Where does Agassi rank on your GOAT list?

[GameSampras]

While Andre was inconsistent for the major part of his career and didnt have that dominance that some of other other greats had there is no denying his impact and the grand slams he achieved and how his game could translate well to any surface.

Where does Andre rank on your GOAT list?

 

[Marcos]

He doesn't make the list.

 

[pc1]

While Andre was inconsistent for the major part of his career and didnt have that dominance that some of other other greats had there is no denying his impact and the grand slams he achieved and how his game could translate well to any surface.

Where does Andre rank on your GOAT list?

I don't think he's in the top ten. Andre's a great player but he took too many years off. He also was not that mentally strong. In a big match against a Sampras for example, you would often get the feeling he thought Pete would win if Pete was playing well.

Andre has great strokes but Sampras mentioned in his book that if he got Andre running that he felt he (Sampras) would win most of the points because of his superior athleticism and movement.

You have to give him a lot of points for winning every Grand Slam title but Roy Emerson did that too and very few true experts rate Emerson in the top ten. Andre, to his credit did win his Grand Slam titles under the toughest of competition unlike Emerson.

Just off the top of my head I would probably rate Tilden, Budge, Kramer, Gonzalez, Laver, Rosewall, Federer, Sampras, Nadal, Borg, Connors, Lendl and McEnroe over him. It's a tough choice and no one would laugh if he's placed in the top ten. Nadal is a projection but I do think he's better now than Andre ever was and will have a better career than Andre.

 

[grafselesfan]

Below Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, Federer, Sampras, Laver, Borg, Rosewall, Tilden, Connors, McEnroe, Kramer, Perry, Cochet, Nadal and LaCoste.

 

[boredone3456]

Andre is probably my Favorite male Tennis player that I have actually gotten to watch live. I grew up watching him and he is a true champion....that being said he doesn't rate in the top 10 for me. While a career slam is a big accomplishment, I'd still put (in no particular order) Fed, Sampras, Laver, Tilden, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Gonzalez, McEnroe and Rosewall ahead of him.

Highest I'd give Andre off the top of my head would be #11, but if I dug into it he might end up further down. I like him, But I really think he spent to many years in his younger days being a Rebel and doing the whole "image is everything" thing. I know the Australian wasn't always a big deal back then, but he skipped Wimbledon in '88, '89, and '90 and up until 1994 I really don't think he commited himself to his full potential and that stalled him in getting results and then off course there were his injuries and health later in his career that really curtailed him to. I agree with PC1 in that when he played Sampras, you always got the feeling that if Pete was on, Pete was going to win unless Agassi had a god like day. Agassi was a good player, but not as good as many others.

 

[mg.dc]

In my subjective opinion, he is the GOAT.

Relfecting on Roddick's remark regarding Andre, namely, Andre's influence on the game at a transitional point in tennis history: in my view, Andre did more for the sport than any other player of past or present eras, in particular as the sport progressed into the modern game we have today.

Has anyone received the standing ovation Andre received his last day on court?

Again, this is my partial opinion, however I feel it is reasonable considering that the GOAT status is in the first place a subjective thing anyway.

 

[grafrules]

He is a top 20 player all time. He is definitely a great player and it is amazing and terrific he was able to salvage so much of his lost potential at such a late age, and become even a second tier all time great when he seemed set to retire as a massive underachiever with only 3 slams and ended with some horrible years for him in sequence. To pull himself up so late in his career and pull his career up so far from what it would have ended like was something to admire. That being said it was still too late to recover all the lost potential he lost out on by not being as focused and commited as he should have been in what should have been some of his gravy years so to speak.

I think the 1995 U.S Open final loss was devastating for him. I think if he won that things may have been totally different. 1996-1998 are more of what should have been his prime years, and 1996 wasnt much to write off, 1997 was a disaester of worst proportions, and 1998 was a hard fought comeback year which took him to 1998 but realistically was never going to amount to too much great on its own just yet as he had too far to come back from.

 

[380pistol]

I have him in the top 20.

