Greatest Players Ever -Top 5: New List

[380pistol]

Goran was spent after playing Lendl, Edberg, Sampras, and still managed to almost come to the brink of winning. And guess what, he CHOKED like he usually did at Wimbledon. Don't tell me Goran wasn't a mental headcase, because he was.

You also forgot to mention that he managed to avoid all of the S&V players (with the exception of Becker) because they were all down in the other bracket beating the crap out of each other. If Andre played Lendl, Sampras, or Edberg on grass at that time he most likely would have lost. His draw was really weak with the exceptions of Becker (who played pretty bad that day) and Goran (who had lots of opportunities to win).


Medvedev was sheer luck. He should have lost that match, but Medvedev that it would be really cool to come to the brink of winning and then lose it.

Yes Goran was spent in 1992, after Lendl retired , and the long drawn out rallies with those grinding basleiners(Sampras and Edberg), on that slow grass, when it was actual grass. But Agassi (2005 US Open) and Nadal (2007 Wimbledon) were in peak form for their finals.

It's so damn laughable that Agassi get absolutley no credit around here, and everything he's accomplished is diminished, yet when the same is done vs other players (with more merit), oh no we can't do that.

Goran was headcase, but the only reason Dre won cuz Goran choked, and nothing he did. Anything else you wanna tell me. If Dre played Lendl, Sampras and Edberg he would've lost, well they all lost to Goran (who apprantly wasn't a headcase when he was beating all 3), and who beat him?? So Dre did what they couldn't that year!!!!!! He beat Becker and Goran (you know those S&V players he avoided cuz they didn;t come in behind their 1st and 2nd serves did they?.....as well as an older Mac, who just loved to stay back didn't he???) which is a weak draw, as opposed the dynamic duo of Roddick and hewitt someone get praised for for beating at SW19?!?

You kill me though.

Ah Medvedev was sheer luck. So what was the 2007 Wimbledon final for you know who?? How about the 2004 US Open QF for that same guy??? Was that luck???

 

[OmniscientTennis]

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.

Agassi won all 4 slams. Mc won 2, connors, lendl, sampras, fed, rafa won 3. In 95 agassi had to play 2 to 3 more matches after US Open to finish year at #1. He didn't play bc he didn't care about #1 ranking year end. If you ask any of the top guys, they care more about winning slams than being number 1.

Agassi's grand slam career is most complete ever.

 

[NamRanger]

Yes Goran was spent in 1992, after Lendl retired , and the long drawn out rallies with those grinding basleiners(Sampras and Edberg), on that slow grass, when it was actual grass. But Agassi (2005 US Open) and Nadal (2007 Wimbledon) were in peak form for their finals.

It's so damn laughable that Agassi get absolutley no credit around here, and everything he's accomplished is diminished, yet when the same is done vs other players (with more merit), oh no we can't do that.

Goran was headcase, but the only reason Dre won cuz Goran choked, and nothing he did. Anything else you wanna tell me. If Dre played Lendl, Sampras and Edberg he would've lost, well they all lost to Goran (who apprantly wasn't a headcase when he was beating all 3), and who beat him?? So Dre did what they couldn't that year!!!!!! He beat Becker and Goran (you know those S&V players he avoided cuz they didn;t come in behind their 1st and 2nd serves did they?.....as well as an older Mac, who just loved to stay back didn't he???) which is a weak draw, as opposed the dynamic duo of Roddick and hewitt someone get praised for for beating at SW19?!?

You kill me though.

Ah Medvedev was sheer luck. So what was the 2007 Wimbledon final for you know who?? How about the 2004 US Open QF for that same guy??? Was that luck???

So you're saying Goran isn't a mental headcase? You're saying Agassi didn't get ABSURDLY lucky with his 92 draw? You're saying that Goran wasn't MENTALLY spent after beating all those players in consecutive and tough matches?


2004 US Open QF Agassi was lucky that he was playing in hurricane like conditions which really threw off Federer. Federer was winning 2 sets to 1 before the match was put on hold, and was in good position to make a push for a break in the 4th set.


2007 Wimbledon wasn't lucky for Federer. That's complete bull and you know it. Federer made clutch serves to save EVERY BP in the 5th set.

 

[GameSampras]

I dunno about Agassi with all this luck at RG. He proved he could perform well at RG. Look at all of his results there for years. He reached countless Quarters and Semi appearances. He reached the Finals twice there. Was that all luck? It happened too frequent to be considered all luck.


