Should McEnroe rank above Agassi

jrepac

Hall of Fame
To me this is the tipping point. Its funny how so may people on these forums poo-poo doubles results when it comes to ranking a player's 'greatness', yet doubles is what most people play these days.

Its widely regarded throughout the sport that the best doubles team in the Men's game was "McEnroe and <fill in the blank>". I'd like to see how many majors Fed/Nadal/Djoker, or even Agassi & Pete would have had if they had played (and won) as many doubles tournaments as McEnroe:
77 Doubles titles (99 Doubles finals)​
9 Doubles Majors (12 finals)​
7 Masters (in a row...78->84)​
4 Davis Cups (Technically 5, but he only played doubles w/ Sampras in the finals of that one)​

He also has a mixed French w/ Carillo.
He was a master at dubs, back in the day when viewers and fans actually cared about it.
 

1stVolley

Professional
Jeepers. You SAW Mac live and in person and you think his serve is the equivalent of Andre's? I don't see how that is humanly possible. Not to mention that Mac faced Borg and Connors and Lendl...all pretty good returners, Connors being exceptional. And Mac aced the living daylights out of all of them when he was on his game. I'm not sure I agree w/the quality of the returners argument either, perhaps only in the sense that there were far fewer S&V players in Agassi's era, and more counter punchers (Courier, Chang, etc.). Andre's skills were the complete opposite of Mac's (more like Connors than anyone) and I'm not demeaning him, but Mac was a S&V giant, alongside Edberg from the 90's. Mac shone more brightly than Agassi for a shorter amount of time, but he was consistent over that time ('79-84) and damn stellar...Agassi, to me, had more ups and downs. Mac just never rebounded fully after '86 or so (tho' he did make it back to #4 in '89, I recall).
I didn't say I saw Mac's matches live; I saw them on TV in real time. In many cases that offered a better view than watching live. Plus I've seen many of his matches in replays. His famous Wimbledon match against Borg while certainly exciting didn't display the highest tennis quality, esp. in that epic tiebreaker. Lots of great shots, plenty of forgettable errors.
As a server Mac had perhaps the best wide slice in the ad court, his service speed was good but not exceptional and his accuracy was very good. That said, the effectiveness of his slice out wide was due in good part to his follow up volley. Had he been a baseliner, he still would have won points on that serve but not nearly so many. Furthermore, receivers could have had the option of standing a bit further back knowing that he wasn't going to rush the net upon serving.
Watching Mac's groundstrokes, I find rather painful. He arms the ball, particularly on the forehand, and usually his shots are pretty flat. Despite this rather ugly technique, I wouldn't say he had a real weakness on either wing, whereas Agassi's groundstrokes were real weapons. Actually, in terms of effectiveness I would say Agassi's serve matched Mac's groundstrokes.
Many of Mac's matches descended into his infamous rants, not because he was dominating his opponent, but because he was having to slog through closely matched competition. It is a tribute to him that these rants didn't seem to harm his play, though the same can't always be said of his opponents.
Lastly, I think credit should be given for Agassi to have climbed out of his depression, loss of confidence and of fighting spirit. Whatever the reason, Mac couldn't seem to get his act back on track after his mini-retirement. However, he's a real force now with the seniors, so I guess it's fair to say that he did get his act together again, just a bit too late.
 
I think if Kriek had won 2 Australian Opens in 91 and 92 instead of 81 and 82, he is almost certain to make the Hall of Fame eventually.

Unfortunately Kriek was playing under a Flag that was not so popular in many countries at the time he won his first AO Title. If he had been playing under the US / UK / Aust / NZ Flag at that time, he would probably be in the Hall of Fame by now. I imagine the Hall of Fame would not want to associate itself with South Africa during that period of time. But we will never know.
 

thrust

Legend
There are many arguments to be had on both sides (also when it comes to comparing Agassi with Lendl or Connors). My take: McEnroe. Reason: 1984. 82-3 is just ridiculous. It's a peak Fed/2011 Djokovic level season. Even in 99, Agassi had double digit losses. Basically, he was far better than Mac at longevity. I would reward that longevity if he had at least more than one season where he ended at no.1 AND a couple more slams to compensate for how dominant Mac at his best was. That he wasn't and that he is way behind Mac on weeks at no.1 all adds up to Mac having the better career IMO.
Overall, I would say John had the superior career, 4 YE at @1 vs 1 for Agassi. Weeks at #1- 170 for John, 101 for Andre. Career wins- 77 for John, 60 for Andre. Also, John had to deal with peak: Borg, Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg and Becker. Then there is John's doubles achievements, in which there is no contest vs Agassi.
 
Overall, I would say John had the superior career, 4 YE at @1 vs 1 for Agassi. Weeks at #1- 170 for John, 101 for Andre. Career wins- 77 for John, 60 for Andre. Also, John had to deal with peak: Borg, Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg and Becker. Then there is John's doubles achievements, in which there is no contest vs Agassi.

