Tougher rivals: Fed or Pete?

[Deleted member 307496]

I would actually argue that he's this era's Agassi, by which I mean the Agassi of the 90's (ie a bit better than Hewitt). His achievements at 30 roughly rival Andre's, but it looks like Murray won't enjoy a great late career like Agassi did, unfortunately for him.

Agassi was a better overall player with much higher potential than Andy Murray who hit his ceiling by winning 3 majors.

What's with all these sudden Murray - Agassi comparisons? The guy just isn't that good.

Agassi had more than 3 majors by the time he was 30.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I came to the decision after many games of tennis elbow and tennis elbow manager.

 

[Zara]

Agassi was a better overall player with much higher potential than Andy Murray who hit his ceiling by winning 3 majors.

What's with all these sudden Murray - Agassi comparisons? The guy just isn't that good.

Agassi had more than 3 majors by the time he was 30.

I agree. Andy is no way in Agassi's league as much I love Andy. Though Andy did quite well on his own outside slams (for the most part) handling the big 3 and sometimes, in slams as well so that should be accounted for something.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I agree. Andy is no way in Agassi's league as much I love Andy. Though Andy did quite well on his own outside slams (for the most part) handling the big 3 and sometimes, in slams as well so that should be accounted for something.

But it's not enough to account for the 1-2 slam differential Agassi had at the same age.

Agassi also won more MS-1000 titles than Murray overall and more titles. He is just plain better, different league. Almost an insult to compare them IMO.

Then again I do love Agassi and I'm put off by the Murray overration so..

 

[EloQuent]

This is going to be an unpopular opinion here but I think making the surfaces more similar was a good move. It's one sport, having players who can win slams on one surface but can't win matches on others makes it almost different sports.

 

[Pheasant]

And no way Davydenko beats players like Rafter or even Kafelnikov. Come on now.

I disagree with this one. Hewitt absolutely destroyed Kafelnikov 7-0. Hewitt only dropped 2 sets to Kafelnikov. Lleyton was a teenager in 4 of those matches. Hewitt's 6-1, 6-2, 6-1 destruction of Kafelnikov at the 2001 USO showed how badly he owned Kafelnikov. And Kafelnivoc was #4 in the world and only 27 years old.

Davydenko, OTH, got knocked out of back-to-back semis at the USO by Federer at his very peak. He was also bumped by Fed at the 2006 AO.

Davydenko is the same guy that was 6-1 vs Nadal on hard courts. He's also the same guy that beat Federer, Murray, and Del Potro in the 2009 WTF.

Kafelnikov wouldn't have beaten Davydenko on hard courts. He might have beaten him on clay. But it's tough to say.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I disagree with this one. Hewitt absolutely destroyed Kafelnikov 7-0. Hewitt only dropped 2 sets to Kafelnikov. Lleyton was a teenager in 4 of those matches. Hewitt's 6-1, 6-2, 6-1 destruction of Kafelnikov at the 2001 USO showed how badly he owned Kafelnikov. And Kafelnivoc was #4 in the world and only 27 years old.

Davydenko, OTH, got knocked out of back-to-back semis at the USO by Federer at his very peak. He was also bumped by Fed at the 2006 AO.

Davydenko is the same guy that was 6-1 vs Nadal on hard courts. He's also the same guy that beat Federer, Murray, and Del Potro in the 2009 WTF.

Kafelnikov wouldn't have beaten Davydenko on hard courts. He might have beaten him on clay. But it's tough to say.

Davydenko had a losing record against injury riddled Hewitt. That's even worse.

Lleyton lead him 4-0 even including a match from 2007 where Hewitt had already had 2 surgeries and was ranked about 18th in the world - Davydenko #4. That's even worse man.

Hewitt was peaking at the 2001 USO.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And I think it's fair to say Kafelikov would have beaten Davydenko on HC. What's with this Davy overration?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Davydenko had a losing record against injury riddled Hewitt. That's even worse.

Lleyton lead him 4-0 even including a match from 2007 where Hewitt had already had 2 surgeries and was ranked about 18th in the world - Davydenko #4. That's even worse man.

Their primes didn't intersect really, so the record is irrelevant. 0-1 vs post-prime Hewitt is also irrelevant because it's one match, and Hewitt later pushed Nadal to 7-5 in the 3rd so he wasn't bad at all.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Their primes didn't intersect really, so the record is irrelevant. 0-1 vs post-prime Hewitt is also irrelevant because it's one match, and Hewitt later pushed Nadal to 7-5 in the 3rd so he wasn't bad at all.

Keep making excuses man.

