Mens Tennis Forums banner

Rank them in order of greatness

Lendl vs Connors vs Agassi

2.8K views 29 replies 22 participants last post by  Agassi's Dealer  
#1 ·
Now that the GOAT debate between the Big 3 is over and that Nadal has secured the GOAT status, I'm interested to see how you guys rank Lendl, Agassi and Connors!

These 3 amazing players remained tied at 8 slams each and none of them managed to get number 9. I wonder how people around here rank them. Please vote and share your thoughts.
 
#3 · (Edited)
imo, Connors and Lendl are very close.

Connors played only 2 AOs and no RGs during his peak (74 to 78).

Lendl played AO on hard, only after his peak (85 to 87, but he had already been playing all US finals on hard since 1982) and still won 2 AO 89 and 90.

Of course, in their case, nothing to give a damn about MS since 1990 and even more so for OG (1988).

Agassi is behind, both in titles and in domination.
 
#10 ·
You would remember how desparate Ivan was to win Wimbledon, skipping FO for couple of years. When he retired it was seen as a very significant gap in his resume - and because of Ivan's general lack of likeability, for some people it was another way to detract from his overall legacy.

Of course in the decades since, that lack of likeability has faded and what remains are the wins, the weeks at no.1, etc. A very impressive career.

Agassi benefited from recency bias for many years with many putting him up as a top 5 open era ATG and often above Connors/ Lendl, mostly because of the CGS. As you point out, and especially with the passing of years, it clear the other two were more dominant and accomplished when all things are considered.
 
#5 ·
1. Connors

8 slams including Wimbledon the most important at the time, 1 YEC, 109 titles, 268 weeks at number 1

2. Lendl (very close with Connors)

8 slams but no Wimbledon, 5 YECs, 94 titles, 270 weeks at number 1

3. Agassi

8 Slams and career slam, 1 YEC, 1 Olympic Gold, 60 titles, 101 weeks at number 1
 
#6 ·
For me it is like this:

1. Lendl

Lendl revolutionized power tennis - when he hit his peak in 1984, it was the era of graphite racquets where the surfaces mattered more than before. Lendl was a bit unlucky here - Australian Open switched to hard courts only in 1988. This should have been his favorite surface as AO's hard courts were then considered to be slower than USO's courts (Lendl won three USOs). Despite being past his peak, he still won AO 1989 and 1990 while finishing runners up in 1991. He also underachieved in his pre-prime years and could not win a slam until 1984. Still, his record of 8 slams is very impressive. He had crazy competition throughout his career from the likes of Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg and Wilander among others.

2. Agassi

A lot of people underrate Agassi because he won 'only eight' slams. But Agassi won all or most of those slams when the surfaces were far apart. During the period from the mid 80s to the early 2000s, it was virtually impossible to win both Wimbledon and FO but Agassi did it. In fact he was the only player to win Wimbledon and FO between 1981 and 2007 (Wilander won AO on grass but not Wimbledon). He even achieved the career grand slam. At no point did that achievement matter more. He foolishly skipped AO in his early years but went on to win 50% of his titles there. Like Lendl, that was his favorite surface. Remember Agassi is the only player to win the career super slam (grand slams + YEC + Olympics and Davis cup as well). Agassi faced insane competition at the start of his career with the likes of Edberg, Becker, Sampras and Courier. Later, his competition was only from Sampras.

3. Connors

Jimmy Connors peaked at a time when the competition was weak. He had a virtual free run in 1974 and 1975. In fact, his opponent in two slams in 1974 was a 39 year old Rosewall. The legends of the past like Laver, Rosewall and even Newcombe and Ashe had gone past their primes in the mid 1970s (but Connors lost both to Ashe and Newcombe in 1975!). Bjorn Borg was pre-prime until about 1977. Once Borg hit his prime, he made Connors his bunny and Jimmy could win just one slam from 1978 to 1981. By this time, McEnroe also arrived. It was only when Borg stopped playing in slams in 1982 that Connors started winning slams again. To his credit, he made an amazing comeback in 1982 and 1983, winning three slams. He had good consistency and longevity but his slam winning run had stopped in 1983. He was unfairly prevented from playing at the FO in the mid 70s, otherwise he could have won the grand slam in 1974. But considering how he fared against top competition, I will put him at number three.
 
#16 ·
Nobody talked about CGS back in those days, not until Agassi did it anyway, and then it was given a name.
It certainly wasn’t the holy grail.
Lendl tried in vain to win Wimbledon, as it was the holy grail, not a CGS.
Agassi only had 1 YE#1, and no sustained period of domination like Lendl or Connors.
I’d have Lendl just in front of Connors, some slight bias there, and Agassi a distant third.
 
