Greatest Players Ever -Top 5: New List

[thalivest]

He got really lucky against Medeev, and absolutely blew it against Andre Gomez. So yes, he did deserve to win a FO.

Neither Gomez or Agassi really deserved the 90 French Open. If Lendl had played he was the heavy favorite to win it again, and being hungry after his embarassment vs Chang the previous year probably would have done so in dominant fashion. Lendl was so obsessive about winning Wimbledon that he even gave up a near certain slam title just to go the extra mile in preparing for his elusive dream.

If there is a French Open Agassi deserved I guess it would be the 91 one since he probably would have won that final over Courier without the rain delay.

 

[thalivest]

Of just the last 30 years my list would be:

1. Borg
2. Sampras
3. Federer

---the top 3 are all incredibly close and could be argued any number of ways. Any of the three could be on top----

4. Connors
5. Lendl
6. McEnroe

-------these 3 are all very close and again could be argued a number of ways------

7. Agassi
8. Wilander
9. Nadal (will pass both Agassi and Wilander by end of the year probably)
10. Becker or Edberg

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Of just the last 30 years my list would be:

1. Borg
2. Sampras
3. Federer

---the top 3 are all incredibly close and could be argued any number of ways. Any of the three could be on top----

4. Connors
5. Lendl
6. McEnroe

-------these 3 are all very close and again could be argued a number of ways------

7. Agassi
8. Wilander
9. Nadal (will pass both Agassi and Wilander by end of the year probably)
10. Becker or Edberg

Good list though I would have Sampras over Borg due to longetivity and Lendl over Connors due to more dominant prime and Becker/Edberg and Nadal over Wilander due to Wilander really not doing much after his amazing 88 Becker/Edberg were factors from the mid 80's to the mid 90's.

 

[tennis-hero]

Connors should be on your hard court list ahead of Lendl and Agassi (won three US Opens on hard courts, beat Lendl in two of the finals even though he was 31 in the last one.) I'd probably consider putting Wilander on the clay list at 4, and Lendl at 5.

Lendl made 8 straight finals there, only Pete stopped him making 9 straight- you cant argue with those numbers

Connors beat Lendl in 82,83, but in 83 it went to 5
lendl didn't win a slam until 84- his h2h with connors is 22-13

14-5 on hard courts in Lendls favor

84-85 was one of connors most consistent periods, he made semis or better at every slam he entered

Lendl dominate him 8-2 (3-0 on HC) in 84,85 when both players were playing great tennis

from Wembley onwards in 1984, connors would never beat Lendl again, connors was by no means washed up in 1984, he made wimbledon finals that year

Lendl took borg to 5 years before his own prime, and during borgs prime. thats why i'd rate him so highly on clay

Lendl leads wilander 6-4 on clay

theres a part of me that sooooooooooo wants to put Lendl as a top 5 on todays green clay they call grass.... guaranteed he'd have won on todays grass.

Agassi has 6 HC slams, would have been 8+ had it not been for Pete

on top of that, Andre skipped the AO for 8 years at the start of his career, which could easily have pushed his slam count over 12+

Sampras is 11-9 versus Agassi on hard courts

thats an amazing statistic for Andre, and really shows his HC talent, considering that i also rate Pete as my HC GOAT

 

[CyBorg]

This Agassi crap is getting old. He always played second-fiddle to Sampras.

 

[OmniscientTennis]

This Agassi crap is getting old. He always played second-fiddle to Sampras.

Agassi won all 4 Grand Slams...No other player has done that in the modern era...

How can you rate Fed, Sampras, Borg, Connors, Mac, Wilander, etc. ahead of Agassi when they don't have all 4 Grand Slams won. I guarantee that if you told Connors he could have a career grand slam if he had to give up one of his US Open trophies, he would. Likewise, I am sure Sampras would trade 1 Wimbledon for a French Open. And Federer...he's been crying about not winning the French for the last 4 years.

You all on this board don't understand how hard it is to win all 4 Grand Slams -no one on anyone's list here has that accomplishment except for Agassi. Borg might have done it if 3 of the 4 were on Grass when he was playing as they were when Laver and Budge did it.

Agassi ALL THE WAY #1 Greatest.

 

[Arafel]

Lendl made 8 straight finals there, only Pete stopped him making 9 straight- you cant argue with those numbers

Connors beat Lendl in 82,83, but in 83 it went to 5
lendl didn't win a slam until 84- his h2h with connors is 22-13

14-5 on hard courts in Lendls favor

84-85 was one of connors most consistent periods, he made semis or better at every slam he entered

Lendl dominate him 8-2 (3-0 on HC) in 84,85 when both players were playing great tennis

from Wembley onwards in 1984, connors would never beat Lendl again, connors was by no means washed up in 1984, he made wimbledon finals that year

Lendl took borg to 5 years before his own prime, and during borgs prime. thats why i'd rate him so highly on clay

Lendl leads wilander 6-4 on clay

theres a part of me that sooooooooooo wants to put Lendl as a top 5 on todays green clay they call grass.... guaranteed he'd have won on todays grass.

