Indeed, "YOU CAN"T BE SERIOUS!"

You're discounting half of Agassi's grand slams because they are from the supposed "garbage-can" of grand slams, the Australian Open? If you look at all the seedings and brackets for the years that Agassi won the Australian Open, it's hard not to notice that the greatest in the field at the time did play in that tournament.

1995 - Bracket
2000 - Bracket and Seeds
2001 - Bracket and Seeds
2003 - Bracket and Seeds

To knock the wins by Agassi would be to knock one of the definite greats, Pete Sampras, seeing as to how he played in all those tournaments listed above.

Also, Agassi did something that only 4 others male players did (Don Budge, Roy Emerson, Rod Laver and Fred Perry), win all 4 grand slams throughout his career. That is a feat, along with his other stats, which should put him in consideration for greatness (as none of the definite 5 greatest managed to show this type of versatility).

There is argument against him being one of the top 5's but there shouldn't be an argument of his greatness.

I must add though, I do agree with you in that, it is jarring to think what he could have accomplished if he was more dedicated in his youth).

Yes, there should be an argument about his greatness, because greatness is something that can only be achieved by meeting the most exacting standards. Few players ever achieve greatness, obviously.

You are also completely discounting the argument about his ability to stay at the top for any length of time. Can anyone really be called great if their time at the top is not sustained over a significant period of time?

One other thing: His Grand Slam record is related to his inability to stay at the top. How many times did Agassi win two or more Slams in a calendar year? Once, 1999. Everyone else on that list did it at least twice.

I too have been a fan of Agassi since he began his career and was throwing his equipment into the stands at the end of his matches. I love watching him play, and he's had some excellent nail-biter matches. But I think your evaluation of his career greatness is right on the mark.

This was well-written and researched and an interesting topic.

I'm a casual fan of tennis at best (I like the more brutish American sports), but I think Agassi makes the cut of greatness. The only reason this is even a question is because of the greatness of Sampras, who enjoys the current general consensus as the most accomplished, "greatest" player in history. If Sampras hadn't been on the scene, Agassi would have won more tournaments and certainly more Grand Slams. You can make the argument that Sampras and Agassi pushed each other's games, but it's undeniable that the only opponent during his era who proved consistently superior was Sampras. Agassi also deserves lots of respect for finding his game and maturing as a competitor, going from the flashy pseudo-rebel to the pro's pro who's concerned with the best interests of the game and will go down as having one of the best serve returns in history. You had to root for a guy who didn't have the big serve and who achieved most of his later success with smart play. In terms of raw physical gifts, athleticism, and power, all of the tennis players you compare him to were far superior. Andy Roddick could learn a few things from watching Agassi about becoming a more complete player if he wants to be a serious rival to Roger Federer over the next several years. But I think Andre showed a lot of guts and courage in resurrecting his career as a serious competitor -- I give Jennifer Capriati similar credit on the women's side. She'd be a more interesting debate about whether she'd qualify for greatness, but she has a few more years to make her case stronger.

I think it's rather clear Andre belongs on the short list, however, especially at a time when people are already trying to put young players like Federer among that pantheon. Federer certainly has that potential and might be as gifted an all-around player as we've seen in quite some time, but he has a lot of wins to go before he can demonstrate the consistent excellence Agassi was able to display at various stages of his career. I compare Andre to Lendl somewhat. Lendl was always underrated during his career in comparison to his flashier American competitors and I think some people (incorrectly, of course) would still dispute his inclusion on your short list. I think people will look back at Agassi the same way, especially since Andre was the far more popular player.

That is all.

Thanks Dave, very well done. Although I know very little about tennis, I have always had the impression that Agassi was just short of making the top grade, that his image and persona have never quite been supported by his success. Your much more informed assessment seems to verify this.

Bob,

Some interesting thoughts, but I have to take issue with a few.

First, you say, Agassi "also deserves lots of respect for finding his game and maturing as a competitor, going from the flashy pseudo-rebel to the pro's pro who's concerned with the best interests of the game and will go down as having one of the best serve returns in history." I just don't think that is a qualification for greatness. McEnroe was a jerk during the best part of his career--mellowing only slightly later on--and no one disputes his greatness. "Growing up" does not push a player into the ranks of the great.

Also, you say, "The only reason this is even a question is because of the greatness of Sampras, who enjoys the current general consensus as the most accomplished, 'greatest' player in history. If Sampras hadn't been on the scene, Agassi would have won more tournaments and certainly more Grand Slams. You can make the argument that Sampras and Agassi pushed each other's games, but it's undeniable that the only opponent during his era who proved consistently superior was Sampras."

