Convince me Agassi is better than Murray

Hyde

Rookie
Agassi is definitely better than Murray. Forget about slams, Agassi has 15 finals to Murray 11, more semi finals , more quarter finals.
That’s only because of Murray’s injuries. Murray basically had to end his career at age 30. Otherwise he now would have more slam finals and semis than Agassi.
 

Sunny014

Legend
That’s only because of Murray’s injuries. Murray basically had to end his career at age 30. Otherwise he now would have more slam finals and semis than Agassi.
Murray had injuries because his game needed a lot of effort to play, so once he grew old he got injured..... that sort of a guy does not translate into a great career in 30s because the fact that his game was bad in the 20s despite trying very hard means it could only get worse in 30s, not better

In Agassi's case he underperformed in the 20s, otherwise he would have had a 11+ slams career and he is worth that because his peak game is higher that moorey's
 

Lgoel

New User
That’s only because of Murray’s injuries. Murray basically had to end his career at age 30. Otherwise he now would have more slam finals and semis than Agassi.
Injuries are part and parcel of the game. We cannot credit someone for what they didn't win , even because of injuries. Otherwise Del potro is better than both Agassi and Murray
Even then I am not sure he would have more finals than Agassi. Apart from Wimbledon no slam final is certain for Murray
 

racquetreligion

Hall of Fame
Racquet size will not limit power with todays string and technology
but will improve control, accuracy and reward eye-hand co-ordination.
Control is required for inconsistent youth who prefer Tweener easy power
and spin over Accuracy but better reflexes and speed on faster conditions.

It will limit the amount of returned winner or hacked balls back into play
(Over the past 15 years countless super-slo-mo replays of Nadal
return winners right on the edge near the frame while the same
was not possible at all for Federer using the 90sq frame or Safin,
and others in the past returning even slower serves with sub-93" frames.

Look at Nole with 95 sq inches as a returner compared to Agassi
with 107 sq inches
. It shows even 95" sq damages all S&V when
player has his height and reach. Fed limited to a 90 would have
retired already and Nadal even Agassi prob won only a handful
of Slams and never anything on the older grass w/ faster balls.

Diego Schwazgnome does very well with a 98 and extended handle
so bring that down to 97 or even 95 with extended handle and he might
still be plenty of trouble for taller players using 93 or 90" frames.

The ATP has decades of data collection but just focuses on propaganda.
It is easy to see with faster balls and courts, just 90-95" frames for pros
will improve the younger players chances as they have better eye hand
co-ordination, more explosive potential for movement and therefore
less patience to put up with seasoned trolls in with big sticks in the
homogenized modern tennis conditions.

There are limits for racquets in other racquet and bat sports yet tennis has
the most advantage for racquet design due to size, depth and complexity
vs table tennis, badminton, baseball, hockey and all the rest.
Opelka and Isner with a 90 could prob serve a 240km hr w/ faster balls
and courts but could never have the mobility, EYC and durability much
like Roscoe Tanner, Stich, Karlovic and many towers of the past.

Fed, Nole, Nadal, Murray all limited to 90" would not favor Nadal at all.
Murray would not be able to hack but adapt with his skill and speed in exciting
S&V explosive tennis while Gilles Simon forced to take up badmington or
move to Japan, Korea or Taiwan and play Soft tennis.

It is clear in Marathons the 28-40yr olds have years of stamina development.
Todays tennis surfaces, balls and racquets favor the Marathon Men as they have
more time to troll younger exciting risk takers which self-implode or give up.
Look at Shapo, perfect example of the most exciting player even more than Fed
but has to be on song zoing at 99-100% to beat the best.

If the ATP has anyone with any intelligence apart from just gathering data for
marketing it would make even more $$$ by making Tennis even more exciting
with explosive power being rewarded rather than never ending droning.

