--------------------------- [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

---------------------------

Just Cause
09-14-2006, 04:08 AM
Do you think so?...I simply cannot accept the fact that people actually believe Agassi is greater than Federer, unfortunately. Federer not only has more slams, he also has more weeks of consecutive #1 which says even more about his greatness?

(Sorry guys, I have to start this thread, because some of the thread titles are simply not acceptable).

mangoes
09-14-2006, 04:12 AM
This may be asking too much of you, but can you try to not start a new thread for the next 2 hours??? This subject is, presently, being discussed in several other threads........

Just Cause
09-14-2006, 04:13 AM
Sure, actually I wasnt going to start another thread until tomorrow.
But whoever suggests that Agassi is greater than Federer..that is just ridicilous.
No disrespect to Agassi, but that simply is not true.

Sjengster
09-14-2006, 04:21 AM
Read Federer's interview during the US Open when he was asked about Agassi's retirement. "He had a career we'd all like to have", or words to that effect; I know some journalists said that was just false modesty. Then remember his Slam record this year, and you'll realise why he said that.

CmonAussie
09-14-2006, 06:15 AM
Read Federer's interview during the US Open when he was asked about Agassi's retirement. "He had a career we'd all like to have", or words to that effect; I know some journalists said that was just false modesty. Then remember his Slam record this year, and you'll realise why he said that.
:wavey:
Yeah winning Slams is not just about the numbers ;) .For Agassi it was more about longevity & doing the unexpected :worship:
*Agassi`s 1st Slam win (1992 Wimby)
-->>last Slam win (2003 AO) :worship:
*Agassi`s 1st Slam SF (1988 FO)
-->>last Slam SF (2005 USO)
*Agassi`s 1st Slam final (1990 FO)
-->>last Slam final (2005 USO)
*Agassi`s 1st tourney win (Itaparica 1987)
-->>last tourney win (LA 2005) :worship:
..............
...................
............................I doubt Federer will be able to match Agassi for longevity. Federer wasn`t as good as a teenager as Agassi was & he won`t even be playing in his 30`s- so he won`t match Andre there either. What Federer does have is sheer dominance & apart from 1999-00 (FO - AO) Agassi has never looked dominant :cool:

oz_boz
09-14-2006, 08:26 AM
Agassi has the career slam, hence I put him above Fed for the moment. If Fed wins double digit slams and surpasses Connors #1 stretch I'll put him above Agassi.

Boris Franz Ecker
09-14-2006, 08:52 AM
Federer is greater than Agassi and he was already greater before winning the US Open. Threre's no doubt.

disturb3d
09-14-2006, 10:09 AM
Agassi is the game's greatest ambassador, personality, and contributor to society.
His name will transcend this century, and probably others ahead of it.
He is without a doubt, THE most profound individual to have played professional tennis.

Is he a better tennis player than Federer? No.
Does his quality in greater aspects of life more than make up for it? You bet it does.

Conita
09-14-2006, 11:12 AM
Not fair to compare!
Federer is probably the most talented player of all times, having no real weakness on his shots or court movement. However like someone posted above Agassi won his first tittle in 1987 and his last in 2005!!!!! 2005 also reached a GS Final
now not many players can do that, he's definitly great in his own right, if Federer manages to last as long as Agassi did then maybe it may be fair to compare otherwise it's a bit out of place. Agassi is 36, Roger 25.
Agassi turned pro in 1986 = 20 years
Federer became pro in 1998 = 8 years+

Fed may have more slams and all u want but Agassi got to a GS final at 35 competing with guys almost half his age, now that for me shows greatness in him.

Federer is in fact a great player.
However Agassi managed to be great for 20 years with different generations of players, having to modify his game for changes in raquets, courts, balls, etc. Some people take this for granted but for pro tennis players all of these elements prove to be a big deal.

All_Slam_Andre
09-14-2006, 11:40 AM
For me longevity isn't such a big deal. Surely it is better to dominate over a period of time and then retire, rather then having 'patched out' periods of dominance and spreading out your grand slams over a long period of time?

ginnylegend
09-14-2006, 11:49 AM
Agassi has a French Open title, Federer does not. Agassi has also had to work a lot harder for his grand slam victories.

When Federer has won an RG title he will have bettered Andre.

cmurray
09-14-2006, 12:07 PM
Agassi is the game's greatest ambassador, personality, and contributor to society.
His name will transcend this century, and probably others ahead of it.
He is without a doubt, THE most profound individual to have played professional tennis.

