Indoor was such a big part of the tennis calendar in the 80s and 90s (not like today). You had the tour finals, WCT finals (in the 80s) and the grand slam cup (in the 90s). Becker is the only player to have won all three. Wilander didnt win any of them.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Becker is greater than Wilander. Way better indoors career, more tournament wins, H2H lead, better on all surfaces bar clay. Wilander’s edge in weeks at No.1 is negligible (20 vs 12) and ranking system was flawed back then. One more slam doesn’t cut it in this case.
abmk
Bionic Poster
especially when 2 of those slams were in weak AOs (83/84)
Wilander's biggest argument over Becker is actually a better best year (88) than any Becker had (89), a 3 slam season.
Razer
Legend
Becker was always a legend who was known more worldwide for his wimbledons, he always held a higher stature than Wilander and I dare say even higher than Andre Agassi.
Becker & Mcenroe are too famous worldwide, wimbledon used to be the prestigious slam back then, winning 1 wimbledon was more valuable than winning other slams without wimbeldon.
Becker & Mcenroe are too famous worldwide, wimbledon used to be the prestigious slam back then, winning 1 wimbledon was more valuable than winning other slams without wimbeldon.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
I am a big Becker fan, but higher than Agassi? No way. Agassi is more accomplished and at the very least as famous as him. He is an absolute legend though, higher than Wilander and ofc than Murray.
Razer
Legend
Throughout the 1990s Becker had a higher stature than that Agassi worldwide. Andre was a big name in the USA, not worldwide. You think the youngest winner of wimbledon was not more relevant than Agassi ? The Australian Opens did not have much relevance, it gained importance in the 2000s. The all 4 slams were leveled in 21st century in terms of importance, it is then when Agassi's achievements started to gain respect. The big 4 at wimbledon were Pete, Borg, Mcenroe and Becker at the beginnng of the 21st century, these were the names hyped in UK and in its colonies. Nobody cared for Lendl/Wilander, hell I heard of Lendl's achievements only in 2010s decade, lol.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Agassi is the more accomplished tennis player objectively, the AO did have less relevance in the 70s and 80s but not when Agassi won them. He was of course a big name not only in the US, his rivalry with Pete was the biggest tennis rivalry of the 90s and watched world-wide. On top there was his rebellious attitude, his marriage with Shields, his slump and subsequent comeback to No.1.
Do not get why it is relevant for this comparison when exactly you learned about Lendl’s achievements?
Razer
Legend
Number of Best of 5 Sets Finals Won
Boris Becker - 23 (21 of them came vs Top 10 ranked opponents - win% 60)
Andre Agassi - 20 (Only 10 of them came vs Top 10 ranked opponents - win% 45)
Even though we respect Agassi because of his longevity, CGS, but peak for peak what did Agassi show in his era against the best players? Becker has more wins on the big stages in long matches than Agassi.
Despite all of Agassi's longevity and exploiting weak transition era in early 00s the longest gap between 1st and last slams for Agassi and Becker is tied at 10.5 years
The AOs were second grade tournaments in 90s as well compared to the other slams, wimbledon was holy grail and the atp finals were also important.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Both stats of ancillary importance. Agassi has two more slams, 11 more tournament wins, considerably more weeks at No.1 (unlike Wilander who only has few more than Becker), leads Boris in H2H, has the Career Super Slam. If anything you should have mentioned Becker’s superior record on carpet which is his strongest case.
Becker won two AO in the 90s himself while Andre only one, so even if you were right on the first one, how exactly does this help Boris’ case? Agassi himself was actually one of the last top-players who regularly skipped it (including in 91 when Boris won it).
It is close, but Agassi is above Becker for career achievements.
Fiero425
Legend
I was no fan of either Boris or Andre due to their massive egos, but what bothered me the most is how thy both woefully underachieved! Agassi and Becker exploded about the same time in '85, but Andre blew his early chances to major victories! Agassi came on late after '92 Wimbledon & USO win in '94 unseeded! He got to #1 for a little while, but Sampras was in his prime and dominated the era as much as he could w/ so much good competition out there! It was a rare period where at any given time we could have 10-12 winners of majors unlike now where we're scratching to have 3 or 4! The era of the Big 3 has been a unique time, but it's about over w/ Novak barely hanging on after retirement of Fed and chronic injury of Rafa!
Last edited:
Razer
Legend
Becker played in a stronger era than Agassi, isn't it ? Becker didn't have any weak periods to rely on, he had multiple ATGs surrounding him and with him, on the other hand Agassi benefited a lot in the last years. He was so pathetic that he had only 3 slams at age 27 while Becker had like 5 slams. Plus why to see slam counts when in 80s/90s slam count was not end of all, see the whole picture of big finals which were best of 5.
Why does Becker have more top 10 wins (121) in his career than Agassi's 109 ? Was Agassi's longevity useless ? Agassi played 12 more matches against top 10 and has 12 less wins ... lol ... Boris also has a higher % of wins vs top 5 ranked opponents too.
