GameSampras
Banned
Difficult to compare wooden rackets with the graphite. But anyways. Lets just say Borg gets the graphite.
Aussie
RG
Wimby
US OPEN
Aussie
RG
Wimby
US OPEN
Prime Borg vs. Prime Agassi. (95,99-00) at all the slams. Who u got?
- Thread starter GameSampras
- Start date
julesb
Banned
Borg crushes Agassi at the French Open or Wimbledon. No contest. Australian and U.S Open Opens are close battles. Agassi isnt as great a hard court player as Federer or Sampras at their best, but it was Borg's weakest surface, but he was alot better than alot of people think and had alot of bad luck at the U.S Open.
Australian Open- toss up
French Open- Borg in straights
Wimbledon- Borg in straight or 4 sets
U.S Open- toss up
Australian Open- toss up
French Open- Borg in straights
Wimbledon- Borg in straight or 4 sets
U.S Open- toss up
GameSampras
Banned
Agassi top 30?? what?? Hes a legit top 10 or close to it. Come on now..
Whats with all this Andre hate on this board?
Whats with all this Andre hate on this board?
CyBorg
Legend
Not really.
GameSampras
Banned
Then who would u put ahead of him.. Afterall, Andre won the career GS title back when the courts were insanely diversified. How many players can attest to that? Laver? Don Budge?
anointedone
Banned
Off the top of my head in no particular order:
Sampras
Federer
Laver
Rosewall
Gonzales
Rosewall
Budge
Perry
Tilden
Connors
McEnroe
Lendl
Borg
Kramer
would all rate over him. No he would not be in the top 10 all time.
anointedone
Banned
How the heck is Wimbledon tough. You are comparing a guy who won 41 straight matches at Wimbledon, 1 match short of 6 straight, to a guy who managed 1 Wimbledon title over a 20 year career. In case you bring it up Agassi would not have won 5 Wimbledons even without Sampras, and without Sampras his competition at Wimbledon would be a joke compared to Borg's anyway.
CyBorg
Legend
If you look at the history of the Australian Open you will see that it wasn't attended by pros until the late 60s and then, with the exception of the very early years of the open era, it was an inferior, poorly attended event, until revived in the 1980s.
So, with this in mind, the career grand slam accomplishment is insufficient to support an argument for all-time greatness.
french open borg in straight sets
wimbledon borg in straight sets
us & aussie would both be very competitive...could go either way.
on the topic of where agassi rates, i'd have him close to the top 10 alltime..probably just outside, though could understand if some rate him just inside but no way i see him higher than 8th.
top 10, no order:
laver
borg
lendl
connors
rosewall
federer
sampras
emerson
tilden
gonzales
wimbledon borg in straight sets
us & aussie would both be very competitive...could go either way.
on the topic of where agassi rates, i'd have him close to the top 10 alltime..probably just outside, though could understand if some rate him just inside but no way i see him higher than 8th.
top 10, no order:
laver
borg
lendl
connors
rosewall
federer
sampras
emerson
tilden
gonzales
is there anybody who wouldnt have borg in their top 10 alltime,
you'd have to be nuts!
Australian(Rebound Ace): Agassi
Roland Garros: Borg
Grass: Borg
US(Deco Turf): Agassi
I consider Agassi a bigger, stronger and better version of Connors. Jimbo beat the tar out of Borg at the 1978 US Open final. It was a blowout. Jimbos flat groundies were too much for Borg. Therefore, I give AA the advantage on quicker hardcourts. Rebound Ace was Agassi's best surface ever. Until the emergence of Federer, no baseliner could beat him decisively on that surface. Agassi wins.
On clay and grass, Borg's superior speed, movement and defense would be too much for Andre. Borg wins. Borg is like Nadal, a great clay court player who could play on grass.
Roland Garros: Borg
Grass: Borg
US(Deco Turf): Agassi
I consider Agassi a bigger, stronger and better version of Connors. Jimbo beat the tar out of Borg at the 1978 US Open final. It was a blowout. Jimbos flat groundies were too much for Borg. Therefore, I give AA the advantage on quicker hardcourts. Rebound Ace was Agassi's best surface ever. Until the emergence of Federer, no baseliner could beat him decisively on that surface. Agassi wins.
On clay and grass, Borg's superior speed, movement and defense would be too much for Andre. Borg wins. Borg is like Nadal, a great clay court player who could play on grass.
