Is Djokovic ALREADY better than Agassi, Connors, and McEnroe?

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
I say yes to all three.

It may be a moot point, since Novak's imminent GS titles in the next 2-3 years will likely put him in the echelon of Borg.

But if his career ended today, I think he is still better than these three.

Here's why:

Djokovic has accomplished what he has in the GOLDEN AGE of tennis. He has played GS finals against the top two players in the history of the game.

He has beaten the GOAT on his greatest surface and nearly toppled Nadal at the French last year.

He has dominated the field and won more ATP Master's Shields than anyone except Federer and Nadal (in an era where all the top players play these events).

He has a GS winning percentage that is FOURTH in the Open Era behind only Borg, Nadal, and Federer (yes, he is even ahead of Sampras in this category).
 

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
Nole is still below mcenroe.

Both have 7 slams... but Mcenroe has 77 titles vs 44 of nole
170 weeks at 1 vs 102 of nole
4YE1 vs 2YE1 of nole...
 

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
Better than Connors, not yet better than McEnroe and Agassi.

I always felt Agassi was a bit overrated though. Just look who he beat to win some of his late grand slam titles in Australia.
 

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
Better than Connors, not yet better than McEnroe and Agassi.

I always felt Agassi was a bit overrated though. Just look who he beat to win some of his late grand slam titles in Australia.
Agassi won CYGS when it was tougher, dont know how that guy can even be considerer overrated....

Connors has like 109 atp titles...268 weeks at 1 and 5YE 1 and 8 SLams.... dont know how nole can be above him...
 

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
Agassi won CYGS when it was tougher, dont know how that guy can even be considerer overrated....

Connors has like 109 atp titles...268 weeks at 1 and 5YE 1 and 8 SLams.... dont know how nole can be above him...
Agassi except Moya he beat no one to win the French open, hilarious draw.

As for Connors yes he got 109 titles but he played until he was 45 years old, Novak is only 27.
 

Arafel

Professional
Agassi except Moya he beat no one to win the French open, hilarious draw.

As for Connors yes he got 109 titles but he played until he was 45 years old, Novak is only 27.
Except Connors won most of his titles by the time he turned 33. He also won a slam on clay against the greatest clay court player of his generation, Bjorn Borg. He has 8 slams to Novak's 7, and more weeks at number one. Connors is ahead of Novak, no question. So, for that matter, is Agassi.
 
No he's not, but he probably will be. Before today he hadn't won a Slam since the 2013 Australian Open. HOWEVER, he has still been stunningly consistent. Every tournament, every surface. Literally all he has been lacking is the killer instinct to win more of these finals. If winning Wimbledon today gave him that back, yikes. He could really go on a tear and there's no telling how many Slams he'll finish with.

The US Open this year and Australian Open next year would give him 9, just like that.
 

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
Something tells me Nadal will decline very soon (he started declining already), but Novak just look how fit the guy is ! Can't see him declining before 2017.
 

pjonesy

Professional
Better than Connors, not yet better than McEnroe and Agassi.

I always felt Agassi was a bit overrated though. Just look who he beat to win some of his late grand slam titles in Australia.
I think Agassi did collect a few majors because of favorable draws. Honestly, those AO titles are not on par with the other three majors.

I don't think Agassi is overrated. Just fortunate and uniquely talented. I think Nole is about even with McEnroe and Agassi(at this point). Not better than Connors. Talk to me when Djoker gets to the US Open semifinals at age 39.
 
I think Agassi did collect a few majors because of favorable draws. Honestly, those AO titles are not on par with the other three majors.

I don't think Agassi is overrated. Just fortunate and uniquely talented. I think Nole is about even with McEnroe and Agassi(at this point). Not better than Connors. Talk to me when Djoker gets to the US Open semifinals at age 39.
Agassi is a unique case. He may have benefited from some good draws, but the other side to that is he's one of the most talented players to ever play the game and hugely underachieved. Too many ups and downs, distractions and what have you during his career.
 

powerangle

Legend
Nah, he's still below them, by a decent margin. The others have a lot more on their resume than just an extra slam (in the case of Connors and Agassi).

With this win, he just pulled above, Becker/Edberg/Wilander, IMO (he was about equal with them).
 

