Djokovic >>> Agassi

KG1965

Legend
Djokovic
8 Majors
24 Master1000
4 YEC
TOTAL 36

Agassi
8 Majors
17 Master1000
1 YEC
TOTAL 26

Conclusion: Djokovic entered law between 8 greatest Open Era ( with Nadal , Lendl , Connors , Mac , Borg , Federer and Sampras ) .

Agassi not.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Three, soon to be four, years as the world's top player> only one year as the top player.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
This is old news.

In favor of Djokovic you can add that Agassi had the luxury to play 3 Masters and a Slam in his home country every year + the Olympics in 1996.
 

Anaconda

Hall of Fame
Agassi however has slam wins an all surfaces when different surfaces actually meant something. Agassi should always get a mention in a top 8 list. Djokovic too. Agassi won in a time of specialists, I seriously doubt anyone from this era could win the grand slam in the 90's. Federer would never win the FO, Nadal would never win Wimbledon, and Djokovic would never win Wimbledon. Not saying they wouldn't have won a lot of slams, just not all 4.
 

BGod

Legend
1: Federer
2: Borg
3: Sampras
4: Lendl
5: Nadal
6: Connors
7: Djokovic
8: Agassi


Djokovic passed Agassi for me last season when he won a 2nd Wimbledon and another WTF. It proves his 2011 wasn't Wilander-esque. Agassi had periods of dominance but he didn't have two solid seasons like Djokovic has had and his run at #1.
 

AngieB

Banned
...not until #Novak can win a career slam like #Andre did. Without the #FO, #Novak is historically crippled.

#AngiesLyst
 

Thetouch

Professional
Agassi is just the better player overall, who didn´t focus as much on his career in his early days. He skipped the AO until 1995 and still won it 4 times! He didn´t attend Wimbledon until 1991. That´s not Novak´s fault, but Agassi is just the better talent and he won the French Open. C´mon Novak would have never won Wimbledon or the US Open in the 90´s, the competition was much tougher and his current style wouldn´t fit for Wimbledon back then.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Agassi is just the better player overall, who didn´t focus as much on his career in his early days. He skipped the AO until 1995 and still won it 4 times! He didn´t attend Wimbledon until 1991. That´s not Novak´s fault, but Agassi is just the better talent and he won the French Open. C´mon Novak would have never won Wimbledon or the US Open in the 90´s, the competition was much tougher and his current style wouldn´t fit for Wimbledon back then.
If he were the better talent against his peers he would have been number one for more than just one year.

There is one, and only one way to show that you are better than the rest. Winning and becoming number one.
 

Thetouch

Professional
If he were the better talent against his peers he would have been number one for more than just one year.

There is one, and only one way to show that you are better than the rest. Winning and becoming number one.
Again:

He was not the guy who aimed to dominate tennis for many years. When he "returned" in 1999 he was like 30. And the competition was just tougher through out the 90´s, since there were different styles and court-surfaces.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
For me, they are both in the same category. Novak has better #1 stats and won more YECs but Agassi has the Career Slam and won it when it was a lot tougher to do because of the different conditions between slams in those days.

Novak had his chance to move ahead of Agassi once and for all by winning this FO but he failed for now.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Again:

He was not the guy who aimed to dominate tennis for many years. When he "returned" in 1999 he was like 30. And the competition was just tougher through out the 90´s, since there were different styles and court-surfaces.
Ok. But since the only thing that we can compare across eras is relative dominance then the only conclusion we can reach is that Nole had better results than Agassi.

Both were incredible players and, for the most part, I find these "who was best" lists a waste of time (although they can be fun).
 

Thetouch

Professional
Ok. But since the only thing that we can compare across eras is relative dominance then the only conclusion we can reach is that Nole had better results than Agassi.
There is no doubt that Novak will surpass Agassi in total stats anyway. ;-)
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
Agassi however has slam wins an all surfaces when different surfaces actually meant something. Agassi should always get a mention in a top 8 list. Djokovic too. Agassi won in a time of specialists, I seriously doubt anyone from this era could win the grand slam in the 90's. Federer would never win the FO, Nadal would never win Wimbledon, and Djokovic would never win Wimbledon. Not saying they wouldn't have won a lot of slams, just not all 4.
Just a question, why do you think that Federer wouldnt win the French in the 90`s? He did fairly well in the early 00`s with good players around like Coria, Ferrero and Kuerten. Bruguera and Muster would hardly cause as much problems for him as Nadal not to mention that he would get a couple of "free" years without meeting them.

