What order do you rank Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi in as far as greatness

[martinezownsclay]

All 4 of these are generally grouped close together.

All except McEnroe have 8 singles slams. McEnroe has 7.

Agassi has the Career Slam, but is still often ranked lowest for other reasons.

I go back and forth often amongst some of this group, particularly Lendl and Connors. I guess if I have to settle on an order I probably go:

1. Connors
2. Lendl
3. McEnroe
4. Agassi

It is kind of hard to rank Agassi last since he does have the Career Slam and is a rare player who has won all the biggest events, including Olympic singles Gold. Even Federer and Djokovic haven't done that. Yet he has too many holes in his career compared to the others.

I rank Connors over Lendl partly since he would have so many more slams if he played the Australian regularly in the 70s (also the French although he rarely if ever wins there).

 

[GameSetR]

1. Lendl
2. Connors
3. Mac
4. Agassi

Agassi is the clear weakest link IMO. He simply did not have a peak comparable to the other three.

Agassi is kind of in his own tier. Better than Becker, Wilander, Edberg, but a step below Mac, Connors, Lendl.

 

[d-quik]

For me agassi and connors were the same person. Maybe more credit to connors because the 80s equipment didnt match his playstyle. Woulda loved to have seen connors play after the polyester era. Kinda scary thought now that I think of it.

Lendl is very kuerten/wawrinka ish, kinda, but again superior because no polyester.

McEnroe obviously has no similarities with anyone. Closest I can think of would maybe be stich? But michael was 6ft4 and mac was little.

 

[jrepac]

All 4 of these are generally grouped close together.

All except McEnroe have 8 singles slams. McEnroe has 7.

Agassi has the Career Slam, but is still often ranked lowest for other reasons.

I go back and forth often amongst some of this group, particularly Lendl and Connors. I guess if I have to settle on an order I probably go:

1. Connors
2. Lendl
3. McEnroe
4. Agassi

It is kind of hard to rank Agassi last since he does have the Career Slam and is a rare player who has won all the biggest events, including Olympic singles Gold. Even Federer and Djokovic haven't done that. Yet he has too many holes in his career compared to the others.

I rank Connors over Lendl partly since he would have so many more slams if he played the Australian regularly in the 70s (also the French although he rarely if ever wins there).

I'd agree w/your ranking, giving Connors a slight edge with 2 W's in the mix (despite no French), but it's close between him and Lendl. Mac is a little tricky in that, do you give him extra points for Davis Cup and his amazing doubles record? But with 4 USO and 3 W, I'm sliding him in front of AO heavy Andre, who is kind of in his own tier

 

[martinezownsclay]

I'd agree w/your ranking, giving Connors a slight edge with 2 W's in the mix (despite no French), but it's close between him and Lendl. Mac is a little tricky in that, do you give him extra points for Davis Cup and his amazing doubles record? But with 4 USO and 3 W, I'm sliding him in front of AO heavy Andre, who is kind of in his own tier

I guess depending how much credit you give to doubles and peak level play you could make a case for McEnroe to be over Lendl and/or Connors? And depending how much credit you give to Davis Cup too.

 

[Pheasant]

1. Lendl
2. Connors
3. Mac
4. Agassi

Agassi is the clear weakest link IMO. He simply did not have a peak comparable to the other three.

Agassi is kind of in his own tier. Better than Becker, Wilander, Edberg, but a step below Mac, Connors, Lendl.

Exactly. I don't see any other possible order.

 

[BlueB]

Lendl, while I hate to place him first, for extended dominance.
Agassi, for most well rounded career.
Connors, for being a jerk.
Mac, another jerk, but one slam less and less longevity then the other jerk.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

Minus Agassi I have them all pretty even, and I don't think I want to try and separate them. Connors' had the best period of dominance in my opinion (five consecutive years as #1, 11 slam finals in 12 attempts), but Lendl was almost as imperious, and his reign in the late '80s was possibly the toughest of the Open Era. McEnroe is slightly behind both in most singles metrics, but unlike some I count his astonishing doubles prowess towards his greatness. Also, his crushing superiority over both rivals in 1984 (11-1) is far ahead of the best that either Jimmy or Ivan could manage.