 

[urban]

Agassi is a quite difficult proposition. On the pro side he has the most complete record of all Open era players, including all four majors, the Masters (record wins there), the Olympics, the DC and so on. Lendl once ranked him alongside Laver (with his Grand Slams) and Sampras (with majors wins), because he won all four majors - a thing, that Lendl himself missed despite all his tries at Wim. And he had an exceptionally long career, holding his Championship form until his mid-thirties, which only Connors did in modern times.
On the down side, Agassi had many holes in his career, and never ranked undisputed Nr. 1 on the scene for at least two years in succession. Here he is clearly behind people like Lendl, Connors and McEnroe, not to speak of Sampras. And he never was really dominant, as Borg or Federer were. Maybe indeed the 1995 season was a watershed in his career. If he had won the USO and had gone through strongly until 2000, he would surely have a higher place in the pantheon of greats. So i would rank him just outside of the top ten alltime, a bit behind the players mentioned above, on par with Emerson, maybe Perry.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

well. it's the eternal question... as you can see, tennis gurus here rate Mr Kramer above him when mr Kramer did the gargantuan achievment of winning 3 Slams...

so i'm about to see pigs riding bycicles...

 

[hoodjem]

In the top-20 I believe, but fairly low--maybe 18 or 19th.


whir whir oink oink

A career slam isn't worthless; it is four slams, but that's about it.

 

[dtrain]

Andre is my favorite player of all-time, but I can't rank him above players that own more grand slams than he does. But, the impact Andre had on the game cannot be denied. I think Andre might have been the greatest icon tennis has ever had up until this point.

 

[NotSoSuper]

hes number 8 in my top 10 list.

if it wasnt for his plummit in the rankings im sure hed have been top 5. he just wasnt able to sustain his level of play to really be included as one of the "all time best".

 

[grafselesfan]

I do think he is still a great player and underrated by some on this board. His career slam was an amazing achievement. He got lucky at the 1999 French but was unlucky to not win the 1991 French Open as the rain delay almost surely altered the outcome there. So the two cancel each other out in a way. I wish I could rate him even higher on the list since with his talent he should have been, but those lost years in 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998 really hurt him despite still an amazing career.

 

[Tennis Dunce]

I've got him at #17...right below Edberg.

 

[egn]

Below Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, Federer, Sampras, Laver, Borg, Rosewall, Tilden, Connors, McEnroe, Kramer, Perry, Cochet, Nadal and LaCoste.

That and Lendl basically all of those ahead of him its debatable but either way he is somewhere between 17-20

 

[tonyg11]

top 10 no question about it... Some of you guys dust off ancient corpses like they were the pharos of tennis.

 

[clayman2000]

Below Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, Federer, Sampras, Laver, Borg, Rosewall, Tilden, Connors, McEnroe, Kramer, Perry, Cochet, Nadal and LaCoste.

I have him below everyone you have there except for the last three Cochet, Nadal, and Lacoste.

I believe Nadal will almost certainly pass him when he finished this year at no 1, and wins another non-clay slam, but as of right now not yet. Cochet and lacoste won slams on only 1 surface. I know this was becuase of cirmumstance, but i highly doubt they would have won GS's on clay and slow hard. Agassi despite some bad years, was able to win eveywhere. The fact that he made a GS final and finished in the top 10 at age 35 doesnt hurt either.

I would put him then at tied for 13 with Lendl and McEnroe. I know people will dispute this, but you also cant look past his effect on the game.

As for his 4 wins at the AO, its not like this was the 70's. By his time, all top players went to Austrailia. Ironically, he was one of the last to skip the event.

 

[vandre]

well. it's the eternal question... as you can see, tennis gurus here rate Mr Kramer above him when mr Kramer did the gargantuan achievment of winning 3 Slams...

so i'm about to see pigs riding bycicles...

nice gorecki! you are my bro!!!!!

