Agassi has made up the all time list in the long autumn of his career since 1999. I remember a top 100 list in 'Tennis Match' in 1999, where they ranked him at 35. Maybe crucial for a higher ranking is imo the year 1995. If you inspect it closer, it was a very close race between Sampras, Agassi and Muster for Nr.1 spot. I know, that Sampras got the top computer spot, and that Agassi himself said, that the USO final was decisive. But it can be a case made for Agassi as top player. He was more consistent than Sampras, won 8 (i think) titles vs. 4 or 5, and had a 3-2 head to head. And even in the majors, Agassi had the edge. Although Pete won 2 and 1 final, but lost 1 round RG, Agassi was at least in all quarters, winning AO, runner up USO, sf Wimbie, qf RG. So, if the computer system (only top 14 finshes counted)would not have given Sampras the chance to cancel the bad RG result, Agassi may have been come out on top. I remember, that at the end of the year, at Paris Bercy, Agassi gave up the race with a minor injury. He didn't play at the Master Cup, either. Had he played and with a few points had secured the Nr. 1 spot 95, it could be a different, higher ranking for him now. Sampras would not have had his important 6 year streak, either.
Where to put Agassi on historical ladder?
- Thread starter urban
- Start date
Agassi was one of the greatest players of his era and that's about the sum of it. Beyond that it's only speculation, although that is an enjoyable pastime with any sport. A definitive greatest of all time is impossible although I do think three players stand head and shoulders above all others: Laver, Borg and Sampras.
At the end of the day all we can fall back on are the accomplishments of the player and the winner of two Grand Slams is, as far as Im concerned, the single greatest accomplishment (as opposed to greatest player, which we can't logically judge) in men's tennis history. The next greatest accomplishment is, in my opinion, winning 6 French Opens and 5 Wimbledons, including 3 times back to back (remember, Laver did it when he was on the way up and one the way down: he never got the chance to do it in his prime).
Winning the most majors is a great accomplishment but I don't afford it the same weight as the other two, especially when it doesn't include even one win at the French. Ditto for winning a 'career grand slam'. It is a fantastic accomplishment but it doesn't come close to equalling the first two. Neither does the most weeks spent at number 1. Allthough it certainly does count for something it does only count for the last 30-odd years.
So, as far as I'm concerned there's Laver (1), Borg (2), Sampras (3) and then there's daylight to the rest. Fill in the blanks however you like but, in my opinion, if you rank Agassi above Connors, McEnroe and Lendl then you're letting sentiment take the place of common sense.
At the end of the day all we can fall back on are the accomplishments of the player and the winner of two Grand Slams is, as far as Im concerned, the single greatest accomplishment (as opposed to greatest player, which we can't logically judge) in men's tennis history. The next greatest accomplishment is, in my opinion, winning 6 French Opens and 5 Wimbledons, including 3 times back to back (remember, Laver did it when he was on the way up and one the way down: he never got the chance to do it in his prime).
Winning the most majors is a great accomplishment but I don't afford it the same weight as the other two, especially when it doesn't include even one win at the French. Ditto for winning a 'career grand slam'. It is a fantastic accomplishment but it doesn't come close to equalling the first two. Neither does the most weeks spent at number 1. Allthough it certainly does count for something it does only count for the last 30-odd years.
So, as far as I'm concerned there's Laver (1), Borg (2), Sampras (3) and then there's daylight to the rest. Fill in the blanks however you like but, in my opinion, if you rank Agassi above Connors, McEnroe and Lendl then you're letting sentiment take the place of common sense.
superman1
Legend
Well, again, when Laver won the Grand Slam everything was on grass, except the French. Still an amazing accomplishment, but Agassi is the only guy to have won on all 4 completely different surfaces. Rebound Ace, clay, grass, hard court. And none of these were fluke wins either. The grass was slippery and fast and he was still returning Ivanisevic's serves with genius precision. And he followed that with a few semifinal and final appearances at Wimby, all on fast grass that suited guys like Sampras and Rafter a lot more. He should have won more French Opens, he was in a few finals before winning in '99. The guy could/can play on anything. And he did so through the 80's, 90's, and currently the 00's, when the game completely transformed. I think that's one of the biggest accomplishments in tennis, right up there with 2 Grand Slams, 6 French Opens and 5 Wimbledons, and 14 Grand Slams.