As for Djokovic he seemed very agressive in 2007 and as of present day his serve is quite formidable. Lesser names than him reached the final at SW 19.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
For me, they are both in the same category. Novak has better #1 stats and won more YECs but Agassi has the Career Slam and won it when it was a lot tougher to do because of the different conditions between slams in those days.

Novak had his chance to move ahead of Agassi once and for all by winning this FO but he failed for now.
In the last few years Nole has become not just the best player in the world but also the only player to consistently threaten Nadal on clay. Nole won 4 of the last 12 clay masters, while Nadal won five. No one else won more than one. Nole did not win the FO but reached three finals.

I don't know the details of Agassi's clay career but Agassi never faced a clay opponent like Nadal on a regular basis and still manage to win tournaments. It seems to me that Nole has a much better clay record than Agassi, not to mention a much better overall record.
 
Last edited:

Thetouch

Professional
Just a question, why do you think that Federer wouldnt win the French in the 90`s? He did fairly well in the early 00`s with good players around like Coria, Ferrero and Kuerten. Bruguera and Muster would hardly cause as much problems for him as Nadal not to mention that he would get a couple of "free" years without meeting them.
Well you have to add guys like Berasategui, Courier, Costa, Gustafson, Chang, Medwedjew, Kafelnikov and even Agassi into the equation because they were still very competitive. Once you face 3 of those guys in a row you don´t have much left in your tank, esp. as a non clay specialist.
 

90's Clay

Banned
I Don't know. Its close. I value Andre's career grand slam under the most polarized conditions in history over maybe any achievement in men's history.. Bar Laver's 2 calendar slams anyways or Nadal's 2010 3 slam year under 3 different surfaces in a row.


Not to mention, Andre has the unfortunate circumstance of being the same age as Sampras thereabouts so had to deal with him his entire career which cost him quite a few Wimbledons and definitely more USO titles (maybe 3-4 anyways).

Nole these days is not competing against much yet still isn't raking in the slams like he should
 

DerekNoleFam1

Hall of Fame
Very close, slight margin to Djoker on his weeks at Number 1.
He really needs a 2nd multi-Slam year though this year, both players at this stage only have/ had 1, and hence not complete dominance.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
I Don't know. Its close. I value Andre's career grand slam under the most polarized conditions in history over maybe any achievement in men's history.. Bar Laver's 2 calendar slams anyways or Nadal's 2010 3 slam year under 3 different surfaces in a row.


Not to mention, Andre has the unfortunate circumstance of being the same age as Sampras thereabouts so had to deal with him his entire career which cost him quite a few Wimbledons and definitely more USO titles (maybe 3-4 anyways).

Nole these days is not competing against much yet still isn't raking in the slams like he should
Nole is the same age with Nadal and Murray + Del Potro. Not to mention that he entered the field in 2007 while Federer was "only 25". Agassi didnt overcome his one great rival while Novak did it against both Nadal and Federer + Murray alongside.

The solo fact Djokovic 4 times YE1 (including 2015) - Agassi 1 time YE 1. Just too big of a gap.
 
6

6-3 6-0

Guest
Agassi however has slam wins an all surfaces when different surfaces actually meant something. Agassi should always get a mention in a top 8 list. Djokovic too. Agassi won in a time of specialists, I seriously doubt anyone from this era could win the grand slam in the 90's. Federer would never win the FO, Nadal would never win Wimbledon, and Djokovic would never win Wimbledon. Not saying they wouldn't have won a lot of slams, just not all 4.
If Agassi could win FO with the draw that he had, Federer most likely would have won atleast 1 RG.
 