Is he a better tennis player than Federer? No.
Does his quality in greater aspects of life more than make up for it? You bet it does.

Exactly.

In my personal opinion, Andre IS greater than Roger. Not greater at playing tennis - I think even Andre would admit that, but he was a greater spokesperson (do you know even one person who doesn't know who Andre Agassi is and what sport he played?), a greater humanitarian. I don't measure greatness by occupational success alone.

bokehlicious
09-14-2006, 12:14 PM
Exactly.

In my personal opinion, Andre IS greater than Roger. Not greater at playing tennis - I think even Andre would admit that, but he was a greater spokesperson (do you know even one person who doesn't know who Andre Agassi is and what sport he played?), a greater humanitarian. I don't measure greatness by occupational success alone.

:confused: :confused:

cmurray
09-14-2006, 12:15 PM
:confused: :confused:


What is your question?

bokehlicious
09-14-2006, 12:22 PM
What is your question?

You stated that Andre is a greater humanitarian than Roger, on what basis ? :confused:

Boris Franz Ecker
09-14-2006, 12:23 PM
Agassi has a French Open title, Federer does not. Agassi has also had to work a lot harder for his grand slam victories.

When Federer has won an RG title he will have bettered Andre.

This single French Open title doesn't change anything.
Federer has even won more US Open titles than american Agassi.
Federer clearly the better player, even if he quits today.

ginnylegend
09-14-2006, 12:26 PM
This single French Open title doesn't change anything.
Federer has even won more US Open titles than american Agassi.
Federer clearly the better player, even if he quits today.

Federer is better and has more talent but for him to have had a more successful career than him he needs to win all four grand slams.

RG means everything.

cmurray
09-14-2006, 12:31 PM
You stated that Andre is a greater humanitarian than Roger, on what basis ? :confused:

On the basis that Andre has donated a larger portion of his time and money to charitable concerns. Not saying that Roger's done nothing, nor that he won't do more later.

Boris Franz Ecker
09-14-2006, 12:40 PM
Federer is better and has more talent but for him to have had a more successful career than him he needs to win all four grand slams.

RG means everything.

Nonsense.

Federer is already a greater player. You can't dispute that with such idiotic statements.

Federer did things, nobody ever did before in tennis history. Agassi did nothing similar. That's the reality.

bokehlicious
09-14-2006, 12:46 PM
On the basis that Andre has donated a larger portion of his time and money to charitable concerns.

So does Roger ;)

Maybe the American medias are more concerned with making headlines of Masha's new fashion shoes than Roger's charity :shrug:

All_Slam_Andre
09-14-2006, 12:51 PM
I'm a big Agassi fan but come on be reasonable people, what a player does away from the court has absolutely bearing on how great a player they are. Only what they on the court actually matters. Charity work, how many people they inspire to take up the sport, how nice they are don't matter one bit.
For me Federer is greater as he has 9 grand slams to Agassi's 8. IMHO grand slams are the measure of greatness, the more you win the greater you are. Agassi's career grand slam is very special, and I feel it should elevate him above those who have the same number of grand slams as him i.e. Lendl and Connors, but not above players with more grand slams.

Boris Franz Ecker
09-14-2006, 01:06 PM
Agassi's career grand slam is very special, and I feel it should elevate him above those who have the same number of grand slams as him i.e. Lendl and Connors, but not above players with more grand slams.

Didn't I already explain that Agassi slämmle is nothing special in tennis history?

Answer is: no, it can't promote him.

Gulliver
09-14-2006, 01:06 PM
The poll has no relation to the thread title.

oz_boz
09-14-2006, 01:08 PM
Federer is better and has more talent but for him to have had a more successful career than him he needs to win all four grand slams.

RG means everything.

So in your book, Borg and Sampras are below Agassi on the Greatest-Ever-List? Most knowledgeable tennis fans don't agree with you.

All_Slam_Andre
09-14-2006, 01:09 PM
Didn't I already explain that Agassi slämmle is nothing special in tennis history?

Answer is: no, it can't promote him.

Yes you did explain your opinion and you are entitled to it, but other people also have their opinions and you can't expect them to change theirs just because you explain yours.

Boris Franz Ecker
09-14-2006, 02:25 PM
Yes you did explain your opinion and you are entitled to it, but other people also have their opinions and you can't expect them to change theirs just because you explain yours.

No no no...

