Are you ready folks? Lendl vs. Agassi, who's greater?!? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Are you ready folks? Lendl vs. Agassi, who's greater?!?

Pages : [1] 2

Rogiman
09-17-2007, 09:14 PM
I'd have to go with Lendl here :cool:

World Beater
09-17-2007, 09:15 PM
:haha:

this is like 3234324th thread.

lendl >agassi

Rogiman
09-17-2007, 09:16 PM
:haha:

this is like 3234324th thread.
I hope this thread reaches a similar number of responses :)

*Viva Chile*
09-17-2007, 09:16 PM
Agassi leave a legacy through three different generations, and won the 4 slams. So Andre has the advantage.

l_mac
09-17-2007, 09:18 PM
:lol:

Seriously though, how long till Madrid?

Agassi for me, but I don't claim to be objective in this case.

Rogiman
09-17-2007, 09:20 PM
Agassi almost always played second fiddle to someone else, be it Sampras, Kuerten or Hewitt.
He only managed to finish one year at the top, and won the YEC once, before he even won his first Slam.

Lendl was clearly the most dominant player of the 80's, finished 4 years at the top and won numerous YEC's, where you're measured against the top.

R.Federer
09-17-2007, 09:21 PM
Agassi with the career slam has an edge I would say.

In charisma terms, Lendl of course :)

World Beater
09-17-2007, 09:23 PM
agassi will be remembered as greater..but this was more due to his off-court soap operas and his relationship with the fans etc.

but lendl was a greater player...thats what the results say

stebs
09-17-2007, 09:36 PM
Comfortably Lendl. He is in the top 5 open era players for sure.

Byrd
09-17-2007, 09:39 PM
Easily Lendl, 8 US opens in a row, YEC plenty of times, and the 8 slams he did lose were all to great players, borg,connors,mcenroe,wilander,becker.

l_mac
09-17-2007, 09:40 PM
Comfortably Lendl. He is in the top 5 open era players for sure.


Who are you leaving off the list for Lendl? Connors?

LeChuck
09-17-2007, 09:42 PM
Lendl was clearly more dominant than Agassi. Agassi was slightly more versatile than Lendl. In my opinion, Lendl is much closer to Agassi in the versatility department, than Agassi is to Lendl in the dominance department.
Therefore I would choose Lendl.

Rogiman
09-17-2007, 09:42 PM
Easily Lendl, 8 US opens in a row, YEC plenty of times, and the 8 slams he did lose were all to great players, borg,connors,mcenroe,wilander,becker.Hmmm... I wouldn't like to sound too pedantic but those were "merely" 8 USO finals in row, and he actually lost 11 Slam finals...

stebs
09-17-2007, 09:49 PM
Who are you leaving off the list for Lendl? Connors?

Achievements wise Lendl is superior to Connors, yes. Lendl would certainly be my pick for the next player after the usual Laver, Sampras, Borg, Federer group. Obviously with Laver it is difficult because his acheivements are not solely in the open era.

Allure
09-17-2007, 09:52 PM
Lendl

Byrd
09-17-2007, 09:54 PM
Hmmm... I wouldn't like to sound too pedantic but those were "merely" 8 USO finals in row, and he actually lost 11 Slam finals...

Its still a feat in itself, and he never lost to some lowly schmuck in the final with the exception of cash who still played the match of his career. Put Agassi in Lendls era, vice versa, and I would bet my house on it Agassi would of never of achieved what Lendl did.

DeuX.cl
09-17-2007, 09:57 PM
this XXX vs. XXXX threads are so boring...

I voted Agassi, but my objectivity sucks :D

sawan66278
09-17-2007, 10:00 PM
Lendl was my favorite player of all time. And his records speak for themselves. But, in the end, I say Agassi. Why? Winning all four slams...and the Olympic gold medal...He is the one player who played, and defeated, the likes of McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Sampras, Guga, and Roger.

He played them all...and defeated them all...nuff said for me.

Bilbo
09-17-2007, 10:03 PM
Agassi of course and it's not even close

stebs
09-17-2007, 10:04 PM
Lendl was my favorite player of all time. And his records speak for themselves. But, in the end, I say Agassi. Why? Winning all four slams...and the Olympic gold medal...He is the one player who played, and defeated, the likes of McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Sampras, Guga, and Roger.

He played them all...and defeated them all...nuff said for me.

He had a losing record vs the three greatest players you listed, Federer, Sampras and Lendl.

He was 2-2 with McEnroe and his winning record over an ageing Connors is okay but he was only 7-4 vs Kuerten which ins't THAt impressive considering 10 out 11 meeting were on Agassi's favourite surface and they never met on clay.

Oh, and Ferriera beat Federer, Sampras and Borg. The only player to do so, yet he is not proclaimed as GOAT.

World Beater
09-17-2007, 10:04 PM
Agassi of course and it's not even close

never in doubt.

expected win.

stebs
09-17-2007, 10:06 PM
Agassi of course and it's not even close

Your talking about who was a bigger media star right?

If not then this is just plain rubbish.

sawan66278
09-17-2007, 10:09 PM
Let's not forget: Agassi is the OLDEST player to ever be ranked #1 in the world.

Rogiman
09-17-2007, 10:11 PM
Put Agassi in Lendls era, vice versa, and I would bet my house on it Agassi would have never achieved what Lendl did.That goes without saying :D

Bilbo
09-17-2007, 10:12 PM
Your talking about who was a bigger media star right?

If not then this is just plain rubbish.

to be the best in a sport like tennis you have to win each grand slam at least one time. that's my definition of being best in tennis. same goes to golf btw.

winning all 4 grand slams including olympics gold, davis cup and being no. 1. now that is one hell of an accomplishment.

Rogiman
09-17-2007, 10:14 PM
to be the best in a sport like tennis you have to win each grand slam at least one time. that's my definition of being best in tennis. same goes to golf btw.So Agassi is the GOAT...? :rolls:

Are you actually putting Agassi ahead of Borg? :haha:

stebs
09-17-2007, 10:16 PM
to be the best in a sport like tennis you have to win each grand slam at least one time. that's my definition of being best in tennis. same goes to golf btw.

winning all 4 grand slams including olympics gold, davis cup and being no. 1. now that is one hell of an accomplishment.

Agassi is GOAT?

I mean his accomplishments are awesome and I respect him for that but he was never the best player in the world for more than a year at a time and that is a black mark against him. He always played second fiddle, how can you be the greatest of all time when you weren't good enough to be the greatest in your own time?

Jimnik
09-17-2007, 11:30 PM
They are EXACTLY equal.

How about that for a conclusion. :p

Burrow
09-17-2007, 11:39 PM
Agassi no doubt.

ReturnWinner
09-18-2007, 12:00 AM
Ivan Lendl of course, he was a really dominant number one during much time -including many YEC wins, we can not say the same about Agassi

ChinoRios4Ever
09-18-2007, 12:47 AM
I love Andre, but i have to vote for Lendl

Bad Religion
09-18-2007, 03:24 AM
Ivan

I don´t like Steffi

GlennMirnyi
09-18-2007, 03:50 AM
Agassi is a media buffoon.

Lendl without any kind of doubt.

TMJordan
09-18-2007, 03:52 AM
This one is not even close, Lendl by a country mile.

TennisShoulder
09-18-2007, 04:39 AM
Andre Agassi is a far greater tennis player than Ivan Lendl. Agassi is the only male player in the history of the game to win the golden slam (Australian, French, Wimbledon, US Open, Olympics).

He also competed in an era in which Pete Sampras (the greatest tennis player of all time until Roger Federer surpasses him) competed. Nevertheless, he still managed to beat Sampras on 14 occasions - seven times in finals (out of the 16 they played), including the Australian Open final, three Masters series finals, twice in the ATP Tour World Championship, the Australian Open semi-finals and the French Open quarter-finals.

Never underestimate the achievement of beating Pete Sampras 14 times!

Lendl may have reached 19 grand slam finals, reached at least one grand slam final for 11 consecutive seasons, won 94 career titles and reached eight straight US Open finals, but he wasn't competing in an era in which his prime and Pete Sampras' prime overlapped! You must also take into consideration that despite his dominance in the eighties, Lendl 'only' won eight grand slam titles during his career, losing 11 finals - that's the same number as Agassi (although Agassi played in four less finals).

So if Lendl wanted to eclipse Agassi in terms of greatness - taking into consideration Agassi has won the golden slam and Lendl has only won three fifths of it - he's got to win far more grand slams than 8.

Also, the main blotch on the Lendl career is that he never won Wimbledon - a pretty big one don't you think! I don't think you can be remembered in the 'all-time great' bracket (i.e. up there with Federer, Borg, Laver, Sampras, Agassi) unless you have won Wimbledon. It's a bit like Elvis Presley being described as the greatest pop singer of all-time if he never had a number one!

RonE
09-18-2007, 06:30 AM
Agassi doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breathe as Lendl.

No other player was as consistent as Lendl :worship:

Action Jackson
09-18-2007, 06:31 AM
Lendl

Bobby
09-18-2007, 06:49 AM
Andre Agassi is a far greater tennis player than Ivan Lendl. Agassi is the only male player in the history of the game to win the golden slam (Australian, French, Wimbledon, US Open, Olympics).

He also competed in an era in which Pete Sampras (the greatest tennis player of all time until Roger Federer surpasses him) competed. Nevertheless, he still managed to beat Sampras on 14 occasions - seven times in finals (out of the 16 they played), including the Australian Open final, three Masters series finals, twice in the ATP Tour World Championship, the Australian Open semi-finals and the French Open quarter-finals.

Never underestimate the achievement of beating Pete Sampras 14 times!

Lendl may have reached 19 grand slam finals, reached at least one grand slam final for 11 consecutive seasons, won 94 career titles and reached eight straight US Open finals, but he wasn't competing in an era in which his prime and Pete Sampras' prime overlapped! You must also take into consideration that despite his dominance in the eighties, Lendl 'only' won eight grand slam titles during his career, losing 11 finals - that's the same number as Agassi (although Agassi played in four less finals).

So if Lendl wanted to eclipse Agassi in terms of greatness - taking into consideration Agassi has won the golden slam and Lendl has only won three fifths of it - he's got to win far more grand slams than 8.

Also, the main blotch on the Lendl career is that he never won Wimbledon - a pretty big one don't you think! I don't think you can be remembered in the 'all-time great' bracket (i.e. up there with Federer, Borg, Laver, Sampras, Agassi) unless you have won Wimbledon. It's a bit like Elvis Presley being described as the greatest pop singer of all-time if he never had a number one!

I'm pretty sure Golden Slam means that you win all the tournaments during one calendar year. That's what Graf did in 1988.

Nevertheless, Lendl was the greater of these two. People just don't remember him that well because a: he wasn't as flamboyant as Agassi and b: he retired a while ago.

Mimi
09-18-2007, 07:52 AM
i think Lendi, more titles, longer weeks as no.1, although he did not win wimby, he did get to the final twice, its just a bit unlucky that he lost so many finals in slams otherwise he might won more slams then pete :cool:

Auscon
09-18-2007, 07:55 AM
Agassi was brilliant, but Lendl would have to have the edge

dragons112
09-18-2007, 08:08 AM
Who Cares

GO Roger

Rogiman
09-18-2007, 08:13 AM
Who Cares

GO Roger:retard:

dragons112
09-18-2007, 08:19 AM
i cant believe somebody screen name is rafa = fed killa

MariaV
09-18-2007, 08:22 AM
I hope this thread reaches a similar number of responses :)

Gotta help you out then :D

Agassi almost always played second fiddle to someone else, be it Sampras, Kuerten or Hewitt.
He only managed to finish one year at the top, and won the YEC once, before he even won his first Slam.