I don't agree with some of your analysis of the competition. Edberg and Becker were not in their primes until Mcenroe was firmly past his. In fact if you count 1984 as the last year of McEnroe's prime (arguably it was 85), and we do know for a fact 1984 was his last year of any big titles, Becker and Edberg were barely on the scene yet, in fact most tennis fans didn't even know their names yet. The only year Becker and he were semi prime together was 85 I guess, but they only played one match all year, in a small tournament in the 2nd round. Edberg and McEnroe are definitely not true contemporaries by a long ways, even less than Becker and McEnroe. I would agree he did face Wilander some, but Wilander's true main prime was more the 85-88 period than the 82-84 one probably, and they didn't share similar surface preferences at all either and rarely played. Lendl was the one to cross over both generations and eras and face all those players close to or in their primes for atleast a few years (other than maybe Borg), not McEnroe.

I mean by that logic we could say Agassi faced Sampras, Becker, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Courier, Wilander (played in the RG semis in 88, a 5 setter which was basically the final), Federer, and Nadal which is easily an even more impressive list overall when really only Sampras, Becker, Courier, and to a degree Edberg apply in reasonable terms. Agassi still faced Federer and Lendl in more big matches than McEnroe ever faced Becker or Edberg in though, and was probably denied 1 or 2 late career US Opens and an addition WTF title by GOATerer.

Consider Sampras is clearly better overall than anyone McEnroe faced other than maybe Borg who McEnroe had only a 2 year rivalry with, I would say Agassi in fact had the tougher competition overall. Sampras blocked him being #1 and so often at Wimbledon/U.S Open. And while McEnroe might have done better vs Sampras at fast court events than Agassi did, McEnroe was very happy he did not face prime Sampras at Wimbledon/U.S Open, believe me. He was on decline as I said but he said himself he hated facing the firepower on Becker, so just imagine Sampras who is basically the same player but does everything better than Becker. That kind of raw power was the one thing that could totally trump and overwhelm his true genius and masterful serve volley and overall shotmaking game. There is not a single person McEnroe faced, and that definitely includes Borg, he would rather face Sampras at the WImbledon and U.S Open over. There is also not a single person McEnroe faced that Agassi wouldn't prefer meeting so often at Wimbledon and the U.S Open than Sampras. AA also played when there were a ton more lower ranked surface specialists on grass, carpet, and clay. Far more than McEnroe had in his era, let alone Fedalovic today . You had people like Ivanisevic and Krajicek on grass/carpet, and a ton of different RG winning calibre clay courters even though there wasn't a Borg or Nadal in the field. The bulk of the 90s was not a great field as far as great rivalries at the top of dominant top players, a lot of that was Agassi's fault with his on and off again slumps, and depression first at losing so many early slam finals then inability to overcome Sampras in the big matdches, but it was probably the best time ever as far as depth on the various surfaces and dangerous floaters in the draw for each specialty surface.
 
Last edited:

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
I don't agree with some of your analysis of the competition. Edberg and Becker were not in their primes until Mcenroe was firmly past his. In fact if you count 1984 as the last year of McEnroe's prime (arguably it was 85), and we do know for a fact 1984 was his last year of any big titles, Becker and Edberg were barely on the scene yet, in fact most tennis fans didn't even know their names yet. The only year Becker and he were semi prime together was 85 I guess, but they only played one match all year, in a small tournament in the 2nd round. Edberg and McEnroe are definitely not true contemporaries by a long ways, even less than Becker and McEnroe. I would agree he did face Wilander some, but Wilander's true main prime was more the 85-88 period than the 82-84 one probably, and they didn't share similar surface preferences at all either and rarely played. Lendl was the one to cross over both generations and eras and face all those players close to or in their primes for atleast a few years (other than maybe Borg), not McEnroe.

I mean by that logic we could say Agassi faced Sampras, Becker, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Courier, Wilander (played in the RG semis in 88, a 5 setter which was basically the final), Federer, and Nadal which is easily an even more impressive list overall when really only Sampras, Becker, Courier, and to a degree Edberg apply in reasonable terms. Agassi still faced Federer and Lendl in more big matches than McEnroe ever faced Becker or Edberg in though, and was probably denied 1 or 2 late career US Opens and an addition WTF title by GOATerer.