Davydenko had a rubbish record against Roddick too.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Agassi was a better overall player with much higher potential than Andy Murray who hit his ceiling by winning 3 majors.

What's with all these sudden Murray - Agassi comparisons? The guy just isn't that good.

Agassi had more than 3 majors by the time he was 30.

As it happens, he didn't. By the time they both turned 30, here is how they stood:

* Majors: 3 each (+4 finals for Agassi, +8 finals for Murray--advantage Murray) (oh, and btw--Agassi lost his first three, Murray his first four, yet another stat in which they're close)
* WTF: 1 each, no additional final (tied)
* M1000's and equivalent (Super 9's in Agassi's time): 9 titles + 5 finals for Agassi, 14 titles + 7 finals for Murray--clear advantage Murray
* Total # of titles: 40 for Agassi, 45 for Murray--advantage Murray
* Weeks at #1: 32 for Agassi, 41 for Murray--advantage Murray
* Olympics: 1 gold in singles for Agassi, 2 golds in singles and 1 gold in mixed doubles for Murray--clear advantage Murray

So how exactly was Agassi a "better overall player" than Murray in a decade when he was, more often than not, ranked outside the top 10 (and sometimes outside the top 100)? At the age of 30, Murray is ahead in just about every metric you can name.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

And I think it's fair to say Kafelikov would have beaten Davydenko on HC. What's with this Davy overration?

More like Fcukel overrating, what did he do on HC so much more impressive than Denko, besides winning AO '99 with a draw not dissimilar to the ones Kolya had in USO 06/07 until running into GOATerer?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Keep making excuses man.

Davydenko had a rubbish record against Roddick too.

1-1 prime-to-prime record, actually.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

As it happens, he didn't. By the time they both turned 30, here is how they stood:

* Majors: 3 each (+4 finals for Agassi, +8 finals for Murray--advantage Murray) -- WRONG. Agassi had 4 majors.
* WTF: 1 each, no additional final (tied)
* M1000's and equivalent (Super 9's in Agassi's time): 9 titles + 5 finals for Agassi, 14 titles + 7 finals for Murray--clear advantage Murray -- In an era dedicated to MS-1000s.
* Total # of titles: 40 for Agassi, 45 for Murray--advantage Murray -- Lol, like 5 more 250 titles. So what?
* Weeks at #1: 32 for Agassi, 41 for Murray--advantage Murray -- Accrued in a transitional period.
* Olympics: 1 gold in singles for Agassi, 2 golds in singles and 1 gold in mixed doubles for Murray--clear advantage Murray -- OG doesn't mean squat.

So how exactly was Agassi a "better overall player" than Murray in a decade when he was, more often than not, ranked outside the top 10 (and sometimes outside the top 100)? At the age of 30, Murray is ahead in just about every metric you can name.

Because your facts are wrong.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

1-1 prime-to-prime record, actually.

More excuses.

5-1 overall record actually.
4-0 overall record against Lleyton.

Davy wasn't a great player.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

More like Fcukel overrating, what did he do on HC so much more impressive than Denko, besides winning AO '99 with a draw not dissimilar to the ones Kolya had in USO 06/07 until running into GOATerer?

Lmfao...

Davydenko wasn't a great player. He wouldn't have won the 99 AO either. Enqvist might have been too much for him if post-05 Roddick was.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Because your facts are wrong.

You're quite right, I misread and counted Agassi's results at 29, not 30 (which changes quite a bit, as it "robs" him of the main part of '99, one of his best years).

I'll be back later with the real numbers, then (and I'll admit I was a bit surprised to see Murray ahead everywhere when I counted this--they're actually much closer than that in all categories, and Agassi is of course ahead in some when '99 is added--including in the main one, ie majors, where he jumps from 3 to 6).

 

[RF-18]

As it happens, he didn't. By the time they both turned 30, here is how they stood:

* Majors: 3 each (+4 finals for Agassi, +8 finals for Murray--advantage Murray) (oh, and btw--Agassi lost his first three, Murray his first four, yet another stat in which they're close)
* WTF: 1 each, no additional final (tied)
* M1000's and equivalent (Super 9's in Agassi's time): 9 titles + 5 finals for Agassi, 14 titles + 7 finals for Murray--clear advantage Murray
* Total # of titles: 40 for Agassi, 45 for Murray--advantage Murray
* Weeks at #1: 32 for Agassi, 41 for Murray--advantage Murray
* Olympics: 1 gold in singles for Agassi, 2 golds in singles and 1 gold in mixed doubles for Murray--clear advantage Murray

So how exactly was Agassi a "better overall player" than Murray in a decade when he was, more often than not, ranked outside the top 10 (and sometimes outside the top 100)? At the age of 30, Murray is ahead in just about every metric you can name.