But Sampras was on the scene just like Borg, McEnroe and Connors were all on the scene together at one point. None of those three let the greatness of the other two prevent him from winning championships or attaining the number one ranking. I think it is more than fair to say that Agassi never rose to the challenge that Sampras posed. He clearly had the talent to beat Sampras more often in Grand Slam finals (and the one he did--Australia 1995--is suspect since Sampras was in very poor emotional shape) and to push Sampras out of the number one ranking more often than he did. To suggest that Sampras was just too good doesn't quite wash--when Sampras was at his best, Agassi didn't push himself to play better, to get in really good shape, etc. True, we wouldn't be having this conversation had Agassi ever mounted a serious challenge to the Sampras hegemony. The reason we are is that he never did.

Finally, the difference between Agassi and Ivan Lendl is that Lendl clearly had a prolonged period at the top, from mid-1985 to about early 1988. Agassi never put such a period together.

It's hard for me to debate you on this because you clearly know far more than I do about tennis history :)

Let me pose the question to you this way, though: Which of the players you list (minus Sampras, of course) do you think could have consistently beaten Agassi? Agassi plays in an era with bigger servers, faster baseline players, and more athleticism, speed, and agility than the stars of the 70s ever faced. Even Agassi's serve would have been considered fairly strong in that era and rivaled some of the players you list as "all-time greats."
I'm interested to hear your thoughts on these hypothetical match-ups. I personally think Agassi would have had some degree of success against McEnroe and Connors especially, and would certainly have taken some matches from Lendl and Borg as well.

To draw an analogy to NBA basketball (which I do know something about), just because Isiah Thomas, Hakeem Olajuwon, and Karl Malone never quite escaped being eclipsed by the shadow of Michael Jordan (the greatest ever in his sport) doesn't change the fact that they were historically all-time great players. I think Agassi would be a similar type of figure in his sport.

That is all.

Bob, I like your analogy. I was trying to think of something similar since yesterday, but you came up with it. Nice.

One more thing. David, your main argument against Agassi's greatness is his ability to hold the #1 ranking. Looking at the chronological #1 link from your post, to argue against Agassi is to argue against Borg. Sure Borg had more weeks at #1, but Borg's two longest stays at #1 were 34 and 46 weeks. Agassi's two #1 stays, were 30 and 52. Neither of Borg's stay at number one equaled that of Agassi's longest.

Also, during a majority of the time that Agassi wasn't at #1, Pete Sampras (and many can't argue he isn't the greatest) was. Sure McEnroe, Conners, and Borg had to face each other, but neither of them had to compete against Sampras in their prime (this sort of coincides with what Bob has been saying).

I am a huge Agassi fan. I have been playing tennis for 15 years just b/c of Agassi. One item not mentioned in the posts so far is that Sampras was "concerned" about one player on the tour, Agassi. Yes, Goran Ivanesivic's serve was Pete's most feared stroke, but the opponent who he felt could challenge him was Agassi.

I think your observations are right on, except for the fact that Andre is most definatly an all time great. I samplras would not have been around in the 90's and 00's, then Agassi would have one at leastfive more grand slams and would have the most grandslams in the history of the sport.
that is all, thank you

Are you kidding??? Andre Agassi is certainly on that list. Agassi would be way better than Lendl or Borg! McEnroe and Connors couldn't hold their heads if they played him in their prime. Sampras is the only one on that list who i would say maybe is better than Agassi. And you say Agassi won half his slams at the Aussie Open. SO' What did Sampras do? Half of his at Wimbledon.

Hi

I dont take your argument at all.

1. Australian open is the toughest to win because of the extreme temperature (45 C) inside the Rod Laver Arena.

How can you discount a player who has won all the four grand slams as being just short of great. Added to this, he has the highest number of singles victory. Look at the number of times he has reached the big two slam finals



French Open 3 times

Wimbledon 2 Times

How many times has sampras reached the french open final.

Agassi is playing competitive tennis at the age of 35, which sampras couldnt even dream about. Playing almost from the time Marat Safin was born.


Finally Agassi makes the game interesting and worth seeing. This is quite contrary to Sampras.

Agassi is not great?
stupid

Yes, you could not be more wrong about the Australian Open in recent years. It is as competitive as the other majors and has been for much more than a few years - actually for much more than a decade now. Do top players sometimes skip the Australian ?? Sure - just as many as sit out during other majors during the year - generally because of injury. Was the Australian at one point the weak link ? Yes - but not any more. The only thing that makes it "weak" is that it isn't as popular in America as the other majors are - doesn't receive the TV coverage. Please don't confuse that with it somehow lacking in the best tennis available.

I completely disagree with anyone who thinks that maybe Agassi is better than Borg or Connors or McEnroe. Sorry, can't compare different eras and never will be able to. If you think any of these three are somehow chumps compared to Agassi, you don't know the first thing about tennis or tennis history.

