Agassi vs. The Big 3. Are they on the same tier of ATGs?

[Sport]

I've read some users asserting "Agassi was equally talented as the Big 3" or "just a hair below their talent" (the irony).

I find that claim nonfactual. Agassi was not like, say, Nicholas Kyrgios, a non-commited player. Despite his love-hate relationship with the sport, Andre took his tennis career seriously. Thus, if he really was equally talented as the Big 3, we would expect him to be on the same tier of ATGs as the Big 3.

What are your personal ATGs tiers? Is Agassi on the same tier as the Big 3?

IMO these are the Open Era tiers:

Tier 1: 20+ Slams. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.
Tier 2. 10-19 Slams. Laver, Borg, Sampras.
Tier 3. 6-9 Slams. Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Wilander, Lendl, Agassi, Rosewall.
Tier 4: 3-5 Slams. Courier, Murray, Kuerten, etc.


Alternatively, all-time tier:
Tier 1. GOAT candidares at some point. Tilden, Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.
Tier 2. Excellent players with no GOAT claim. Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Lend, Wilander, Agassi.

 

[Razer]

Djokovic is not 24/14 = 1.71 times better than Sampras, otherwise Djokovic would not be on lesser Slams than Sampras was on their 30th birthdays, whatever someone wins after 30th birthday depends on Great Age Shift + Strong/Weak next gens, so we can disregard that. Djokovic or Fedal are not better than Sampras,

Tier 1 : Big 3, Sampras, Borg
Tier 2 : Mcenroe, Lendl, Connors
Tier 3 : Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Wilander
Tier 4 : Sir Andrew Murray, Courier, Hewitt, Safin, Kuerten etc etc ... & Roddick too.
Tier 5 : 1 Slam Winners (not Roddick) who were not worth more than that....Medvedev is also in this tier, but I place Roddick above.
Tier 6 : Non Slam Winners who have other Big trophies and Slam Final s
Tier 7 : Non Slam Winners who are just in top 100 but average
Tier 8 ; Rest of the people outside the top 100

 

[Sport]

Djokovic is not 24/14 = 1.71 times better than Sampras, otherwise Djokovic would not be on lesser Slams than Sampras was on their 30th birthday, whatever someone wins after 30th birthday depends on Great Age Shift + Strong/Weak next gens, so we can disregard that. Djokovic or Fedal are not better than Sampras,

Tier 1 : Big 3, Sampras, Borg
Tier 2 : Mcenroe, Lendl, Connors
Tier 3 : Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Wilander
Tier 4 : Sir Andrew Murray, Courier, Hewitt, Safin, Kuerten etc etc ... & Roddick too.
Tier 5 : 1 Slam Winners (not Roddick) who were not worth more than that....Medvedev is also in this tier, but I place Roddick above.
Tier 6 : Non Slam Winners who have other Big trophies and Slam Final s
Tier 7 : Non Slam Winners who are just in top 100 but average
Tier 8 ; Rest of the people outside the top 100

I like the fact you created an extra tier for borderline ATGs, such as Courier, Kuerten and Murray. I agree with you they would be on a tier 4, and thus Agassi (tier 3) would be closer to them than to the Big 3's tier 1.

 

[alexio]

only pete can be there (from those lovely 90s times), but not agassi i guess

 

[MichaelNadal]

Cap

 

[Razer]

I like the fact you created an extra tier for borderline ATGs, such as Courier, Kuerten and Murray. I agree with you they would be on a tier 4, and thus Agassi (tier 3) would be closer to them than to the Big 3's tier 1.

Yes, Agassi is unfit to even be in tier 2. Lack of weeks at 1/year end 1s, lack of all surface dominance also matters. He is the only ATG I know who has not won 2+ slams at least on 1 of the natural surfaces, so no matter how much we market his all surface versatility he lacked dominance. So regradless of his ability he lacks performance to be in GOAT Tier. The guys in tier 2 were considered goaty or close to it in their prime, even now they are held in high regrd. so Agassi cannot be put in tier 2 and that sadly puts him closer to Murray than Big 3. He is far better than Murray and Gang, but he is still not fit to be in tier 2. He is an equal of Becker, that's it.

