And the Greatest Male Player of the 20th Century Is...?

[chaognosis]

I've been exploring different forums for a while now, trying to observe which criteria different tennis fans use to determine "greatness." If you could find the time to participate in this poll, I'd really appreciate it (not that it requires an awful lot of time). If you have reasons to support your selection, or a different choice from any of the ten I've provided, please post your comments below. Thanks!

Notes:

1) I'm restricting this poll to the 20th Century to avoid having to deal with Federer; it's too complicated, for obvious reasons, to evaluate a career that isn't anywhere near completed.

2) The ten choices I'm presenting are the players I've found mentioned most often in polls and rankings elsewhere. Others that are named with some frequency: Ellsworth Vines, Fred Perry, Jack Kramer, Lew Hoad, Roy Emerson, Boris Becker, and Andre Agassi. Again, if you have a different choice, please list it below.

 

[chaognosis]

Bring up my post...

 

[joe sch]

I think the best male players are the ones who can dominate for more than a decade. Very few players meet that requirement, like Bill Tilden, Pancho Gonzales and Pete Sampras ...

 

[jhhachamp]

I voted for Sampras but would rather have voted for Gonzalez, though I do not know much about many of the older pros careers.

 

[timmyboy]

Sampras, because he is my hero.

 

[chaognosis]

Something to think about...

(The following was also posted, in slightly altered form, on the Tennis Magazine discussion forum.)

As far as my own views go, I've recently been forced to reevaluate Bjorn Borg's career. Since Rod Laver, Borg, and Pete Sampras seem to be the most frequent nominees for the honor of "GOAT," it might be worthwhile to look at their major achievements side by side:

A) The case for Laver rests primarily on his two Grand Slams, a feat no other player, male or female, has ever achieved. His second Slam still stands as the only one by a male player in the Open Era.

B) Borg's case rests on his five consecutive Wimbledon titles and his six French Open titles--including, of course, three straight years winning both Wimbledon and the French (1978-80). Borg boycotted the Australian Open and, while failing to ever win the US Open, reached the final there four years, where he lost twice to Connors and twice to McEnroe.

C) The case for Sampras is perhaps the most straightfoward: fourteen major championship titles (an all-time male record) and six consecutive years as the top-ranked player in the world (an Open Era male record).

The question I'm most interested in, then, is which of these three sets of accomplishments seems most difficult to duplicate. I used to think Laver's, but now I am more inclined to say Borg's. Winning both the world's premier slow-court tournament and the premier fast-court tournament that many times is almost inconceivable. As great as Sampras's records are, I would not be surprised to see them challenged during my lifetime. A Grand Slam seems more unlikely, I think, and certainly two Grand Slams is an awesome mark. Yet for someone to duplicate, let alone surpass, what Borg achieved (at the age of 25!), seems next to impossible.

And of course you can add to that Borg's superior record of dominance during his years as the top-ranked player in the world (see my earlier thread), making, I think, the Swede's resume more impressive than any other player's.

 

[cadfael_tex]

Voted for Sampras. All those grand slam titles and years at #1. The demon you know I guess. Laver would have to be a close second. Two Grand Slams is still one of those 'unatainable' records.

 

[urban]

It's speculation and a matter of personal choice, but also fun, to rank players from different eras. But i would follow Tony Trabert, who in a recent interview in Tennis Week online, said, that the greatest record in male tennis is the two Grand Slams of Rod Laver. If you will win a Grand Slam, you have to win the RG-Wimbledon-double first. Borg did the double, and he went after the Grand Slam (not after Emersons majors record), but he couldn't make it at the 3rd hurdle, the USO (The AO was played as the last in those years). Laver had also consistency, dominance, versatility and longevity. He won more than 150 tournaments, 'Total Tennis', 2003, gives him a record of 184 overall titles. He has the record of most tournaments win in one year, in amateur era (21 (19) in 1962), in Kramer pro era (18 in 1967) and in open era (18 (17) in 1969). He was not a winner on first sight, but he rose to all challenges, and dominated like no other in all inviroments, he played in. He could play and win on all surfaces. He is the only guy in history to win all traditional national championships (Australia, French, Wimbledon, US, Italian, German). He did this twice and in one year. Besides Lew Hoad is is the only one, who won the European clay court triple of Paris, Rome and Hamburg. besides he won the DC 5 times, the last one in 1973 as the oldest winner of the final round, after a 11 years hiatus. No other player over 30 years of age has won so many open tournaments in open era, 45. Way more than other older players like Connors and Agassi. Between 30 and 40 years of age, he has aquired in ca. 500 matches a win/ loss percentage of 79% (ATP) resp. 80 pulus (ITF webside), which is better than the percentages of Sampras and Federer in their 20s. And he is the oldest player to rank top 5 on the computer at year end (Nr.4 in 1974 with 36 years).

 

[AndrewD]

I'll say what he's saying LOL.