Agassi is easily #4 all time for me. Federer will overtake him someday soon and he'll be pushed to #5. Maybe Sampras and Laver and Borg will also be pushed back.
Agassi is easily #4 all time for me. Federer will overtake him someday soon and he'll be pushed to #5. Maybe Sampras and Laver and Borg will also be pushed back.
superman1,
The reason why I don't subscribe to that theory (different surfaces today = tougher to win) is simply because, in days gone by, every single player in the draw had a game tailored to the one surface (excusing those few die-hard claycourters). Makes it harder to dominate one event, especially when you've got a field that includes people like Ashe, Newcombe, Smith, etc. That being said, there is a substantial difference between grasscourts at Wimbledon, Australia and the US Open (Wimbledon plays true but medium-low, Australia plays fast and higher bounce, US Open played like a ploughed field with the worst bounces of the lot) so, although you're playing on grass that's pretty much where the similarities end.
I take nothing away from Agassi's achievement but it's an accomplishment you can really only compare to players of the last 20 years, not all-time.
The reason why I don't subscribe to that theory (different surfaces today = tougher to win) is simply because, in days gone by, every single player in the draw had a game tailored to the one surface (excusing those few die-hard claycourters). Makes it harder to dominate one event, especially when you've got a field that includes people like Ashe, Newcombe, Smith, etc. That being said, there is a substantial difference between grasscourts at Wimbledon, Australia and the US Open (Wimbledon plays true but medium-low, Australia plays fast and higher bounce, US Open played like a ploughed field with the worst bounces of the lot) so, although you're playing on grass that's pretty much where the similarities end.
I take nothing away from Agassi's achievement but it's an accomplishment you can really only compare to players of the last 20 years, not all-time.
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
(I know this POV is almost "sacrilegious" here, but ...) I believe those who place Sampras on the same level of Laver and Borg are influenced by their own sentiment.AndrewD said:
Agreed.
Agreed.
We do not agree. I believe the "career slam" -- especially these days with multiple surfaces -- is *quite* significant. (Although you make a good point that the "Grass" was quite different at the three "old time" grass Slams.)
I think there's a legitimate argument that "there's daylight" after Laver and Borg. But if you rank Sampras at such a "lofty" position "you're letting sentiment take the place of common sense."
(This is admittedly "hair splitting." Which is why I prefer the Tiered approach, as earlier posted.)
- KK
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
Yeah as soon as I made my last post I started going through atptennis(should've just gone to your site), because I figured with the AO not really being a major in the 70s that Borg/Connors would have great runs at the majors they entered.
The Connors streak of slam SF's & QF's is pretty amazing, from '76 US Open to '80 US Open he made the semis of every slam he entered-11 straight
When you look at everything(time at #1, consistency at slams, total titles), not just # of slams won, Connors should be ranked above Agassi on any list.
inyourface
Rookie
from my very poin of view I have to make a difference,more 'GS Not equal Best Player',for me the top level of play that I saw ever....is:
J.Mac. A.A. and Fed..for skill at play,for more incredible form of play,...blah blah....another thing is to win titles...then I put the same list of other people.
J.Mac. A.A. and Fed..for skill at play,for more incredible form of play,...blah blah....another thing is to win titles...then I put the same list of other people.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
I don't think so many writers who know more about tennis than we could dream of, that place Sampras along Laver & Borg are biased. Steve Flink(who is one of the most knowledgable writers on the history of tennis) in his book Greatest Matches of the 20th Century(great book for those that want to learn more about the history of the sport) ranked Sampras at #1, above Borg & Laver in his 'best players of the century' list. And this book was published at the end of '99 when Sampras 'only' had 12 majors.
I think you & AndrewD are getting too caught up the 'most majors' part of Sampras as being the only reason he is regarded so highly.
As urban & chaognosis(2 of the best posters here & probably the most informed as far as the history of the game go) have said many times the fact that Sampras won 7 Wimbledons & was #1 for 6 years are the most important aspects of his career, not the total majors part.