 

[Milanez82]

Agassi isnt even Pete tier

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

@The Blond Blur

 

[big ted]

Agassi was not like, say, Nicholas Kyrgios, a non-commited player. Despite his love-hate relationship with the sport, Andre took his tennis career seriously.

he kinda was when he sunk to 141 from not practicing & doing meth ..(‘96-‘97). he also had a habit of taking his foot off the pedal after a good year (‘89, ‘91. ‘93, ).. he was on the tour for 7 years before his 1st GS and couldn’t win anymore until he hired gilbert two years later..
how in the world could agassi be in the same tier as the big 3? what an odd question

 

[BauerAlmeida]

The Big 3 are in their own tier.

Agassi is in the tier of Lendl, McEnroe and Connors.

This is of course subjective and not scientifically proven but is basically accepted that Sampras and Borg are above that lot and below the Big 3. While Becker, Edberg and Wilander are below them.

And yeah, Agassi could have done much more, he skipped the AO for a long time (and Wimbledon too although for fewer years and he likely wouldn't have won anyway) and underachieved highly until he was 28/29 having fewer slams than Courier at the time. But well, if, if, if...

Anyway, he could have been in the Sampras and Borg tier if he had been fully committed from the start, but not Big 3.

 

[nolefam_2024]

No and LOL

 

[RaulRamirez]

The Big 3 are in their own tier.

Agassi is in the tier of Lendl, McEnroe and Connors.

This is of course subjective and not scientifically proven but is basically accepted that Sampras and Borg are above that lot and below the Big 3. While Becker, Edberg and Wilander are below them.

And yeah, Agassi could have done much more, he skipped the AO for a long time (and Wimbledon too although for fewer years and he likely wouldn't have won anyway) and underachieved highly until he was 28/29 having fewer slams than Courier at the time. But well, if, if, if...

Anyway, he could have been in the Sampras and Borg tier if he had been fully committed from the start, but not Big 3.

I agree with (essentially) everything.
If we just look at players who started in the Open Era, one could make a case that each of the Big 3, plus Sampras and Borg are a cut above everyoen else. But each of the Big 3 has been great for so long - and achieved so much - that they may deserve their own tier and Sampras and Borg with their own.
I tend to rank Agassi just below Lendl, Mac and Connors, but grouping him on that same tier seems okay.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Agassi believes Djokovic is a better player than he was

Link http://www.novakdjokovic.rs/news.php?akcija=vise&id=1189&jezik=2 The American legend believes Novak is a better player than he was, citing the Serb’s versatility and athleticism as key strengths. “Does Djokovic resemble myself?” Agassi said. “No, he is even better. He defends really...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

2011 Agassi conceded. Djokovic had 2 slams.

 

[Holmes]

Talent isn't something stats can completely measure, and Agassi's relationship to the sport was far more complicated and difficult than love-hate implies. He got into crystal meth, fell off the map, had to play challengers to qualify for tournaments, and then ended up having the biggest single jump in rankings in a year in history. That is an excellent indication of his talent, as is his being the only, "Career Super Slam" winner in history.

So talent wise? Yes. Andre is absolutely on par with the big 4, who in my ranking are the generational bests, not the statistical bests, since being the best of your era is the best stat to possess. In other words, Andre is absolutely on par with the big 4 (Novak, Pete, Björn and Rodney) as well as the other 2 members of the top of this era, Fedal.

 

[bnjkn]

Not on the same tier, but he was talented AF no question.

 

[Kralingen]

Pete is still on the same tier as the Big 3. No doubt about it whatsoever. Dishonest to believe anything else.

 

[Phoenix*]

The big 3 are not on the same tier either. Djo is above the other 2.