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
Something tells me Nadal will decline very soon (he started declining already), but Novak just look how fit the guy is ! Can't see him declining before 2017.
Dont write rafa off, despite what people thinks he has been doing better than anyone else in HC majors since last year.

LAst 2 Australian opens he played?

2012... Final.. epic 5 setter..
2014... Final..

Last 2 USO he played...

2011 Final...
2013 Winner..in 4 sets.


How is rafa declined and a non-factor in HC slams, let alone clay? He has declined in grass, but even then he improved this year compared to the previous 2 years...
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
Not better than any of them. Connors and Mac barely even played AO and still have better resumes than him.

He has a chance to surpass them, but he hasn't yet.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
Nole is still below mcenroe.

Both have 7 slams... but Mcenroe has 77 titles vs 44 of nole
170 weeks at 1 vs 102 of nole
4YE1 vs 2YE1 of nole...
Agreed Nole is still below, but those numbers omit a few things:

Nole 14 slam Finals vs McEnroe 11 slam Finals

McEnroe 8 Year End Titles vs Nole 3 Year End Titles

(fair to count both WCT/WTF for Mac since he gets a slam disadvantage with how often he played Oz)

Nole 19 Masters titles vs McEnroe 19 Masters titles equivalents

(250s/500s and equivalents should have very little bearing on discussions at this level. I would only use them as a tiebreaker for when Masters are equal like they are now. Once Nole adds 1 more 1000, he should get the nod in this category. The gap between slam and masters is much smaller than masters and 500/250. Masters are still the same fields as slams, just with 1-2 less rounds and best of 3 instead of 5. 500/250 are usually lacking at least half of the top players if not more)

And if you are going to count 1982 YE 1 for McEnroe (where he won ZERO slams and won a split YE 1 with Connors who won 2), you most certainly have to count the 2013 ITF #1 for Nole (where he won 1 vs Nadal's 2 and reached 2 other Finals and 1 other-defacto Final in the semi). So its either 4-3 YE1 or 3-2 YE1.
 

SpicyCurry1990

Hall of Fame
I say yes to all three.

It may be a moot point, since Novak's imminent GS titles in the next 2-3 years will likely put him in the echelon of Borg.

But if his career ended today, I think he is still better than these three.

Here's why:

Djokovic has accomplished what he has in the GOLDEN AGE of tennis. He has played GS finals against the top two players in the history of the game.

He has beaten the GOAT on his greatest surface and nearly toppled Nadal at the French last year.

He has dominated the field and won more ATP Master's Shields than anyone except Federer and Nadal (in an era where all the top players play these events).

He has a GS winning percentage that is FOURTH in the Open Era behind only Borg, Nadal, and Federer (yes, he is even ahead of Sampras in this category).
These are all good points. I haven't figured out a good way for era adjustments or incorporation of GS winning percentage yet into my ranking system, but I'd like to.

This is what I use so far:

Career Slam = 6 points (with a Calender Year Grand Slam worth an additional 6 and Non-Calender Year Grand Slam worth an additional 3)

Slams = 3 points with a cap of 2 slam discrepancy (i.e. you can't have 3+ less slams than someone and be rated higher regardless of anything else)

WTF/WCT = 1.5 points

Masters Titles, Olympic Gold, Slam Finals = 1 point

YE #1s = 2.5 points

52 weeks at #1 = 2.5 points (so each week is 5/104s of a point) rounded to an even quarter point

On this scale:

Djokovic: (7*3 slams) + (3 * 1.5 WTF) + (7 Slam Finals) + (19 Masters/Gold Medal) + (2 YE #1s*2.5) + (approx 104 weeks #1*2.5/52)

21 + 4.5 + 7 + 19 + 5 + 5 = 61.5

Agassi: (8*3 slams) + (1 * 1.5 WTF) + (7 Slam Finals) + (18 Masters/Gold Medal) + (1 YE #1s*2.5) + (approx 104 weeks #1*2.5/52) + 6 for career slam

24 + 1.5 + 7 + 17 + 2.5 + 5 + 6 = 63

McEnroe: (7*3 slams) + (8 * 1.5 WTF) + (4 Slam Finals) + (19 Masters/Gold Medal) + (3 YE #1s*2.5) + (approx 169 weeks #1*2.5/52)