I agree. Andre sure doesnt get much love around these parts.


Though I kind of agree that his Wimbeldon 92 win was a bit lucky. But he did defeat some fine players there that year. (Goran and Becker). But he sidestepped Pete and Edberg I believe. But a slam is a slam. Take Pete out of the 99 WImbeldon equation and Andre could get that wimbeldon as well. He was playing very well in 99. Maybe his best tennis ever.


We can assume many players were lucky. What would happen if Fed had to deal with Prime Djoker, Murray and Nadal his entire career? Do u think maybe Fed was a bit lucky that he didnt have to deal with prime Nadal who is a solid, consistent player on all surfaces now compared to what he was 04-07? What about if he had to deal with Djoker and Murray during that time period? He got to sidestep all of that and only had to worry about a rapidly declining Hewitt, Roddick, Inconsistent Safin, and Nalbandian who rarely showed up for slams with his A game.

 

[NamRanger]

I dunno about Agassi with all this luck at RG. He proved he could perform well at RG. Look at all of his results there for years. He reached countless Quarters and Semi appearances. He reached the Finals twice there. Was that all luck? It happened too frequent to be considered all luck.


I agree. Andre sure doesnt get much love around these parts.


Though I kind of agree that his Wimbeldon 92 win was a bit lucky. But he did defeat some fine players there that year. (Goran and Becker). But he sidestepped Pete and Edberg I believe. But a slam is a slam. Take Pete out of the 99 WImbeldon equation and Andre could get that wimbeldon as well. He was playing very well in 99. Maybe his best tennis ever.


We can assume many players were lucky. What would happen if Fed had to deal with Prime Djoker, Murray and Nadal his entire career? Do u think maybe Fed was a bit lucky that he didnt have to deal with prime Nadal who is a solid, consistent player on all surfaces now compared to what he was 04-07? What about if he had to deal with Djoker and Murray during that time period? He got to sidestep all of that and only had to worry about a rapidly declining Hewitt, Roddick, Inconsistent Safin, and Nalbandian who rarely showed up for slams with his A game.

99 Wimbledon Agassi plays Henman in the final. I highly doubt that Agassi would have won, considering how good Henman was playing that year. He was the one other player other than Scuddy to take a set off Sampras, and stayed competitive throughout the whole match.

 

[OmniscientTennis]

Aassi By The Numbers

So you're saying Goran isn't a mental headcase? You're saying Agassi didn't get ABSURDLY lucky with his 92 draw? You're saying that Goran wasn't MENTALLY spent after beating all those players in consecutive and tough matches?


2004 US Open QF Agassi was lucky that he was playing in hurricane like conditions which really threw off Federer. Federer was winning 2 sets to 1 before the match was put on hold, and was in good position to make a push for a break in the 4th set.


2007 Wimbledon wasn't lucky for Federer. That's complete bull and you know it. Federer made clutch serves to save EVERY BP in the 5th set.

So let me see if I understand everyone's comments about Agassi and see if I can make sense of them:
1. Agassi got lucky to win 8 Grand Slams
2. Agassi got lucky that he won each Grand Slam on all 4 surfaces
3. Agassi got lucky he won the Gold Medal
4. Agassi got lucky that he won 17 Masters
5. Agassi got lucky that he made it to 15 Grand Slam finals
6. Agassi got lucky to be ranked #1 for 101 weeks
7. Agassi got lucky to win $31M in on court earnings
8. Agassi got lucky to get 870 career wins (108 more than Sampras) with almost the exact same win/loss percentage (76% for Agassi and 77% for Sampras).

Wow...it is amazing how consistently lucky Agassi seemed to get over his whole career. I think everyone must be right that Agassi isn't a very good play.

Maybe you all get it now....but prob not.

 

[thalivest]

I dunno about Agassi with all this luck at RG. He proved he could perform well at RG. Look at all of his results there for years. He reached countless Quarters and Semi appearances. He reached the Finals twice there. Was that all luck? It happened too frequent to be considered all luck.

All his finals and semis at the French were from 1988-1992. He still wasnt able to win those years since players like Lendl, Courier, and Wilander were too superior to him on clay but that was the period of his best resutls at the French. He was way past his prime on clay by 1999 and there were much better clay courters like Kuerten he had no shot of beating if he had played but he avoided playing that year. Furthermore 5 of his 7 matches were very close, and atleast 3 of his opponents- Clement, Moya, and Medvedev were outplaying him and had a big lead and should have finished him off but all collapsed mentally. That is why he was lucky to win the French.