 

[Milanez82]

Pete is still on the same tier as the Big 3. No doubt about it whatsoever. Dishonest to believe anything else.

Big 3 are an ATG career ahead of him. He never won 3 slams in a season either nor faced a player similar to Big 3 unlike each of the Big 3.

 

[fedfan24]

I think below big 3, Pete & Borg. If he had played more AO and took his career more seriously at times then he could’ve won 11-12 slams but not much more imo.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Big 3 are an ATG career ahead of him. He never won 3 slams in a season either nor faced a player similar to Big 3 unlike each of the Big 3.

That's very very true. He faced Sampras but not all the time. Won just 3 slams till 1998. Whatever mental issues he had, that's on him. But we shouldn't elevate him to big 3 level because he had some mental issues.

 

[Holmes]

Big 3 are an ATG career ahead of him. He never won 3 slams in a season either nor faced a player similar to Big 3 unlike each of the Big 3.

He was the best of his era, which had varied surfaces and modern level of play without modern medicine, as well as earlier retiring age, making it much harder to win 3 slams a year or pile on the majors than prior or future eras. So yes, he is in the same tier, and arguably ahead of Fedal who were third and second fiddle respectively to Nole.

 

[Razer]

He was the best of his era, which had varied surfaces and modern level of play without modern medicine, as well as earlier retiring age, making it much harder to win 3 slams a year or pile on the majors than prior or future eras. So yes, he is in the same tier, and arguably ahead of Fedal who were third and second fiddle respectively to Nole.

Federer did emerge 3rd in numbers in his era but we should not forget that he crossed Sampras's record first and at that time Djokodal were not even 50% of him in numbers. So Federer by the virtue of having held the record for slams for so long cannot be said to have played second fiddle or third fiddle. We need to respect Federer for dominating the 2000s, nobody knows if Djokovic would still be the slams leader if he nd Nadal were born in 1981 along with Federer.

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

Talent wise he was certainly on their level no doubt. Anyone who says otherwise is clueless and didn’t see Agassi in his prime or giving peak Fed trouble in his mid 30s with a bad back. Athletically obviously no he wasn’t but he didn’t need to be Nadal athletic to be an all time great. He worked around his athletic limitations by taking the ball early

I don’t compare achievements because the big 3 played in a shallow era with no surface diversity and had laser beam rackets and strings, medical advancements etc. too much has changed in the game. Give them Andre’s equipment and surfaces and let see if they duplicate what they did in their era? LOL. I bet the mortgage they don’t even come close

 

[messiahrobins]

I've read some users asserting "Agassi was equally talented as the Big 3" or "just a hair below their talent" (the irony).

I find that claim nonfactual. Agassi was not like, say, Nicholas Kyrgios, a non-commited player. Despite his love-hate relationship with the sport, Andre took his tennis career seriously. Thus, if he really was equally talented as the Big 3, we would expect him to be on the same tier of ATGs as the Big 3.

What are your personal ATGs tiers? Is Agassi on the same tier as the Big 3?

IMO these are the Open Era tiers:

Tier 1: 20+ Slams. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.
Tier 2. 10-19 Slams. Laver, Borg, Sampras.
Tier 3. 6-9 Slams. Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Wilander, Lendl, Agassi, Rosewall.
Tier 4: 3-5 Slams. Courier, Murray, Kuerten, etc.


Alternatively, all-time tier:
Tier 1. GOAT candidares at some point. Tilden, Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.
Tier 2. Excellent players with no GOAT claim. Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Lend, Wilander, Agassi.

Agassi has a golden super slam. That alone puts him at tier 1 level

 

[Holmes]

Federer did emerge 3rd in numbers in his era but we should not forget that he crossed Sampras's record first and at that time Djokodal were not even 50% of him in numbers. So Federer by the virtue of having held the record for slams for so long cannot be said to have played second fiddle or third fiddle. We need to respect Federer for dominating the 2000s, nobody knows if Djokovic would still be the slams leader if he nd Nadal were born in 1981 along with Federer.