If I write, Agassi did nothing special in tennis history, that's not an opinion, that's a simple fact as history shows. I gave you already evidence.
If you think, it's special, it's only an opinion. It's wrong, but it's an opinion.

All_Slam_Andre
09-14-2006, 03:05 PM
No no no...

If I write, Agassi did nothing special in tennis history, that's not an opinion, that's a simple fact as history shows. I gave you already evidence.
If you think, it's special, it's only an opinion. It's wrong, but it's an opinion.

:lol: 'A Simple fact as history shows'? Are you sure? So the fact that Agassi is one of only 11 men in the all-time history of tennis to have won at least 8 grand slams isn't special? The fact that he is one of only 5 men to have conquered each of 4 pillars of the sport isn't special?
However much you may like to deny it you're thoughts that Agassi did nothing special is just an opinion of yours, it is not a fact, however much you try and convince us otherwise. Likewise my thoughts that Agassi had a legendary career is also an opinion.

thrust
09-14-2006, 04:19 PM
If Agassi had not been injured and 35 years old, I do think he would have beaten Roger in the USO final last year. Roger is truly an all time great player, but his main competition is not as strong as Agassi^s and Pete in their primes. In all honesty I am not sure that Roger is better than either Pete, Andre, Connors. Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Lendl or McEnroe. He is certainly in their league, at least. Agassi is certainly NOT the best of all time. As another poster has written, we are talking TENNIS here, not off court life. Some people perform charity publically, others perform their charity privately.

lordmanji
09-14-2006, 04:30 PM
the aussie open is not as respectable as it is now and agassi skipped it his first few years. roger has the benefit in playing at a time where the AO is considered an actual slam and thus has more chances to win.

roger is a more talented player than agassi and has accomplished more than agassi did at his age. however, andre's greatness comes from a very respectable 8 slams and also the longevity in his career. where most people start strong and end with a whimper, agassi was the model for playing at a top level when you're 29 and over. an analysis of his career can be seen in his game: he never dominated an opponent but worked them over an entire match before finishing them off.

All_Slam_Andre
09-14-2006, 04:45 PM
Let's get this straight. When Agassi won the Australian Open, 1995, 2000, 2001 and 2003, it was a big deal and had an equal footing with the other three grand slams. In 1995 and 2000, he beat Sampras for goodness sake. All the top players turned up so long as they weren't injured. Any of Andre's Australian Open titles count exactly the same as any other grand slam won. Since moving from Kooyong to Melbourne Park in 1988, the Australian has been a respectable grand slam.

lordmanji
09-14-2006, 04:49 PM
Let's get this straight. When Agassi won the Australian Open, 1995, 2000, 2001 and 2003, it was a big deal and had an equal footing with the other three grand slams. In 1995 and 2000, he beat Sampras for goodness sake. All the top players turned up so long as they weren't injured. Any of Andre's Australian Open titles count exactly the same as any other grand slam won. Since moving from Kooyong to Melbourne Park in 1988, the Australian has been a respectable grand slam.

a little more andre flag-waving please. if you read at all what i said, i'm saying andre skipped the aussie open where he won most of his majors his first few years on tour because it wasnt respected. john macenroe says in his book players skipped it for a time because it was too close to christmas and far. had the AO had its status today where all players want to go, andre may have had a good chance at winning one more slam.

my post is pro andre :wavey:

KaxMisha
09-14-2006, 04:51 PM
Exactly.

In my personal opinion, Andre IS greater than Roger. Not greater at playing tennis - I think even Andre would admit that, but he was a greater spokesperson (do you know even one person who doesn't know who Andre Agassi is and what sport he played?), a greater humanitarian. I don't measure greatness by occupational success alone.

Sorry, but this is pure BS. It simply bears absolutely no relevance in this context. This is a TENNIS forum. The discussion is about eho is the greater TENNIS PLAYER. Federer is a greater tennis player than I will ever be. That would still be true if Federer were a rapist or a murderer, because that has nothing to do with his tennis. You have to separate the individual from the tennis player.

