Does Agassi get underrated in all time discussions?

[Deleted member 307496]

No way Hewitt in '01 beats Agassi in '01 at the USO. Agassi was peaking crazy that tourney.

I think Hewitt would beat Agassi that tournament. He dismissed Pete 7-6, 6-1, 6-1 and also demolished Kafelnikov in the SF. Agassi would have gotten his revenge in 2002, and I think Agassi played better that USO..

 

[The_Order]

I don't think he's underrated, just that he hasn't won enough to enter the top echelon of players that have played this sport.

Of course, common sense would tell you there is no such thing as a GOAT, given the many different eras of the sport.

But in terms of achievements, he's had an incredible career no doubt about it. However, he sure hurt his chances when he went off the rails in what should have been his peak. I think because of that he blew his chances of getting double digits with the major wins.

 

[The_Order]

How can any one belittle someone who is No.2 in the all time greatest list ?

Tennis analysts have given due consideration for his grand slam, albeit accomplished when it was played only on 2 surfaces.

http://www.tennischannel.com/goat/71.aspx

The grass surfaces that played differently though.

Nadal is the only one in history to win a major on clay, grass and HC in the one season.

He doesn't get enough credit for that, you talk about tough achievements, that one has to be right up there.

 

[tennisaddict]

The grass surfaces that played differently though.

Nadal is the only one in history to win a major on clay, grass and HC in the one season.

He doesn't get enough credit for that, you talk about tough achievements, that one has to be right up there.

The difference is when Laver won grass and clay , while Nadal won all surfaces clay and that played like clay.

Nevertheless winning 3 majors in a year now is impressive, no matter what combination it is.

I know some combine AO with USO to mask weakness in one major, but as we all have seen historically except for 1 player , no one has been able to replicate success at both.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

How can any one belittle someone who is No.2 in the all time greatest list ?

You were belittling Laver--the GOAT, not your imagined #2. We were also talking about the player who is not the GOAT--Federer--a man fighting for "best of the rest," which he stands a chance of losing in the short years to come.

Tennis analysts have given due consideration for his grand slam, albeit accomplished when it was played only on 2 surfaces.

http://www.tennischannel.com/goat/71.aspx

A cable channel is irrelevant to history's long acknowledgement. Moreover, the Federer fanboy's paper-thin attempt to turn a major into something else due to surface is a painful exercise in failure. The major is the major, and Federer was not talented enough, or displayed the concentrated dominance required to capture the Grand Slam. There's no spinning that.

 

[BringBackSV]

Comprehension failure. In the context of Olympics, is 400m gold better than 800 m ?

If you are talking about in the context of 400m running, yes, 800m racing has nothing to do with it. That is also true of trying to lump doubles gold as having any validity in conversation about single's gold. Nobody ever talks about double's accomplishments when talking about achievements of single's players and that's for obvious reasons. Let's stop with the false analogies, Fed failed to win single's gold. Do I care? No but I do find it laughable that some Fed fans act like olympic gold is meaningless when it's clearly not.

 

[tennisaddict]

If you are talking about in the context of 400m running, yes, 800m racing has nothing to do with it. That is also true of trying to lump doubles gold as having any validity in conversation about single's gold. Nobody ever talks about double's accomplishments when talking about achievements of single's players and that's for obvious reasons. Let's stop with the false analogies, Fed failed to win single's gold. Do I care? No but I do find it laughable that some Fed fans act like olympic gold is meaningless when it's clearly not.

An athlete won 400m. Another won 800m. Which one is better ? why is it not comparable to Tennis Singles and Tennis Doubles ?

You can say Nadal is the better Olympic Singles player. Similarly Fed is the better Olympic doubles player.

But both have achieved the same highest award that is offered by Olympics.

(In fact Fed has an additional Silver)

 

[tennisaddict]

You were belittling Laver--the GOAT, not your imagined #2. We were also talking about the player who is not the GOAT--Federer--a man fighting for "best of the rest," which he stands a chance of losing in the short years to come.



A cable channel is irrelevant to history's long acknowledgement. Moreover, the Federer fanboy's paper-thin attempt to turn a major into something else due to surface is a painful exercise in failure. The major is the major, and Federer was not talented enough, or displayed the concentrated dominance required to capture the Grand Slam. There's no spinning that.