Surely you don't think he played 4th fiddle (catch as it sounds)? I know some have suggested his career would be merely Murray-esque had he been a peer of Djokodal, but I have always felt this is a very harsh position to take.

 

[Razer]

Surely you don't think he played 4th fiddle (catch as it sounds)? I know some have suggested his career would be merely Murray-esque had he been a peer of Djokodal, but I have always felt this is a very harsh position to take.

Mentally 3rd fiddle ...maybe ...infact worse since you can find more guys tougher than him....the stans, Hewitts are all tougher mentally.

But overall as a player ...3rd fiddle ? ....murrayesque?....Federer was exceptionally gifted player...He was ruling tennis in 2000s for a lot of years when it was only him....calling him Murrayesque is equivalent to comparing Pete with a servebot like Raonic or Kyrgios

 

[Mainad]

Although Agassi is way behind in Slams (but who isn't) he is the only player to complete the CGS other than the Big 3 so that puts him more in their ballpark for me.

 

[Milanez82]

He was the best of his era, which had varied surfaces and modern level of play without modern medicine, as well as earlier retiring age, making it much harder to win 3 slams a year or pile on the majors than prior or future eras. So yes, he is in the same tier, and arguably ahead of Fedal who were third and second fiddle respectively to Nole.

And yet older Agassi retired 4 years after Pete, being competitive at slams.

 

[Mainad]

Surely you don't think he played 4th fiddle (catch as it sounds)? I know some have suggested his career would be merely Murray-esque had he been a peer of Djokodal, but I have always felt this is a very harsh position to take.

Don't you just love the phrase "merely Murray-esque". Every current player other than the Big 3 would give their eye-teeth to have enjoyed "merely Murray-esque" careers!!!

 

[Phenomenal]

Of course no for me. If numbers mean anything or has some weight.
My open era tiers based on mostly achievements and with some little subjectiveness(completeness,domination,rivalries etc.) Have no idea before OE where players like Laver can be Tier 1.

Tier 1: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Borg
Tier 1.5: Sampras. Clearly better than the below but he is worse imo than tier 1. So he has his tier.
Tier 2: Connors, Lendl, Mcenroe, Agassi. Here i ranked.
Tier 3: Wilander, Edberg, Becker

 

[Phenomenal]

IMO Borg is the only player who is at the level of Big 3 in the OE. For Sampras he is better in some surfaces but overall when thinking everything he is below for me.
For tier 2 one can make a case Connors and Lendl to be even higher tier than Mcenroe and Agassi?? But i put like this. Same tier but also clearly better than the other 2.

Lendl outside of slams imo has tier 1 career and competitive everywhere. Similiar can be said for Connors who i think would have had 2+ more slam.

 

[mike danny]

IMO Borg is the only player who is at the level of Big 3 in the OE. For Sampras he is better in some surfaces but overall when thinking everything he is below for me.
For tier 2 one can make a case Connors and Lendl to be even higher tier than Mcenroe and Agassi?? But i put like this. Same tier but also clearly better than the other 2.

Lendl outside of slams imo has tier 1 career and competitive everywhere. Similiar can be said for Connors who i think would have had 2+ more slam.

I have Mac above Connors and Agassi.

 

[Razer]

IMO Borg is the only player who is at the level of Big 3 in the OE. For Sampras he is better in some surfaces but overall when thinking everything he is below for me.
For tier 2 one can make a case Connors and Lendl to be even higher tier than Mcenroe and Agassi?? But i put like this. Same tier but also clearly better than the other 2.

Lendl outside of slams imo has tier 1 career and competitive everywhere. Similiar can be said for Connors who i think would have had 2+ more slam.

Sampras is better than Borg everywhere outside Clay..... You name the slam, the surface, Borg is far behind Sampras outside clay.