TommyA8X

Hall of Fame
Well you have to add guys like Berasategui, Courier, Costa, Gustafson, Chang, Medwedjew, Kafelnikov and even Agassi into the equation because they were still very competitive. Once you face 3 of those guys in a row you don´t have much left in your tank, esp. as a non clay specialist.
Fed was very competitive against Nadal on clay in his prime (only two wins but almost every match was super close). No one in the 90s would come even close to troubling Fed as much, so I say 2 FO for Fed in the 90s at lest.

Also, I don't really understand how you can call Fed a "non clay specialist". His game is perfectly suited to clay (he grew up on it). Huge, heavy forehand, amazing movement, great defense, one of the best dropshots, ability to open up the court on both wings...
 
Statistically sure ND is better. But i dont think numbers tell the whole story here. AA won his career slam on four very different surfaces. His career slam rates very highly with me. Winning from the back of the court at Wimby, when he did, was incredible. And lets face it, AA was a bit of a flake when he was youunger. Skipped slams, took breaks etc. so his body of work will never compare to ND but best on best I am going with AA.
 

AngieB

Banned
In the last few years Nole has become not just the best player in the world but also the only player to consistently threaten Nadal on clay. Nole won 4 of the last 12 clay masters, while Nadal won five. No one else won more than one. Nole did not win the FO but reached three finals.

I don't know the details of Agassi's clay career but Agassi never faced a clay opponent like Nadal on a regular basis and still manage to win tournaments. It seems to me that Nole has a much better clay record than Agassi, not to mention a much better overall record.
Without a #FO win, there is no way that #Novak can be rated higher than #Agassi on clay. #Novak could win 30 #masters clay events, but if he cannot win the #FO, he's not more accomplished on clay than #Agassi.

Sounds a lot like the folks who attempted to claim that #Roger was the second best clay-courter in history.

Stop #majoring in #minors. Just stop.

#AngiesLyst
 
Last edited:

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Agassi's old news since Novak passed him already. Connors and Lendl are the next players he should have in his sights over the next year or so.
 

Thetouch

Professional
Fed was very competitive against Nadal on clay in his prime (only two wins but almost every match was super close). No one in the 90s would come even close to troubling Fed as much, so I say 2 FO for Fed in the 90s at lest.
Why do you people always have to bring up Nadal? He is just one player and isn´t proof enough that Federer would do as well back then. If Federer played in the 90s he would have had to deal with different FO winners, clay specialists and multiple Slam winners. Imagine playing two 5 setters against Muster and Agassi, 4 sets against Bruguera and then in the final against Kafelnikov/Courier/Chang whoever. That´s not easy going at all.

Look at the 2009 FO when Fed won: guys like Monfils, Murray (who is barely a clay specialst and didn´t won anything on clay back then) and Söderling (never won a clay tournament until then) made it to the QF.

Also, I don't really understand how you can call Fed a "non clay specialist". His game is perfectly suited to clay (he grew up on it). Huge, heavy forehand, amazing movement, great defense, one of the best dropshots, ability to open up the court on both wings...
I think he is more comfortable on grass and hard court.
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Fed was very competitive against Nadal on clay in his prime (only two wins but almost every match was super close). No one in the 90s would come even close to troubling Fed as much, so I say 2 FO for Fed in the 90s at lest.

Also, I don't really understand how you can call Fed a "non clay specialist". His game is perfectly suited to clay (he grew up on it). Huge, heavy forehand, amazing movement, great defense, one of the best dropshots, ability to open up the court on both wings...
I agree Federer would have won multiple FO in the 90s. He had great run since 2005 and despite the clay goat(Nadal) won 9 FO, he still managed to win 1. Federer is a better clay courter than many clay specialists in the 90s and since Kafelnikov, Gomez, Moya, Agassi who won the FO, there's no reason for Federer not win a few.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
The fact is, Agassi is highly overated. An all-time great and an awesome player OK but his stats will show you that he beat a bunch of nobodies.

Connors, Lendl, and Agassi all have 8 grand slams. Agassi also have the career slam with an olympic gold medal. Some bias media pundits will rank Agassi ahead of Lendl.

