Agassi made 4 straight Grand Slam Finals, winning 3 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Agassi made 4 straight Grand Slam Finals, winning 3

IMMORTALCHAMP
09-21-2005, 05:52 AM
1999 French Open - Won
1999 Wimbledon - Runner-up to Pete
1999 US Open - Won
2000 Australian Open - Won

Is this the best 12 months in Open era history?

Dirk
09-21-2005, 05:53 AM
Try Laver's 69. :haha:

IMMORTALCHAMP
09-21-2005, 05:54 AM
Try Laver's 69. :haha:

Obviously Laver won all 4 slams in a year but that was at a time when almost everything was on the same surface and the quality and depth of tennis was far inferior to today's game. I think those factors more than make up that lost Final to Pete at Wimbledon.

Scotso
09-21-2005, 06:16 AM
Obviously Laver won all 4 slams in a year but that was at a time when almost everything was on the same surface and the quality and depth of tennis was far inferior to today's game. I think those factors more than make up that lost Final to Pete at Wimbledon.

Well, Laver won on two surfaces, clay and grass. Andre won on two surfaces, clay and hard.

And 1999-2000 wasn't the best year of tennis depth-wise.

IMMORTALCHAMP
09-21-2005, 06:21 AM
Well, Laver won on two surfaces, clay and grass. Andre won on two surfaces, clay and hard.

And 1999-2000 wasn't the best year of tennis depth-wise.

Agassi won on Clay, Hardcourt, Rebound Ace, and lost to the greatest Grasscourter ever in the Wimbledon Final.

The 1999-2000 era was a higher quality era than the 1969 era.

By the way, Agassi beat Sampras in the semi-final of the 2000 Australian Open.

disturb3d
09-21-2005, 06:29 AM
And 1999-2000 wasn't the best year of tennis depth-wise.'99-'00, were the years of highest quality.

Gustavo, Lleyton, Pete, Andre. You couldn't ask for a better line-up.

Chloe le Bopper
09-21-2005, 06:49 AM
Obviously Laver won all 4 slams in a year but that was at a time when almost everything was on the same surface and the quality and depth of tennis was far inferior to today's game. I think those factors more than make up that lost Final to Pete at Wimbledon.

Why do people always say that? :shrug: It's all relative. It's not like Laver was superman, playing tennis with a furturistic racquet and the benefits of sports science that would only be available to everybody else 30 years later.

Chloe le Bopper
09-21-2005, 06:50 AM
'99-'00, were the years of highest quality.

Gustavo, Lleyton, Pete, Andre. You couldn't ask for a better line-up.
Maybe you couldn't.

JonnyC21
09-21-2005, 07:23 AM
There's no doubt that Agassi's 1999-early 2000 was peak Andre and that he probably never played better than in those 10 months. The other best players at this point, who played in that year's Master's Cup were Kafelnikov, Sampras, Enqvist, Kuerten, Kiefer, Lapentti and Todd Martin. Rafter and Moya were obviously big forces as they reached No1 that year but injuries meant they slipped from the top ranks.
I don't believe however, that Andre's hot streak comes anything close to Federer's 2004 or 2005 in terms of dominance. Andre won a mere 5 titles in 1999 and finished the year 64-14 I believe, and the Australian Open was his only title in 2000 I believe.

NYCtennisfan
09-21-2005, 07:47 AM
That run is one of the greatest accomplishments in the Open Era especially since he was was 30 years old at the time. It's going to be very hard for anyone in today's game to do that again. I think Fed has a chance with the next two slams but that's still a lot of victories away.

MisterQ
09-21-2005, 02:42 PM
There's no doubt that Agassi's 1999-early 2000 was peak Andre and that he probably never played better than in those 10 months. The other best players at this point, who played in that year's Master's Cup were Kafelnikov, Sampras, Enqvist, Kuerten, Kiefer, Lapentti and Todd Martin. Rafter and Moya were obviously big forces as they reached No1 that year but injuries meant they slipped from the top ranks.
I don't believe however, that Andre's hot streak comes anything close to Federer's 2004 or 2005 in terms of dominance. Andre won a mere 5 titles in 1999 and finished the year 64-14 I believe, and the Australian Open was his only title in 2000 I believe.