Agassi was always rated below Becker by old timers 22-23 years ago, his stock has increased due to how tennis shaped in the baseline era. Stuffs like CGS were not important in 90s but today suddenly it sounds like a dealbreaker for old players ...
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
1) Becker is only 2.5 years older so even with him being an early bloomer he is not from another era than Andre (aren’t you the one arguing that even 5,6 years difference are from the same era?). Becker and Agassi played mostly the same players even if at different stages of their careers. Becker had more battles with Lendl and Edberg, but Agassi had to deal with young Pete, prime Pete, peak Pete and strong versions of old Pete, as well as getting the beginning of peak Roger who may well have denied him another USO and a YEC (arguable whether he beats Hewitt in the USO 05 but he was in great form and 2004 would also have been a chance). Agassi had some weak draws at the 2001 and 2003 AO, but he also had tough draws in other deep slam runs where he did not win (he also has three more additional slam finals than Becker). All in all there is not much difference between Becker’s and Agassi’s competition.
2) lol at calling a guy pathetic for having three slams at 27, which is an arbitrary cut-off anyways. Chang had more slams at 17 than Djokovic, is he the greater player?
3) slams were not the be all end all but for neither of them, otherwise Agassi wouldn’t have skipped so many AOs and Wimbledons. The best of 5 finals stat implies Becker’s superiority at YEC/GSC/WCT which I said, is a strong point for him, but does not outweigh all the other stuff Andre has over him.
You put too much stock into top ten wins. Boris winning percentage against top ten is excellent never denied that so is his H2H against the greats of his era, but this is not the most important statistic, especially not in the 90s, where conditions were way more polarised than today (beating Muster at Wimbledon or Pete at RG would have counted as top ten wins).
By what old-timers? Any sources? 23 years ago, Agassi was still playing and had to yet win two slams. Winning all slams was always important, Borg desperately wanted to win the USO, Pete the FO and Mac until today is haunted by the 84 FO final (I leave out Lendl, because his missing slam was Wimbledon).
I am a very big fan of Becker believe me, my third most favourite player. But he is not above Agassi in career achievements.
Razer
Legend
Actually it is not 27 .... it is 29
Agassi had just 3 slams on his 29th birthday in April 1999, 62.5% of his resume is after turning 29, LOL. His French open was a weak vulturing after bruguera, courier, muster, kafelnikov, chang all declined, then he won US open because of Pete's injury, then he beat schuttler and clement in the final of his last 2 ao wins, sure his level was high and nobody else would have beat him but these fellows are soft targets, arent they? Except his aus open 2000 which is a very solid win, the rest are not beyond scrutiny when we are comparing him with Becker.
Becker has 64% wins vs top 10 while Agassi has 54% wins vs top 10
Becker has 63% wins vs top 10 in Best of 5 while Agassi's further drops to 49% vs top 10
Regardless of what you say, this does matter for me, such a big gap is not supposed to exist if Agassi is so damn good, clearly he wasn't. Statistics vs top 10 is relevant in any era regardless of how polarized it is because top 10 always consists of best players.
Since you mentioned sampra on clay, lets remove clay and see, best of 5 non clay vs top 10 .... Becker 68% wins and Agassi 50% wins .... such big gaps are not supposed to exist. Becker and Agassi are similar players in achievments, maybe agassi achieved more due to a longer career but Boris is greater ....... Whatever hype Agassi has is due to recency bias and evolution of tennis into total baseline Agassi's stock has risen, plus I dont like Agassi at all.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Not relevant when exactly he won the titles. His FO included wins against Moya and a string Medvedev, not a weak draw at all. His 2001,03 AO draws were weak, his AO 95 draw was solid and his Wimbledon 92 draw was one of the strongest ever. Becker’s 96 AO draw with Woodforde in the semi and his pigeon Chang in the final is not much to write home about.
As I said, Becker is better than Agassi one carpet, which includes YEC/WCT where you play top ten players per definition. Becker is 80% on carpet while Agassi is 64%, Becker is 41-14 at YEC/WCT combined (36-13 at YEC) while Agassi is 22-20. Had the YEC been played on outdoor HC, Becker’s numbers would go down as well.
I didn’t mean to remove clay, I gave it as an example on how polarised conditions can impact stats like % vs top ten. In the 90s players could play clay tournaments all year long, amass ranking points and appear at the YEC as top 8 players even though they weren’t great on carpet, just to give one example.
Yea and here it is. Whether you like him or not shouldn’t have an impact on your analysis.
Razer
Legend
.
Duration from Becker's 1st Slam to Last Slam = 10.5 years
In this duration, Becker has 82% wins which is highest, second is Lendl's 80.93%
Becker has 102 top 10 wins in this period which is highest
Becker has 45 titles in this period - 25 of them are in BO5 finals
Duration from Agassi's 1st Slam to Last Slam = 10.5 years
In the duration, Pete had 80% wins while Agassi was only second best on 78%
Sampras has 106 top 10 wins in this period while Agassi has only 73 wins vs top 10
Agassi has 41 titles in this period - only 16 of them are in BO5 finals, in this period in BO5 it is Sampras who leads with 28 titles having BO5 Finals.