Lendl was clearly the most dominant player of the 80's, finished 4 years at the top and won numerous YEC's, where you're measured against the top.

The MOST dominant player of the 80's? :haha: :haha: :yawn:

MariaV
09-18-2007, 08:24 AM
Who Cares

GO Roger

:yeah:
Oh totally, and oh, should I start a thread about how many GS titles will Roger win - with the options from what, 20 to 25? :D Any other suggestions? :D

Rogiman
09-18-2007, 08:31 AM
The MOST dominant player of the 80's? :haha: :haha: :yawn:Without a doubt :confused:

You thought he was boring but you love Nadal's game? :confused:

bokehlicious
09-18-2007, 08:33 AM
Lendl :cool:

Neely
09-18-2007, 03:52 PM
Good to see how people suddenly bring forward things like YEC or finishing the year as #1 as soon as it all helps to support their view they like to see in this one :) :lol: :smoke:

And now lets go somewhere else and talk about how all that matters for the big players is winning Slams, preferrably on all four surfaces and that your life sucks if you don't support the player who wins the most :p

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-18-2007, 06:51 PM
i cant believe somebody screen name is rafa = fed killa

Better believe it clown. You cant stop evolution.

Agassi > Lendl

Agassi won RG, Wimbledon, US and AO and Olympic Gold.
Lendl some choker who lost 11 GS finals. How mentally weak was that clown.

R.Federer
09-18-2007, 07:24 PM
Well it seems people's views depend a lot on the different criteria people value for judging players. Weeks Number 1, YE Number 1, Number of slams, Number of different types of slams, these are all important.

In much of the popular press the reason that Sampras is knocked when talking about GOATs is that he did not win the French. Other than that, he had everything --- record number of slams, until recently record number of consecutive weeks at Number 1, dominance, YE Number 1 for a record number of years.

So going by the same criteria, Agassi and Lendl are not very different. I still give Agassi the edge because of the difficulty in doing all 4 slams in a career. But Lendl's achievements are great with weeks number 1.

World Beater
09-18-2007, 07:42 PM
Better believe it clown. You cant stop evolution.

Agassi > Lendl

Agassi won RG, Wimbledon, US and AO and Olympic Gold.
Lendl some choker who lost 11 GS finals. How mentally weak was that clown.

agassi was a big choker himself.

winning slams against clowns like rainer shuettler, todd martin :haha:

thats the only way agassi was winning multiple grand slams

lendl lost to great players in an era of lions.:D

MatchFederer
09-18-2007, 07:59 PM
Gotta help you out then :D



The MOST dominant player of the 80's? :haha: :haha: :yawn:

Who was more dominant in the 80's then on the mens side? Or are you just being an arse?

CyBorg
09-18-2007, 08:07 PM
Three prime years. Lendl over the period of 85-87 played outstanding tennis. Hardcourt, clay, lawns, carpet - was the best or top-three on each (I would say tops in all but grass, where he was actually very close).

Agassi had some decent stretches. 95-96 in the Brad Gilbert era, but that didn't last long. 99-AO-00 he was on fire, but then didn't win a tournament for a whole year.

CyBorg
09-18-2007, 08:10 PM
Who was more dominant in the 80's then on the mens side? Or are you just being an arse?

McEnroe may have been. A two year stretch would favour him (83-84). A five year stretch would as well (80-84).

However if one is looking for a player who encompasses the decade most evenly then you'd have to go with Lendl, but I don't think that this is important because this depends centrally on the player's age (so, he'd have to start the decade at around 20 and end it at around 30).

R.Federer
09-18-2007, 08:10 PM
winning slams against clowns like rainer shuettler, todd martin :haha:


I have to agree with this.

And it's not just the finals opponent, but the entire draw he played in these two (and some others) that were unimpressive. But that's not up to him. Pete had some easy ones at Wimbledon as well.

oz_boz
09-18-2007, 09:03 PM
Lendl has the edge for me: dominant player of later half of the 80's plus equally many years when he was 2nd or 3rd best, plus most slam finals in open era where he almost exlusively lost to oher greats.

Agassi has his rare career slam but as he wasn't even the dominant player of his era or even closely as consistent as Ivan I can't put him above Lendl.

to be the best in a sport like tennis you have to win each grand slam at least one time.

It is an important feat but is it sufficient? Obviously not, otherwise Agassi would be open era GOAT bar Laver after RG1999 wih a mere tally of 4 slams, a plain laughable idea.

As Agassi wasn't even the best of his era, he is definitely out of the GOAT discussions. If you prefer career slam,Laver is the only reasonable pick; dominance, competition or number of Slams one of the other three.

GlennMirnyi
09-18-2007, 09:08 PM
agassi was a big choker himself.

winning slams against clowns like rainer shuettler, todd martin :haha:

thats the only way agassi was winning multiple grand slams

lendl lost to great players in an era of lions.:D

Huge choker.

Agree 100% with the rest.

fmolinari2005
09-18-2007, 09:13 PM
Better believe it clown. You cant stop evolution.

Agassi > Lendl

Agassi won RG, Wimbledon, US and AO and Olympic Gold.
Lendl some choker who lost 11 GS finals. How mentally weak was that clown.


Dont sell yourself short R=FK!!! You are one of the biggest threats to Darwin's theory!!

Rogiman
09-18-2007, 09:16 PM
Dont sell yourself short R=FK!!! You are one of the biggest threats to Darwin's theory!!Isn't he one of the biggest proofs? :scratch:

ReturnWinner
09-18-2007, 09:21 PM
agassi was a big choker himself.

winning slams against clowns like rainer shuettler, todd martin :haha:

thats the only way agassi was winning multiple grand slams

lendl lost to great players in an era of lions.:D


yeah do not forget the Ivanisevic choke in 1992 wimbledon, the Medveded collapse that Roland garros final and in 2001 Australia he beat Clement and an injured Rafter in five sets :o

MariaV
09-18-2007, 09:26 PM
Better believe it clown. You cant stop evolution.

Agassi > Lendl

Agassi won RG, Wimbledon, US and AO and Olympic Gold.
Lendl some choker who lost 11 GS finals. How mentally weak was that clown.


:worship: :bowdown: You show them the light R=FK! :worship:

World Beater
09-18-2007, 09:28 PM
Isn't he one of the biggest proofs? :scratch:

which theory?

natural selection?

fmolinari2005
09-18-2007, 09:28 PM
Isn't he one of the biggest proofs? :scratch:

You are right. Random mutations generally dont produce better new traits. Luckly, odds are that he wont be able to procreate.

Rogiman
09-18-2007, 09:29 PM
which theory?

natural selection?More about mankind's origins.

World Beater
09-18-2007, 09:33 PM
More about mankind's origins.

ah ok.

makes sense.

EDIT : well actually it would mean that some of us have not evolved from "them" :tape:

OR

that RFK is the missing link. :haha:

TennisShoulder
09-18-2007, 11:39 PM
I'm pretty sure Golden Slam means that you win all the tournaments during one calendar year. That's what Graf did in 1988.

Don't nit pick! I didn't define whether it was a calendar Golden Slam or a career Golden Slam because I thought it was blindingly obvious!

alfonsojose
09-19-2007, 12:16 AM
Lendl.

sawan66278
09-19-2007, 01:15 AM
Let's look at Andre's record against these all time champions...and Lendl's record against them:

1. Edberg: Andre's record-6 wins, 3 losses
Ivan's record-13 wins, 14 losses

2. Becker: Andre's record-10 wins, 4 losses
Ivan's record-11 wins, 10 losses

3. Wilander: Andre's record-5 wins, 2 losses
Ivan's record-15 wins, 7 losses

4. Mcenroe: Andre's record-2 wins, 2 losses
Ivan's record-21 wins, 15 losses

5. Sampras: Andre's record-14 wins, 20 losses
Ivan's record-3 wins, 5 losses

Interesting to has a winning record against four of the five; Ivan, three out of the five...and yet Andre was able to defeat possibly the best player ever 14 times...twice in grand slam competition...Ivan defeated Pete three times...no times in the slams.

MisterQ
09-19-2007, 04:40 AM
Let's look at Andre's record against these all time champions...and Lendl's record against them:

1. Edberg: Andre's record-6 wins, 3 losses
Ivan's record-13 wins, 14 losses

2. Becker: Andre's record-10 wins, 4 losses
Ivan's record-11 wins, 10 losses

3. Wilander: Andre's record-5 wins, 2 losses
Ivan's record-15 wins, 7 losses

4. Mcenroe: Andre's record-2 wins, 2 losses
Ivan's record-21 wins, 15 losses

5. Sampras: Andre's record-14 wins, 20 losses
Ivan's record-3 wins, 5 losses

Interesting to has a winning record against four of the five; Ivan, three out of the five...and yet Andre was able to defeat possibly the best player ever 14 times...twice in grand slam competition...Ivan defeated Pete three times...no times in the slams.

I think these numbers reflect well on both Agassi and Lendl...

Honestly, in the stats department (titles, weeks at No. 1), Lendl wins this contest. Arguments for Andre are more subjective; Mats Wilander, probably speaking more from experience watching and playing than from tallying stats, named Agassi, Borg, Federer and Sampras as the top four of the last three decades (Lendl, Connors and McEnroe tied for fifth). Wilander's assessment probably stems from the experience of watching Agassi's level of play in his peak years, and from placing value on the breadth of achievement across surfaces, and at nearly every important title.

I'm partial to Agassi as a player, but Lendl was a more dominant force among the players of his day.

World Beater
09-19-2007, 04:46 AM
right. misterQ rightly pointed out the distinction between having a great career and being a better tennis player.

Action Jackson
09-19-2007, 07:03 AM
Interesting to has a winning record against four of the five; Ivan, three out of the five...and yet Andre was able to defeat possibly the best player ever 14 times...twice in grand slam competition...Ivan defeated Pete three times...no times in the slams.

Lendl was never at this peak when he played Sampras, where Agassi was.

Bobby
09-19-2007, 10:44 AM
Don't nit pick! I didn't define whether it was a calendar Golden Slam or a career Golden Slam because I thought it was blindingly obvious!

Sure, whatever makes you happy. You can also admit that you simply didn't know better.

TennisGrandSlam
09-19-2007, 01:01 PM
Lendl - He faced Vilas, Borg, Connors, JMac, Wilander, Edberg and Becker

jcempire
09-19-2007, 02:21 PM
Agassi leave a legacy through three different generations, and won the 4 slams. So Andre has the advantage.

Andre.......

He hadn't play for 3 years.

He' better guy to me

Billabong
09-19-2007, 02:26 PM
Lendl was far more superior and dominant, but Agassi's 4 Grand Slams and Gold Olympic medal made me put him ahead in the greatness category:) That's an almost impossible thing to achieve..

thesupreme
09-19-2007, 03:11 PM
C'mon now, seriously, anyone who doesnt vote Lendl cant read stats or is biased.

And I'm as biased as hell in favour of Agassi's style & play...but if i had to be honest, Lendl MUST get my vote...c'mon now, seriously

Dougie
09-19-2007, 05:55 PM
Don't nit pick! I didn't define whether it was a calendar Golden Slam or a career Golden Slam because I thought it was blindingly obvious!

:haha: You´re the first one I´ve ever heard talking about a "career golden slam"! Winning a Grand Slam means winning all four during the same year, same goes for golden slam. There are no career slams, THAT`S blindingly obvious!

stebs
09-19-2007, 06:32 PM
Andre was able to defeat possibly the best player ever 14 times...twice in grand slam competition...Ivan defeated Pete three times...no times in the slams.

Agassi played Pete 34 times while Lendl played Pete 8 times and you have the balls to bring up how many times Agassi won over Pete in comparison to Lendl?

One of the most ridiculous things I'ver ever heard.