All I'll add is that I don't see how anyone can be called the greatest player of all time when they didn't win all four of the majors. The number 1 ranking is a wonderful achievement but it doesn't take precedence over the majors. Certainly, the large swag of majors elevates him above someone like Agassi, there's no question of that. However, at his absolute best, Sampras never won more than two majors in a year (3 of 4 finals in 95).

For anyone who suggests that Laver had the advantage by playing 3 of 4 on grass Id say, that's ridiculous. If you've ever played on grass you'll know how incredibly unpredictable it is and how, with a couple of bad bounces at key moments you've had it. Hard courts reward the better player because they offer a truer bounce. If anyone has the advantage it's the players of the last 20 years.

urban,
I think you need to write in to Tennis magazine LOL

 

[AJK1]

Borg by a mile, the others couldn't do what he did.

 

[random1]

I'll say what he's saying LOL.

All I'll add is that I don't see how anyone can be called the greatest player of all time when they didn't win all four of the majors. The number 1 ranking is a wonderful achievement but it doesn't take precedence over the majors.

The problem is, for the better part of the '70s and '80s, people didn't take the "big 4" as seriously, just look at the fields for the AO during that stretch, and even the FO at times in the '70s.
The total # of slams criterium as the primary, and sometimes only, basis for greatest is unfair.

My issue with Pete is that he really wasn't a very good clay court player, and never had a season of near complete dominance like McEnroe '84, or Fed '05, or the Borg was dominant for a couple of years that he was at the top.

On this list, I go with Borg, though for "peak Greatness" I would go with McEnroe. 82-3 may never be touched, but Fed came about as close as you can.

 

[AAAA]

On this list, I go with Borg, though for "peak Greatness" I would go with McEnroe. 82-3 may never be touched, but Fed came about as close as you can.

To me it's often more than just numbers, it's about what you win, how you win it, the context , etc, etc. For "peak greatness" during one season my starting point is the Grand slam. I'd rate a Grand slam as higher 'Peak Greatness' than Mac's 82-3 regardless of the year-end win-lose figures.

 

[random1]

To me it's often more than just numbers, it's about what you win, how you win it, the context , etc, etc. For "peak greatness" during one season my starting point is the Grand slam. I'd rate a Grand slam as higher 'Peak Greatness' than Mac's 82-3 regardless of the year-end win-lose figures.

Fair point. I never saw Laver, etc. play, so it's hard for me to judge depth of the field, level of competition, etc., but regardless, it's a feat that's yet to be repeated. Thus the lack of true consensus for best ever, it's all good stuff for discussion though.

 

[AAAA]

Fair point. I never saw Laver, etc. play, so it's hard for me to judge depth of the field, level of competition, etc., but regardless, it's a feat that's yet to be repeated. Thus the lack of true consensus for best ever, it's all good stuff for discussion though.

I never saw Laver play either and yes, 82-3 is pretty amazing.

 

[joe sch]

To me it's often more than just numbers, it's about what you win, how you win it, the context , etc, etc. For "peak greatness" during one season my starting point is the Grand slam. I'd rate a Grand slam as higher 'Peak Greatness' than Mac's 82-3 regardless of the year-end win-lose figures.

I think greatest ever means long term dominance, not "peak greatness", which is why I originally stated a requriement for dominance more than 1 decade. Mac and Lendl were both 2 of the best ever but they both dominated for 1/2 of a century each in the 80s. Laver dominated for more than 1 decade and so did Sampras. Some of the earlier greats like Tilden, Budge, Vines, Riggs, Gonzales, Segura and Rosewall dominated for much more than 1 decade.

 

[AAAA]

I think greatest ever means long term dominance, not "peak greatness", which is why I originally stated a requriement for dominance more than 1 decade. Mac and Lendl were both 2 of the best ever but they both dominated for 1/2 of a century each in the 80s. Laver dominated for more than 1 decade and so did Sampras. Some of the earlier greats like Tilden, Budge, Vines, Riggs, Gonzales, Segura and Rosewall dominated for much more than 1 decade.

Random1 made a comment about the level of performance during one season, for which he used the phrase 'peak greatness' to mean performance level in one season. My post to Random1 and my use of the phrase 'peak performance' in said post was related strictly and only to Random1's comments about what qualifies as the greatest dominating season ever, 'peak greatness' if you will. So your inference that I define greatest, what ever that is, as 'peak greatness' is invalid.

 

[AngeloDS]

Bill Tilden easily. He was so dominant, his game was well rounded.

 

[stormholloway]

Borg was able to win the French then just weeks later win Wimbledon. That's the most difficult feat in tennis if done consecutively, which he did. Sampras and Laver are tied for second behind Borg, who had 11 slams at 25. Unheard of. Plus.. just look at the man's clothes. He had the most style by far.