21 + 12 + 4 + 19 + 7.5 + 8.125 = 71.625

Connors: (8*3 slams) + (3 * 1.5 WTF) + (7 Slam Finals) + (17 Masters/Gold Medal) + (3 YE #1s*2.5) + (approx 273 weeks #1*2.5/52)

24 + 4.5 + 7 + 17 + 7.5 + 13.125 = 73.125

In regards to YE #1s, I disregarded ones with weak arguments. So Ashe over Connors in 75, Vilas/Borg over Connors in 77, Borg over Connors in 78, McEnroe over Connors in 82, and Djokovic over Nadal in 13 were all discounted leading to 3 each for Connors/Mac and 2 for Nole.

The only years I think there are legit split #1s in the open era are:

70: Laver/Rosewall/Newcombe
71: Smith/Newcomb (possibly Rosewall as well but leaning to no based AO field quality)
77: Vilas/Borg
89: Lendl/Becker
 
Last edited:

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
I do think that Agassi's career is weaker than Mac and Connors, which is reflected by your calculations.

Outside of HC slams, Agassi pretty much just did everything once.

1 Wimbledon, 1 RG, 1 Olympic gold, 1 YE #1, 1 WTF. He never had consistent domination anywhere.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
Connors is one of the most underrated Champions on this board. I don't know why but most of the board probably never saw him play. Although I guess that's true about seeing Borg and Borg seems to get all the accolades.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Connors is one of the most underrated Champions on this board. I don't know why but most of the board probably never saw him play. Although I guess that's true about seeing Borg and Borg seems to get all the accolades.
Connors was pretty much overshadowed by Borg in the 70s. Borg retired at 25 and managed 11 slams by playing 3 slams per year, while Connors played into his 40s and still only managed 8 slams.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
Connors was pretty much overshadowed by Borg in the 70s. Borg retired at 25 and managed 11 slams by playing 3 slams per year, while Connors played into his 40s and still only managed 8 slams.
I lived through the period and saw both players throughout their careers. I would disagree that Connors was "pretty much overshadowed by Borg in the 70s" and I was more of a Borg fan as a kid (Borg and Vilas. Most kids wanted to hit like them -- the big topspin strokes. No one could really emulate Connors strokes and didn't try). I also saw Borg lose to Connors at the USO, which Borg did twice -- on clay. Green, yes. Clay nonetheless. So in NY anyway Connors was the guy and Borg the guy that couldn't get it done.

You also note Connors longevity which you apparently view as a weakness relative to Borg given your stats provided. Borg was burned out long before he prematurely retired, and without his coveted USO. Connors longevity is an athletic marvel. I hope Fed sticks around as long and as well.

I think the reason for the lack of Connors love re Borg is that Connors was a dick. And everyone likes/liked Borg. But maybe not because JMac was a dick too and Jmac gets his due on this board.

So, helloworld, did you ever see Connors in his day ?

Anyway, I may have a Connors bias because matches you see live and as a young kid probably stay with you: I saw him beat Borg on the clay, absolutely CRUSH Lendl (mentally break Lendl with Lendl going down 6-0 in the final set; I won't forget that meltdown) and so many other great Connors wins. I put Connors way up on the GOAT list
 
Last edited:

reaper

Legend
Connors was pretty much overshadowed by Borg in the 70s. Borg retired at 25 and managed 11 slams by playing 3 slams per year, while Connors played into his 40s and still only managed 8 slams.
That amuses me....played into his 40' and still won only 8 slams. Players tend not to add to the slam tally after their early 30's. You don't get gifted them for time served.
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
I lived through the period and saw both players throughout their careers. I would disagree that Connors was "pretty much overshadowed by Borg in the 70s" and I was more of a Borg fan as a kid (Borg and Vilas. Most kids wanted to hit like them -- the big topspin strokes. No one could really emulate Connors strokes and didn't try). I also saw Borg lose to Connors at the USO, which Borg did twice -- on clay. Green, yes. Clay nonetheless. So in NY anyway Connors was the guy and Borg the guy that couldn't get it done.

