Greatest Players Ever -Top 5: New List

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???
 

Nadalfan89

Hall of Fame
Skill wise or accomplishment wise? If by skill, it's:

1) Federer
2) Laver
3) Sampras
4) Agassi
5) Nadal
 

tudwell

G.O.A.T.
1. Laver - Second most major titles of all time (19), three grand slams (or equivalent), dethroned reigning champion of tennis Ken Rosewall after only a year on the pro tour and then dominated until the early seventies

2. Rosewall - Most major titles of all time (23), seven consecutive French Pro titles (and 8 in nine years), won majors 19 years apart

3. Gonzales - Number one player in the world for at least 8 years, 8 U.S. Pro titles

4. Tilden - Number one player for seven years, 7 U.S. Championships

5. Federer - Cause I'm a *******

[Edited to include explanations]
 
Last edited:
Borg and Pancho on the list is a joke

Sampras
Pancho
Laver
Borg
Fed

Borg is not in top 5 any way you measure. Zero US Opens, Zero Australian Opens. No longevity. Incomplete player when compared to the others on the list measured by accomplishments.

I wont even comment on Pancho bc he deserves zero mention.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Borg is not in top 5 any way you measure. Zero US Opens, Zero Australian Opens. No longevity. Incomplete player when compared to the others on the list measured by accomplishments.

I wont even comment on Pancho bc he deserves zero mention.


Borg has 11 slams, 5 in a row at Wimbledon. He also won RG and Wimbledon back to back, the hardest thing ever to do in tennis (with extremely polarized surfaces to boot also).



He had multiple USO finals, etc. He didn't play the AO because no one went there. He could have easily won the AO when it was played on grass, one of his best surfaces.



The 11 slams alone propels him up there, the fact that he won Wimbledon and RG back to back 3 times pushes him up even further.



Oh, and Pancho Gonzalez was considered the world #1 for an unequaled 8 years, beating up on everyone including Slam winners. So yes, he deserves to be there.
 
Finals do not equal wins

"IFs" don't count either.

Connors, Vilas, Ashe, Rosewall...etc all played the AO in their era. Borg boycotted the AO as a protest against having the tournament near the Christmas holidays...he didn't play it bc no one else played...he didn't play AO out of protest...

Borg had great accomplishments but only in 2 Grand Slams tournies. A player needs to have a more complete career than Borg to be in top 5
 

Milan

Rookie
This shows its truly IMPOSSIBLE to decide Best ever or even top 5 for that matter.

Different styles, also most importantly, different surfaces complicates this matter. For instance, Agassi was more versatile than Sampras, but Sampras won a lot more Grand Slams and also dominated their Head 2 Head.

Nadal Dominates Federer but Federer was best player for 4 years over rest of competitors and would be at 19 Grand Slams right now if Nadal wasn't around. He was 2nd best Claycourter in the world for past 5 years. Obviously he seems to be melting now but it gets very complicated.

Borg Really complicates things as he dominated on Grass and Clay, two totally opposite surfaces but didnt even bother playing AO and never won a US Open. also back then US Open went from Grass to Clay to Hard, it was always changing.

It's so tough to also compare Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, and guys that. Yes Laver is probably best in my opinion but who knows how they would have fared against Nadal today. they would get muscled off the court perhaps.

Too Tough to say. Let's make up lists of the Best players, but not put them in order because its too hard to do.

I would say Fed is best but he gets trashed by Nadal so he can't be greatest. Nadal can't be greatest yet btu hes still young.

Anyhow, good conversation.
 

GameSampras

Banned
Im reluctant to even keep Fed in my top5 unless he turns things around. From the looks of it he might possibly be finished. He cant seem to overcome these new breed of players now that Nadal has primed, Murray, and Djoker. All players who have his number. Unless Fed can respond his career legacy will even take more of a downturn than it has recently. Great players need to respond to adversity. Fed has shown he cant
 

tudwell

G.O.A.T.
Agassi on the list is a joke

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???

Agassi's career grand slam doesn't mean a whole lot when compared to what some other guys have achieved. By modern standards, Agassi had a fairly long career, but he only ended one year as the number one player. Agassi never dominated on the scale that any of the players I listed did. Sure he won all four majors, but scattered light-years apart and with no real dominance displayed.