But look carefully and you'll see Agassi beat a bunch of nobodies. His French Open case would've been more compelling had he beat Courier (a 4 time grand slam winner and a peer) than beating Medvedev in 1999.

Check out Agassi's lineup:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Agassi_career_statistics

Who the heck are these people? Sounds more like a list of KGB agents than opposing tennis players.

Andres Gomez
Andrei Medvedev
Todd Martin
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Arnaud Clément
Rainer Schüttler

Then a couple of his other slam victories came against

Michael Stich
Goran Ivanišević

Quality guys but really, these guys only have 1 slam on their resume.

Connors, Lendl, and Djokovic should rank way much higher than Agassi. These guys battle, lost, and beaten legends at their grand slams finals (the McEnroes, the Borgs, the Wilanders, the Federers, and Nadals).. basically guys with 6 or more slams.

The American media can be bias.. ranking Connors and Agassi ahead of Lendl. Connors is more understandable but I would rank Connors and Lendl fairly close because both hold long tenures at number 1 and each can boast impressive records and statures over the other.

Agassi should not be in the same discussion with Connors, Lendl, or Djokovic.
In the words of Lady Gaga, there's nothing else I can say. Good post.
 

AngieB

Banned
Agassi's old news since Novak passed him already. Connors and Lendl are the next players he should have in his sights over the next year or so.
#Novak doesn't even hold a career slam yet. Until then, he'll always be an historical step behind #Agassi.

#AngiesLyst
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
#Novak doesn't even hold a career slam yet. Until then, he'll always be an historical step behind #Agassi.

#AngiesLyst
Yeah, and let's ignore that Nole had Nadal and Federer(2011) to deal with at the FO.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, and let's ignore that Nole had Nadal and Federer(2011) to deal with at the FO.
He didn't have Nadal to deal with this year did he? He disposed of Nadal like I dispose of my trash daily and then what did Novak do? He went on to lose the title anyway. LOL.

Bestchancegone?
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
The fact is, Agassi is highly overated. An all-time great and an awesome player OK but his stats will show you that he beat a bunch of nobodies.

Connors, Lendl, and Agassi all have 8 grand slams. Agassi also have the career slam with an olympic gold medal. Some bias media pundits will rank Agassi ahead of Lendl.

But look carefully and you'll see Agassi beat a bunch of nobodies. His French Open case would've been more compelling had he beat Courier (a 4 time grand slam winner and a peer) than beating Medvedev in 1999.

Check out Agassi's lineup:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Agassi_career_statistics

Who the heck are these people? Sounds more like a list of KGB agents than opposing tennis players.

Andres Gomez
Andrei Medvedev
Todd Martin
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Arnaud Clément
Rainer Schüttler

Then a couple of his other slam victories came against

Michael Stich
Goran Ivanišević

Quality guys but really, these guys only have 1 slam on their resume.

Connors, Lendl, and Djokovic should rank way much higher than Agassi. These guys battle, lost, and beaten legends at their grand slams finals (the McEnroes, the Borgs, the Wilanders, the Federers, and Nadals).. basically guys with 6 or more slams.

The American media can be bias.. ranking Connors and Agassi ahead of Lendl. Connors is more understandable but I would rank Connors and Lendl fairly close because both hold long tenures at number 1 and each can boast impressive records and statures over the other.

Agassi should not be in the same discussion with Connors, Lendl, or Djokovic.
That is simply stupid. Of course Agassi is in the same tier with those guys. :rolleyes: Agassi is one of the best ball strikers ever to play the game and he won the Golden Career Slam at a time when it was harder to do so. If you were more than 12 years old, you may know that.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Agassi's old news since Novak passed him already. Connors and Lendl are the next players he should have in his sights over the next year or so.
Novak has not surpassed Agassi without a FO title. :rolleyes:

They are in the same tier at the moment. Novak has the better number one stats and more YECs but Agassi has the Golden Career Slam and thus has a more complete slam resume.
 

AngieB

Banned
The fact is, Agassi is highly overated. An all-time great and an awesome player OK but his stats will show you that he beat a bunch of nobodies.