That's why I've been saying that Murray has been unlucky considering the players he has had to beat in order to win slams, but also overall. Still he has an awesome and all round career despite this competition.

I mean, I'm certain as hell that Murray would add to his slam tally if his toughest opponents where Medvedev, Schuttler, Clement, kafelnikov and Todd Martin.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

You're actually right, I misread and counted Agassi's results at 29, not 30 (which changes quite a bit, as it "robs" him of the main part of '99, one of his best years).

I'll be back later with the real numbers, then (and I'll admit I was a bit surprised to see Murray ahead everywhere when I counted this--they're actually much closer than that in all categories, and Agassi is of course ahead in some when '99 is added--including in the main one, ie majors, where he jumps from 3 to 6).

You're just biased against Pete and his era altogether...

Murray is not a great player. His ceiling is 3 majors. He wouldn't have even won that if he played in a previous era without all these medical advancements and crap.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

That's why I've been saying that Murray has been unlucky considering the players he has had to beat in order to win slams, but also overall. Still he has an awesome and all round career despite this competition.

I mean, I'm certain as hell that Murray would add to his slam tally if his toughest opponents where Medvedev, Schuttler, Clement, kafelnikov and Todd Martin.

You're back again dude? I thought I owned you enough for one day.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Lmfao...

Davydenko wasn't a great player. He wouldn't have won the 99 AO either. Enqvist might have been too much for him if post-05 Roddick was.

Don't be silly, a guy who loses 9 games in a row isn't going to be too much for a decent player that Davydenko certainly was.

 

[RF-18]

You're back again dude? I thought I owned you enough for one day.

Classic old grumpy Sabratha who thinks the world spins around him and that everything he says is correct.

Good post though.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Don't be silly, a guy who loses 9 games in a row isn't going to be too much for a decent player that Davydenko certainly was.

Who knows, he would've probably choked harder than he did whenever he saw Fed across the net due to it being a GS final and all. How many did he even make in his career?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Who knows, he would've probably choked harder than he did whenever he saw Fed across the net due to it being a GS final and all. How many did he even make in his career?

Against Enqvist, who played his 1st ever GS final as well? So what makes Enqvist mentally tougher? Beating Fed in the final of Basel 2000? lol

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Against Enqvist, who played his 1st ever GS final as well? So what makes Enqvist mentally tougher? Beating Fed in the final of Basel 2000? lol

At least Enqvist actually made a GS final.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I'm arguing for him against Fcukelnikov on HC, not Roddick or Hewitt who are certainly better players than Davydenko off-clay.

And Kafelnikov had to deal with better versions of both players.

Davydenko got to play the broke-back versions of them both and still lost.

I don't even think Davy would beat them on clay rofl. (Maybe Roddick but not Lleyton, 07 Hamburg basically proves this).

We can stop talking about Davydenko now.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

At least Enqvist actually made a GS final.

So did Anderson, I guess you think he's better than Davydenko now, LOL!

 

[Deleted member 307496]

So did Anderson, I guess you think he's better than Davydenko now, LOL!

Nah but Enqvist made it close to Davy's best rank too ya know.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

And Kafelnikov had to deal with better versions of both players.

Davydenko got to play the broke-back versions of them both and still lost.

I don't even think Davy would beat them on clay rofl. (Maybe Roddick but not Lleyton, 07 Hamburg basically proves this).

We can stop talking about Davydenko now.

I understanding being exhausted IRL and not wanting to spend extra thought on meaningless tennis discussions, but then you can just let your mind rest rather than put it to posting silly arguments like one match proving anything. And don't get why you want to defend Kafelnikov off clay, not like he was an important rival to any of your faves, so what's it to you?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I understanding being exhausted IRL and not wanting to spend extra thought on meaningless tennis discussions, but then you can just let your mind rest rather than put it to posting silly arguments like one match proving anything. And don't get why you want to defend Kafelnikov off clay, not like he was an important rival to any of your faves, so what's it to you?

Why does he need to be one of my favorite players for me to defend him?

 

[merlinpinpin]

You're just biased against Pete and his era altogether...

Murray is not a great player. His ceiling is 3 majors. He wouldn't have even won that if he played in a previous era without all these medical advancements and crap.