They've done enough to stand together, as far as I'm concerned.

(The player I liked best was Lendl, though. Regardless of who was objectively greatest, he's the one I'd cheer for.)


PS If you want to add a more deserving fourth candidate, I think John Newcombe (7 singles slams, 26 altogether) is closer to those three than Agassi.

 

[80s New Wave]

For me it's almost a dead heat between lendl and connors, if forced to pick one I would probably lean towards lendl for his relative dominance from 85-87.

Mac third based on his singles only, but obviously his doubles resume dwarfs the other three combined so if you put a lot of value in doubles I can't see how he isn't first.

Andre clearly fourth, really only one year comparable to the winning percentages the others achieved 4-5 times (1995) and he didn't even finish that year at #1.

 

[dryeagle]

It is kind of hard to rank Agassi last since he does have the Career Slam and is a rare player who has won all the biggest events, including Olympic singles Gold. Even Federer and Djokovic haven't done that.

Olympic Tennis is overrated IMO. Take a look at that draw at 96 Olympics. Master Events (called Super 9 at the time) are bigger tournaments IMO.

 

[InsideOut900]

Lendl
Connors
Agassi
McEnroe

 

[Drob]

1. Mac just be a hair over Lendl
2. Lendl
3. Connors
4. Agassi

 

[paolo2143]

Minus Agassi I have them all pretty even, and I don't think I want to try and separate them. Connors' had the best period of dominance in my opinion (five consecutive years as #1, 11 slam finals in 12 attempts), but Lendl was almost as imperious, and his reign in the late '80s was possibly the toughest of the Open Era. McEnroe is slightly behind both in most singles metrics, but unlike some I count his astonishing doubles prowess towards his greatness. Also, his crushing superiority over both rivals in 1984 (11-1) is far ahead of the best that either Jimmy or Ivan could manage.

They've done enough to stand together, as far as I'm concerned.

(The player I liked best was Lendl, though. Regardless of who was objectively greatest, he's the one I'd cheer for.)


PS If you want to add a more deserving fourth candidate, I think John Newcombe (7 singles slams, 26 altogether) is closer to those three than Agassi.

The thing is though Connors was not the No1 player for 5 successive years. Virtually every tennis expert had Borg ahead of him from 77 onwards no matter what ATP computer said. In 77 both Vilas & Borg were better than Connors.

I find it tough to separate Mac, Jimmy & Ivan and certainly Jimmy & Ivan peaked at different times so much harder to compare

 

[TennisLurker]

Lendl is greater because he is the stereotype of final boss of tennis dominant number 1 you have to beat to win a major. he was very good ar being very consistent

 

[jrepac]

The thing is though Connors was not the No1 player for 5 successive years. Virtually every tennis expert had Borg ahead of him from 77 onwards no matter what ATP computer said. In 77 both Vilas & Borg were better than Connors.

I find it tough to separate Mac, Jimmy & Ivan and certainly Jimmy & Ivan peaked at different times so much harder to compare

1977 will always be contested; Connors was also ranked 1st in '78, where at least he had a USO win and 10 titles in total.

 

[CHillTennis]

1. Lendl (winning head to head vs the other 3 players.)
2. Agassi (Career golden slam.)
3. Connors
4. McEnroe

 

[GameSetR]

1. Lendl (winning head to head vs the other 3 players.)
2. Agassi (Career golden slam.)
3. Connors
4. McEnroe

I back Lendl as #1 as well, but it's worth noting that Lendl didn't start to dominate Connors until Jimmy was well past it.

Peak for peak, mid 70s Connors vs mid-to-late 80s Lendl, you'd be looking at a lot of close matches where both guys have their share of wins.