So if Sampras is Tier 1.5 then Borg must be Tier 2

 

[Phenomenal]

Djokovic is not 24/14 = 1.71 times better than Sampras, otherwise Djokovic would not be on lesser Slams than Sampras was on their 30th birthdays, whatever someone wins after 30th birthday depends on Great Age Shift + Strong/Weak next gens, so we can disregard that.

Thats good point. I feel similiar. It is injustice to past greats. Firstly conditions are not the same. Especially when you compare players from now to past greats it's not the same after some age they are not competitive. Wouldn't say 30 but after 32-33 most players doesn't win slams anymore.

Both Sampras and Djokovic has 14 in 31-32. But Djokovic has more slam finals, more masters, more titles i believe. Also played against players who are tier 1, better. More complete too all in all thats why i would consider him better here. But difference shouldn't be so much like 24 to 14 or 22 to 14. But still tier above here.

Sampras is better than Borg everywhere outside Clay..... You name the slam, the surface, Borg is far behind Sampras outside clay.

So if Sampras is Tier 1.5 then Borg must be Tier 2

That's just my opinion, feeling. You can have yours of course. Some can put Sampras above. I'm fine with they are being at same tier.

 

[Phenomenal]

I have Mac above Connors and Agassi.

Why? If you count doubles sure! He is above agassi imo too. If you by going level than okay aswell. Connors has more slam and overall better singles career. Gap could have been even bigger achievement wise.

 

[mike danny]

Why? If you count doubles sure! He is above agassi imo too. If you by going level than okay aswell. Connors has more slam and overall better singles career. Gap could have been even bigger achievement wise.

I felt Mac was more dominant overall especially at his best. 1984 was exceptional.

 

[Holmes]

And yet older Agassi retired 4 years after Pete, being competitive at slams.

Exceptions are the rule, as the well known verity goes.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Although Agassi is way behind in Slams (but who isn't) he is the only player to complete the CGS other than the Big 3 so that puts him more in their ballpark for me.

No
1 CGS can't even come close to 7/8 Wimbledons. He never dominated tennis and he couldn't

 

[Holmes]

Don't you just love the phrase "merely Murray-esque". Every current player other than the Big 3 would give their eye-teeth to have enjoyed "merely Murray-esque" careers!!!

I confess I do rather like the way it sounds.

 

[Mainad]

I confess I do rather like the way it sounds.

I do like it myself but let's drop the 'merely' bit.

 

[Holmes]

Of course no for me. If numbers mean anything or has some weight.
My open era tiers based on mostly achievements and with some little subjectiveness(completeness,domination,rivalries etc.) Have no idea before OE where players like Laver can be Tier 1.

Tier 1: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Borg
Tier 1.5: Sampras. Clearly better than the below but he is worse imo than tier 1. So he has his tier.
Tier 2: Connors, Lendl, Mcenroe, Agassi. Here i ranked.
Tier 3: Wilander, Edberg, Becker

Put Pete in Tier 1. You know you want to.

 

[Phenomenal]

I felt Mac was more dominant overall especially at his best. 1984 was exceptional.

Sure one of the best ever year but that alone doesn't make it for me. Why he wasn't dominant in 1982-83 or 1985 from winning 3 slam to 0. Apart from other things Connors also has way more longevity.

Their USO match was 5 set. Connors in 1984 was 32 years old like Federer in 2013. I know that you don't consider Nadal's win against Federer at AO 2014 as a good win. What do you think?
Don't think anything changes at Wimbledon but I don't think Mcenroe's competition was great(someone can correct me). Lendl was better from 85 and has good amount of wins against Mcenroe before 1984.

 

[Phenomenal]

Sampras is better than Borg everywhere outside Clay..... You name the slam, the surface, Borg is far behind Sampras outside clay.

So if Sampras is Tier 1.5 then Borg must be Tier 2

Put Pete in Tier 1. You know you want to.

I think Borg is also not close by pure achievements he is not tier 1 too. They are probably tier 2 together.