Agassi has 6 HC slams, would have been 8+ had it not been for Pete

on top of that, Andre skipped the AO for 8 years at the start of his career, which could easily have pushed his slam count over 12+

Sampras is 11-9 versus Agassi on hard courts

thats an amazing statistic for Andre, and really shows his HC talent, considering that i also rate Pete as my HC GOAT

C'mon. Connors was 32 in 84. He was past his prime. Hell, he was past his prime in 83, but he managed to top Lendl that year, which, by the way, went 4 sets, not 5, with Lendl doing one of the all-time gutless tank jobs in the fourth set after Connors won the third 7-5.

Yeah, Lendl made 8 straight finals there. That's impressive, but I think it's significantly offset by the fact that he only won 3 of them. In fact, Lendl is the only player in the top 10 of all time who has a LOSING record in Slam finals.

Lendl's record against Connors is significantly inflated by the fact that Connors kept playing until he was 39. Most of Lendl's wins against Connors came from 85-89, when Jimbo was still solid enough to beat most of the players outside of the top 10, but not solid enough to beat the ones in the top 10.

 

[Arafel]

Agassi won all 4 Grand Slams...No other player has done that in the modern era...

How can you rate Fed, Sampras, Borg, Connors, Mac, Wilander, etc. ahead of Agassi when they don't have all 4 Grand Slams won. I guarantee that if you told Connors he could have a career grand slam if he had to give up one of his US Open trophies, he would. Likewise, I am sure Sampras would trade 1 Wimbledon for a French Open. And Federer...he's been crying about not winning the French for the last 4 years.

You all on this board don't understand how hard it is to win all 4 Grand Slams -no one on anyone's list here has that accomplishment except for Agassi. Borg might have done it if 3 of the 4 were on Grass when he was playing as they were when Laver and Budge did it.

Agassi ALL THE WAY #1 Greatest.

You are wrong about Connors and Sampras. You aren't looking at the context of the era. The French was not as important in the 70s as it became in the 80s. Connors bypassed the tournament during his best years, once by getting kicked out for playing WTT, and four years in response to that. To give you an idea of what I mean, Chris Evert, probably the greatest women's player on clay of all time, skipped the French for three years from 76-78 to play WTT, as did Navratilova. For players of that generation, it was always Wimbledon and the US Open.

As for Sampras, Wimbledon was always the tournament he felt was most important, so I don't think he'd want a French if it meant giving up a Wimbledon.

Also, Connors has won a Slam on clay, the 76 US Open.

 

[bluetrain4]

For all those who write that Agassi got lucky...he got just as lucky as Sampras did that Philippousis wrenched his knee at Wimbledon ... he got just as lucky as Federer getting 5 days off during Wimbledon while Nadal had to play every day ... he got just as lucky as Lendl when McEnroe choked at the French Open when Mac was up 2 sets to love and up a break in the 3rd ... he got just as lucky as Chang who served underhand and won a point against Lendl ... he got just as lucky as Nadal who got to play Djokovic and Gonzales after they had long 3 set matches and wore each other out before playing him...

Guess what...ALL THE GOOD PLAYERS GET LUCKY!!!

Winning all 4 Grand Slams on 4 different surfaces = the greatest player ever.

I'd agree that winning a career Slam is a very impressive acheivement, and I don't buy the "luck" argument either. Every top level "great" player who has won a lot of Slams has had luck at one stage or another. So, I wouldn't take anything away from Agassi just because he beat Goran and Medvedev in the finals of Slams.

That said, I don't know if his career Slam accomplishment catapults him to best player ever. Clearly you've picked your criteria - Career slam, multiple surfaces, and made your pick. I don't agree with it, but at least you explain, in plain terms, why you made it.

As far as "4 different surfaces," as I've said many times on TW, I tend to see Rebound Ace as simply a variant of a hardcourt, which it is. I realize it plays differently than the USO, but the true bounce, true footing nature of a hardcourt is still it's main characteristic. Kooyong grass played differently than Wimbledon grass, yet we're not ready to say Wilander won Slams on 4 different surfaces (Kooyong grass, Clay, USO Open hardcourts, Rebound Ace).

But, I guess that's a side argument. Rebound Ace and the USO hardcourt aren't exactly the same, so I can't deny that they are not different surfaces if we define surfaces narrowly. I simply think winning Slams on those two particular surfaces - Rebound Ace and Deco Turf at the USO -- isn't that remarkable of an accomplishment, because IMO opinion, they are both simply hardcourts.

Just off the top of my head - Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Sampras, Safin, and Becker all won on AO Rebound Ace and on USO Deco Turf, which suggests that there is no great adjustment or variable skills necessary to be successful on both.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that Agassi won the career Slam.

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

Do you guys read the former pro section?

There are far better discussions about this on the former pro section where
there's detailed analysis about the 60's and 70's and people like tilden pancho/budge etc...but really to the OP, everyone's opion on goat is merited
but saying repeated agassi is GOAT is just winging people up...heck he would
not even be top 5 on most list easily. this thread just shows how difficult
any goat discussion is ..and of course..the game keeps changing.

mine:

Open era:

Federer
Sampras
Borg
(gap)
Lendl
McEnroe

 

[RoddickAce]

1. Agassi: Most complete winning history

All 4 GS on different surfaces: Career Grand Slam - never been done by anyone in modern era​

Most Master Wins​

Gold Medal​

2. Laver: 2 Grand Slams (won all 4 GS tournaments in in a calendar year)
3. Sampras: Most Grand Slam wins overall, but never the French
4. Federer: Most dominant 4 years of tennis ever
5. Connors: Longevity and most total tournament wins ever and biggest competitor

Who thinks otherwise???

