Lendl's serve was far better and a big weapon. But Lendl has many more weeks at #1, more titles. I think he's ahead of Andre by a nose. I tend to see Lendl and Connors tied, overall. If anything, Mac is the hard one to place. Better than Andre or not?They are pretty even. Lendl had a better serve, but Agassi had one of the best returns ever. Andre also had a better backhand, that's a significant advantage since they were both baseliners.
Lendl came a long way and was able to shake off that early label of being a 'choker'.Ivan Lendl keep improving himself physically and mentally during his career! He was the anti-culture, anti-hero tour tennis player in the 1970s-1980s. He was like the Terminator of his era!
Lendl's serve was far better and a big weapon. But Lendl has many more weeks at #1, more titles. I think he's ahead of Andre by a nose. I tend to see Lendl and Connors tied, overall. If anything, Mac is the hard one to place. Better than Andre or not?
I was focusing on their games, not the titles. If we talk about their achievements, yes, Lendl was more dominant in the 80s than Agassi in his era, but Andre on the other hand has a completed career golden slam.
As for their on-court abilities:
serve Lendl
return Agassi
forehand =
backhand Agassi
net edge Lendl?
movement =
head edge Agassi
Not sure about McEnroe. For me, all those guys are in the same tier, just different styles of play.
Thought Lendl had a goat like forehand. Yet you put equal forehand for Agassi and Lendl???
I think it's Lendl clearly. I always put a big emphasis on peak dominance, and Lendl has that over Agassi by far.
That's why I rank Agassi below Lendl, Connors, and Mac.
I was focusing on their games, not the titles. If we talk about their achievements, yes, Lendl was more dominant in the 80s than Agassi in his era, but Andre on the other hand has a completed career golden slam.
As for their on-court abilities:
serve Lendl
return Agassi
forehand =
backhand Agassi
net edge Lendl?
movement =
head edge Agassi
Not sure about McEnroe. For me, all those guys are in the same tier, just different styles of play.
I think way too much weight is placed on the Slams nowadays. Golden Slam is a great accomplishment, but there are many other factors to consider in evaluation of his career vs. Lendl. King Olaf's post of Lendl's stats vs. Andre's are pretty resounding....it's not even a matter of being ahead by a 'nose'....I take that back....it's a vast cavern of distance. It's a similar distance vs. Connors as well, who also has a pretty sweet GS collection of his own. I've always been a fan of Andre, but he really had peaks and valleys over his career
Agassi because he has more major titles 9. I consider the Olympics a major. And he won Wimbledon. All the great champions have to win the biggest event(Wimbledon).
Lendl, and I don't think it's close.
Slams won from first to last:
Agassi: 8 of 36, GS win-loss record during that period 144-28 (83.7%). Failed to reach the last sixteen at 9 of those slams.
Lendl: 8 of 23, GS win-loss record during that period 130-16 (89.0%). Never failed to reach the last sixteen at any of those slams.
Weeks at number one:
Agassi: 101
Lendl: 270
Consecutive weeks at number one:
Agassi: 52
Lendl: 157
Year end #1:
Agassi: 1
Lendl: 4, including three in a row
Year-End Championships:
Agassi: 1, + 3 finals
Lendl: 5, including 3 in a row, from nine consecutive finals, plus two more WCT Final wins
Titles won:
Agassi: 60, including 17 "M1000-equivalent"
Lendl: 94, including 22 "M1000-equivalent"
Most titles in one year:
Agassi: 7
Lendl: 15, plus five more years with at least 8
Years with a 90% win-loss record:
Agassi: 0, his best year (1995) was 89%
Lendl: 5, including three in a row from '85-'87
What does Agassi have in his favour? The career slam, I guess. And if you want it you can count the Olympic Gold, even though Lendl never had the chance to win one. 1988 I suppose, but nobody gave a damn back then. Even in 1996 it had little cachet; the Olympic men's singles draw that year featured a grand total of three players (Agassi, R1 loser Ivanisevic, and unseeded silver-medallist Sergi Bruguera) who'd ever reached a grand slam final. Seven of the top ten declined to play; no Sampras, no Chang, no Becker, no Kafelnikov, no Muster, no Krajicek, no Courier. People have been sniffing at the merits of Tokyo this past summer, but it was a damn sight more highly-regarded by the players than Atlanta was.
