Agree with you on most of this. I have Agassi just above Mac though.
(Also, I think you overrate Connors a tiny bit - winning the 1976 USO on green clay doesn't mean he would have beaten Borg at Roland Garros during the period he chose not to play there)
As I said, I think Mac and Agassi is very close and can easily see it being the other way. I just think with Mac's lack of playing the AO combined with winning 8 YECs (which were probably the biggest events after Wimb/USO (and FO a bit later) in that time) and his higher peak, he narrowly edges it for me.
Also I am not saying that Connors would have beaten Borg at RG necessarily. I am merely just stating that he won a slam on clay through beating Borg + he missed RG throughout most of his peak period. These two factors combined make missing the career slam not a huge deal to me for Connors. As an aside though, remember Borg lost at RG in 76 anyways to Panetta and he also didn't play it in 77 due to his WTT agreement and hence Connors could have won RG without even having to play Borg in either of those seasons.
Lendl and Connors very, very close together. (I have Lendl ever so slightly in front.)
But these two are a number of places ahead of Agassi or McEnroe.
I used to have Lendl>Connors because I think Lendl's career accomplishment numbers are
slightly more outside of the slams, but I have been recently convinced that Connors>Lendl based on them having the same # of slams despite Connors clearly missing out on far more AO/FO opportunities in his career given the perceived value at the time. Connors missed about 12 legit winning chances (74-78 RG, 76-82 AO) compared to Lendl only missing about 3 (81-82 + 86 AO).
I think Connors definitely had the lowest peak, atleast in playing level. He dominated a field of old grandpas in 74, then struggled almost immediately once he got real competition. Peak I would go with McEnroe > Lendl (although Lendl had a much more sustained dominance than McEnroe ever did) > Agassi > Connors
A lot of posters have questioned my rating of the peaks, so I will address them all in a reply to you since you are the topic creator.
I think the question of peak depends on both how we are
defining peak and then how we are
measuring peak. My definition was based on
results produced and my measurement was
best 1 year period with a focus on big events.
84 Mac won Wimb/USO/Masters/WCT and was runner-up at RG = 4 wins + 1 RU
74 Connors won the AO/Wimb/USO, didn't play the French/WCT/Masters = 3 wins
99 RG - 00 AO Agassi won RG/USO/AO and was runner-up at Wimb/Masters = 3 wins + 2 RU
86 RG - 87 AO Lendl won RG/USO/Masters, was runner-up at Wimb, and SF at AO = 3 wins +1 RU + 1 SF
From this I would say Mac>Agassi>Lendl clearly. Connors is a bit more difficult to place because he didn't play FO nor the 2 common substitute big events (WCT/Masters). Hence we have a situation where he is undefeated in big events, but with playing fewer as well (so is the difficulty of comparing the early-70s). So to compare Mac and Connors, I see Mac won an additional big event in his extra tournaments and also had a higher win % for his period. Connors vs Agassi/Lendl - they all won the same number of big events and Connors had the highest win %. Therefore I placed Mac>Connors>Agassi>Lendl.
If we change the
measurement criteria to being just 1 year period over-all without focusing on big events, I would change my ranks to Mac>Connors>Lendl>Agassi since Lendl had far fewer losses and won many more Masters titles during his top window compared to Agassi.
If we change the
measurement criteria to broadening the peak beyond just 1 year to a more sustained period of dominance then Lendl is clearly first and the other 3 depends on how much broader you take the window.
If we change the
definition entirely from results produced to “perceived level of play” then you can really argue any of the 4 in any way you want, but that becomes very difficult to have any type of measurement since it becomes entirely subjective. I do agree that if you factor in competition and use this definition that you could argue Connors had the lowest peak.