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

[Holmes]

This thread is itself equating 2 different claims: 1 is about talent level, 1 is about tier level. Agassi's level of talent is very comparable to the big 3. He revolutionized baseline tennis by taking the ball earlier and simultaneously hitting it harder than any player in history, including to this day. The idea that Agassi would have had a big 3 level career due to an equal talent level is also flawed. Agassi played in an era where conditions were fast and he was up against the greatest fast court player of all time as an exact peer, and a number of other fast and medium court ATGs who blocked him from winning majors on favorable surfaces right from the start. None of the big 3 had these problems. Federer had a few cushy years to pile on slams before Nadal matured off clay, and Nadal had a few cushy years to pile on RGs before Novak matured. They were not holding each other back, initially. They simply did not come into their own at the same time. On top of this, conditions were favorably homogenized to medium-slow and slow speeds, and the big 3 were able to take advantage of recovery methods Agassi would not have been able to comprehend in his prime. These factors simply cannot be hand waved away.

Agassi is clearly an ATG tier beneath the big 3 and Pete, but play-wise, the key difference between Agassi and the big 3, aside from competition and conditions, is that he lacked their degree of athleticism due to sciatica, which is not his fault at all. No fair person would say that means he lacks their talent.

 

[NatF]

Agassi is still the best ballstriker tennis has ever seen IMO. He also wasted a chunk of his prime doing meth and skipped his best slam until he was nearly 25. They're not the same tier of ATG, I have AA below quite a few in terms of his accomplishments but in certain areas his talent was on their level or even better. For sure on HC at his best he could give anyone a run for their money though.

 

[nolefam_2024]

@Sport this is what I think

There are two criteria for comparison

Dominance - Andre is clearly much behind big 3. Djokovic at 17000, Federer nearly 16000 and Nadal 15000 pts won in 12 months period.
Andre maximum is under 12000. Murray is ahead and he isn't even big 3.


Longevity - now this is where Andre could have a case if he didn't do drugs and had big 3 like dedication. He didn't. Missed some chances to play the best at their best. And ended up with worse scores than he should.

Both dominance and longevity - Andre is behind.

 

[SonnyT]

Agassi proved that he nearly was about Federer's level: just losing QF in 5 sets in 2004, while 11 years his senior!

Both Djokovic and Nadal should edge out Andre, on all surfaces!

 

[Racquet_smash]

Agassi is on a comparable level to the Big 3 only if you put him against Nadal specifically on hards. There i'd say they are on the same tier outdoors with Andre being better indoors.

In any other comparison he falls completely short. So the answer is no.

 

[GoatNo1]

@Sport this is what I think

There are two criteria for comparison

Dominance - Andre is clearly much behind big 3. Djokovic at 17000, Federer nearly 16000 and Nadal 15000 pts won in 12 months period.
Andre maximum is under 12000. Murray is ahead and he isn't even big 3.


Longevity - now this is where Andre could have a case if he didn't do drugs and had big 3 like dedication. He didn't. Missed some chances to play the best at their best. And ended up with worse scores than he should.

Both dominance and longevity - Andre is behind.

nole had 16950 (in today's system would be 17110) after W 2016.

fed, at the end of 2006, in 2016 system would have 15495

rafa had 15390 at 20.04.09. BUT it was when they changed ranking system. so they just doubled points from 2008 in to 2009 season. so all points from 27.04.09. to the end of the season was double points from 2008. and in the new system only tournaments winners got double points. finalist got 60% of the winners points while in 2008 finalist got 70% of the winner and so on for SF, QF ect. so that rafa, for example 900 points from USO08 SF isted of 720., 450 for madrid08 SF istead od 360, 250 for paris08 QF istead of 180... ect. he got even 800 points for OG title that did not give any points from 2016 and on.