Those are definitely the top 5 I would pick, but I don't know which order they go in because you can't weigh some accomplishments over others.

eg)Laver had 2 calendar grand slams so he is the best! But then Sampras has more gs titles...But Federer was more dominant than Sampras...but Agassi won on all surfaces...But Connors was a real fighter and had one of the most dominant years in tennis and has the most titles!

 

[tennis-hero]

todays another day, mood change

at their peak

Real Grass

1- Kraijek (who could have beaten him in 96? maybe 1999 Sampras)
1- Sampras (if Sampras played 96 with his 1999 form)
2- Mac (1981/1984)
3- Laver (1967)
4- Federer (2006)
5- Borg (1980)

Green clay

NEW WIMBLEDON GRASS

1- Borg (1981*)
2- Federer (2006)
3- Sampras (1999)
3- Agassi (1995/1999)
4- Laver (1967)
5- Lendl (1986)
5- Nadal (2008)

*on fake grass Borg would have been unstoppable- and would have beaten Mac in straights

Clay

1- Muster (1995)
1- Nadal (2008/2009/2006)
1- Borg (any year he wants )
3- Laver (1967/1969)
3- Rosewall (1962/1963)
4- Lendl (1986)
5- take your pick, Kuerten/Brug/courier/Federer/Wilander

Slow HCs*

1- Safin (2005)
2- Agassi (1995)
2- Sampras (1994)
2- Borg (1978-1980)
3- Nadal (2009)
3- Federer (2004/2005/2006)
4- connors (1974)

* Laver should be somewhere on here but i cant place him

Fast HCs

1- Nalbandian (2005/2007)
1- Sampras (1995)
2- Federer (2004)
3- Tilden (1920-1926)
3- Mac (1984)
3- Lendl (1986)

 

[CyBorg]

Agassi won all 4 Grand Slams...No other player has done that in the modern era...

How can you rate Fed, Sampras, Borg, Connors, Mac, Wilander, etc. ahead of Agassi when they don't have all 4 Grand Slams won. I guarantee that if you told Connors he could have a career grand slam if he had to give up one of his US Open trophies, he would. Likewise, I am sure Sampras would trade 1 Wimbledon for a French Open. And Federer...he's been crying about not winning the French for the last 4 years.

You all on this board don't understand how hard it is to win all 4 Grand Slams -no one on anyone's list here has that accomplishment except for Agassi. Borg might have done it if 3 of the 4 were on Grass when he was playing as they were when Laver and Budge did it.

Agassi ALL THE WAY #1 Greatest.

You do I hope realize that there were lots of other players in history who won on all surfaces - like Laver and Rosewall, for example.

This stuff about Agassi is just your own personal dogma nonsense. Give me one year in which Agassi was far and away the best player in the world.

That's right. There isn't one.

 

[OmniscientTennis]

You do I hope realize that there were lots of other players in history who won on all surfaces - like Laver and Rosewall, for example.

This stuff about Agassi is just your own personal dogma nonsense. Give me one year in which Agassi was far and away the best player in the world.

That's right. There isn't one.

1999 to 2000: Agassi played in the final of all 4 Grand Slams in a row (French 1999 to 2000 Australian), winning (3 of the 4) all except Wimbledon which he lost to Sampras. He had potential during this streak to pull off a Navratilova & Williams slam. It is the closest anyone except Fed has come to doing this.

Also, there aren't other players who won slams on all surfaces as when Laver and Rosewall played, 3 of the 4 slams were on Grass...there was no hard court.

You clearly don't know a lot about tennis.

 

[markmurray]

1) Hewwit
2) Cash
3) Chang
4) Agersea
5)Fedarer

 

[NamRanger]

1999 to 2000: Agassi played in the final of all 4 Grand Slams in a row (French 1999 to 2000 Australian), winning (3 of the 4) all except Wimbledon which he lost to Sampras. He had potential during this streak to pull off a Navratilova & Williams slam. It is the closest anyone except Fed has come to doing this.

Also, there aren't other players who won slams on all surfaces as when Laver and Rosewall played, 3 of the 4 slams were on Grass...there was no hard court.

You clearly don't know a lot about tennis.

Agassi lucked out Sampras didn't play the 99 US Open, otherwise he would have been creamed like at Wimbledon and the YEC. Everyone who actually watched tennis in 99 knew that Sampras was clearly the better player; he just got unlucky with some injuries.


You're saying CyBorg doesn't know alot about tennis? Are you insane?

 

[hyogen]

Look Agassi was my fav growing up, but there is no way he deserves to be top 5.