Marek.
09-19-2007, 10:30 PM
Agassi played Pete 34 times while Lendl played Pete 8 times and you have the balls to bring up how many times Agassi won over Pete in comparison to Lendl?

One of the most ridiculous things I'ver ever heard.

Sawan isn't afraid to say anything he feels or thinks, no matter how strange/stupid it sounds. An admirable trait to say the least. :worship: :lol:

AnnaK_4ever
09-19-2007, 10:42 PM
Agassi.
Because of Career Slam and Olympics gold.

World Beater
09-19-2007, 10:55 PM
who did agassi beat to earn olympic gold?

MisterQ
09-19-2007, 11:01 PM
who did agassi beat to earn olympic gold?

Bjorkman, Kucera, Gaudenzi, Ferreira, Paes, and Bruguera.

guga2120
09-19-2007, 11:35 PM
Career Slam, 17 master series titles, the guy could win anywhere, from slow clay, to fast indoor courts, and Lendl had no Wimbledon title, and for some reason tennis players think that tournament is important.

Certainly Andre.

TennisShoulder
09-19-2007, 11:57 PM
:haha: You´re the first one I´ve ever heard talking about a "career golden slam"! Winning a Grand Slam means winning all four during the same year, same goes for golden slam. There are no career slams, THAT`S blindingly obvious!

Is it your intention to be annoying, because you are making a darn good job of it! "Career Golden Slam" is tennis lingo - the fact that you've never heard it mentioned is because it is such a rare animal. There has only ever been one player in the history of the sport (men and women) who has ever done it - Mr Agassi! A more likely option is that you don't know your tennis lingo.

Steffi Graf, by winning all five in the same calendar year, won the "Golden Slam" so it will never be referred to as a "Career Golden Slam" - although technically, she still won all five in the same year.

RagingLamb
09-20-2007, 12:43 AM
Roger Federer

TennisShoulder
09-20-2007, 12:55 AM
I think that one of the biggest achievements of Andre Agassi's career, which people often underestimate, was the fact that he won 17 ATP Masters Series events throughout his career!

That is THREE more than Roger Federer and SIX more than Pete Sampras!

I know that the Mercedes-Benz Super 9 Series, as it was then known, only started in 1990, by which time Lendl was 30, but you still can't underestimate a special achievement like that.

Let us not forget that Roger Federer has never won Monte Carlo, Rome and Paris - whereas Agassi won Rome and Paris! He won Rome at the age of 32. To win a massive claycourt tournament like Rome at the age of 32 (1 month) is a staggering achievement!

This is what Andre Agassi achieved after the age of 32:

After winning Rome at 32 (1 month), he went on to win Madrid at the age of 32 (6 months), Australian Open at 32 (9 months), Miami at 32 (11 months) and Cincinnati at 34 (4 months).

He also reached the US Open final at 32 (5 months), the US Open semi-finals 33 (5 months), the Australian Open semi-finals at 33 (9 months) and the US Open final at 35 (5 months).

Likewise, he reached the final of the Tennis Masters Cup at 33 (7 months) and Montreal at 35 (4 months); the semi-finals of Indian Wells (33, 11 months), Madrid (34, 6 months), Miami (34, 11 months) and Rome (35, 1 month); three consecutive French Open quarter-finals (aged 31+2months, 32+2months and 33+2months) and you can also throw in an US Open quarter-final (34, 5 months) and Australian Open quarter-final (34, 9 months).

Agassi was also the world number one at the age of 33 years and 5 months. He won his final title at the age of 35 and 3 months (Los Angeles), and came within a final set tiebreak of winning Stockholm nine months earlier. He also won Los Angeles at 32 (3 months), San Jose at 32 (10 months) and Houston at 33.

I could bore you about the suceess that Andre Agassi had aged 29, 30 and 31 - but I don't really want top bore you any further!

Agassi may have reached four less Grand Slam finals than Lendl, but he did reach two more grand slam semi-finals - 11 to 9.

TennisShoulder
09-20-2007, 01:11 AM
...and yet Andre was able to defeat possibly the best player ever 14 times...twice in grand slam competition...

You're under-selling the great man there mate!

Agassi beat Sampras three times in Grand Slam events:

1992 Roland Garros Quarter-Finals 7-6 (8/6) 6-2 6-1
1995 Australian Open Final 4-6 6-1 7-6 (8/6) 6-4
2000 Australian Open Semi-Finals 6-4 3-6 6-7 (0/7) 7-6 (7/5) 6-1

thrust
09-20-2007, 01:39 AM
This is a tough one! I would give the slight edge to Lendl. True Agassi won Wimbledon and Lendl didn^t, but Ivan did reach the finals twice and he won the FO 3 times to Andre^s 1. Lendl had winning H-H against McEnroe, Connors, Becker, has more tournament wins than Andre and more weeks at #1.

guga2120
09-20-2007, 02:37 AM
1992 Roland Garros Quarter-Finals 7-6 (8/6) 6-2 6-1
1995 Australian Open Final 4-6 6-1 7-6 (8/6) 6-4
2000 Australian Open Semi-Finals 6-4 3-6 6-7 (0/7) 7-6 (7/5) 6-1

Slow that damn serve down, Andre would beat him everytime.

TennisShoulder
09-20-2007, 03:00 AM
You've also got to take their Davis Cup records into consideration:

Agassi's Davis Cup record was 30-6
Lendl's Davis Cup record was 22-15

Agassi won the Davis Cup three times! A magnificent achievement, even if he was part of a great team! He was also twice a runner-up and four times a semi-finalist.

One of Agassi's six losses was against Darren Cahill, when he retired injured at one-set-all. So, that's only five losses by proper means!

TennisShoulder
09-20-2007, 05:00 AM
Another staggering achievement by Andre Agassi is the fact that he finished the year in the top ten 16 times! He shares this particular record with Jimmy Connors!

He achieved this in the space of 18 seasons! The only time he failed to do this during those 18 seasons (1988-2005) was in 1993 (when he missed the Australian Open and French Open) and 1997 (when he missed the Australian Open, French Open and Wimbledon).

Another interesting thing to note is the fact that Agassi's most successful tournament was the Australian Open...yet only started playing the Australian Open in 1995 - winning it at the first attempt. Just think how many grand slams he could have won if he started playing it at the start of his career!

In the Australian Open, he was the champion four times, a semi-finalist twice, once a quarter-finalist and twice reached the fourth round. He only played the event nine times, but never lost before the fourth round. Incidently, Agassi would have played the Australian Open in 1993 and 1994 but had to pull out both times through injury.

Also, Agassi decided to skip Wimbledon in 1988, 1989 and 1990, yet it turned out to be the first grand slam that he won during his career! Just think how successful he could have been during those three years, like he was in most of the other grand slams!

Kolya
09-20-2007, 06:49 AM
Ivan Lendl IMO.

His record is amazing.

AnnaK_4ever
09-20-2007, 10:43 AM
who did agassi beat to earn olympic gold?

It's irrelevant question. Do you remember who did Bill Tilden or Don Budge beat to win their Slam titles? Maybe you do but in the end of the day it doesn't matter.

Both Lendl and Agassi won 8 GS titles, both were #1. But Andre won Wimbledon, Ivan didn't. That's the difference.

TheBoiledEgg
09-20-2007, 11:46 AM
lendl by a long long way.

TheBoiledEgg
09-20-2007, 11:48 AM
agassi was a big choker himself.

winning slams against clowns like rainer shuettler, todd martin :haha:

thats the only way agassi was winning multiple grand slams

lendl lost to great players in an era of lions.:D

dont forget Arnaud Clement :rolls: :tape: :haha:

Action Jackson
09-20-2007, 11:50 AM
dont forget Arnaud Clement :rolls: :tape: :haha:

Medvedev ranked 100 at the time and needed a rain delay for that one as well :devil:

thrust
09-20-2007, 02:44 PM
Tennis Shoulder- Davis Cup records is really searching really hard for Andre. Lendl leads Andre in H-H, I think, 6-2. Lendl ended 4 years at #1, Andre just once. Whatever, both are great players with little difference between them.

thrust
09-20-2007, 03:17 PM
Tennis Shoulder- Davis Cup records is really searching really hard for Andre. Lendl leads Andre in H-H, I think, 6-2. Lendl ended 4 years at #1, Andre just once. Whatever, both are great players with little difference between them.

TennisGrandSlam
09-20-2007, 03:34 PM
Agassi played Pete 34 times while Lendl played Pete 8 times and you have the balls to bring up how many times Agassi won over Pete in comparison to Lendl?

One of the most ridiculous things I'ver ever heard.

How many times Agassi win over Connors, JMac, Becker and Edberg? :devil:

sawan66278
09-21-2007, 12:57 AM
Tennis Shoulder...excellent point about ending in the top 10 16 years in a row...incredible.

And sorry that I shortchanged Andre...

I'm the BIGGEST Lendl fan...I think I even cried one year when he had a two set to one lead on Boris at Wimbledon in the semis (and a break up in the fourth!!!!!:eek: ...when it started raining)...and lost the title. But, Andre played in three different decades...and...he was able to push both Sampras And Roger...Lendl could not even defeat Pete when Pete was a slamless teenager at a tournament Lendl dominated for almost a decade!!!!!

For me, what really separates Andre for Ivan...his Wimbledon win...Look who he defeated: Boris, Johnny Mac, and Goran...three Wimbledon champs...on a court that was a slick as grass. AND from the baseline...For me, this was right up there with Chang winning the French...I remember back in the day, the only person who thought Andre could thrive at Wimbledon was one Arthur Ashe...and I remember laughing at that statement at the time...How he won that title with no real serve, but the BEST return of serve EVER...Simply legendary...and will likely never be repeated...

Sawan isn't afraid to say anything he feels or thinks, no matter how strange/stupid it sounds. An admirable trait to say the least.

Hey, Dick Vermeil said that they only people who can play quarterback are those who can look down the barrel of a gun and not flinch...and he said he applies this to commentators as well. If you are too afraid to voice your opinion, then beg out...and remain silent. I will not...

World Beater
09-21-2007, 02:13 AM
btw..i have a healthy respect for agassi. Its just fun to take the piss on RFK and Mediter

TennisShoulder
09-21-2007, 02:37 AM
For me, what really separates Andre for Ivan...his Wimbledon win...Look who he defeated: Boris, Johnny Mac, and Goran...three Wimbledon champs...on a court that was a slick as grass. AND from the baseline...For me, this was right up there with Chang winning the French...I remember back in the day, the only person who thought Andre could thrive at Wimbledon was one Arthur Ashe...and I remember laughing at that statement at the time...How he won that title with no real serve, but the BEST return of serve EVER...Simply legendary...and will likely never be repeated...

Totally agree with you mate, it is a great point that you make!

Also:

This is Agassi's record against current or former world number 1's!

Boris Becker 10-4
Jimmy Connors 2-0
Jim Courier 5-7
Stefan Edberg 6-3
Roger Federer 3-8
Juan Carlos Ferrero 2-3
Lleyton Hewitt 4-4
Yevgeny Kafelnikov 8-4
Gustavo Kuerten 7-4
Ivan Lendl 2-6
John McEnroe 2-2
Carlos Moya 3-1
Thomas Muster 5-4
Patrick Rafter 10-5
Marcelo Rios 1-2
Andy Roddick 5-1
Marat Safin 3-3
Pete Sampras 14-20
Mats Wilander 5-2

Pretty impressive I would say! Having a better head-to-head record against great players such as Connors, Becker, Edberg, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Moya, Muster, Rafter, Roddick and Wilander is very good indeed!

This is Lendl's record against current or former world number 1's!