Also, Masters tournaments have only been around since 1990, and tennis was not an Olympic sport from the 20s to the 80s.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Finals do not equal wins

"IFs" don't count either.

Connors, Vilas, Ashe, Rosewall...etc all played the AO in their era. Borg boycotted the AO as a protest against having the tournament near the Christmas holidays...he didn't play it bc no one else played...he didn't play AO out of protest...

Borg had great accomplishments but only in 2 Grand Slams tournies. A player needs to have a more complete career than Borg to be in top 5


You're hopeless if you put Agassi above Bjorn Borg.
 

CyBorg

Legend
Connors, Vilas, Ashe, Rosewall...etc all played the AO in their era. Borg boycotted the AO as a protest against having the tournament near the Christmas holidays...he didn't play it bc no one else played...he didn't play AO out of protest...

You're embarrassing yourself.
 

mutantducky

Semi-Pro
Agassi isn't the best ever but he more than any of the other players of that great time period really influenced a lot of young people to get out and play. tennis skills not the best but factoring in other aspects he is in the top 3.
 

clayman2000

Hall of Fame
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???

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
 

dwhiteside

Semi-Pro
Sampras
Pancho
Laver
Borg
Fed

How do you go from demeaning Fed so much saying he had absolutely no competition and insulting all the players he won against, denigrating his achievements (further, if Sampras saw your posts what do you think he'd think of someone so disrespectful and insulting? ) to saying he's the fifth greatest player tennis has ever seen?
 

maddogz32

Semi-Pro
1.) laver
2.) agassi
3.) sampras
4.) borg
5.) federer

nadal will be on it soon, once he has more grand slam wins
 
1. Laver - Second most major titles of all time (19), three grand slams (or equivalent), dethroned reigning champion of tennis Ken Rosewall after only a year on the pro tour and then dominated until the early seventies

2. Rosewall - Most major titles of all time (23), seven consecutive French Pro titles (and 8 in nine years), won majors 19 years apart

3. Gonzales - Number one player in the world for at least 8 years, 8 U.S. Pro titles

4. Tilden - Number one player for seven years, 7 U.S. Championships

5. Federer - Cause I'm a *******

[Edited to include explanations]
Interesting that you put Rosewall that high. I am still big on Tilden. Just reading about his accomplishments convinces me that he was the greatest. But Laver is sure close. Gonzales is not given sufficiet recognition but, when he was playing, he was completely dominating everyone. Fantastic serve.

Fed? Sorry, I would have put even Sampras ahead of him, although I like Lendl the best for some kind of a spot. What about Budge? Did you forget him? He was amazing during his time.
 

drake

Semi-Pro
There's no such thing as "Greatest Player Ever" unless today is the end of the world. Well since nobody has the order right, I'm forced to submit the "Past and Present Players that Were and Are Some of the Greatest"
list:

1. Laver
2. Sampras
3. Nadal
4. Federer
5. Borg

This should hold up for at least 5 or so more years until some other young phenom comes along to try to bump the list.
 
Last edited:

tennis-hero

Banned
my opinion
(subject to change daily with my mood)

grass

1 - Pete
2 - Roger
3 - Laver
4 - Bjorn
5- Edberg/Becker/Mac

Clay

1- Nadal
2- Borg
3- Rosewall
4- Muster (prime)
5- Lendl/guga

Hard courts

1- Pete
2- Roger
3- Tilden
4- Lendl
5- Andre
 

tudwell

G.O.A.T.
Interesting that you put Rosewall that high. I am still big on Tilden. Just reading about his accomplishments convinces me that he was the greatest. But Laver is sure close. Gonzales is not given sufficiet recognition but, when he was playing, he was completely dominating everyone. Fantastic serve.

Fed? Sorry, I would have put even Sampras ahead of him, although I like Lendl the best for some kind of a spot. What about Budge? Did you forget him? He was amazing during his time.

I don't know a whole lot about Tilden and even less about Budge. So consider my opinion rather uninformed. When I research those two (and countless others), it'll most likely change.

And as I mentioned, I'm a *******. :D To me, Borg, Sampras, and Federer all occupy a similar level in the hierarchy, and I wanted to pick one of them for number five. But it's tough. Their careers were all so different. Federer reached greater heights than either of the other two, but they both look like they'll win out in the longevity department. So I just subjectively picked my favorite.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
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

Okay so pancho has no mention well than i will post a ridiculous counter arguement for agassi..