You also note Connors longevity which you apparently view as a weakness relative to Borg given your stats provided. Borg was burned out long before he prematurely retired, and without his coveted USO. Connors longevity is an athletic marvel. I hope Fed sticks around as long and as well.

I think the reason for the lack of Connors love re Borg is that Connors was a dick. And everyone likes/liked Borg. But maybe not because JMac was a dick too and Jmac gets his due on this board.

So, helloworld, did you ever see Connors in his day ?

Anyway, I may have a Connors bias because matches you see live and as a young kid probably stay with you: I saw him beat Borg on the clay, absolutely CRUSH Lendl (mentally break Lendl with Lendl going down 6-0 in the final set; I won't forget that meltdown) and so many other great Connors wins. I put Connors way up on the GOAT list
Great post. I envy you for having attended those matches.

Even today, Jimmy's first among kings at the US Open - all those titles, finals, and semifinals, in the conversation there for nearly two decades. If the event had been played on HC at Flushing throughout the 1970s, gotta figure he's sitting on 7 US Opens and 10 majors.

As it stands, he gets to belong to a 1-person club: only guy to win titles at a major on all three surfaces. Not the worst consolation prize.
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
In case you seriously think there is "no comparison" and that Agassi is without a doubt better than Djokovic, glance at the two tables below.

Notice how Djokovic has been one of the most consistent players in tennis histories (really overshadowed by Fed only) in reaching GS SF and Fs.

Agassi was constantly losing in early rounds. Moreover, Agassi only faced one great player whereas Djokovic has had to go through two players of equal or greater talent than Sampras.

See the two tables yourself:

Agassi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Agassi

Djokovic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novak_Djokovic_career_statistics
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
In case you seriously think there is "no comparison" and that Agassi is without a doubt better than Djokovic, glance at the two tables below.

Notice how Djokovic has been one of the most consistent players in tennis histories (really overshadowed by Fed only) in reaching GS SF and Fs.

Agassi was constantly losing in early rounds. Moreover, Agassi only faced one great player whereas Djokovic has had to go through two players of equal or greater talent than Sampras.

See the two tables yourself:

Agassi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Agassi

Djokovic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novak_Djokovic_career_statistics
In the same vein, Agassi never had a dominant streak the way Novak has had since 2011. He never had a season in which he won more than 70 matches (Novak has had FOUR already) and the only reason Agassi won Wimbledon was because it was Sampras had not yet reached his peak form.
 

PMChambers

Hall of Fame
I'm my opinion,
Agassi
Noel is an advanced version of Agassi, I believe Noel to be superior to Agassi in every way. Agassi had a few peaks that would equal Nole and probably beat him on several occasions but over the majority of their careers Agassi would be significantly worse, he barely stayed in the top 4.

McEnroe
Very hard to compare, Mac would have done better if the game did not change over his career so significantly. I give them about even with Mac a touch a head because when he dominated an era it was unquestionable.

Connors
Nole is a better player than Connors, he's bigger, faster and stronger. He become metally tough and has more variety. However, Connors against strong field held his own in a similar way to Nole. Currently I put Connors ahead by a tiny amount as I think Nole without his family and support would struggle against a street fighter like Connors. Connors also went through a lot of technological changes reasonably unscathed which few did.

In the end I think he definitely is better than Agassi, but trails Connors and Mac due to other circumstance. Though he has the physical presence to have been better. The other point is Nole is still playing and the time hs legecy finished he'll be a classic, maybe not Federer or Nadal level, but he challenged them and proved himself on every stage.

These are all great players and really should not be compared because you can't. Watch and enjoy, you don't need justification of someone elses worth.
 

mightyrick

Legend
I think Djokovic already surpassed Agassi a while back. If Djokovic is able to get the undisputed world's best player distinction this year, he will pull ahead of Connors and McEnroe. If he does it for a couple more years, he's knocking on Federer's door at that point.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic is now Tier 2, but he is stil behind Lendl, Connors, Agassi and McEnroe.