 

[thalivest]

So let me see if I understand everyone's comments about Agassi and see if I can make sense of them:
1. Agassi got lucky to win 8 Grand Slams
2. Agassi got lucky that he won each Grand Slam on all 4 surfaces
3. Agassi got lucky he won the Gold Medal
4. Agassi got lucky that he won 17 Masters
5. Agassi got lucky that he made it to 15 Grand Slam finals
6. Agassi got lucky to be ranked #1 for 101 weeks
7. Agassi got lucky to win $31M in on court earnings
8. Agassi got lucky to get 870 career wins (108 more than Sampras) with almost the exact same win/loss percentage (76% for Agassi and 77% for Sampras).

Wow...it is amazing how consistently lucky Agassi seemed to get over his whole career. I think everyone must be right that Agassi isn't a very good play.

Maybe you all get it now....but prob not.

So if you want to argue Agassi as the best ever you will have to now argue:

1. How was he unlucky not to win between 11-14 slams like all Open era GOAT contenders did.

2. How was he unlucky to drop out of the top 100 in between a couple of his short stints at #1, and drop as low as #8 between other short stints at #1. Consistency is part of a great champion.

3. How was he unlucky to only win 2 slams in the same year ONCE, and never win more than that in a given year.

4. How was he unlucky to go 1-4 vs his greatest rival in the only year he won 2 slams, the same guy who missed the U.S Open that year where Agassi picked up his 2nd slam which could have been this others guys instead.

5. How was he unlucky to only end the year ranked #1 once.

6. How was he unlucky to only win Wimbledon and the U.S Open a combined 3 times.

7. How was he unlucky to only once defend a slam title in his career.

8. How was he unlucky to be owned by all of Lendl, Courier, Sampras, and later Federer.

9. How was he unlucky not have 3 straight years even ranked in the top 5 at years end until ages
31 to 33. How was he unlucky not to have 2 straight years even ranked in the top 5 at years end until ages 25 and 26.

By the way if the answers to many of those questions are Sampras, that already shows how stupid it is to be arguing Agassi as greatest ever when it is clear who the greatest player of his own generation was, and it isnt Agassi.

 

[veroniquem]

So if you want to argue Agassi as the best ever you will have to now argue:

1. How was he unlucky not to win between 11-14 slams like all Open era GOAT contenders did.

2. How was he unlucky to drop out of the top 100 in between a couple of his short stints at #1, and drop as low as #8 between other short stints at #1. Consistency is part of a great champion.

3. How was he unlucky to only win 2 slams in the same year ONCE, and never win more than that in a given year.

4. How was he unlucky to go 1-4 vs his greatest rival in the only year he won 2 slams, the same guy who missed the U.S Open that year where Agassi picked up his 2nd slam which could have been this others guys instead.

5. How was he unlucky to only end the year ranked #1 once.

6. How was he unlucky to only win Wimbledon and the U.S Open a combined 3 times.

7. How was he unlucky to only once defend a slam title in his career.

8. How was he unlucky to be owned by all of Lendl, Courier, Sampras, and later Federer.

9. How was he unlucky not have 3 straight years even ranked in the top 5 at years end until ages
31 to 33. How was he unlucky not to have 2 straight years even ranked in the top 5 at years end until ages 25 and 26.

By the way if the answers to many of those questions are Sampras, that already shows how stupid it is to be arguing Agassi as greatest ever when it is clear who the greatest player of his own generation was, and it isnt Agassi.

Nobody has ever said that Agassi did everything and broke every record. Nobody has, that's the point. Neither Federer nor Sampras have won RG for instance.
Agassi did not have consistency (although he was brilliant when he was on) or crushing domination over his rivals BUT
- he had extreme longevity from his teenage years to 35, he was a major presence on the tour.
- he won more major tournaments than anyone else: IW, Miami (6 times, that's an absolute record for masters), Rome, Canada, Cincinnati, Madrid, Paris, TMC, Olympics, Davis Cup, Wimbledon, USO (twice), RG and AO (4 times). Honestly who can boast of such an exhaustive list of different big titles won? IMO noone.
-his personality and charisma brought a lot of interest to the sport.
It doesn't mean that he is the best ever but his career was the most complete IMO (so far!). Whatever there was out there to win, he won. It may not be as impressive to you as 14 slams or 6 years at #1. Nonetheless, it's pretty unique.