Please do not belittle the ratings. I regard Laver very high, but i respect the valued opinions of the stalwarts , who rated Laver as No.2 . I can imagine it must have been tough for them , but they had a task to do. I do agree that a grand slam is a great achievement, just that if Dmitrov goes on a tear and wins all 4 majors in 2015, no one on earth will call him the GOAT.

100 Greatest of All Time, produced by Tennis Channel in March 2012, presented a list of the "100 greatest tennis players of all time", both men and women.

The series was hosted by Jack Nicklaus, Jerry Rice, Wayne Gretzky, Lisa Leslie and Carl Lewis. Many retired tennis luminaries provided commentary, including Rod Laver, Billie Jean King, Chris Evert, Björn Borg, John McEnroe, Martina Navratilova, Pete Sampras, and Andre Agassi.

 

[BringBackSV]

An athlete won 400m. Another won 800m. Which one is better ? why is it not comparable to Tennis Singles and Tennis Doubles ?

You can say Nadal is the better Olympic Singles player. Similarly Fed is the better Olympic doubles player.

But both have achieved the same highest award that is offered by Olympics.

(In fact Fed has an additional Silver)

Cool, Fed's doubles accomplishments are bolstered by his winning Olympic cold, happy now? Can we get back to talking about Men's singles?

 

[tennisaddict]

Cool, Fed's doubles accomplishments are bolstered by his winning Olympic cold, happy now? Can we get back to talking about Men's singles?

Olympics is not relevant then.

 

[BringBackSV]

Olympics is not relevant then.

Why, do the top players not play Olympics singles? Is it not an event that even Fed himself has stated numerous times to care about? Olympic gold in Men's tennis is relevant, whether Fed ever wins one or not. You know it's ok that he failed to do certain things right? He's mortal bro, not a god.

 

[tennisaddict]

Why, do the top players not play Olympics singles? Is it not an event that even Fed himself has stated numerous times to care about? Olympic gold in Men's tennis is relevant, whether Fed ever wins one or not. You know it's ok that he failed to do certain things right? He's mortal bro, not a god.

Let me try to explain another way

- The feeling that any player has when he wins a singles major is totally different and much much greater than when he wins a doubles major

- The feeling that any player has when he wins a singles olympics medal is SAME as winning a doubles gold medal.

If you have any doubts, ask Serena which one was she more proud about - Singles gold or doubles gold.

 

[The_Order]

The difference is when Laver won grass and clay , while Nadal won all surfaces clay and that played like clay.

Nevertheless winning 3 majors in a year now is impressive, no matter what combination it is.

I know some combine AO with USO to mask weakness in one major, but as we all have seen historically except for 1 player , no one has been able to replicate success at both.

LOL that's not a difference, just your lack of knowledge on how the surfaces play.

If grass was anything like clay, Nadal would have at least 7 Wimbledons by now.

Same deal with USO.

Only butthurt Fed fans like you need to say this because your boy couldn't do it. Of course, you need to say that because you can't actually come up with anything intelligent to say :lol:

 

[SoBad]

Olympics greatest competition of all time in all of sports:

 not significant before this century, otherwise Sampras would have had multiple and Agassi none
 became important by 2000 when all top players competed in Melbourne
 no top players playing the 2003 – 2007, Massu walks with singles and doubles gold in 2004
 Nadal has Gold Slam, Djokovic short by Gold/French, Kafelnikov short by USO/Museum

 

[tennisaddict]

LOL that's not a difference, just your lack of knowledge on how the surfaces play.

If grass was anything like clay, Nadal would have at least 7 Wimbledons by now.

Same deal with USO.

Only butthurt Fed fans like you need to say this because your boy couldn't do it. Of course, you need to say that because you can't actually come up with anything intelligent to say :lol:

Becker , who knows a thing or two about 80's and 90's grass is on record saying Nadal and Novak are winning zilch on true grass.

Havent you read that ?

 

[BringBackSV]

Let me try to explain another way

- The feeling that any player has when he wins a singles major is totally different and much much greater than when he wins a doubles major

- The feeling that any player has when he wins a singles olympics medal is SAME as winning a doubles gold medal.

If you have any doubts, ask Serena which one was she more proud about - Singles gold or doubles gold.