All_Slam_Andre
09-14-2006, 04:59 PM
a little more andre flag-waving please. if you read at all what i said, i'm saying andre skipped the aussie open where he won most of his majors his first few years on tour because it wasnt respected. john macenroe says in his book players skipped it for a time because it was too close to christmas and far. had the AO had its status today where all players want to go, andre may have had a good chance at winning one more slam.

my post is pro andre :wavey:

Fair enough and sorry for misreading your post. Certainly in Borg and McEnroe's time the Australian Open was regarded as a 'Garbage Slam'. However from the late 80s onwards the top players, i.e. Lendl, Wilander, Edberg etc generally turned up. I think that Agassi didn't turn up to Australia before 1995 because he was lazy and couldn't be bothered to travel that far (not hard to believe considering what he was like at the start of his career), rather than it being a weak grand slam.

stebs
09-14-2006, 05:07 PM
As of right now their careers are probably about tied. By this time next year federer will almost certainly be greater.

marcRD
09-14-2006, 06:09 PM
If Agassi had not been injured and 35 years old, I do think he would have beaten Roger in the USO final last year. Roger is truly an all time great player, but his main competition is not as strong as Agassi^s and Pete in their primes. In all honesty I am not sure that Roger is better than either Pete, Andre, Connors. Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Lendl or McEnroe. He is certainly in their league, at least. Agassi is certainly NOT the best of all time. As another poster has written, we are talking TENNIS here, not off court life. Some people perform charity publically, others perform their charity privately.

If Agassi would have been from switzerland he wouldnt have been in the final as the audiance would nothave lifted him in 5 setters and booed his opponents. Many people forget how hard it really is for foreigners to play the USOPEN, Federer has now destroyed americans in america multiple times and if they challenge him it is mostly because of the crazy hostile 23000 people who helps their players as much as they can. Blake, Roddick and Agassi last year would probably lose straight sets anywhere outside america.

thrust
09-14-2006, 06:26 PM
marcRD- A great player like Roger is not going to be intimidated by a very partisan crowd as Ginepri and Blake were. The crowd was rooting just as hard for Andre against them, Americans, as they were against Roger.

MisterQ
09-14-2006, 06:28 PM
They are both all-time greats which very different styles and career trajectories. It is nearly impossible to envision their eras without them, such has been their influence.

Despite Federer's lack of an RG title, they have both had tremendous success on all surfaces.

Federer's utter dominance deserves accolades as much as Agassi's resilience and longetivity.

I suspect that history will view Federer as greater, but for the moment I see them at about the same level.

LCeh
09-14-2006, 06:45 PM
Right now, I think I would rank them pretty much on the same level. The thing that's going for Agassi is that he has won the French, the thing that's going against him is that there wasn't a time period where he dominated.

Rogiman
09-14-2006, 06:48 PM
LOL at the clowns (honorable mention to Cheryl :retard: ) who bring "humanitarian" arguments into the discussion.

All the worshipping of tennis players as human-beings here is plain-silly. Athletes (tennis players included), as a whole, aren't the most sophisticated people, they can run fast and hit hard, but most of them left school early and are self-absorbed (seems to me they need to be). There are exceptions, like Todd Martin, but glorification of a tennis player, be it Federer or Agassi, is childish.

Therefore, IMO, they need to be judged upon their achievements on court, and right now I'd rank Agassi's career higher, for his Olympic gold, RG title, number of titles and number of TMS titles, not to mention his lead in Slam finals.

Pretty certain Fed will eventually surpass him, though.

RonE
09-14-2006, 07:13 PM
LOL at the clowns (honorable mention to Cheryl :retard: ) who bring "humanitarian" arguments into the discussion.

All the worshipping of tennis players as human-beings here is plain-silly. Athletes (tennis players included), as a whole, aren't the most sophisticated people, they can run fast and hit hard, but most of them left school early and are self-absorbed (seems to me they need to be). There are exceptions, like Todd Martin, but glorification of a tennis player, be it Federer or Agassi, is childish.

Therefore, IMO, they need to be judged upon their achievements on court, and right now I'd rank Agassi's career higher, for his Olympic gold, RG title, number of titles and number of TMS titles, not to mention his lead in Slam finals.

Pretty certain Fed will eventually surpass him, though.

Couldn't have said it better myself :worship:

attack
09-14-2006, 07:14 PM
Andre is a bigger personality than Roger. He's bigger box office and more famous. Roger is a better tennis player. He's in the upper echelon of all time greats while AA is in the second tier. Its all about the slams and barring injury, Fed should win 15-20 slams.

thrust
09-14-2006, 07:30 PM
Top Tier: Laver, Sampras, Federer, Rosewall, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Hoad. Second Tier: Agassi, Edberg, Emerson, Becker, Newcombe, Wilander. Players in each division not listed in order of greatness.

