Djokovic >>> Agassi

[Thetouch]

This post is full of bias and even not worth replying.

You obviously did. lol

What makes you people even think Roger could have dominated in the 90´s WB when he already struggled against Nadal and Roddick?

He barely beat Nadal in 2007 in 5 sets and then lost to him in 2008. Nadal has never been and never will be even near on the same level at grass such as the likes of Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Stich etc. It was a whole different generation back then, dominated by S&V. How would Nadal even make it to the QF if not for luck? So when Federer struggled to beat him on a slower grass court then how would he even be able to win 6-7 times in the Serve and Volley era?

Btw: the 90´s weren´t as progressive when it comes to nutrition, training-regimes, supplements etc. as the current times. We don´t even know whether Nadal and Federer would be on the same physical level in the 90´s as they have been for the past years and of course the equipment was different too.

 

[mbm0912]

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

#AngiesLyst​

I remember the first time I used a #hashtag...

 

[KG1965]

Bye bye

Agassi bye bye.
The bus 8 seats Open Era is full .
There is no place , are you down with Becker , Wilander , Vilas , Newcombe , Murray , Edberg , Nastase ...

 

[KG1965]

>>>> Agassi

Chapeau Nole.

Lendl and Mac in the viewfinder .

 

[Djokovic2011]

I wonder if ccO still thinks Agassi is above Djokovic now.

 

[AngieB]

I wonder if ccO still thinks Agassi is above Djokovic now.

Career slam. #GirlBye

#GrannyIlluminati​

 

[KG1965]

I wonder if ccO still thinks Agassi is above Djokovic now.

It's always worth pointing out especially when the media are all against Djokovic and pro Agassi .

But Nole has carved a ravine with the caterpillar .

 

[ibbi]

As someone who thinks there's more to greatness than simply reading a resume you'll excuse me if I continue to find the accumulation of a career grand slam in an era where such a thing was genuinely difficult to achieve, and the miracle Wimbledon win (seriously, his win there is a thing worthy of awe) in amongst a sea of serve and volley to be far more remarkable than anything Djokovic has done.

 

[Chadillac]

Put an * on anything agassi did after 1999. You dont become the fittest man on the tour after doing meth for 6months.

 

[RF-18]

Update on their respective careers right now:

Novak Djokovic:

9 GS titles (AO open era goat with 5, 0 FO, 3 W and 1 USO including two multi slam years)
4 YECs
24 MS titles
1 DC title
0 Olympic gold
155 weeks at #1
3 YE#1 (maybe we can already count in his 4th here and now)
54 consecutive weeks at #1 (and counting)

* Other Noteable achievements:
17 GS finals
4 consecutive GS finals
GS Semi-finals: 27
14 consecutive GS SFs
33 GS QFs
4 consecutive GS QFs
25 consecutive QFs
4 YECs finals


Andre Agassi

8 GS titles (4 AOs, 1 FO, 1 W and 2 USO including one multi slam year)
1 YECs
17 MS titles
3 DC titles
Career Slam
1 OG
101 weeks at #1
1 YE#1
52 consecutive weeks at #1

* Other Noteable achievements
15 GS finals
4 consecutive GS finals
GS Semi-finals: 26
4 consecutive GS SFs
36 GS QFs
6 consecutive GS QFs
4 YECs finals

 

[Nachiket Nolefam]

I think Agassi's clay achievements are highly overrated. He did win few masters but the slam finals he lost to guys he beat everywhere outside clay. Courier, Bruguera, Muster all beat him on clay. While of clay, he handily disposed all of them.
http://www.stevegtennis.com/head-to-head/men/Andre_Agassi/Thomas_Muster/
http://www.stevegtennis.com/head-to-head/men/Jim_Courier/Andre_Agassi/
http://www.stevegtennis.com/head-to-head/men/Andre_Agassi/Sergio_Bruguera/
http://www.stevegtennis.com/head-to-head/men/Andre_Agassi/Yevgeny_Kafelnikov/

He reached final in 1999 vs very weak guy, Medvedev. Good for him that he won. But its not like he was clay great. He was almost absent for all the clay masters and won just 1.