 

[NatF]

1. Lendl
2. Connors
3. Mac
4. Agassi

 

[aliceinpains]

Connors(3 slams in one year and most career titles)
Agassi(9 slams with the Gold medal and only player in history to win the career SUPER slam)
McEnroe
Lendl (Has to be last without the Biggest trophy in the sport)

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

The thing is though Connors was not the No1 player for 5 successive years. Virtually every tennis expert had Borg ahead of him from 77 onwards no matter what ATP computer said. In 77 both Vilas & Borg were better than Connors.

I agree with that, with the caveat that if you want to be pedantic, Connors was #1 for five years. It's just that being #1 didn't mean you were the best; the ITF Champ was a better barometer of that.

Of course if you take that approach, then Lendl must also lose 1989, leaving them both on three each.

 

[BGod]

1. Lendl
2. Connors
3. Agassi
4. McEnroe

Connors was a phenomenally consistent player like Lendl but some of his earlier Slams were not exactly tough draws. The back to back Slam Finals against 39 year old Rosewall who was gassed both times in tougher draws isn't much of a check mark for me. You also look at a lot of those SF and Final losses and think he should have won more of them as epic as those matches were, kind of like Fed and his many close losses.

Still both Lendl & Connors as well ahead of Andre-Mac who had limited periods of dominance and of course Mac had the shorter window whereas Andre as many point underachieved.

 

[NatF]

1. Lendl
2. Connors
3. Agassi
4. McEnroe

Connors was a phenomenally consistent player like Lendl but some of his earlier Slams were not exactly tough draws. The back to back Slam Finals against 39 year old Rosewall who was gassed both times in tougher draws isn't much of a check mark for me. You also look at a lot of those SF and Final losses and think he should have won more of them as epic as those matches were, kind of like Fed and his many close losses.

Still both Lendl & Connors as well ahead of Andre-Mac who had limited periods of dominance and of course Mac had the shorter window whereas Andre as many point underachieved.

Mac obviously underachieved as well.

 

[aliceinpains]

Mac obviously underachieved as well.

Lendl was the biggest underachiever of the four because at 6'2 tall, he had a huge advantage as he was the ideal height for a tennis player. The other 3 were under 6 ft tall(disadvantage).

 

[boredone3456]

any of Connors Lendl or Mac could be number 1 on this list.

Connors has a huge longevity and volume of numbers argument
Mac at his peak level (like 1984 Mac) may be able to flatten any of these 3
Lendl was the most consistent in the 80s when you had a lot of guys at their best at the top.

Agassi- well he won the career slam which is actually impressive, but the consistency was just not always there. That said if I was ranking on who I like the most Agassi would be far and away #1 of these 4.

I guess I'd go
Lendl
Connors
Mac
Agassi

But I could argue Mac and Connors being #1 as well probably

 

[jrepac]

any of Connors Lendl or Mac could be number 1 on this list.

Connors has a huge longevity and volume of numbers argument
Mac at his peak level (like 1984 Mac) may be able to flatten any of these 3
Lendl was the most consistent in the 80s when you had a lot of guys at their best at the top.

Agassi- well he won the career slam which is actually impressive, but the consistency was just not always there. That said if I was ranking on who I like the most Agassi would be far and away #1 of these 4.

I guess I'd go
Lendl
Connors
Mac
Agassi

But I could argue Mac and Connors being #1 as well probably

It really depends how much weight you place on certain elements. I do think #1 is a toss up between Connors and Lendl. Raw talent wise, it's Mac then Agassi, IMHO. Tho' Connors skills are very much under-estimated. He had an all court game that you don't see so much of nowadays. Much like Mac is underappreciated for his baseline skills, which were really very good, just not Agassi level. Still, at his best he could blow away Lendl and Connors, but I always felt it was led by his serve....then everything else fell into place behind it.

 

[big ted]

for me its
1. mac (becuz of doubles too)
2. connors
3. lendl
4. agassi (he won just about everything once but never really dominated, and too up and down)

 

[Mileta Cekovic]

1. Connors, Lendl - tie
3. McEnroe
4. Agassi

 

[big ted]

btw they all have 7-8 slams..
mac won all of his in a 5 year period, where it took agassi 11 years..
lendl won all his in 6 years and connors over 9 years...
now players like roger and rafa have won GS titles in 15 year span
becker actually had a long span too of 11 years like agassi (it helps if you win one at 17 tho)

 

[mike danny]

Agassi has to be last. Never had an extended period of dominance or even a dominant season unlike the others.