Connors, Lendl, and Agassi all have 8 grand slams. Agassi also have the career slam with an olympic gold medal. Some bias media pundits will rank Agassi ahead of Lendl.

But look carefully and you'll see Agassi beat a bunch of nobodies. His French Open case would've been more compelling had he beat Courier (a 4 time grand slam winner and a peer) than beating Medvedev in 1999.

Check out Agassi's lineup:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Agassi_career_statistics

Who the heck are these people? Sounds more like a list of KGB agents than opposing tennis players.

Andres Gomez
Andrei Medvedev
Todd Martin
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Arnaud Clément
Rainer Schüttler

Then a couple of his other slam victories came against

Michael Stich
Goran Ivanišević

Quality guys but really, these guys only have 1 slam on their resume.

Connors, Lendl, and Djokovic should rank way much higher than Agassi. These guys battle, lost, and beaten legends at their grand slams finals (the McEnroes, the Borgs, the Wilanders, the Federers, and Nadals).. basically guys with 6 or more slams.

The American media can be bias.. ranking Connors and Agassi ahead of Lendl. Connors is more understandable but I would rank Connors and Lendl fairly close because both hold long tenures at number 1 and each can boast impressive records and statures over the other.

Agassi should not be in the same discussion with Connors, Lendl, or Djokovic.
There is no amount of #AmericanMediaBias which can award #Novak or his historically-equivalent #Lendl a career grand slam neither were destined to win.

The problem with #Novak and #Lendl was the fact they were emotionally-damaged in the later stages of grand slam finals which hinders them historically. All #Lendl had to do is win #Wimbledon. All #Novak has to do is win the #FrenchOpen. Yet, in spite of them both being #1 for many, many weeks, they couldn't seal the deal. #Novak just lost his last, best, chance.

Add to that the fact neither #Lendl or #Novak are popular champions. #Lendl was largely ignored the past 20 years after retirement until he began coaching and playing PowerShares. With all the eyes on #Roger and #Rafa, #Novak never really had a chance.

The foolishness that because of #Novak's Masters results, #Agassi's career slam should be ignored is Fanboy ridiculousness. Stop #majoring in #minors. #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
You're praying it is. :twisted:
No. I honestly think his best chance is in the rear view mirror. Not because I don't think he isn't good enough to win the FO but I think that his mental demons are probably too great at this point. I seriously thought he was a lock this year and am surprised he lost it.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Novak has not surpassed Agassi without a FO title. :rolleyes:

They are in the same tier at the moment. Novak has the better number one stats and more YECs but Agassi has the Golden Career Slam and thus has a more complete slam resume.
And those number one stats are what place him above Agassi. Tennis isn't only about eight weeks of the year.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Novak has not surpassed Agassi without a FO title. :rolleyes:

They are in the same tier at the moment. Novak has the better number one stats and more YECs but Agassi has the Golden Career Slam and thus has a more complete slam resume.
Well, there's no universally accepted method to rank players across time so it's all made up anyway.

All we can look at and measure is how each player did against his contemporaries. In this Nole has a much stronger record than Agassi. And the record will only get stronger since Nole continues to rack wins and weeks and years at #1.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
And those number one stats are what place him above Agassi. Tennis isn't only about eight weeks of the year.
Nope. It is a trade-off between Novak's better number one stats and Agassi's superior and more complete slam resume with his Career Slam. They are in the same tier at the moment. Not a bad place to be.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
It seems ridiculous to say that Djokovic needs to win the FO to be above Agassi. I mean what if he wins another Wimbledon, USO and AO? Will he still be below him just because he failed to win RG? I mean seriously?!
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
American media are biased toward their athletes and that is plain obvious. Sport Illustrated, ESPN, tennis magazine, sport announcers, sports analyst...all in favor their own athletes.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Well, there's no universally accepted method to rank players across time so it's all made up anyway.

