Murray vs Agassi

[Bukmeikara]

Right now Andy is four months shy from becoming 29, Agassi was about the same age after Australian Open 1999. Let's make some comparison:

Slam Titles : Andy(2) Agassi(3)
Slam Finals : Andy(9) Agassi(7)
Slam SF: Andy(18) Agassi(14)
Wins vs greater overall player at Slams: Murray 5 (- F1,N2,D2) Agassi 2 (Sampras)
Losses vs greater overall player at Slams: Murray 19(F5, N7, D7) Agassi 5(Sampras 3, Lendl 2)
Master titles: Andy(11) Agassi (9)
Master Finals: Andy(16) Agassi (14)
Master SF: Andy(27) Agassi (18)

Sadly probably some day Andy would look his career from this perspective and ask himself "How the **** I didn't become the number 1 player in the world"

 

[StannisTheMannis]

Right now Andy is four months shy from becoming 29, Agassi was about the same age after Australian Open 1999. Let's make some comparison:

Slam Titles : Andy(2) Agassi(3)
Slam Finals : Andy(9) Agassi(7)
Slam SF: Andy(18) Agassi(14)
Wins vs greater overall player at Slams: Murray 5 (- F1,N2,D2) Agassi 2 (Sampras)
Losses vs greater overall player at Slams: Murray 19(F5, N7, D7) Agassi 5(Sampras 3, Lendl 2)
Master titles: Andy(11) Agassi (9)
Master Finals: Andy(16) Agassi (14)
Master SF: Andy(27) Agassi (18)

Sadly probably some day Andy would look his career from this perspective and ask himself "How the **** I didn't become the number 1 player in the world"

Is he gonna somehow forget that he played in the time of Federer, Nadal, and Novak?

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Right now Andy is four months shy from becoming 29, Agassi was about the same age after Australian Open 1999. Let's make some comparison:

Slam Titles : Andy(2) Agassi(3)
Slam Finals : Andy(9) Agassi(7)
Slam SF: Andy(18) Agassi(14)
Wins vs greater overall player at Slams: Murray 5 (- F1,N2,D2) Agassi 2 (Sampras)
Losses vs greater overall player at Slams: Murray 19(F5, N7, D7) Agassi 5(Sampras 3, Lendl 2)
Master titles: Andy(11) Agassi (9)
Master Finals: Andy(16) Agassi (14)
Master SF: Andy(27) Agassi (18)

Sadly probably some day Andy would look his career from this perspective and ask himself "How the **** I didn't become the number 1 player in the world"

Comparison with Agassi is not fair, Agassi was underachiever by that time, he was top three at the age of 18 , and nobody was beating inform Sampras at AO 95 apart from Agassi not even AO goat Nole.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Murray is a good player but comparing him with Agassi is just too much.

 

[JohanLiebert]

The surface has changed to plexi cushion, and Sampras isn't defeating Novak there. You would have to be incredibly biased, to favor Pete.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

The surface has changed to plexi cushion, and Sampras isn't defeating Novak there. You would have to be incredibly biased, to favor Pete.

I clearly talked about 95 AO and even this year AO surface was playing fast so Sampras of playing today might have caused problem to Nole.

 

[Fiero425]

Oh Boy, 2 players with the same ugly, mindless game! Pass! Have never cared for either player! IMO, both have woefully underachieved and could have done more to win majors! ;-(

 

[JohanLiebert]

I clearly talked about 95 AO and even this year AO surface was playing fast so Sampras of playing today might have caused problem to Nole.

What makes you say, that the surface is faster than last year? Do you have a source?

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

What makes you say, that the surface is faster than last year? Do you have a source?

No but itf has included AO surface in medium fast after testing the surface, players including Rafa, Fed has Said the surface is playing faster from previous years like 2012 and 2013. For Rafa even 2014 and 15 was faster than previous years.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

I don't have direct evidence apart from my eye test.