MisterQ
09-14-2006, 07:37 PM
Top Tier: Laver, Sampras, Federer, Rosewall, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Hoad. Second Tier: Agassi, Edberg, Emerson, Becker, Newcombe, Wilander. Players in each division not listed in order of greatness.


I'm assuming Borg is also first tier.

I'm wondering what qualifies Rosewall for the first tier if Agassi doesn't make it.

revolution
09-14-2006, 08:08 PM
Agassi won all four Slams, so he is most definitely top tier.

I rate his achievements as better than Sampras, although others will disagree.

Jlee
09-14-2006, 08:57 PM
Ask me after Roger has retired as well. If he's won the career slam by then, then maybe. If he did it over 20 or so years, definitely. Otherwise it's hard to pick him over Andre.

All_Slam_Andre
09-14-2006, 09:18 PM
See while Andre's longevity is admirable, I don't think it is a significant factor as to why he is great. Is winning 8 grand slams over 12 years anymore impressive than winning 8 grand slams over 6 or 7? I don't think so, in fact I would prefer Option B if I were a player. A fairly short career packed with title after title i.e Borg's, is surely better than a very long career with less success but spread out.

bluefork
09-14-2006, 09:26 PM
I wasn't watching tennis in 1999 when Agassi won the French Open, so I don't know what his competition was like, but I'm guessing that if he had played play Rafael Nadal in the final he probably wouldn't have the career Grand Slam right now.

Likewise, Roger Federer might have at least one RG title if he hadn't had come up against such tough competition the last two years.

And for these reasons, I find it hard to use "Andre has a RG title and Roger doesn't" as justification for why Andre is a greater player than Roger.

All_Slam_Andre
09-14-2006, 09:30 PM
Although in the French Open in 1999, he did beat Carlos Moya along the way. Moya was the defending champion and one of the best clay courters in the world.

lordmanji
09-14-2006, 09:54 PM
See while Andre's longevity is admirable, I don't think it is a significant factor as to why he is great. Is winning 8 grand slams over 12 years anymore impressive than winning 8 grand slams over 6 or 7? I don't think so, in fact I would prefer Option B if I were a player. A fairly short career packed with title after title i.e Borg's, is surely better than a very long career with less success but spread out.


its not just that he was around doing nothing, but most of those years he was top ten. i would prefer agassi's career to borgs because agassi had the guts to stick around and evolve at a high level with the game and get his arse kicked by pete while borg ran from mcenroe.

i am amazed that people would put mcenroe in top tier. he only had seven. now with connors at least he had 8 slams and all those singles titles, 160 wks at number one, and stuck around for quite a while too. if mcenroe had 8 slams, then definitely he'd be in top tier what with all those doubles grand slam titles which i think are heavily underrated.

MisterQ
09-14-2006, 09:59 PM
See while Andre's longevity is admirable, I don't think it is a significant factor as to why he is great. Is winning 8 grand slams over 12 years anymore impressive than winning 8 grand slams over 6 or 7? I don't think so, in fact I would prefer Option B if I were a player. A fairly short career packed with title after title i.e Borg's, is surely better than a very long career with less success but spread out.

I definitely understand what you are saying, and it makes plenty of sense. But I would add the argument that longetivity counts for a lot because of the constant evolution of the game. Borg was a phenomenal player, but at age 25 he decided to bow out after suffering major losses to McEnroe. McEnroe was a genius, but after five years of grand slam singles success, he took some time off and tennis became too powerful for him to win slams again. A number of players have had amazing stretches of 2-3 years (Courier, Hewitt, Rafter) but been unable to sustain them. Over time racquets have become lighter and more powerful, and the game has become more physically rigorous. The fact that Agassi could make two grand slam semifinals in 1988 and make the USO final again in 2005 speaks to the depth of his ball-striking abilities.

thrust
09-14-2006, 10:04 PM
Borg would definintely be a tier one player! Just forgot him at that time.

guy in sf
09-17-2006, 06:11 PM
Oh Please nothing overshadowed Agassi's retirement, CBS and USA sucked his wiener non-stop for 2 weeks and even Larry King had him the show. Of course Fed will go down as the greater of the 2, what are you smoking even asking this?