 

[AAAA]

Borg was able to win the French then just weeks later win Wimbledon. That's the most difficult feat in tennis if done consecutively, which he did. Sampras and Laver are tied for second behind Borg, who had 11 slams at 25. Unheard of. Plus.. just look at the man's clothes. He had the most style by far.

yeah that cliches the debate for Borg hands down. Borg played 27 majors before retiring, winning 11 majors and gaining 5 additional final appearances. No one else in the open era has achieved anything close to that in their first 27 majors. By way of comparison Sampras after his first 27 major appearances clocked up 7 majors and 2 additional final appearances. The belief that no one else, during their period of domination, dominated so completely as Sampras just isn't supported by the above comparison. A very relevant comparison considering majors are the oldest yardstick and thus very important though not decisive by itself..

But no way does the above mean Borg is the GOAT. There are other greats like Laver and Gonzales where comparisons are even more difficu(l)t because of the very different eras they played in.

 

[Kaptain Karl]

Laver.

You, who like speculating, should also consider the (not very far-fetched) possibility that Laver could have won a third Slam. Politics kept him out of the game during his peak years.

- KK

 

[big ted]

isnt it obvious i thought sampras is the undiputed greatest of all time he broke all the important records - no of gs titles and no of year end no 1's. the second would be rod laver but 3 of the 4 gs titles were played on grass so although his feat was hard to accomplish it was easier then, then now. laver won the french which sampras didnt but so did alot of ppl and that doesnt make them better then sampras does it ? i dont even like sampras that much and i think hes the greatest of all time. even laver himself and mcenroe say hes the greatest of all time

 

[chaognosis]

isnt it obvious i thought sampras is the undiputed greatest of all time he broke all the important records - no of gs titles and no of year end no 1's. the second would be rod laver but 3 of the 4 gs titles were played on grass so although his feat was hard to accomplish it was easier then, then now. laver won the french which sampras didnt but so did alot of ppl and that doesnt make them better then sampras does it ? i dont even like sampras that much and i think hes the greatest of all time. even laver himself and mcenroe say hes the greatest of all time

"You are a complete tennis player only if you can handle all surfaces." -- Bjorn Borg

 

[legolas]

pete, hands down

 

[Kevin Patrick]

I was amazed by Borg, but I can't put him above Sampras(and I don't think Sampras is the GOAT, either)

When Borg played, Wimbledon & the US Open were the 2 biggest events in the world.
The French was not as highly regarded as it is today. Many top pros skipped it(even Borg skipped it in '77 to prepare for Wimbledon)

What he did was remarkable(winning on 2 extreme surfaces back to back) but I have no doubt he would trade a few of his Frenches for one US Open.
If he won the US Open, I'd put him above Sampras.

 

[random1]

I was amazed by Borg, but I can't put him above Sampras(and I don't think Sampras is the GOAT, either)

Who is GOAT in your opinion?

 

[Kevin Patrick]

I'm not sure there is a GOAT(sorry for the copout)
It's harder to compare tennis players than any other athletes due to the whole pro/amateur thing. As well as technology(graphite changed the game so much, it's not fair to compare wood-era players to graphite)

But I do think there are levels of greatness. Say, the Lendl/Mac/Connors tier just below Borg. And Sampras just above Borg. And Laver just above Sampras.
But I really don't have strong feelings one way or the other. If you're an alltime great, you're an all-time great. No real point in singling out one guy.
Laver does seem to be the safest choice, though.

 

[random1]

I'm not sure there is a GOAT(sorry for the copout)
It's harder to compare tennis players than any other athletes due to the whole pro/amateur thing. As well as technology(graphite changed the game so much, it's not fair to compare wood-era players to graphite)

But I do think there are levels of greatness. Say, the Lendl/Mac/Connors tier just below Borg. And Sampras just above Borg. And Laver just above Sampras.
But I really don't have strong feelings one way or the other. If you're an alltime great, you're an all-time great. No real point in singling out one guy.
Laver does seem to be the safest choice, though.

Good answer, for a copout. :^)
I only asked because you clearly have a ton of tennis knowledge.

Now if Fed would just wind a calendar slam plus TMC, and finish with 15 or more total slams, plus have a season at 81-2, then we could end the GOAT discussion once and for all!

 

[JediMindTrick]

I have voted for Sampras. Although Laver, Gonzales and Borg have very strong arguments on their side, I cannot get over the fact that the level of tennis played by Laver and Gonzales was so much lower than the level of tennis played by Sampras that any comparison is ridiculous. Those guys were playing in slow motion. If they were to play against each other at the peak of their career I don't think Sampras would lose even a game. Borg was certainly playing a lot better than Laver or Gonzales but Sampras would still destroy him easily.

I realize that each player has to be evaluated in the context of his era, but I simply cannot get over the fact that the great old timers would look like clowns playing with Sampras.

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

Such an unjust thread. I didn't vote ( despite IMO Sampras is the greatest still with 14 slams).

Ok, there is not Federer because he won mostly in 21-st century, not in 20-th.

