3. Agassi-Won all 4 of the Grand Slam tourneys and has 8 GS titles total (AO not a big tourney in the late 70's through the early 1980's). Very good on grass, great on hard courts/rebound ace and indoor courts, and very good but not great on red clay. Had to face Lendl, Sampras, Edberg, Courier, Chang, and Becker among others. He faced McEnroe when McEnroe was declining quite a bit post 1984, as he battled injuries. His H2H with McEnroe is 2-2 by the way.
QUOTE]
Agassi didn't play his first Australian Open until 1995.
3. Agassi-Won all 4 of the Grand Slam tourneys and has 8 GS titles total (AO not a big tourney in the late 70's through the early 1980's). Very good on grass, great on hard courts/rebound ace and indoor courts, and very good but not great on red clay. Had to face Lendl, Sampras, Edberg, Courier, Chang, and Becker among others. He faced McEnroe when McEnroe was declining quite a bit post 1984, as he battled injuries. His H2H with McEnroe is 2-2 by the way.
QUOTE]
Agassi didn't play his first Australian Open until 1995.
That's true. Yet, he played it post-1995 and he won 4 titles there out of 9 years he played it, if I'm not mistaken. He may have gotten a few more majors there if he had played it more before 1995. So, he went 4/9 in terms of titles there. Meanwhile, you see that Borg played it once when young, Connors played it twice in the mid-1970's and won it once while losing 1 Final, and McEnroe played it just once. That was Agassi's best Grand Slam to do some damage in, year in and year out.
Then, also recall that Agassi did not play Wimbledon in 1988, 1989, and 1990 during that strange period in his career, when he fell and then rose back up again with Gilbert at the helm.
IDK, AO makes it hard to judge
if you factor it OUT, then Mac and Jimmy have 7 GS titles each and Andre only 4....that would make it pretty open and shut for Andre as #3
Then between Mac and Jimbo, you have:
Mac w/ 4 USOs on HC
Mac w/ 3 Wimby's on grass
Jimmy w/3 USO on HC
Jimmy w/1 USO on grass
Jimmy w/1 USO on clay
Jimmy w/2 Wimby on grass
Based on GS alone, still kinda tips to Jimmy a bit...not too much tho'
if you factor it OUT, then Mac and Jimmy have 7 GS titles each and Andre only 4....that would make it pretty open and shut for Andre as #3
Then between Mac and Jimbo, you have:
Mac w/ 4 USOs on HC
Mac w/ 3 Wimby's on grass
Jimmy w/3 USO on HC
Jimmy w/1 USO on grass
Jimmy w/1 USO on clay
Jimmy w/2 Wimby on grass
Based on GS alone, still kinda tips to Jimmy a bit...not too much tho'
Agree, based on Singles slight edge to Jimbo *but* tennis career *should* include all competition and when you consider doubles and Davis cup records, it Mac #1 !
AA is behind both by any statistical evaluation.
12. Connors
18. McEnroe
19. Agassi
Considering Connors won more than twice the amount of tournaments Agassi won and won the same amount of majors I can't see how anyone can pick Agassi over Connors except on a subjective basis.
Nice job Hoodjem.
Agree ... Considering all tournament wins its Connors. Considering slam titles including doubles and Davis Cup its McEnroe. Anybody that picks Agassi is considering criteria other than total wins/losses.
He didn't have the runs; Donald Dell revealed last year that he was in the bathroom actually getting a painkilling injection for a blood blister between two toes.At the time, Jimmy was 30, playing w/a bum toe and had the runs
If there are doubts, I'd suggest watching the just posted '83 USO final. I watched sets 3 and 4...have to go back and watch the first 2 sets. Really had to re-evaluate my opinion of the match. Lendl did not play as horribly as I remembered, nor did he completely tank it. He was still trying/struggling, and in the long run appeared mentally and perhaps physically exhausted.