1)Laver --2 GS's lots more pro wins (pro slam),end of story
2)Federer -- 19 straight semis, 13 slams, most consec weeks no 1
3)Rosewall
4)Pancho
5)Borg
6)Tilden
7)Sampras
8 Connors
9)agassi
10)Rene Lacoste

if we are talking Open Era:
1)Federer
2)Borg
3)Sampras
4)connors
5)Agassi
6)Macenroe
7)Lendl
8)Nadal
9)Wilander
10)Becker

seriously, what good is being consecutive #1 when you're just dominating a bunch of sucky, streaky players?

and how does federer land above Nadal? that's a joke.

Also, federer shouldn't be above anyone who has won all 4 majors such as Agassi and Laver.

 

[Cyan]

Laver....................................

 

[CyBorg]

1999 to 2000: Agassi played in the final of all 4 Grand Slams in a row (French 1999 to 2000 Australian), winning (3 of the 4) all except Wimbledon which he lost to Sampras. He had potential during this streak to pull off a Navratilova & Williams slam. It is the closest anyone except Fed has come to doing this.

1999 to 2000 isn't a year. In 1999 Agassi was an inferior player to Sampras on both grass and carpet surfaces. Despite winning the French, Agassi won the US Open in which Pete did not participate.

In 1999 Agassi failed to win a single title after the AO victory. This is the greatest player of all time?

Also, there aren't other players who won slams on all surfaces as when Laver and Rosewall played, 3 of the 4 slams were on Grass...there was no hard court.

You clearly don't know a lot about tennis.

You should stop now before you embarass yourself any further.

I hope you are aware that Laver and Rosewall played majors on the pro tour on grass, indoor hard and clay surfaces?

 

[OmniscientTennis]

1999 to 2000 isn't a year. In 1999 Agassi was an inferior player to Sampras on both grass and carpet surfaces. Despite winning the French, Agassi won the US Open in which Pete did not participate.

In 1999 Agassi failed to win a single title after the AO victory. This is the greatest player of all time?



You should stop now before you embarass yourself any further.

I hope you are aware that Laver and Rosewall played majors on the pro tour on grass, indoor hard and clay surfaces?

I am talking about the Open Era. Laver won THE Grand Slam in 1969 when 3 of the 4 GS were on Grass.

Agassi 1999 -2000: Won French 99, Finals Wimbledon 99, Won US Open 99, and Won Australian Open 2000.

I guess you're right that Agassi wasn't really dominant for those 12 months...he won 3 of the 4 Grand Slams and lost in the Finals of the one he didn't win...so there's no way that wasn't dominant, just like Fed wasn't dominant in the 4 years in which he did this. You really are dumb.

If you are going to break down draws and luck, you will have huge debates, i.e. Federer had very favorable draws in many of the Grand Slams he won and Agassi didn't play Wimbledon for several years or the Aussie Open (maybe he would have won many more GS titles). And of course, when Sampras was getting crushed by Philipoussis, Pete would have won that match for sure had Philipoussis not wrenched his knee and had to default. Oh yeah, the time that McEnroe beat Chris Lewis in 84...gosh, we shouldn't even give Mac the Wimbledon title because Chris Lewis somehow got lucky to get the final so Mac didn't have any real competition, so his title shouldn't count.

You are not too bright and that's a certainty.

 

[NamRanger]

I am talking about the Open Era. Laver won THE Grand Slam in 1969 when 3 of the 4 GS were on Grass.

Agassi 1999 -2000: Won French 99, Finals Wimbledon 99, Won US Open 99, and Won Australian Open 2000.

I guess you're right that Agassi wasn't really dominant for those 12 months...he won 3 of the 4 Grand Slams and lost in the Finals of the one he didn't win...so there's no way that wasn't dominant, just like Fed wasn't dominant in the 4 years in which he did this. You really are dumb.

If you are going to break down draws and luck, you will have huge debates, i.e. Federer had very favorable draws in many of the Grand Slams he won and Agassi didn't play Wimbledon for several years or the Aussie Open (maybe he would have won many more GS titles). And of course, when Sampras was getting crushed by Philipoussis, Pete would have won that match for sure had Philipoussis not wrenched his knee and had to default. Oh yeah, the time that McEnroe beat Chris Lewis in 84...gosh, we shouldn't even give Mac the Wimbledon title because Chris Lewis somehow got lucky to get the final so Mac didn't have any real competition, so his title shouldn't count.

You are not too bright and that's a certainty.

Now you've done it. CyBorg is going to assimilate you.

 

[Leublu tennis]

1) Hewwit
2) Cash
3) Chang
4) Agersea
5)Fedarer

Congratulations. This is the dumbest post for any kid that has posted here. Grow up.

 

[OmniscientTennis]

agassi not lucky at wimbledon

He got really lucky against Medeev, and absolutely blew it against Andre Gomez. So yes, he did deserve to win a FO.


Wimbledon however, he was absurdly lucky to win that. He got lucky that all the really good S&V players got stuck into the lower bracket of death (Edberg, Stich, Krajicek, Sampras, Goran) and his mortal enemy Lendl ended up down there as well. He had an impressive win over Becker, but let's not forget Becker tended to try and beat Agassi at his own game.


After that, he played a unseeded McEnroe in the semis (who was pretty much out of his prime at this time), and played a spent Goran (who beat Lendl, Edberg, and Sampras to get there) in the final and still barely won.