Since the beginning of the century, Wimbledon has been the most important title in tennis. Winning it multiple times is a major factor in ranking great players. When Borg won 3 straight '76-78(eventually 5) it was a monumental achievement, since no one had done it since Fred Perry. Sampras was the 1st to 3 peat after Borg & the 1st to 4 peat. A player that won 7 Wimbledons in any other era would be an instant candidate for greatest ever. Imagine if Jack Kramer, Don Budge, Tony Trabert or anyone did that in the 40s/50s. We'd still be talking about it, there would a statue of them at the US Open. Sampras won more Wimbledons than Becker & McEnroe combined! That is an amazing fact, considering those guys were so great on grass.
Also the #1. Yes the computer only started in '73. But there was a yearly ranking list since the 20s put out by international tennis writers. Sampras' 6 straight years would also be a monumental achievement in any era. Not sure if anyone has ever been #1 for longer, at any point in history.
I think you may be a bit biased if you don't consider Sampras on the level of Laver/Borg, you can't dismiss his achievements which would be highly regarded in any era.
One other stat on Borg/Sampras. In the open era, only Borg & Sampras have won majors in 8 straight years. No other player had even done this more than 4 straight years.
Sampras & Borg are the only open era players to win 4 or more majors at the same venue twice(Sampras at W & US, Borg at French & W)
And far as longevity goes, Sampras & Rosewall are the the only players in history(not just open era) who won majors as a teenager, in their 20s, & in their 30s)
Sampras was also #1 seed at 23 majors in the open era, a record. Lendl was 2nd with 18.
A player of Sampras' calibur is a rare thing, I think that Federer (another rare champion) has come along so soon after had made many fans forget this. Also you might be biased because Sampras' game is "one-dimensional" as you've said earlier. Maybe it is(many said the same about Pancho Gonzalez), but that can't change the fact that his resume is almost unequaled in the history of the sport.
Connors did have a long career and a very large number of minor titles, however it's the slams that really matter and in that respect Connors does not stand out above Agassi.
Jimmy had a great return of service. Andre's is better. Jimmy hit great shots from the baseline. Andre can do the same only better. Andre has an infinitely better serve than Jimmy ever had.
Jimmy had a great return of service. Andre's is better. Jimmy hit great shots from the baseline. Andre can do the same only better. Andre has an infinitely better serve than Jimmy ever had.
chaognosis
Semi-Pro
Moose Malloy said:
I think you are exactly right. Agassi may have won all four majors, but Connors won majors on every surface as well -- and didn't compete at the French during his best years (I would put money on him winning there in 1974, at the very least, thus giving him a true Grand Slam). When one factors in all the data, as you mentioned, Connors clearly belongs not only above Agassi, but a full tier above Agassi, if one goes by the popular tiered approach.
chaognosis
Semi-Pro
paterson said:
This is very debatable. Ask urban.
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
Of course I'm biased. (The years on TT -- reading all the impassioned arguments about Pete as "GOAT" have influenced me greatly. I used to scoff at him as a "stat hunter." I'm beginning to appreciate his accomplishments lots more. My point here is, I've moved from not even considering him to be in the Top 20 Over History ... to being in Tier I. Geez! Give me *some* credit....)Moose Malloy said:
That's it! I used to think of Pete as "just another Pancho." Maybe in 20 more years I'll share your bias....
- KK
Hops said:
Connors made 6 straight Slam finals that he entered from 74-75, since he was banned from the French in 74 and skipped it in 75. If you extend it to 78, Connors made 11 finals in 12 Slam appearance, the one miss in 76 at Wimbledon when he was upset by Tanner. So, from 74-75 he made 6 straight, and from 76 US to 78 US he made 5 straight. That's pretty damn consistent!!!
beernutz
Hall of Fame
urban said:
Well just to stir the pot, throw this into the equation:
Head to Head Matches at Slams
http://www.tennis28.com/slams/headtohead.html
I'll give this a shot.