 

[Azzurri]

LOL..yea, let's rate a guy that played 70 years before him (Tilden) and played a completely different game. Its a joke to rate a player from many year's ago because not only has the game changed, but the players have also. If anyone wants to rate Agassi amongst the greats, lets try to keep it amongst people we have seen or at the very least not ages and ages ago.

Agassi is one of the greatest players to step foot on the court (since 1968). The guy not only won 8 majors, but played 20 years on the tour and was in the top 10 for 16 years out of 21 and only finished outside the top 100 ONCE. It really pains me all the garbage that people throw out about someone they never seen play (I am talking about Agassi). He did beat Pete 14 times, more than any other pro so that says something. Pete was confident against him, but who was he not?

Agassi is an all-time great because he played in an incredible time in tennis and within 3 decades...people on this board are completely clueless.

Not in the top 10?????????? WHATEVER!:shock:

 

[Azzurri]

top 10 no question about it... Some of you guys dust off ancient corpses like they were the pharos of tennis.

exactly. It amazes me how people bring guys from the 1920's out to rate them...an absolute joke.

 

[JoshDragon]

Not sure at this point. Maybe Top 10 or top 15. Borg, Connors, Laver, Sampras, Federer, Rosewall, are all well ahead of him.

 

[380pistol]

LOL..yea, let's rate a guy that played 70 years before him (Tilden) and played a completely different game. Its a joke to rate a player from many year's ago because not only has the game changed, but the players have also. If anyone wants to rate Agassi amongst the greats, lets try to keep it amongst people we have seen or at the very least not ages and ages ago.

Agassi is one of the greatest players to step foot on the court (since 1968). The guy not only won 8 majors, but played 20 years on the tour and was in the top 10 for 16 years out of 21 and only finished outside the top 100 ONCE. It really pains me all the garbage that people throw out about someone they never seen play (I am talking about Agassi). He did beat Pete 14 times, more than any other pro so that says something. Pete was confident against him, but who was he not?

Agassi is an all-time great because he played in an incredible time in tennis and within 3 decades...people on this board are completely clueless.

Not in the top 10?????????? WHATEVER!:shock:

He is underestimated around here, no question. I'm not praising hm as almighty but give the guy his due. The moment you do, most people will say "you know nothing and claiming Agassi as the greatest this, that and the 5th".

They call him inconsistent, yet from 1988-2005 he finshed outside the top 10(or top 8 going into YEC) twice. 1993 (when he had a wrist injury), and 1997 (when he didn;t play in 3 slams). People talk about how he got lucky beating Becker and Ivanisevic to win Wimbledon, but praise Fed for beating Roddick and hewitt to win what... 3 of hos SW19 titles????

I mean, Becker, Courier, Sampras, Chang, Stich, Muster, Rafter, Martin, Ivanisevic, Moya (on clay), Hewitt, Kafelnikov are all top 10 (and some much higher) that Agassi has defeated in slams, But somehow he was lucky to win his 8 slams. Add up the HOF's, and slams among those he's beaten.

They just have a personal agenda against him, and it's acually quite funny, to see the lengths some will go to discredit any and everything he accomplished. 101 weeks at #1 when your main rival was there for 286 weeks and 6 straight years.

 

[rod99]

the man won the career grand slam. i don't think that gets nearly enough credit. and he won them when the slams were on 4 different surfaces. when laver/emerson/etc did it 3 out of the 4 were on grass, and hardly any of the top players played australia. he also won wimbledon as a baseliner on the fast grass which is a surface completely different than the one nadal won it on last year (and much more difficult for a baseliner). he also played against arguably the greatest competition in history. sure he was never a dominant #1 but his prime coincided with sampras' prime. and pretty much anyone would have been second fiddle to sampras anyways. i'd rate him in the top 6 - 8 for sure.

 

[Joeyg]

Despite all of the ups and downs in his career, it is very difficult to ignore the career grand slam. Three/four different surfaces? While every player of his generation failed to do the same? Top 10 definitely.