In terms of overall dominance, you are correct, Andre's streak does not compare with Federer's. Few players in the Open Era do... except perhaps McEnroe in 1984.

However, Andre's 4 consective GS finals on different surfaces was a remarkable performance at the slams, one which hasn't been equalled by anyone else.

TennisGrandSlam
09-21-2005, 03:24 PM
In terms of overall dominance, you are correct, Andre's streak does not compare with Federer's. Few players in the Open Era do... except perhaps McEnroe in 1984.

However, Andre's 4 consective GS finals on different surfaces was a remarkable performance at the slams, one which hasn't been equalled by anyone else.

Win - Loss %

1. John McEnroe (1984) 82-3 [96.47%]
Titles won : 13
Philadelphia, Richmond WCT, Madrid, Brussels, Dallas WCT, Forest Hills WCT, Queens, Wimbledon, Toronto, US Open, San Francisco, Stockholm, Masters

2. Roger Federer (2004) 74-6 [92.50%]
Titles won : 11
Australian Open, Dubai, TMS Indian Wells, TMS Hamburg, Halle, Wimbledon, Gstaad, TMS Toronto, US Open, Bangkok, Tennis Masters Cup

2. Ivan Lendl (1986) 74-6 [92.50%]
Titles won : 9
Philadelphia, Boca West, Milan, Fort Myers, Rome, Roland Garros, Stratton Mountain, US Open, Masters

2. Bjorn Borg (1979) 74-6 [92.50%]
Titles won : 11
Richmond WCT, Rotterdam, Monte Carlo, Las Vegas, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, Bastad, Toronto, Palermo, Tokyo Indoor, Masters

disturb3d
09-21-2005, 09:08 PM
John McEnroe (1984) 82-3 [96.47%]
Titles won : 13
Philadelphia, Richmond WCT, Madrid, Brussels, Dallas WCT, Forest Hills WCT, Queens, Wimbledon, Toronto, US Open, San Francisco, Stockholm, Masters I wonder why John doesn't top the "greatest ever" list.

Chloe le Bopper
09-21-2005, 09:19 PM
I wonder why John doesn't top the "greatest ever" list.
Oh, maybe because he decided to take a little break mid career and never won another slam after returning. ;) What if, what if.

BAMJ6
09-21-2005, 10:00 PM
This accomplishment is even greater because he was 30. i bet this will stand for a long time because no male tennis player hits peaks that late. Not Hewitt, Safin, Roddick.

Nadal and Fed are longshots to do this when they're at their 30's.

Scotso
09-21-2005, 10:43 PM
This accomplishment is even greater because he was 30. i bet this will stand for a long time because no male tennis player hits peaks that late. Not Hewitt, Safin, Roddick.

Nadal and Fed are longshots to do this when they're at their 30's.

Much of this is due to the fact that Agassi had a nice break in his career, and generally didn't work very hard in many of his years.

Agassi wasn't the only player to play well late. Rod Laver, the above mentioned, won his second grand slam at the age of 31.

Connors also won two slams after turning 30.

I have no doubt that many players, players that are the calibre of Bjorn Borg and others could have probably had continuing success at a later age.

Pete Sampras probably could have equaled or bettered Agassi's post-32 results had he continued playing.

Yes, Agassi's accomplishments are rare, but not unheard of, and not solely because no one else "can" do it.

BAMJ6
09-21-2005, 10:58 PM
Much of this is due to the fact that Agassi had a nice break in his career, and generally didn't work very hard in many of his years.

Agassi wasn't the only player to play well late. Rod Laver, the above mentioned, won his second grand slam at the age of 31.

Connors also won two slams after turning 30.