The fact that you put Agassi as number 1 is funny. Agassi is only rated so high because he got lucky and won all 4. Agassi in his era was not the best on any surface. On clay Brug, Courier, Muster and Kureten were all far ahead of him. On grass Sampras, Goran, Krajicek and Becker were all ahead of him. On hardcourts Sampras and Lendl were ahead of him and Courier in his prime handed him beat downs. Agassi won his Australian Opens after his main rivals had vanished or fallen of their top game. His French Open victory came out of one of the biggest chokes ever. Medvedev was up 6-1, 6-2 and blew it, who had a reputation for losing the big matches in slams (see h2h with Brug although being 5-5 he lost the important matches.) Also Andre won some slams against guys who make Federer's fields look like GOATs. I mean hell most people could win two more Australian Opens at his age if your finals were against Arnaud Clément and Rainer Schüttler two barely top 10 players who both excelled on fast surfaces.

Don't get me wrong Agassi is a great player and he won 8 grand slams but Agassi played his best tennis from 91-99 and it was almost as if God felt bad that he screwed up so much in his youth that he recieved those 3 slams, but Agassi was not dominate on all the surfaces. He was very good all around, but I think Fed and Borg were just as good all around. Borg got stopped by Connors and McEnroe arguably two of the best hardcourt players of all time and Fed was stopped by Nadal. If Agassi had 3 of each or hell 3 of two and 2 of the other two than you have a case.

Also most masters wins..Well that is biast because Laver, Connors and anyway prior to 1990 can't use that.

Look up more on Pancho you will be surprised.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Anybody who put Andre above Pete Sampras either has no clue about tennis or are just plain ignorant. Andre and all other tennis greats in the 90s agree to put Sampras as the undisputed best of the era. There's no question about Sampras being the best of his era. The only two people that could possibly be ranked higher than him are Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg, but I would definitely put Sampras above Borg.
 

380pistol

Banned
Borg is not in top 5 any way you measure. Zero US Opens, Zero Australian Opens. No longevity. Incomplete player when compared to the others on the list measured by accomplishments.

I wont even comment on Pancho bc he deserves zero mention.

I can't even comment on this nonsense, as it speaks for itself!!!!!!!
 

380pistol

Banned
Agassi's career grand slam doesn't mean a whole lot when compared to what some other guys have achieved. By modern standards, Agassi had a fairly long career, but he only ended one year as the number one player. Agassi never dominated on the scale that any of the players I listed did. Sure he won all four majors, but scattered light-years apart and with no real dominance displayed.

Also, Masters tournaments have only been around since 1990, and tennis was not an Olympic sport from the 20s to the 80s.

If we go by "Masters Equivalents" (taking the top 9 tournaments after slams and YEC in Open era), Dre's 17 would have him 2nd all time behind Lendl with 18. Off the top I have McEnroe 3rd with 16, and then Connors 15. Federer and Nadal come in at 14 then Laver is around 12 with Becker (about 13) and Sampras 11-12.

Give or take, just to to bring some perspective where this matter is concerned.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Borg is not in top 5 any way you measure. Zero US Opens, Zero Australian Opens. No longevity. Incomplete player when compared to the others on the list measured by accomplishments.

I wont even comment on Pancho bc he deserves zero mention.

Just a comment, Ellsworth Vines had TWO Panchos on his list for greatest players after WWII. He had Pancho Gonzalez third and Pancho Segura fifth.

Pancho Gonzalez, if you check his record clearly deserves mention on any all time GOAT list. It is very possible he is the GOAT. The man had the ideal built for a tennis player. He was 6'3 1/2 inches tall, very fast, fit and trim (in his prime) and was considered so strong mentally that many said they would pick for a fifth set or a match they needed for their life.

He had an excellent volley and possibly the greatest serve in the history of tennis plus good groundstrokes.

He won at least 80 some odd tournaments and I believe 7 majors tours in which he defeated greats like Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad, Tony Trabert etc.

His record was hurt by the fact he couldn't play the majors for many years but even after Open Tennis started he was a factor in the Open Tournaments even though he was over 40 defeating players like Tony Roche and Pasarell at the majors. He also defeated (in his forties during Open Tennis) Laver, Newcombe, Stan Smith, Arthur Ashe and won tournaments at that late age.

