Another angle on comparing tennis greats (with a pretty chart)

[El Dude]

I don't know if Blake is overrated, though he seems to be more remembered than his record justifies. But to a certain extent, ALL American players are overrated. If Ivan Lendl is the most underrated ATG, I think Andre Agassi is a good candidate for the most overrated. They have the same Slam count (along with Connors), but Lendl and Connors were FAR greater players. Really, Agassi belongs more in the group with Wilander, Edberg, and Becker - in terms of peak dominance. The main difference is lots of extra years. Padding, in other words. But their peaks were all pretty similar. Agassi (and the others) were great, but just not as great as the common view, imo.

 

[El Dude]

In other words, I don't think it is crazy to say: What's the difference between between Agassi and Andy Murray? Well, Murray had to play alongside three Pete Sampras' - and really, all three were better than Sampras. As far as tennis ability, I'm not sure that Agassi was a significantly greater player than Murray. He just played in an easier context.

I'd still rank them like so: Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Murray. But there isn't a huge gap between these five - not as much as between Agassi and the next player up, Jimmy Connors.

 

[mrzz]

In other words, I don't think it is crazy to say: What's the difference between between Agassi and Andy Murray? Well, Murray had to play alongside three Pete Sampras' - and really, all three were better than Sampras. As far as tennis ability, I'm not sure that Agassi was a significantly greater player than Murray. He just played in an easier context.

I'd still rank them like so: Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Murray. But there isn't a huge gap between these five - not as much as between Agassi and the next player up, Jimmy Connors.

I hate them both, anyway.

 

[Kieran]

In other words, I don't think it is crazy to say: What's the difference between between Agassi and Andy Murray? Well, Murray had to play alongside three Pete Sampras' - and really, all three were better than Sampras. As far as tennis ability, I'm not sure that Agassi was a significantly greater player than Murray. He just played in an easier context.

I'd still rank them like so: Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Murray. But there isn't a huge gap between these five - not as much as between Agassi and the next player up, Jimmy Connors.

The big 3 played in an easier context too, though, so to some extent they’re overrated, while we also can appreciate them as being great. Agassi was great, but he also went AWOL - a lot. Mentality brittle, then sometimes he’d come out fighting. Technically gifted, good hands, obviously the return is one of the three greatest, he’s alongside Jimmy and Novak on that, and he did have a great late surge when Pete left, which was mentioned elsewhere, he became a tighter proposition in his later years, in some ways.

 

[Kieran]

Let’s compare across the eras:

416 reactions · 59 shares | Ricardo Pancho Gonzalez 1928-1995 . Number one in 1948 ( amateur era) @usopen Singles Champion in 1948/49 . Here playing another #tennislegend Lew Hoad from Australia Pancho’ s serve was ahead of the time ! #spatzt

Ricardo Pancho Gonzalez 1928-1995 . Number one in 1948 ( amateur era) @usopen Singles Champion in 1948/49 . Here playing another #tennislegend Lew Hoad from Australia Pancho’ s serve was...

www.facebook.com

 

[El Dude]

Let’s compare across the eras:

416 reactions · 59 shares | Ricardo Pancho Gonzalez 1928-1995 . Number one in 1948 ( amateur era) @usopen Singles Champion in 1948/49 . Here playing another #tennislegend Lew Hoad from Australia Pancho’ s serve was ahead of the time ! #spatzt

Ricardo Pancho Gonzalez 1928-1995 . Number one in 1948 ( amateur era) @usopen Singles Champion in 1948/49 . Here playing another #tennislegend Lew Hoad from Australia Pancho’ s serve was...

www.facebook.com

Pancho is often cited as the old great whose game would have translated best to the modern era.

I thought that was a wooden court, but I think those went out in the 1920s.

 

[Kieran]

Pancho is often cited as the old great whose game would have translated best to the modern era.

I thought that was a wooden court, but I think those went out in the 1920s.

Yeah, I think it was wooden, or it could have been wood-coloured ice. Incredibly fast!

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, I think it was wooden, or it could have been wood-coloured ice. Incredibly fast!

Yeah, I thought it was too. AI lied to me and said the last wood court was in the 20s, but I think they went up through the 60s and even into the early 70s. Ken Rosewall was a bit of a "wood court specialist," I believe.

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, I thought it was too. AI lied to me and said the last wood court was in the 20s, but I think they went up through the 60s and even into the early 70s. Ken Rosewall was a bit of a "wood court specialist," I believe.

@Fiero425 will know when the last wooden court was. These boys also played on Lino. Game was risky then, you might slip on grandma’s spilt tea…

 

[Fiero425]

Yeah, I thought it was too. AI lied to me and said the last wood court was in the 20s, but I think they went up through the 60s and even into the early 70s. Ken Rosewall was a bit of a "wood court specialist," I believe.