 

[380pistol]

So you're saying Goran isn't a mental headcase? You're saying Agassi didn't get ABSURDLY lucky with his 92 draw? You're saying that Goran wasn't MENTALLY spent after beating all those players in consecutive and tough matches?


2004 US Open QF Agassi was lucky that he was playing in hurricane like conditions which really threw off Federer. Federer was winning 2 sets to 1 before the match was put on hold, and was in good position to make a push for a break in the 4th set.


2007 Wimbledon wasn't lucky for Federer. That's complete bull and you know it. Federer made clutch serves to save EVERY BP in the 5th set.

Wow?? I never said Goran was or wasn't mentally spent. You said he was head case, when have Iver denied him being that. But whatever head he had, it didn't prevent him from beating Lendl, Edberg and McEnroe in 1992 did it??

Wait Agassi is lucky to get a "mentally spent" Goran, but Fed isnt lucky to get broke back 35 yr old Agassi in 2005 US Open.

Agassi beniftted from the terrible conditions, except at 5-5 in the 3rd, that helped Roger get his nose in front.

Oh yes Goran was mentally spent (one five setter), but Nadal who played 2 (Soderling and Youhzny) and 5 straight days was not??? Fed made clutch serves for EVERY BP in the 5th, what the hell are you on?? In BOTH games Nadal had looks at TWO 2nd serves (yes clutch ones), that he could not even put back in play!!!!!!!!! Are you gonna tell me how Fed was delivering his 2nd serves like Sampras now???? Leave Tina alone!!!!!!!!!!

I know the rules only apply when you want them to, good to know.

 

[OmniscientTennis]

Answer Isn't Sampras

So if you want to argue Agassi as the best ever you will have to now argue:

1. How was he unlucky not to win between 11-14 slams like all Open era GOAT contenders did.

2. How was he unlucky to drop out of the top 100 in between a couple of his short stints at #1, and drop as low as #8 between other short stints at #1. Consistency is part of a great champion.

3. How was he unlucky to only win 2 slams in the same year ONCE, and never win more than that in a given year.

4. How was he unlucky to go 1-4 vs his greatest rival in the only year he won 2 slams, the same guy who missed the U.S Open that year where Agassi picked up his 2nd slam which could have been this others guys instead.

5. How was he unlucky to only end the year ranked #1 once.

6. How was he unlucky to only win Wimbledon and the U.S Open a combined 3 times.

7. How was he unlucky to only once defend a slam title in his career.

8. How was he unlucky to be owned by all of Lendl, Courier, Sampras, and later Federer.

9. How was he unlucky not have 3 straight years even ranked in the top 5 at years end until ages
31 to 33. How was he unlucky not to have 2 straight years even ranked in the top 5 at years end until ages 25 and 26.

By the way if the answers to many of those questions are Sampras, that already shows how stupid it is to be arguing Agassi as greatest ever when it is clear who the greatest player of his own generation was, and it isnt Agassi.

The answer to all these questions isn't Sampras. Agassi focused on what was important winning: WINNING ALL THE TOURNAMENTS. His accomplishments are even more amazing given your point 2 above, in that Agassi took about 2 years off from pro tennis in the mid 90's at the height of what should have been his prime years (24-26 ages) -he didn't drop because he lost...he dropped because he didn't play. He came back and as unseeded, won the US Open. At 35, he almost beat Fed and was ahead in the match and prob would have won, had he not run out of steam from playing all the amazing 5 sets matches from before. Per ending year at #1 -he didn't care about it, as he could have in 1994 (I think that was the year) but just didn't play after the US Open (he needed to win about 3 matches after US Open to secure year end #1).

As I said before, if you ask the top players, they don't care about the #1 ranking, as they know the top 4 to 5 players on any given day can all beat each other. They care about GS wins and winning ALL the tournies. I bet you Sampras would happily trade 3 to 4 Wimbledon titles for a French...and I am pretty sure Fed would trade all but 1 of his Wimbledons for a French.

By the way, it killed Lendl that he couldnt win Wimbledon and it killed Mac to lose that French Open Final to Lendl in 84 -he said he can't even watch the match 20 years later. Fed cried after losing Australia and Wimbledon. It kills these guys that they can't win these tournies...Agassi won them all -the only one ever to do it on all the surfaces.