Novak already has 4 Rome masters, 2 Monte Carlo masters, and Madrid masters. He has 3 finals and bucket full of semifinals vs Nadal and Federer. Except these two, he does not have any problem with rest of the field on clay. Especially Nadal, who had french locked down for years. This year, it was shame that he couldn't win French but he reached final again and was just a bit short of another guy who played inspired tennis.

 

[BeatlesFan]

The Djoker fans need to be reminded that Andre played Masters 1000's when they were all best 3/5 sets. It was only in the last year of his career when they were reduced to best 2/3 sets. Andre would have won a helluva lot more of them had they just been 2/3.

 

[PeterHo]

After US open this is not a contest anymore. Thread can be closed.

 

[StannisTheMannis]

The Djoker fans need to be reminded that Andre played Masters 1000's when they were all best 3/5 sets. It was only in the last year of his career when they were reduced to best 2/3 sets. Andre would have won a helluva lot more of them had they just been 2/3.

only the finals were best of 5. If you think 1 extra set makes that much of a difference, you are insane

 

[BlackSilver]

He reached final in 1999 vs very weak guy, Medvedev.

You have no idea what you are talking about 2015. Stop talking about players you never saw playing

 

[beltsman]

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.

If Djokovic won 100 slams, nobody would care about him more than Agassi. He's a boring robot in a weak era. He is the death of tennis. Mark my words in 10 years when the ATP is in crisis and trying to get out of the terrible deals it signed with tournaments and sponsors.

But selfish Djokovic fans don't care.

 

[mika1979]

Agassi is not in the same league. Djokovic has an era and is by far the dominant force in tennis for a very long time now. Agassi is a likeable talented guy but very second tier. Djokovic blitzed past him a while ago now. Djokovic changed tennis and is changing it as we speak. Whilst people might not like it or him the level of professionalism he has brought to the sport is ridiculous. The talk about specialist and stuff is downright stupid. Sure the courts were different but the players simply weren't as prepared as what they are now. I think the money is the issue as the best get the chance to be better prepared. But at the end of the day Agassi beat a bunch of chumps mostly and spent a tiny amount of his career as the best player in the game. So no contest

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

Novak equalling Agassi at the USO was vitally important imo, he simply had to win that more than once- esp to cement his hard court legacy.
Both have fantastic records at the AO, and like Nadal with Federer, Agassi (due to Sampras) was unlucky not to have more weeks at Number 1.
But apart from the overrated (Golden) Career Grand Slam, Agassi really cannot compete with Djoker now, and even he would know that.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

If Djokovic won 100 slams, nobody would care about him more than Agassi. He's a boring robot in a weak era. He is the death of tennis. Mark my words in 10 years when the ATP is in crisis and trying to get out of the terrible deals it signed with tournaments and sponsors.

But selfish Djokovic fans don't care.

Do you really live in Mallorca?
Obviously the world starts and ends with Nadal there, but believe it or not, there is a big world outside.

 

[mika1979]

Also Agassi during his prime was never the number one player on tour. He took down a few titles during some of the worst times in the mens game. This is when the women's game really was a step above talent wise. I dont really mind Medvedev but clement and schuttler are some of the worst. I actually gave away the semi tickets that year the Grosjean clement match was too frightening a proposition

 

[mika1979]

I think agassi is much closer to the edberg becker group than to nole. And its a djoke that some of the posters talk up this career slam achievement to bring down djokovic and his accomplishments when comparing him to agassi and then talk down the oz open when comparing him to other guys with less slams. Tennis is the most competitive it has ever been as more of the world plays it now than ever before. If nadal and fed are in the top few djokovic cannot be very far behind.

 

[BlueB]

If Djokovic won 100 slams, nobody would care about him more than Agassi. He's a boring robot in a weak era. He is the death of tennis. Mark my words in 10 years when the ATP is in crisis and trying to get out of the terrible deals it signed with tournaments and sponsors.

But selfish Djokovic fans don't care.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[6august]

Left to right: tennis_commentator, gary 20 and beltsman.

 

[StannisTheMannis]

You have no idea what you are talking about 2015. Stop talking about players you never saw playing

You understand the he never won even a quarterfinals match at any slam in his career other than the French right?