Wood court? Well I taught on it; really a gym floor at a YMCA & YWCA back in the 70's! I only played a handful of matches in singles & doubles on it! It was lightning fast needing supreme anticipation! One false move and you were done for the point!

 

[Kieran]

Wood court? Well I taught on it; really a gym floor at a YMCA & YWCA back in the 70's! I only played a handful of matches in singles & doubles on it! It was lightning fast needing supreme anticipation! One false move and you were done for the point!

I can only imagine. Would be safe to wear ice skates. Do you know when the old pro game stopped using them?

 

[britbox]

I can only imagine. Would be safe to wear ice skates. Do you know when the old pro game stopped using them?

Not sure when they fizzled out - 1970s at a guess. Before the Open Era, Wembley Indoor was one of the three Pro Majors and played on wood. I was trying to find footage but there doesn't seem to be any. There's not much footage on the old pro era in general.

 

[El Dude]

Not sure when they fizzled out - 1970s at a guess. Before the Open Era, Wembley Indoor was one of the three Pro Majors and played on wood. I was trying to find footage but there doesn't seem to be any. There's not much footage on the old pro era in general.

There's a bit here and there, but the quality is always bad. But here's a short gem - Laver vs. Gonzales in 1964, in color and on grass. It is only 4 minutes, but you get a sense of how fast they played - so many angles. Laver's serve looks like a curve ball.

 

[Kieran]

There's a bit here and there, but the quality is always bad. But here's a short gem - Laver vs. Gonzales in 1964, in color and on grass. It is only 4 minutes, but you get a sense of how fast they played - so many angles. Laver's serve looks like a curve ball.

That looks a bit like those old black and white reels when people look like they’re walking speeded up? But imagine these dudes playing today. They weren’t fecking around cocking an ear to the crowd looking for love..

 

[El Dude]

Men then

That looks a bit like those old black and white reels when people look like they’re walking speeded up? But imagine these dudes playing today. They weren’t fecking around cocking an ear to the crowd looking for love..

Men then:

Men now:

My reaction to men now:

 

[Fiero425]

Men then

Men then:

View attachment 10014

Men now:

View attachment 10013

My reaction to men now:

View attachment 10015

Clint thinking, "get off my lawn," "a man has to know his limitations," or "I need to play old Bruce Wayne in "Batman Beyond" movie B4 I go!"

 

[El Dude]

It's the record for first run at #1.

I didn't see the graphic, but it isn't. Jimmy Connors first became ATP #1 on July 29 of 1974 and was #1 for 160 straight weeks. Lleyton Hewitt first became #1 on Nov 19 2001 and was #1 for straight 75 weeks. Of of course Roger, with his 237 weeks. So his run is 4th longest for a first-timer.

 

[El Dude]

Oh, that's right. When I heard them say he'd past Djokovic, I thought they were telling me it was a record, but then I heard the rest. I was confused, and then forgot the rest of the story.

Its not your fault - it is sort of a dumb stat, to be honest, that doesn't really mean anything. I mean, weeks at number one streaks do, but not first streak because it is really pretty circumstantial.

 

[Fiero425]

Its not your fault - it is sort of a dumb stat, to be honest, that doesn't really mean anything. I mean, weeks at number one streaks do, but not first streak because it is really pretty circumstantial.

It became "a thing" after it occurred; about as lame a record as a "Career Grand Slam!" It became a thing when Agassi accomplished it back in the 90's! I was one of those people that couldn't stand Agassi from day 1! It was corruptable in my mind that this kid was taking the sport by storm & hadn't won $#!t! It would take him 5 more yrs. to stumble upon a Wimbledon crown in '92! If it was real skill, he's the greatest underachiever in the history (GUAT) of the game as he wasted so many years just being a personality on tour w/ the clothes, hair, sponsors, etc.! It's become almost a right of passage now w/ the Big 3 having 6 of them in their collective resumes; Novak (3)!

 

[Kieran]

It's become almost a right of passage now w/ the Big 3 having 6 of them in their collective resumes; Novak (3)!

I know you’re being comedic here and not saying this seriously, but who’ll think of the children! An innocent child might stumble on this page and think you’re seriously proclaiming a great achievement in Novaks 3rd “career slam” while on another page you’re denigrating Rafa’s second one, saying he only won it because Novak didn’t lie hard enough, he didn’t cheat successfully in Australia 2022!

Rafa, sez you, won his second cos Novak was brutally treated by being caught cheating! But Novak didn’t win his third cos Rafa went lame in the semis in Wimbledon, thereby allowing Novak to win his third career slam unopposed?

Surely if Novaks absence (according to you) gifted Rafa a second, Rafa’s injury gifted Novak a third? Be mindful, brother! You’re as historian!