 

[nolefam_2024]

nole had 16950 (in today's system would be 17110) after W 2016.

fed, at the end of 2006, in 2016 system would have 15495

rafa had 15390 at 20.04.09. BUT it was when they changed ranking system. so they just doubled points from 2008 in to 2009 season. so all points from 27.04.09. to the end of the season was double points from 2008. and in the new system only tournaments winners got double points. finalist got 60% of the winners points while in 2008 finalist got 70% of the winner and so on for SF, QF ect. so that rafa, for example 900 points from USO08 SF isted of 720., 450 for madrid08 SF istead od 360, 250 for paris08 QF istead of 180... ect. he got even 800 points for OG title that did not give any points from 2016 and on.

Can you please convert all and Andre 1995 USO end into 1 criteria.


I am sure Andre is not even close to big 3 or Murray or Sampras

 

[big ted]

Only if the big 3 ever took meth

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

No but Agassi’s career slam and year end and Olympics gold is worth more than theirs and more impressive given the conditions of the time IMO

 

[GuyForget]

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

he meant for talent not achievement. Nadal+Djokovic are grinders, Agassi was a shotmaker

 

[Incognito]

Agassi had the best fh + bh combo on tennis. Talent wise he is on that tier one level.

 

[nolefam_2024]

he meant for talent not achievement. Nadal+Djokovic are grinders, Agassi was a shotmaker

Talent is very abstract term. Shotmakers like Agassi will crap their shorts facing rafole as their defenses extract heavy heavy toll.

 

[Holmes]

Talent is very abstract term. Shotmakers like Agassi will crap their shorts facing rafole as their defenses extract heavy heavy toll.

Agassi is a bad example, he would have the stamina to go toe to toe with them over long matches. His problem would be speed.

 

[Holmes]

Agassi is on a comparable level to the Big 3 only if you put him against Nadal specifically on hards. There i'd say they are on the same tier outdoors with Andre being better indoors.

In any other comparison he falls completely short. So the answer is no.

He can take all the big 3 on hard. Win his fair share, and make them work for the rest.

 

[big ted]

he meant for talent not achievement. Nadal+Djokovic are grinders, Agassi was a shotmaker

ok way they’re more talented too
Agassi could hit a clean ball
they can do that on the move

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

Yea Agassi doesn’t take a backseat to anyone on hards at his best. His peak hardcourt version is just as good as anyone who has ever played the game. I guess outside of Pete’s peak HC form. But it’s not far off.

His ‘95 AO form is up there with Djokers 11 AO form as the best HC form ever

 

[nolefam_2024]

Literally lived in shadows of Pete Sampras and guy above says he doesn't take backseat

5-0 is enough proof.

 

[mavsman149]

Agassi hit a beautiful clean ball and was immensely talented.

Does it bug anyone else after reading his book and how the whole time he claims he “hates tennis” yet here he is 20 years later commentating still playing, still being a racquet-holic, etc?

Even watching his emotions when he won during his career it was clear he loved it and it meant the world to him to win.

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

Literally lived in shadows of Pete Sampras and guy above says he doesn't take backseat

5-0 is enough proof.

Pete could only beat him on fast hards. Couldn’t beat him on slow hards

 

[nolefam_2024]

Agassi hit a beautiful clean ball and was immensely talented.

Does it bug anyone else after reading his book and how the whole time he claims he “hates tennis” yet here he is 20 years later commentating still playing, still being a racquet-holic, etc?

Even watching his emotions when he won during his career it was clear he loved it and it meant the world to him to win.

He explained it clearly. He hated that his father pushed him to tennis. Probably loved it more than most players but hated his father.

 

[mavsman149]

He explained it clearly. He hated that his father pushed him to tennis. Probably loved it more than most players but hated his father.

I just read the book, that’s not what he says in there, can you tell me where he clarified this?

 

[Holmes]

Literally lived in shadows of Pete Sampras and guy above says he doesn't take backseat

5-0 is enough proof.

Pete Sampras is the fast court GOAT, and Agassi played on fast courts when he was in his shadow.