Consider Sampras is clearly better overall than anyone McEnroe faced other than maybe Borg who McEnroe had only a 2 year rivalry with, I would say Agassi in fact had the tougher competition overall. Sampras blocked him being #1 and so often at Wimbledon/U.S Open. And while McEnroe might have done better vs Sampras at fast court events than Agassi did, McEnroe was very happy he did not face prime Sampras at Wimbledon/U.S Open, believe me. He was on decline as I said but he said himself he hated facing the firepower on Becker, so just imagine Sampras who is basically the same player but does everything better than Becker. That kind of raw power was the one thing that could totally trump and overwhelm his true genius and masterful serve volley and overall shotmaking game. There is not a single person McEnroe faced, and that definitely includes Borg, he would rather face Sampras at the WImbledon and U.S Open over. There is also not a single person McEnroe faced that Agassi wouldn't prefer meeting so often at Wimbledon and the U.S Open than Sampras. AA also played when there were a ton more lower ranked surface specialists on grass, carpet, and clay. Far more than McEnroe had in his era, let alone Fedalovic today . You had people like Ivanisevic and Krajicek on grass/carpet, and a ton of different RG winning calibre clay courters even though there wasn't a Borg or Nadal in the field. The bulk of the 90s was not a great field as far as great rivalries at the top of dominant top players, a lot of that was Agassi's fault with his on and off again slumps, and depression first at losing so many early slam finals then inability to overcome Sampras in the big matdches, but it was probably the best time ever as far as depth on the various surfaces and dangerous floaters in the draw for each specialty surface.

I agree with much of what you write here except for the fact that during the time when Agassi did face tough competition, he won 'only' four slams. Four is a lot but we are comparing it to Mac's 7 of which 3 involved beating Borg en route and 3 others involved beating Connors (not double counting say 1980 USO where he beat both back to back). Only one slam legit came against weak competition - 1983 Wimbledon. Agassi OTOH 'vultured' three slams in a weak period at the AO. And while Agassi suffered on account of strong draws at the RG during the early 90s, the 99 draw itself wasn't particularly impressive. Even after 99, during the two-three year window before Fed arrived, Agassi didn't dominate the tour. I understand that's hard given what his age was by then but the larger point is he was never the kind of player who could dominate the tour. Not the greatest athlete and passable at the net, not much variety. People complain about lack of variety in today's baseliners but just about every top baseliner today has a better slice than Agassi. His groundies were beautiful to watch but that was his stock in trade, just hitting hot from the baseline all day, and his main strength was his return and his ability to hit early on the rise. In the diversity era, that gave him both an advantage and a disadvantage. The advantage being with minor adjustments, he could be strong on any surface. The disadvantage being against a specialist who caught fire, Agassi was always vulnerable. OTOH Mac was clearly top of the pile on grass and fast HC (not that there was any other kind of HC yet in the late 70s/early 80s?) which allowed him to dominate the tour. Mac was not as good as Sampras technically but he was essentially the Sampras of his era. But he let his fitness go in the mid 20s and hence went into a prolonged decline he never came out of. Besides which, his game was workable in the wood racquet era but a liability in the graphite era. But it's hard for me to see how I could blame him too much for that.
 
I agree with much of what you write here except for the fact that during the time when Agassi did face tough competition, he won 'only' four slams. Four is a lot but we are comparing it to Mac's 7 of which 3 involved beating Borg en route and 3 others involved beating Connors (not double counting say 1980 USO where he beat both back to back). Only one slam legit came against weak competition - 1983 Wimbledon. Agassi OTOH 'vultured' three slams in a weak period at the AO. And while Agassi suffered on account of strong draws at the RG during the early 90s, the 99 draw itself wasn't particularly impressive. Even after 99, during the two-three year window before Fed arrived, Agassi didn't dominate the tour. I understand that's hard given what his age was by then but the larger point is he was never the kind of player who could dominate the tour. Not the greatest athlete and passable at the net, not much variety. People complain about lack of variety in today's baseliners but just about every top baseliner today has a better slice than Agassi. His groundies were beautiful to watch but that was his stock in trade, just hitting hot from the baseline all day, and his main strength was his return and his ability to hit early on the rise. In the diversity era, that gave him both an advantage and a disadvantage. The advantage being with minor adjustments, he could be strong on any surface. The disadvantage being against a specialist who caught fire, Agassi was always vulnerable. OTOH Mac was clearly top of the pile on grass and fast HC (not that there was any other kind of HC yet in the late 70s/early 80s?) which allowed him to dominate the tour. Mac was not as good as Sampras technically but he was essentially the Sampras of his era. But he let his fitness go in the mid 20s and hence went into a prolonged decline he never came out of. Besides which, his game was workable in the wood racquet era but a liability in the graphite era. But it's hard for me to see how I could blame him too much for that.

Yes that is true. Agassi super vultured a weak Australian Open venue to win 2 Australian Open titles in the early 2000s. I won't say 2000 was weak when he beat Sampras (who supposably was injured but still had something like 50 aces on that super fast court and was points from winning) and defending Champion Kafelnikov who has a great record at the Australian Open. 2001 and 2003 were super weak though. And yes he didn't beat any big clay court greats at RG in 99, but he won a lot of tough matches vs pretty good quality opponents through the draw so that is kind of a middle one to me.