1999 he dodged every good grass player once again somehow, and had one good win over Rafter. After that, he pretty much got blown away by Sampras. If Sampras wasn't there, he most likely would have played Henman, who at the time was playing really good tennis. Their H2H stands at 2-2, so it's unlikely that it would have been a lock for Agassi.

Agassi beat Becker and McEnroe enroute to his 1992 Wimbledon win.

 

[NamRanger]

Agassi beat Becker and McEnroe enroute to his 1992 Wimbledon win.

MCENROE SUCKED IN 92. He had the EASIEST draw ever to get to the SF. Everyone that was good on grass with the ONE LONE EXCEPTION of Becker was in the bottom bracket. McEnroe was WELL outside of his prime in 92, and wasn't a factor at slams.


Becker played baseline tennis on grass against Agassi. Like I said, Becker is the one lone good victory in Agassi's 92 run, except Becker never played the game he was supposed to.

 

[OmniscientTennis]

MCENROE SUCKED IN 92. He had the EASIEST draw ever to get to the SF. Everyone that was good on grass with the ONE LONE EXCEPTION of Becker was in the bottom bracket. McEnroe was WELL outside of his prime in 92, and wasn't a factor at slams.


Becker played baseline tennis on grass against Agassi. Like I said, Becker is the one lone good victory in Agassi's 92 run, except Becker never played the game he was supposed to.

So, if I understand what you're saying, Agassi beating Becker (prob the best player at Wimbledon at that time for the past 8 years) was a real accomplishment by agassi???

I think you need to go back and watch some Agassi matches from the past. He wom everything, beat all the best players, stood inside the baseline when he played.

He is the greatest ever in tems of total accomplishments.

 

[anointedone]

Agassi the best ever? At what, snot rockets.

 

[NamRanger]

So, if I understand what you're saying, Agassi beating Becker (prob the best player at Wimbledon at that time for the past 8 years) was a real accomplishment by agassi???

I think you need to go back and watch some Agassi matches from the past. He wom everything, beat all the best players, stood inside the baseline when he played.

He is the greatest ever in tems of total accomplishments.

Edberg was better at the time. Made 3 finals from 88-90 and won 2 of them. SF in 91. Defeated Becker in 2 of those finals, and probably would have beaten him in 91 if Stich didn't beat Edberg in the SF.


Edberg was also seeded 2nd at the time, so Edberg > Becker.



Agassi was owned by Courier from 1990-1994ish. Sampras owned Agassi also at Wimbledon and the USO, and at the majority of Master Tournaments. Even with his conditioning disorder he still had Agassi on the ropes at the Australian Open twice.


Rios owned Agassi in 98 that whole year also.



So no, Agassi cannot be the GOAT.

 

[OmniscientTennis]

Edberg was better at the time. Made 3 finals from 88-90 and won 2 of them. SF in 91. Defeated Becker in 2 of those finals, and probably would have beaten him in 91 if Stich didn't beat Edberg in the SF.


Edberg was also seeded 2nd at the time, so Edberg > Becker.



Agassi was owned by Courier from 1990-1994ish. Sampras owned Agassi also at Wimbledon and the USO, and at the majority of Master Tournaments. Even with his conditioning disorder he still had Agassi on the ropes at the Australian Open twice.


Rios owned Agassi in 98 that whole year also.



So no, Agassi cannot be the GOAT.

Agassi is the clear GOAT. Won all 4 GS titles and Gold Medal and in '99 to '00 went 27-1 I 4 GS in a row (losing final to Sampras).

He has the most complete win career record in modern open tennis history. All other players would want to win all 4 GS tournies.

 

[NamRanger]

Agassi is the clear GOAT. Won all 4 GS titles and Gold Medal and in '99 to '00 went 27-1 I 4 GS in a row (losing final to Sampras).

He has the most complete win career record in modern open tennis history. All other players would want to win all 4 GS tournies.

Agassi cannot be the GOAT if he has a losing H2H against his biggest rivals (Courier, Sampras, Federer, etc.)

 

[GameSampras]

Agassi cannot be the GOAT if he has a losing H2H against his biggest rivals (Courier, Sampras, Federer, etc.)

Do u really want to count Fed into the equation? I mean Fed got ahold of Andre when he was close to his mid 30s.

 

[anointedone]

Do u really want to count Fed into the equation? I mean Fed got ahold of Andre when he was close to his mid 30s.

Federer would have had the winning head to head with Agassi no matter what ages they played at so who cares. Agassi had a very unusual career, often slumping in his prime age, often winning in his older age after the Sampras reign ended and the field was soft, often doing well but rarely winning at a young age. Who knows when his so called prime was anyway, he hardly had one so it doesnt matter. The fact is he was owned by all his main rivals except Becker- Lendl, Sampras, Courier, and Federer. No I wouldnt rate Courier over Agassi all time, but even he still got the better of him in their rivalry, especialy when Courier was at his peak.

 

[GameSampras]

Federer would have had the winning head to head with Agassi no matter what ages they played at so who cares. Agassi had a very unusual career, often slumping in his prime age, often winning in his older age after the Sampras reign ended and the field was soft, often doing well but rarely winning at a young age. Who knows when his so called prime was anyway, he hardly had one so it doesnt matter. The fact is he was owned by all his main rivals except Becker- Lendl, Sampras, Courier, and Federer.