Here are the right numbers, then, with Agassi at 30 instead of 29:
* Grand slam titles: 6 + 5 finals for Agassi, 3 + 8 finals for Murray--clear advantage Agassi (it's worth noting, though, that Murray lost his seven GS finals to two ATG's who are both arguably better than Sampras ever was; by way of comparison, Agassi only lost three of his five finals to Sampras--the other losses were to Gomez and Courier)
* WTF: 1 each, 1 additional final for Agassi--advantage Agassi
* M1000's and equivalent (Super 9's in Agassi's time): 10 titles + 5 finals for Agassi, 14 titles + 7 finals for Murray--clear advantage Murray
* Total # of titles: 45 each--tied
* Weeks at #1: 67 for Agassi (I may be off by 1 or 2 here), 41 for Murray--advantage Agassi
* Olympics: 1 gold in singles for Agassi, 2 golds in singles and 1 gold in mixed doubles for Murray--clear advantage Murray

So, Agassi comes up ahead, but not by much, and it's all thanks to the grand slam titles, bearing in mind that the players he had to beat in the final stages to get these were, more often than not, much weaker than those Murray had to face (his only "non-ATG" win in a final was vs Raonic in Wimby 2016, while Agassi got *five* out of his six wins listed here--chocking Ivanisevic in Wimby '92, Stich in the '94 USO, #100 ranked Medvedev at RG '99 (granted, he was much better than his ranking would suggest in this tournament, but still), Martin at USO '99, and Kafelnikov at '00 AO--compare with Murray who had to play Federer or Djokovic each and every time except for that Raonic outlier; take out either Fed or Djokovic and Murray ends up with a much better resume, and you can't control your competition, obviously).

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Here are the right numbers, then, with Agassi at 30 instead of 29:
* Grand slam titles: 6 + 5 finals for Agassi, 3 + 8 finals for Murray--clear advantage Agassi (it's worth noting, though, that Murray lost his seven GS finals to two ATG's who are both arguably better than Sampras ever was; by way of comparison, Agassi only lost three of his five finals to Sampras--the other losses were to Gomez and Courier)
* WTF: 1 each, 1 additional final for Agassi--advantage Agassi
* M1000's and equivalent (Super 9's in Agassi's time): 10 titles + 5 finals for Agassi, 14 titles + 7 finals for Murray--clear advantage Murray
* Total # of titles: 45 each--tied
* Weeks at #1: 67 for Agassi (I may be off by 1 or 2 here), 41 for Murray--advantage Agassi
* Olympics: 1 gold in singles for Agassi, 2 golds in singles and 1 gold in mixed doubles for Murray--clear advantage Murray

So, Agassi comes up ahead, but not by much, and it's all thanks to the grand slam titles, bearing in mind that the players he had to beat in the final stages to get these were, more often than not, much weaker than those Murray had to face (his only "non-ATG" win in a final was vs Raonic in Wimby 2016, while Agassi got *five* out of his six wins listed here--chocking Ivanisevic in Wimby '92, Stich in the '94 USO, #100 ranked Medvedev at RG '99 (granted, he was much better than his ranking would suggest in this tournament, but still), Martin at USO '99, and Kafelnikov at '00 AO--compare with Murray who had to play Federer or Djokovic each and every time except for that Raonic outlier; take out either Fed or Djokovic and Murray ends up with a much better resume, and you can't control your competition, obviously).

Murray got crushed every single time.

Let's look at the matches before finals.

Agassi had a 2-0 record against Pete at the AO. Murray has yet to beat Djokovic there and beat Federer once and lost like 3 other times.

We can stop overrating Murray.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Gonna sleep for a while then pose a better argument than the one above. Dinnerboy was right.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Gonna sleep for a while then pose a better argument than the one above. Dinnerboy was right.

Sleep well - I mean, really, that's much better than dwelling online in a jelly state. Sleep is the one thing that always makes life feel more pleasant/tolerable, every single time. And then come back to write more thoughtful stuff as I know you can.

 

[RF-18]

What a headcase of a guy. Jesus christ

 

[Deleted member 307496]

What a headcase of a guy. Jesus christ

RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18

 

[EloQuent]

uh why are we ignoring Agassi post 30?

it's like saying Rafa didn't do la decima, or Roger didn't beat Sampas' Wimbledon record