#11 ·
For my part, I would also put McEnroe in the "8 slams" group) given his domination and played only 1 AO (grass) during his peak, his domination and his number of titles are indisputable, in particular his 3 US Open in a row (79-80-81) and his tyrannic season 84

I would put Wilander despite his little slam 88 and his brilliant record 7slams with Edberg and Becker 6slams, because less dominant than McEnroe and not Wimbledon.
Edberg had 2 YE1s and Becker had a feeling of power that of course Mats didn't have.


That said, I don't underestimate any of Mats' 7 slams.
Nor the high competition he faced.
 
#12 ·
Lendl by far, If we look at his resume he is the first player ever to Bring consisntency-like results that could be on BIG3 level.. He played slam finals for 11 years in a row
Image


Not to mention outside slams he won many Grand prix Super Series and was very consistent in the biggest carpet tournaments winning 5 Masters Grand Prix and 2 WTC finals, and playing in total 12 finals of those 2 tournaments combined..
12 years in a row reaching minimum SF+ in the Master Grand Prix, shows how great of a player he was in carpet.

I´d Rank them Personally

1) Lendl
2) Agassi
3) Connors
4) Mcenroe
5) Becker, Edberg and Wilander
 
#13 · (Edited)
Another reason why I put Agassi behind Connors and Lendl
1992Wimbledon Wimbledon Trophy (Wimbledon - Gentlemen's single).svg Goran Ivanišević6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 1-6, 6-4
Goran plays his first final in slam, Wimbledon transition and 5 sets
between Becker.Edberg (and Stich) era and Sampras era.

1999Roland-Garros Coupe des Mousquetaires (French Open - Gentlemen's single).svg AndreĂŻ Medvedev1-6, 2-6, 6-4, 6-3, 6-4
first and alone final in slam for Medvedev and 5 sets

1999US Open US Open Trophy (US Open - Gentlemen's single).svg(2) Todd Martin6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 6-3, 6-2
good player, second slam final after AO 94, but no title and still 5 sets.

good players, but the same.

Of course, all the multiwinners in slam have played against weaker opponents in final, but for Agassi, it's 5 of his 8 here.
 
#18 ·
I always found the extra value put on Wimbledon over other slams kind of absurd. I think it persists in many people's minds to this day. A slam is slam, they're all equal. The hardest one to win--the one missing most often from players who have 3, is the French. If any were valued above the rest then, it should be the French.
So maybe CGS wasn't emphasized then, but i think it is now, and rightly so. IT represents mastery at all 4 of the most important tournaments.
AS I said in my post, I'm not familiar with their stats, so I'm not going to argue, but I'm not sure what i think of less YE #1s vs. CGS in terms of greatness.
Lendl and Connors careers overlap, though not totally; Agassi is a different era, so maybe it's not fair to compare certain stats.
 
#21 ·
The vulture isn't even as good as Murray :)
 
#23 ·
#24 ·
I'm not going to vote given my limited knowledge of Lendl (which I hope to fill soon) and the fact that i'm not a stat geek, beholden to numbers because again, the context is a bit lost, especially when you're crossing prime eras.. however

Having watched some of Connors prime matches against admittdly aging stars (although he did beat Borg for a US Open in 76, sure not the prime Borg but still and then in 1978 as well), a couple things that stick out is his aggressive nature and competitive spirit. He honestly could have won more if he got to play the French and Australia more (but latter is more understandable given its low prestige at the time and poor scheduling)

Agassi I've seen the most of.. his prime was when i was a teenager and I would be watching the slams as a casual fan.. Definitely feels like a guy who could have gotten more achievements if he grew up and was focused like he was later in his career.. Even with Sampras being a road block, you have to think that Agassi should have won more French Opens at least and he did not more because of him than any opponent and skipping Australian was a poor choice early in his career


As for Lendl, I won't say much other than.. Wimbledon was/is a big deal, more important back then compared to the other slams and because of that, it has to be a mark against him that he never won it. All the dominance is great to look at on the stat sheet but if Lendl had just won one Wimbledon, it changes the whole conversation imo


Good thread.
 
#25 ·
Now that the GOAT debate between the Big 3 is over and that Nadal has secured the GOAT status, I'm interested to see how you guys rank Lendl, Agassi and Connors!

These 3 amazing players remained tied at 8 slams each and none of them managed to get number 9. I wonder how people around here rank them. Please vote and share your thoughts.
GOAT debate concluded in 2007. Federer is the undisputed GOAT.