AGASSI IS THE MAN -AND YOU KNOW IT

 

[NamRanger]

Wow?? I never said Goran was or wasn't mentally spent. You said he was head case, when have Iver denied him being that. But whatever head he had, it didn't prevent him from beating Lendl, Edberg and McEnroe in 1992 did it??

Wait Agassi is lucky to get a "mentally spent" Goran, but Fed isnt lucky to get broke back 35 yr old Agassi in 2005 US Open.

Agassi beniftted from the terrible conditions, except at 5-5 in the 3rd, that helped Roger get his nose in front.

Oh yes Goran was mentally spent (one five setter), but Nadal who played 2 (Soderling and Youhzny) and 5 straight days was not??? Fed made clutch serves for EVERY BP in the 5th, what the hell are you on?? In BOTH games Nadal had looks at TWO 2nd serves (yes clutch ones), that he could not even put back in play!!!!!!!!! Are you gonna tell me how Fed was delivering his 2nd serves like Sampras now???? Leave Tina alone!!!!!!!!!!

I know the rules only apply when you want them to, good to know.

It's Nadal's fault that he didn't put away Soderling and it is his own fault that he fell behind Youhzny. He had a matchpoint against Soderling that he totally blew a FH on, and he fell behind against Youzhny because he was getting outplayed for 2 sets.

And yes, Federer put in alot of first serves on BPs in the 5th set. I certainly don't remember Nadal missing any second serve returns in the 5th set on BP; I do remember Federer hitting aces or unreturnables though (as does everyone here who does not have selective memory like you).


Goran had no control over the draw, and his opponents are much tougher and more mentally draining than Soderling and Youzhny. Or are you going to say that Sampras, Lendl, and Edberg aren't at the caliber of Soderling and Youhzny? Also, Goran was the biggest headcase when matches got tight. Did you look at his matches against Edberg, Sampras, and Lendl? Goran won those quite easily and was almost always ahead.



Agassi was far from "broke back" in 2005. He just got stomped on by Federer throughout the whole year (AO, USO, Dubai, etc.)



Face it; Agassi was good, but everyone likes to glorify him because he was able to turn himself around from the lowest of the low and come back to the highest level of tennis. The truth is that AGASSI WAS NOT THAT GOOD. Agassi was not a SUPER ELITE like Sampras, Federer, or anyone up there with 10+ slams. However, for some god awful reason everyone likes to say that Agassi is RIGHT up there with Sampras and Federer. The truth is HE IS NOT. NOT EVEN CLOSE. He was absurdly lucky to win his two non-HC slams, and everyone with half a brain knows it.

 

[Arafel]

The answer to all these questions isn't Sampras. Agassi focused on what was important winning: WINNING ALL THE TOURNAMENTS. His accomplishments are even more amazing given your point 2 above, in that Agassi took about 2 years off from pro tennis in the mid 90's at the height of what should have been his prime years (24-26 ages) -he didn't drop because he lost...he dropped because he didn't play. He came back and as unseeded, won the US Open. At 35, he almost beat Fed and was ahead in the match and prob would have won, had he not run out of steam from playing all the amazing 5 sets matches from before. Per ending year at #1 -he didn't care about it, as he could have in 1994 (I think that was the year) but just didn't play after the US Open (he needed to win about 3 matches after US Open to secure year end #1).

As I said before, if you ask the top players, they don't care about the #1 ranking, as they know the top 4 to 5 players on any given day can all beat each other. They care about GS wins and winning ALL the tournies. I bet you Sampras would happily trade 3 to 4 Wimbledon titles for a French...and I am pretty sure Fed would trade all but 1 of his Wimbledons for a French.

By the way, it killed Lendl that he couldnt win Wimbledon and it killed Mac to lose that French Open Final to Lendl in 84 -he said he can't even watch the match 20 years later. Fed cried after losing Australia and Wimbledon. It kills these guys that they can't win these tournies...Agassi won them all -the only one ever to do it on all the surfaces.

AGASSI IS THE MAN -AND YOU KNOW IT

It kills them because the want to be the best. Borg left the game because after all those years as No. 1, he didn't know how to be number 2. Jimmy Connors only wanted to be No. 1, and he achieved it for a long time. To the extent that winning Slams is important to the top players, it's because it reflects that they are No. 1.