But where is Agassi with his 8 slams and endless masters ? If there is Lendl with 8 then where is Agassi ? At least he has right if not to win but to be listed in the poll ? I consider Andre is 100 times greater than Lendl with his boring tennis.

 

[chaognosis]

Such an unjust thread. I didn't vote ( despite IMO Sampras is the greatest still with 14 slams).

Ok, there is not Federer because he won mostly in 21-st century, not in 20-th.

But where is Agassi with his 8 slams and endless masters ? If there is Lendl with 8 then where is Agassi ? At least he has right if not to win but to be listed in the poll ? I consider Andre is 100 times greater than Lendl with his boring tennis.

I appreciate your concerns, but I really don't think it's "unjust" at all. I was limited to ten options in this poll, so I went with the ten players who are most frequently named in these sorts of rankings (at least in my experience--which is fairly extensive). Agassi may have as many major titles as Lendl, but Lendl was far more dominant in the mid-1980s than Agassi has ever been. Lendl finished four years as the top-ranked player in the world; Agassi did it only once. Lendl finished back-to-back seasons (1986-87) with two major titles and a winning percentage over 0.900; Agassi won two majors in a season only once (1999) and has never managed a winning percentage over 0.900. And of, course, Lendl has one of the most impressive feats in tennis history to his name: eight consecutive appearances in the US Open final.

Agassi is undoubtedly a much more popular player than Lendl ever was; Lendl, however, was more dominant, and he has a much stronger case for "greatness." If he didn't choke so much in big matches earlier in his career, he would likely be remembered as one of the top five players of all time. As it is, and despite his failure to win Wimbledon, I think Lendl is a safe bet for the top ten. Agassi, despite all his merits, just misses the cut.

Here's some additional reading for you:

Is Andre Agassi 'Great'?

 

[urban]

I agree here with chaognosis. Along with Vines, Hoad, and maybe Cochet, Agassi is in my view the most difficult to rank player. He did that great, great feat of winning all majors, which separates him from all modern players. But he was Nr.1 only for a short time, and gave up his computer position without a fight in 1995, and had several years of not showing up. I think, now that he is training and playing up to his capacity, he regrets these lost years. The other ten players on the list have distinguished themselves, by virtue of their Grand Slam or major triumphs (Tilden, Budge, Laver, Borg, Sampras), due to their reign as pro champs (Gonzales and Rosewall in particular) and as longtime computer champions (Connors, Borg, Mac). You could Kramer put into that class, too. All have in common, that they were Nr. 1 for a minimum 3 years. This is, what Agassi lacks. The case for Cochet is difficult, because he was great and versatile as an amateur, but did nothing great as a pro. In reverse, Vines had a short career as amateur, but had enormous talent and excelled as a pro over a more famous player like Perry. And the career of the most talented Hoad was shortened by injury, and maybe he lacked the absolute will to win on all cost.

 

[chaognosis]

I agree here with chaognosis. Along with Vines, Hoad, and maybe Cochet, Agassi is in my view the most difficult to rank player. He did that great, great feat of winning all majors, which separates him from all modern players. But he was Nr.1 only for a short time, and gave up his computer position without a fight in 1995, and had several years of not showing up. I think, now that he is training and playing up to his capacity, he regrets these lost years. The other ten players on the list have distinguished themselves, by virtue of their Grand Slam or major triumphs (Tilden, Budge, Laver, Borg, Sampras), due to their reign as pro champs (Gonzales and Rosewall in particular) and as longtime computer champions (Connors, Borg, Mac). You could Kramer put into that class, too. All have in common, that they were Nr. 1 for a minimum 3 years. This is, what Agassi lacks. The case for Cochet is difficult, because he was great and versatile as an amateur, but did nothing great as a pro. In reverse, Vines had a short career as amateur, but had enormous talent and excelled as a pro over a more famous player like Perry. And the career of the most talented Hoad was shortened by injury, and maybe he lacked the absolute will to win on all cost.

As someone who seems well informed about the early professional tours, I'd be curious what your full thoughts are on Jack Kramer. Through at least the early 1970s, he had the edge over Pancho Gonzalez in most experts' eyes (I often see Tilden, Budge, Kramer, and Laver listed as the "consensus" picks as the greatest players of all time well into the '70s). Yet now history has been revised a bit, with Gonzalez routinely getting the nod over Kramer in most rankings and polls--even though in most of the interviews I've seen, the players of that generation still favor Kramer.

 

[Kaptain Karl]

I cannot get over the fact that the level of tennis played by Laver and Gonzales was so much lower than the level of tennis played by Sampras that any comparison is ridiculous.

No. This statement is "ridiculous". You obviously don't know what you're posting about.

... I simply cannot get over the fact that the great old timers would look like clowns playing with Sampras.

"The fact???" You have an inappropriately grand view of your opinion. Geez!!!

(I don't have a problem with people choosing someone other than who I picked. I DO have a problem with stupid thinking. Your "argument" demonstrates true stupidity.)