I think if you took Pancho Gonzalez out of let's say 1956 to play tennis today, gave him three months to get used to the new rackets and differences in tennis today that he would give the top players nightmares. I'm not saying he would be number one but I would not be surprised if he was number one.
 
Last edited:
Agassi Clearly The Best Ever

To all those who cut on Agassi that he is not deserving, just remember, NO ONE in the modern era has won all 4 grand slams in their entire career. So, I guess winning all 4 Grand Slams is somehow a big deal. To all those who talk about the Masters series not being around until 1990 and so you can't benchmark Agassi's wins in Masters events against others, remember this, all these tournaments (Rome, Indian Wells, Paris, etc.) have been played for decades by all the best players (regardless of whether they were in a formal format of an overall tour or not). Agassi is the best performer of all these Masters tournies.

And, for all you who think being ranked number 1 for long periods of time is the most important measure, note this, I am pretty sure if you ask any top player their choice between being ranked number 1 or winning a Grand Slam title, they will all pick winning a Grand Slam title.

You folks on this thread who don't recognize Agassi's accomplishment of the career Grand Slam are naive about tennis and don't understand the magnitude of this achievement. It is the greatest accomplishment in tennis since the Open Era started.
 
Agassi Best Ever Hands Down

To all those who cut on Agassi that he is not deserving, just remember, NO ONE in the modern era has won all 4 grand slams in their entire career. So, I guess winning all 4 Grand Slams is somehow a big deal. To all those who talk about the Masters series not being around until 1990 and so you can't benchmark Agassi's wins in Masters events against others, remember this, all these tournaments (Rome, Indian Wells, Paris, etc.) have been played for decades by all the best players (regardless of whether they were in a formal format of an overall tour or not). Agassi is the best performer of all these Masters tournies.

And, for all you who think being ranked number 1 for long periods of time is the most important measure, note this, I am pretty sure if you ask any top player their choice between being ranked number 1 or winning a Grand Slam title, they will all pick winning a Grand Slam title.

You folks on this thread who don't recognize Agassi's accomplishment of the career Grand Slam are naive about tennis and don't understand the magnitude of this achievement. It is the greatest accomplishment in tennis since the Open Era started.
 

GameSampras

Banned
To all those who cut on Agassi that he is not deserving, just remember, NO ONE in the modern era has won all 4 grand slams in their entire career. So, I guess winning all 4 Grand Slams is somehow a big deal. To all those who talk about the Masters series not being around until 1990 and so you can't benchmark Agassi's wins in Masters events against others, remember this, all these tournaments (Rome, Indian Wells, Paris, etc.) have been played for decades by all the best players (regardless of whether they were in a formal format of an overall tour or not). Agassi is the best performer of all these Masters tournies.

And, for all you who think being ranked number 1 for long periods of time is the most important measure, note this, I am pretty sure if you ask any top player their choice between being ranked number 1 or winning a Grand Slam title, they will all pick winning a Grand Slam title.

You folks on this thread who don't recognize Agassi's accomplishment of the career Grand Slam are naive about tennis and don't understand the magnitude of this achievement. It is the greatest accomplishment in tennis since the Open Era started.

What hurts Agassi was his inability to dominate. And is persistent problem with going MIA or not playing to his full potential. His grand slam IMO though was the greatest achievement because he did on 4 distinctly different surfaces in a time where the courts were the most polarized they had ever been. Two completely different HC surfaces and two extremes in clay and grass
 

380pistol

Banned
To all those who cut on Agassi that he is not deserving, just remember, NO ONE in the modern era has won all 4 grand slams in their entire career. So, I guess winning all 4 Grand Slams is somehow a big deal. To all those who talk about the Masters series not being around until 1990 and so you can't benchmark Agassi's wins in Masters events against others, remember this, all these tournaments (Rome, Indian Wells, Paris, etc.) have been played for decades by all the best players (regardless of whether they were in a formal format of an overall tour or not). Agassi is the best performer of all these Masters tournies.

And, for all you who think being ranked number 1 for long periods of time is the most important measure, note this, I am pretty sure if you ask any top player their choice between being ranked number 1 or winning a Grand Slam title, they will all pick winning a Grand Slam title.

