Jimmy also had a more dominant peak in the mid 70s, whereas Agassi doesn't have a concrete peak, although probably circa 94-95.On what criteria? In terms of impact on the game, it's clearly Connors. In terms of tennis skills, it's a bit of a crapshoot. Accomplishments, a slight (?) edge to Connors, depending on how you look at it. Head to head, they really did not meet until Connors was 36 yrs old. The '89 USO QF is an interesting match to watch....highs and lows abound with some tremendous groundstroking from both of them. Andre was a bit too strong for Jimmy at this point, tho' they did play a few exos where Jimmy got the better of him by playing nearly inside of the baseline and being incredibly opportunistic. That was the only way (at this stage of his career).
Andre was never as consistent as a Connors or a Lendl, that's the other thing. Those guys were Top 10 for many years running, whereas Andre had his 'drop off' periods.Jimmy also had a more dominant peak in the mid 70s, whereas Agassi doesn't have a concrete peak, although probably circa 94-95.
I'm not sure about that.Jimmy also had a more dominant peak in the mid 70s, whereas Agassi doesn't have a concrete peak, although probably circa 94-95.
Eh, I don't know about that...Connors has GS on all 4 surfaces (yes, I know it's Har-Tru, but it was Borg he beat), almost double the titles and almost 3x the weeks at No. 1.I'm not sure about that.
Agassi did manage to win 3 of 4 slams (from the French Open 1999 through the Australian Open 2000.)
It's close, but I'd give Agassi the edge in the achievement department.
He's one of only 7 or 8 players to have achieved the career grand slam.
Yeah, Agassi fans have created this narrative where in a world without Pete, Andre had no equals in the 90s.All though talented Agassi kind of waited for a lull in competition to win Majors. He was No3 in 88 and by the end of his prime 96 he didn't have much of a Major count. It wasn't always Sampras as some make out.
Yes, Connors was something of an SOB, but there was no one quite like him. Perhaps Andre hit a bit harder, but Jimmy's footwork and eye/hand coordination were stellar and he had a net game which Andre sorely lacked. Jimmy's movement was far better than Andre's, only second to Borg in his era. Been watching a few of his classic matches on Youtube recently and some of his shot making is still super impressive. There's also the intangible of him having a 2nd sense of when to press and attack. That's a tough one to measure but he was awfully good on that.People underrate Connors. I can’t think of any who underrate Agassi.
Andre entered with a big splash and kind of fizzled. He rose to #3 quickly and then pretty much hit a wall (one named Lendl). His first GS win in '92 at Wimbledon was pretty much unexpected and a shocker. USO in '90 was going to be his big win and he got his clock cleaned; then some misfires at the FO, all in winnable matches. Hey, good for him he won on the grass, but not like it was any sort of lock. Of course, he had his late '90's bender, where he fell off the map, played Challengers, etc. He really accomplished much more later in his career, in many ways. So, when you compare him to models of consistency like Lendl or Connors, it's just not stacking up.Yeah, Agassi fans have created this narrative where in a world without Pete, Andre had no equals in the 90s.
They ignore the fact that Courier had his number, and even Chang had success against him, though to a much smaller extent.
Pertaining to this topic, if matched in both their primes, mid 70s Connors vs mid 90s Agassi, I have little doubt Jimmy would win.
Both were deadly on the return, but Jimmy was a helluva lot quicker, with farrrrr better footwork, and far better at the net.