 

[Incognito]

Yea Agassi doesn’t take a backseat to anyone on hards at his best. His peak hardcourt version is just as good as anyone who has ever played the game. I guess outside of Pete’s peak HC form. But it’s not far off.

His ‘95 AO form is up there with Djokers 11 AO form as the best HC form ever

Would really love to see Peak Agassi against anyone playing in Australia early afternoon. I don’t care who it is, my money is on Agassi. That heat just gives him extra energy while his opponents melt.

 

[GoatNo1]

Can you please convert all and Andre 1995 USO end into 1 criteria.


I am sure Andre is not even close to big 3 or Murray or Sampras

it is little job to do. you most look which are qualifying as 250 and which as 500 and so.

2000+250 or 500 (vienna)+180+1000+600+2000+250 or 500 (san jose)+90 or 180 (philadelphia)+600+1000+300 or 150 (toky-1)+150 or 300 (atlanta)+180+360+720+250 or 500 (washington)+1000+1000+250 or 500 (new heaven)

then he has 7 (other) tournaments and if i remember correctly players could have 6 (best results from other non mandatory tournaments (minimum 4 atp500 and 2 250). i did not look but i bolded what i think was right strength of the tournament.

so probable little more than 13K if i calculate all right. muzza had 12685as highest. sampras was in another system.

 

[Racquet_smash]

He can take all the big 3 on hard. Win his fair share, and make them work for the rest.

He is not better than them, that's the point.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I just read the book, that’s not what he says in there, can you tell me where he clarified this?

In his long interview with Roddick here.

From 30:00 onwards.

 

[nolefam_2024]

it is little job to do. you most look which are qualifying as 250 and which as 500 and so.

2000+250 or 500 (vienna)+180+1000+600+2000+250 or 500 (san jose)+90 or 180 (philadelphia)+600+1000+300 or 150 (toky-1)+150 or 300 (atlanta)+180+360+720+250 or 500 (washington)+1000+1000+250 or 500 (new heaven)

then he has 7 (other) tournaments and if i remember correctly players could have 6 (best results from other non mandatory tournaments (minimum 4 atp500 and 2 250). i did not look but i bolded what i think was right strength of the tournament.

so probable little more than 13K if i calculate all right. muzza had 12685as highest. sampras was in another system.

If Agassi reached 13k then I think he is near peak big 3. If under 12 then no.

Sinner for example was over 13k in 2024 but he got iw points stripped and fell to 11800

 

[mavsman149]

In his long interview with Roddick here.

From 30:00 onwards.

Oh nice! I’ll check that out this weekend? Is this a new interview? Thanks!

Go Novak

 

[nolefam_2024]

Oh nice! I’ll check that out this weekend? Is this a new interview? Thanks!

Go Novak

Yes just this week

 

[PedrosCousin]

Agassi hit a beautiful clean ball and was immensely talented.

Does it bug anyone else after reading his book and how the whole time he claims he “hates tennis” yet here he is 20 years later commentating still playing, still being a racquet-holic, etc?

He says in the book and in interviews since that he gained an appreciation for the sport around 99 (I think it was) when he had to make a decision to quit completely or continue because he wanted to, not because it's his job/what he's best at, etc. (to paraphrase)

Even watching his emotions when he won during his career it was clear he loved it and it meant the world to him to win.

He obviously enjoyed the winning part. Anyone would have temporary happiness being cheered and getting huge checks even for doing something you hated. When you read about the parts in between the wins where he was miserable a lot of the time you see how temporary that joy is when you hate your job.

 

[GoatNo1]

If Agassi reached 13k then I think he is near peak big 3. If under 12 then no.

Sinner for example was over 13k in 2024 but he got iw points stripped and fell to 11800

it is not possible. IW is max 1000p and he lost in the SF. think it is 400p now, used to be 360. he had 11920 as max. and new system is easier for accumulate points than when nole made the record! the finalist now get 65% of points and it used to be 60% under noles era (1300 vs 1200 points for slams and 650 vs 600 for masters and 800 vs 720 and 400 vs 360 for SFs and so on)!