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Here are the right numbers, then, with Agassi at 30 instead of 29:
* Grand slam titles: 6 + 5 finals for Agassi, 3 + 8 finals for Murray--clear advantage Agassi (it's worth noting, though, that Murray lost his seven GS finals to two ATG's who are both arguably better than Sampras ever was; by way of comparison, Agassi only lost three of his five finals to Sampras--the other losses were to Gomez and Courier)
* WTF: 1 each, 1 additional final for Agassi--advantage Agassi
* M1000's and equivalent (Super 9's in Agassi's time): 10 titles + 5 finals for Agassi, 14 titles + 7 finals for Murray--clear advantage Murray
* Total # of titles: 45 each--tied
* Weeks at #1: 67 for Agassi (I may be off by 1 or 2 here), 41 for Murray--advantage Agassi
* Olympics: 1 gold in singles for Agassi, 2 golds in singles and 1 gold in mixed doubles for Murray--clear advantage Murray

So, Agassi comes up ahead, but not by much, and it's all thanks to the grand slam titles, bearing in mind that the players he had to beat in the final stages to get these were, more often than not, much weaker than those Murray had to face (his only "non-ATG" win in a final was vs Raonic in Wimby 2016, while Agassi got *five* out of his six wins listed here--chocking Ivanisevic in Wimby '92, Stich in the '94 USO, #100 ranked Medvedev at RG '99 (granted, he was much better than his ranking would suggest in this tournament, but still), Martin at USO '99, and Kafelnikov at '00 AO--compare with Murray who had to play Federer or Djokovic each and every time except for that Raonic outlier; take out either Fed or Djokovic and Murray ends up with a much better resume, and you can't control your competition, obviously).

Agassi at AO > Murray at AO
Very clear. Agassi beat Sampras twice, Murray only beat 2013 Federer and never beat Djokovic. Agassi also clearly played at a better level, the footage is proof.

Agassi at RG > Murray at RG
By a bit due to more W/F and level of play in his winning campaign. Agassi has 1 W, 2 F, 2 SF; Murray has 1 F, 4 SF. Both performed at a varying level, but Agassi's best was better.

Agassi at Wimbledon < Murray at Wimbledon
Agassi is quite underrated at Wimbledon, besides 1 W beating Becker and Ivanisevic and 1 F loss to Sampras, he's got a lot of 5-set losses to in-form grasscourters: Rafter x2 (semis), Becker x1 (semis) [well, that was in 4 sets, but close], Sampras x1 (quarters), also QF loss to Wheaton and 4R to Martin, though they aren't as good.
But Murray is still better, winning twice (once over Djokovic, and in straights, even if he was poor), losing F+SF to Federer, SF to Roddick (very tight 4-setter), two semis to Nadal (also a QF in 08, his first ever quarter, but that was an easy loss).

Agassi at the USO > Murray at the USO
Their record makes it clear. Agassi also showed a better level - Murray did beat Djokovic, but it happened under strong wind, which is a special circumstance, and the level on display wasn't so great.

That should be enough. Really, observe their best/biggest matches and you'll see the level for yourself.

 

[RF-18]

RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18
RF-18

Aren't you going to sleep? You made all that effort to do that? Lol.

I'd advise you to go to sleep. You have been spamming the whole forum all day.

 

[metsman]

Here are the right numbers, then, with Agassi at 30 instead of 29:
* Grand slam titles: 6 + 5 finals for Agassi, 3 + 8 finals for Murray--clear advantage Agassi (it's worth noting, though, that Murray lost his seven GS finals to two ATG's who are both arguably better than Sampras ever was; by way of comparison, Agassi only lost three of his five finals to Sampras--the other losses were to Gomez and Courier)
* WTF: 1 each, 1 additional final for Agassi--advantage Agassi
* M1000's and equivalent (Super 9's in Agassi's time): 10 titles + 5 finals for Agassi, 14 titles + 7 finals for Murray--clear advantage Murray
* Total # of titles: 45 each--tied
* Weeks at #1: 67 for Agassi (I may be off by 1 or 2 here), 41 for Murray--advantage Agassi
* Olympics: 1 gold in singles for Agassi, 2 golds in singles and 1 gold in mixed doubles for Murray--clear advantage Murray

So, Agassi comes up ahead, but not by much, and it's all thanks to the grand slam titles, bearing in mind that the players he had to beat in the final stages to get these were, more often than not, much weaker than those Murray had to face (his only "non-ATG" win in a final was vs Raonic in Wimby 2016, while Agassi got *five* out of his six wins listed here--chocking Ivanisevic in Wimby '92, Stich in the '94 USO, #100 ranked Medvedev at RG '99 (granted, he was much better than his ranking would suggest in this tournament, but still), Martin at USO '99, and Kafelnikov at '00 AO--compare with Murray who had to play Federer or Djokovic each and every time except for that Raonic outlier; take out either Fed or Djokovic and Murray ends up with a much better resume, and you can't control your competition, obviously).