What totally impressed me was the way Jimbo lifted his game at 3-5 in the 3rd and kept it up all the way through the 4th set, bagelling Ivan. At the time, Jimmy was 30, playing w/a bum toe and had the runs; Ivan was all of 22 (or 23). Jimmy's aggressiveness and speed of foot in this match are remarkable; and the service returns, at times are simply stellar.
He didn't have the runs; Donald Dell revealed last year that he was in the bathroom actually getting a painkilling injection for a blood blister between two toes.
If there are doubts, I'd suggest watching the just posted '83 USO final. I watched sets 3 and 4...have to go back and watch the first 2 sets. Really had to re-evaluate my opinion of the match. Lendl did not play as horribly as I remembered, nor did he completely tank it. He was still trying/struggling, and in the long run appeared mentally and perhaps physically exhausted.
What totally impressed me was the way Jimbo lifted his game at 3-5 in the 3rd and kept it up all the way through the 4th set, bagelling Ivan. At the time, Jimmy was 30, playing w/a bum toe and had the runs; Ivan was all of 22 (or 23). Jimmy's aggressiveness and speed of foot in this match are remarkable; and the service returns, at times are simply stellar.
He didn't have the runs; Donald Dell revealed last year that he was in the bathroom actually getting a painkilling injection for a blood blister between two toes.
ah, yes, you mentioned that before....something of a cover up, huh?
ah, yes, you mentioned that before....something of a cover up, huh?
If there are doubts, I'd suggest watching the just posted '83 USO final. I watched sets 3 and 4...have to go back and watch the first 2 sets. Really had to re-evaluate my opinion of the match. Lendl did not play as horribly as I remembered, nor did he completely tank it. He was still trying/struggling, and in the long run appeared mentally and perhaps physically exhausted.
What totally impressed me was the way Jimbo lifted his game at 3-5 in the 3rd and kept it up all the way through the 4th set, bagelling Ivan. At the time, Jimmy was 30, playing w/a bum toe and had the runs; Ivan was all of 22 (or 23). Jimmy's aggressiveness and speed of foot in this match are remarkable; and the service returns, at times are simply stellar.
Agassi, Connors and Mcenroe, how would u rank them ? Who ranks highest among them and who is lowest?
For me:
1. McEnroe
2. Agassi
3. Connors
Good points.
Because you brought up Lendl (versus Connors), let's add him to this mix.
I would put him slightly ahead of Connors:
1. Lendl
2. Connors
3. McEnroe
4. Agassi
Lendl/Mac
Jimbo
The Royal Gorge Bridge
Agassi
McEnroe
Most career titles and best single season win-loss record.
At the net, I have seen no equal since McEnroe.
Conners and Agassi could go 2/3 or 3/2 -- close call
eh, I had to mention Ivan, and now u throw him in? I have a hard time putting him ahead of Mac and Jimmy, despite his great results. I always felt at their very best, Mac and Jimmy were better. The "problem" with Ivan is that he peaked kind of late, no? In his early 20s, when he should have been winning slams he was losing them (to Bjorn, Mac, Jimmy); then when he was a few years older (mid 20's) he was playing some really top tennis, BUT Connors was aging [like a phoenix, I suppose] and Mac was mentally "off". So, I don't think we really ever saw peak Ivan vs. Jimmy or Mac (maybe in a few non-GS events, I suppose). And, then we have his inability to win on grass tossed in the mix, so I have a hard time placing him ahead of the other two. [but to be fair, he lost several of his grass court matches to John, Jimmy and other fine grass players, so again, it is a tough call]
And, if you choose to factor in doubles, which you may, then John rises to the top of the list, no question. Solely on singles, one might lean towards Ivan or Jimmy over John.
I give the edge to McEnroe over Connors. Both players won 7 Wimbledon/US Open titles, with Connors also having won the Australian Open, which wasn't even close to being the 4th biggest tournament during McEnroe's prime, let alone on a par with the other 3 slams. I think that McEnroe's greater record at the Masters and outstanding Davis Cup record easily outweighs Connor's one Australian Open title.