1984 was not really a super strong year in some ways either to be honest. To Mcenroe's credit probably a stronger/less weak field than anyone else who was that dominant- comparing to Federer's 2006, Djokovic's 2015, Connors's 1974. Almost impossible to be that dominant in a truly strong field, although Djokovic was for 8 months in 2011 before ending the year lamely in the fall. Connors was starting to age and go down, even though he played a great U.S Open match vs Mcenroe. Lendl was still weak in big matches for the most part, RG McEnroe let slip away as much as Lendl won it IMO. Wilander and anyone else were kind of AWOL that year. Becker and Edberg not contenders yet. Vilas (and of course Borg) pretty much off the scene by now, and others like Tanner and Gerulaitis as well. Still much stronger than Agassi's 2001 and 2003 Australian Opens or the overall early 2000s field for the most part.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Yes that is true. Agassi super vultured a weak Australian Open venue to win 2 Australian Open titles in the early 2000s. I won't say 2000 was weak when he beat Sampras (who supposably was injured but still had something like 50 aces on that super fast court and was points from winning) and defending Champion Kafelnikov who has a great record at the Australian Open. 2001 and 2003 were super weak though. And yes he didn't beat any big clay court greats at RG in 99, but he won a lot of tough matches vs pretty good quality opponents through the draw so that is kind of a middle one to me.

1984 was not really a super strong year in some ways either to be honest. To Mcenroe's credit probably a stronger/less weak field than anyone else who was that dominant- comparing to Federer's 2006, Djokovic's 2015, Connors's 1974. Almost impossible to be that dominant in a truly strong field, although Djokovic was for 8 months in 2011 before ending the year lamely in the fall. Connors was starting to age and go down, even though he played a great U.S Open match vs Mcenroe. Lendl was still weak in big matches for the most part, RG McEnroe let slip away as much as Lendl won it IMO. Wilander and anyone else were kind of AWOL that year. Becker and Edberg not contenders yet. Vilas (and of course Borg) pretty much off the scene by now, and others like Tanner and Gerulaitis as well. Still much stronger than Agassi's 2001 and 2003 Australian Opens or the overall early 2000s field for the most part.
Oh, I would say the strongest field where somebody was that dominant was indeed 2011 Djokovic. Looks less impressive in terms of number of matches played, but a staggering 10-1 H2H against Nadal and Federer says it all. Fed in 2011 was stronger than Connors in 1984 and Nadal was very much in his prime, so that kind of domination is impressive.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Tough call. I Give the edge to Andre. Mac did not win a slam after the age of 25. Talent wise, Mac all day, which makes it hard to place him over A.A. Mac's talent should have him in the GOAT conversation.
In some ways, the Martina Hingis of men's tennis. Should have worked on updating his technique and getting stronger, but wanted to keep winning on finesse alone. Once Lendl matured and Becker and Edberg took over Wimbledon, Mac's days were over.
 
The McEnroe-Hingis anaolgy is a great one even if Hingis was more a baseliner (although really a true all courter with some of the very best volleys in the game at the time, and amazing transition skills) and McEnroe almost predominantly a net player, even if his baseline game was vastly underrated and capable. Both needed to spill their guts some in the gym when the game got far more physical and just weren't willing to do it.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
In some ways, the Martina Hingis of men's tennis. Should have worked on updating his technique and getting stronger, but wanted to keep winning on finesse alone. Once Lendl matured and Becker and Edberg took over Wimbledon, Mac's days were over.

That's not quite true, actually. When Mac had that '86 layoff, he took up weight training and put on some muscle in the late 80's. He WAS trying to improve his fitness, in part to reduce injuries. But there was considerable question if it really improved his game...some felt it actually hurt him, rather than helped him...particularly movement wise.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
That's not quite true, actually. When Mac had that '86 layoff, he took up weight training and put on some muscle in the late 80's. He WAS trying to improve his fitness, in part to reduce injuries. But there was considerable question if it really improved his game...some felt it actually hurt him, rather than helped him...particularly movement wise.
Interesting. Maybe yes, bulking up slowed him down even as he was already getting older.
 

fezer

Rookie
I think it is fairly simple. No matter a tournaments history, if most top or semi noteable players refuse to play for a period (regardless the reasons) that event loses value for that period. If you feel differently that is fine, but most people don't recognize the Australian Open titles in that period as the same value as other slams. In fact Wimbledon and the U.S Open are seen as considerably above the French to many during that period too; in part since the French also got some depleted fields. It simply was not the same as today where all 4 slams are equal, back then not the case.



That is interesting to learn. I can only ensure you here in North America she was never considered the female GOAT by hardly anyone, atleast by the time Navratilova was through the bulk period of her career, and Graf was playing. And from the many BBC telecasts I have seen pretty sure not there either.



Fair enough.



Kafelnikov is one of the least popular multi slam winners ever in the U.S, does not even have a Masters title, and had the most pathetic rise to his brief stint at #1 ever (6 straight 1st round losses) and even he made Tennis Hall of Fame. So I strongly disagree with you here. Kafelnikov's 2 slams are the Australian Open and French Open, but they are now in the era all 4 slams are totally equal. I think if Kriek had won 2 Australian Opens in 91 and 92 instead of 81 and 82, he is almost certain to make the Hall of Fame eventually.