- KK

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

I appreciate your concerns, but I really don't think it's "unjust" at all. I was limited to ten options in this poll, so I went with the ten players who are most frequently named in these sorts of rankings (at least in my experience--which is fairly extensive). Agassi may have as many major titles as Lendl, but Lendl was far more dominant in the mid-1980s than Agassi has ever been. Lendl finished four years as the top-ranked player in the world; Agassi did it only once. Lendl finished back-to-back seasons (1986-87) with two major titles and a winning percentage over 0.900; Agassi won two majors in a season only once (1999) and has never managed a winning percentage over 0.900. And of, course, Lendl has one of the most impressive feats in tennis history to his name: eight consecutive appearances in the US Open final.

Agassi is undoubtedly a much more popular player than Lendl ever was; Lendl, however, was more dominant, and he has a much stronger case for "greatness." If he didn't choke so much in big matches earlier in his career, he would likely be remembered as one of the top five players of all time. As it is, and despite his failure to win Wimbledon, I think Lendl is a safe bet for the top ten. Agassi, despite all his merits, just misses the cut.

Here's some additional reading for you:

Is Andre Agassi 'Great'?

If u want my opinion, it is here. The number of tournaments u won is not main factor, the main thing is the number of high ranked tournaments. One can win 100 tournaments in his yard among neighbhourds, another player only 1 Masters - who is better?

Agassi won either 17 or 18 Masters series tournaments, more than anybody among listed in yr poll.

I'm not big fan of Agassi game. But he is among 3-4 players in the history who won all 4 Grand slam tournaments. For comparison - once Lendl said he is ready to give all matches during a year just to win Wimbledon. Don't miss this MAIN fact when u list players !!! Only 3-4 players in the history won all 4 !!!

3-ird my opinion that u'd never compare players of open era and before. IT IS NOT SERIOUS. U know to compare aristocrats coming in white suits and playing for the public even if they won 100 slams is NOT serious to compare with modern athletes. My very strict belief is that before open era players were tennis players, now they are sportsmen.

Finally both Agassi and Lendl are not great near net, but I'd give prefference to Andre in base-line game.

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

Then I necessarily have to add that the article in the link u gave didn't urge me and it is not serious.

First Agassi didn't win AO when it was not so prestigious. He won it from 1995, then it shows that the author is far from tennis, because Australia is far from USA/Europe, and because of changes winter-summer some sportsmen may feel them not enough comfortable so some may miss it, but it is not matter to count GS tournament "not so prestigious". It was always dream for every player "to make a slam" so they had to win 4 slams and they understood this always.

The article avoids that Andre did win W but Lendl couldn't, that Andre did win FO but Mcenroe couldn't even dream about ( and Connors didn't also). Borg also didn't win USO and AO ever. The article also avoids that Agassi's opponent was the greatest player ever - Sampras and for long years till 2002 USO. But who was for such a long time main opponent of Connors, Lendl , Laver and etc...?

That article is not objective at all and stupidiest I ever met and u'd also take into account that it was written immediately after USO when Agassi lost to the genius of all times and the greatest player ever Mr. Federer in the final, so u'd understand the author's feelings.

 

[chaognosis]

If u want my opinion, it is here. The number of tournaments u won is not main factor, the main thing is the number of high ranked tournaments. One can win 100 tournaments in his yard among neighbhourds, another player only 1 Masters - who is better?

Agassi won either 17 or 18 Masters series tournaments, more than anybody among listed in yr poll.

You're overlooking a very obvious reason for this: Tennis Masters Series did not begin until 1990. The only "great" players you can realistically compare by TMS results, then, are Agassi and Sampras. Agassi may have more TMS titles than Sampras (17 vs. 11), but by your own logic Sampras's superior record in the majors--clearly the most prestigious tournaments--trumps that.

I'm not big fan of Agassi game. But he is among 3-4 players in the history who won all 4 Grand slam tournaments. For comparison - once Lendl said he is ready to give all matches during a year just to win Wimbledon. Don't miss this MAIN fact when u list players !!! Only 3-4 players in the history won all 4 !!!

Agreed that the so-called "Career Slam" is, to Agassi's credit, a tremendous achievement. And Lendl's failure to win Wimbledon is a huge dent in his resume; the same applies for Gonzalez and Rosewall. But I sincerely hope that as rational beings, we can look at the whole package of each player's career and weigh the different elements fairly. Lendl may not have won Wimbledon, but he reached the finals several times, which at the very least shows that he could win on grass. For that reason I don't consider Lendl's record at Wimbledon to be as damning as, say, Sampras's record at Roland Garros.

3-ird my opinion that u'd never compare players of open era and before. IT IS NOT SERIOUS. U know to compare aristocrats coming in white suits and playing for the public even if they won 100 slams is NOT serious to compare with modern athletes. My very strict belief is that before open era players were tennis players, now they are sportsmen.