You folks on this thread who don't recognize Agassi's accomplishment of the career Grand Slam are naive about tennis and don't understand the magnitude of this achievement. It is the greatest accomplishment in tennis since the Open Era started.

Nah, by my count his 17 would be 2nd all time if we're equating "Masters Equivalents" to Lendl's 18. Again these are equivalents not exact. His 17 is impressive, but would have him at #2.
 

Arafel

Professional
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

Your Open era one is close, with the caveat that Nadal could go higher. I'd also switch Sampras and Federer.
 

Arafel

Professional
my opinion
(subject to change daily with my mood)

grass

1 - Pete
2 - Roger
3 - Laver
4 - Bjorn
5- Edberg/Becker/Mac

Clay

1- Nadal
2- Borg
3- Rosewall
4- Muster (prime)
5- Lendl/guga

Hard courts

1- Pete
2- Roger
3- Tilden
4- Lendl
5- Andre

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.
 

Arafel

Professional
To all those who cut on Agassi that he is not deserving, just remember, NO ONE in the modern era has won all 4 grand slams in their entire career. So, I guess winning all 4 Grand Slams is somehow a big deal. To all those who talk about the Masters series not being around until 1990 and so you can't benchmark Agassi's wins in Masters events against others, remember this, all these tournaments (Rome, Indian Wells, Paris, etc.) have been played for decades by all the best players (regardless of whether they were in a formal format of an overall tour or not). Agassi is the best performer of all these Masters tournies.

And, for all you who think being ranked number 1 for long periods of time is the most important measure, note this, I am pretty sure if you ask any top player their choice between being ranked number 1 or winning a Grand Slam title, they will all pick winning a Grand Slam title.

You folks on this thread who don't recognize Agassi's accomplishment of the career Grand Slam are naive about tennis and don't understand the magnitude of this achievement. It is the greatest accomplishment in tennis since the Open Era started.

You can't just use Slams as a benchmark without looking at the context of the era. From 76-83, the top players skipped the Australian, as it was a second tier event, not even on par with the WCT Championships in Dallas and the Masters in New York.

How to factor in Connors, who was kicked out of the 74 French for playing WCT? He then boycotted the event for the next 4 years as a protest.

Also, Connors has won a Slam on all four surfaces, because he won the US Open on clay. He also won the Australian. By any objective measure, Connors was a better player than Agassi and had a better career.

Frankly, this whole thing about four surfaces has always struck me as sophistry. The Australian and the US Open are both on hard courts, and have been since 88. They may play a little differently, but not enough that you can call them separate surfaces.

Though I love Connors, I wouldn't put him ahead of Borg, Sampras, Laver or Federer in the GOAT of the open era. Even without the US Open title, Borg's three times French-Wimbledon titles are one of the most impressive feats in tennis. Laver, of course, won a calendar year Slam, and Sampras is Sampras.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
To all those who cut on Agassi that he is not deserving, just remember, NO ONE in the modern era has won all 4 grand slams in their entire career. So, I guess winning all 4 Grand Slams is somehow a big deal. To all those who talk about the Masters series not being around until 1990 and so you can't benchmark Agassi's wins in Masters events against others, remember this, all these tournaments (Rome, Indian Wells, Paris, etc.) have been played for decades by all the best players (regardless of whether they were in a formal format of an overall tour or not). Agassi is the best performer of all these Masters tournies.

And, for all you who think being ranked number 1 for long periods of time is the most important measure, note this, I am pretty sure if you ask any top player their choice between being ranked number 1 or winning a Grand Slam title, they will all pick winning a Grand Slam title.

You folks on this thread who don't recognize Agassi's accomplishment of the career Grand Slam are naive about tennis and don't understand the magnitude of this achievement. It is the greatest accomplishment in tennis since the Open Era started.


He beat the mental unstable Goran and the mental midget and choker Medeev in the final (and took 5 sets to do it). He was lucky to win Wimbledon and the FO.
 

GameSampras

Banned
He beat the mental unstable Goran and the mental midget and choker Medeev in the final (and took 5 sets to do it). He was lucky to win Wimbledon and the FO.

