Is Andre Agassi overrated?

TheMaestro1990

Hall of Fame
Not talking as much of peak level as of achievements at Grand Slam level. Granted, he did achieve the career Grand Slam and I know he is a favourite among many of the members here. But I ask this question because his last two titles, both at the AO, were against Clement and Schuttler. There's been much talk of several supposed weak eras (early 2000s, Federer's peak era and 2015-2017), but even though the early 2000s have been a weak era theme over here, I've never seen any discussion regarding how Agassi may have benefited from it. Would it be more logical if he in fact ended up with 6 Slams, paired together with Edberg and Becker?

 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Agassi is the reason the "weak era" of the "early 2000s" is stupid talk. The guy was in his prime.

Tired of arguing for him when guys go "herpa derp, Hewitt had no competition only old man Agassi who was winning everything, herpa derp".
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I mean in reality there are no strong or weak eras. You play the field.

By the way Clement or Rainer were better finalists than Kevin Anderson.

(Rainer beat Nalbandian and Roddick back to back who were ranked #10 and #9 at the time, Clement beat Kafelnikov and Grosjean who were #5 and #16).
 

EloQuent

G.O.A.T.
In order to be overrated, he needs to be rated. Is he considered that great a player? He's certainly fascinating, but he doesn't get the status of a double digit slammer. He's good, but he's the next level down.
 

Wander

Professional
I think Andre is generally rated exactly where he deserves to be. As in the second tier of all time greats. He's just ahead of Becker and Edberg because of more longevity and more titles (not just GS titles). Note that Andre didn't even bother to show up to take part in the Australian Open for his first 8 years on the tour when he certainly could have been capable of winning it once or twice.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
I mean in reality there are no strong or weak eras. You play the field.

By the way Clement or Rainer were better finalists than Kevin Anderson.

(Rainer beat Nalbandian and Roddick back to back who were ranked #10 and #9 at the time, Clement beat Kafelnikov and Grosjean who were #5 and #16).
And Anderson has beaten Djokovic, Murray and Stan.
 

George Turner

Hall of Fame
Agassi played two random lottery winner finalists for two Australian opens. Had a soft draw in the 1999 FO aswell.

Not all his opposition was upto scratch. Andy Murray would be on more than 3 majors with the exact same opposition Agassi had.

Still not over-rated though, did more than enough to earn his eight majors. He also lost some because of his own personal demons.
 

EloQuent

G.O.A.T.
Agassi played two random lottery winner finalists for two Australian opens. Had a soft draw in the 1999 FO aswell.

Not all his opposition was upto scratch. Andy Murray would be on more than 3 majors with the exact same opposition Agassi had.

Still not over-rated though, did more than enough to earn his eight majors. He also lost some because of his own personal demons.
This just highlights how silly the notion that the Federer, or Djokovic, faced weak fields at any point is. Or even 2017, plenty of top players.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Pretty sure Agassi is one of the guys who's consistently rated where he should be rated. 2nd Tier ATG. 8 Slams, Career Golden Slam, and that's with skipping the Aussie Open a lot. Won Wimbledon on fast grass.
His record against Pete at the AO speaks for itself.

Think if he actually competed there for a couple more years he'd have an extra AO or two. Don't think Pete playing top tennis could take out a well-playing peak Andre on Rebound Ace.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Honestly, it's really hard to know where Murray would be if he didn't face all time greats. It's just a big unknown.

Also, we don't know who else would have won a slam or 3 in past 14 years.
Losing close ones to ATGs consistently would be greater evidence than making the final and getting thumped a few times. That's why I say you can sort of make that argument for Andy Roddick then.

He had one year without Fed as a major threat, the only year he won a major -- and after that he had to deal with the guy on all cylinders and then in his later prime Nadal and Djokovic crashed the party.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I missed out on that one. Agassi one of the greatest ballstrikers in history. His racquet made a pop that sounded like a firecracker. Not even close to debatable.
I sometimes watch videos purely to admire Agassi's technique off both sides. Like that he was sort of a smaller guy too yet could hit so big.

Big reason the "smaller guys can't hit big" argument is torn to shreds, same with Laver who could really pump balls during his pomp.
 

EloQuent

G.O.A.T.
Losing close ones to ATGs consistently would be greater evidence than making the final and getting thumped a few times. That's why I say you can sort of make that argument for Andy Roddick then.

He had one year without Fed as a major threat, the only year he won a major -- and after that he had to deal with the guy on all cylinders and then in his later prime Nadal and Djokovic crashed the party.
You make a good case for Roddick. All this is an interesting debate - and we'll never really know how to properly compare the 2 Andys. Murray also won 14 Masters, and a WTF + 2 Olympics. That's not nothing.

While we're in "what if", if Federer didn't face Nadal, he'd have 5 French Opens. And if Nadal didn't face Federer, he'd have 4 Wimbledons. But they did, and still achieved what they did.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
You make a good case for Roddick. All this is an interesting debate - and we'll never really know how to properly compare the 2 Andys. Murray also won 14 Masters, and a WTF + 2 Olympics. That's not nothing.

While we're in "what if", if Federer didn't face Nadal, he'd have 5 French Opens. And if Nadal didn't face Federer, he'd have 4 Wimbledons. But they did, and still achieved what they did.
I think Murray is better than Roddick but I was merely using him as an excuse. The player can be interchangeable too. But I was really peeved whenever Roddick made the final because I knew he'd have no realistic chance against whoever else met him (Federer in every other final, like damn).
 

TheAssassin

Legend
Agassi played two random lottery winner finalists for two Australian opens. Had a soft draw in the 1999 FO aswell.