This is a positively absurd characterization of pre-Open Era tennis. Though the level of athleticism in tennis has of course gone up over the years, many past greats were phenomenal athletes, and their achievements have stood the test of time.

Finally both Agassi and Lendl are not great near net, but I'd give prefference to Andre in base-line game.

I probably agree, but we aren't talking about which player would win in a head-to-head matchup; we're talking about which player can lay the stronger claim to greatness, and I think Lendl's accomplishments have the edge over Agassi's.

 

[chaognosis]

Then I necessarily have to add that the article in the link u gave didn't urge me and it is not serious.

First Agassi didn't win AO when it was not so prestigious. He won it from 1995, then it shows that the author is far from tennis, because Australia is far from USA/Europe, and because of changes winter-summer some sportsmen may feel them not enough comfortable so some may miss it, but it is not matter to count GS tournament "not so prestigious". It was always dream for every player "to make a slam" so they had to win 4 slams and they understood this always.

The article avoids that Andre did win W but Lendl couldn't, that Andre did win FO but Mcenroe couldn't even dream about ( and Connors didn't also). Borg also didn't win USO and AO ever. The article also avoids that Agassi's opponent was the greatest player ever - Sampras and for long years till 2002 USO. But who was for such a long time main opponent of Connors, Lendl , Laver and etc...?

That article is not objective at all and stupidiest I ever met and u'd also take into account that it was written immediately after USO when Agassi lost to the genius of all times and the greatest player ever Mr. Federer in the final, so u'd understand the author's feelings.

The "article" was not intended to be particularly serious, just to offer you a little food for thought.

For a self-styled "fanatic of tennis," you should try to get a better sense of the sport's history. McEnroe "couldn't even dream" about a French Open title? Please open your textbook to the chapter on 1984: McEnroe's loss to Lendl in the French final that year is still considered by many the biggest choke of all time. Connors was banned from participating in the French Open during his best year (1974), though he was a great clay-court player--in fact, he won the US Open when it was held on clay. Borg boycotted the Australian Open. Though he never won the US Open, he reached the final four times, and was beaten each time by one of the greatest American players ever: Connors (twice) and McEnroe (twice).

Main opponents of Connors? Hm... how about Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl. Laver had Emerson, Rosewall, and Hoad, to name but a few. Lendl had McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, and Wilander. You can argue that Agassi's numbers are "deflated" by the fact that he played in an era dominated by Sampras, but one can easily turn that argument the other way around: perhaps Sampras's numbers are inflated by the fact that he didn't face a truly serious and sustained rivalry (e.g., Connors-Borg-McEnroe).

(I also thought I'd point out that you refer to two different players, Sampras and Federer, as the "greatest player ever.")

 

[fastdunn]

There are 2 guys above other greats in my mind: Sampras and Borg.

Then there are 2 players who played around/before the time the
"Open Era" began : Gonzales and Laver. Many people who watched
them play thru out their career swear that they are the greatest.

One of the least luckiest in modern era is probably Agassi.
He had to compete against Sampras and then Federer.
He still somehow manage to achieve a career gland slam.
And he had all those ups and downs, distracted by "image is
everything" stuff. What if he had won more than 10 slams
with a career slam ??

I understand why Agassi still plays at 35. He had(has) a
pretty good chance to be among real cream of the crop
tennis greats in history.

 

[urban]

Some remarks on Kramer. He was a very influential force in tennis since the 50s up to the 80s, as a player, promoter and later for the ITF (he conceived the Grand Prix concept) and the ATP. Therefore he had the power of interpretation on tennis history and his own position. He always ranked players the highest, like Budge, Riggs and Gonzales, whom he beat himself. He was certainly a innovator, because he invented the 'Big game', the serve and volley game, he was very athletic and had also a big forehand. Some observers, who saw him at Wimbledon after the war, rank him very high, he lost to Drobny in 1946 (with blisters in his hand), and won in 1947 losing the least games in history. But it is to be said, that the field shortly after the war was deflated, because tennis outside the US was still hurt by the war years. As a pro he dethroned Riggs, and creamed Gonzales 96-27 in 1950. After 1950 however he played very little outside his series against new pros Segura in 1951 and Sedgman in 1953. In tournament play he wasn't as dominant as later Gonzales, Rosewall or Laver. He won the US pro once in 1947 and the Wembley pro once, here he was quite often beaten by Segura or Gonzales. His ambivalent status as player-promoter made him not very amicable to his foes, especially with Gonzales he had quite a feud. Overlooking the overall figures, he was dominant in those indoors head-to-head series, but not in the day-in, day-out tournament play. And he was a essentially a fast courter and - unlike his friend Tony Trabert - never did a big thing on slower clay courts.