 

[mattosgrant]

I never said anything of the sort. But winning all 4 slams? Remeber Federer managed a lot of runners up at RG due to the clay field sucking until Djokovic actually came up. It was Nadal, and Federer, then.........nobody. Federer got mighty lucky to win his only FO title this era, it would just as hard, if not harder to do it in the 90's when there is more than 1 good claycourter.

Quite true but funny the weak clay field argument only comes up for Nadal, and not for Federer, when both faced the same field, and Federer (obviously a far inferior clay courter to Nadal) would both need and benefit from the admitted (when Nadal is the topic) weaker clay field than Nadal.

Federer fans arent even happy evaluating his clay achievements as is, but want to buff them up considerably by awarding his fantasy titles with the "without Nadal" caveat, and attempt to rank him above far more successful clay courters who crushed him badly at the big event way past their prime like Kuerten.

 

[Gary20]

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.

Agassi is way ahead of Djokovic. Agassi has won everything there is to win Djokovic hasnt. End of debate.

 

[Gary20]

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?

In Serbia though that doesnt count you see. They have a logic different from the rest of the world and in fact a Golden Slam is not has good as 6 Beijing titles!!

 

[TahoeTennis]

Agassi got more people into tennis than any American ever has, including myself. Plus his accomplishments off the court >>>>>>>>> all other players.

Vamos Andre!!

 

[Gary20]

Agassi got more people into tennis than any American ever has, including myself. Plus his accomplishments off the court >>>>>>>>> all other players.

Vamos Andre!!

We live in an ant-american and anti British world so dont expect any of the americans to get the credit they deserve. I keep reading utter garbage like Djokovic is better than Sampras and Agassi!! It defies belief, Djokovic a long way off either player. Sampras and Agassi are up there with Nadal and federer.

 

[CYGS]

Agassi got more people into tennis than any American ever has, including myself. Plus his accomplishments off the court >>>>>>>>> all other players.

Vamos Andre!!

Are you sure that's a good thing? Plus, your US-centric view is not going to work well with the international fan base here.

 

[Gary20]

Are you sure that's a good thing? Plus, your US-centric view is not going to work well with the international fan base here.

Of course its a good thing. America calls the shots in everything, even Soccer it is America who brought Blatter down. America is the most powerful important country in the world and tennis is reliant on America, hence so many tournaments over there. If tennis is popular in America, the game booms.

 

[Cup8489]

only the finals were best of 5. If you think 1 extra set makes that much of a difference, you are insane

Best of 5 and no bye rounds back then.. it meant that week in, week out, playing masters events back to back would probably cause you to lose. Djokovic has benefited from best of 3 and bye rounds.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

wooah! pump the break!Outside of the slams, Agassi won more of the real -best of 5 final variety of most of the big events, the YEC, ms1000's,Davis Cup's,Olympics.

 

[Djokovic2011]

wooah! pump the break!Outside of the slams, Agassi won more of the real -best of 5 final variety of most of the big events, the YEC, ms1000's,Davis Cup's,Olympics.

Djokovic has won more YECs and Masters 1000s than Agassi TN.

 

[StannisTheMannis]

Best of 5 and no bye rounds back then.. it meant that week in, week out, playing masters events back to back would probably cause you to lose. Djokovic has benefited from best of 3 and bye rounds.

They were not best of 5. Only masters finals were best of 5.

 

[Cup8489]

They were not best of 5. Only masters finals were best of 5.

Yes, I am aware of this. But best of 5 match the day after a best of 3 match, followed by almost no break before beginning another tournament, is a lot harder to pull off than best of 3 matches. See Rome 2006. Both Federer and Nadal withdrew from Hamburg that year because the Rome final went 5 sets.. and they had no bye rounds in the Hamburg event. The following year the masters finals went to best of 3.

 

[Nachiket Nolefam]

BO5 is huge BS. Djokovic is one of the fittest player ever, BO5 works in his favor. And BO5 was in finals only. Just look at their final appearances.

No byes, etc BS. They had choice to participate in tournaments. Djokovic/big four don't and they play almost all top players in all masters 1000s.