Wait, we're calling Ivanisevic a choker and Martin/Medvedev mugs while hyping up Djokovic of the 12 USO and 13 Wimby finals? All those guys played at least as well as 12 USO and every single guy you mentioned was better than 13 Wimby Djokovic. Yeah, Murray faced an in form Fed/Djokovic a lot as well, but he also put in mediocre performances most of the type so boohoo for him. Agassi had to face an in form Lendl, Sampras, and Federer 8 different times at the USO and faced prime Sampras twice at Wimby, and only had 1 truly bad performance among all the ones I mentioned. Meanwhile, Murray has three good USO runs period and two of them ended in poor performances.

Old Agassi was able to give peak Federer at the USO a tougher match than Murray ever gave a halfway decent, but also entirely post-peak and post-prime Federer at a slam, not once, but twice. Competition argument doesn't matter here. Agassi has proven time and time again he's a different class of player. 92 Wimby, 95 AO, 99 RG, 00 AO are more impressive slam wins than any of Murray's and that's already 4 vs 3. The only one of Agassi's slams that had clearly weaker competition than any of Murray's wins was 03 AO.

 

[metsman]

Agassi at AO > Murray at AO
Very clear. Agassi beat Sampras twice, Murray only beat 2013 Federer and never beat Djokovic. Agassi also clearly played at a better level, the footage is proof.

Agassi at RG > Murray at RG
By a bit due to more W/F and level of play in his winning campaign. Agassi has 1 W, 2 F, 2 SF; Murray has 1 F, 4 SF. Both performed at a varying level, but Agassi's best was better.

Agassi at Wimbledon < Murray at Wimbledon
Agassi is quite underrated at Wimbledon, besides 1 W beating Becker and Ivanisevic and 1 F loss to Sampras, he's got a lot of 5-set losses to in-form grasscourters: Rafter x2 (semis), Becker x1 (semis) [well, that was in 4 sets, but close], Sampras x1 (quarters), also QF loss to Wheaton and 4R to Martin, though they aren't as good.
But Murray is still better, winning twice (once over Djokovic, and in straights, even if he was poor), losing F+SF to Federer, SF to Roddick (very tight 4-setter), two semis to Nadal (also a QF in 08, his first ever quarter, but that was an easy loss).

Agassi at the USO > Murray at the USO
Their record makes it clear. Agassi also showed a better level - Murray did beat Djokovic, but it happened under strong wind, which is a special circumstance, and the level on display wasn't so great.

That should be enough. Really, observe their best/biggest matches and you'll see the level for yourself.

Even Wimby is very close. Agassi has 6 good runs, 7 if we give him 03 (close 5 set loss to a very inspired Scud is not a terrible loss compared to Murray's 08-11 losses). Murray has 8 if we give him 08. Agassi's Wimbledon win was clearly more impressive than either of Murray's. Murray lost to Nadal thrice, none of those matches were that close, although 2010 was a solid match. Lost to Roddick once in a close match. Agassi lost to Becker once and Rafter twice, all of those matches were very close. Nadal of 08/10 Wimby is tougher opposition, but 11 Wimby and 09 Roddick is around the same and then you factor in speed of grass and closeness of matches and those losses even out. Honestly, the loss to Roddick isn't a lot better than Agassi's close loss to Scud in 03. Then we look at the losses to the grass court GOAT's, Murray has 12/15 Wimby, Agassi has 93/99.

If we compare 2012 Fed to 93 Pete, both guys had one poor set, except in Federer's case it was the first which gave Murray a head start whereas Pete was in blitz mode at the start of 93's match which makes it a different story. Rest of the match, both played pretty damn well, Agassi made it a closer match at the end. Take into account that 93 is far from Agassi's grass peak and he was coming off injury issues (Murray in a similar situation got an absolute beating by freakin Dimitrov) whereas 2012 is no doubt Murray's best level on grass and Agassi gets the edge here for this performance.

Then 2015 to 99. A slight edge to Agassi. I see no way you can really give Murray the edge for their respective performance. Sampras played probably a little better than Federer did (serving is close, slight edge to Fed, but this is still the peak Sampras serve cmon, and Agassi still returned it far better than Murray did Federer's servebotting. Sampras was probably a bit better returning too although Murray served much better than Agassi). Agassi made it a tad closer match too.

