really dedicating himself and shed the rebel without a cause attitude. Sampras drove Agassi to be a better player than he otherwise might have been...so in a way you are right..things worked out good for him in the end.
It's great to see that my body of work is still being recognized here. I thank you all for participating. I could have never achieved this level of posting without the contributions of fine posters such as yourselves.
Be on the lookout for my new Masterpiece Collection coming in the next few weeks.
Kind Regards,
Chopin
Be on the lookout for my new Masterpiece Collection coming in the next few weeks.
Kind Regards,
Chopin
Last edited:
grafselesfan
Banned
Honestly I cant think of Agassi as being a better player than Nadal. JMO though.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
I would agree with this. Agassi can be argued, by virtue of his acheivements, to be above Nadal all time as of now...but I think Nadal will surpass Andre by the end of his career in this area. As for who is better...I would give Nadal a slight overall edge except on Hardcourts.
Power Player
Bionic Poster
The point was that it is EXTREMELY rare to do that in tennis.
Yeah, I mean, it's same thing I've been saying about Laver. Pound for pound, the guy would probably be a mediocre pro today, but he's still one of the all time greats.
I agree with your assessment of giving Nadal a slight edge except on hardcourts though.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I agree with both of you. Nadal will probably surpass Agassi, and certainly has the potential to do so, but we must wait and see.
For me tennis rankings are about the past and present, not the future. In my befuddled finite way, I try to compare achievements not peak head-to-head hypotheticals. That way lies little but unfounded speculation and biased preferences.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
You are exactly correct; the career slam is extremely rare in singles tennis: Winning all four major Slam tournaments during a career is termed a Career Grand Slam. To date six men and nine women have accomplished this feat in singles play.
Yet a true Grand Slam, original meaning, is rarer still. It is statistically and in actuality far more difficult. In men's singles tennis it has happened only once, during a period when there were no restrictions on tournament entry.
Trivia question: what man has won the most major slam singles titles in a row? (Hint: not Roger Federer.)
Last edited:
grafselesfan
Banned
6 months ago I actually thought it would be Nadal, not Federer, but actually Nadal who was on his way to challenging Laver's current consensus position as the greatest mens player of all time down the road. I and many others thought he was probably going to complete the Calender Slam this year and take his first big step to getting there. I actually thought the U.S Open would be the only one that would even be a serious test, I wasnt the only one that was alone that lines of thinking at the time either the way Nadal's momentum seemed to be at that point. Of course here we are 6 or 7 months later and how things change. So yes I agree it isnt too safe to presume too far into the future, and to hedge your bets wisely. Sadly with Rafa who is my current favorite mens player if he and team dont manage their schedule more wisely, and perhaps now even alter his game style further to accomodate his now possibly chronic bad knees, the hedging will continue to go in a lower base expectation all the time.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
1.Laver
2.Federer
3.Pete
4.Borg
5.Lendl
6.Connors
7.McEnroe
8.Agassi
9.Wilander
10.Edberg
2.Federer
3.Pete
4.Borg
5.Lendl
6.Connors
7.McEnroe
8.Agassi
9.Wilander
10.Edberg
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I wondered this also. I did believe that it was (and remains) extremely difficult. Nadal might make it, but his chances were slim and he needed to remain in top shape and with unshakable focus. Didn't happen. He stumbled first on his best surface.
With a career Slam you have many opportunities to succeed. With a Grand Slam, one bad day, one ill-timed injury, one unfortunate accident, one single opponent playing "out of his mind" and all is lost. Start over next year.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Open-Era GOATs?
35ft6
Legend
He's probably the most significant tennis player of the past 30 years. He was admired by players in other professional sports in a way that no other tennis player has been since, not even Federer. People thought of him as a true jock. And if you asked the top 100 to name their favorite players, the ones who inspired them, he would show up the most. He's a great ambassador and what he's doing now with kids is just world class. When he appears on court for something, people have a visceral reaction, cheering wildly without thought, in a way that they just don't for Sampras or anybody else. In terms of how much people love him and his influence on the game both technically and off the court, he is the greatest player of the open era. He's also philosopher warrior of the sport when it comes to commentating, explaining subtle nuances in ways that are interesting to the casual fan.
And I don't even consider myself a huge Agassi fan.
And I don't even consider myself a huge Agassi fan.
Last edited:
Enlightened Coelacanth
Rookie
Underrated? It's hard to see how.
Agassi had his tremendous up and downs and didn't or wouldn't even consider playing on grass for the first third of his career (and when he did win Wimbledon it was against less than stellar competition).
His slam wins have come at the expense of the likes of Todd Martin, Andrei Medvedev, Kafelnikov and Goran Ivanisevic.
He was a non entity as a doubles player and was an extremely mono-dimensional player.
Put up next to Sampras, Federer, Laver, Borg, or Lendl (who was the template for Agassi and his get fit and hit hard style) it's hard to see him as a top five open era player.
You can give Agassi his due in many ways but to call him underrated? I think not. He's rated by most right where he should be.
Agassi had his tremendous up and downs and didn't or wouldn't even consider playing on grass for the first third of his career (and when he did win Wimbledon it was against less than stellar competition).
His slam wins have come at the expense of the likes of Todd Martin, Andrei Medvedev, Kafelnikov and Goran Ivanisevic.
He was a non entity as a doubles player and was an extremely mono-dimensional player.
Put up next to Sampras, Federer, Laver, Borg, or Lendl (who was the template for Agassi and his get fit and hit hard style) it's hard to see him as a top five open era player.
You can give Agassi his due in many ways but to call him underrated? I think not. He's rated by most right where he should be.
Similar threads
- Poll