Shirogane
09-17-2006, 06:30 PM
Andre's had a great career, and let's not forget that everything he's achieved, he did it during the Sampras era. :worship:

J. Corwin
09-17-2006, 09:13 PM
Agassi has the career slam, 19 more titles, more TMS titles, more slam finals, and has the Olympic gold medal. IMO that overcompensates for Roger's one slam lead and overall dominance/weeks @#1. :cool: Wait til Roger shrinks the deficit in their title count by 10 or wins another slam. ;)

TennisAgenda
09-17-2006, 09:22 PM
This is a silly argument Roger already has MORE slam titles then Agassi. Roger has NINE and Agassi has EIGHT and that's the difference. Roger already is a GREATER CHAMPION. Agassi had a great career in the end but he fucked up some years with partying, not taking tennis seriously and being a flake. Only in the end did Agassi get serious and show his talent. Agassi is definitely a legend for sure. But in terms of talent and consistency Roger is SUPERIOR.

name_change
09-17-2006, 11:46 PM
not really. agassi may have less slams but he certainly has more charisma.

zesty_dorito
09-18-2006, 01:20 AM
Agassi was good. Federer is better. But Agassi had a long career, which was the highlight of the U.S. Open. He also did the Grand Slam, something Federer hasn't achieved yet. He was a good player, overshadowed by SAMPRAS before.

Boris Franz Ecker
09-18-2006, 06:42 AM
Agassi was good. Federer is better. But Agassi had a long career, which was the highlight of the U.S. Open. He also did the Grand Slam,

Wrong, he didn't. He never was close to a Grand Slam.

atpSUPERMAN
09-18-2006, 07:13 AM
Federer can't win the French Open, so his 9 grand slam victories are less than Agassi's 8 grand slam victories. In fact, he will never be in the discussion for Greatest Of All Time until he wins the French Open which he won't since Nadal has more prime years left that Federer.

atpSUPERMAN
09-18-2006, 07:15 AM
The GRAND SLAM is the reason Sampras isn't the Greatest Of All Time. Federer will retire with the same problem.

Rogiman
09-18-2006, 07:22 AM
Federer can't win the French Open, so his 9 grand slam victories are less than Agassi's 8 grand slam victories. In fact, he will never be in the discussion for Greatest Of All Time until he wins the French Open which he won't since Nadal has more prime years left that Federer.
I guess only Agassi and the 4 guys from a couple centuries ago are eligible then?

landoud
09-18-2006, 10:12 AM
IMO there is no point of this dicussion ... it will make more sense after fed's Retirement ,then we can compare...

Boris Franz Ecker
09-18-2006, 11:10 AM
Federer can't win the French Open, so his 9 grand slam victories are less than Agassi's 8 grand slam victories. In fact, he will never be in the discussion for Greatest Of All Time until he wins the French Open which he won't since Nadal has more prime years left that Federer.

Nonsense.
He is already in discussion, Agassi never was.
Of course Federer's grand slam record is far better than Agassi's.
Agassi was only really strong at the least important slam, Australian. Everywhere else he's only a little footnote in history.
Nobody can think that Federer would change his career with Agassi's, unless he's complete idiot.

Monteque
09-18-2006, 01:22 PM
Federer can't win the French Open, so his 9 grand slam victories are less than Agassi's 8 grand slam victories. In fact, he will never be in the discussion for Greatest Of All Time until he wins the French Open which he won't since Nadal has more prime years left that Federer.
And what's that bolded words mean?????
How the NINE is less than EIGHT????? :haha:
And what's making you confident so much Roger will never win FO....???

Everything in tennis measured by Grand Slam titles, more you achieve it, greater player you will be. It just like you viewing the success rated with money. Andre won FO just once also Wimbledon, on the contrary, Roger is never win FO (I'm sure he will) but he swept all last 4 Wimbledon titles, so i think this is even.

oz_boz
09-18-2006, 01:47 PM
The GRAND SLAM is the reason Sampras isn't the Greatest Of All Time. Federer will retire with the same problem.

Another one who holds Agassi above Sampras and Borg. OK, you are entitled to your own opinion, but most tennis experts don't agree. Neither do I.

Just Cause
09-19-2006, 05:57 AM
67% (more than 2/3) believe that Federer is >>> Agassi.
I think that's quite fair. Federer is becoming a living legend and he is one French Open from becoming the GREATEST PLAYER IN HISTORY.

its.like.that
09-19-2006, 06:31 AM
Federer is Regal.

Agassi is an Asshole.

Nuff said.

End of thread.

Boris Franz Ecker
09-19-2006, 09:15 AM
67% (more than 2/3) believe that Federer is >>> Agassi.
I think that's quite fair. Federer is becoming a living legend and he is one French Open from becoming the GREATEST PLAYER IN HISTORY.