Andre Agassi 6-2
Boris Becker 11-10
Bjorn Borg 2-5
Jimmy Connors 22-13
Jim Courier 4-0
Stefan Edberg 13-14
John McEnroe 21-15
Thomas Muster 4-1
Ilie Nastase 1-0
Patrick Rafter 0-1
Pete Sampras 3-5
Mats Wilander 15-7

Also, pretty impressive!

I have to give the edge to Agassi! The fact that Lendl lost 10 times to Boris Becker, 13 times to Jimmy Connors, 14 times to Stefan Edberg, 15 times to John McEnroe, 7 times to Mats Wilander, 7 times to Yannick Noah and 7 times to Jose-Luis Clerc doesn't sit very well with me!

It's as though his mentality to life was: "If you try enough times, you'll get there eventually". Quantity, not quality!

Roger Federer would never lose 73 times to seven of his closest rivals!

TennisShoulder
09-21-2007, 03:36 AM
Agassi also holds the following records:

- The only player to be ranked in the end-of-year top 10 in three different decades.
- Oldest player to be ranked world number one.
- Most Grand Slam appearances (61) made in the Open era.
- Only player in the Open era to win titles in 18 different years.

Can't speak highly enough of this man!

Action Jackson
09-21-2007, 04:16 AM
It's an honour to have one of Agassi's relatives posting on this board.

World Beater
09-21-2007, 04:30 AM
It's an honour to have one of Agassi's relatives posting on this board.

the funny thing is that out of the two players sampras and agassi, agassi feels much more secure and satisfied with his place in the game despite achieving much less.

Action Jackson
09-21-2007, 04:37 AM
the funny thing is that out of the two players sampras and agassi, agassi feels much more secure and satisfied with his place in the game despite achieving much less.

Only delusional fanboys would think Agassi is the greatest ever. He has his own interests away from the tour, he knows what he achieved and accepted that.

Johnny Groove
09-21-2007, 04:46 AM
Roger Federer would never lose 73 times to seven of his closest rivals!

This statement made me think of what was Roger's 73 loss ago

Turns out it was Rome 2001!!! :eek:

Merton
09-21-2007, 06:45 AM
Lendl and its not close.

TheBoiledEgg
09-21-2007, 08:51 AM
Andre also a disgrace tanking matches left right and centre

French Open, he's getting spanked by Ferrero and slightest rain and walks of court without the umpire calling play off :rolleyes:

every other court carried on playing whilst Agassi had to sulk.

what a big man :rolleyes:

and thats not the only time he's done this, thinks he's bigger than the game.

stebs
09-21-2007, 10:24 AM
Totally agree with you mate, it is a great point that you make!

Also:

This is Agassi's record against current or former world number 1's!

Boris Becker 10-4
Jimmy Connors 2-0
Jim Courier 5-7
Stefan Edberg 6-3
Roger Federer 3-8
Juan Carlos Ferrero 2-3
Lleyton Hewitt 4-4
Yevgeny Kafelnikov 8-4
Gustavo Kuerten 7-4
Ivan Lendl 2-6
John McEnroe 2-2
Carlos Moya 3-1
Thomas Muster 5-4
Patrick Rafter 10-5
Marcelo Rios 1-2
Andy Roddick 5-1
Marat Safin 3-3
Pete Sampras 14-20
Mats Wilander 5-2

Pretty impressive I would say! Having a better head-to-head record against great players such as Connors, Becker, Edberg, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Moya, Muster, Rafter, Roddick and Wilander is very good indeed!

This is Lendl's record against current or former world number 1's!

Andre Agassi 6-2
Boris Becker 11-10
Bjorn Borg 2-5
Jimmy Connors 22-13
Jim Courier 4-0
Stefan Edberg 13-14
John McEnroe 21-15
Thomas Muster 4-1
Ilie Nastase 1-0
Patrick Rafter 0-1
Pete Sampras 3-5
Mats Wilander 15-7

Also, pretty impressive!

I have to give the edge to Agassi! The fact that Lendl lost 10 times to Boris Becker, 13 times to Jimmy Connors, 14 times to Stefan Edberg, 15 times to John McEnroe, 7 times to Mats Wilander, 7 times to Yannick Noah and 7 times to Jose-Luis Clerc doesn't sit very well with me!

It's as though his mentality to life was: "If you try enough times, you'll get there eventually". Quantity, not quality!

Roger Federer would never lose 73 times to seven of his closest rivals!

Agassi overall 97 - 83

Lendl overall 102 - 73

You've shot yourself in the foot by bringing this up because Lendl has a far superior record to Agassi in this category. More wins and less losses.

World Beater
09-21-2007, 06:09 PM
Andre also a disgrace tanking matches left right and centre

French Open, he's getting spanked by Ferrero and slightest rain and walks of court without the umpire calling play off :rolleyes:

every other court carried on playing whilst Agassi had to sulk.

what a big man :rolleyes:

and thats not the only time he's done this, thinks he's bigger than the game.

"someone kidnapped my baby!!!" when being issued a drug test. :lol:

thrust
09-21-2007, 09:06 PM
Lendl played McEnroe, Connors, Edberg and Becker when they were in their prime, more so than Andre did.

TennisShoulder
09-22-2007, 02:46 AM
Agassi overall 97 - 83

Lendl overall 102 - 73

You've shot yourself in the foot by bringing this up because Lendl has a far superior record to Agassi in this category. More wins and less losses.

Mate, we could analyse these statistics all day, in many different ways, and still be none of the wiser. I don't believe I have shot myself in the foot. I simply said that because Lendl lost such a substantial amount of matches to the likes of Connors, Edberg, McEnroe, Becker and Wilander, it didn't set very well with me!

You've also got to taken into consideration that Agassi played seven more players! Yes, I know you could argue that he played five more matches and still had five less wins than Lendl - but Agassi faced seven more different challenges than Lendl, very different challenges. What I mean is that Agassi played more ex/current/future world number one players, so his results are more scientific, whereas Lendl less so because he played fewer players. We could argue about this all day, but in my opinion, the overall depth in tennis was much greater between 1986-2006 than between 1978-1994. I think the fact that there were 19 ex/current/future world number ones during Agassi's career and only 12 during Lendl's career backs this up!

lleytonfan!
09-22-2007, 03:30 AM
Agassi.

Both have 8 Slams, but Andre has the career slam, Lendl is missing Wimbledon. Andre also has 16 Masters titles.

guga2120
09-22-2007, 03:32 AM
Andre also has 16 Masters titles.

17

lleytonfan!
09-22-2007, 03:38 AM
17

Sorry, that's what I meant to write.

TheBoiledEgg
09-22-2007, 03:53 AM
I think the fact that there were 19 ex/current/future world number ones during Agassi's career and only 12 during Lendl's career backs this up!

of course there are gonna be more ex/current future #1's when Agassi played--- DUH

TennisShoulder
09-22-2007, 04:00 AM
of course there are gonna be more ex/current future #1's when Agassi played--- DUH

Agassi ONLY played for four more years than Lendl, yet there were SUBSTANTIALLY more (19 to 12) ex/current/future world number ones in Agassi's career than Lendl's. It would be one thing if there were 2-3 more, but there are SEVEN more. That's the point I'm making!

TennisGrandSlam
12-31-2007, 09:26 AM
60s - Laver
70s - Borg
80s - Lendl
90s - Sampras
00s - Federer

Black Adam
12-31-2007, 10:42 AM
Agassi achieved more in a wider range (all 4 slams, Oldest number 1, Olympic gold, Longevity, Davis Cup, 17 TMS and more media attention) whereas Lendl was really dominant except for choking in Slams finals.

It's a choice between dominance or Variety. I will go with Agassi

Black Adam
12-31-2007, 10:48 AM
Lame to say Agassi faced weak opposition in his Slam finals. It's not his fault big guns weren't there to face him.

Action Jackson
12-31-2007, 10:53 AM
Lame to say Agassi faced weak opposition in his Slam finals. It's not his fault big guns weren't there to face him.

Then you can't raise the fact that Lendl lost 11 Slam finals and say they were chokes, not all of them were chokes. Pat Cash was the worst player he lost to in a Slam and Cash was one of the best grasscourt players of his time.

General Suburbia
12-31-2007, 10:53 AM
I was going to post my thoughts on this debate, but after reading 8+ pages of increasingly stupid comments, I think I'll have to pass. Let's just say that both were great players.

stebs
12-31-2007, 12:01 PM
Then you can't raise the fact that Lendl lost 11 Slam finals and say they were chokes, not all of them were chokes. Pat Cash was the worst player he lost to in a Slam and Cash was one of the best grasscourt players of his time.

It all depends with these kind of discussions whether you are willing to look at just stats or go deeper and look contextually as well. Cash played amazingly when he beat Lendl regardless of how good a legacy he leaves behind that was probably a better performance than Connors gave in some finals vs Lendl. You can't judge quality on names alone.

I realise that this may seem hypocritical because I have judged great players on ONLY stats before but I am not saying you can't do it like that, just saying it's not the best way by definition.

Kolya
12-31-2007, 12:46 PM
Its difficult to say. Lendl won everything except Wimbledon but Agassi won the Grand Slam. Lendl was No. 1 longer than Agassi.

Both played on tour for a long time with great success.

Its all up to opinions now ....

FIRST POST OF 2008 :yeah:

CyBorg
12-31-2007, 12:52 PM
This shouldn't be up to debate. Agassi never had a three-year stretch like Lendl did between 85-87.

And Lendl was a better grass courter than Agassi. He lost to some tough opponents.

CyBorg
12-31-2007, 12:53 PM
Its all up to opinions now ....

No it's not.

There are Agassi fanboys and there are reasonable people who know that Lendl was much better.

Rogiman
12-31-2007, 01:11 PM
No it's not.

There are Agassi fanboys and there are reasonable people who know that Lendl was much better.:yeah:

Altough Agassi was one hell of a player too, no doubt

jdenelle
12-31-2007, 01:17 PM
lendl:)

TennisGrandSlam
12-31-2007, 02:49 PM
This shouldn't be up to debate. Agassi never had a three-year stretch like Lendl did between 85-87.

And Lendl was a better grass courter than Agassi. He lost to some tough opponents.


Yes, even though Agassi won Wimbledon 1992, he cannot be called as the King of Grass since this was his only grass title :devil:


Lendl had faced more tougher opponents than Agassi did

Johnny Groove
12-31-2007, 03:03 PM
Lendl had faced more tougher opponents than Agassi did

But who won Wimbledon, and who didnt?! :nerner:

Go Andre

TennisGrandSlam
12-31-2007, 03:15 PM
But who won Wimbledon, and who didnt?! :nerner:

Go Andre


No relation

1992, both King of Grass - Edberg and Becker started to fade down and Sampras was not mature. Agassi winning the title was an accident. :devil:

CyBorg
12-31-2007, 03:29 PM
Jan Kodes won Wimbledon.

Boris Franz Ecker
12-31-2007, 04:03 PM
Lendl was the better player, that's obvious.
But he's missing the most prestigious Wimbledon title.
On the other hand, Agassi also has only one.
Given Lendls 5 Masters titles, 94 titles, 5 years no 1, ... he was greater than winning-everything-but-only-once-Agassi.
but not by far.

sheeter
12-31-2007, 04:18 PM
I would say Agassi, but I really don't know enough about Lendl to judge.

Merton
12-31-2007, 04:42 PM
It is funny to bring masters titles and Davis Cup titles into this discussion, masters titles did not exist as such during Lendl's peak, therefore there is no meaningful comparison. But look at overall tournament wins and break it down into categories according to opposition faced. Lendl is easily superior. As for DC, Lendl was not elligible to play during his best years as he was a Czech (then Chechoslovakia) living in the US.