 

[Al Czervik]

He is not GOAT level with Pete, Laver, Fed, or maybe Borg. However, I am a huge Johnny Mac, Edberg, Wilander guy. I also respect what Lendl, Becker and Jimmy did. Andre is a cut above all of those '70's, '80's guys for longevity (except Jimmy, of course) and winning all four. He would be in that 5-10 range.

 

[navratilovafan]

Top 20, maybe top 15. Definitely not top 10. In the Open Era alone I would rate him below Sampras, Federer, Borg, Lendl, Connors, and McEnroe so 7th.

 

[Gemini]

He's top 5 in my list.

 

[GameSampras]

What Andre did was legendary. The career slam on 4 totally different surfaces. Grass didnt almost play like clay, it wasnt sodded to the moon, you have the rebound Ace Hardcourts, etc and a buttload of Serve volleyers. Andre could defeat ANYONE with any style of game. Yes he wasnt as dominant as some. But the who the hell was going to be in the 90s when you had Sampras there at 6 years of Number 1? Take Sampras out of the 90s for a moment and Andre gets more time at the Number 1 spot and more slams. Maybe even close to the record. So all in all. Andre's career is a definitely nothing to sneeze at. He isnt Elite, but he sure as hell is one of the best to ever play the game. No one could adapt to any court like Andre could.

There is a reason why Sampras said Andre was the best player he ever played, and Andre was the one who made him tweak his game but and devlop the best 2nd serve in history

 

[The-Champ]

I would rate André ahead of Mac, Becker, lendl Edberg, connors. André has won everything there is to win in tennis. Who gives a sh*t if he was MIA once in a while, it's his results that count.

Also as a Nadal fan, I don't agree that rafa is ahead of AA right now. That's just insane.

 

[obsessedtennisfandisorder]

for the dude who said andre got lucky in 99

anyone else think the rain delay "saved" courier...or not? to what degree.

I know it's off topic but it's great watching given almost 18 years ago;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39MR-RgCzm8

 

[rod99]

anyone else think the rain delay "saved" courier...or not? to what degree.

I know it's off topic but it's great watching given almost 18 years ago;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39MR-RgCzm8

it definitley saved him. courier even admitted it after the match. during the delay jose higueras told courier to stand much further back when returning serve and make agassi create winners. this resulted in agassi getting impatient and making a ton of errors during the last two sets.

 

[hoodjem]

top 10 no question about it... Some of you guys dust off ancient corpses like they were the pharos of tennis.

exactly. It amazes me how people bring guys from the 1920's out to rate them...an absolute joke.

The OP asked about Agassi's place on one's GOAT-list. So listing players only from the last 30 years or only players one has seen on TV is rather self-limiting.

I submit that if you are going to limit player-lists, then it should be to players one has seen live in person. You can't tell squat from that small box with its three-inch simulacra made of glowing dots.

 

[drakulie]

I think Suzanne Lenglen is ahead of Agassi. :roll:

 

[pc1]

The OP asked about Agassi's place on one's GOAT-list. So listing players only from the last 30 years or only players one has seen on TV is rather self-limiting.

I submit that if you are going to limit player-lists, then it should be to players one has seen live in person. You can't tell squat from that small box with its three-inch simulacra made of glowing dots.

I don't think that you can limit greatness to the last 30 years or so. If we used the example of baseball, by that logic Nolan Ryan didn't throw hard at all, yet we know he threw in the mid 90's when he was in his 40's and over 100 miles per hour in his physical prime in the late 1960's to early 1970's. Tom Seaver by the same logic would throw only 70 mph.

We can't be partial to any era. Gonzalez, at 6'3 1/2 inches would serve pretty well today I would think and I think Andre would return serve pretty well with wood rackets in the 1950's.

Incidentally it amuses me to know that when Pancho was married to Andre's sister, that two players in the same family were argued to be the greatest server ever and the other the greatest returner ever.

 

[hoodjem]

^^^Pancho would have Davydenko for lunch, and Ferrer for dessert.

 

[Azzurri]

The OP asked about Agassi's place on one's GOAT-list. So listing players only from the last 30 years or only players one has seen on TV is rather self-limiting.

