Agassi's GOAT analysis was very dimwitted. I think it boiled down to asking, "How can Fed be the best of all time if he's arguably not even the best of his own era?" Andre never understood that his framing of the question raised unanswerable new questions: "How can Rafa be the best of his era if he has fewer slams than another guy in his era? How can Rafa be the best of his era if he has half the weeks at No. 1 of another player in his era? How can Rafa be the best of his era if he's never won the World Tour Finals against the top players of the year?" Etc.