EDIT
but he lost the points without to loose no1 weeks. he lost the points retroactively and did not lose no1 for the week he would lose if points was taken directly after the tournament. so he was not punished at all actually...

 

[zvelf]

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

Sampras and Borg shouldn't be on the same tier as the Big 3. Sampras never made a Roland Garros final. While he had more clay court specialists in his day, none of them were Nadal who single-handedly prevented any other RG winner 14 times in the Big 3 era. Borg's hole in his resume is never winning the U.S. Open. Also, McEnroe should not be on the same level as Connors and Lendl. McEnroe was every bit as talented as them, if not more so, but he shouldn't get extra credit for that any more than Kyrgios should because he's not sufficiently motivated. Connors was crazy good at his peak and would very likely have won the Grand Slam in 1974 had he not been banned from the French Open. He would probably have around 15 slam titles if he had been able to play RG at the peak of his powers and if he wanted to play the AO. He only ever played the AO twice and won it once and was runner-up the other time.

Also, I was alive during the Borg, Connors, McEnroe era and watched them play.

 

[bigbadboaz]

Does it bug anyone else after reading his book and how the whole time he claims he “hates tennis” yet here he is 20 years later commentating still playing, still being a racquet-holic, etc?

It really gets to me how people can read the whole book (supposedly) yet not take away the very basic development arc.

He hated what his father did to him - the pressure, the loss of childhood, the constant presence of this game he himself never wanted to be involved in. Very simple result for the early stages of his life: he hated tennis.

Once he made up his mind at his nadir to come back and maximize the opportunities his ability gave him - most importantly, the chance to raise huge money and awareness for underprivileged children's education - he was able to appreciate that though, as he often says, he didn't get to choose his sport or talent, that sport gave him both a tremendous life and visibility which could be used meaningfully.

The book, with respect to tennis, is about learning to appreciate what it gives him even after the loss of his childhood, and carry that mature appreciation through his adulthood. Surely we can all understand how he would have felt about it as a borderline abused child, and that experience would never lead to a pure love of the game, the love that a natural, passionate fan would have. But the turning point is clear and he is grateful for the life he ends up with and the visibility/power for good it gives him. If you or I were able to ask him how he feels about the game today, I doubt very much that he would say the "hate" still applies.

 

[GoatNo1]

In his long interview with Roddick here.

From 30:00 onwards.

so, he thinks that nole was both the best defensive and the best offensive player ever! depended on what he wanted to do and even in the same time when he wanted!

 

[Razer]

Sampras and Borg shouldn't be on the same tier as the Big 3. Sampras never made a Roland Garros final. While he had more clay court specialists in his day, none of them were Nadal who single-handedly prevented any other RG winner 14 times in the Big 3 era. Borg's hole in his resume is never winning the U.S. Open. Also, McEnroe should not be on the same level as Connors and Lendl. McEnroe was every bit as talented as them, if not more so, but he shouldn't get extra credit for that any more than Kyrgios should because he's not sufficiently motivated. Connors was crazy good at his peak and would very likely have won the Grand Slam in 1974 had he not been banned from the French Open. He would probably have around 15 slam titles if he had been able to play RG at the peak of his powers and if he wanted to play the AO. He only ever played the AO twice and won it once and was runner-up the other time.

Also, I was alive during the Borg, Connors, McEnroe era and watched them play.

Big 3 would also be having similar tallies as Sampras/Borg if they were in those eras, so why can't we place Sampras in the tier of Big 3 ? When we compare across eras then we adjust the parameters and extrapolate to compare, that is how comparisons are always done taking into account inflation.