I personally give more value to prime dominance over longevity and McEnroe at his prime was clearly more formidable than Connors at his. Connor's 1974 season when he won 99 matches out of 103 was great, but the overall field was a lot weaker than it was during's McEnroe's annus mirablis 10 years later. Connor's gets praised for winning his 2 Wimbledon titles 8 years apart and rightly so, but in my opinion winning 2 Wimbledon titles back-to-back like McEnroe did in 1983-1984 (of course he also won there in 1981) is far more impressive. Both players the best in the world for 3 years, Connors in 74, 76 and 82, and McEnroe in 81, 83 and 84. To be honest I would argue that McEnroe's 2nd greatest season 81 is more impressive than Connors's 74, given how strong the field was that year.
I'm inclined to agree here, it's too bad really.
I must add that this legendary Connors endurance/consistency/longevity is due in large part to his refusal to play doubles, Davis Cup, or anything that didn't suit Jimmy or Jimmy's checkbook. OTOH, Mac's tireless, relentless endurance on the singles, and doubles, and mixed doubles court, coupled with his patriotism and ambassadorship of this great game is why I always put him ahead of of Jimbo. In fact, Mac's incessant doubles career probably cost him 4 or 5 slam singles titles...energy he could have saved for the singles courts...which was ALL that Jimbo was about. And I doubt Mac would trade ANY of his doubles success for more esteem regarding his "underachieving" singles career.
Look, I'm not knocking Jimbo at all here...in fact, Mac of all people stood up for him in his book about how Jimmy earned his talents, wasn't a natural born tennis player like Mac (some people actually have to practice Mac!). And that when Jimbo earned a modicum of success he was gonna be damned sure nobody took a damned thing from him. But the selfishness is hard to overlook sometimes.
I said that winning 2 Wimbledon titles in a row (which McEnroe did) is more impressive than winning 2 Wimbledon titles 8 years apart (which Connors did) as the former shows dominance, and the latter shows longevity, and dominance is more important than longevity in debates such as this in my opinion.why is winning 2 wimby's in a row any more/less impressive than winning 2 USOs in a row? at the ages of 30 and 31, no less? Over a highly talented Chzech who is 8/9 (?) yrs younger??
I'm not just comparing the slams alone. I was just saying that I didn't think his edge in the singles slam count was significant given that the difference was 1 Australian Open title. I also brought the Davis Cup and Masters into the discussion. It's also worth pointing out that McEnroe won the WCT finals in Dallas 3 more times than Connors. So he had a better record than Jimbo in each of the 3 non-slam competitions I consider to the be the most important during the 70s-80s.I think by comparing the GS events alone you are overlooking the # of years Connors was at/near the very top of the game...74/75/77/78 wimby finals, 74-78 US finals...that's 9 slam finals, plus 2 more at the AO..so 11. He and Borg had a stranglehold on the top rungs of the game during those years, really only intruded upon briefly by Vilas, until Mac really forced his way into the mix.
I personally consider the Davis Cup to be a very important event, and I think that Connor's failure to win the event (of course brought on by his reluctance to play in it) is a big blemish on his CV. I value the Davis Cup over the many, many lightweight titles with small draw sizes and weak fields that Connors won to pad out his record. His title count and weeks spent at no. 1 are both hugely inflated in my opinion. I think there was a thread on here a while ago which showed that both McEnroe and Lendl won more 'masters series equivalent' titles (i.e the biggest non-slam events over the various years before 1990) than Connors.Frankly, I could care less about Davis Cup; I've always felt it was political and patriotic rubbish (guess I'm like Connors in that way); but I give Mac 100% credit for his superb doubles record.
But, Connors was ranked in the Top 3/4 for something like 10 yrs straight and in Top 10 even longer. Some of his #s, records, etc. are sick like that. so, on singles alone, I don't see how on accomplishments you don't go w/Jimmy; in terms of raw skill, and talent, John for sure