Not all his opposition was upto scratch. Andy Murray would be on more than 3 majors with the exact same opposition Agassi had.

Still not over-rated though, did more than enough to earn his eight majors. He also lost some because of his own personal demons.
Doubtful IMO.
 

MeatTornado

G.O.A.T.
It's not like Edberg & Becker were capable of winning slams over 30 and just missed out on the opportunity of a weak period. They both fell off a cliff before that. They weren't cursed by the strong era of the 90s by losing semis and finals to guys like Sampras, Courier, Chang or Rafter. At the same age Andre was cruising, they were getting bounced in the 1st & 2nd rounds, which would've happened to them in any era. Andre deserves all the credit in the world for keeping up his fitness and motivation after 30 to claim more titles when they couldn't.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
I mean in reality there are no strong or weak eras. You play the field.

By the way Clement or Rainer were better finalists than Kevin Anderson.

(Rainer beat Nalbandian and Roddick back to back who were ranked #10 and #9 at the time, Clement beat Kafelnikov and Grosjean who were #5 and #16).
I’m glad that Rafa winning his 3rd USO is causing his detractors so much angst.
 
Agassi is tier 1 for me and the reason myself and a million other Gen Xers picked up a racquet in the first place.

Not to mention his humanitarian work off the court is unparalleled.

So to sum up:

AGASSI beats world.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
As is common knowledge, Agassi sits neatly alone at the top of the goat hierarchy, being the only open era player to have won every single major title, including a gold medal at the biggest stage in sport, and a career grand slam on three surfaces in the most polarized conditions the game has seen, and — as if all this wasn't enough — mostly while snorting meth and donning a fairly dope (no pun intended) wig.
 

toby55555

Hall of Fame
I missed out on that one. Agassi one of the greatest ballstrikers in history. His racquet made a pop that sounded like a firecracker. Not even close to debatable.
Possibly Andy's hardest forehands are harder but as he seldom pulls the trigger its clear Agassi hit consistently harder than Murray.
 

EloQuent

G.O.A.T.
As is common knowledge, Agassi sits neatly alone at the top of the goat hierarchy, being the only open era player to have won every single major title, including a gold medal at the biggest stage in sport, and a career grand slam on three surfaces in the most polarized conditions the game has seen, and — as if all this wasn't enough — mostly while snorting meth and donning a fairly dope (no pun intended) wig.
nah, the wigs were terrible
 

big ted

Hall of Fame
the OP might have a point if you consider 7of his 8 GS final opponents have few or no GS titles (medvedev, stich, martin, ivanesavic, clement, schuttler, kafelnikov..)
those 7 opponents have a total of 4 GS titles between all of them, and he still struggled with medvedev, Martin, and ivanesavic..).
like ppl say, maybe the cleanest ball striker ever, but handling nerves and mental toughness didn't seem to be his specialty, which is interesting for a 8x GS champion...
still one of my favorite players..
 

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
Possibly Andy's hardest forehands are harder but as he seldom pulls the trigger its clear Agassi hit consistently harder than Murray.
I believe that if Murray could consistently do it, then he would. I don't doubt that he can knock the hide off the ball if he wanted to, as big as he is. Where's it going to land though?
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
I mean in reality there are no strong or weak eras. You play the field.

By the way Clement or Rainer were better finalists than Kevin Anderson.

(Rainer beat Nalbandian and Roddick back to back who were ranked #10 and #9 at the time, Clement beat Kafelnikov and Grosjean who were #5 and #16).
03 AO was weak as hell but he beat Martin and Rafter in 01
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Any weak draws for Agassi is easily made up for by the fact that he faced the 3 best fast hard players ever a combined 8 times at the USO.

Also, he didn't play the AO and choked a couple RG finals. Agassi with his head on straight wins 10+ majors. Based on what he did do, however, I have him below Mac and Lendl.
 

Devilito

Hall of Fame
If anything, Andre is underrated due to being an underachiever for most of his career. Missing / skipping major tournaments, injury, personal issues etc. You could argue that had Andre kept it together on a consistent basis, he would have won far more slams than he did.
 

EloQuent

G.O.A.T.
If anything, Andre is underrated due to being an underachiever for most of his career. Missing / skipping major tournaments, injury, personal issues etc. You could argue that had Andre kept it together on a consistent basis, he would have won far more slams than he did.
But that's part of how we assess athletes. If Kyrgios never pulls himself together and wins anything big, nobody will care about his natural talent.

Agassi is a compelling figure because of his struggles and because he eventually matured.
 

vex

Hall of Fame
No. honestly I tend to judge players less based on results than others. Agassi wasted a lot of his title opportunities but just pull up an Agassi match and you're like, "Damn, that is a tennis legend!" Its unfortunate that he blew his chance to be a top 4-5 guy tho. :(
 

Purplemonster

Hall of Fame
The guy won all 4 majors, one of the toughest achievements in the sport. He managed to win Wimbledon on proper fast grass against real grass court players, that's just how good he was. Arguably the best player ever off both wings. Definitely not overrated.
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
Not talking as much of peak level as of achievements at Grand Slam level. Granted, he did achieve the career Grand Slam and I know he is a favourite among many of the members here. But I ask this question because his last two titles, both at the AO, were against Clement and Schuttler. There's been much talk of several supposed weak eras (early 2000s, Federer's peak era and 2015-2017), but even though the early 2000s have been a weak era theme over here, I've never seen any discussion regarding how Agassi may have benefited from it. Would it be more logical if he in fact ended up with 6 Slams, paired together with Edberg and Becker?

Agassi is a tennis god and legend
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
His serve return is, he is the most aced man in the history of the sport
 
Top