 

[JohanLiebert]

No but itf has included AO surface in medium fast after testing the surface, players including Rafa, Fed has Said the surface is playing faster from previous years like 2012 and 2013. For Rafa even 2014 and 15 was faster than previous years.

Vague comments, by them does not, mean that Sampras poses a threat to Novak. Greg Rusedski, actually said that the surface is slower. Sampras would be lucky to win a set.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Vague comments, by them does not, mean that Sampras poses a threat to Novak. Greg Rusedski, actually said that the surface is slower. Sampras would be lucky to win a set.

May be you are right , but initially I was talking about 95 AO.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Oh Boy, 2 players with the same ugly, mindless game! Pass! Have never cared for either player! IMO, both have woefully underachieved and could have done more to win majors! ;-(

I think you are being harsh on Agassi, mindless yes but his game was certainly not ugly.

 

[Mainad]

I think you are being harsh on Agassi, mindless yes but his game was certainly not ugly.

Not just Agassi either!

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Not just Agassi either!

Well you are right

 

[Sysyphus]

Agassi might be the most gifted player of all time. Underachieved due to bad choices and focus.

 

[nowhereman]

Agassi was a total underachiever in his time. Murray is great and all, but he really can't be compared to Agassi. I mean, even if Fedalovic didn't exist, I don't see him winning more than 5-6 slams. Agassi on the other hand, had the potential to get to double digits but was rather unfocused at times.

 

[Fiero425]

Agassi might be the most gifted player of all time. Underachieved due to bad choices and focus.

There you go! What top player has gone through this much drama and swings, initially overrated before winning anything, successful for a moment, drops out of the rankings, then returns with qualifiers before finishing a winning kick taking majors in his 30's! What a mess!

 

[HipRotation]

nobody was beating inform Sampras at AO 95

You're saying that racked with grief over the condition of Tim Gullikson was an inform Sampras?

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

You're saying that racked with grief over the condition of Tim Gullikson was an inform Sampras?

No a player who is in grief but still managed to come back from 2 sets down to win the match. I am using my memory so I could be wrong but Sampras was really solid in that AO .

 

[Purplemonster]

Seriously, comparing Murray to Agassi ?? What's the world coming to. Agassi is one of the best players to ever play, arguably one of the greatest natural baseliners in the history of the game.

 

[Calvin27]

Lol and Agassi did all this when he was high as a kite and worried that his headpiece would fall off. Murray is no match, not even with his imaginary friend he keeps talking to.

 

[Fiero425]

Seriously, comparing Murray to Agassi ?? What's the world coming to. Agassi is one of the best players to ever play, arguably one of the greatest natural baseliners in the history of the game.

If you're talking about accomplishments with some serious record book additions, you would think more highly of Agassi! If we're talking ability to challenge and actually beat his top rivals, it probably would go to Murray who had to deal with a lot more in 3 ATG's compared to Agassi having lone rival in Sampras to history! That's just my opinion; all in the timing! Hewitt got the most out of his meager game during the changing of the guard; end of Sampras and pending ascension of Federer! Murray would have cleaned up if he had come along 6 or 7 years sooner! Even though a Golden Age with Agassi, he still underachieved as previously noted! ;-)

 

[mattosgrant]

Agassi is a tough comparision, not just for Murray but anyone. He was an underachiever for most of his career. He was able to have such a great late age run not just by committing himself fully at last, but by not giving an all out effort so many years it left him more gas in the tank for the stretch run so to speak.

I do think if Agassi wins that 95 U.S Open final with Sampras his career trajectory is completely different. He probably is fully commited the remainder of the 90s, maybe it still a force part of 99-2005, but likely doesn't have as big a late career push as he does, but still achieves even more overall. The 95 U.S Open final defeat for a whole variety of reasons just wrecked him and he didn't really recover until his unlikely RG triumph in 99.

 

[mattosgrant]

You're saying that racked with grief over the condition of Tim Gullikson was an inform Sampras?

Most of the tournament no, but in the final he played darn well.