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

You're overlooking a very obvious reason for this: Tennis Masters Series did not begin until 1990. The only "great" players you can realistically compare by TMS results, then, are Agassi and Sampras. Agassi may have more TMS titles than Sampras (17 vs. 11), but by your own logic Sampras's superior record in the majors--clearly the most prestigious tournaments--trumps that..

It is not right.

IW started from 1987,
Miami from 1985,
Monte Carlo started even from 1974 and Borg won it 3 times,
Roma from 1974
Hamburg from 1974
...
...

Agreed that the so-called "Career Slam" is, to Agassi's credit, a tremendous achievement. And Lendl's failure to win Wimbledon is a huge dent in his resume; the same applies for Gonzalez and Rosewall. But I sincerely hope that as rational beings, we can look at the whole package of each player's career and weigh the different elements fairly. Lendl may not have won Wimbledon, but he reached the finals several times, which at the very least shows that he could win on grass. For that reason I don't consider Lendl's record at Wimbledon to be as damning as, say, Sampras's record at Roland Garros.

U wil definetly change yr opinion if u watch the final between Cash and Lendl. It was ashaming game for Lendl.

This is a positively absurd characterization of pre-Open Era tennis. Though the level of athleticism in tennis has of course gone up over the years, many past greats were phenomenal athletes, and their achievements have stood the test of time...

U know, following yr logic even boys playing in yr yard are athletes. Why not, really ? I 'm just comparing today's atheletes and " athletes" of pre-open era.

 

[chaognosis]

Those events preexisted the Tennis Masters Series, but winners of the events before 1990 are not given credit for winning a "TMS" title. Remember Lendl won Montreal six times, Nasdaq-100 twice, etc., but he's not given credit for any of those wins on the list of TMS champions. (If you count all the titles going back to each event's inception, I think Lendl would have something like 13 or 14--i.e., more than #2 on the list of TMS winners [Sampras]).

Bottom line is it's ridiculous to think Agassi's 17 TMS titles are a significant statistic for comparing him with past players, almost all of whom played at a time when TMS didn't even exist!

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

The "article" was not intended to be particularly serious, just to offer you a little food for thought.

For a self-styled "fanatic of tennis," you should try to get a better sense of the sport's history. McEnroe "couldn't even dream" about a French Open title? Please open your textbook to the chapter on 1984: McEnroe's loss to Lendl in the French final that year is still considered by many the biggest choke of all time. Connors was banned from participating in the French Open during his best year (1974), though he was a great clay-court player--in fact, he won the US Open when it was held on clay. Borg boycotted the Australian Open. Though he never won the US Open, he reached the final four times, and was beaten each time by one of the greatest American players ever: Connors (twice) and McEnroe (twice).

Main opponents of Connors? Hm... how about Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl. Laver had Emerson, Rosewall, and Hoad, to name but a few. Lendl had McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, and Wilander. You can argue that Agassi's numbers are "deflated" by the fact that he played in an era dominated by Sampras, but one can easily turn that argument the other way around: perhaps Sampras's numbers are inflated by the fact that he didn't face a truly serious and sustained rivalry (e.g., Connors-Borg-McEnroe).

(I also thought I'd point out that you refer to two different players, Sampras and Federer, as the "greatest player ever.")

chaognosis, I don't know what about are u talking ? What particularly are u trying to defend ? U brought as example that Mac was choked in final against Lendl and etc...

But it is absurd !!! chaognosis, understand that McEnroe had ( and even has) very long career and he could win FO at least one time during his life if he WAS ABLE to do that. Neither McEnroe, no Sampras was able to win FO. They both FAILED.

If Federer never win FO I'll never state that he is the greatest any more ( otherwise he must beat Sampars' record of 14 GS)!!!

Please, stop comparing opponents of McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Borg with Sampras. That was another epoch. Those players hardly could even return Sampras' services, I'm not talking with competeing with him on equal. Please, watch Federer-Sampras match of 2001 and u'll undrestand me.

In this regard having read some absurd and non-professional article of somebody about Agassi and then defending that opinion that he is not great - is ridiculous. The man won 17 Masters, 8 slams. Neither Mac, no Lendl, no Connors did win all 4 majors. The man did it. Watch W 1992 against Ivanicevich, best service of 20-th century, he did it against best service-man. The man won FO in very tough surrounding. In 1999 two FO great champions participated also - Kuerten and Moya. Safin also was there as well as Corretja ( 1998 MC winner), and Costa with Gaudio also were there (future FO champions). He did it again, he did it being behind in first 2 sets!!!

Again I'm not Agassi fan. But it is completely unobjective in all meanings to underestimate the man. If to be short what does play role - only results. That is Agassi won 8 slams while Mac only 7. Finish.

Why Sampras is the greatest. Just because of his 14 slams. Finish. Other things are words only.

I'm far from USA, believe me. If u ask some people here do u know who is Lendl - nobody will answer from arbitrary 100 men. But at least 3-4 people from 100 may be answer who is Agassi.

Agassi is the legend, epoch. UNDOUBTLY he is great tennis-player !!!