Another slam and year ending No 1 would probably put him ahead of the latter two however.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I think Djokovic already surpassed Agassi a while back. If Djokovic is able to get the undisputed world's best player distinction this year, he will pull ahead of Connors and McEnroe. If he does it for a couple more years, he's knocking on Federer's door at that point.
Are you being serious? This is Djokovic's first slam win in 18 months and you're already trying to put him above Federer, who has 10 more slams than him? :oops: He beat Federer fair and square today, but it would have been a different story if Federer from 2012 showed up.
 

mightyrick

Legend
Are you being serious? This is Djokovic's first slam win in 18 months and you're already trying to put him above Federer, who has 10 more slams than him? :oops: He beat Federer fair and square today, but it would have been a different story if Federer from 2012 showed up.
No, I'm not trying to put him above Federer. I'm not a fan-boy. For Djokovic to be the best player in the world for 2.5 more calendar years will be extremely tough. To put it into perspective, Agassi was only the world's best player for one year. That's how hard it is.

But to answer your question, if Djokovic gets the best player in the world for five years... yes... he is at Federer's level.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
No, I'm not trying to put him above Federer. I'm not a fan-boy. For Djokovic to be the best player in the world for 2.5 more calendar years will be extremely tough. To put it into perspective, Agassi was only the world's best player for one year. That's how hard it is.

But to answer your question, if Djokovic gets the best player in the world for five years... yes... he is at Federer's level.
He's only on Federer's level if he wins more GS tournaments than him. And that isn't likely.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
No, I'm not trying to put him above Federer. I'm not a fan-boy. For Djokovic to be the best player in the world for 2.5 more calendar years will be extremely tough. To put it into perspective, Agassi was only the world's best player for one year. That's how hard it is.

But to answer your question, if Djokovic gets the best player in the world for five years... yes... he is at Federer's level.
I feel your metric works perhaps for players from different era's. But when you have players in the same era I think it becomes harder.

Is Djokovic greater than Nadal if he ends this year as undisputed #1? As opposed to disputed as you call last year.
 

urban

Legend
Djokovic ia a very good player, no question, great movement,great flexibility, especially on the backhand side, good, not overwhelming serve, but he is still sometimes too passive, when he has to go in for the kill. Maybe potentially he has the ability to make it into the top ten or top 15 alltime. But at the moment he is still behind all other named players. Simply adding the major tally is wrong. I am no friend of Agassi, but he had a unique career, making the 4 Majors under difficult conditions with more distinct variant surfaces and with way more specialist players. Connors is very underrated here. He didn't or did seldom play AO and RG in his prime, and won Majors mainly at 2 venues. Nobody in open era has his resume regarding consistency and facing strong competition. His lifetime percentage of 82 % in over 1200 matches is simply staggering. No wonder, that some scientific studies rank him very first in open era. McEnroe is a case for himself, his legacy is mainly bulit on his unique style and deftness of stroke production. I feel that his peak in 1984 is still unsurpassed, and his great matches are still legendary stuff. Besides that, he was ATP Nr. 1 for 4 years.
 

mightyrick

Legend
I feel your metric works perhaps for players from different era's. But when you have players in the same era I think it becomes harder.

Is Djokovic greater than Nadal if he ends this year as undisputed #1? As opposed to disputed as you call last year.
I think the metric works for career comparison -- in general. IMHO, the thing that makes this difficult is that Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer are still playing... so it's difficult to just "take a current pulse" in terms of career achievement.

On the topic of Djokovic/Nadal, though... I honestly think the press and hype it is overly fair (if that is even a term) to Nadal and unfair to Djokovic. I don't even really like Djokovic that much, but I have to admit he gets the short shrift when it comes to career accomplishment.

Djokovic's achievements over the last four years have been consistently excellent. Does the guy have 9 French Opens? No. However, it takes more than 9 French Opens to say you have a better career. It takes more than a FO title in a single year to be the best player. You have to win other titles, as well. You have to consistently beat people all year long -- to be the best of the year.

IMHO, if Djokovic and Nadal share the best player distinction this year, they will both be neck-at-neck with each other and will pull even with Connors/McEnroe/Cochet. But if Djokovic is the lone best player, he edges all of them at that point. His next scalp will be Borg.

I like Nadal. It is easy for folks to fall in love with his achievements and his game. But this auto racing circuit has more than just one or two races in a year. It has a lot of races and you need to win a lot of them in a single year to be the best of the year. That is where he has fallen short.
 
Many angles here.