Slams won by the 30th birthday

Federer - 16
Nadal - 14
Sampras - 13
Djokovic - 12
Borg - 11

You cannot compare 1 Million $ in 2025 to 1 Million $ in 1975 without adjusting for the era. The 11-14 kinda figures if extrapolated in the modern era with greater longevity and other benefits they all come to 20+

10 Disadvantages that Sampras faced compared to Big 3

01. He was from USA, travelling was a big issue, if he was from Spain/Switzerland then he would have no problems travelling to tournaments and playing even after marriage.
02. Thalassemia - affected his stamina, big 3 never had this problem
03. No weak era mugs in next generation - Sampras never had this because in his 30s his next gens were Hewitt/Federer/Safin/Roddick who were all better than 90s gen.
04. Slowing down of courts and the rise of poly strings which made it harder to adapt in 30s, today Big 3 don't have any such problems, their strengths in their 20s remained in their 30s too over the field.
05. Sampras did not have homogenization in his time, there was supreme diversity which also affected his chances to win the french. In his time the clay courters would easily claim that they could kick his ass but today no clay courter can kick anybody's ass, neither can grass courters, today it is an era when everybody is a hard courter and everyone is same on all surfaces.
06. In his era players were more injury prone than they are now, so careers were much shorter. Today you have the GREAT AGE SHIFT.
07. Today there are players travelling in private jets with their army of physios,, trainers, this was not there back then. These things actually are benefits for the top players, so this too played a big role in the prolonged careers in the 30s.
08. 16 seed system which made it harder in the era of Sampras because it could produced surprised defeats, in today's era the big 3 were unaffected till the QF because they know they can pad up their numbers and play into form by the QF unlike those days.
09. Presence of Social Media in the 2000s and 2010s makes the Big 3 to be bigger stars and thus bringing in more money for them, so more ways to get better when you get more money, no ? Your enhanced Stardom is a gift of social media, even an introvert like Nadal signs big money deal with Saudi Arabia.
10. Last but not the least, Tennis was not about only Slams. There were more surfaces and more tournaments in the era of Sampras. They even skipped Aus open in some years and their focus was on davis cup, tour finals and plenty of things which don't have a lot of relevance today.


So Big 3 having a Slams Race (chase would be the better word because they were actually chasing Federer rather than racing against each other) in the end and going 20+ should not be the licence to put them in a higher tier than Sampras or even Borg.

Since you said you have watched Borg-Connors, that means you are probably 20 years older than me, so you should be well aware of these 10 points I listed, you should not hype the big 3....

 

[GoatNo1]

Big 3 would also be having similar tallies as Sampras/Borg if they were in those eras, so why can't we place Sampras in the tier of Big 3 ? When we compare across eras then we adjust the parameters and extrapolate to compare, that is how comparisons are always done taking into account inflation.

Slams won by the 30th birthday

Federer - 16
Nadal - 14
Sampras - 13
Djokovic - 12
Borg - 11

You cannot compare 1 Million $ in 2025 to 1 Million $ in 1975 without adjusting for the era. The 11-14 kinda figures if extrapolated in the modern era with greater longevity and other benefits they all come to 20+