That's just patently false though. If Roger won Olympic gold in the 100 meter butterfly, it might feel as good as winning it in singles but one has no relevance to the other. Roger keeps talking about wanting to win singles gold for obvious reasons, that being that doubles just didn't "give him the same feeling". I really don't care about what Serena might have said and I'm surprised you do either.

 

[Zoid]

Too many ifs and buts in an argument for andre. Amazing player, best returner of all time and one of the greatest ball strikers this game has seen. You can say that he would have won this and that if he didn't go AWOL in his prime years, but at the end of the day that's part and parcel of a tennis career. If you want to be the GOAT you're going to have to turn up year after year for 10 years at least and put your name at the back end of slams over and over again. Greatness demands consistency.

 

[Russeljones]

He's literally THE only player to have won everything there is to win in tennis.

1)Career Slam
2)YEC
3)Olympic Gold

Even Federer and Nadal have not managed that. Less said about Sampras and the holes in his resume the better. Djokovic has the best chance out of the current lot to emulate Agassi IMHO. Nadal is not winning YEC, Federer will be stuck with a singles silver and Murray will never get the career slam (has a shot at WTF though).

1 Slam win is exactly the same as any other Slam won. It becomes more impressive when more of them are won inside a calendar year. Career Slams are an achievement of pure fiction. Olympic gold medal, especially in Agassi's time, means a gold medal - virtually meaningless to the sport of tennis. If anything, the less said about Agassi the better. His sordid affairs have put a stain on the sport and affected many honest players.

 

[helloworld]

The meth head of the 90s is underated? Talk about clueless people on this forum...

 

[Gary Duane]

If anything, the less said about Agassi the better. His sordid affairs have put a stain on the sport and affected many honest players.

Agassi's "sins" were against himself. He fell from being one of the best players on the planet, and he redeemed himself. I don't see him as a stain on tennis. More of a warning to others of what not to do.

I would feel different if he had used drugs to win, which he didn't, unless I have missed something. Lance Armstrong was a stain on cycling. He cheated, used drugs to win.

As far as I know Agassi did nothing like that. I have great respect for Agassis, for the man he has become and the player he became at the end of his career.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Agassi's "sins" were against himself. He fell from being one of the best players on the planet, and he redeemed himself. I don't see him as a stain on tennis. More of a warning to others of what not to do.

I would feel different if he had used drugs to win, which he didn't, unless I have missed something. Lance Armstrong was a stain on cycling. He cheated, used drugs to win.

As far as I know Agassi did nothing like that. I have great respect for Agassis, for the man he has become and the player he became at the end of his career.

Agassi also had a notable career resurrection in the late 90s that would leave a footmark on the sport of tennis.

 

[Russeljones]

Agassi's "sins" were against himself. He fell from being one of the best players on the planet, and he redeemed himself. I don't see him as a stain on tennis. More of a warning to others of what not to do.

I would feel different if he had used drugs to win, which he didn't, unless I have missed something. Lance Armstrong was a stain on cycling. He cheated, used drugs to win.

As far as I know Agassi did nothing like that. I have great respect for Agassis, for the man he has become and the player he became at the end of his career.

What do you think the players feel who lost points and prize money during the time of the cover-up? He was dishonest and profited from it. Others lost out. That's my angle.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

If you are talking about in the context of 400m running, yes, 800m racing has nothing to do with it. That is also true of trying to lump doubles gold as having any validity in conversation about single's gold. Nobody ever talks about double's accomplishments when talking about achievements of single's players and that's for obvious reasons. Let's stop with the false analogies, Fed failed to win single's gold. Do I care? No but I do find it laughable that some Fed fans act like olympic gold is meaningless when it's clearly not.

Well said--the usual Federer fans love to pile on meaningless trivia where attempting to inflate Federer's record, but when something as significant as the Olympics--specifically gold in singes is mentioned, what do we see? Lies trying to merge singles and doubles as though anyone is going to simply assume Federer won singles gold. We also see denial or attempts to brush aside the singles gold distinction from another faction of the Federer fans.

Their desperation is clear, and only illustrates how they do understand how utterly weak their Federer-is-GOAT claim is, that any genuine weakness or failing must be subjected to their revisionist history, lest Federer is viewed through the lens of truth--not worship.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Career Slams are an achievement of pure fiction. Olympic gold medal, especially in Agassi's time, means a gold medal - virtually meaningless to the sport of tennis.