I highly doubt Sampras would trade any of his Wimbledons for a French. Wimbledon was it for Pete. The French, while being important, was not on the same level.

No one is saying Agassi wasn't a great player, but he can't be the best ever when he has a losing record against most of his best rivals.

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

Face it; Agassi was good, but everyone likes to glorify him because he was able to turn himself around from the lowest of the low and come back to the highest level of tennis. The truth is that AGASSI WAS NOT THAT GOOD. Agassi was not a SUPER ELITE like Sampras, Federer, or anyone up there with 10+ slams. However, for some god awful reason everyone likes to say that Agassi is RIGHT up there with Sampras and Federer. The truth is HE IS NOT. NOT EVEN CLOSE. He was absurdly lucky to win his two non-HC slams, and everyone with half a brain knows it.

Partly disagree about agassi, but that's ok, but the part I disagree with is that Agassi "gets all this love on TW". well
obviously Omnicient does, but majority of posters have stated
the OP is ridiculous and head over to the former section...where
krosero and gj310 rate Lendl/mac and conners "so far" above
agassi I crap myself:

Connors: forehand like he was taking a dump at the same time.
Lendl: rather tahn mental headcase vs one big rival , vs several.
Mac: The GOAT of ancient technology. mac groundies as if he's in a "least spin on the ball" contest.

 

[OmniscientTennis]

It's Nadal's fault that he didn't put away Soderling and it is his own fault that he fell behind Youhzny. He had a matchpoint against Soderling that he totally blew a FH on, and he fell behind against Youzhny because he was getting outplayed for 2 sets.

And yes, Federer put in alot of first serves on BPs in the 5th set. I certainly don't remember Nadal missing any second serve returns in the 5th set on BP; I do remember Federer hitting aces or unreturnables though (as does everyone here who does not have selective memory like you).


Goran had no control over the draw, and his opponents are much tougher and more mentally draining than Soderling and Youzhny. Or are you going to say that Sampras, Lendl, and Edberg aren't at the caliber of Soderling and Youhzny? Also, Goran was the biggest headcase when matches got tight. Did you look at his matches against Edberg, Sampras, and Lendl? Goran won those quite easily and was almost always ahead.



Agassi was far from "broke back" in 2005. He just got stomped on by Federer throughout the whole year (AO, USO, Dubai, etc.)



Face it; Agassi was good, but everyone likes to glorify him because he was able to turn himself around from the lowest of the low and come back to the highest level of tennis. The truth is that AGASSI WAS NOT THAT GOOD. Agassi was not a SUPER ELITE like Sampras, Federer, or anyone up there with 10+ slams. However, for some god awful reason everyone likes to say that Agassi is RIGHT up there with Sampras and Federer. The truth is HE IS NOT. NOT EVEN CLOSE. He was absurdly lucky to win his two non-HC slams, and everyone with half a brain knows it.

Agassi wasn't any luckier than any other player, whether it is a draw, line call, rain delays that come in the nick-of-time, injuries (Philipoussis v Sampras at Wimbledon), framed shots, led courts, schedule changes...etc... These things affect all players equally over the long-haul.

I guess Fed is unlucky that he always has to play Rafa in the finals of the Grand Slams...cry me a river. I guess Roddick is unlucky that he has to play Fed in the Finals of Wimbledon. I guess all the players are lucky that Safin likes to drink and party with the women rather than practice since he has way more talent than anyone else but has decided not to use it.

Luck is when preparation meets opportunity.

AGASSI #1 EVER!!!

 

[grafrules]

Is someone actually rating Andre Agassi #1 all time!?! What insanity, a new low for even TW. Mindless trolling at its finest especialy since he gets this many people arguing with him.

 

[grafrules]

Connors: forehand like he was taking a dump at the same time.
Lendl: rather tahn mental headcase vs one big rival , vs several.
Mac: The GOAT of ancient technology. mac groundies as if he's in a "least spin on the ball" contest.

Agassi: volleys like he has a broken wrist and broken back at the same time.

 

[CyBorg]

This troll was here before and is now posting under a different name.

This is how he has his fun. Nobody in their right mind likes Agassi this much. But some people like to pretend.

 

[380pistol]

Deleted post.