Well I would say Agassi was lucky to grab a wimbeldon as a baseliner at a time that was dominated by serve-volleyers but had Pete not been around in 99, Andre could have won that wimbeldon as well. Not to mention Andre also made two other RG finals. So all in all he could have won others since he was in the positioin to win them
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Well I would say Agassi was lucky to grab a wimbeldon as a baseliner at a time that was dominated by serve-volleyers but had Pete not been around in 99, Andre could have won that wimbeldon as well. Not to mention Andre also made two other RG finals. So all in all he could have won others since he was in the positioin to win them


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 Didn't Get Lucky ... He Got Just As Lucky As Every Other Champion

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.
 

380pistol

Banned
He beat the mental unstable Goran and the mental midget and choker Medeev in the final (and took 5 sets to do it). He was lucky to win Wimbledon and the FO.

Ah yes th mentally unstable Goran who beat Lendl, Edberg and Sampras to get to the final. And hat Rg he beat the defending champion Moya and then Medvedev.... and his 4 masters titles on clay, and that loss was the 6th time in 8 years he'd lost the the eventual French champ. Funy how the Dre detractors never mention these things.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Ah yes th mentally unstable Goran who beat Lendl, Edberg and Sampras to get to the final. And hat Rg he beat the defending champion Moya and then Medvedev.... and his 4 masters titles on clay, and that loss was the 6th time in 8 years he'd lost the the eventual French champ. Funy how the Dre detractors never mention these things.


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.
 
Open Era

1.Federer
2.Sampras
3.Borg
4.Agassi
5.Nadal

Nadal? Are you serious? Are we talking about the same era in which Lendl, Connors and McEnroe played? Nadal is a ball boy by comparison. Now if he manages to stay #1 for 3 or 4 more years, then he might be considered.
 

thalivest

Banned
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.


I agree Agassi was lucky to avoid Sampras and Edberg at Wimbledon 92. I think either would have beaten him. Also lucky to play Ivanisevic the slam final choker in the final instead of the semis or quarters. I would say Stich as well but Stich wasnt playing that well at that Wimbledon even though he made the quarters. I am not sure how Krajicek did at that Wimbledon. Becker as mentioned lets his ego get in the way when he plays Agassi and tries to beat him at Agassi's own baseline game which is stupid, if he played the right way he would definitely beat Agassi 9 times out of 10 on grass.

The one thing I disagree on though is Lendl. Lendl was really past his prime by 1992. Grass is his worst surface by far too. I think Agassi would have been able to beat an aging past his prime Lendl on his worst surface. Lendl would have spanked Agassi if they had played at say the French or U.S Opens in 1990, but Wimbledon 1992 Agassi would have come out ahead.
 

thalivest

Banned
Okay so pancho has no mention well than i will post a ridiculous counter arguement for agassi..

The fact that you put Agassi as number 1 is funny. Agassi is only rated so high because he got lucky and won all 4. Agassi in his era was not the best on any surface. On clay Brug, Courier, Muster and Kureten were all far ahead of him. On grass Sampras, Goran, Krajicek and Becker were all ahead of him. On hardcourts Sampras and Lendl were ahead of him and Courier in his prime handed him beat downs. Agassi won his Australian Opens after his main rivals had vanished or fallen of their top game. His French Open victory came out of one of the biggest chokes ever. Medvedev was up 6-1, 6-2 and blew it, who had a reputation for losing the big matches in slams (see h2h with Brug although being 5-5 he lost the important matches.) Also Andre won some slams against guys who make Federer's fields look like GOATs. I mean hell most people could win two more Australian Opens at his age if your finals were against Arnaud Clément and Rainer Schüttler two barely top 10 players who both excelled on fast surfaces.

Don't get me wrong Agassi is a great player and he won 8 grand slams but Agassi played his best tennis from 91-99 and it was almost as if God felt bad that he screwed up so much in his youth that he recieved those 3 slams, but Agassi was not dominate on all the surfaces. He was very good all around, but I think Fed and Borg were just as good all around. Borg got stopped by Connors and McEnroe arguably two of the best hardcourt players of all time and Fed was stopped by Nadal. If Agassi had 3 of each or hell 3 of two and 2 of the other two than you have a case.

Also most masters wins..Well that is biast because Laver, Connors and anyway prior to 1990 can't use that.

Look up more on Pancho you will be surprised.

Excellent post. Anyone arguing Agassi as being even close to a GOAT contender has a few screws lose. I laugh that anyone is even trying to do so.
 
Top