A Chechoslovakia DC team of Lendl and Mecir would not be bad at all.

solene
12-31-2007, 04:44 PM
For me, andre is better because he had a more complete game

LisaKoh
12-31-2007, 07:27 PM
Great question. It's hard but I'll list the pros and cons in point form

Lendl's Pros:
1. Incredibly consistent, hard worker
2. Revolutionized the game of tennis with his use of technology and modern fitness training.
3. Dominated the rankings for a long period of time.

Lendl's Cons:
1. Mental frailty at Wimbledon.
2. Losing record in GS finals.
3. Lack of appeal for the general public.

Agassi's Pros:
1. Won the career slam in the Open Era which is a feat yet to be equalled by anyone not named Rod Laver.
2. Arguably the most influential player of recent times, in terms of inspiring the playing styles of current players and keeping public interest in tennis.
3. Immensely talented.

Agassi's Cons:
1. Was not the greatest player of his generation.
2. Some mental issues during his beginning years.
3. Is also responsible in part for the baseline automata of today.

My pick: I'd have to say Andre. It's tough because I prefer Lendl but when you get down to it, it's telling that Agassi's the only guy who's won the four slams in nearly thirty years. Andre's done some pretty extraordinary things that have yet to be matched and even though I don't like him, I have to acknowledge that.

Stephan
12-31-2007, 09:27 PM
I'd have to go with Lendl here :cool:

why this poll for?

everybody (including lendl) knows:

Andre is the best of the best! :)

sawan66278
12-31-2007, 10:12 PM
I almost feel like, after watching some clips of Rios against Becker at Wimbledon (demonstrating that one DOES NOT have to be Agassi to actually rally once in a while on grass), that Lendl should forever be placed behind of Agassi...if for no reason other than sheer stupidity and mental gridlock when it comes to strategy.

TennisGrandSlam
01-01-2008, 05:50 AM
American will say Agassi, because Lendl was not a US citizen during his golden age.

Action Jackson
01-02-2008, 12:50 AM
I was going to post my thoughts on this debate, but after reading 8+ pages of increasingly stupid comments, I think I'll have to pass. Let's just say that both were great players.

In other words you don't have an opinion who is better? Just come out with it. Most people in here have at least came out and said they thought was better and why, try doing the same.

Action Jackson
01-02-2008, 12:52 AM
No it's not.

There are Agassi fanboys and there are reasonable people who know that Lendl was much better.

Pretty much it. Did Agassi have to compete against McEnroe, Becker, Edberg and Wilander at their peaks, yes the key is peak.

Good he is still winning the poll.

Action Jackson
01-02-2008, 12:58 AM
It all depends with these kind of discussions whether you are willing to look at just stats or go deeper and look contextually as well. Cash played amazingly when he beat Lendl regardless of how good a legacy he leaves behind that was probably a better performance than Connors gave in some finals vs Lendl. You can't judge quality on names alone.

I realise that this may seem hypocritical because I have judged great players on ONLY stats before but I am not saying you can't do it like that, just saying it's not the best way by definition.

It's very hypocritical and no I am not doing this just by stats. I remember when Lendl was fat when he was playing. My initial comment was in response into what Black Adam had posted about people bagging Agassi's opponents in finals and yes I have done that. Mecir and Pernfors who Lendl beat in GS finals are at a higher level than Schuettler and Clement for example. Yet people can say Lendl choked in GS finals, well he was outplayed by better players on the day well McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Becker and Wilander aren't hacks.

Cash has already spoken about and I think reference to his ability on grasscourts was stated earlier.

LinkMage
01-02-2008, 03:16 AM
Agassi

Both won 8 Slams. Agassi has the most important title in tennis, Lendl doesn't. Besides Agassi is the only man to win the 4 Slams on 4 different surfaces.

Kolya
01-02-2008, 09:04 AM
Jan Kodes won Wimbledon.

Kodes is better than both then :p

TennisGrandSlam
01-06-2008, 04:47 AM
I salute to Ivan Lendl.


http://bbs.tennis.com.cn/uploadFiles/2008-01/5_6924848_1.jpg

Roland Garros 1984

def. John McEnroe (USA) by 3-6, 2-6, 6-4, 7-5, 7-5



http://bbs.tennis.com.cn/uploadFiles/2008-01/5_6924848_2.jpg

US Open 1985

def. John McEnroe (USA) by 7-6, 6-3, 6-4



http://bbs.tennis.com.cn/uploadFiles/2008-01/5_6924848_3.jpg

Roland Garros 1986

def. Mikael Pernfors (SWE) by 6-3, 6-2, 6-4



http://bbs.tennis.com.cn/uploadFiles/2008-01/5_6924848_4.jpg

US Open 1986

def. Miloslav Mečíř (CZE, now SVK) by 6-4, 6-2, 6-0



http://bbs.tennis.com.cn/uploadFiles/2008-01/5_6924869_1.jpg

Roland Garros 1987

def. Mats Wilander (SWE) by 7-5, 6-2, 3-6, 7-6



http://bbs.tennis.com.cn/uploadFiles/2008-01/5_6924869_2.jpg

US Open 1987

def. Mats Wilander (SWE) by 6-7, 6-0, 7-6, 6-4



http://bbs.tennis.com.cn/uploadFiles/2008-01/5_6924869_3.jpg

Australian Open 1989

def. Miloslav Mečíř (CZE, now SVK) by 6-2, 6-2, 6-2



http://bbs.tennis.com.cn/uploadFiles/2008-01/5_6924869_4.jpg

Australian Open 1990

def. Stefan Edberg (SWE) by 4-6, 7-6, 5-2, ret.



http://bbs.tennis.com.cn/uploadFiles/2008-01/6_6928305_2.jpg

Dallas WCT 1982

def. John McEnroe (USA) by 6-2, 3-6, 6-3, 6-3



http://bbs.tennis.com.cn/uploadFiles/2008-01/6_6928387_1.jpg

Stratton Mountain 1986

def. Boris Becker (FRG, now GER) by 6-4, 7-6



http://bbs.tennis.com.cn/uploadFiles/2008-01/6_6928412_1.jpg

Nabisco Masters 1986

def. Boris Becker (FRG, now GER) by 6-4, 6-4, 6-4



http://bbs.tennis.com.cn/uploadFiles/2008-01/6_6928495_1.jpg

London/Queen's Club 1989

def. Christo Van Rensburg (RSA) by 4-6, 6-3, 6-4



http://bbs.tennis.com.cn/uploadFiles/2008-01/6_6928511_1.jpg

London/Queen's Club 1990

def. Boris Becker (GER) by 6-3, 6-2

TennisGrandSlam
01-06-2008, 05:18 AM
You can debate in My old topic : Who is greater: Guillermo Vilas vs Patrick Rafter? (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=110238) :devil:

celia
01-06-2008, 05:59 AM
Agassi almost always played second fiddle to someone else....

Sad but true.

Aphex
01-06-2008, 06:31 AM
Lendl.

Action Jackson
01-06-2008, 08:31 AM
Rogiman nailed it with the last comment he made.

Action Jackson
01-30-2008, 10:32 AM
Finally some sense in an MTF poll.

sports freak
01-30-2008, 10:37 AM
Andre Agassi 53%-47% Lendl therefor Dre!!

Action Jackson
01-30-2008, 10:44 AM
Andre Agassi 53%-47% Lendl therefor Dre!!

This is not Zimbabwe or North Korea were elections and polls are rigged.

Stephan
01-30-2008, 10:47 AM
Andre Agassi 53%-47% Lendl therefor Dre!!

don't worry man...

what means this poll?: 55% are just Andre's haters, ;)
rest loves him :wavey:

both parts know: he is the best !...

Action Jackson
01-30-2008, 10:48 AM
don't worry man...

what means this poll?: 72% are just Andre's haters, ;)
rest loves him :wavey:

both parts know: he is the best !...

Illiterate as well as a fanboy, who can't see facts.

Stephan
01-30-2008, 10:52 AM
.. who can't see facts.


i see too: by this way you're "trying" again remind us on you Roger;)
my advice: replace your fav by .... Tsonga! :)

theDreamer
01-30-2008, 12:03 PM
For me, it boils down to dominance, as Rogiman said.
Agassi played second fiddle for most of his career while Lendl was "the best"
for a long stretch.

stebs
01-30-2008, 12:09 PM
It's very hypocritical and no I am not doing this just by stats.
I know that, I was saying it can be done either way. When comparing two players it can be done with both but any more players and it becomes impossible.

Stephan
01-30-2008, 12:18 PM
For me, it boils down to dominance, as Rogiman said.
Agassi played second fiddle for most of his career while Lendl was "the best"
for a long stretch.

we see - you are the "Dreamer"
why we speak about Lendl?
we are remembering him just because of Andre ;)...

Andre Agassi we will remember forever :)
Try to understand, it is not only due to his play...




i think most of people knows about tennis due to Agassi

rocketassist
01-30-2008, 12:42 PM
Agassi in his prime vs Lendl in his prime would be fascinating match up.

Action Jackson
01-30-2008, 12:50 PM
Agassi in his prime vs Lendl in his prime would be fascinating match up.

Lendl on clay and on carpet takes the majority of the matches. Grass would be interesting as to see who would volley first. Lendl had to play greats in their peak on grass, whereas Agassi had Sampras.

On hardcourt would be the only time it would be interesting as a match.

stebs
01-30-2008, 12:54 PM
Lendl had to play greats in their peak on grass, whereas Agassi had Sampras.
Sounds like you're implying Sampras wasn't a grass great. I assume you're not.

Grass would be interesting.... On hardcourt would be the only time it would be interesting.

:lol:
Bit of a contradiction isn't it?

Action Jackson
01-30-2008, 12:58 PM
Sampras one grass court great, well Lendl had to play McEnroe, Becker and Edberg in their prime on the green stuff.

rocketassist
01-30-2008, 01:15 PM
Krajicek, Rafter, Ivanisevic still a few strong grass players around in Agassi's era, to be fair.

Although McEnroe and Becker were better.

stebs
01-30-2008, 01:26 PM
Here's a little comparison. Both reached the QF's SEVEN times. Here are the players they beat and lost to from that stage:

Lendl
defeated:
Peace
Goldie
Mayotte x 2
Leconte
Edberg
Zivojinovic
Smid
Tanner

lost to:
McEnroe
Becker x 3
Connors
Cash
Edberg

Agassi
defeated:
Escude
Phillipoussis
Kuerten
Rafter
Eltingh
Becker
McEnroe
Ivanisevic

lost to:
Wheaton
Sampras x 2
Becker
Rafter x 2

I mean, there is only one defeat on either players list that stands out as bad and that's Wheaton for Agassi. However, I don't think you can judge on that alone so lets look at the victories they got.

Lendl's best wins were those over Mayotte, Leconte and, even more so, Edberg. Agassi got big wins over Flip, Becker, Rafter and Ivanisevic.

For me, the two are pretty much even when you break it down like that but I have to give it to Agassi purely for getting the trophy even if you can cite chance of draw etc... as reasons and his wins over Becker and Goran on lightning grass are maybe his best acheivement tennis wise.

stebs
01-30-2008, 01:28 PM
Krajicek, Rafter, Ivanisevic still a few strong grass players around in Agassi's era, to be fair.

Although McEnroe and Becker were better.

Becker was strong in Agassi's early years also, his victory over Boom Boom in '92 was a good win and Becker may not have been at his very best but he was certainly a very strong grass player then and had been to 6 of the last 7 Wimbledon finals.

theDreamer
01-30-2008, 04:43 PM
we see - you are the "Dreamer"
why we speak about Lendl?
we are remembering him just because of Andre ;)...

Andre Agassi we will remember forever :)


I bet the old Lendl fans said that as well :)
Everybody gets forgotten eventually.