ATP does not has all the power and data but no wisdom or knowledge to use
the right combination to make every tennis match exciting again. Tennis was so
exciting in the past people watched attentively in ridiculous low resolution screens!
Now watching 4k 100 inch screen showing Oz Open Final Nole vs Murray requires
anyone to be drip fed large amounts of coke and speed to stay awake.

Watching Zverev vs Rublev Cinci final was like watching Nole vs Murray or Gaudio vs Coria.
 
Last edited:

racquetreligion

Hall of Fame
Murray was way too much defensive, especially for his build. He even let journeymen in first rounds dictate against him. Agassi was pretty much the opposite in terms of playing style.
Murray sadly adapted homogonized troll conditions set by the ATP
Murray really had the skills and adaptability to be an all out power player
but instead is trying to be the same defensive Lobster that help him beat
Nadal on Clay. It worked when he was peaking mentally and physically
but destroyed Wawrinkas body so much that Stan has never been the
same after clashing with Murray for 5 hours plus.
It was the ugliest tennis Ive ever seen since Gaudio and Coria RG final
Murray in that clay season hit easily more lobs than bitcoins.
 
Last edited:

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
Murray was way too much defensive, especially for his build. He even let journeymen in first rounds dictate against him. Agassi was pretty much the opposite in terms of playing style.
While this is true I feel that Murray’s level week to week was higher overall than Agassi and yes Murray had it bad with the big 3, he could of won way more slams nobody can put him ahead of Agassi
 

-snake-

Hall of Fame
Murray sadly adapted homogonized troll conditions set by the ATP
Murray really had the skills and adaptability to be an all out power player

but instead is trying to be the same defensive Lobster that help him beat
Nadal on Clay. It worked when he was peaking mentally and physically
but destroyed Wawrinkas body so much that Stan has never been the
same after clashing with Murray for 5 hours plus.
It was the ugliest tennis Ive ever seen since Gaudio and Coria RG final
Murray in that clay season hit easily more lobs than bitcoins.

Hmm, I don't think he has/had the power to do that, but I like your S&V theory. Hitting big does work in this era but you need the complete combo to win majors with it: Powerful serve, strong FH, strong BH and good movement. Just having one of those is not enough.
 

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
Hmm, I don't think he has/had the power to do that, but I like your S&V theory. Hitting big does work in this era but you need the complete combo to win majors with it: Powerful serve, strong FH, strong BH and good movement. Just having one of those is not enough.
Just to add to your post. I feel Murray did have the weapons to be a strong hitter as he said but I feel he was the reason not the courts. There is times I’ve watched him when he got a short ball and just played it back instead of stepping into it then he would retrieve
 

-snake-

Hall of Fame
Just to add to your post. I feel Murray did have the weapons to be a strong hitter as he said but I feel he was the reason not the courts. There is times I’ve watched him when he got a short ball and just played it back instead of stepping into it then he would retrieve


If he was the reason, it means he wasn't capable of generating power like the other top players. No one would ever choose to play a 4 hour grindfest instead of blowing the other guy off the court in a much shorter match.
 

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
If he was the reason, it means he wasn't capable of generating power like the other top players. No one would ever choose to play a 4 hour grindfest instead of blowing the other guy off the court in a much shorter match.
I’m not saying he’d be a Delpo or anything but I feel he underrated his attacking skill or just felt more comfortable from the back of the court.
 

-snake-

Hall of Fame
I’m not saying he’d be a Delpo or anything but I feel he underrated his attacking skill or just felt more comfortable from the back of the court.

That's because he doesn't have an imposing game and had to rely on his consistency to win matches :p
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
I’m not saying he’d be a Delpo or anything but I feel he underrated his attacking skill or just felt more comfortable from the back of the court.
Yep, agree. He had the talent to attack more.

He just has a mindset to play high % tennis and had wheels and anticipation on another level from most players that he could get away with it. It just wasn't a good gameplan for his career longterm.
 

adil1972

Hall of Fame
From the 2003 Wimbledon up to and including the 2021 Wimbledon, the trio (djok/nadal/fed) have dominated men's singles, winning 60 of the 72 (83%) Grand Slam titles (during this period they reached 66 Grand Slam finals), with all of them having a shared all-time record 20 titles each.