I submit that if you are going to limit player-lists, then it should be to players one has seen live in person. You can't tell squat from that small box with its three-inch simulacra made of glowing dots.

Its just too long of a time period. There are exceptions and baseball is one of them. Not much has changed in MLB. Players still have to swing a wooden bat at a baseball coming anywhere from 75mph to 100mph...its has always been that way. Heck, Bob Felder(?) from the Cleveland Indians was throwing something like 105 MPH way back in the 40's. To say he could not compete with today's batters is ridiculous, but tennis has changed way too much. Not saying a "talent" like Pancho could not still be a great player today, but that is not what people use to list them in history. They use what record they have and who they played within their own era. That is the issue, how can anyone be rated from people that never saw him play when the game that was played was completely different than the game since major changes happened after 1985? Babe Ruth could be compared because he is hitting a baseball with a bat just the same as other players toay. Yes, there are some slight differences in the weight of the ball, the sticthing and the bat material (type of wood), but its basically the same.

 

[drakulie]

^^^I agree.

To add, I believe Agassi wouldn't be able to return Tilden's 163 mph serve (cough) :roll: <<insert sarcastic smile here>>

 

[chaognosis]

Cochet and lacoste won slams on only 1 surface. I know this was becuase of cirmumstance, but i highly doubt they would have won GS's on clay and slow hard.

This is hilariously untrue. Both won majors on clay and grass, the two most disparate surfaces, and were among the most versatile players of all time. In fact, Cochet won the major tournament on clay no fewer than five times (including the 1922 World Clay Court Championships, the major title in continental Europe before the French Championships were opened to international competition, and four French Champs proper -- I am omitting here the 1936 French Pro Champs, which Cochet also won). He is probably the third most accomplished clay-court player ever, behind only Rosewall and Borg. Lacoste was very nearly as good, possibly better, except that health problems forced an early retirement.

 

[Azzurri]

This is hilariously untrue. Both won majors on clay and grass, the two most disparate surfaces, and were among the most versatile players of all time. In fact, Cochet won the major tournament on clay no fewer than five times (including the 1922 World Clay Court Championships, the major title in continental Europe before the French Championships were opened to international competition, and four French Champs proper -- I am omitting here the 1936 French Pro Champs, which Cochet also won). He is probably the third most accomplished clay-court player ever, behind only Rosewall and Borg. Lacoste was very nearly as good, possibly better, except that health problems forced an early retirement.

How can you possibly state this so matter of fact? Have you seen him play? Have you see his competition play?

 

[Arafel]

Its just too long of a time period. There are exceptions and baseball is one of them. Not much has changed in MLB. Players still have to swing a wooden bat at a baseball coming anywhere from 75mph to 100mph...its has always been that way. Heck, Bob Felder(?) from the Cleveland Indians was throwing something like 105 MPH way back in the 40's. To say he could not compete with today's batters is ridiculous, but tennis has changed way too much. Not saying a "talent" like Pancho could not still be a great player today, but that is not what people use to list them in history. They use what record they have and who they played within their own era. That is the issue, how can anyone be rated from people that never saw him play when the game that was played was completely different than the game since major changes happened after 1985? Babe Ruth could be compared because he is hitting a baseball with a bat just the same as other players toay. Yes, there are some slight differences in the weight of the ball, the sticthing and the bat material (type of wood), but its basically the same.

Ken Rosewall, a player from the 50s, made the Wimbledon finals at the age of 40, losing to Connors. Connors as a 39 year old made the US Open semifinals, and a few years before that took Agassi to 5 sets in the US Open quarterfinals. Agassi as a 34 year old made the US Open finals and took Federer to 4 sets. That's two degrees of separation from the 50s to the "modern" era.

People keep talking about the "modern" era and how it's changed, yet for all that, Agassi challenged Federer. I've seen Nadal play before as a 20 year old from Sweden named Bjorn Borg (their games are pretty similar; Borg hit severe topspin with a Western grip with wooden racquets strung at 80 pounds).