 

[dgold44]

Agassi was extremely exciting and aggressive style

 

[djokerer]

Right now Andy is four months shy from becoming 29, Agassi was about the same age after Australian Open 1999. Let's make some comparison:

Slam Titles : Andy(2) Agassi(3)
Slam Finals : Andy(9) Agassi(7)
Slam SF: Andy(18) Agassi(14)
Wins vs greater overall player at Slams: Murray 5 (- F1,N2,D2) Agassi 2 (Sampras)
Losses vs greater overall player at Slams: Murray 19(F5, N7, D7) Agassi 5(Sampras 3, Lendl 2)
Master titles: Andy(11) Agassi (9)
Master Finals: Andy(16) Agassi (14)
Master SF: Andy(27) Agassi (18)

Sadly probably some day Andy would look his career from this perspective and ask himself "How the **** I didn't become the number 1 player in the world"

Well for later part of Agassi career, the famous weak era happened.

 

[Fiero425]

Agassi is a tough comparision, not just for Murray but anyone. He was an underachiever for most of his career. He was able to have such a great late age run not just by committing himself fully at last, but by not giving an all out effort so many years it left him more gas in the tank for the stretch run so to speak.

I do think if Agassi wins that 95 U.S Open final with Sampras his career trajectory is completely different. He probably is fully commited the remainder of the 90s, maybe it still a force part of 99-2005, but likely doesn't have as big a late career push as he does, but still achieves even more overall. The 95 U.S Open final defeat for a whole variety of reasons just wrecked him and he didn't really recover until his unlikely RG triumph in 99.

Everyone has a foil at a particular major! With Borg, Connors stopped him at least 3 times from successfully winning a USO! At Wimbledon, Connors was able to garner 2, but should have had more but for Borg who blocked him 2 or 3 times in semi's and 2 finals! I could go on! Just proved to me when it counted, Pete took care of business against Andre at the 2 biggest majors even from the start at '90 USO! Agassi got a FO and a couple AO's victories! ;-)

 

[Purplemonster]

If you're talking about accomplishments with some serious record book additions, you would think more highly of Agassi! If we're talking ability to challenge and actually beat his top rivals, it probably would go to Murray who had to deal with a lot more in 3 ATG's compared to Agassi having lone rival in Sampras to history! That's just my opinion; all in the timing! Hewitt got the most out of his meager game during the changing of the guard; end of Sampras and pending ascension of Federer! Murray would have cleaned up if he had come along 6 or 7 years sooner! Even though a Golden Age with Agassi, he still underachieved as previously noted! ;-)

Agassi was the only baseliner of that era when the grass courts of Wimbledon favoured big servers and volleyers to actually win the title. He was competing against the likes of Edberg, Becker, Ivanisevic, Stich and Sampras, some of the greatest grass court players ever. That is just one example of how good he was.

 

[Fiero425]

Agassi was the only baseliner of that era when the grass courts of Wimbledon favoured big servers and volleyers to actually win the title. He was competing against the likes of Edberg, Becker, Ivanisevic, Stich and Sampras, some of the greatest grass court players ever. That is just one example of how good he was.

He won 1 in '92 over a choking dog in Ivanisevic in 5 sets! McEnroe in the semi's was a mere shell of himself! I watched it while most are checking out the cold, hard win! ;-)

 

[tennisfan2015]

It is called, wait for it, the abomination of the white hot-blonde child-bearer.