10 Disadvantages that Sampras faced compared to Big 3

01. He was from USA, travelling was a big issue, if he was from Spain/Switzerland then he would have no problems travelling to tournaments and playing even after marriage.
02. Thalassemia - affected his stamina, big 3 never had this problem
03. No weak era mugs in next generation - Sampras never had this because in his 30s his next gens were Hewitt/Federer/Safin/Roddick who were all better than 90s gen.
04. Slowing down of courts and the rise of poly strings which made it harder to adapt in 30s, today Big 3 don't have any such problems, their strengths in their 20s remained in their 30s too over the field.
05. Sampras did not have homogenization in his time, there was supreme diversity which also affected his chances to win the french. In his time the clay courters would easily claim that they could kick his ass but today no clay courter can kick anybody's ass, neither can grass courters, today it is an era when everybody is a hard courter and everyone is same on all surfaces.
06. In his era players were more injury prone than they are now, so careers were much shorter. Today you have the GREAT AGE SHIFT.
07. Today there are players travelling in private jets with their army of physios,, trainers, this was not there back then. These things actually are benefits for the top players, so this too played a big role in the prolonged careers in the 30s.
08. 16 seed system which made it harder in the era of Sampras because it could produced surprised defeats, in today's era the big 3 were unaffected till the QF because they know they can pad up their numbers and play into form by the QF unlike those days.
09. Presence of Social Media in the 2000s and 2010s makes the Big 3 to be bigger stars and thus bringing in more money for them, so more ways to get better when you get more money, no ? Your enhanced Stardom is a gift of social media, even an introvert like Nadal signs big money deal with Saudi Arabia.
10. Last but not the least, Tennis was not about only Slams. There were more surfaces and more tournaments in the era of Sampras. They even skipped Aus open in some years and their focus was on davis cup, tour finals and plenty of things which don't have a lot of relevance today.


So Big 3 having a Slams Race (chase would be the better word because they were actually chasing Federer rather than racing against each other) in the end and going 20+ should not be the licence to put them in a higher tier than Sampras or even Borg.

Since you said you have watched Borg-Connors, that means you are probably 20 years older than me, so you should be well aware of these 10 points I listed, you should not hype the big 3....

that is what you think... this is was ennis no1 players think:

no1 player - his GOAT

rafa - nole
sampras - nole
borg - nole
connors - nole
lendl - nole (he said actually that popularity doesn't matter and that GOAT will be who ever wins slam race and that he hopes that noles vaccine status do not decide it, and nole won the slam race)
raz - nole
sinner - nole (after yesterdays match)
agassi - nole
rodick - nole
med - nole
hewitt - nole
courier - nole
safin - nole
ferrero - nole
kafelnikov - nole
rafter - nole

the other no1s has not explicite said in the last few years than one or the other player is the GOAT!

 

[Razer]

that is what you think... this is was ennis no1 players think:

no1 player - his GOAT

rafa - nole
sampras - nole
borg - nole
connors - nole
lendl - nole (he said actually that popularity doesn't matter and that GOAT will be who ever wins slam race and that he hopes that noles vaccine status do not decide it, and nole won the slam race)
raz - nole
sinner - nole (after yesterdays match)
agassi - nole
rodick - nole
med - nole
hewitt - nole
courier - nole
safin - nole
ferrero - nole
kafelnikov - nole
rafter - nole

the other no1s has not explicite said in the last few years than one or the other player is the GOAT!

I might have to block you if you keep this up because you seem unable to understand anything being discussed, instead of addressing the 10 points I wrote about Sampras you seem to be trolling here. I do not care who calls Novak goat or not, address the points properly please or avoid replying to me. Thanks.

 

[GuyForget]

that is what you think... this is was ennis no1 players think:

no1 player - his GOAT

rafa - nole
sampras - nole
borg - nole
connors - nole
lendl - nole (he said actually that popularity doesn't matter and that GOAT will be who ever wins slam race and that he hopes that noles vaccine status do not decide it, and nole won the slam race)
raz - nole
sinner - nole (after yesterdays match)
agassi - nole
rodick - nole
med - nole
hewitt - nole
courier - nole
safin - nole
ferrero - nole
kafelnikov - nole
rafter - nole

the other no1s has not explicite said in the last few years than one or the other player is the GOAT!

???

 

[GoatNo1]

???

all of them was no1 and has called nole the GOAT in last few years. and i could not fined any other no1 player that pick any other player since nole has all main records.

 

[Martin J]

Don't know about tiers, but Andre was more fun to watch than 2/3 of Big 3

 

[zvelf]

Big 3 would also be having similar tallies as Sampras/Borg if they were in those eras, so why can't we place Sampras in the tier of Big 3 ? When we compare across eras then we adjust the parameters and extrapolate to compare, that is how comparisons are always done taking into account inflation.