Had Indoors been outdoors then Becker would win less, had french open been on grass then nadal would win less, such arguments have no base at all. In a fast court era Becker is one of the best players ever, so naturally he being one of the best indoors matters a lot. As far as Agassi, he was not the best at anything in that era and neither is he a slow court titan. That title belongs to modern day Djokodal/olden day Borg types.... So this bald man Agassi fits nowhere. 3 slams on 29th birthday matters, he sucks compared to Boris.
Anyway my mind is made, I will not change my mind, you are wasting your time trying to change my mind, I never change my mind unless I feel from within, bye.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Ok then, no need to further discuss. Just one last point. Agassi has two more slams than Becker 89 more weeks at No.1 and the H2H lead, nevertheless you argue Boris is greater because he is (according to you) more famous and had won three more slams at age 29. On the other hand, Fed has two less slams than Djokovic, trails the H2H and approximately trails Djokovic in weeks at No.1 by the same margin as Becker trails Agassi, however, is more famous than Novak and at your arbitrary age 29 had won 16 slams to Novak’s 12 (even one more difference than between Becker and Agassi at age 29). Nevertheless you consider Djokovic greater than Federer and Becker greater than Agassi. Makes no sense for me other than bias.
Razer
Legend
Becker is one of the top 5 players indoor of all time, Agassi is not top 5 indoor/outdoor. His 2 slams don't matter a lot for me because in Becker's time indoor titles, davis cups were all as important as slams and he is more accomplished than that Agassi there, so overall I don't see any need to rate this Agassi that high. Secondly, Djokovic having 12 slams to Fed's 16 doesnt matter because we know Fed dominated jokers while Djokovic had Fedal blocking him and yet he beat them all, and more importantly Novak is ruler of his era, he is not Agassi playing second fiddle to Pete like a pigeon all his life. Agassi having 3 slams till 29 is because he is a vulture, he cannot beat Pete in USA, he has losing h2h on clay to muster, bruguera, courier, kafelnikov, he even won his wimbledon avoiding pete. You compare such a guy to Djokovic being less popular than Federer? Enough with the excuses please, you can think I am biased, no problem. We are biased towards what we think is right, and we should be, there is no need to be politically correct and praise some guy who never even was dominant anywhere outside australia which was the 4th slam.
Last edited:
Razer
Legend
If all the ATGs are born together on the same day, then Agassi's slam count would be 0. Nadal would be battling Borg for french opens as a teenager, in the 20s everyone will be battling each other. Boris Becker is the only man who is assured to be a 2 time wimbledon champion at 17 and 18 at least, so from a grand scheme of things he is more special than Agassi.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
That is just another way of saying Becker was one of the earliest bloomers hence worthless since players develop differently and it is not all about who is best at 17/18 when he later gets surpassed. Chang (even if not an ATG) would likely also have a slam under your logic and would be greater than Agassi.
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
So Agassi who was ripping peak Fed a new one at USO 04/05 wouldn’t be able to beat geriatric Big 3 who haven’t won a US Open past age 30?
Btw 1995 Agassi goes toe to toe with anyone at the AO.
He wins Slams without a doubt.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Lol now moving goalposts. Agassi might not have beaten Pete for his Wimbledon but he went to a hell of a draw.
Razer
Legend
Nothing is assured, he may or may not win, Djokovic is the best slow court hard courter of all time, going past him is impossible for anyone.
Chang won't win, Borg and Wilander were quite matured at same age and won french a few months apart, so that means those guys would also be in contention.
Becker is the only legit 2W winner in such a scenario
Last edited:
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
Except Wawrinka… Nadal… Murray… Nishikori… Medvedev… need I continue
Razer
Legend
Most of those losses he was in bad form and tired by the end of the year, plus the crowd in new york and the weather, something that doesn't go well with Novak. However I was talking of Australia, that weather and the conditios of early-mid 2010s, nobody is beating him there, not even Agassi. In New York Agassi in old age can take a slam or so but nothing is assured, Roger can beat Agassi.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Therefore I said likely. Borg in 1973 lost to Panatta, Nadal in 2003/04 may or may not win. Completely speculative. Even if you were right, doesn’t mean **** other than certain players matured earlier.
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
I mean when you say something ridiculous like Agassi would have zero Slams expect to be called out
Razer
Legend
Maybe I was too assertive with "would" but "could" is the right word there. I certainly feel young novak and old roger could beat 95 agassi and 04 agassi at AO and USO, but then you believe otherwise which is ok since it is debatable. However there is no doubt that Becker takes his 2 slams at wimbledon over everyone else. Probably wins his 3rd too at 21? cant rule it out.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Roddick, Tsonga, Chung, Istomin.