 

[navratilovafan]

It's Nadal's fault that he didn't put away Soderling and it is his own fault that he fell behind Youhzny. He had a matchpoint against Soderling that he totally blew a FH on, and he fell behind against Youzhny because he was getting outplayed for 2 sets.

And yes, Federer put in alot of first serves on BPs in the 5th set. I certainly don't remember Nadal missing any second serve returns in the 5th set on BP; I do remember Federer hitting aces or unreturnables though (as does everyone here who does not have selective memory like you).


Goran had no control over the draw, and his opponents are much tougher and more mentally draining than Soderling and Youzhny. Or are you going to say that Sampras, Lendl, and Edberg aren't at the caliber of Soderling and Youhzny? Also, Goran was the biggest headcase when matches got tight. Did you look at his matches against Edberg, Sampras, and Lendl? Goran won those quite easily and was almost always ahead.



Agassi was far from "broke back" in 2005. He just got stomped on by Federer throughout the whole year (AO, USO, Dubai, etc.)



Face it; Agassi was good, but everyone likes to glorify him because he was able to turn himself around from the lowest of the low and come back to the highest level of tennis. The truth is that AGASSI WAS NOT THAT GOOD. Agassi was not a SUPER ELITE like Sampras, Federer, or anyone up there with 10+ slams. However, for some god awful reason everyone likes to say that Agassi is RIGHT up there with Sampras and Federer. The truth is HE IS NOT. NOT EVEN CLOSE. He was absurdly lucky to win his two non-HC slams, and everyone with half a brain knows it.

Excellent post. I agree with everything you said.

 

[egn]

The answer to all these questions isn't Sampras. Agassi focused on what was important winning: WINNING ALL THE TOURNAMENTS.

Really is that why Agassi's most titles in a year is 7? Even Sampras who only cared about winning the big ones had a 10 title year..so I guess Agassi completely dedicated is worse than Sampras who apparently was not focused week in and out still performed better week in and out than Agassi.

His accomplishments are even more amazing given your point 2 above, in that Agassi took about 2 years off from pro tennis in the mid 90's at the height of what should have been his prime years (24-26 ages) -he didn't drop because he lost...he dropped because he didn't play. He came back and as unseeded, won the US Open.

Agassi did not take 1993 and 1994 off..1994 was was when he won the US Open unseeded..and he was 24 when he won it. He did not take 97 or 98 off either..97 he missed due to injury I believe. He did not than come back and win the US Open until 1999 as a seeded player. He dropped in 97 because of injury..The inconsitent years most refer to are 1991, 1996 and 2000.

At 35, he almost beat Fed and was ahead in the match and prob would have won, had he not run out of steam from playing all the amazing 5 sets matches from before. Per ending year at #1 -he didn't care about it, as he could have in 1994 (I think that was the year) but just didn't play after the US Open (he needed to win about 3 matches after US Open to secure year end #1).

The year you are referring to is 1995..Didn't Agassi play Davis Cup and win that year? Pretty sure that was post US Open.. He also did play after the US Open at Madrid as well and got boucned 3rd round..not sure why he did not play Paris would have to look into it.

As I said before, if you ask the top players, they don't care about the #1 ranking, as they know the top 4 to 5 players on any given day can all beat each other. They care about GS wins and winning ALL the tournies. I bet you Sampras would happily trade 3 to 4 Wimbledon titles for a French...and I am pretty sure Fed would trade all but 1 of his Wimbledons for a French.

Doubt that they would trade one for one I imagine..2 tops.

By the way, it killed Lendl that he couldnt win Wimbledon and it killed Mac to lose that French Open Final to Lendl in 84 -he said he can't even watch the match 20 years later. Fed cried after losing Australia and Wimbledon. It kills these guys that they can't win these tournies...Agassi won them all -the only one ever to do it on all the surfaces.

Well thats weird Fed won Australia and Wimbledon. Mac can't watch the match because he choked and yes Lendl could not win Austraila. There is no doubt that Agassi was a great player but he is not the greatest ever. There are too many faults on his resume.

 

[navratilovafan]

Really is that why Agassi's most titles in a year is 7? Even Sampras who only cared about winning the big ones had a 10 title year..so I guess Agassi completely dedicated is worse than Sampras who apparently was not focused week in and out still performed better week in and out than Agassi.