Slams won by the 30th birthday

Federer - 16
Nadal - 14
Sampras - 13
Djokovic - 12
Borg - 11

You cannot compare 1 Million $ in 2025 to 1 Million $ in 1975 without adjusting for the era. The 11-14 kinda figures if extrapolated in the modern era with greater longevity and other benefits they all come to 20+

10 Disadvantages that Sampras faced compared to Big 3

01. He was from USA, travelling was a big issue, if he was from Spain/Switzerland then he would have no problems travelling to tournaments and playing even after marriage.
02. Thalassemia - affected his stamina, big 3 never had this problem
03. No weak era mugs in next generation - Sampras never had this because in his 30s his next gens were Hewitt/Federer/Safin/Roddick who were all better than 90s gen.
04. Slowing down of courts and the rise of poly strings which made it harder to adapt in 30s, today Big 3 don't have any such problems, their strengths in their 20s remained in their 30s too over the field.
05. Sampras did not have homogenization in his time, there was supreme diversity which also affected his chances to win the french. In his time the clay courters would easily claim that they could kick his ass but today no clay courter can kick anybody's ass, neither can grass courters, today it is an era when everybody is a hard courter and everyone is same on all surfaces.
06. In his era players were more injury prone than they are now, so careers were much shorter. Today you have the GREAT AGE SHIFT.
07. Today there are players travelling in private jets with their army of physios,, trainers, this was not there back then. These things actually are benefits for the top players, so this too played a big role in the prolonged careers in the 30s.
08. 16 seed system which made it harder in the era of Sampras because it could produced surprised defeats, in today's era the big 3 were unaffected till the QF because they know they can pad up their numbers and play into form by the QF unlike those days.
09. Presence of Social Media in the 2000s and 2010s makes the Big 3 to be bigger stars and thus bringing in more money for them, so more ways to get better when you get more money, no ? Your enhanced Stardom is a gift of social media, even an introvert like Nadal signs big money deal with Saudi Arabia.
10. Last but not the least, Tennis was not about only Slams. There were more surfaces and more tournaments in the era of Sampras. They even skipped Aus open in some years and their focus was on davis cup, tour finals and plenty of things which don't have a lot of relevance today.

So Big 3 having a Slams Race (chase would be the better word because they were actually chasing Federer rather than racing against each other) in the end and going 20+ should not be the licence to put them in a higher tier than Sampras or even Borg.

Since you said you have watched Borg-Connors, that means you are probably 20 years older than me, so you should be well aware of these 10 points I listed, you should not hype the big 3....

I am aware of these points and they are mostly nonsense.

1. Americans have never suffered from playing well due to having to travel. This is one of the lamest excuses I have ever seen.
2. Having a health issue is part of who you are and you should not get extra credit for having it. You can take this type of excuse and apply it to anyone. Anyone can claim that if Murray or Del Potro never had near-career-ending injuries, they could have been Big 3-tier level but that would be unprovable. If Borg didn't retire early, if Agassi didn't take meth, if Seles never got stabbed, if Zverev wasn't diabetic... no one gets extra credit. Pete doesn't for "if only he didn't have thalassemia."
3. Sampras had the weakest generation in the Open Era from 1997-1999. Nobody from that time period is as good as Sinner or Alcaraz today aside from Pete on grass and Kuerten on clay.
4. This was not some difficult adaptation. Listen to Agassi talk about this. He loved the new strings and took to them almost immediately. The period of adjustment was a few months.
5. I already addressed this. Sampras had to contend with clay court specialists, but he never had to contend with Nadal, who is completely on another level on clay. Djokovic and Federer did so so so many times. Sampras was never going to win Roland Garros with Nadal around.
6.-7. are valid but Sampras' game clearly declined soon after turning 29. Some players are just built differently and he was never going to have the longevity of an Agassi. Even with greater longevity, Sampras was never going to win 43% more slams than he did and that would just be to match Federer.
8. This only has minor impact. For GOAT-level players, having to go against #17-#32 earlier is not going to make that much difference because they are just that much better. This could have affected Sampras at RG but Sampras simply was not a GOAT-level player on clay.
9. Social media can make today's players more money but it also puts a far greater mental burden on them with trolls and enormous criticism of their every move. I don't at all think the former outweighs the latter.
10. Tennis is not only about the slams today either, and you'd have a point if you were talking about Borg, Connors, McEnroe, or even Agassi, but Sampras did not skip many slams at all.