Stephan
01-30-2008, 07:33 PM
I bet the old Lendl fans said that as well :)
Everybody gets forgotten eventually.

if you will look very hard, may be can find couple of them in Czhekh republic .... :D

besides tennis Andre is a nice, attractive man:)

and who f.e. Roger (or Lendl) is, just a "records collector"?
he is dreaming to win FO and cannot do...etc, etc
nobody will remember them at all

sports freak
01-31-2008, 11:49 AM
don't worry man...

what means this poll?: 55% are just Andre's haters, ;)
rest loves him :wavey:

both parts know: he is the best !...

Exactly,atleast somebody knows their tennis ;):wavey:

Rogiman
02-26-2008, 07:10 PM
Sorry, Lendl is just THAT much greater :wavey:

Boris Franz Ecker
02-26-2008, 08:15 PM
Lendl made unbelievable >20 mio $ prize money in the old times.

Action Jackson
02-28-2008, 12:41 PM
Lendl made unbelievable >20 mio $ prize money in the old times.

Wonder how much that would be now, it's not like he is struggling financially.

Rogiman
02-28-2008, 12:45 PM
Lendl wins, Never in doubt :dance:

Action Jackson
02-28-2008, 12:50 PM
Better watch it Rogiman, they might want to stone the philistines, who don't believe in the Church of Chrome Dome.

Stephan
02-28-2008, 12:50 PM
Wonder how much that would be now, it's not like he is struggling financially.

Hi again "dead Terrorist" (:haha:)
i found that because of your activity in these two Agassi related threads
the interest to Andre's section extremely improved!!!
Cannot believe, Go, Check yourself!
especially after posting of fresh Pictures there:)


Thanx a lot 4 the SPAM man(? man? sorry if i'm wrong...)
sometimes it really helps, continue please :wavey:

Boris Franz Ecker
02-28-2008, 06:43 PM
Wonder how much that would be now, it's not like he is struggling financially.


Lendl would be the all-time leader in prize money.

CyBorg
02-29-2008, 12:44 AM
Hi again "dead Terrorist" (:haha:)
i found that because of your activity in these two Agassi related threads
the interest to Andre's section extremely improved!!!
Cannot believe, Go, Check yourself!
especially after posting of fresh Pictures there:)


Thanx a lot 4 the SPAM man(? man? sorry if i'm wrong...)
sometimes it really helps, continue please :wavey:

I'm sure he's crushed.

Merton
02-29-2008, 01:12 AM
Lendl had an incredible run in tournaments from 1981-1989, in my mind his 94 titles are worth more than Connors' 105 since the latter includes quite a few "tournaments" where 3 wins would be enough for the title. It is certainly not a record that is going to be threatened any time soon. Even though Agassi had a greater time span, Lendl's performance during the 80s was way more consistent and impressive.

The money earned is quite impressive considering what where the prizes 20 years ago compared to today. As an example, in 1987 total prize money in RG was $1,325,000 while in 2007 it was $9,334,930.

CyBorg
02-29-2008, 02:44 AM
I've probably already mentioned this .. Lendl in '86 was one of the great years in the Open Era. Agassi never put together anything remotely as good as this.

There was no Aussie Open played that year, but consider:

- Lendl wins the 128-man Boca West, beating Mats Wilander in the final .. due to there being no Aussie the draws were rich with elite talent
- Lendl wins Roland Garros .. truly in dominant fashion
- Lendl makes it all the way to the final at Wimbledon, losing to Becker
- Lendl wins the US Open, beating Mecir
- Lendl completes a near-perfect year, capturing the Masters Cup

He won, I believe, nine titles but would have had more if not for a conservative schedule. He won consistently without any real stand-out warts. I would say this was a better year than Connors in 74 and also better than any of Pete's years and Mac's years (save for 1984).

Action Jackson
02-29-2008, 02:47 AM
I'm sure he's crushed.

I am the dead terrorist and you are guilty by association.

CyBorg
02-29-2008, 02:50 AM
http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1986&player=L018&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0

A few minor blemishes, but overall an amazing year .. notice that Lendl played significantly less than usual in the fall and fatigue was certainly a factor due to long runs at majors .. also impressive wins in Philadelphia, Rome and Stratton Mountain. The most amazing this is the opposition in these events - just look at who Lendl was facing; not a single weak tournament entered .. elite competition tourney after tourney and he still dominated.

Probably the most underrated single season ever. I think it could be argued that he was every bit as good as Mac in 84.

CyBorg
02-29-2008, 02:59 AM
I am the dead terrorist and you are guilty by association.

For much of my life I've drifted aimlessly, but now I've found a family.

Of course, who needs family when virgins are awaiting you high above.

http://www.biggerpockets.com/images/blog/mathnerd.gif

No, not these kinds of virgins! Or...

gulzhan
02-29-2008, 03:12 AM
Agassi for me

denisgiann
02-29-2008, 11:24 AM
Lendl was my favorite player of all time. And his records speak for themselves. But, in the end, I say Agassi. Why? Winning all four slams...and the Olympic gold medal...He is the one player who played, and defeated, the likes of McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Sampras, Guga, and Roger.

He played them all...and defeated them all...nuff said for me.

And he was second best to them all....;).Never dominated an era... he just ... survived them....;)

Stephan
03-28-2008, 11:58 AM
yes, are you ready folks?
(i posted similar stuff in other thread, but 4 this one it is passing better)
IVAN LENDL:
.........
about Andre Agassi:
...As I said, he's phenomenal, fantastic.

..........
about Roger Federer

you can very safely say he's one of the most talented players who is producing the wins...
there were some talented players and they never produced, in terms of records, what he's producing right now (fed is win producer? ;))

my opinion: Lendl is right :)
he made conclusion for current poll i find

SwiSha
03-28-2008, 12:08 PM
was an agassi fan

but its Lendl

Stephan
03-28-2008, 12:43 PM
was an agassi fan

but its Lendl

that is because of "was"

and if you will go to change it for "is"
nobody will believe you :)

Rogiman
03-28-2008, 12:48 PM
was an agassi fan

but its LendlOf course it is :)

Seriously, how many seasons did Agassi end at the top, remind me again...?

And how many weeks did he spend there...?

Rogiman
03-28-2008, 12:49 PM
that is because of "was"

and if you will go to change it for "is"
nobody will believe you :)With someone like you around - thanks god Agassi isn't active anymore

Stephan
03-28-2008, 12:54 PM
With someone like you around - thanks god Agassi isn't active anymore


rogimaman (man of rogi, i see :))

because of "federer - wins producer"?

it was Lendl's idea, not my...:)


not rogimaman, - rogiman sorry...

bokehlicious
03-28-2008, 12:58 PM
because of "federer - wins producer"?

it was Lendl's idea, not my...:)

:confused: what's wrong with being a "wins producer"? :scratch: isn't winning anyone's goal?

Stephan
03-28-2008, 12:59 PM
:confused: what's wrong with being a "wins producer"? :scratch: isn't winning anyone's goal?

i also don't know
ask Lendl :)

may be he finds player and producer as two different words?

SwiSha
03-28-2008, 01:02 PM
Of course it is :)

Seriously, how many seasons did Agassi end at the top, remind me again...?

And how many weeks did he spend there...?

no contest there,

Agassi was just a more popular guy for the people and all, success wise and concerning rankings this is not close, i think people give Agassi so much credit because he did win all 4 slams

Stephan
03-28-2008, 01:05 PM
no contest there,

Agassi was just a more popular guy for the people and all, success wise and concerning rankings this is not close, i think people give Agassi so much credit because he did win all 4 slams

1. "more popular guy for the people" - absolutely right
2. "i think people give Agassi so much credit because he did win all 4 slams"-
here you need 2 think one more time :)

Action Jackson
03-28-2008, 01:19 PM
http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1986&player=L018&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0

A few minor blemishes, but overall an amazing year .. notice that Lendl played significantly less than usual in the fall and fatigue was certainly a factor due to long runs at majors .. also impressive wins in Philadelphia, Rome and Stratton Mountain. The most amazing this is the opposition in these events - just look at who Lendl was facing; not a single weak tournament entered .. elite competition tourney after tourney and he still dominated.

Probably the most underrated single season ever. I think it could be argued that he was every bit as good as Mac in 84.


He wasn't a pretty boy or a media darling. The great stuff from the Kucera match at the US Open.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E6DD103EF93AA3575AC0A96E9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

September 9, 1998
U.S. OPEN; Agassi Comes Up Short In Rally Against Kucera

By ROBIN FINN

They were shunted from one stadium to another, assigned a match schedule that shifted from day to night and back into day. They were ordered to start their Round of 16 tilt on a dark, damp court Monday night and finish it yesterday on a dry court that sparkled like an emerald. Forgive Andre Agassi and Karol Kucera for being so confused about their United States Open mission that they occasionally forgot how to play tennis and lapsed into a five-set comedy of unforced errors, 145 in all, that eventually cost this Grand Slam the continued services of its 1994 champion.

''Any time you deal with the elements, and curveballs, two players have to deal with it, and I think he dealt with it better than I did,'' said the eighth-seeded Agassi after Kucera avenged his loss at the 1996 Olympics with a 6-3, 6-3, 6-7 (5-7), 1-6, 6-3 victory yesterday. He will face top-seeded Pete Sampras. Not only did Agassi hate being bumped from Arthur Ashe Stadium by Monday's storm, but he also hated being upstaged by a fellow who returned better than he did when their cliffhanger resolved itself yesterday.

''I can't say that I lost it,'' Agassi said. ''He definitely stepped it up, and I didn't respond there in the middle of the fifth when I could have continued to make it tough on him.'' Agassi did not reach the quarterfinals in any of the four Grand Slams he played in this year and, despite being two break points from a 3-0 lead in the final set yesterday, saw his record in comebacks from two sets down lapse to 2-5. ''That's when it slipped away,'' he said of that third game. ''The big picture is, yeah, I lost in the Round of 16 at the U.S. Open.'' Agassi, 28, did the same thing last year by becoming the fourth in Patrick Rafter's string of seven victims.

''I think it is the most interesting match in my career,'' Kucera said, who gained his sobriquet, ''the little cat,'' because he moves like his mentor, Miloslav Mecir, of ''big cat'' fame. After he saw a couple of his nine lives evaporate Monday night once Agassi started making a comeback, it was his mentor, Miloslav Mecir, who cautioned him to stick to tennis and to leave the show business -- including moonballs, tantrums and imitations -- to his desperate opponent.

''It was very tough for me to stay concentrated on my tactics; I had to be concentrated even when the crowd is going crazy,'' said Kucera, who endured a wild crowd Monday and again yesterday after Agassi won the fourth set to tie the match.

When the rain drove Agassi and his bag of tricks off the Louis Armstrong Stadium court Monday night, he had just figured out how to stop playing like a worm on a hook and had wriggled his way out of a two-sets-to-none predicament against Slovakia's ninth-seeded Kucera, who had dethroned Sampras at this year's Australian Open.

Agassi's desperate attempts for a victory included moonballs, fastballs and a devastating imitation of Kucera's hemming and hawing over his ball toss as he prepared for every serve. It was an inspired spurt of gamesmanship not seen in these parts since 39-year-old Jimmy Connors took his 1991 joy ride to the Open semifinals. It was also a page out of ''Winning Ugly,'' the tennis manual penned by Agassi's coach, Brad Gilbert, a book Agassi says he has never read.

The high jinks began midway through the third set, with Agassi down a break and three games from an exit. His moonballs assisted in a break against Kucera that got him to 3-4, and his service-line theatrics helped him hold for 4-4 and helped to further distract Kucera.

Agassi said all's fair at that crisis point in a Grand Slam. ''Last night it got to the point where it was so competitive, we could have put on boxing gloves, thrown darts, anything,'' Agassi said. ''Today was all about tennis. Last night he wasn't ready to hurt me. Today he was, and he did.''