The point is, the best players would find a way. Just as I think Nadal would do fine with a wood racquet against other players with a wood racquet, so would players from the previous generations do fine if you gave them modern frames. Don't forget, Sampras and Agassi started with wood frames.

 

[krosero]

Ken Rosewall, a player from the 50s, made the Wimbledon finals at the age of 40, losing to Connors. Connors as a 39 year old made the US Open semifinals, and a few years before that took Agassi to 5 sets in the US Open quarterfinals. Agassi as a 34 year old made the US Open finals and took Federer to 4 sets. That's two degrees of separation from the 50s to the "modern" era.

Yes, and also there are observers who have seen many generations. And old observers talk to younger ones. That's no different than studying history of any kind.

I do think that Azzurri is right that people should not make judgments about the past if they really don't know anything about it. But if you've studied the past and you have reliable information and judgments, by all means share them.

I'm not sure why it's wrong to talk about the achievements of past generations and compare them to present achievements, anymore than it's wrong to discuss George Washington's achievements and failures and compare them to a newer president. It's all subjective, and yes, there are inter-generational differences. Plenty of things make it certain that the comparison is not easy. But there's no reason not to have the discussion, and I think you can learn something about the past from it.

 

[chaognosis]

How can you possibly state this so matter of fact? Have you seen him play? Have you see his competition play?

A) I explicitly stated a probability, not a "fact."

B) Similarly, I wrote "most accomplished," which -- for me, at least -- is not the subjective assessment of a player's style and/or that of his contemporaries, but rather a measure of what and how much he achieved. By my count, Cochet won five major championships on clay (arguably six). That puts him in a class with Rosewall, Borg, and nobody else; and whether Trabert, Lendl, Agassi, or anybody else, could hit a tennis ball harder than Lacoste or Cochet, is irrelevant w/r/t that statistic. If you have a different standard of accomplishment, then fine, but please be clear about it... Whether or not a player was seen by you (or me) is a meaningless standard, having everything to do with a player's luck to be born in one decade rather than another, and nothing to do with tennis.

 

[flying24]

This is hilariously untrue. Both won majors on clay and grass, the two most disparate surfaces, and were among the most versatile players of all time. In fact, Cochet won the major tournament on clay no fewer than five times (including the 1922 World Clay Court Championships, the major title in continental Europe before the French Championships were opened to international competition, and four French Champs proper -- I am omitting here the 1936 French Pro Champs, which Cochet also won). He is probably the third most accomplished clay-court player ever, behind only Rosewall and Borg. Lacoste was very nearly as good, possibly better, except that health problems forced an early retirement.

What about Nadal? Where does he rank in history on clay.

 

[CyBorg]

Agassi's 20th on my list of greatest players post WWI. I don't rate guys prior to that, due to a lack of information - I use some results from McCauley's book for example.

Also, greatest to me is most accomplished. It's the same for any respectable list, including that of Bill James for baseball. Exceptions can be made for the very early years, but with good reasons.

However, I consider the list to be made for fun only. Guys are easily interchangeable in some places and therefore I give only serious consideration to 'tiers' - also based on accomplishment.

 

[pc1]

Agassi's 20th on my list of greatest players post WWI. I don't rate guys prior to that, due to a lack of information - I use some results from McCauley's book for example.

Also, greatest to me is most accomplished. It's the same for any respectable list, including that of Bill James for baseball. Exceptions can be made for the very early years, but with good reasons.

However, I consider the list to be made for fun only. Guys are easily interchangeable in some places and therefore I give only serious consideration to 'tiers' - also based on accomplishment.

Studying history and giving opinions is a fact of life. Cyborg, you mentioned Bill James as a great example. Bill changed the course of baseball thinking with his study of baseball history and analysis. Baseball teams nowadays go by many of his studies.