I have no doubt that many players, players that are the calibre of Bjorn Borg and others could have probably had continuing success at a later age.

Pete Sampras probably could have equaled or bettered Agassi's post-32 results had he continued playing.

Yes, Agassi's accomplishments are rare, but not unheard of, and not solely because no one else "can" do it.


Okay, then this is rarer

Agassi is the oldest player to win the most consecutive tournaments to start a year (that includes a Grand Slam) when he won 4 to start 2003 with Austalian Open title 4, San Jose TMS Miami, and Houston Clay Courts. (32-33)

Scotso
09-21-2005, 11:07 PM
Rod Laver is the older player to ever win a title that was named Rod Laver.

Anyone can pull stats like that out of the air, it doesn't mean anything. No one's saying that Agassi isn't a great player, and playing that well at a later age is impressive, but it still doesn't make him the greatest player to have ever lived.

deliveryman
09-22-2005, 12:02 AM
Rod Laver is the older player to ever win a title that was named Rod Laver.

I normally find you utterly annoying and retarded.

lol but I have to admit, that was funny. kudos.

Scotso
09-22-2005, 12:03 AM
Yeah, despite the typo, I'm proud of it.

disturb3d
09-22-2005, 12:10 AM
Pete Sampras probably could have equaled or bettered Agassi's post-32 results had he continued playing.Where do you get this shit? Sampras won one title in the last 3 years of his career.

Scotso
09-22-2005, 01:58 AM
Where do you get this shit? Sampras won one title in the last 3 years of his career.

Agassi has only won two titles in the last two years, but that doesn't stop people from declaring that he rules the world, does it?

And one of those titles that Sampras won was the US Open... over Agassi in the final. Another was Wimbledon. Surely that counts for something?

Also, he threw in two other US Open finals in those last three years.

AgassiFan
09-22-2005, 03:00 AM
Agassi has only won two titles in the last two years, but that doesn't stop people from declaring that he rules the world, does it?



Gee let's think about this a minute...


Fed and Marat hadn't reached their prime back in early 00's (and even so, Marat still manhandled Pete in '00 and Fed - at '01 Wimbly)..... Otherwise, Pete wouldn't have dreamed of winning either 2000 Wimbledon or 2002 USO were Roger just 3-4 years older.

Now... Take Marat & Roger out of the equation (or at least let Marat be 22 at '04 AO instead of more mature 24) to simulate those same conditions..... and Agassi wins both 2004 and 2005 US Opens, in addition to 2004 and possibly even 2005 Aussie Opens, though I admit Hewitt would have put up a fight in the latter.

That's as many as 4 Slams at the age of 34 and 35 for Dre - 3 of them while playing with a bad back/hip..... In addition to extra "smaller" titles like YEC, Miami, etc that he ended up falling just short of.... That's incredible!


Suffice it to say, Pete wouldn't be "equaling or exceeding" shit at 34-35 yo with in-prime Marat, Roddick and Roger around. Not even close.




...

Scotso
09-22-2005, 04:31 AM
Gee let's think about this a minute...


Fed and Marat hadn't reached their prime back in early 00's (and even so, Marat still manhandled Pete in '00 and Fed - at '01 Wimbly)..... Otherwise, Pete wouldn't have dreamed of winning either 2000 Wimbledon or 2002 USO were Roger just 3-4 years older.

Now... Take Marat & Roger out of the equation (or at least let Marat be 22 at '04 AO instead of more mature 24) to simulate those same conditions..... and Agassi wins both 2004 and 2005 US Opens, in addition to 2004 and possibly even 2005 Aussie Opens, though I admit Hewitt would have put up a fight in the latter.

That's as many as 4 Slams at the age of 34 and 35 for Dre - 3 of them while playing with a bad back/hip..... In addition to extra "smaller" titles like YEC, Miami, etc that he ended up falling just short of.... That's incredible!