Agassi did not take 1993 and 1994 off..1994 was was when he won the US Open unseeded..and he was 24 when he won it. He did not take 97 or 98 off either..97 he missed due to injury I believe. He did not than come back and win the US Open until 1999 as a seeded player. He dropped in 97 because of injury..The inconsitent years most refer to are 1991, 1996 and 2000.


The year you are referring to is 1995..Didn't Agassi play Davis Cup and win that year? Pretty sure that was post US Open.. He also did play after the US Open at Madrid as well and got boucned 3rd round..not sure why he did not play Paris would have to look into it.


Doubt that they would trade one for one I imagine..2 tops.


Well thats weird Fed won Australia and Wimbledon. Mac can't watch the match because he choked and yes Lendl could not win Austraila. There is no doubt that Agassi was a great player but he is not the greatest ever. There are too many faults on his resume.

Another excellent post. I agree with all you said. If anything you are somewhat generous to Agassi in it.

 

[380pistol]

It's Nadal's fault that he didn't put away Soderling and it is his own fault that he fell behind Youhzny. He had a matchpoint against Soderling that he totally blew a FH on, and he fell behind against Youzhny because he was getting outplayed for 2 sets.

And yes, Federer put in alot of first serves on BPs in the 5th set. I certainly don't remember Nadal missing any second serve returns in the 5th set on BP; I do remember Federer hitting aces or unreturnables though (as does everyone here who does not have selective memory like you).


Goran had no control over the draw, and his opponents are much tougher and more mentally draining than Soderling and Youzhny. Or are you going to say that Sampras, Lendl, and Edberg aren't at the caliber of Soderling and Youhzny? Also, Goran was the biggest headcase when matches got tight. Did you look at his matches against Edberg, Sampras, and Lendl? Goran won those quite easily and was almost always ahead.



Agassi was far from "broke back" in 2005. He just got stomped on by Federer throughout the whole year (AO, USO, Dubai, etc.)



Face it; Agassi was good, but everyone likes to glorify him because he was able to turn himself around from the lowest of the low and come back to the highest level of tennis. The truth is that AGASSI WAS NOT THAT GOOD. Agassi was not a SUPER ELITE like Sampras, Federer, or anyone up there with 10+ slams. However, for some god awful reason everyone likes to say that Agassi is RIGHT up there with Sampras and Federer. The truth is HE IS NOT. NOT EVEN CLOSE. He was absurdly lucky to win his two non-HC slams, and everyone with half a brain knows it.

Are you really wasting my time with this??

It's Nadal's fault that he didn't put Soderling away, went down 2 sets t Youhzny... the save me the Goran was spent nonsense as it was his fault he didn't handl his busines better. Yet the only person that pushed Ivanisevic to 5 sets before the final was Edberg. Was the rain and the bottom half of the draw getting screwed Nadal's fault as well???

Twice in the 5th set at 1-1 and 2-2 Nadal was up 15-40 in each game, and in BTH games got a 2nd serve to look at which he did not put back in play??? So choke jobs explain that??? It's only Goran right???

Goran's draw was much tougher you say, well it's good that you, cuz he dealt with them easier. The only person who took him to 5 was Edberg?? And who played on quicker grass?? Who playes a more efficent style, and who grinds out points??? Ok then.

Agassi was far from broke in 2005, then why the hell did he crawl out of Roland Garros in 2005?? Why did he miss Wimbledon??? Why did he pull out of Cincy prior to the Open?? Why was he getting cortizone shots??? And who were he top 10 players Agassi was beating in 2005?? A flailng Coria and and Gaudio. Wait Agassi is nothing special, but now at 35 beating him and his broke back is something to write home about?? What's wrong with you???

AGASSI WAS NOT THAT GOOD!!!! That just took all your cred from you. There's no point in me talking.
An absurdly lucky to win his 2 hnon HC slams, are you on crack??? His Moya, Medvedev draw is considered weak around here, yet Roger is praised for making 3 RG finals?!? Who the hell has Roger beaten that is worth more than 5 cents in Paris????

Agassi is lucky to beat Becker (a 3 time Wimbledon champ), and Ivanicevic (a champ and 3 finals), so what the hell is Roger?? Almighty cuz he beat theat great dymnamic duo of Roddick and Hewitt for his SW19 crowns??? You're a joke!!!!!!!!!!

Glorify what??? When Have I said he's something he wasn't?? He doesn't get the credit he deserves from people like you, but when the same ideology you use against Agassi gets used on other players, then the waterworks start!!!!!!!!!