Competition/performance wise in their best years, Agassi wins. All Murray has is an extra year or two of quality play and the good fortune to luck into fairly easy roads with no in form top grass courters not once but twice. Agassi never got that. Given that, and surface differences, it's easy to make a case for Agassi. If Agassi hadn't choked his ass off against Becker in 95 and then again in 01, and then given Sampras a solid match in the finals/beats Goran, which I think he could have, you give it to him no questions asked. And let's be real, Agassi more than likely wins both those SF matches if he has the much friendlier 2010's conditions. Murray would be good on faster grass (although his 2nd serve would be an abomination with gut) but still modern conditions clearly suit him better.

Regardless, even if you give WImby to Murray which is of course reasonable, Agassi smokes him on aggregate at the other 3 slams. Not even close. Can't believe Agassi vs Murray ever gets brought up

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Even Wimby is very close. Agassi has 6 good runs, 7 if we give him 03 (close 5 set loss to a very inspired Scud is not a terrible loss compared to Murray's 08-11 losses). Murray has 8 if we give him 08.
[...]

You can argue for that too, but since it's close, and Murray does have 1 more title, and he's always done his best at Wimbledon in his prime besides 2014, I thought it'd be decent to give him that one, not like he fluked two titles and did zilch otherwise.

Regardless, even if you give Wimby to Murray which is of course reasonable, Agassi smokes him on aggregate at the other 3 slams. Not even close.

Which was my point. On grass it's close, on clay Agassi is clearly ahead but Murray is at least in the picture, his 15-17 performances giving him some clay standing (whereas before 2015 he had next to none), but on hard court, Agassi completely blows Murray out of the water, there's absolutely no comparison, Agassi is so far ahead Murray can't see him on the horizon. Attempting to equalise them is sheer excuse-making and very dismissive of Agassi's capabilities.

 

[metsman]

You can argue for that too, but since it's close, and Murray does have 1 more title, and he's always done his best at Wimbledon in his prime besides 2014, I thought it'd be decent to give him that one, not like he fluked two titles and did zilch otherwise.



Which was my point. On grass it's close, on clay Agassi is clearly ahead but Murray is at least in the picture, his 15-17 performances giving him some clay standing (whereas before 2015 he had next to none), but on hard court, Agassi completely blows Murray out of the water, there's absolutely no comparison, Agassi is so far ahead Murray can't see him on the horizon. Attempting to equalise them is sheer excuse-making and very dismissive of Agassi's capabilities.

Murray has one extra title, but Agassi's win was much more impressive and as I showed on the aggregate his losses are probably a little better as well. Then you take into account surface differences and there's a path to argue for Agassi on the back of higher quality+tougher conditions/greater diversity of competition whatever > 1-2 extra years.

Obviously we agree on the main point. But given that Agassi vs Murray is such a laughable comparison, the only debate worth having between the two is their grass court prowess.

 

[Zara]

But it's not enough to account for the 1-2 slam differential Agassi had at the same age.

Agassi also won more MS-1000 titles than Murray overall and more titles. He is just plain better, different league. Almost an insult to compare them IMO.

Then again I do love Agassi and I'm put off by the Murray overration so..

We have to take everything at face value or what is. Any other scenario is just not real. So given that and unless Andy goes on to win more slams and equal or surpass Agassi, Agassi will remain significantly better than Andy (the slam difference and the fact that AA won on all the majors).

 

[abmk]

That's why I've been saying that Murray has been unlucky considering the players he has had to beat in order to win slams, but also overall. Still he has an awesome and all round career despite this competition.

I mean, I'm certain as hell that Murray would add to his slam tally if his toughest opponents where Medvedev, Schuttler, Clement, kafelnikov and Todd Martin.

Murray would have lost to defending champ Moya or Medvedev in RG 99. Agassi beat both of them.

And AO 00, Agassi beat Sampras. But not surprised that an ignoramus like you wouldn't know that. Sampras would've beat Murray.

AO 01, Agassi's toughest opponent was Rafter in the semi, not Clement in the final.

 

[Phoenix1983]

But it's not enough to account for the 1-2 slam differential Agassi had at the same age.

Agassi also won more MS-1000 titles than Murray overall and more titles. He is just plain better, different league. Almost an insult to compare them IMO.

Then again I do love Agassi and I'm put off by the Murray overration so..

Actually, Agassi had a 3 slam differential when turning 30 (he had 6, Murray shall have 3).