The Glory days approach: mac, dre and jimmy are better. Novak is a punk with a great team.

The Purist's approach: mac trumps all because of his heroics in singles, dubs and davis cup.

The Recency effect: nole would beat these clowns in straight sets any day of any week on any court except maybe a fresh grass court in the bermuda/rye blend style of yesteryear.
 
It really is stunning to see how Djokovic has already passed Agassi in a lot of ways. Just doesn't seem right given how good a player Agassi was, how great of a presence he had. I guess I gotta wake up and see how good Djokovic is lol.

He even just passed Agassi in weeks at #1 with 102 to Agassi's 101. On top of that, he's got 19 Masters titles to Agassi's 17, 3 World Tour Finals to Agassi's 1 and as already mentioned his consistency easily trumps that of Agassi. Still think Agassi heavily underachieved, though, but I guess that's irrelevant.

It seems nitpicky but I just want Djokovic to pass Agassi's Slam count before I think of him as a greater player.
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
I don't know. Winning 7 Grand Slam titles was a bigger thing in the 80s and 90s though. There weren't a lot of 10+ Slam winners then. We now live in am era of 14/17 Grand Slam winners. Still, winning 7 Grand Slam titles is an amazing achievement. And Novak isn't done winning Slams yet.
 
If you were comparing them all in matches against each other in their prime, using today's racquets and strings, I doubt either Connors or Mac would have enough to beat the Joker (Joker would return too well for Mac to beat with his s/v game). However, I think Agassi in his prime would have played Novak fairly evenly. That said, given the equipment that Mac and Jimmy used, if Novak had to use the same 80's technology he might not be any better than those 2.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Without even commenting on Connors and McEnroe, he's not better than Agassi AT LEAST until he wins RG. You can say what you like about Nadal, but Djokovic has had some chances and blown them too. 2011 he doesn't even make the final at the time where he would have his best chance against Nadal. 2012 he's in the midst of a comeback and loses the next day after being up 2-0 in the 4th and DF'ing to give the match away. 2013...well we all know what happened there.

Even this year, sick and all, he looked the fresher player towards the end and DF'ed again to give Nadal the title.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
It really is stunning to see how Djokovic has already passed Agassi in a lot of ways. Just doesn't seem right given how good a player Agassi was, how great of a presence he had. I guess I gotta wake up and see how good Djokovic is lol.

He even just passed Agassi in weeks at #1 with 102 to Agassi's 101. On top of that, he's got 19 Masters titles to Agassi's 17, 3 World Tour Finals to Agassi's 1 and as already mentioned his consistency easily trumps that of Agassi. Still think Agassi heavily underachieved, though, but I guess that's irrelevant.

It seems nitpicky but I just want Djokovic to pass Agassi's Slam count before I think of him as a greater player.
It's not nitpicky at all. He hasn't passed Agassi until he wins RG or a 9th slam (without a RG) IMO.
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
I say yes to all three.

It may be a moot point, since Novak's imminent GS titles in the next 2-3 years will likely put him in the echelon of Borg.

But if his career ended today, I think he is still better than these three.

Here's why:

Djokovic has accomplished what he has in the GOLDEN AGE of tennis. He has played GS finals against the top two players in the history of the game.

He has beaten the GOAT on his greatest surface and nearly toppled Nadal at the French last year.

He has dominated the field and won more ATP Master's Shields than anyone except Federer and Nadal (in an era where all the top players play these events).

He has a GS winning percentage that is FOURTH in the Open Era behind only Borg, Nadal, and Federer (yes, he is even ahead of Sampras in this category).
I don't think you understand how wrong this statement is. And on how many different levels too.
 

pjonesy

Professional
How many MTO's in big matches have you seen Agassi, McEnroe or Conners take. Just saying. :)
Well, Connors might be the most disruptive force in the history of tennis, especially in big matches. His gamesmanship was legendary, but he also could get the crowd on his side. McEnroe wasn't above holding a match hostage until he got what he wanted. Agassi was a crybaby his whole career and a pure jackass in matches as a youngster.

But no. Even those guys wouldn't stoop to taking a MTO to disrupt the momentum of a match. Maybe they would, but I can't recall seeing them do that.
 
Top