 

[vandre]

He won 1 in '92 over a choking dog in Ivanisovic in 5 sets! McEnroe in the semi's was a mere shell of himself! I watched it while most are checking out the cold, hard win! ;-)

if you're going to arbitrarily throw out any slam title won against a "choking" opponent, then any slam final fed played against roddick doesn't count!

do you have any idea who IVANISEVIC (that's how you spell it by the way) beat to get to that final? he beat lendl in the round of 16, edberg in the quarters and sampras in the semis. you've mentioned agassi's match against jmac's "shell", but the ghost of jmac past had enough game left in the tank to beat cash in 5 and take out the 9th seed that year (guy forget, who was playing well that year) in straight sets. do you not acknowledge agassi's five set win of becker? was becker a "mere shell of himself"? did you watch that match and see the passing shots agassi was hitting on the fast, skidding grass at wimbledon (not this stuff they play on today) without poly strings? regardless of who you believe to be worthy or unworthy, a player can only play the draw in front of them. agassi and ivanisevic were in the final that year because they both won the six matches they played before that.

if you really watched that match and couldn't appreciate one of the cleanest ball strikers who ever stepped onto a tennis court, then that's sad.

 

[Fiero425]

if you're going to arbitrarily throw out any slam title won against a "choking" opponent, then any slam final fed played against roddick doesn't count!

do you have any idea who IVANISEVIC (that's how you spell it by the way) beat to get to that final? he beat lendl in the round of 16, edberg in the quarters and sampras in the semis. you've mentioned agassi's match against jmac's "shell", but the ghost of jmac past had enough game left in the tank to beat cash in 5 and take out the 9th seed that year (guy forget, who was playing well that year) in straight sets. do you not acknowledge agassi's five set win of becker? was becker a "mere shell of himself"? did you watch that match and see the passing shots agassi was hitting on the fast, skidding grass at wimbledon (not this stuff they play on today) without poly strings? regardless of who you believe to be worthy or unworthy, a player can only play the draw in front of them. agassi and ivanisevic were in the final that year because they both won the six matches they played before that.

if you really watched that match and couldn't appreciate one of the cleanest ball strikers who ever stepped onto a tennis court, then that's sad.

All true, but Goran was in control and couldn't finish; surprise! Never cared for Andre! The promotion was so huge and he'd won nothing; a few small tourneys, but wasn't beating the top echelon yet; Lendl, McEnroe, Connors! Believe it or not, the one player he literally owned was Becker! I never could understand that! ;-)

 

[Deleted member 307496]

If you're talking about accomplishments with some serious record book additions, you would think more highly of Agassi! If we're talking ability to challenge and actually beat his top rivals, it probably would go to Murray who had to deal with a lot more in 3 ATG's compared to Agassi having lone rival in Sampras to history! That's just my opinion; all in the timing! Hewitt got the most out of his meager game during the changing of the guard; end of Sampras and pending ascension of Federer! Murray would have cleaned up if he had come along 6 or 7 years sooner! Even though a Golden Age with Agassi, he still underachieved as previously noted! ;-)

Murray would only win 2-3 slams in any era. He's not a better player than Hewitt.

Hewitt also didn't get "the most" out of his career; I believe he underachieved.

 

[Rozroz]

Agassi was a total underachiever in his time. Murray is great and all, but he really can't be compared to Agassi. I mean, even if Fedalovic didn't exist, I don't see him winning more than 5-6 slams. Agassi on the other hand, had the potential to get to double digits but was rather unfocused at times.

well, you can also claim that a "fixed mental head" Murray, could have won more slams "on paper".

 

[PMChambers]

Agassi had higher potential than he showed in his first 10 years, more due to a belief he was smart and better than everyone around him. Murrray potentially could play better but I doubt he'll have time to rack up the Majors like Agassi. Murray should really be serving as well as Djokovic, if not better, this alone could transform his game. He has also gone back to his grinding game and playing his FH slower since Lendl left. I think he has potential to get better but unfortunately I don't think there is a lot of time and I don't think he wants to change and has surrounded himself with people who embrace his current style. If he can drop the pin point serve and develop a consistent high powered 2nd serve he has the ability to open up his game more and hit out a little more and potentially win a few more majors. Murray is well positioned but would surely like top win on his own merits, rather than Djokovic getting injured..

 

[xFedal]

Murray is a good player but comparing him with Agassi is just too much.

Murray would demolish Aggasi though!!!!!