Helena Sukova who does not even have a singles slam, has a good but not legendary doubles career, and is basically an unknown in the U.S was also inducted.

1 slam winner Stich who plays almost no doubles, and never got to #1, also was inducted. Again someone not popular and barely known in the U.S.

I agree with you the Hall of Fame isn't all that and mostly an overhyped money making scheme, but Kriek not even being considered (not being on any ballot, nor has anyone ever argued he should be, heck I bet you have never once argued he should be) despite technically being a 2 slam winner who even defended his slam, speaks volumes to the Australian Open rating of the time.
Stich is a Wimbledon Champ and olympic gold medalist in doubles...
 
Stich is a Wimbledon Champ and olympic gold medalist in doubles...

Yes but that isn't a doubles great. Given the context and general importance of doubles a doubles great wins atleast 6 doubles slams. Playing almost no doubles was overstating it maybe (although he did rarely play doubles) but his HOF inclusion would still be almost entirely on his singles career, unlike Sukova where it would be her singles and doubles combined probably.
 

fezer

Rookie
Yes but that isn't a doubles great. Given the context and general importance of doubles a doubles great wins atleast 6 doubles slams. Playing almost no doubles was overstating it maybe (although he did rarely play doubles) but his HOF inclusion would still be almost entirely on his singles career, unlike Sukova where it would be her singles and doubles combined probably.
Imo it ist a well rounded combo of very respectable singles career plus doubles achievements and post career activities (Chief of Hamburg tournament) that Made Michael Stich a HoFr.
 
I would caution against assuming that Agassi would have more majors if he hadn't skipped earlier Australian Opens. The level was very high at the AO in the late 80s / early 90s and there is no guarantee he would have won. Lendl had Agassi's measure throughout the 80s, and Courier though most of the 90s.

Additionally, more miles in the legs from those earlier AO trips may have lessened Agassi's major count by limiting his opportunities later in his career.
 
Last edited:
Imo it ist a well rounded combo of very respectable singles career plus doubles achievements and post career activities (Chief of Hamburg tournament) that Made Michael Stich a HoFr.

I respectfully disagree his doubles achievements had anything to do with it. 1 doubles slam and an Olympic gold in doubles isn't even enough to partly help you get into the HOF given the low importance of doubles. I mean that sounds like Graf's doubles career and nobody talks about Graf's doubles career. Clijsters's has a better doubles career with 2 slams and reaching #1 in doubles, and when she makes the HOF it won't be any for her doubles. You need a doubles career like Sukova or Stosur to get in even partly for doubles (even they wouldn't get in for doubles alone, and only make it since they did as well they in singles too, but would never get in for singles alone either ).

I do agree it was his post career activities in addition to his singles career, although his singles tennis career already would have probably been enough, but giving back to his sport just sealed it. The borderline entries like Martinez, Mauresmo, Stich who contribute to their sport get in more easily. The ones who don't like Kafelnikov struggle more. I know Kafelnikov had to wait almost as long as Stich, but credentials wise he should have gotten in much more easily. He has a better singles and much better doubles career really.
 

timnz

Legend
Not even close....McEnroe by a mile.....FOUR US opens, THREE Wimbledons and THREE YECs. A genuine number 1, not a number 1-when-Pete-was-done-counting-points.
And five WCT finals. Sure Agassi didn’t get to play it but he had an equivalent event - the grand slam cup - best result runner up once.
 
And five WCT finals. Sure Agassi didn’t get to play it but he had an equivalent event - the grand slam cup - best result runner up once.

Well I wouldn't say the Grand Slam Cup is anywhere near the same importance despite the big cash prize as the WCT. Just look at the roll call of winners, in 10 years of it being played 6 of the 10 winners were slamless at the time, and 4 of the 10 never won a slam. Even guys like Wheaton, Rusedski, and Larson winning it to point out some of the worst winners in its very short history.

And some of the final match ups: young Sampras vs Brad Gilbert, Wheaton vs Chang, Korda vs Stich, Larsson vs Sampras, Ivanisevic vs Martin, Rusedski vs Haas, probably not even a single one of those you would ever see in a slam final (Ivanisevic and Martin can make slam finals but probably never together). Heck Stich vs Chang is probably the 2nd most marquee final of all 10 after only the Sampras-Rafter final, what does that tell you.
 