Fed today would have a winning h2h over AGassi? Im not so sure about that. Old Sciatica, brokeback mid 30s agassi was taking peak-prime Fed 4 and 5 sets at the USO. Who knows what he would do to Fed today in his current form. Fed this past year has lost to Blake, Roddick, Fish, Karlo, Djoker and Murray countless times, Simon etc. I see no reason why Andre couldnt beat Fed either in matches

 

[NamRanger]

Do u really want to count Fed into the equation? I mean Fed got ahold of Andre when he was close to his mid 30s.

2003 was one of Agassi's best years, winning the AO, Miami, San Jose, and Houston. QF at the FO, 4th round at Wimbledon, SF at the USO, and F at the YEC. Excellent year throughout.



However, Federer at the end of 2003 DEMOLISHED Agassi, handing him a bagel in the final.

 

[anointedone]

Fed today would have a winning h2h over AGassi? Im not so sure about that. Old Sciatica, brokeback mid 30s agassi was taking Fed 4 and 5 sets on Hardcourts. Who knows what he would do to Fed today in his current form

So you want to take a hypothetical of Agassi playing his best vs Federer not playing his best? How often would that have happened. Federer probably will only have about 4+ years playing his best tennis (mid 2003-end of 2007) and even that is more than Agassi's 2+ or so years (mid 1994-late 1995, mid 1999-early 2000, early 2001). Who knows what he would do to Fed today in his current form. Fed this past year has lost to Blake, Roddick, Fish, Karlo, Djoker etc. I see no reason why Andre couldnt beat Fed either in matches

Federer was still 8-0 vs the 33-35 year old Agassi who won 5 of his 8 career slams and spent almost all his time at #1 from ages 29-33. You mention some matches Agassi took a set, but dont even mention matches like the Australian Open 2004 on Agassi's favorite surface, or the year end Championships in late 2003, and a couple others when Agassi was spanked. It was either a fairly competitive match which Federer always won, or many other times a spanking in Federer's favor, overall that isnt as even a matchup as you seem to make it out to be. Dont try and convince anyone that a 33-35 year old Agassi is the same as most players at 33-35. Yes that wasnt his "prime" (like I said though what prime did Agassi actually have that wasnt a blip anyway) but he also cant be possibly evaluated the way others that age would be. He was playing worse tennis at 23, 26, 27, and 28 than when he was 33-35 in fact. Also dont delude yourself into thinking sometimes taking a set off Federer consistitutes a close battle. With an 0-8 head to head during that span, and getting completely spanked in half of those matches Agassi at that stage in his career was at best equally competitive as Hewitt or Roddick with Federer, perhaps slightly less so. Of course in those rare younger wins he was serious about tennis he could do better than that but not to the extent he would be winning most meetings, and those times were few and far removed from Agassi anyway. Like I said if Federer played Agassi in 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, Agassi would be doing even worse vs Federer than 2003-2005 despite his younger age when one examines his form and performances those years. How would he play a prime Federer those years when he was frequently losing matches to Scott Draper, Mark Woodroffe, Doug Flach, Luke Jensen, Chris Woodruff, slam semis in straight sets to Michael Chang, Berasetegui on hard courts, teenage Safin and Haas in early rounds of slams, multiple times to Karol Kucera, etc.... I cant see any scenario Agassi has a successful head to head with Federer.

 

[GameSampras]

2003 was one of Agassi's best years, winning the AO, Miami, San Jose, and Houston. QF at the FO, 4th round at Wimbledon, SF at the USO, and F at the YEC. Excellent year throughout.



However, Federer at the end of 2003 DEMOLISHED Agassi, handing him a bagel in the final.

I dunno. There is an 11 YEAR DIFFERENCE between the two players. Andre was play some great tennis in 03 no doubt, but he was far what I would call his best. 03 was one of his best year, but certainly not among his prime years. I would take Andre 99-01 over Anything Andre did post 02.

Andre is not apart of Fed's generation. Thats why I dont consider Andre a "rival" in the sense to Fed. Andre was apart of Pete's generation. At least his best years. And while Andre came back a house of Fire in 99. He was getting older and warn down by 02. I dont think he was playing the type of tennis post 02, that he was playing just 2-3 years prior to that

 

[crabgrass]

agassi would make the tail end of my top 15, how can you be the GOAT when you're clearly second fiddle to your no.1 rival....so your not even the greatest of your era but somehow your the greatest ever?

 

[anointedone]

I dunno. There is an 11 YEAR DIFFERENCE between the two players. Andre was play some great tennis in 03 no doubt, but he was far what I would call his best. 03 was one of his best year, but certainly not among his prime years. I would take Andre 99-01 over Anything Andre did post 02.

Andre is not apart of Fed's generation. Thats why I dont consider Andre a "rival" in the sense to Fed. Andre was apart of Pete's generation. At least his best years. And while Andre came back a house of Fire in 99. He was getting older and warn down by 02.

Agassi was still owned by Sampras, owned by prime Courier, owned by Lendl. The only great non clay court specialist player he did well against was Becker.

 

[GameSampras]

Agassi was still owned by Sampras, owned by prime Courier, owned by Lendl. The only great non clay court specialist player he did well against was Becker.