Combined, they have won 12 US Open titles and 16 titles each in the Australian Open, French Open, and Wimbledon. All three of them have won more than 80 ATP titles each. Both Djokovic and Federer have been ranked No. 1 for more than 300 weeks while Nadal has been ranked No. 1 for more than 200 weeks.

 
Last edited:

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
I know fans of Federer hate ELO rating for the simple reason that it shows Federer to be only the 2nd best of all time.

But what are the highest ELO ratings for Agassi and Murray?
 

racquetreligion

Hall of Fame
Just to add to your post. I feel Murray did have the weapons to be a strong hitter as he said but I feel he was the reason not the courts. There is times I’ve watched him when he got a short ball and just played it back instead of stepping into it then he would retrieve
Many players did the same due to respecting the passing shots of baseline drones
but Murray did have confidence he could outlast anyone except for Djokovic.
Meds and Zvev do it also as does Sinner and many other players that let points
restart again by not finishing off that slice return. Murray used this percentage play
way to often but it did pay off during the peak of the Homogenized Era were he
way as young as Djokovic and finally mentally matured to reach his peak.

Murray has a complete game except for a weak second delivery unlike the top3 + Stan
However his serve improved by watching Feds Videos while on a break.
Yet that common second delivery was all he needed 98% of the time.

Murray is faster to 50m than all except Monfils but as LeMonf agile as DeMinaur
and unlike many players could easily focus on S&V due to his athletic ability.
Finishing points off using S&V takes a different toll on the body than long distance
droning and unfortunately more prone to injury therefore shorter career.
 
Last edited:

racquetreligion

Hall of Fame
Hmm, I don't think he has/had the power to do that, but I like your S&V theory. Hitting big does work in this era but you need the complete combo to win majors with it: Powerful serve, strong FH, strong BH and good movement. Just having one of those is not enough.
Hitting big at the right time yes as Zoning all the time is impossible as Shapo, Tsonga, Davydenko, Fed and countless others have found most of the time versus marathon baseline players of this era, however it is possible to do so just not as Agassi, Sampras and others were able to do in the faster conditions of the past even with less powerful racquets. Agassi benefited from 107sq inches and poly though.

To win like Chang did on clay is also possible today on clay but Hugo Gaston needs more mental fortitude while Diego SMan needs even more Stamina but is almost there in that department. I watched Diego struggle 3-4 years ago for Stamina, it takes time for some players.
The same happens in long distance sports, as marathon stamina takes years to develop.

murray is a crafty, exceptionally talented player. but agassi is one of those one-in-a-million talents, one of if not the best ballstriker the tour has ever seen. love murray but andre was just...more special?
maybe the question should be is Murray better than the self proclaimed Wizard in my avatar?
However Murray benefit less than Agassi due to racquet, strings and houmo conditions of this era
Yet Agassi showed at 35 at the start of this houmo era and with little time to recover after winning in 5
versus Rafter that he could push peak Fed to 4 sets in the USO final.
Maybe Agassi born 10 years later would have ruined Fed and enjoyed this Houmo Era more than Murray,
Murray would the previous era born 10 years earlier just as Fed would have and won 10 wimbys by S&V
 

-snake-

Hall of Fame
Hitting big at the right time yes as Zoning all the time is impossible as Shapo, Tsonga, Davydenko, Fed and countless others have found most of the time versus marathon baseline players of this era, however it is possible to do so just not as Agassi, Sampras and others were able to do in the faster conditions of the past even with less powerful racquets. Agassi benefited from 107sq inches and poly though.
Outside of the big 3, Mury and Hewitt, pretty much everyone has won a slam/slams hitting hard from both sides in the last 15 years. Only GG was the exception to the rule, lol.