Borg was one of the most complete players of all time. Please watch a few of his old matches against McEnroe to see how damm good he is at net. AT NET ?? Yes - at net. No - he wasn't a serve and volleyer - but it's likely you didn't know he was so damm good at net - or that he had one of the greatest clutch serves of all time.

Connors - Agassi wouldn't even be playing if it weren't for Connors. Connors is the grand-daddy of all who play Agassi's style (or try to). Constantly probing and attacking, taking the ball early, emphasizing the return game - thank you Jimbo.

McEnroe - still the greatest "hands" of all time - and the most natural volleyer in the history of the game. McEnroe's serve - though stylistically much different than Borg's (or anyones really) was a huge weapon back in his era.

Fact is - true - all three of these guys consistenly skipped the Australian. What numbers of majors would they have if they had played. Well - it's likely Borg may be at or tied to Sampras' mark. McEnroe and Connors would probably be closer to 10 apiece.

The bottom line is that all the comparisons and guesswork in the world won't give you any answer - remember Borg also retired at 26 - and he has 11. 26 !!!

Pete Sampras holds the record and had the game to be called and to deserve being considered the greatest of all time. Agassi is among the small group right below that - The fact that he also won the French certainly buys him some serious arguing points. But - bottom line is head to head - Sampras almost always had his number.

I get tired of people who want to break down and beat down players and statistics - in any sport. Andre Agassi is one of the great tennis players of all-time. So is Pete Sampras, Borg, Connors and McEnroe. And you know what - so is Roger Federer (already), so was Lendl, Becker and Stephan Edberg. So was Bill Tilden, Ken Rosewall and Rod Laver.

But why aren't you talking about those guys ???? Because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about !!!

How is it helpful to talk like this about a great athlete, a great role model, and an excellent citizen? Agassi would not put himself on the list of the greatest, one would think.

Considering his charitable works, particluarly in Las Vegas, his ambassadorship for tennis, his history -- having seen the error of his ways and fought back to the top, his demeanor on court, etc. how can you in good conscience think that it's important to denigrate his accomplishments?

This article is shameful.

Brian.

"Agassi would not put himself on the list of the greatest, one would think."

Sure he would - and he's said as much on more than one occasion - that he belongs in the conversation. Agassi is aware and analytical enough to know his place in the game of tennis.

Please - - Yes, Agassi seems like a great guy - but he's a tennis player - not a Saint. This is a discussion about tennis.

I agree with this writing. I predict after 2007 we will also be saying Federer is greater than Agassi as well. There is a very good chance he will end the year with 8 or more slams, and already he has been far more dominant at his peak than Agassi.

Andre making the us open finals in 05 is a great accomplishment. Many of the great players did play the Aussie Open when Andre played it. I guess Emerson and Rosewall weren't great because they won half of their slams in Australia also. If Agassi had taken the third set from Federer at age 35, who knows what might have been. Yes, Andre is one of the greatest ever. He is top ten, at least.

also, in addition, agassi did win 17 masters titles. this is far better than the closest one, who is pete sampras. Please remember that it takes winning 6 matches to win one of these events. Just consider it winning a semi-major. That number may never be broken. Federer, I believe has won 5 masters as of this blog. Just more ammo in considering Andre's greatness. Also, Agassi did win all four majors in his career, including an olympic gold. Players who could not do this were connors, lendl,mcenroe, and borg.

ok. so just so i understand this. Agassi is not quite on the realm of greatness because:-
1) no prolonged stay at the top.
2) won the australian open too many times.

to counter this.

1) The man had the greatest return of serve ever in the history of tennis. yes, greater than Conners. McEnroe agrees and Agassi has played matches against servers such as ivanisevic and roddick who sent down serves of the missile variety at 135 - 149 mph. and consistently returned them into play.

2) Agassi Vs Sampras. Pete Sampras was voted player of the decade. good on him, but you have to take into account the injured years and despondant years for agassi, where pete had no rival. this is the reason for his dominance over those yrs. we saw this when agassi came back and created one of the best game of tennis seen 6-4,3-6,6-7,7-6,6-1. Agassi was Sampras' biggest rival. pete admits it and they had equal amounts of talent! (saw a post where they said agassi had nearly as much talent as sampras.)Who else pushed Sampras that hard every time?

3) Sampras won 8 of his titles at wimbledon. no-one seems to make a meal of this. no one can win grand slams for you. doesn't matter where you are.

Guys, I think that I can settle this once and for all. Being a player from 1977 through the 1990's, I all who was considered great during this time period. Andre Agassi is indeed one of the GREAT tennis players of our sport. He may not have had the most dominant percentages but he did win all 4 majors over his career which has spanned over 20 years. Believe me when I tell you all that he is a great player that has had a great career. Sometimes the best judge is someone who actually played them all.