Last edited:

timnz

Legend
Well I wouldn't say the Grand Slam Cup is anywhere near the same importance despite the big cash prize as the WCT. Just look at the roll call of winners, in 10 years of it being played 6 of the 10 winners were slamless at the time, and 4 of the 10 never won a slam. Even guys like Wheaton, Rusedski, and Larson winning it to point out some of the worst winners in its very short history.
I watched it the time. The most prize money ever to date. Best of 5 last two rounds. Fantastic matches where players went all out to win. Look at the draws and who those guys beat
 
I watched it the time. The most prize money ever to date. Best of 5 last two rounds. Fantastic matches where players went all out to win. Look at the draws and who those guys beat

I saw the event many times and to me it looked like a cheese exo. It enjoyed watching it yes, but there is a reason it was dropped in 1999. Not in a million years can you convince me it is the equivalent of the WCT event.

Now I know you are someone who puffs and huffs until you get your way. I know how you are even the wikipedia moderator responsible for that ridiculous co #1 ranking of Nadal and Djokovic for 2013. And who also supports the pedophile who has a history of hitting on little boys and has even spent time in jail for it in the past (Fyunk) and constantly defends his right to manage the wikipedia tennis pages despite his criminal history, not to mention clear lack of even 4 year old knowledge on tennis and excess biases. So I won't delve into a deep conversation with you as it would be a waste of time, except to say you are wrong.
 

timnz

Legend
I saw the event many times and to me it looked like a cheese exo. It enjoyed watching it yes, but there is a reason it was dropped in 1999. Not in a million years can you convince me it is the equivalent of the WCT event.

Now I know you are someone who puffs and huffs until you get your way. I know how you are even the wikipedia moderator responsible for that ridiculous co #1 ranking of Nadal and Djokovic for 2013. And who also supports the pedophile who has a history of hitting on little boys and has even spent time in jail for it in the past (Fyunk) and constantly defends his right to manage the wikipedia tennis pages despite his criminal history, not to mention clear lack of even 4 year old knowledge on tennis and excess biases. So I won't delve into a deep conversation with you as it would be a waste of time, except to say you are wrong.
I am not a Wikipedia moderator. I have some edits on pages but that’s all. All that other stuff I have no idea what you are talking about.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I agree with you the Hall of Fame isn't all that and mostly an overhyped money making scheme, but Kriek not even being considered (not being on any ballot, nor has anyone ever argued he should be, heck I bet you have never once argued he should be) despite technically being a 2 slam winner who even defended his slam, speaks volumes to the Australian Open rating of the time.

Kriek and Bruguera are currently the only retired multi-Slam champions in the open era not inducted into the ITHoF.
 
Kriek and Bruguera are currently the only retired multi-Slam champions not inducted into the ITHoF.

Bruguera has atleast been a nominee a bunch of times though. He probably will get in at some point, but even if he doesn't, he was a nominee many times. Kriek never has been a nominee, and never will. Since Australian Open back then was of lesser value, what other explanation is there.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Bruguera has atleast been a nominee a bunch of times though. He probably will get in at some point, but even if he doesn't, he was a nominee many times. Kriek never has been a nominee, and never will. Since Australian Open back then was of lesser value, what other explanation is there.

Interestingly, Kriek had already become a US citizen by the time he won his 2nd AO title. His opponent in both finals, Steve Denton, never won a singles title but did win the US Open doubles title that same year. His Wiki entry states: "For his accomplishments, he is a member of the ITA Hall of Fame, the Texas Tennis Hall of Fame, the Blue-Gray Tennis Class Hall of Fame, and the Longhorn Hall of Honor". Wouldn't it be ironic (and surely scandalous) if he eventually gets inducted into the IHoF and Kriek doesn't?
 
Interestingly, Kriek had already become a US citizen by the time he won his 2nd AO title. His opponent in both finals, Steve Denton, never won a singles title but did win the US Open doubles title that same year. His Wiki entry states: "For his accomplishments, he is a member of the ITA Hall of Fame, the Texas Tennis Hall of Fame, the Blue-Gray Tennis Class Hall of Fame, and the Longhorn Hall of Honor". Wouldn't it be ironic (and surely scandalous) if he eventually gets inducted into the IHoF and Kriek doesn't?

It would be hilarious.
 

GuyForget

Rookie
i think at their peaks (Mac 84 vs Andre W92 or 95), Agassi would beat him on any surface, the game moved on. Agassi was almost as good as Sampras + possibly more talented, he just didn't have his mental strength or consistency
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
i think at their peaks (Mac 84 vs Andre W92 or 95), Agassi would beat him on any surface, the game moved on. Agassi was almost as good as Sampras + possibly more talented, he just didn't have his mental strength or consistency

Eh, respectfully disagree. Pete ALWAYS seemed to have an edge over Andre when it really mattered (namely W and USO). Peak McEnroe was ridiculously devastating. His serve was unreadable, period. This is not '92 Mac vs. Agassi when much of the 'steam' had left Mac's game and Andre could crush the serves. '84 Mac would have had Andre guessing on the serve and mixed it up from the back court, much as Pete did to Andre on several occasions. Mac's back court skills are vastly underrated.
 