Kuerten: Powerful claycourter.

Safin: Big hitter.

Johansson: Flukish winner but he was no pusher.


DP/Cilic/Stan: All big hitters.

Thiem: Yet another hard hitter.



Joe Willy and Gonzales failed because they never managed to do something about their BHs.


P.S.: Fed's choking has nothing to do with the slow courts :p
 
Last edited:

Ray Mercer

Hall of Fame
The bottom line is Murray had a weak forehand, a weak second serve and too defensive of a mentality. Agassi had arguably the most well rounded ground strokes of all time and was a killer. Agassi’s weakness was the fact that he had average movement for a professional player. Most of the very best of all time are phenomenal movers.
 

Cortana

Hall of Fame
Obviously Agassi is different class to Murray, I can't see any reasonable argument to the contrary.
It's all relative. How many slams would Murray have if he was born 7-10 years later? He would dominate the tour right now and win 10+ easily.
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
How many slams would Agassi win in the era of Big3? My guess is more than Andy's 3, but less than his own 8. He had to contend with only one ATG, Sampras. And each of the B3 is arguably on Sampras' level.
 
How many slams would Agassi win in the era of Big3? My guess is more than Andy's 3, but less than his own 8. He had to contend with only one ATG, Sampras. And each of the B3 is arguably on Sampras' level.
There was a lot more depth and surface specialists back then. Murray would probably stand better chances to win some more in later rounds, but like everyone else would be taken out more often earlier. One reason the "Big 3" are so dominant and with ease blow away all these historic marks, is the field outside the the top 4 or 5 (adding Murray and briefly Wawrinka, and for a blip Del Potro) were garbage, and they had a virtual bye to atleast the semis of any slam they played.
 

egrorian

Rookie
It's all relative. How many slams would Murray have if he was born 7-10 years later? He would dominate the tour right now and win 10+ easily.
But ultimately what Murray would/should/could have won doesn't count, only what he has actually achieved does.
 

racquetreligion

Hall of Fame
Outside of the big 3, Mury and Hewitt, pretty much everyone has won a slam/slams hitting hard from both sides in the last 15 years. Only GG was the exception to the rule, lol.



Kuerten: Powerful claycourter.

Safin: Big hitter.

Johansson: Flukish winner but he was no pusher.


DP/Cilic/Stan: All big hitters.

Thiem: Yet another hard hitter.



Joe Willy and Gonzales failed because they never managed to do something about their BHs.


P.S.: Fed's choking has nothing to do with the slow courts :p
Thats a backhand reply to Rogergeriatric ;) - that person also said before facing Nole in that wimby final
that throughout his career, his second serve has always been there to make the difference under pressure.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
That’s only because of Murray’s injuries. Murray basically had to end his career at age 30. Otherwise he now would have more slam finals and semis than Agassi.
Beyond belief.... truly.

Have you ever seen either play live? It’s a rhetorical question since the resounding “no!” is glaringly obvious to those of us who have.
 

mikej

Hall of Fame
1. Agassi only won 3 slams in a STRONG era, rest were won in the vacuum transitional era 99-03 lets not forget.
2. Both waited for their main rivals to decline and step aside before getting most of his career achievements
3. Neither were great on the biggest stage CHOKING away numerous slam finals
4. They're both great wind players
5. Both won more masters series titles than Sampras
6. Both had back issues
career grand slam

everyone is entitled to their own opinions / criteria re: sports greatness - but those three words literally end the debate in my mind (yes, before someone counters w Sampras not having career grand slam, Agassi is above Sampras in my mind, I know, a very unpopular opinion)
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
How many slams would Agassi win in the era of Big3? My guess is more than Andy's 3, but less than his own 8. He had to contend with only one ATG, Sampras.
What nonsense. Again... beyond belief. Agassi had to contend with the following ATG’s in his career: Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg and Becker. How can people post such inaccurate BS? Look up his H2H’s with these legends.
 
Top