Suffice it to say, Pete wouldn't be "equaling or exceeding" shit at 34-35 yo with in-prime Marat, Roddick and Roger around. Not even close.




...

The argument that without those players, Andre would have won more slams is pointless and stupid. Those players were there, he didn't win those slams. Tough luck, so sad.

AgassiFan
09-22-2005, 06:02 AM
The argument that without those players, Andre would have won more slams is pointless and stupid.

Linear thinking much?

In the context of your OWN comment that Pete could have easily exceeded what Agassi has done at 34-35 yo, which according to you wasn't anything special since he technically didn't *win* anything... my reply is both SPOT ON and extremely RELEVANT, and if you weren't such a legendarily biased goof when it comes to Andre, maybe you'd recognize the logic behind it and at least re-examine your own assumptions.


So let's try this again, only slowly, so your imagination can catch up:

-Sampras wins last two slams, at 29 and 31 yo respectively. It's inarguable that the two most talented of their generation, Federer and Safin, were not yet in their prime at the time - though they did provide a little "taste" for Pete to enjoy by thwarting his quests for 2000 USO and 2001 Wimbly... I am sorry but Pete flat-out does NOT win either of his final 2 Slams if he had to deal with the 2004-2005 Roger; hell, he probably doesn't get by 2003-2004 version of Roddick at USO or Wimbly, either.... Do you actually contest this?

-Agassi, on the other hand, had to deal with Marat and Roger while at their peak the last 2 years, almost beating them in 3 of the 4 Slam meetings in question (lone exception is Fed's comfortable win at 2005 AO). But take Roger and Marat out of the picture completely - or at least take them out of their primes so we could compare Pete's and Andre's runs on more equal footing - and is there any doubt in anyone's mind that Andre doesn't walk away with both 2004 and 2005 USO's as well as 2004 AO? Hell, look at the form he displayed against Pim-Pim at 2005 AO? Hewitt could have beaten him in the final, true, but making it to the final is not bad, all things considered either and I am not quite sure Llleyton played better necessarily... At the USO, with crowds going out of their minds, Lleyton would not have put up a fight IMO.

-I mean, get a clue will ya? You're talking about Agassi who was by then 3-5 years older than Pete was during his two Slam runs this century... playing with a seriously messed up back, to boot... having to slug through two of the greastest natural talents to ever pick up a racquet, already operating in their PRIME by 2004-2005... Hell, I doubt Pete would have cracked the Top 20 at 34-35 yo and under the conditions Andre had to toil in the last 2 years. So credit where due.




.

Scotso
09-22-2005, 06:24 AM
First, you're twisting my words.

Second, Lleyton always puts up a fight.

Third, the rest of your argument makes even less sense.

Scotso
09-22-2005, 06:25 AM
Take the top 100 OUT of the picture, insert Pete Sampras, and he would have won the grand slam 10 TIMES! TEN!

aj_m2009
09-22-2005, 06:53 AM
Linear thinking much?

In the context of your OWN comment that Pete could have easily exceeded what Agassi has done at 34-35 yo, which according to you wasn't anything special since he technically didn't *win* anything... my reply is both SPOT ON and extremely RELEVANT, and if you weren't such a legendarily biased goof when it comes to Andre, maybe you'd recognize the logic behind it and at least re-examine your own assumptions.

KBF never said Pete would EASILY exceed what Agassi has done. If ur gonna present a stupid arguement at least get that much right! :rolleyes:

So let's try this again, only slowly, so your imagination can catch up:

-Sampras wins last two slams, at 29 and 31 yo respectively. It's inarguable that the two most talented of their generation, Federer and Safin, were not yet in their prime at the time - though they did provide a little "taste" for Pete to enjoy by thwarting his quests for 2000 USO and 2001 Wimbly... I am sorry but Pete flat-out does NOT win either of his final 2 Slams if he had to deal with the 2004-2005 Roger; hell, he probably doesn't get by 2003-2004 version of Roddick at USO or Wimbly, either.... Do you actually contest this?