My criteria
1. Greatness at peak
2. Level of rivals (I think you judge the greatness of a player by his rivals)
3. Career achievement (longevity, # GS won)
I left out all the old timers except for Laver since they were all before my time. I would consider Laver the best since he won 2 GS's
Tier 1 - Laver, Sampras, Borg, Big Mac (I'm a little bias since he was my favorite player growing up, but I put him here due to what he did when Borg, Connors, Lendl were all going strong), (I consider them the greatest player during their generation)
Tier 2 - Connors, Lendl (both great but neither were as dominant as Borg/Mac at their peaks
Tier 3 - Edberg, Wilander, Becker, Agassi (All great but never became a dominant #1 for a period like the guys above them)
This is based on court results. As a figure in tennis history, Agassi would rank much higher due to his popularity and impact. I remember when he first arrived, I didn't like him much because he was more hype/image than results. That mullet and denim shorts were horrible. Now I very much respect him for transforming himself into a great professional on/off the courts.
His retirement will be a sad day for tennis, especially American tennis. It marks the end of a good era for tennis, the last of the fab4.
My criteria
1. Greatness at peak
2. Level of rivals (I think you judge the greatness of a player by his rivals)
3. Career achievement (longevity, # GS won)
I left out all the old timers except for Laver since they were all before my time. I would consider Laver the best since he won 2 GS's
Tier 1 - Laver, Sampras, Borg, Big Mac (I'm a little bias since he was my favorite player growing up, but I put him here due to what he did when Borg, Connors, Lendl were all going strong), (I consider them the greatest player during their generation)
Tier 2 - Connors, Lendl (both great but neither were as dominant as Borg/Mac at their peaks
Tier 3 - Edberg, Wilander, Becker, Agassi (All great but never became a dominant #1 for a period like the guys above them)
This is based on court results. As a figure in tennis history, Agassi would rank much higher due to his popularity and impact. I remember when he first arrived, I didn't like him much because he was more hype/image than results. That mullet and denim shorts were horrible. Now I very much respect him for transforming himself into a great professional on/off the courts.
His retirement will be a sad day for tennis, especially American tennis. It marks the end of a good era for tennis, the last of the fab4.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
chaognosis said:
You are using the possibility that Connors may have won the French Open in '74 for a true Grand Slam to swing the vote in favor of Connors over Agassi.
So we must now use the same thinking for no reason other than consistency and fairness when judging Laver.
Let begin, according to sources here, Laver achieved Grand Slams at the beginning and tail end of his career but due to the tour structure back then he was unable to compete during his prime years. But to be consistent and fair, you'd put money on Laver to win at the very least one more grand slam during the years between his actual grandslams. So as a minimum Laver has 15 slams but more probably 19 or 23 slams.
So the winner is Laver.
Kaptain Karl said:
Karl,
I don't disagree with you on that. Definately not made out of sentiment but more a conciliatory approach which wasn't at all necessary.
Truth is, in our sport the Grand Slam is sacrosanct and it has to take precedence over titles won. As a result, in terms of accomplishment, Budge has to be in the top three. If it was easier to win it back in his day because the competition wasn't as tough then more people would have done it. A few came close but tha is the difference between the greatest accomplishments and the rest - doing it as opposed to coming close.
Winning a career Slam doesn't carry the same weight, although I do agree, you can argue it is more significant as an accomplishment (which is a thing, not a person) than winning the most majors.
How about adding a career slam as runner-up? Laver managed that as well LOL
chaognosis
Semi-Pro
AAAA said:
I have long cast my vote for Laver, with Tilden perhaps a close second. But the reasoning cannot be hypothetical major title counts. I was merely speculating about Connors on account of his winning the US Open on clay and his victory on clay over Borg prior to the 1974 French Open. Laver's numbers don't need any assistance from you or me; his two Grand Slams and dominance on the Pro tour make the case plenty well in my mind. I do think the speculation runs into some trouble with Laver, furthermore, because just as one could say that Laver should have won another Grand Slam in the mid-60s, one can also say he shouldn't have won the Grand Slam in '62, since the best players in the world then were also Pros and thus not competing (particularly Rosewall, who was Laver's master until 1964). I don't know how many majors Laver would have won had he played in a different era, but if we take the real numbers we have -- looking at both his record in traditional major championships and the Pro championships -- it's remarkable in its own right. The same can be said for Rosewall. Gonzalez is a player whose record in traditional majors is perhaps unimpressive, but whose record on the Pro tour (and especially at the US Pro champs) is astonishing.
federerhoogenbandfan said:
All four are really close and tough to order. I put Connors over Lendl because of they both won the same number of majors, but Connors was more dominant at his peak (Lendl never had a year like Connors' 99-4 year) and also had much greater longevity like Agassi. I put Agassi over McEnroe because of 1 more slam and winning all four grand slams.