 

[PeterHo]

BO5 is huge BS. Djokovic is one of the fittest player ever, BO5 works in his favor. And BO5 was in finals only. Just look at their final appearances.

No byes, etc BS. They had choice to participate in tournaments. Djokovic/big four don't and they play almost all top players in all masters 1000s.

Agreed.

Bo5 is advantage Novak. He would have won a few more masters agaibst the like of fed if that was the case.
Longer match implies younger, more defensive, more physical guy wins.

 

[Noleberic123]

BO5 is huge BS. Djokovic is one of the fittest player ever, BO5 works in his favor. And BO5 was in finals only. Just look at their final appearances.

No byes, etc BS. They had choice to participate in tournaments. Djokovic/big four don't and they play almost all top players in all masters 1000s.

Taking three sets off a peak Djokovic is extremely tough. Almost impossible for any player in 2015

 

[BlackSilver]

You understand the he never won even a quarterfinals match at any slam in his career other than the French right?

Yes. You understand that winning matches at any slam in his carrer other than the French is totally and absolutely irrelevant when the discussion is about Agassi competition on clay right?

 

[StannisTheMannis]

Yes. You understand that winning matches at any slam in his carrer other than the French is totally and absolutely irrelevant when the discussion is about Agassi competition on clay right?

If he's not good overall, he's not that good on clay.

 

[CYGS]

Yes, I am aware of this. But best of 5 match the day after a best of 3 match, followed by almost no break before beginning another tournament, is a lot harder to pull off than best of 3 matches. See Rome 2006. Both Federer and Nadal withdrew from Hamburg that year because the Rome final went 5 sets.. and they had no bye rounds in the Hamburg event. The following year the masters finals went to best of 3.

Add one more to the Fedfans' portfolio of excuses now. Great job.

 

[Nachiket Nolefam]

Add one more to the Fedfans' portfolio of excuses now. Great job.

Worst excuse to deny anyone. Sure, we should exclude all the matches that went in TB now as in Laver's days, they didn't play TB.

 

[mika1979]

Add one more to the Fedfans' portfolio of excuses now. Great job.

I'm a djokovic fav however i think it would be much harder for him to back up if the masters were best of 5. Sure in a one of match or one tournament best of 5 is better for him as it takes luck out of it but in the masters he would be playing more rested guys. So it might be tougher for the guy that wins everything to keep on winning as he plays more matches. However for the hundredth time it is daylight between him and agassi

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

I'm a djokovic fav however i think it would be much harder for him to back up if the masters were best of 5. Sure in a one of match or one tournament best of 5 is better for him as it takes luck out of it but in the masters he would be playing more rested guys. So it might be tougher for the guy that wins everything to keep on winning as he plays more matches. However for the hundredth time it is daylight between him and agassi

There would be less motivation to win Masters tourneys as well if they were still BO5, so more likely to tank or miss them.
Right now they are good tune ups for the Slams (bar the AO which has none), so winning them is more important.
Don't think Djoker would be as fussed on them otherwise, and probably more focused on them than Agassi was.
Agassi still took them more seriously than Sampras though, who only ever wanted to be remembered for how many Majors he won- ""because that is what people remember"" - is what he said.

 

[BlackSilver]

If he's not good overall, he's not that good on clay.

Prove it 2015.

 

[Cup8489]

Add one more to the Fedfans' portfolio of excuses now. Great job.

Excuse? What am I making an excuse for? Is it not true that winning a 3 set match is probably easier than a 5 set match? Do you play tennis? There's a reason the majors are the hardest to win.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Add one more to the Fedfans' portfolio of excuses now. Great job.

 

[mika1979]

There would be less motivation to win Masters tourneys as well if they were still BO5, so more likely to tank or miss them.
Right now they are good tune ups for the Slams (bar the AO which has none), so winning them is more important.
Don't think Djoker would be as fussed on them otherwise, and probably more focused on them than Agassi was.
Agassi still took them more seriously than Sampras though, who only ever wanted to be remembered for how many Majors he won- ""because that is what people remember"" - is what he said.

yep the whole tour is more forcused on the masters and thats why they on their own are tougher to win these days, but i think the best of five element would have made it tougher for the best players, as the lower level players would set themselves more for different masters.