If you have no experience of either player then their numbers may look roughly similar on whatever spreadsheet you're using. If you're old enough to have seen them both? Lendl was a dominant champ in a way that was beyond Agassi. Andre's been lucky that his greatest achievements (career slam + Olympics) have retrospectively become more important than they were during his playing days, and I think his autobiography made today's fans more sympathetic to him. But regardless of that, I still say there's a lot of daylight between the two.
All credit to Agassi for getting the gold at the Olympics but Lendl didn't really have a country to play for.Agassi because he has more major titles 9. I consider the Olympics a major. And he won Wimbledon. All the great champions have to win the biggest event(Wimbledon).
When I saw this thread, my first thought was "duh, Lendl for sure."
Although Wilander was my favorite player in the 80s in an era filled with personalities and legends, Lendl was one of my early influences. I always admired his work ethic and Terminator-like dominance when he got on a roll. For stretches in the mid-80s, I think guys feared playing Ivan because he could make them look really bad. Plus, Lendl had a fiercely dark sense of humor and deadpan delivery in interviews.
All that said, if I had to pick which player's game and career that I'd rather have, for me personally, I'd pick Agassi's. The flashy forehand and backhand, the ability to win the career Grand Slam on all surfaces, the gold medal, the Davis Cup championships, and the longevity of winning titles from the 1980s to the 2000s, not to mention the marketing hype and fandom... I think I'd rather be Andre. Plus Andre married Brooke Shields and Steffi Graf, which puts him in GOAT territory for tennis spouses.
In the era of Edberg, McEnroe, Navratilova, Borg, Noah, Mecir, Mandlikova, Sabatini, Cash, Graf... your favorite player was Wilander, so I am curious enough to ask - why?
Looks objectively like Lendl with info in the above posts, but somehow I still feel like Agassi is in there…I guess because so much is put on winning all 4 gs’s and Lendl just couldn’t pull it off…and there’s the rub that’s always used against Sampras, Becker, Edberg, Mac, etc, etc.
I think those of us who lived/watched both of them agree. Lendl's achievements are greater, even w/out the W title.Wow!
Yeah, I don't see what Andre's case is here...
I think those of us who lived/watched both of them agree. Lendl's achievements are greater, even w/out the W title.
Well, sure, he might murder Agassi (or Connors) and snatch one away, but nonetheless, his career --- overall---is better than Andre's. The numbers are far and away in his favor, W or no W.I don't even think Lendl would agree with this. He would give his left arm for Andre's Wimbledon trophy
I'm not sure if they started slowing it down in '92 with the thicker grass...I actually thought that came a little later. Anyone's memory better than mine?If the grass Agassi won on was the same as what Llendl had to contend with, well guess what ... Ivan would have dismantled Pat Cash
Well, sure, he might murder Agassi (or Connors) and snatch one away, but nonetheless, his career --- overall---is better than Andre's. The numbers are far and away in his favor, W or no W.
Disagree. No great, all time player can ever be regarded as one of the best without winning the most prestigious events in their sports. Thats why some of Andre's tennis cards sell for thousands. While Lendl's rookie cards sell for peanuts. Most everyone would rather have Andre's career than Lendl's. "Wimbledon champion" and "Gold medal" looks better on a tombstone than anything Lendl ever accomplished." That's a fact. Not an opinion.
Disagree. No great, all time player can ever be regarded as one of the best without winning the most prestigious events in their sports. Thats why some of Andre's tennis cards sell for thousands. While Lendl's rookie cards sell for peanuts. Most everyone would rather have Andre's career than Lendl's. "Wimbledon champion" and "Gold medal" looks better on a tombstone than anything Lendl ever accomplished." That's a fact. Not an opinion.
Disagree. No great, all time player can ever be regarded as one of the best without winning the most prestigious events in their sports.
I agree. I mean, for the love of tradition, Wimby will always be Wimby... but in kinda my own humorous way, I've kinda always see USO as the direct inversion of Wimbledon and both of them as the perfect reflection of the differences between the Americans and the Brits. And both representing very different but equally valid challenges to test a player's greatness.Might be a controversial opinion, but to me, the USO is every bit as meaningful as Wimby.