As for Federer over Wilander, I see that one pretty clearly actually. I see a bit of a gap from the Connors, Lendl, Agassi, and McEnroe group and the Wilander, Becker, and Edberg group. However, I actually think Federer is already closer to the above group than the below at this point. Wilander had that one great year, but Federer had an even better year. And to top it off, his 2005 was much much better than Wilander's 2nd best year. Not to mention his complete dominance over the field for at least 2 and a half years, something that Wilander never did. Wilander was never really on top of the game for long, he was always behind Lendl it seems.
urban said:
Interesting stuff about the different ranking system back in 1995, I had no idea it was different than now (I didn't really follow tennis too closely until the last couple years). But I think that regardless of that, Sampras deserved that #1 spot in 1995. If they had used the current system and Agassi had finished #1, I do feel that he would have deserved that.
On another note, I disagree that Agassi had the edge in the majors that year.
Wondertoy
Professional
Agassi is the luckiest of the almost greats. He achieved his career slam because Medvedev and Goran choked. Four of his slams are Aussies which garners the weakest field compared to the other slams. Besides, Sampras scooled him at the USOpen and Wimbledon, the two most important great slams.
Wondertoy said:
With regards to the Australian Open titles, keep in mind that Agassi beat Sampras in one final. Also, remember that in 2000 Agassi beat Sampras in a great semifinal, and in 2001 he beat Rafter in another great semifinal.
Don't judge the Aus Open by the quality of its finals. Some of the matches leading up to it have been some of the best in recent memory -- those two I just mentioned, plus Safin over Agassi in 2004, Safin over Federer in 2005, Roddick over ??? in that match with the marathon 5th set in 2003, Federer over Haas this year, etc.
BaseLineBash
Hall of Fame
What!? Listen bud, slams are two week events, you just don't walk into a slam and automaticly make it to the final. In the French final in '99 Agassi was down 2 sets, there was no luck involved. Gilbert told him during the rain delay that he was the better than Medvedev and to bring it. That final was not about luck my friend, that final was about realization.Wondertoy said:
superman1
Legend
Even if Medvedev choked, which is not true, but even if that was the case, it doesn't make Agassi lucky. If anything, Agassi was very unlucky. He was the one who choked in his first 3 Slam finals, 2 at the French. He didn't play the Aussie Open until '95, won it on his first attempt beating Sampras in the final. He didn't have any commitment to tennis for years, totally underachieved. He came back as the fittest player on the tour. How can you call him lucky?
jbdbackfan
Semi-Pro
Top 3
I agree on the point about how Agassi is better that Pete. Its not just the game and your skills, but how you present yourself and what others think. Pete was amazing, and won lots more than Agassi, but Andre's persona and presense with his game I think has a bit of a greater push than Sampras.
I agree on the point about how Agassi is better that Pete. Its not just the game and your skills, but how you present yourself and what others think. Pete was amazing, and won lots more than Agassi, but Andre's persona and presense with his game I think has a bit of a greater push than Sampras.
To Agassi 1995. The loss to Pete Sampras at USO 95 was maybe the most costly loss in his career for an overall ranking. It was a bit tough luck, because he was a bit flat, after his tough sf vs Becker, played the evening before (they played the second sf after the womens final then).He had won 4 titles in the summer up to Flushing and was clearly ahead in the computer ranking, but then lost all interest for almost 2 years. He skipped the important autumn indoors without a fight for Nr.1. Interesting, that single matches can decide or at least weight heavily in consideration of an overall ranking of a whole career. I think, Connors' win over Lendl 83 at USO (which weights heavily in a comparison Connors-Lendl), Mac's loss to Lendl RG 84 (which prevented Mac from certain top five alltime) or Sampras loss to Courier RG 94 (when his was on a high wave with his best chance for RG) had similar effects for other top contenders.
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
"What's next for Andre?"
Andre has done well for himself in more ways than just his tennis record. He, or his financial advisors, has taken care of his family's future very well, too. Appreciating his leadership to help out Bjorn Borg, I can imagine him taking the lead on guiding the next generation of Pros with financial management and planning.
"Hmmm...."
- KK