True--it is a latter years invention by certain tennis PTB and the media in order to elevate players incapable of ever winning something of the magnitude of the Grand Slam. There is no consolation prize of achievement.

I do agree that a grand slam is a great achievement, just that if Dmitrov goes on a tear and wins all 4 majors in 2015, no one on earth will call him the GOAT.

If Dmitrov won the Grand Slam, he would--in the blink of an eye--catapult to the GOAT platform, as he reached the zenith of tennis accomplishment. Only someone screaming and crying to rewrite history to protect GOAT-ineligible Federer would pretend that a player winning the Grand Slam did not show the ultimate example of concentrated dominance of the sport.

The series was hosted by Jack Nicklaus, Jerry Rice, Wayne Gretzky, Lisa Leslie and Carl Lewis. Many retired tennis luminaries provided commentary, including Rod Laver, Billie Jean King, Chris Evert, Björn Borg, John McEnroe, Martina Navratilova, Pete Sampras, and Andre Agassi.

Oh, you mean the same John McEnroe who has said he believes Nadal is greater than Federer? You cite McEnroe, but he actually stands apart from your own (false) view. That is a major reason why a cable channel--known for making puff pieces is not considered serious journalism.

Next...

 

[TMF]

It's a fat lie that Mac consider Nadal is a goat if he said Nadal is greater than Federer.


Tennis Channel expert team have done a splendid job in determine the top 100 list. The level of effort and time they spent on analyzing/evaluating each player with their best knowledge and unbiased methodology are greatly appreciated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeBui1DoQ-4
"In order to put together this list of the top 100 greatest players of all time, tennis channel reach out to an international panel of journalists, coaches, historians and industry representatives. Participants held from 6 continents and include the International Tennis Hall of Fame. As you can see, the criteria being use evaluate each legend is base on performance at Grand Slam events, ATP and WTA tournaments, and of course, Federation and Davis Cup results. Records held and broken will also be factor, as well as any other intangibles".

 

[Gary Duane]

What do you think the players feel who lost points and prize money during the time of the cover-up? He was dishonest and profited from it. Others lost out. That's my angle.

I never thought about that angle. I have not read his book. Did the cover-up involve PEDs? I have to admit my ignorance here.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

It's a fat lie that Mac consider Nadal is a goat if he said Nadal is greater than Federer.

The only liar is the person you see in your mirror.

June 25, 2013 - Wimbledon:

“This guy is to me, I think you can make an argument right here and now, the greatest player that ever lived,” McEnroe said. “If you look at his record against [Andy] Murray, [Roger] Federer, and [Novak] Djokovic, it’s way better than that. He won the Olympics. He’s got Davis Cups, which Roger doesn’t have.

A matter of record, but of course, you will deny this, continue to cite a puff piece cable channel and pretend McEnroe--like Agassi (May 8, 2014)--have not kicked your precious Federer to the curb.

 

[CyBorg]

No, overrated.

 

[TMF]

The only liar is the person you see in your mirror.

June 25, 2013 - Wimbledon:



A matter of record, but of course, you will deny this, continue to cite a puff piece cable channel and pretend McEnroe--like Agassi (May 8, 2014)--have not kicked your precious Federer to the curb.

McEnroe on Federer:

"If I had to pick one person, I’d pick Roger," McEnroe said. "Generally, I put Nadal as the greatest clay court player, I put Roger all-around, I put Pete Sampras the greatest grass court player, and Rod Laver was my idol. Those would be the top four. But I think Roger is the best all-around. He’s the most beautiful player I’ve ever seen. While he has a losing record against (Nadal), he’s been so consistent, has DiMaggio-like records, incredible streaks like 22 semis in a row. … Roger, he can do everything, and makes it look easy. That’s always the first step of a great player"

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

McEnroe's most recent praise of Nadal over Federer:

“This guy is to me, I think you can make an argument right here and now, the greatest player that ever lived,” McEnroe said. “If you look at his record against [Andy] Murray, [Roger] Federer, and [Novak] Djokovic, it’s way better than that. He won the Olympics. He’s got Davis Cups, which Roger doesn’t have.

He--and Agassi (May 8, 2014)--kicked Federer to the curb.