380pistol
Banned
Aus Open - Agassi
French Open - Borg
Wimbledon - Borg
US Open - Agassi
But overall Borg would get more slams, though H2H I have them split. Borg would be more dominant at RG and SW19 than Dre would be in Melbourne and Flushing. Also I think Borg has better chance of beating Agassi at Aus and US Open than Agassi dos dethroning Borg at the French or Wimbledon.
French Open - Borg
Wimbledon - Borg
US Open - Agassi
But overall Borg would get more slams, though H2H I have them split. Borg would be more dominant at RG and SW19 than Dre would be in Melbourne and Flushing. Also I think Borg has better chance of beating Agassi at Aus and US Open than Agassi dos dethroning Borg at the French or Wimbledon.
380pistol
Banned
No it wouldn't. Without Sampras you'd still have Edberg, Becker, Stich, Rafter, Ivanisevic. Thorw in Krajicek, P'sis and Henman, and you call that a joke??? Compared to Borg who had Nastase, Connors, Tanner, Geurulitis, and McEnroe. So where's the punchline???
Take out Sampras and Agassi likely gets the 1999 title and may sneak out another one. But Borg is the clear favourite on grass.
380pistol
Banned
anointedone
Banned
Get real. Edberg was totally past his prime past 1992 or 1993 at the latest (and Agassi never played him at Wimbledon so who cares). Becker even was too, but to a lesser extent than Edberg. Stich did squat all at Wimbledon after his 91 win until one last semifinal in 1997. Rafter didnt even make it past the 4th round of Wimbledon until 1999. Philippoussis and Henman?
Prime Connors and Prime McEnroe >> past his prime Edberg, past his prime Becker, one trick pony Ivanisevic, one hit wonder Krajicek, etc.....
Budge
Laver
Tilden
Kramer
Cochet
Gonzalez
Sedgman
Hoad
Rosewall
Wilding
Sampras
Borg
Perry
Borotra
Lacoste
Crawford
Emerson
Lendl
McEnroe
Connors
Newcombe
Federer
Nadal
Wilander
Vines
thalivest
Banned
I am a big Nadal fan but it is a bit early to put him over Agassi. I have no doubt he will, maybe even in a years time, but not quite yet.
I agree with you rating Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe over Agassi. I would as well. Is Mats Wilander really better than Agassi though?
Nadal has consistantly beaten the best player in the world during the absolute prime of his career - Agassi was never able to do that. Nadal took the #1 ranking away from Federer by beating Federer, Agassi never did that to Sampras. Remember, we aren't talking about talent or anything other than results. That's why it's a very easy call to make, even now. Nadal has the chance to go top 10, Agassi never will. All up, it's a much stronger career record than Agassi and one built on wins, not popular appeal.
Just look at who Wilander beat to win his majors and compare that to Agassi. Wilander's list of Vilas (on clay), Lendl, Curren (on grass), Lendl, Cash, Leconte and Lendl (on hard at the US Open) far outweighs Agassi's list of Ivanisevic, Stich (on hard court), Sampras (his one good win), Medvedev, Martin, Kafelnikov, Clement and Schuttler. Wilander also played at a time of much stronger competition in the top 10 and, to round it all out, Wilander won a Wimbledon doubles title. Wilander, like Nadal, took the #1 ranking by beating the game's best player (Lendl). He also won 3 of 4 majors in the one year. He also won majors on every surface, just like Agassi. True, he didn't win Wimbledon but he did win the Aus Open on grass as well as on hardcourts.
GameSampras
Banned
In defense of Andre. More difficult to overtake a player with a totally conflicting style of play that relentlessly attacked you. Fed and Nadal play a similiar style but Rafa is usually just better at it. You think Rafa would have better success against Pete in the 90s? Highly Unlikely. And 20-14 advantage to Pete isnt exactly domination over Andre.. Just saying
thalivest
Banned
Thanks for your response. Actually the way you put it is very convincing. You definitely make a very good point on both stances. Nadal and Wilander may indeed also belong over Agassi.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Maybe not Crawford ahead of Agassi.
380pistol
Banned
From the man who said.....
So you chastise Dre for only managing to win one Wimbledon title from 1987-2006, but when it comes to considerig the players from that time frame (not saying he'd beat them all)... oh no we can't do that.
Really??? 1992 QF to Sampras (maybe you've heard of him??). 1993 SF to #4 Becker 6-4 in the 5th, and 1996 4th to Krajicek (who won the title). If he beat Krajicek he would have gotten Sampras in QF.