All we can look at and measure is how each player did against his contemporaries. In this Nole has a much stronger record than Agassi. And the record will only get stronger since Nole continues to rack wins and weeks and years at #1.
But ultimately Novak has to win more slams to surpass Agassi. Again, this was Novak's best shot to leap frog over Agassi by winning the FO. He failed. They are in the same tier.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Nope. It is a trade-off between Novak's better number one stats and Agassi's superior and more complete slam resume with his Career Slam. They are in the same tier at the moment. Not a bad place to be.
They're in the same tier but Djokovic is above him. More slam finals, more WTFs, more Masters, more YE#1, more weeks at #1 etc. Come on ccO.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
It seems ridiculous to say that Djokovic needs to win the FO to be above Agassi. I mean what if he wins another Wimbledon, USO and AO? Will he still be below him just because he failed to win RG? I mean seriously?!
Nobody is saying that. But right this moment, they both have the same number of slams. Novak has the better number one stats and more YECs and Andre has the more complete slam resume and the OG. Thus, they are in the same tier.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
They're in the same tier but Djokovic is above him. More slam finals, more WTFs, more Masters, more YE#1, more weeks at #1 etc. Come on ccO.
Not for me until Djokovic wins more slams. For me Agassi's Golden Career Slam is highly valued. How many players in history have done it?
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
But ultimately Novak has to win more slams to surpass Agassi. Again, this was Novak's best shot to leap frog over Agassi by winning the FO. He failed. They are in the same tier.
To surpass Agassi? In what ranking? If all you personally care about are Slam wins so be it. But that's just your opinion.

The only thing we can measure with any degree of objectivity when comparing players across time is how much they dominated their peers. Nole was number for three years, soon to be four. Agassi only one. That means that Nole dominated more than Agassi. That's all we can measure.
 

Thetouch

Professional
Check out Agassi's lineup:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Agassi_career_statistics

Who the heck are these people? Sounds more like a list of KGB agents than opposing tennis players.

Andres Gomez
Andrei Medvedev
Todd Martin
Yevgeny Kafelnikov
Arnaud Clément
Rainer Schüttler

Then a couple of his other slam victories came against

Michael Stich
Goran Ivanišević

Quality guys but really, these guys only have 1 slam on their resume.
Well he actually lost to Gomez at the FO 90 final. He beat Sampras at the AO 95 final though.

Yes Agassi´s line up in his later career isn´t as impressive but it´s funny because those guys he faced were actually the guys who made it to the finals while beating those highly praised GOAT candidates such as Roddick and Hewitt. lol And Federer wasn´t even a factor at that time in the early 2000´s.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Nobody is saying that. But right this moment, they both have the same number of slams. Novak has the better number one stats and more YECs and Andre has the more complete slam resume and the OG. Thus, they are in the same tier.
So in your opinion what does Novak need to do to go above him?
 

AngieB

Banned
Well, there's no universally accepted method to rank players across time so it's all made up anyway.

All we can look at and measure is how each player did against his contemporaries. In this Nole has a much stronger record than Agassi. And the record will only get stronger since Nole continues to rack wins and weeks and years at #1.
Yet, the #ITHOF has determined that winning #ITF-sanctioned grand slam events is a main qualifying determinant for inclusion. Tour-level events cannot singularly get former players into the #ITHOF. Only #ITF-sanctioned grand slam events.

That said, #Novak would be equal #Andre, except #Andre holds a career grand slam. Maybe #Novak can catch a lucky draw and win one in his golden years. However, fast-approaching 30, that's not likely to happen. #GirlBye

#AngiesLyst
 

Prabhanjan

Professional
The 90's grass competition is highly overrated. If Courier can take a set and two more to tie-breaker against Pete at Wimbledon finals, and Malvai Washington could have reached the finals, there is no stopping the All-time greats Nadal and Djokovic.

For those who think Fed would not have got the FO. Kidding, else you are all delusional. The merry-go-musical-chair great competition of the 90's would stop Fed? Ha ha ha. It was a joke of competition right from Agassi until Nadal stamped the authority on FO. Agassi in 90-91, 92-93 Courier, Brugera in 94-95, Mustard for a year, Kafelnikov, Moya for next, Kuerten in 98, 2000-1, Agassi again in 99, almost like musical chair kind of competition.
 
Top