Stephan
03-28-2008, 01:35 PM
He wasn't a pretty boy or a media darling. The great stuff from the Kucera match at the US Open.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E6DD103EF93AA3575AC0A96E9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

September 9, 1998
U.S. OPEN; Agassi Comes Up Short In Rally Against Kucera

By ROBIN FINN

......................................'

what it is here ?
a new poll: Agassi vs Kucera?

Who is greater, folks?

Andre Agassi or Kucera ? :haha:

i think you are using so long useless article just to close for fans previous posts... ;)

Burrow
03-28-2008, 01:45 PM
Well that guy is a certified Agassi hater, what do you expect?

Action Jackson
03-28-2008, 01:51 PM
Well that guy is a certified Agassi hater, what do you expect?

What's your problem exactly? I was asked specifically about that incident and as I don't write for the New York Times, that was their take on the antics.

I have already answered the thread question who the better player was.

Stephan
03-28-2008, 01:54 PM
Well that guy is a certified Agassi hater, what do you expect?

agree, he produces just a "tennis SPAM" :)

what his problem is? who knows?
if he some "oldy female" (or equal) is - then i can imagine:

Andre has ignored him, and prefered Steffi?
if somebody knows other dominant problem, please tell us...

SwiSha
03-28-2008, 02:22 PM
1. "more popular guy for the people" - absolutely right
2. "i think people give Agassi so much credit because he did win all 4 slams"-
here you need 2 think one more time :)



winning the 4 slams was a milestone in his career, however this will make him not greater than Ivan lendl

so what is there to think about

Stephan
03-28-2008, 02:22 PM
winning the 4 slams was a milestone in his career, however this will make him not greater than Ivan lendl

so what is there to think about

OK you are free don't think anymore...


because of that stupit article (above) of Andre's "lover" we lost Lendl's own opinion


IVAN LENDL:
.........
about Andre Agassi:
...As I said, he's phenomenal, fantastic.

..........
about Roger Federer

you can very safely say he's one of the most talented players who is producing the wins...
there were some talented players and they never produced, in terms of records, what he's producing right now
(federer is win producer? :))

my opinion: Lendl is right :)

Lendl himself made conclusion for current poll

gnaz
03-28-2008, 02:50 PM
Lendl

elessar
03-28-2008, 02:58 PM
agree, he produces just a "tennis SPAM" :)

what his problem is? who knows?
if he some "oldy female" (or equal) is - then i can imagine:

Andre has ignored him, and prefered Steffi?
if somebody knows other dominant problem, please tell us...
:haha: :haha:
Spot on :yeah: You know what they say about woman scorned :scared:
I'm afraid poor Georgie's never recovered, that's why he bribed the NYT and so many other newspapers and journalists to spread lies about poor Andre who's only ever been a model of sportsmanship:sad:
Luckily we've got you around to see right through her and reestablish the truth :D

As for the question, Lendl without a doubt:)

Stephan
03-28-2008, 03:11 PM
:haha: :haha:
Spot on :yeah: You know what they say about woman scorned :scared:
I'm afraid poor Georgie's never recovered, that's why he bribed the NYT and so many other newspapers and journalists to spread lies about poor Andre who's only ever been a model of sportsmanship:sad:
Luckily we've got you around to see right through her and reestablish the truth :D

As for the question, Lendl without a doubt:)

i don't know who you are, sorry...
tell us, what your problem is?;)

*Ljubica*
03-28-2008, 03:24 PM
Lendl :)

elessar
03-28-2008, 03:26 PM
i don't know who you are, sorry...
Ok you introduce yourself and then I'll go :D where are you from ? Armenia ?
tell us, what your problem is?;)
I don't even know where to begin :sobbing:
Luckily I know a great way to cheer myself up :D
http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=lendl&player2=agassi

Stephan
03-28-2008, 04:07 PM
Ok you introduce yourself and then I'll go :D where are you from ? Armenia ?

I don't even know where to begin :sobbing:
Luckily I know a great way to cheer myself up :D
http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=lendl&player2=agassi

OK i will start..
1. i am from Netherlands, ask for IP-check if do not believe :), partially armenian, almost like Andre:)

regarding to type of your question... i will also think:
you are Russian? or Soviet Union (what is same)? or ...? russian-jewish?

2."I don't even know where to begin"
if so difficult, do not start, we all will cry
i prefere this :)


read what Lendl says, he is also good player from Chekhoslovakia
"
IVAN LENDL:
.........
about Andre Agassi:
...As I said, he's phenomenal, fantastic.

..........
about Roger Federer

you can very safely say he's one of the most talented players who is producing the wins...
there were some talented players and they never produced, in terms of records, what he's producing right now
(federer is win producer? )

elessar
03-28-2008, 04:12 PM
OK i will start..
1. i am from Netherlands, ask for IP-check if do not believe :), partially armenian, almost like Andre:)
You're so lucky :hearts:
regarding to type of your question... i will also think:
you are Russian? or Soviet Union (what is same)? or ...? russian-jewish?
:spit: close
2."I don't even know where to begin"
if so difficult, do not start, we all will cry
i prefere this :)
You're right I'll shut up now snif

l_mac
03-28-2008, 04:16 PM
Agassi for sure.

Can't believe this "debate" is still raging :lol:

Stephan
03-28-2008, 04:17 PM
You're so lucky :hearts:

:spit: close

You're right I'll shut up now snif
i like you as a forum partner:wavey:
are you male or female?
how young?

come to Nalbandian section too, i am "fighting" there too :haha:

oooops, we lost Lendl now:

his conclusion his exellent, read it fans:

IVAN LENDL:
.........
about Andre Agassi:
...As I said, he's phenomenal, fantastic.

..........
about Roger Federer

you can very safely say he's one of the most talented players who is producing the wins...
there were some talented players and they never produced, in terms of records, what he's producing right now (fed is win producer? )

Stephan
03-28-2008, 04:39 PM
i like you as a forum partner:wavey:
are you male or female?
how young?

come to Nalbandian section too, i am "fighting" there too :haha:

oooops, we lost Lendl now:

his conclusion his exellent, read it fans:

IVAN LENDL:
.........
about Andre Agassi:
...As I said, he's phenomenal, fantastic.

..........
about Roger Federer

you can very safely say he's one of the most talented players who is producing the wins...
there were some talented players and they never produced, in terms of records, what he's producing right now (fed is win producer? )

what is wrong in my question?
what, are you between those two situations?

Rogiman
03-28-2008, 05:09 PM
Agassi for sure.Whatever made you say that, it wasn't the tennis. Typical you.

Rogiman
03-28-2008, 05:25 PM
Wow, Lendl is running away with the poll :woohoo:

Stephan
03-28-2008, 06:34 PM
may be because he did correctly defined rogi man?

i see in GM everybody is tired already of him :)
if it will go like this rogi will retire without FO GS in paris :D
rogi-man

Rogiman
03-28-2008, 06:46 PM
may be because he did correctly defined rogi man?

i see in GM everybody is tired already of him :)
if it will go like this rogi will retire without FO GS in paris :D
rogi-manShut up, you tool :lol:

l_mac
03-28-2008, 07:00 PM
Whatever made you say that, it wasn't the tennis. Typical you.

:ras:

It was his shiny bald head. :dance:

elessar
03-28-2008, 07:03 PM
:ras:

It was his shiny bald head. :dance:
That's a clear sign Lendl was better, he had that long skull going. Andre's rond little head never stood a chance :sad:

Stephan
03-28-2008, 08:16 PM
That's a clear sign Lendl was better, he had that long skull going. Andre's rond little head never stood a chance :sad:

few posts earlier you promissed yourself to stop spaming...


------------------
when Andre was starting as a player, Lendl was already a veteran about 30 y.o.:
first of their matches Lendl won, then last few - won Andre
they did not met each other on their maximum

nobody from the forum remembers really Lendl's play
i have seen him couple of times only in old video clips of "EUROSPORT classics" ch.
Andre is much younger, many of our members remember him still good,
they did see how he could punish their own favorites...

as a result Andre has "produced" lot of own haters
actually they (haters) also are too old, and here in the forum is just very little chance
4 them to pay back to great Andre :D

and they do voting... :)


reality is: those old-fans cannot understand just small difference
Andre will never know on their poor existence

Becker's Volleys
06-06-2008, 09:51 AM
Lendl was far more superior and dominant, but Agassi's 4 Grand Slams and Gold Olympic medal made me put him ahead in the greatness category:) That's an almost impossible thing to achieve..


I'm in total agreement here actually, good reasoning too. I rate Agassi ahead. I also think that failing to win Wimbledon hurts Lendl somewhat: even one title there and I'd probably place him in the Top 6 (ie: Higher than Agassi), he was still a fine grasscourt player mind you but never really looked a natural on the surface nor won many titles at all on it.

Another thing is that I always liked Agassi way more, hated Lendl. He was an ultra competitor, though so I suppose there's some grudging respect for that. As a person, though: Grade 'A' ****.

fast_clay
06-06-2008, 02:00 PM
lendl was a machine who did wonders with less talent than agassi - lendl was the creator of the blueprint for the 'modern professional' and changed the game... 8W/11L hurts...

but... agassi gets my vote for the 2nd phase of his career... taking a career Grand Slam by imposing his game succesfully on all surfaces, and thus, didnt make the mistake of many talents by not putting in the training to equal what god gave him...

such a hard call because of the fact agassi acheived the latter success by adopting the type of regime lendl made popular...

quality poll that

fast_clay
06-06-2008, 02:18 PM
Ok you introduce yourself and then I'll go :D where are you from ? Armenia ?

I don't even know where to begin :sobbing:
Luckily I know a great way to cheer myself up :D
http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=lendl&player2=agassi

i'd never did that head to head check... both players acheived mad longevity...

Fedex
06-06-2008, 06:48 PM
Lendl.

He played better competition and won more often.

Monteque
06-06-2008, 07:03 PM
I never see any Lendl match.
Lendl < Agassi < Laver < Sampras

Action Jackson
06-06-2008, 07:07 PM
Lendl.

He played better competition and won more often.

That's the point.

Lendl lost to greats in his GS finals. Edberg, McEnroe, Connors, Wilander, Becker and Cash was a GS specialist.

Agassi had great wins over Clement, Schuettler, Medvedev and Todd Martin.

Monteque
06-06-2008, 07:24 PM
Ferriera beat Federer, Sampras and Borg. The only player to do so, yet he is not proclaimed as GOAT.

interesting. never knew about that before.

Ferreira=giant killer:o

Kuhne
06-06-2008, 07:58 PM
Lendl cos he looks like an evil zombie and knocked down John McEnroe with a well placed shot

Fedex
06-06-2008, 08:01 PM
I never see any Lendl match.
Lendl < Agassi < Laver < Sampras

Then you really shouldn't be commenting on something you know little about. But the stats don't lie. Lendl was the better player.

Also, I have to question your knowledge of the game, if you think that that Federer-Nadal is the biggest rivalry in the history of the game. There must be at least 20 rivalries that have had a biger impact on the modern game than Federer-Nadal.

Fedex
06-06-2008, 08:14 PM
That's the point.

Lendl lost to greats in his GS finals. Edberg, McEnroe, Connors, Wilander, Becker and Cash was a GS specialist.

Agassi had great wins over Clement, Schuettler, Medvedev and Todd Martin.

Exactly. And I love it when the Agassi lovers point to the fact that Lendl lost 11 slam finals, when Agassi lost 7 of them himself.

The only truly great player that Agassi defeated in a slam final, was Sampras at the 1995 Australian Open. Lendl, on the other hand, defeated McEnroe in the finals(twice) and also defeated Wilander(twice) and Edberg. That's far more impressive.

rocketassist
06-06-2008, 08:33 PM
Exactly. And I love it when the Agassi lovers point to the fact that Lendl lost 11 slam finals, when Agassi lost 7 of them himself.