Agassi would be considered a great, and we would not be having this debate, had he not played during the same period as Sampras. However, I have a problem with saying that today's players - Federer, Agassi, Sampras, Nadal, etc. - are to be called "great", and here's why: In my opinion, Connors and McEnroe are in a class by themselves, because they always played doubles as well, so they didn't get the extra rest that these players get between matches, and yet they still accomplished what they did as singles players. Borg, I would also eliminate from the "great" list, because he was also one who only played singles, and whose entire focus was the record books. I don't know about Laver, Budge, Emerson, but I think they probably were doubles players as well.

If you look at the over-all career, not just slams, then Jimmy Connors comes out on top, and McEnroe a close 2nd, since he would have accomplished what Connors did, had he not played during the same period.

Whatever doubts there were two years ago as to Agassi's greatness, the past two years have ended that debate. Let's add some facts to this.

1. One of only 3 men in the past 40 years to play in 4 consecutive Grand Slam finals. Rod Laver, Roger Federer and Agassi. Agassi won three of those, including defeating Sampras in the 2000 Aussie semis to get to his 4th straight final.

2. Ranked in the Top 10 for a span of 18 years, 1988 - 2005.

3. Oldest #1 player in the history of the ATP tour at 33 years old. Sampras retired at 30 much less #1 at 33.

4. 15 Grand Slam Finals, including 6 U.S. Opens, 4 Australian, 3 French and 2 Wimbledons, winning at least 1 of each. One of 5 players to ever do this.

5. Oldest player to make the finals of the U.S. Open in the modern era. Oldest player to reach the finals of a Grand Slam period in the modern era.

6. 17 Master's Series titles, 6 more than Sampras

7. Only player in the history of the game to win the Golden Slam - 4 Grand Slams plus Olympic Gold.

8. Second on the all time list of U.S. Davis Cup victories.

9. Second on the all time list of career U.S. Open wins

10. In the top 4 all time of career ATP wins.

Agassi's career now easily surpasses John McEnroe's, is on par with Jimmy Connors, and trails only Sampras by a hair. How is that for facts.

Oh yeah and one more thing. Agassi did have a run of extended dominance. 1999-2003. In the 15 GS tournaments Agassi played in between the 99 French and 03 Aussie:

5 Grand Slams
2 GS Finals
2 GS Semis
3 GS Quarters.
60 weeks at #1.

Pete won 3 GS and played in 2 other finals. Hewitt won 2GS, and the other 5 were split between 5 other men. Agassi was easily the best player in the world for a 4 year span, and the numbers bear that out.

Additionally Agassi was a ranked in the Top 5 in the world at age 35, and ranked in the Top 10 as recently as April 17, 2006, at age 36.

Case closed.

What makes any sports figure great? Not just the way they play the game, but the impact on it. We can argue forever on how many titles he won or lost, so let's put an end to that once and for all. Andre only lost one quarter of his career games. No one ever looks at that, and that is shameful. Most of the time in any tournemant he did not win, he made it to the quarters,semis, or even the finals. He won all 4 grand slam titles at least once, isn't that good enough in itself to be called great? It is in my book. But let us go on to other ways Agassi has changed the sport.
I agree that early in his career he was not as diciplined as he could have been, but his talent was undeniable, and he dared to be different. He made people want to come see him play, something the sport deperatly needed. He attracted an audience that had not watched much tennis before, and inspired young people to want to pick up a racket. Is that good enough to be called great? There's more.
Agassi went from a good player, to a great player when he started working with Brad Gilbert. Like a catipillar turning into a butterfly, Agassi broke out and began kicking butt as he never had before. He showed that if you dedicate yourself to what you are doing and improve yourself, you can achieve your dreams. Is that good enough to be called great? There's more.
After weathering the storm of his marriage to Brooke Shields, He litteraly started at the bottom, playing in matches he hadn't played since he was a kid, when most players would have given up. He became what I consider one of the best athelets in any sport. He could out last any opponent in a 5 set match. You could visibly see other players taking notice, most likely after they went home suffering from cramps after Agassi made them go to every end of the court, because it seemed like he could make the ball go anywhere he chose with deadly accuracy. He became a brillian tactition. He won the Australian, U.S. Open, and the French Open during this last phase of his career, out-lasting every other player of his generation.
Is that enough to be called great? There's more.
The only thing to force Agassi into retirement was siatica. When this was not troubling him, he was still beating guys that were almost half his age. He was also now facing guys that were playing the way he did. In other words, Andre had such an impact on the game he was literally playing himself most of the time. Nadal, Blake, and even Federer ( whether he admits it or not) have all adopted most of Andre's tactics. You can add many other players to that list. Andre may not have won as many titles as Samprass or Federer, and no doubt they are great as well. But Andre's impact on every other aspect of the game will be felt for years to come. Is that enough to be called great? I think it is enough to be called one of the greatest of all time.