For 1984 alone, I have to rank Mac above Agassi.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Not to be a turd, but I don’t think the added wrinkle of a Gold Medal makes Agassi harder to rank. That ‘96 field was thinner than a flyweight.

Lendl seems to have the best mix of peak, longevity and sustained dominance. I’d put him first. Mac at his best trounces them all though, on any fast surface. Connors and Agassi jockey for third. Jimbo’s five consecutive YE number ones and 12 straight years as a Top 3 player tips the scales here, IMO.

 

[TennisLurker]

1984 was before my time, I only remember tennis from the mid 90s on. But didn't McEnroe greatly benefit from playing with a graphite racket when a lot of people were still using wood, and connors still used his weird t2000 from the 70s? to me that devaluates 1984 a bit

 

[jrepac]

1984 was before my time, I only remember tennis from the mid 90s on. But didn't McEnroe greatly benefit from playing with a graphite racket when a lot of people were still using wood, and connors still used his weird t2000 from the 70s? to me that devaluates 1984 a bit

I believe Mac switched to the Dunlop Max Ply graphite in 1983. I do think it lifted his game a bit. But Lendl switched to graphite too. As did Connors for about a year--endorsing the original Wilson Pro Staff with Evert--but then back to the T2000...a racket only he could use effectively, IMHO. He finally gave up the T2000 in '87 I believe and used Slazenger for a while. Then the infamous, bright yellow Estusa frame (I think Becker used Estusa as well?)

 

[jrepac]

Not to be a turd, but I don’t think the added wrinkle of a Gold Medal makes Agassi harder to rank. That ‘96 field was thinner than a flyweight.

Lendl seems to have the best mix of peak, longevity and sustained dominance. I’d put him first. Mac at his best trounces them all though, on any fast surface. Connors and Agassi jockey for third. Jimbo’s five consecutive YE number ones and 12 straight years as a Top 3 player tips the scales here, IMO.

The gold is a great accomplishment, but it's kind of hard to give it equal weight as if it was a slam...not when so many gaps were in the competition. HOWEVER, one could say same about AO and FO in the 70's....not always the strongest fields. It's just very different now vs. then.

 

[TennisLurker]

when did the best tennis players begin playing the olympics?
I remember Graf and Sabatini in the late 80s, so it's a pretty old thing for women. But iirc the Agassi olympic had a weak draw.
I remember Berdych upset Federer in 2004, Massu ended up winning. It was the first time Berdych did something remarkable.

 

[NAS]

Connors
Lendl
Mac
Agassi

 

[NAS]

when did the best tennis players begin playing the olympics?
I remember Graf and Sabatini in the late 80s, so it's a pretty old thing for women. But iirc the Agassi olympic had a weak draw.
I remember Berdych upset Federer in 2004, Massu ended up winning. It was the first time Berdych did something remarkable.

2008, 2012, 2016 were the only edition which was better than masters and less than yec.
Others like 2000, 2004, 2020 we're equivalent to atp 500
Others like 96 we're one like atp 250

 

[aliceinpains]

when did the best tennis players begin playing the olympics?

Sampras Played in the 92 Olympics. He lost in the 3rd round. Both Lendl and Sampras had their chances to win a Gold in their primes. So no doubt Agassi's Gold medal is huge.

 

[jrepac]

Sampras Played in the 92 Olympics. He lost in the 3rd round. Both Lendl and Sampras had their chances to win a Gold in their primes. So no doubt Agassi's Gold medal is huge.

It IS an accomplishment. Tennis in the Olympics kind of got a slow start. Not as much commitment from players as one might have expected. Capriati winning gold over Graf in Barcelona on red clay was a stand out for me.