Yes he was. But I wouldnt put much stock into the "Fed-Agassi" rivalry" considering the fact that there is more than a decade age difference between the two. Neither faced each other when they were in their primes or at least at the top of their games. When Roger was in his, Andre wasnt. When Andre was in his, Roger wasnt.

 

[anointedone]

I dunno. There is an 11 YEAR DIFFERENCE between the two players. Andre was play some great tennis in 03 no doubt, but he was far what I would call his best. 03 was one of his best year, but certainly not among his prime years. I would take Andre 99-01 over Anything Andre did post 02.

Andre is not apart of Fed's generation. Thats why I dont consider Andre a "rival" in the sense to Fed. Andre was apart of Pete's generation. At least his best years. And while Andre came back a house of Fire in 99. He was getting older and warn down by 02. I dont think he was playing the type of tennis post 02, that he was playing just 2-3 years prior to that

What makes you think Andre of 99-01 would do any better vs Federer or the others I mentioned. These were his slam performances that year:

1999 Australian- lost to Vince Spadea
1999 French- 5 set win over 100th ranked Medvedev
1999 Wimbledon- straight sets loss to Sampras
1999 U.S Open- 5 set win over fellow 29 year old Todd Martin in only his 2nd ever and last slam final
2000 Australian- 4 set win over Kafelnikov
2000 French- 2nd round loss to Karol Kucera
2000 Wimbledon- semifinal loss in 5 sets to Rafter, after surviving 5 set 2nd round with 30 year old Todd Martin
2000 U.S Open- 2nd round loss to Clement
2001 Australian- won title over Clement in final
2001 French- 4 set loss to Sebastien Grosjean
2001 Wimbledon- semifinal loss to Rafter
2001 U.S Open- quarterfinal loss to Sampras

I dont see that the level of play that would have toppled Federer or any of his former nemisises like Courier and Lendl too often. For all the flak Federer gets from people like you about his competition there are certainly signs here of Agassi being lucky to have alot of his late peak with some soft draws/opponents to win his big titles himself. Beating a 100th ranked has been in his first ever slam final, a fellow older player with no standout weapons and lumberingly slow around the court in only his 2nd ever slam final, playing Clement in a slam final. That is your tough competition you speak of people like Agassi having compared to Nadal and Federer so often!?!?

 

[GameSampras]

What makes you think Andre of 99-01 would do any better vs Federer or the others I mentioned. These were his slam performances that year:

1999 Australian- lost to Vince Spadea
1999 French- 5 set win over 100th ranked Medvedev
1999 Wimbledon- straight sets loss to Sampras
1999 U.S Open- 5 set win over fellow 29 year old Todd Martin in only his 2nd ever and last slam final
2000 Australian- 4 set win over Kafelnikov
2000 French- 2nd round loss to Karol Kucera
2000 Wimbledon- semifinal loss in 5 sets to Rafter, after surviving 5 set 2nd round with 30 year old Todd Martin
2000 U.S Open- 2nd round loss to Clement
2001 Australian- won title over Clement in final
2001 French- 4 set loss to Sebastien Grosjean
2001 Wimbledon- semifinal loss to Rafter
2001 U.S Open- quarterfinal loss to Sampras

I dont see that the level of play that would have toppled Federer or any of his other nemisises too often, and for all the flak Federer gets from people like you about his competition there are certainly signs here of Agassi being lucky to have alot of his late peak with some soft draws/opponents to win his big titles himself.

Do u really want to compare Andre circa 99-00 who won 3 majors, reached the final of Wimbeldon, and the finals of the YEC to 34-35 year old Andre on his last leg crippled with Sciatica? For christ sakes!!!


Lets stick 34-35 year old Fed out there in a few years and see how he does with the worlds #1 at his peak:-|

 

[anointedone]

Do u really want to compare Andre circa 99-00 who won 3 majors, reached the final of Wimbeldon, and the finals of the YEC to 34-35 year old Andre on his last leg crippled with Sciatica? For christ sakes!!!

Sure he was playing alot better in 99-00, yet even then he was still losing to Kucera, Spadea, and Clement in slams. So what makes you think that would carry him to a particularly good record vs Roger or any of the others being discussed.

 

[GameSampras]

Sure he was playing alot better in 99-00, yet even then he was still losing to Kucera, Spadea, and Clement in slams. So what makes you think that would carry him to a particularly good record vs Roger or any of the others being discussed.

I said Roger in his current form. You know Roger in his current form? The Roger who has yet to even win a tournament this year?

 

[hewittboy]

Lets stick 34-35 year old Fed out there in a few years and see how he does with the worlds #1 at his peak:-|

Well atleast Federer wont be dropping to #141 in the World at age 27. People say Federer is in a slump now and he is World #2. Agassi in a slump at the same age was #141. Good for Agassi having some kick in his old age. He had to in order to make up for so much mediocrity in his supposed prime ages.

 

[GameSampras]

Well atleast Federer wont be dropping to #141 in the World at age 27. People say Federer is in a slump now and he is World #2. Agassi in a slump at the same age was #141. Good for Agassi having some kick in his old age. He had to in order to make up for so much mediocrity in his supposed prime ages.