Thetouch

Professional
I didn't read all comments but aside from rankings and titles who may be similar I can see 2 things that can put Mac above Agassi:

talent and his h2h record over his main rivals

Mac has some significant victories over Borg, Connors, Lendl and Wilander in GS matches, regular tournaments, YEC and Davis Cup

Agassi for sure has his victories too but I guess the amount is less and not as impressive in comparison
 

Martinl

New User
I am not even sure I neccessarily rank Agassi higher (although I might). Just that it is interesting to think there are some good cases to be made for Agassi, so when I think about it I am a bit surprised McEnroe is just so easily ranked higher.

You are right about Agassi and the AO. Not that it would be easy for him to win it the times he missed it pre 95. Red hot Sampras playing his best ever Australian Open in 94, his then nemisis Courier winning in 92 and 93, Lendl who he had not won a match against yet winning in 89 and 90. And much of his in the period Agassi was choking in big slam matches, and underachieving in slams. Still with how great he is there and loves those courts, it is certainly possibly he could have won a couple of ones pre 95 had he played. So as you said atleast negates any what ifs for McEnroe at the Australian Open really.

McEnroe's career looks juicier in many ways with his historic great 84 (which still did not wind up as great as it could have been, he could have truly made it the best year ever and missed out on this), his rivalry with Borg, kind of having his own era or mini era of 81-84 where he was #1 and the best player most of it. In fact technically ending all 4 years at #1, despite that everyone knows Connors was real #1 of 82. Still Agassi's career is more complete and just full in many ways, despite the flaws of his career. Both careers while vastly different are similar in that they have some amazing aspects, and some glaring weaknesses for players of that level too. Both are also possible cases of what if, and could have done more than what they did.
In 1990 Agassi beat Becker in the US Open semi finals. Then he won the Masters, beating Becker in the semi-finals and Edberg in the finals. Edberg had beaten Lendl in the semi-finals, so the four semi-finalists were Edberg, Becker, Lendl and Agassi. At the Australian Open 1991, where Agassi did not play, the four semi-finalists were Lendl. Edberg, Becker, Patrick McEnroe. Lendl beat Edberg in the semi-finals and Becker beat Lendl in the finals. So given that Agassi's total dominance of Becker (lasting until 1995) had begun, and that he had beaten Edberg in the Master's finals a few weeks earlier, and that Lendl's decline had begun, I would say that he would have had a very good chance in 1991. Maybe even in 1990, where he played very well. In 1992/93 Courier would have been too strong for him.
 

thrust

Legend
McEnroe for me. Didn't play in a full four slam era, was more dominant with way more time at number one - dominated the indoor events, if you add the defacto 4th major to his tally he definitely eclipses Agassi. To his credit Agassi has the superior record on clay and longevity in his favour, but I favour Mac's peak dominance.
And then, there are all of John's doubles titles in an era when doubles were taken seriously.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
And here are the facts

McEnroe singles titles 77; doubles titles 77

Agassi singles titles 60; doubles titles 1
Mac accomplished a lot more over a shorter time period, that is fact. His dip after '85 was always startling, given how well he played up until that point.
 

bigjimbofan

Rookie
Going with Mac here. Look at that 1984 season of dominance. The greatest season ever IMO. He won 7 majors in a 6 year period right ? Also just the most beautiful and efficient style of play ever seen. In the 80's, he was one of the most well known people on the face of the earth too.
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
To me, if a player has more slams and the CGS, it is very hard to rank him below the other one. There would have to be a massive difference in the rest of the achievements.

Say, if Wawrinka had won Wimbledon he'd have 4 slams and a CGS and I'd still put him above Murray with no CGS and one fewer slam even if he's far superior in the rest of things.
 

bigbadboaz

Semi-Pro
I think that's weighting the Slams too much, as is the current trend. Murray's entire brilliant career has gotta carry more weight than that against your theoretical Wawrinka's four peak moments.

Similarly, with Mac/Andre: you've got very, very close Slam counts. You've got longevity and all-around achievement vs. a much higher, legendary peak and the accumulation of achievement that didn't require 15 years. And, as above, you've got the extreme disparity in doubles resume. There just has to be more nuance to this evaluation than "8 is greater than 7".
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
I think that's weighting the Slams too much, as is the current trend. Murray's entire brilliant career has gotta carry more weight than that against your theoretical Wawrinka's four peak moments.

Similarly, with Mac/Andre: you've got very, very close Slam counts. You've got longevity and all-around achievement vs. a much higher, legendary peak and the accumulation of achievement that didn't require 15 years. And, as above, you've got the extreme disparity in doubles resume. There just has to be more nuance to this evaluation than "8 is greater than 7".


I don't know if it's a much higher peak. Agassi was one match away from holding the four slams in a row in an era of extremely different surfaces. And that one match was Sampras at Wimbledon, one of the toughest tasks in history, maybe the toughest after Nadal at RG.
 

bigbadboaz

Semi-Pro
I don't know if it's a much higher peak. Agassi was one match away from holding the four slams in a row in an era of extremely different surfaces.