 

[Phoenix1983]

Here are the right numbers, then, with Agassi at 30 instead of 29:
* Grand slam titles: 6 + 5 finals for Agassi, 3 + 8 finals for Murray--clear advantage Agassi (it's worth noting, though, that Murray lost his seven GS finals to two ATG's who are both arguably better than Sampras ever was; by way of comparison, Agassi only lost three of his five finals to Sampras--the other losses were to Gomez and Courier)
* WTF: 1 each, 1 additional final for Agassi--advantage Agassi
* M1000's and equivalent (Super 9's in Agassi's time): 10 titles + 5 finals for Agassi, 14 titles + 7 finals for Murray--clear advantage Murray
* Total # of titles: 45 each--tied
* Weeks at #1: 67 for Agassi (I may be off by 1 or 2 here), 41 for Murray--advantage Agassi
* Olympics: 1 gold in singles for Agassi, 2 golds in singles and 1 gold in mixed doubles for Murray--clear advantage Murray

So, Agassi comes up ahead, but not by much, and it's all thanks to the grand slam titles, bearing in mind that the players he had to beat in the final stages to get these were, more often than not, much weaker than those Murray had to face (his only "non-ATG" win in a final was vs Raonic in Wimby 2016, while Agassi got *five* out of his six wins listed here--chocking Ivanisevic in Wimby '92, Stich in the '94 USO, #100 ranked Medvedev at RG '99 (granted, he was much better than his ranking would suggest in this tournament, but still), Martin at USO '99, and Kafelnikov at '00 AO--compare with Murray who had to play Federer or Djokovic each and every time except for that Raonic outlier; take out either Fed or Djokovic and Murray ends up with a much better resume, and you can't control your competition, obviously).

Agassi had won double the number of slams as Murray by his 30th birthday, and had wasted a fair amount of his career.

No doubt who is greater (and I'm a Murray fan).

 

[merlinpinpin]

Agassi had won double the number of slams as Murray by his 30th birthday, and had wasted a fair amount of his career.

No doubt who is greater (and I'm a Murray fan).

Oh, but I totally agree that, overall, Agassi is a much better player. However, during Sampras' tenure, he wasn't leaps and bounds above Murray achievement-wise, and he rounded up his resume big time after Sampras fell off a cliff. Yes, he did waste some of his best years, but he can't be "rewarded" for this, obviously. Did he have a bigger potential? Yes, although maybe, had he been fully committed during his 20's, he may have paid for it in his 30's because of the added mileage. But their stats up to 30 are very close, including in slam finals (11 each). Of course, Agassi won twice as many, but their circumstances were different, and maybe Murray would have won more had he faced other players than Federer and Djokovic in his finals. Of course, their final tallies will be very different at the end of their respective careers, as Murray has basically zero chance of enjoying the same late-career resurgence as Agassi because of his hip. Still, comparing him to Hewitt is vastly underrating him (or overrating Hewitt--or both). Murray is seriously better than a player like Hewitt or Courier, it's not even close, to be honest.

 

[RF-18]

Murray would have lost to defending champ Moya or Medvedev in RG 99. Agassi beat both of them.

And AO 00, Agassi beat Sampras. But not surprised that an ignoramus like you wouldn't know that. Sampras would've beat Murray.

AO 01, Agassi's toughest opponent was Rafter in the semi, not Clement in the final.

If Murray Djokovic matches wouldn't happen people would probably say just like you he wouldn't beat him at USO 12 and 13 W.

And also, Clement was the most capable to reach the final out of his draw. Still doesn't change that Murray with those kind of draws would add to his slam tally. I'm not saying he would win all of them, cause that is hard to say, we are all hypothetically speaking and all we can do is assume,( although You seem to be sent from the future since you know who'd beat who) but IMO Murray would add to his slam tally.

Now you can accept that opinion, or go away. You have no facts to tell me I'm wrong and you are right, wich you do to people 90% of the time

 

[Phoenix1983]

Oh, but I totally agree that, overall, Agassi is a much better player. However, during Sampras' tenure, he wasn't leaps and bounds above Murray achievement-wise, and he rounded up his resume big time after Sampras fell off a cliff. Yes, he did waste some of his best years, but he can't be "rewarded" for this, obviously. Did he have a bigger potential? Yes, although maybe, had he been fully committed during his 20's, he may have paid for it in his 30's because of the added mileage. But their stats up to 30 are very close, including in slam finals (11 each). Of course, Agassi won twice as many, but their circumstances were different, and maybe Murray would have won more had he faced other players than Federer and Djokovic in his finals. Of course, their final tallies will be very different at the end of their respective careers, as Murray has basically zero chance of enjoying the same late-career resurgence as Agassi because of his hip. Still, comparing him to Hewitt is vastly underrating him (or overrating Hewitt--or both). Murray is seriously better than a player like Hewitt or Courier, it's not even close, to be honest.

Disagree, by no means can you rate Murray as greater than Courier. He belongs in the Courier/Vilas tier, not the Agassi tier.