 

[goldengate14]

1. AGASSI (GOLDEN CAREER SLAM)
2. CONNORS ( 8 majors and 109 titles and weeks at no.1)
3. MCenroe
4. Lendl (no wimbledon automatically relegates him to 4th here)

 

[goldengate14]

Agassi has to be last. Never had an extended period of dominance or even a dominant season unlike the others.

For 1984 alone, I have to rank Mac above Agassi.

Agassi has a Golden Slam. Mcenroe has less Majors and never won a career slam.
Just cannot see Mcenroe ahead of Agassi or Connors.

 

[NAS]

Agassi has to be last. Never had an extended period of dominance or even a dominant season unlike the others.

For 1984 alone, I have to rank Mac above Agassi.

Mac is ahead of Agassi any day of the week and twice on Sunday outside clay, only people who don't know about the history of tennis put agassi over Mac.
Mac usually skipped AO in his prime.
Yec and indoor was bigger and Mac won 8 yec in compare to Agassi one

 

[ChrisG]

On terms of dominance, Lendl, Connors and Mac are quite even. They all were superb in their prime. I’m surprised a lot of people put Mac behind those two.
Not so long ago I rewatched the infamous FO final against Lendl and he should have won. he was unstoppable for the first 3 sets as he played some of the finest tennis I’ve ever seen on a clay court.
Then we’ll be talking of a very different order.
Agassi, my childhood hero, is undoubtedly a step below

 

[goldengate14]

Mac is ahead of Agassi any day of the week and twice on Sunday outside clay, only people who don't know about the history of tennis put agassi over Mac.
Mac usually skipped AO in his prime.
Yec and indoor was bigger and Mac won 8 yec in compare to Agassi one

Agassi has the Golden Career Slam and more Majors!! How on earth is Mcenroe ahead? Connors is ahead of Mcenroe as well.

 

[big ted]

1984 was before my time, I only remember tennis from the mid 90s on. But didn't McEnroe greatly benefit from playing with a graphite racket when a lot of people were still using wood, and connors still used his weird t2000 from the 70s? to me that devaluates 1984 a bit

alot of players were switching around that time, and mac still lost to scanlon at 83 USO who was still playing with a wood racquet so idk if it helped him that much lol..
if anyone had an advantage id thought it would be lendl using his graphite/kevlar std plus frame as early as 1978/79 when everyone else was using wood?
it had to have helped him considering he was able to use that same racquet up until maybe 1991?

 

[NAS]

Agassi has the Golden Career Slam and more Majors!! How on earth is Mcenroe ahead? Connors is ahead of Mcenroe as well.

What more majors? Plz, Mac has 7 slam, around 20 masters level titles, 8 yec level and more overall titles, he didn't participate in the AO in his peak years.
Agassi has 8 slam, 14 master level title, and one yec and overall less title

 

[goldengate14]

What more majors? Plz, Mac has 7 slam, around 20 masters level titles, 8 yec level and more overall titles, he didn't participate in the AO in his peak years.
Agassi has 8 slam, 14 master level title, and one yec and overall less title

Agassi has 8 majors Mcenroe 7. When did m1000 get elevated to Majors?

 

[Deleted member 771911]

Lendl. Agassi. Connors. The other one.

 

[goldengate14]

Lendl. Agassi. Connors. The other one.

Agassi has to be top.

 

[aliceinpains]

Mac usually skipped AO in his prime.

So did Agassi. He won the AO the very first year he participated(95), which is impressive. Agassi also skipped Wimbledon tourneys in his prime.

 

[NAS]

So did Agassi. He won the AO the very first year he participated(95), which is impressive. Agassi also skipped Wimbledon tourneys in his prime.

Lol, plz tell me which AO agassi was winning before 95 or even Wimbledon 92.
While AO has not great winners before 83, and was played on grass, Mac, Connors and Borg till 84 have been heavy favorite, specially if AO like today was first slam, as AO timing was also wrong for them.
This is biggest misconception between Agassi blind fans that Agassi is winning tons of AO before 95