 

[nolefam_2024]

Right now Andy is four months shy from becoming 29, Agassi was about the same age after Australian Open 1999. Let's make some comparison:

Slam Titles : Andy(2) Agassi(3)
Slam Finals : Andy(9) Agassi(7)
Slam SF: Andy(18) Agassi(14)
Wins vs greater overall player at Slams: Murray 5 (- F1,N2,D2) Agassi 2 (Sampras)
Losses vs greater overall player at Slams: Murray 19(F5, N7, D7) Agassi 5(Sampras 3, Lendl 2)
Master titles: Andy(11) Agassi (9)
Master Finals: Andy(16) Agassi (14)
Master SF: Andy(27) Agassi (18)

Sadly probably some day Andy would look his career from this perspective and ask himself "How the **** I didn't become the number 1 player in the world"

I think Agassi does get overrated here more than the rest but his attitude was not the best until very late in the game.

Watching the Murray matches vs big 3, he seemed outclassed by a few tiers in most matches. While Agassi was right there in some of the big matches he lost. Still Agassi had won 1 AO 1 USO and 1 Wimby in servebot era.


Agassi won 3 slams out of 35 played. And he skipped mostly AO where his game was the amazing.
Murray had won 2 of 40 played. He never skipped Wimbledon.

Thankfully Murray made it to number 1 as well so there is nothing to be regretful about. But Agassi was dominant already in 1995 and shared it with Sampras. Between Canada 1994 to Wimbledon 1995 he won 4 masters and 2 slams.

Murray's best period must be between Wimbledon 2012 to Wimbledon 2013 where he won 2 slams and 1 masters.


Agassi was already a top player but lacked discipline. Murray was never top player but a tier below big 3.

 

[Rosstour]

Murray brought a level of professionalism and dedication that Agassi could only dream of.

I think this is a great comparison. Murray, like Agassi, lacked the extra gear that distinguishes the true giants of the game.

Agassi is an ATG but when Pete was totally on and focused, he was just better.

Same goes for Andy and the B3. They were maybe 3-5% better, that's all. But that was enough.

Ppl forget that Agassi won a single Slam final against Pete. One

Murray did better than that against Djoko

 

[nolefam_2024]

Murray brought a level of professionalism and dedication that Agassi could only dream of.

I think this is a great comparison. Murray, like Agassi, lacked the extra gear that distinguishes the true giants of the game.

Agassi is an ATG but when Pete was totally on and focused, he was just better.

Same goes for Andy and the B3. They were maybe 3-5% better, that's all. But that was enough.

Ppl forget that Agassi won a single Slam final against Pete. One

Murray did better than that against Djoko

Murray did great but the final was not even ideal condition. Djokovic played smarter match in USopen 2012 but lost by a small margin. In strong winds. It might be the windiest slam final we saw. When the wind settled a bit by second middle of the match, Djokovic was almost out. He fought back till the end.

 

[nolefam_2024]

USOpen 2012 final started with 25 mph winds. It's disaster situation. And the court being so big allowed all the wind to get inside the stadium.

Even this year the Wimbledon final was played in windy conditions. There was wind but it didn't affect the play to this extent.

 

[Mainad]

USOpen 2012 final started with 25 mph winds. It's disaster situation. And the court being so big allowed all the wind to get inside the stadium.

But they still managed to play a 5 set match that could have gone either way.

 

[nolefam_2024]

But they still managed to play a 5 set match that could have gone either way.

In fact the wind died down after a couple of sets. It could have gone either way but it was heavily distracting for top players. Even semis needed to be rescheduled because of wind so it was definitely a factor, more than any other year.

 

[Rosstour]

Murray did great but the final was not even ideal condition. Djokovic played smarter match in USopen 2012 but lost by a small margin. In strong winds. It might be the windiest slam final we saw. When the wind settled a bit by second middle of the match, Djokovic was almost out. He fought back till the end.

No excuses. Murray won 2x, fair play to him. Both players had to deal with the wind and that's a known weakness of the Giocoviche.