No surprise.

 

[TMF]

McEnroe's most recent praise of Nadal over Federer:



He--and Agassi (May 8, 2014)--kicked Federer to the curb.

No surprise.

The same Mac who said Nadal is the best volleyer in the top 100.:lol:

Even if what Mac said it(which I don't think any rational fans believe him), he's only one person, but the vast majority of the historians, coaches and experts considered Roger is the greatest. Time to accept the truth kiddo.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

The same Mac who said Nadal is the best volleyer in the top 100.:lol:

Even if what Mac said it(which I don't think any rational fans believe him), he's only one person, but the vast majority of the historians, coaches and experts considered Roger is the greatest. Time to accept the truth kiddo.

You used McEnroe as part of your "expert" panel on that puff piece cable channel. Now that legends such as McEnroe & Agassi kicked Federer to the curb in favor of Nadal, you attack him. Predictable. You will say anything to protect Federer--the man who is not the GOAT.

To reiterate:

McEnroe's most recent praise of Nadal over Federer:

“This guy is to me, I think you can make an argument right here and now, the greatest player that ever lived,” McEnroe said. “If you look at his record against [Andy] Murray, [Roger] Federer, and [Novak] Djokovic, it’s way better than that. He won the Olympics. He’s got Davis Cups, which Roger doesn’t have.

He--and Agassi (May 8, 2014)--kicked Federer to the curb.

No surprise.

 

[helloworld]

The same Mac who said Nadal is the best volleyer in the top 100.:lol:

Even if what Mac said it(which I don't think any rational fans believe him), he's only one person, but the vast majority of the historians, coaches and experts considered Roger is the greatest. Time to accept the truth kiddo.

Greatest who got humiliated beyond humiliation by his main rival? Makes no sense to me.

 

[hoodjem]

Does Agassi get underrated in all time discussions?

Yes, justifiably so.

 

[timnz]

My placing

What struck me, even back when he was playing was, how he was really good on all surfaces. His eye and timing was extraordinary. I really first thought he was a world beater when I saw him thump Becker and Edberg in the WTF on indoor carpet in 1990 - particularly his demolition of Becker - who is one of the all time indoor greats. He had added a lot of weight to his service between the US Open and the WTF. We all could see on Medium and Slow surfaces how good he was - but this was a revelation. Then he went all the way at Wimbledon in 1992 and its superfast grass then - repelling servers like Becker and Ivanisevic. Just amazing.

I don't know where to place Agassi in the all time discussions. But in the Open era I would put him 9th behind - Federer, Nadal, Lendl, Sampras, McEnroe, Borg, Connors, Djokovic. Djokovic only past Agassi this year in IMHO when he won Wimbledon over Federer - and then only by a small margin.

 

[CyBorg]

McEnroe's most recent praise of Nadal over Federer:



He--and Agassi (May 8, 2014)--kicked Federer to the curb.

No surprise.

McEnroe is a bandwagoner.

 

[Steve132]

What struck me, even back when he was playing was, how he was really good on all surfaces. His eye and timing was extraordinary. I really first thought he was a world beater when I saw him thump Becker and Edberg in the WTF on indoor carpet in 1990 - particularly his demolition of Becker - who is one of the all time indoor greats. He had added a lot of weight to his service between the US Open and the WTF. We all could see on Medium and Slow surfaces how good he was - but this was a revelation. Then he went all the way at Wimbledon in 1992 and its superfast grass then - repelling servers like Becker and Ivanisevic. Just amazing.

I don't know where to place Agassi in the all time discussions. But in the Open era I would put him 8th behind - Federer, Nadal, Lendl, Sampras, McEnroe, Connors, Djokovic. Djokovic only past Agassi this year in IMHO when he won Wimbledon over Federer - and then only by a small margin.

Do you rank Agassi ahead of Borg?

 

[timnz]

Do you rank Agassi ahead of Borg?

No, that was a typo - Agassi is behind Borg. I have corrected it. Hence, in my view Agassi is 9th in the open era.doesn't sound high, but actually it is very high.

 

[forzamilan90]

I don't think he's underrated around here. I think he is rated right. He's in that McEnroe tier

 

[Vensai]

I don't think he's underrated around here. I think he is rated right. He's in that McEnroe tier

Agreed. Andre Agassi is situated in Tier II along with McEnroe, Connors, and Lendl.