SO his SF in 1997 is worth mentioning but you just ignored his SF from 1993. Interesting......
Is 1999 included in the 20 yrs you chastised Dre for only winning one Wimbledon title or not?? Let me know.
So during his 20 years (well 19 of 20) that you chastised him for would he not have seen Rafter??? And read my post and you'd see P'sis and Henman were more of an after thought.
Ivanisevic is one tick pony, based on his one title. So that would make Borg advessaries Gerulitis and Tanner what??? ZERO TRICK PONIES???
Ivanisevic who also had 3 finals and 2 semis as well. He beat Edberg in 1992 (according to you was in his prime), and also that washed up Becker in 1994who in 1993 lost in the SF to the greatest grasscourter (and maybe greatest ever) and again in the finals in 1995 after beating #1 Agassi.
Becker was passed his prime after 1992 to a lesser extent than Edberg. Newsflash..... Agassi beat Becker in 1992 (before that) on his way to the title.
And yes Agassi did have to deal with Sampras, while Borg did not. But somehow to you this makes Agassi's competitioan "a joke" compared to Borg's.
A joke??? Well the puchline just knocked your ass out!!!!!
navratilovafan
Banned
Borg easily. Borg I would favor on every surface, although hard courts would be close. Still Borg would have won many slams on hard courts if:
-there were 2 hard court slams his whole career, rather than 1 hard court slam less than half his career (1978-1981 U.S Open, thats it)
-his final opponents were the likes of Schuettler, Kafelnikov, Clement, Stich, Todd Martin, and an emotionally tormented Sampras on slower hard courts; rather than Connors and McEnroe at their absolute peaks.
On clay and grass it is a blowout in Borg's favor most times (well everytime on clay).
-there were 2 hard court slams his whole career, rather than 1 hard court slam less than half his career (1978-1981 U.S Open, thats it)
-his final opponents were the likes of Schuettler, Kafelnikov, Clement, Stich, Todd Martin, and an emotionally tormented Sampras on slower hard courts; rather than Connors and McEnroe at their absolute peaks.
On clay and grass it is a blowout in Borg's favor most times (well everytime on clay).
Last edited:
380pistol
Banned
Aus Open - Agassi
French Open - Borg
Wimbledon - Borg
US Open - Agassi
But overall Borg would get more slams, though H2H I have them split. Borg would be more dominant at RG and SW19 than Dre would be in Melbourne and Flushing. Also I think Borg has better chance of beating Agassi at Aus and US Open than Agassi does dethroning Borg at the French or Wimbledon.
French Open - Borg
Wimbledon - Borg
US Open - Agassi
But overall Borg would get more slams, though H2H I have them split. Borg would be more dominant at RG and SW19 than Dre would be in Melbourne and Flushing. Also I think Borg has better chance of beating Agassi at Aus and US Open than Agassi does dethroning Borg at the French or Wimbledon.
Easily ahead of Agassi and there should never be a question about it.
Crawford won three of four majors in the one year and was runner-up in the fourth (lost to Fred Perry after having won the first two sets of the US Open final- an asthmatic, he had a mild attack in the extreme humidity). Dominated the sport and all available opponents at his best and their best. Added to his singles titles with 11 doubles titles at the majors. His playing Ellsworth Vines at Wimbledon was like Agassi playing Sampras at the same venue - world's best server versus worlds best groundstroker. Difference is that Crawford won his match whereas Agassi wasn't good enough to win his. Crawford also won his French title by beating 5 time winner and Hall of Famer Henri Cochet - infinitely more impressive than barely scraping in against the second-rate Andrei Medvedev.
Of the players I listed, I'd rank Crawford in the top 20 and above players like Newcombe, Wilding, Nadal (at this point in time- in a few years that should be vastly different), McEnroe (not talking talent, just results - Kramer, Gonzalez and Hoad are the only ones who can be bumped on reputation), Vines, Wilander and Emerson.
capriatifanatic
Banned
Agassi is the 2nd bestest player ever after only Sampras. He would overpower and crush Borg and his moonball strokes on any surface. The same way girls like Capriati, Venus, Jankovic would crush Navratilova and her dainty volley game. It is a new world now.
can't go 2 posts without some crawford fanboy popping up
127 mph
Rookie
From one canuck to another. I think your wrong.
My thoughts, there were both great and would beat each other often on all surfaces
Similar threads