The only truly great player that Agassi defeated in a slam final, was Sampras at the 1995 Australian Open. Lendl, on the other hand, defeated McEnroe in the finals(twice) and also defeated Wilander(twice) and Edberg. That's far more impressive.

So it's only who the final opponent was and not the 4th round/QF/SF? Agassi won Wimbledon in the era of the aceathons, and beat players like Martin, Chang, Becker, Ivanisevic, Stich, Kafelnikov, Sampras, Kuerten, Rafter, Courier and Mancini on the way to his slam finals.

I'm not denying Lendl beat great players in his finals, but on the way there, were the rounds prior to it as difficult as Agassi's? I wouldn't say so.

Fedex
06-06-2008, 08:54 PM
So it's only who the final opponent was and not the 4th round/QF/SF? Agassi won Wimbledon in the era of the aceathons, and beat players like Martin, Chang, Becker, Ivanisevic, Stich, Kafelnikov, Sampras, Kuerten, Rafter, Courier and Mancini on the way to his slam finals.

I'm not denying Lendl beat great players in his finals, but on the way there, were the rounds prior to it as difficult as Agassi's? I wouldn't say so.

You aren't winning any arguments bringing up any of those players. None of them were great players. Even Rafter was only great for a two year period and pretty mediocre the rest of his career. Agassi didn't fare exceptionally well against Kuerten despite the fact that nearly all of the matches were played on hard courts and none on clay. Courier peaked early and retired early and was not even playing during most of Agassi's best years.

There's no denying Agassi's place in the game, and he is one of the best ever. Agassi has the edge in charisma and that is why he is often recognized more for his achievements than Lendl is. But this isn't a beauty pageant. Lendl was the better player hands down.

fast_clay
06-06-2008, 09:04 PM
few posts earlier you promissed yourself to stop spaming...


------------------
when Andre was starting as a player, Lendl was already a veteran about 30 y.o.:
first of their matches Lendl won, then last few - won Andre
they did not met each other on their maximum

nobody from the forum remembers really Lendl's play
i have seen him couple of times only in old video clips of "EUROSPORT classics" ch.
Andre is much younger, many of our members remember him still good,
they did see how he could punish their own favorites...

as a result Andre has "produced" lot of own haters
actually they (haters) also are too old, and here in the forum is just very little chance
4 them to pay back to great Andre :D

and they do voting... :)


reality is: those old-fans cannot understand just small difference
Andre will never know on their poor existence


i remember lendl... well...

i remember he was fukn scary... if he could beat a guy 6-0 6-0 he would... from 1st round to final...

ruthless...

had a real sentimental spot for him from 91-94... he was getting beat by players that werent even the slimy scum that sits upon the toejam beneath lendls mighty feet... still he kept soldiering on till his back could take no more...

warrior spirit...

Boris Franz Ecker
06-06-2008, 09:10 PM
So it's only who the final opponent was and not the 4th round/QF/SF? Agassi won Wimbledon in the era of the aceathons,

Only once.

Agassi is an Aussie Open legend, nothing else.
Agassi wouldn't have won the US Open if Sampras wasn't in bad condition on both occassions.

Lendl was arguably the greater player.
Ok, he didn't win Wimbledon which is the biggest title overall, but Agassi won it only once. Once is not enough.

Lendl was the better player without doubts.

Just to repeat it.

Aussie Open legend is not greater than Lendl. Stop dreaming.

rocketassist
06-06-2008, 09:17 PM
Only once.

Agassi is an Aussie Open legend, nothing else.
Agassi wouldn't have won the US Open if Sampras wasn't in bad condition on both occassions.

Lendl was arguably the greater player.
Ok, he didn't win Wimbledon which is the biggest title overall, but Agassi won it only once. Once is not enough.

Lendl was the better player without doubts.

Just to repeat it.

Aussie Open legend is not greater than Lendl. Stop dreaming.

I didn't realise the AO wasn't a grand slam title.

You're suggesting the gulf between the two men was wide, when it clearly is a close call.

thrust
06-07-2008, 12:20 AM
Weeks at #1: Lendl-270, Andre- 30. Year End #1: Lendl- 4, Andre- 1. Titles won: Lendl- 94, Andre- 60. H-H Lendl 6-2. Both have 8 Slams. The only important advantage is that Andre won all 4 Slams, Lendl won 3 of 4. LENDL HAS THE BETTER STATS AND, THEREFORE, WAS GREATER THAN ANDRE.

Rogiman
06-07-2008, 12:25 AM
Weeks at #1: Lendl-270, Andre- 30. Year End #1: Lendl- 4, Andre- 1. Titles won: Lendl- 94, Andre- 60. H-H Lendl 6-2. Both have 8 Slams. The only important advantage is that Andre won all 4 Slams, Lendl won 3 of 4. LENDL HAS THE BETTER STATS AND, THEREFORE, WAS GREATER THAN ANDRE.Perfect summary.

BigJohn
06-07-2008, 12:37 AM
Weeks at #1: Lendl-270, Andre- 30. Year End #1: Lendl- 4, Andre- 1. Titles won: Lendl- 94, Andre- 60. H-H Lendl 6-2. Both have 8 Slams. The only important advantage is that Andre won all 4 Slams, Lendl won 3 of 4. LENDL HAS THE BETTER STATS AND, THEREFORE, WAS GREATER THAN ANDRE.

Yes, nice summary, both are really good players I admire, but...

On all these things that Lendl has the edge, there are people that have done better.

Agassi is the only one who won a career GS on 4 surfaces. No one else has ever done that.

Based on that, (and his reinventions) I have Agassi as the GOAT in my book.

Of course, should Federer win RG, then he would leap ahead.

All_Slam_Andre
06-07-2008, 04:20 PM
I would give the edge to Agassi. Sure he wasn't as dominant as other open era greats such as Sampras, Federer, Borg, Lendl, Connors and McEnroe, but he has achieved every significant feat at least once. Lendl can't say the same thing. Despite Lendl's greater dominance, Agassi still won the same number of grand slam titles as him. Many people say that Agassi's total is devalued by the fact that half of his slams came at Melbourne, but that is nonsense. Since 1988 when the Australian Open relocated to Melbourne Park and expanded its draw size to 128 players, it has been on a par with the other 3 slams. Give me 8 grand slam titles across all 4 venues over 8 grand slams across 3 out of the 4 venues any day. Not winning Wimbledon (or any grand slam) is a bigger blemish on a tennis CV than not dominating your era in my opinion.
Even taking into account the decade before that when it was the weakest link, since 1978 when the US Open has been held at Flushing Meadows, Agassi is the only man to have triumphed on the hard courts there, the clay courts at Roland Garros and the grass courts at Wimbledon. None of the other 6 players that I have mentioned have done that. Agassi held 3 grand slams at the same time which is something that Lendl never did.

denisgiann
06-07-2008, 04:22 PM
Agassi was the eternal second best against the big guns... and lendl is one of them no doubt about that......:cool:

Fedex
06-07-2008, 04:37 PM
Weeks at #1: Lendl-270, Andre- 30. Year End #1: Lendl- 4, Andre- 1. Titles won: Lendl- 94, Andre- 60. H-H Lendl 6-2. Both have 8 Slams. The only important advantage is that Andre won all 4 Slams, Lendl won 3 of 4. LENDL HAS THE BETTER STATS AND, THEREFORE, WAS GREATER THAN ANDRE.

That's pretty much domination. The only thing that keeps Agassi in the same area code as Lendl is that he won the career Slam, and on all 4 surfaces, even more significant.

Kolya
06-07-2008, 05:08 PM
Weeks at #1: Lendl-270, Andre- 30. Year End #1: Lendl- 4, Andre- 1. Titles won: Lendl- 94, Andre- 60. H-H Lendl 6-2. Both have 8 Slams. The only important advantage is that Andre won all 4 Slams, Lendl won 3 of 4. LENDL HAS THE BETTER STATS AND, THEREFORE, WAS GREATER THAN ANDRE.

Well put mate.

Lendl dominates Agassi in all criteria bar one.

Monteque
06-08-2008, 09:50 AM
Then you really shouldn't be commenting on something you know little about. But the stats don't lie. Lendl was the better player.

Also, I have to question your knowledge of the game, if you think that that Federer-Nadal is the biggest rivalry in the history of the game. There must be at least 20 rivalries that have had a biger impact on the modern game than Federer-Nadal.

Ok. My post maybe a bit bias. But it's not a mistake. From the stats, for me Agassi and Lendl is in the same league, a little bit better or worse, it wont matter. For you to know i never see any Borg or Laver or even McEnroe full macth more than a highlight (maybe a match or two)...but their stats show it all.

For the Nadal-Fed rivalry...if it's not the biggest rivalry ever...it's SURELY one of the biggest ever.

1. Nadal is 22, Federer is 26. They've already met in the 5 final grandslams, it just only can be more and more finals again. Can you please name it the rivalries that MORE GS finals than this? not many or nothing...right? let alone i take the fact from their YOUNG ages.

2. Can you name it the era, that the other 11 grandslam titles that only accomplished by just two players? It even didnt close enough...right?

3. Fed holds the longest winning streak on grass and counting. Nadal holds on clay. They are surely 2 GOATS in one era....right?

There are some more again i can show you and i'm receptive to new ideas not just that the facts i've showed you. So if you wanted to dig my knowledge about tennis, maybe it would make you upset. The Roddick, Fed, Hewitt, Nadal and old Agassi generations is all i know but im not completely blind about tennis history. What could be worth to know about history so deep if the the greatest player of all time is in this era +the best claycourt ever. You wont be regret to live these days:devil:

Shirogane
06-08-2008, 10:29 AM
Weeks at #1: Lendl-270, Andre- 30. Year End #1: Lendl- 4, Andre- 1. Titles won: Lendl- 94, Andre- 60. H-H Lendl 6-2. Both have 8 Slams. The only important advantage is that Andre won all 4 Slams, Lendl won 3 of 4. LENDL HAS THE BETTER STATS AND, THEREFORE, WAS GREATER THAN ANDRE.

it's 100 weeks for Andre.

sports freak
06-08-2008, 11:25 AM
Ivan Lendl was my Idol but stilll going with Dr Dre,also a tougher era imho!!

finishingmove
08-23-2008, 05:12 PM
Agassi = most overrated American ever and probably the most overrated player ever (with Nadull).



lendl is leading the poll.

so how does this make agassi overrated?


Overrated because he's put close to Sampras/Laver/Lendl when he's way below them.

Both bland, without any personality and total phonies.


lol?

GlennMirnyi
08-23-2008, 05:19 PM
lendl is leading the poll.

so how does this make agassi overrated?




lol?

The fact that it's close, when this should be a whitewash for Lendl shows how much Fakegassi is overrated.

finishingmove
08-23-2008, 05:24 PM
The fact that it's close, when this should be a whitewash for Lendl shows how much Fakegassi is overrated.


how come?

they have the same amount of slams, and agassi won wimbledon, something lendl never did.

that qualifies for 'close' to say the least.

GlennMirnyi
08-23-2008, 05:35 PM
how come?

they have the same amount of slams, and agassi won wimbledon, something lendl never did.

that qualifies for 'close' to say the least.

4 of Agassi's slams are AOs = MM slams.

Lendl from his 8 slams has 3 RG and 3 USOs = more important. Lendl also has 19 slam finals.

Also Lendl won the Masters Cup 5 times, and was #1 for 270 weeks.

Sorry mate, there's no comparison.

Toko
08-23-2008, 07:28 PM
Someone should siggy this:"Hall of shame - the people who think Aggasi was greater than Lendl".

alfonsojose
08-23-2008, 07:33 PM
Lendl.