 

[NatF]

Agreed. Andre Agassi is situated in Tier II along with McEnroe, Connors, and Lendl.

Bottom of the pile though, in danger of being surpassed by Djokovic in the next few months too.

 

[Steve132]

Agreed. Andre Agassi is situated in Tier II along with McEnroe, Connors, and Lendl.

This seems a fair assessment. My only change would be to add Djokovic to that tier.

 

[dominikk1985]

agassis biggest issue is that he was owned by sampras. other 8 slam winners like lendl and mac didn't have that to the same degree.

 

[TMF]

Expert Consensus Ranking

You used McEnroe as part of your "expert" panel on that puff piece cable channel. Now that legends such as McEnroe & Agassi kicked Federer to the curb in favor of Nadal, you attack him. Predictable. You will say anything to protect Federer--the man who is not the GOAT.

1 Roger Federer
2 Rod Laver
3 Pete Sampras
4 Rafael Nadal
5 Bjorn Borg

Deal with it junior.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

1 Roger Federer
2 Rod Laver
3 Pete Sampras
4 Rafael Nadal
5 Bjorn Borg

Deal with it junior.

There is no expert consensus. Once again, You used McEnroe as part of your "expert" panel on that puff piece cable channel. Now that legends such as McEnroe & Agassi kicked Federer to the curb in favor of Nadal, you attack him. Predictable. You will say anything to protect Federer--the man who is not the GOAT.

To reiterate:

McEnroe's most recent praise of Nadal over Federer:

“This guy is to me, I think you can make an argument right here and now, the greatest player that ever lived,” McEnroe said. “If you look at his record against [Andy] Murray, [Roger] Federer, and [Novak] Djokovic, it’s way better than that. He won the Olympics. He’s got Davis Cups, which Roger doesn’t have.

He--and Agassi (May 8, 2014)--kicked Federer to the curb.

However, history has long accepted Laver winning the Grand Slam as the measure of the GOAT--and an army of Federers could not win that on their best day.

Dry your tears.

 

[hoodjem]

The excellent is the worst enemy of the good.

 

[bluetrain4]

He definitely does. I say it a lot, but it's worth saying, for that guy to win Wimbledon in that era was a freaking miracle, and 1 other final and 2 other semis to go along with it? Won major titles on hard, grass, clay, and carpet, the only two significant titles he never got his hands on were Hamburg and Monte Carlo which he barely ever played. For him to be competitive in that fast era against such aggressive servers, and attacking net players? Dude is remarkable. If he plays in this era he'd clean up. People on this board are too preoccupied with numbers, and don't pay enough attention to context. In context Agassi's accomplishments are monumental.

I'm not arguing against the fact that he is sometimes underrated. I'm just disagreeing with you're highlighted point. IMO, his multiple successes at Wimbledon defeat the argument that his win was a "miracle." [He made another final and 3 additional SFs and 2 QFs]. It's just too simplistic to say, "well, he was a baseliner (or at least a non-serve-and-volleyer), so it was a miracle for him to win Wimbledon." Clearly, he was the type of baseliner who could do well there. Not all baseliners are the same, and whatever it was about his game (his great return, his taking the all early, his ability to redirect pace), clearly it could at times translate to success on grass. Hardly anyone expectd him to win in 1992, so I could understand "somewhat surprising", but I don't think it was that much of a "miracle."

 

[Anti-Fedal]

No, not really. Those AO's in the later stages of his career came against god-awful fields. Not a tier 1 GOAT candidate in my book.

 

[NatF]

^^ I'd say only 2001 and 2003 were awful. I think 2000 was a good win with Sampras in the SF.

Agassi only won 3 slams before 1999. Very unusual career pattern - certainly a great player, but should of achieved more in the mid 90's had a year where he played absolutely great tennis from 1994-1995 then disappeared.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

^^ I'd say only 2001 and 2003 were awful. I think 2000 was a good win with Sampras in the SF.

Agassi only won 3 slams before 1999. Very unusual career pattern - certainly a great player, but should of achieved more in the mid 90's had a year where he played absolutely great tennis from 1994-1995 then disappeared.

Yeah I was referring to 2001 and 2003. 2000 obviously was a hard draw.