-Agassi, on the other hand, had to deal with Marat and Roger while at their peak the last 2 years, almost beating them in 3 of the 4 Slam meetings in question (lone exception is Fed's comfortable win at 2005 AO). But take Roger and Marat out of the picture completely - or at least take them out of their primes so we could compare Pete's and Andre's runs on more equal footing - and is there any doubt in anyone's mind that Andre doesn't walk away with both 2004 and 2005 USO's as well as 2004 AO? Hell, look at the form he displayed against Pim-Pim at 2005 AO? Hewitt could have beaten him in the final, true, but making it to the final is not bad, all things considered either and I am not quite sure Llleyton played better necessarily... At the USO, with crowds going out of their minds, Lleyton would not have put up a fight IMO.

-I mean, get a clue will ya? You're talking about Agassi who was by then 3-5 years older than Pete was during his two Slam runs this century... playing with a seriously messed up back, to boot... having to slug through two of the greastest natural talents to ever pick up a racquet, already operating in their PRIME by 2004-2005... Hell, I doubt Pete would have cracked the Top 20 at 34-35 yo and under the conditions Andre had to toil in the last 2 years. So credit where due.




.

Hate to break it to ya, but they were/are here, so sayin that Agassi woulda won more slams if they werent is stupid cos u dont know that he would have! Oh and btw, u notice u said he ALMOST beat them?! Thats not beatin them.;)

AgassiFan
09-22-2005, 04:35 PM
Second, Lleyton always puts up a fight.

.


Ok, if you believe he would have beaten Agassi at either 04 or 05 USO Finals, whatever makes you happy. Most objective tennis observers would definately give the edge to Agassi, both in terms of level of play displayed up to that point and because of the crowd - hell, even Roger Himself at one point looked like he might lose under those circumstances.

2004 AO - who was in Roger's half of the draw, I forget. Agassi, too, was playing too well, should have beaten Marat even (6-7, 6-7 wasting set points in both sets, before easily taking 3rd and 4th)... Either way, the point is that outside of Marat and Roger, two fantastically gifted players already operating in their prime by then, there WEREN'T any other players in that tourney who you could say were playing as well, let alone better than Andre - whose sciatic hadn't even been acting up at the timem btw.

2005 AO - now that's where Lleyton would have been a slight favorite over Andre. So even if Andre loses in the Final - hey, that's a great accomplishment in itself.

Pete, one of the all-time greats, wouldn't have cracked a top 20 if he continued on in 2003, let alone 2004-2005. So you might as well cut your "Andre still playing? That don't impress me much, lala-lala" crap. Talk to some tennis pros about what it means to be playing at this level, against Roger and Marat in their primes, in your mid-30s and with an inarguably screwed up back limiting your movement/ball-striking, to boot....


...

AgassiFan
09-22-2005, 04:37 PM
Take the top 100 OUT of the picture, insert Pete Sampras, and he would have won the grand slam 10 TIMES! TEN!

Simple-minded, misguided and not the least bit creative or humorous. In other words, KarolBeckFan business as usual.

AgassiFan
09-22-2005, 04:48 PM
Hate to break it to ya, but they were/are here, so sayin that Agassi woulda won more slams if they werent is stupid cos u dont know that he would have!

Brush up on the reading comp first, sweetie. I clearly wasn't suggesting we revise's Andre's Slam totals. The 'Aging Pete/Ancient Agassi Runs' discussion is meant to have a hypothetical bent to it, but with very realistic underpinning to it.

And, yes, I DO know he would have - or at least would have been the clear favourtie in at least 3 of those 2004-2005 Slams in question. Why? Because I understand how this little thing we call 'tennis' works and I am not afraid of objectivity - whether that means lambasting Agassi or sometimes, like in this thread, actually acknowledging that he in fact has been playing remarkably well the last couple of years, under some unenviable circumstances that Pete, luckily, avoided both in '00 and '02.