Federer possibly will become the greatest player of all time.
But winning a french open title won't change his current status.
He has to win much more things to surpass others like Borg, Sampras and overcome all doubts.
You can't become the greatest with a meaningless "career slam". Respect that.

Experimentee
09-19-2006, 02:21 PM
No ones saying Agassi is greater than Federer. They are just recognising the retirement of a legend of the game. When Federer retires, the same thing will happen with him.

Experimentee
09-19-2006, 02:24 PM
Personally I think a career Slam is a very important achievement, it is one of the hardest things to do which is why not many players have done it. I'd rate 8 Slams including a career Slam above 9 Slams. But if Federer gets to over 10 Slams and holds on to #1 for longer, I'd rate Federer above Agassi.

spencercarlos
09-19-2006, 06:45 PM
:wavey:
Yeah winning Slams is not just about the numbers ;) .For Agassi it was more about longevity & doing the unexpected :worship:
*Agassi`s 1st Slam win (1992 Wimby)
-->>last Slam win (2003 AO) :worship:
*Agassi`s 1st Slam SF (1988 FO)
-->>last Slam SF (2005 USO)
*Agassi`s 1st Slam final (1990 FO)
-->>last Slam final (2005 USO)
*Agassi`s 1st tourney win (Itaparica 1987)
-->>last tourney win (LA 2005) :worship:
..............
...................
............................I doubt Federer will be able to match Agassi for longevity. Federer wasn`t as good as a teenager as Agassi was & he won`t even be playing in his 30`s- so he won`t match Andre there either. What Federer does have is sheer dominance & apart from 1999-00 (FO - AO) Agassi has never looked dominant :cool:
Longevity?
Longevity means nothing..
Sorry to involve a wta player, but do you think Amy Frazier is a great because of her 17-19?? years on the WTA tour? Longevity :lol:
If something is to amaze someone is that Federer already has that many slams in such shot period of time (less longevity?)

Federer already has passed Agassi on weeks at number one, most dominant year (twice winning 3 slams per year) and at grand slams total number. At this point i would give the slight edge to Agassi, in case that Federer does not play any other match. Agassi has won all 4 grand slam events and has more titles than Federer, i just think that Federer will probably have close the same number of titles than Agassi in a year´s time, that will be enough to pass him.

Just Cause
09-19-2006, 11:02 PM
Wayne Ferrera's 56 slams never reaching a final is a much better example than Amy Frazier.
What legacy has he left I wonder?

sawan66278
09-20-2006, 01:50 AM
The comparison against Amy Frazier is not valid...Agassi played, and defeated, the TOP PLAYERS in three different decades, the 80's, 90's, and those of the new century...Regardless of what one may think of Federer, Agassi's ability to play for as long and as well against players from the age of beginning graphite to the power racquets of today is, and will most likely be, unheard of in the history of the men's game....

Let's see Federer do the same...four years of dominance does not a career make..

silverarrows
09-20-2006, 03:11 AM
I'm not taking anything away fron Agassi, He's a great player, but I think Roger Federer is still better than him. NO DOUBT about that. ;) And it's too early to tell. Fed is still playing tennis. I think he can win 20+ Grand Slams with 2-3 FO crown. ;)

Polikarpov
09-20-2006, 03:21 AM
Agassi has a French Open title, Federer does not. Agassi has also had to work a lot harder for his grand slam victories.

When Federer has won an RG title he will have bettered Andre.

So you think Andre is better than Pete then?

Polikarpov
09-20-2006, 03:24 AM
Exactly.

In my personal opinion, Andre IS greater than Roger. Not greater at playing tennis - I think even Andre would admit that, but he was a greater spokesperson (do you know even one person who doesn't know who Andre Agassi is and what sport he played?), a greater humanitarian. I don't measure greatness by occupational success alone.

If I'm not mistaken, Roger is a UN Ambassador?

silverarrows
09-20-2006, 03:31 AM
Hi alas! :wavey: San ka dito sa Pinas? :)

Polikarpov
09-20-2006, 03:34 AM
Federer can't win the French Open, so his 9 grand slam victories are less than Agassi's 8 grand slam victories. In fact, he will never be in the discussion for Greatest Of All Time until he wins the French Open which he won't since Nadal has more prime years left that Federer.

I think it's pretty premature to be saying that.