 

[Razer]

I am aware of these points and they are mostly nonsense.

1. Americans have never suffered from playing well due to having to travel. This is one of the lamest excuses I have ever seen.
2. Having a health issue is part of who you are and you should not get extra credit for having it. You can take this type of excuse and apply it to anyone. Anyone can claim that if Murray or Del Potro never had near-career-ending injuries, they could have been Big 3-tier level but that would be unprovable. If Borg didn't retire early, if Agassi didn't take meth, if Seles never got stabbed, if Zverev wasn't diabetic... no one gets extra credit. Pete doesn't for "if only he didn't have thalassemia."
3. Sampras had the weakest generation in the Open Era from 1997-1999. Nobody from that time period is as good as Sinner or Alcaraz today aside from Pete on grass and Kuerten on clay.
4. This was not some difficult adaptation. Listen to Agassi talk about this. He loved the new strings and took to them almost immediately. The period of adjustment was a few months.
5. I already addressed this. Sampras had to contend with clay court specialists, but he never had to contend with Nadal, who is completely on another level on clay. Djokovic and Federer did so so so many times. Sampras was never going to win Roland Garros with Nadal around.
6.-7. are valid but Sampras' game clearly declined soon after turning 29. Some players are just built differently and he was never going to have the longevity of an Agassi. Even with greater longevity, Sampras was never going to win 43% more slams than he did and that would just be to match Federer.
8. This only has minor impact. For GOAT-level players, having to go against #17-#32 earlier is not going to make that much difference because they are just that much better. This could have affected Sampras at RG but Sampras simply was not a GOAT-level player on clay.
9. Social media can make today's players more money but it also puts a far greater mental burden on them with trolls and enormous criticism of their every move. I don't at all think the former outweighs the latter.
10. Tennis is not only about the slams today either, and you'd have a point if you were talking about Borg, Connors, McEnroe, or even Agassi, but Sampras did not skip many slams at all.

You clearly are biased when you reject Point 1.

It is a well known fact that Non Europeans have to travel lot more than Europeans because most tournaments are in Europe, this becomes a big problem in the 30s.

17-32 can definitely affect you if you are playing in an era of specialists.

Social media is a burden for players born after mid 1990s maybe, the ones born in 1970s and 1980s are the old guard, they grew up almost entirely in the era without the social media, they dont have any problems with SM. The ones having problems are Kyrgios/Zverev/Stefanos etc ... the wealth of the big 3 being more in the era of the internet is not a point worth ignoring

Anyway, we can agree to disagree, bye.

 

[No_Kwan_Do]

This should be a fairly simple answer. No.

Agassi's about 2 tiers below. Given the strength of opposition he faced in order to win most of his slam finals, I'm even tempted to put him 3 tiers below but we'll leave it 2 given he's won the golden career slam.

 

[hoodjem]

Tier 1. GOAT candidates at some point. Tilden, Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.

Add Gonzales to this list and you’ve got an excellent top-10 list.

 

[zagor]

Agassi hit a beautiful clean ball and was immensely talented.

Does it bug anyone else after reading his book and how the whole time he claims he “hates tennis” yet here he is 20 years later commentating still playing, still being a racquet-holic, etc?

Even watching his emotions when he won during his career it was clear he loved it and it meant the world to him to win.

I'd say it's both. I think his relationship with tennis was complex and he both loved it and hated it in near equal measure.