This is a very fair point, though for whatever reason nobody seems to talk about Agassi '95 or '99 in the same reverent tone they often do Mac 1984.

The biggest thing is the feeling that Sampras probably had his number even then. Record aside, you weren't left with the same sense of dominance.
 

NedStark

Professional
This is a very fair point, though for whatever reason nobody seems to talk about Agassi '95 or '99 in the same reverent tone they often do Mac 1984.

The biggest thing is the feeling that Sampras probably had his number even then. Record aside, you weren't left with the same sense of dominance.
Partly because Sampras was battering everyone including Agassi in summer 1999, he was basically locked to win USO that year until his unfortunate injury.
 

Gizo

Hall of Fame
To me it has always been clear cut, and a no brainer that McEnroe has been the greater player.

McEnroe was the best player in the world and had the best record in 3 different seasons, 1981, 1983 (IMO his whole host of big indoor titles that season is enough for him to rank above Connors and Wilander), and 1984, Even without considering his 1984 season, I'd argue that Mac's 1981 season when he dethroned Borg and won the big Wimbledon-US Open double plus the Davis Cup, tops any individual season that Agassi ever had. Agassi had the best record in 1 season, 1999. You could argue that Agassi was unlucky not to finish as the year end no. 1 in 1995, but then he benefitted from Sampras missing the US Open through injury in 1999, so 1 year end no. 1 finish for him during his career seemed right.

And 'Agassi being stopped by Sampras' isn't much of an excuse or overly relevant here, as McEnroe was the 2nd best player in the world behind a very dominant Borg in 1979 and 1980. In 1979 Connors was officially ahead of him on the ranking computer but McEnroe with his big title wins at Flushing Meadows and Dallas had clearly overtaken him that year, and was ahead in the grand prix standings. Not only did McEnroe spend comfortably more time than Agassi as the best player in the world, but he also spent comfortably more time as a top 2 (56 more weeks) and a top 3 (108 more weeks) player than him as well. Agassi only spent 37 weeks as the world no. 2 behind Sampras, and Mac spent more time as the world no. 2 behind Borg.

Throw in the fact that Mac generally beat better players to win his majors than Agassi did, simultaneously dominated 2 of the majors (and the 2 that US players typically cared about the most no less), the fact that he was a greater Davis Cup player, his insane indoor record (I'd rank him as the best player that I've seen under a roof bar none), the fact that he won more titles (and his official count of 77 is understated, though not by the same extent that Lendl's official count of 94 is understated), won more 'big' titles, his superior career W/L percentage etc., and it's a clear win for Mac IMO, even if we don't factor in his doubles success.
 
Last edited:

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
Agassi was never the best in the world. Not once.

This is not true. He was ranked #1 several times. He wasn't the best of his era, Sampras was, but that's a different thing. Nadal was not the best of his era and he still is clearly a much better player than some that were.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
To me it has always been clear cut, and a no brainer that McEnroe has been the greater player.

McEnroe was the best player in the world and had the best record in 3 different seasons, 1981, 1983 (IMO his whole host of big indoor titles that season is enough for him to rank above Connors and Wilander), and 1984, Even without considering his 1984 season, I'd argue that Mac's 1981 season when he dethroned Borg and won the big Wimbledon-US Open double plus the Davis Cup, tops any individual season that Agassi ever had. Agassi had the best record in 1 season, 1999. You could argue that Agassi was unlucky not to finish as the year end no. 1 in 1995, but then he benefitted from Sampras missing the US Open through injury in 1999, so 1 year end no. 1 finish for him during his career seemed right.

And 'Agassi being stopped by Sampras' isn't much of an excuse or overly relevant here, as McEnroe was the 2nd best player in the world behind a very dominant Borg in 1979 and 1980. In 1979 Connors was officially ahead of him on the ranking computer but McEnroe with his big title wins at Flushing Meadows and Dallas had clearly overtaken him that year, and was ahead in the grand prix standings. Not only did McEnroe spend comfortably more time than Agassi as the best player in the world, but he also spent comfortably more time as a top 2 (56 more weeks) and a top 3 (108 more weeks) player than him as well. Agassi only spent 37 weeks as the world no. 2 behind Sampras, and Mac spent more time as the world no. 2 behind Borg.

Throw in the fact that Mac generally beat better players to win his majors than Agassi did, simultaneously dominated 2 of the majors (and the 2 that US players typically cared about the most no less), the fact that he was a greater Davis Cup player, his insane indoor record (I'd rank him as the best player that I've seen under a roof bar none), the fact that he won more titles (and his official count of 77 is understated, though not by the same extent that Lendl's official count of 94 is understated), won more 'big' titles, his superior career W/L percentage etc., and it's a clear win for Mac IMO, even if we don't factor in his doubles success.
Maybe you just had to be there to appreciate it all....while on paper, Andre can make a case, I don't think he ever really reached the heights of Mac.
 
Top