In terms of level i feel Borg belongs tier 1 due to some of his crazy records, dominance, completeness win% etc.
For Sampras apart from clay, i feel his AO titles are low also his total titles and his masters titles. Outside of slams only in WTF he is dominant. We can't know this sure but i think Borg would be more competitive against Big3 everywhere.

Connors and Lendl is also more complete and better resume than Sampras outside of slams. But of course that doesn't make them better.

 

[Phenomenal]

I think Borg is also not close by pure achievements he is not tier 1 too. They are probably tier 2 together.

In terms of level i feel Borg belongs tier 1 due to some of his crazy records, dominance, completeness win% etc.
For Sampras apart from clay, i feel his AO titles are low also his total titles and his masters titles. Outside of slams only in WTF he is dominant. We can't know this sure but i think Borg would be more competitive against Big3 everywhere.

Connors and Lendl is also more complete and better resume than Sampras outside of slams imo. But of course that doesn't make them better than Sampras.

I must say i thought when i first watched i wouldn't like Sampras at all. But i saw that he is not only servebot. Has great athleticism, movement, and a forehand. So i liked him more than Agassi probably.
Agassi has insane striking abilities that even the big 3 doesn't have but movement and serve worse than most greats.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Sampras is better than Borg everywhere outside Clay..... You name the slam, the surface, Borg is far behind Sampras outside clay.

So if Sampras is Tier 1.5 then Borg must be Tier 2

Borg is not FAR behind Pete on grass and neither on carpet. Even on hard, given the circumstances he is not FAR behind (behind yes, but not far). On clay on the other hand he is light years ahead. I do agree though it stretches it putting Borg in a higher tier than Pete. They are definitely in the same tier.

 

[Razer]

Borg is not FAR behind Pete on grass and neither on carpet. Even on hard, given the circumstances he is not FAR behind (behind yes, but not far). On clay on the other hand he is light years ahead. I do agree though it stretches it putting Borg in a higher tier than Pete. They are definitely in the same tier.

Pete hs 7 Slams on HC and BORG has 0

So yeah, he is not just behind, he isn't even comparable.

 

[Razer]

I think Borg is also not close by pure achievements he is not tier 1 too. They are probably tier 2 together.

In terms of level i feel Borg belongs tier 1 due to some of his crazy records, dominance, completeness win% etc.
For Sampras apart from clay, i feel his AO titles are low also his total titles and his masters titles. Outside of slams only in WTF he is dominant. We can't know this sure but i think Borg would be more competitive against Big3 everywhere.

Connors and Lendl is also more complete and better resume than Sampras outside of slams. But of course that doesn't make them better.

Borg is 5'11, he is shorter than Pete 6'1, Federer 6'1, Nadal 6'1 and Djokovic 6'2
Those 2 inches less would hurt Borg if he competed today.

Nobody more overrated than Borg, the guy would be a Murray like character today if he competed with Big 3.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Pete hs 7 Slams on HC and BORG has 0

So yeah, he is not just behind, he isn't even comparable.

Good job ignoring grass and carpet, but also overread the "given the circumstances". How the heck is Borg supposed to win 7 HC slams if he ever only played 4??

 

[Razer]

Good job ignoring grass and carpet, but also overread the "given the circumstances". How the heck is Borg supposed to win 7 HC slams if he ever only played 4??

Man why do you defend these super old uncles like Borg ? I dont get it. You go to extreme lengths to defend Borg. He could not win anything in a few attempts on HC and yet you wanna compare him with Sampras who is as good as Federer and Djokovic on HCs. Why this urge to defend Borg? You havent seen Borg play live, right? Were you even alive when he won his last slam ? Federer surely wasn't even alive when Borg won his last slam, see Borg is that ancient and primitive. That fellow doesn't stand a chance against Sampras or anyone. Why to defend him?

 

[Holmes]

Good job ignoring grass and carpet, but also overread the "given the circumstances". How the heck is Borg supposed to win 7 HC slams if he ever only played 4??

How about he wins 1?
And Pete had Thalassemia, does that excuse his lack of a RG?