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

The "article" was not intended to be particularly serious, just to offer you a little food for thought.

For a self-styled "fanatic of tennis," you should try to get a better sense of the sport's history. McEnroe "couldn't even dream" about a French Open title? Please open your textbook to the chapter on 1984: McEnroe's loss to Lendl in the French final that year is still considered by many the biggest choke of all time. Connors was banned from participating in the French Open during his best year (1974), though he was a great clay-court player--in fact, he won the US Open when it was held on clay. Borg boycotted the Australian Open. Though he never won the US Open, he reached the final four times, and was beaten each time by one of the greatest American players ever: Connors (twice) and McEnroe (twice).

Main opponents of Connors? Hm... how about Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl. Laver had Emerson, Rosewall, and Hoad, to name but a few. Lendl had McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, and Wilander. You can argue that Agassi's numbers are "deflated" by the fact that he played in an era dominated by Sampras, but one can easily turn that argument the other way around: perhaps Sampras's numbers are inflated by the fact that he didn't face a truly serious and sustained rivalry (e.g., Connors-Borg-McEnroe).

(I also thought I'd point out that you refer to two different players, Sampras and Federer, as the "greatest player ever.")

chaognosis, I don't know what about are u talking ? What particularly are u trying to defend ? U brought as example that Mac was choked in final against Lendl and etc...

But it is absurd !!! chaognosis, understand that McEnroe had ( and even has) very long career and he could win FO at least one time during his life if he WAS ABLE to do that. Neither McEnroe, no Sampras was able to win FO. They both FAILED.

If Federer never win FO I'll never state that he is the greatest any more ( otherwise he must beat Sampars' record of 14 GS)!!!

Please, stop comparing opponents of McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Borg with Sampras. That was another epoch. Those players hardly could even return Sampras' services, I'm not talking with competeing with him on equal. Please, watch Federer-Sampras match of 2001 and u'll undrestand me.

In this regard having read some absurd and non-professional article of somebody about Agassi and then defending that opinion that he is not great - is ridiculous. The man won 17 Masters, 8 slams. Neither Mac, no Lendl, no Connors did win all 4 majors. The man did it. Watch W 1992 against Ivanicevich, best service of 20-th century, he did it against best service-man. The man won FO in very tough surrounding. In 1999 two FO great champions participated also - Kuerten and Moya. Safin also was there as well as Corretja ( 1998 MC winner), and Costa with Gaudio also were there (future FO champions). He did it again, he did it being behind in first 2 sets!!!

Again I'm not Agassi fan. But it is completely unobjective in all meanings to underestimate the man. If to be short what does play role - only results. That is Agassi won 8 slams while Mac only 7. Finish.

Why Sampras is the greatest. Just because of his 14 slams. Finish. Other things are words only.

I'm far from USA, believe me. If u ask some people here do u know who is Lendl - nobody will answer from arbitrary 100 men. But at least 3-4 people from 100 may be answer who is Agassi.

In that article the author instinctively wanted to tell what one American poster told here to me absolutely correctly: Agassi during young years was underachiever, he was naughty, wasn't serious, and during old- overachiever.

Agassi is the legend, epoch. UNDOUBTLY he is great tennis-player !!!

 

[chaognosis]

I would never say that Agassi is not a great tennis player; that blog entry I provided is certainly wrong on that count. The whole point of this was to try to show to you why Lendl's accomplishments nudge him ahead of Agassi and on to the top ten list. You are obviously entitled to your own opinion, but in picking these ten I was trying to be as objective as possible, and to reflect the players who are most frequently named in rankings and polls of this sort.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

I appreciate your concerns, but I really don't think it's "unjust" at all. I was limited to ten options in this poll, so I went with the ten players who are most frequently named in these sorts of rankings (at least in my experience--which is fairly extensive). Agassi may have as many major titles as Lendl, but Lendl was far more dominant in the mid-1980s than Agassi has ever been. Lendl finished four years as the top-ranked player in the world; Agassi did it only once. Lendl finished back-to-back seasons (1986-87) with two major titles and a winning percentage over 0.900; Agassi won two majors in a season only once (1999) and has never managed a winning percentage over 0.900. And of, course, Lendl has one of the most impressive feats in tennis history to his name: eight consecutive appearances in the US Open final.

Agassi is undoubtedly a much more popular player than Lendl ever was; Lendl, however, was more dominant, and he has a much stronger case for "greatness." If he didn't choke so much in big matches earlier in his career, he would likely be remembered as one of the top five players of all time. As it is, and despite his failure to win Wimbledon, I think Lendl is a safe bet for the top ten. Agassi, despite all his merits, just misses the cut.

Here's some additional reading for you:

Is Andre Agassi 'Great'?

Thanks for the link. It was very interesting and very very accurate.

 

[AngeloDS]

Just curious for those who voted Sampras; know the history and the dominance of the other players in the list?