And yes Bill did give opinions on the greatest players of all time as did Bill's great friend and sports statistician and analysis Pete Palmer. Of course Bill or Pete never saw Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth or Honus Wagner play but they studied them and analyzed their careers objectively and were able to give their opinions on their greatness or perhaps lack of greatness. Baseball, contrary to what some have said here has changed tremendously over the decades, with the strike zone changing, the height of the mounds, steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, the dead ball era, the lively ball era, different stadiums, minority involvement in baseball and a million other things I have not mentioned. I would venture to day you can argue baseball has changed as much as tennis, maybe more so. But these great baseball experts can give INFORMED objective opinions on players of the past which they have never seen.

And we all can do this in tennis. That is one of the great joys of sport, to give opinions whether they are right or wrong. We can debate and dispute each others points but we can also argue whether Henri Cochet can play well in today's game or not.

Why was Rod Laver, in his fifties able to give Ivan Lendl a battle in practice matches in the late 1980's if like some write, he couldn't compete against the modern players today if he was in his prime? Yet these same people may argue Lendl would do well now and Laver wouldn't.

It's all opinion. I think a Bill Tilden, with his physical talent, great analysis of the game and his great will to win would easily adapt to today's game and be a top player. Someone else may say Tilden would be tripled bageled by Serena Williams. I would think Tilden, if magically transported to today and given time to practice and adapt would easily crush Serena in tennis.

Let's put it this way, Serena and Venus Williams hit with tremendous power and spin with today's rackets and can serve over 120 miles per hour. Does anyone think Bill Tilden, a man over 6 feet tall (I think 6'2") wouldn't be able to hit the ball over 120 mph on serve and hit the ball on his groundies pretty well with today's rackets? Maybe, maybe not but I think he probably would. Just give Tilden some time to adjust to the new styles and rackets and I think he would do very well. It's a fun debate and we should be allowed to discuss and debate this despite the fact it was a long time ago.

I don't rank Andre in my top ten but if he didn't waste some years perhaps he could have been in the top ten.

 

[drakulie]

Like I said earlier>>> Suzanne Lenglen is the greatest male player ever. :roll:

 

[Azzurri]

Ken Rosewall, a player from the 50s, made the Wimbledon finals at the age of 40, losing to Connors. Connors as a 39 year old made the US Open semifinals, and a few years before that took Agassi to 5 sets in the US Open quarterfinals. Agassi as a 34 year old made the US Open finals and took Federer to 4 sets. That's two degrees of separation from the 50s to the "modern" era.

People keep talking about the "modern" era and how it's changed, yet for all that, Agassi challenged Federer. I've seen Nadal play before as a 20 year old from Sweden named Bjorn Borg (their games are pretty similar; Borg hit severe topspin with a Western grip with wooden racquets strung at 80 pounds).

The point is, the best players would find a way. Just as I think Nadal would do fine with a wood racquet against other players with a wood racquet, so would players from the previous generations do fine if you gave them modern frames. Don't forget, Sampras and Agassi started with wood frames.

I agree with you, you must have missed me stating the same exact thing in another post. I am making a point that you can't use 70 year old stats and player accomplishments to make a proper assessment on their skills vs. modern day players....you cannot do it.

The Rosewall, Connors and Agassi examples are not realiable. You are talking about 3 players. You do realize thousands of other players COULD NOT to what these 3 men did? Seriously, your point is completely illogical.

 

[Azzurri]

Yes, and also there are observers who have seen many generations. And old observers talk to younger ones. That's no different than studying history of any kind.

I do think that Azzurri is right that people should not make judgments about the past if they really don't know anything about it. But if you've studied the past and you have reliable information and judgments, by all means share them.

I'm not sure why it's wrong to talk about the achievements of past generations and compare them to present achievements, anymore than it's wrong to discuss George Washington's achievements and failures and compare them to a newer president. It's all subjective, and yes, there are inter-generational differences. Plenty of things make it certain that the comparison is not easy. But there's no reason not to have the discussion, and I think you can learn something about the past from it.

I think ist fine to discuss past players and their achievments with modern players. I have no issue with that and its OK to compare them based solely on that, but to rate them in a categorie of who is the best and what not is impossible and pretty silly. You can't "rate" Tilden and Sampras...cannot do it.