Fed wont be #2 for long... If he continues with the way hes going he may very well be out of the top 10 before you know it. He has yet to even win a tournament. Obviously age is not being very generous to Fed .

And you know whats funny.. Why was Andres prime "supposed" in his late 20s when he fell way out of the rankings?, considering Andre was a pro player since 15, yet Fed is supposed to be in his decline already at only 27 and never even started his prime until 22-23 years of age? Explain.

What Andre accomplished into his 30s is much more impressive than what Roger is doing right now at only 27

 

[flying24]

1999 to 2000: Agassi played in the final of all 4 Grand Slams in a row (French 1999 to 2000 Australian), winning (3 of the 4) all except Wimbledon which he lost to Sampras. He had potential during this streak to pull off a Navratilova & Williams slam. It is the closest anyone except Fed has come to doing this.

Also, there aren't other players who won slams on all surfaces as when Laver and Rosewall played, 3 of the 4 slams were on Grass...there was no hard court.

You clearly don't know a lot about tennis.

1999 to 2000 is not a year. 1999 or 2000 is a year. In 1999 Agassi won 2 slams but went 1-4 vs arch rival Sampras and his U.S Open title has a huge asterix with Sampras's WD. Sampras was dominating the summer completely including 3 straight sets in a row over Agassi, and always raises his game for the U.S Open relatively to his form going in. Sampras was 99.9% certain to win the U.S Open had he played that particular year and end the year with the 2 biggest titles plus the year end Championships, leaving Agassi with only the French, and being the clear #1 at years end. So Agassi is far from the clear cut or dominant #1 of 1999, most dont even consider him the best player of the year.

Like CyBorg said there is never a year Agassi was clearly the best, not even one. At best he was #1 with alot of doubt and uncertainty in 1999. Even the second tier greats usually have 2 or 3 of them.

 

[egn]

1999 to 2000 is not a year. 1999 or 2000 is a year. In 1999 Agassi won 2 slams but went 1-4 vs arch rival Sampras and his U.S Open title has a huge asterix with Sampras's WD. Sampras was dominating the summer completely including 3 straight sets in a row over Agassi, and always raises his game for the U.S Open relatively to his form going in. Sampras was 99.9% certain to win the U.S Open had he played that particular year and end the year with the 2 biggest titles plus the year end Championships, leaving Agassi with only the French, and being the clear #1 at years end. So Agassi is far from the clear cut or dominant #1 of 1999, most dont even consider him the best player of the year.

Like CyBorg said there is never a year Agassi was clearly the best, not even one. At best he was #1 with alot of doubt and uncertainty in 1999. Even the second tier greats usually have 2 or 3 of them.

Yep have to agree here guys with his ammount of slams had multiple number 1 years
Connors and Lendl

and even McEnroe had more number 1 years.

I would put Connors, Lendl and McEnroe all ahead of Agassi as the only reason these guys have less slams is they faced all 3 of each other at a given point in time in their prime. 81-86. The three tossed around the top 3 spot over those few years like crazy. Not to forget guys like Wilander were coming up to the top then too. Agassi struggled against all the other greatest of all time candidates in his era and only could manage one number 1 year after Sampras was off his game and injuried mind you. Agassi was clearly always second to Sampras.

 

[GameSampras]

How did this turn into an Agassi GOAT candidate thread? Of course Andre has no claim at a GOAT title. Im saying Andre would no doubt give CURRENT Fed a handful of problems most likely considering Fed's current form which would help Andre overrall in the h2h

 

[flying24]

How did this turn into an Agassi GOAT candidate thread? Of course Andre has no claim at a GOAT title. Im saying Andre would no doubt give CURRENT Fed a handful of problems most likely considering Fed's current form which would help Andre overrall in the h2h

Have you even been reading this thread. The whole discussion is being centred around a troll who is trying to push forward a proposterous argument of Agassi being the GOAT.

You are even the one telling anointedone that Federer isnt an Agassi contemporary so why discuss the two, so why are you now bringing that up as the main point of discussion anyway. As anointedone said you are having to zero in on Agassi at his best vs Federer not at his best for Agassi to have some good results, and given their whole careers there was even less time Agassi was at his best than Federer (which in itself is looking like it will be relatively short himself and a knock on him too) so that is an unlikely hypothetical to last too long in any case. Like you yourself said though they arent contemporaries anyway so it is all speculation really. Against his main contemporaries Agassi did poorly vs Sampras, Lendl, Courier, mixed vs Edberg, very well vs Becker. So more bad than good vs his fellow greats really.

 

[GameSampras]

Have you even been reading this thread. The whole discussion is being centred around a troll who is trying to push forward a proposterous argument of Agassi being the GOAT.

no I havent bothered reading. LOL

I just read certain posts that **** me off and I respond with defiance.

 

[egn]

How did this turn into an Agassi GOAT candidate thread? Of course Andre has no claim at a GOAT title. Im saying Andre would no doubt give CURRENT Fed a handful of problems most likely considering Fed's current form which would help Andre overrall in the h2h

[TROLL]
I know it is ridiculous after all Laver is GOAT.
[/TROLL]

Actually is was cause the thread was opened up by an Agassi fan and somehow Agassi got support from I think like three toher people.