[IMMORTALCHAMP]

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]

Re: Agassi made 4 straight GS Finals, winning 3

Try Laver's 69. :haha:

 

[IMMORTALCHAMP]

Re: Agassi made 4 straight GS Finals, winning 3

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]

Re: Agassi made 4 straight GS Finals, winning 3

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]

Re: Agassi made 4 straight GS Finals, winning 3

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]

Re: Agassi made 4 straight GS Finals, winning 3

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]

Re: Agassi made 4 straight GS Finals, winning 3

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]

Re: Agassi made 4 straight GS Finals, winning 3

'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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yeah, despite the typo, I'm proud of it.