Rodgeur : simply the best !

Rodgeur : simply the best !

Post by bob » Tue, 12 Jul 2005 05:42:46



Quote:

>>>Don't be ridiculous - Mac/Jimbo have won nearly twice as many blue-chips.

>> ? Agassi is clearly ahead of those two (actually, Mac is close but only
>> because of DC). Blue chips only count so much - clearly behind career GS,
>> eg.

> No, Agassi will be considered about half the player Mac/Jimbo were. Trust
> me - it's a no-brainer.

i'll give andre 2/3, maybe 3/4, half is a bit harsh.. :-) and people say i
never disagree!

bob

 
 
 

Rodgeur : simply the best !

Post by bob » Tue, 12 Jul 2005 05:46:18


Quote:


>> All this inane talk about "blue chip slams" exists here and nowhere
>> else in the real world. People look at one statistic and only one: how
>> many slams did you win, period. Andre has won 8 and to 95% of people

> I agree with the first part of that, but of course they look at more than
> that. Basically, the media quotes the biggest achievements you have that
> are relevant to their audience. Marc Rosset is the 1992 Olympic gold
> medallist; Agassi is the winner of all four Grand Slams (or possibly in
> Australia, the four-time AO winner); Sampras won 14 GSs; Laver won the
> calendar year GS twice; Safin is the current AO champion or the former US
> Open champion. People mention Connors' GSs much less and instead mention
> his record 109 titles; Lendl, it's his weeks at number one.

> If the CYGS gets mentioned less than x-time Wimbledon champion, it's
> because it takes more words to explain it -- personally, I think winning
> all four GSs is *incredibly* impressive -- but it's harder to explain
> because although a lot of people have heard of all the tournaments, they
> don't necessary know that they're all Grand Slams.

cygs or career slam, both are impressive..but we had this argument yrs ago,
is it better to win each one once, or say 3 of them 10 times each? simple
answer.

nobody's criticizing agassi's career slam, it exists, but i'd say it's about
the weakest career slam that once could achieve w/out fictional situations.

bob

 
 
 

Rodgeur : simply the best !

Post by bob » Tue, 12 Jul 2005 05:48:33


Quote:



> > It is a great achievement, but Agassi has proven you can do it at a
> > leisurely pace over many yrs, benefitting from luck & soft draws.

> > This isn't a description for tier 1 status.

> At AO, no question: 4xchamp
> At FO, the win itself was somewhat fluke (he of course beat defending
> champion early rounds), but on the other hand Agassi missed three earlier
> huge chances (88 lost to Wilander 5 set SF, 90 lost to Gomez final, when
> Gomez played the ultimate match of his life, 91 lost final to Courier
> after
> rain delay leading 2-1 in sets, which brought Courier back to the
> match....Courier admitted that his coach convinced him try try different
> strategy at Agassi's serve games)....as a summary: lady Fortuna paid back
> 1999
> At Wimb, beat Becker, Mac and Ivanicevic in a row....no question (1 final,
> 3
> semis and some QF:s to boot)
> At USO, 2 x Champ, 3 finals, 94 championship run was great (5 seeded
> players
> beaten)....no question

> Agassi was ultimate jack-of-all-trades. The ultimately best only for few
> occasions (94-95 some months, 99 debatable) but managed to win with his
> highly efficient but limited game more and more as he matured to take
> Lendl-route at his playing...

> Agassi had somewhat bad luck at early years of his career 88-97, but lady
> Fortuna finally started to smile him 99 and he ended up with IMHO exact
> amoung of slams and achievements he deserved.

> .mikko
>>>Yes, good post. Agassi won some slams he was lucky to win (USO 99-

Sampras pulling out, FO 99- scraping through), but at the same time you
could argue that he was unlucky at some other slams (Should've won FO
90 or 91, kept runnig into Sampras at USO). He is not up there with
Borg and Sampras though.

but everybody runs into situations where they could've won, and where they
shoud not have won but did..the key is agassi won 1 W (made 1 F), 1 FO in a
long career, his best slam was AO..this isn't comparable to tier I..he's
tier II/III border..

bob

 
 
 

Rodgeur : simply the best !

Post by bob » Tue, 12 Jul 2005 05:49:14


Quote:



>> > Agassi had somewhat bad luck at early years of his career 88-97, but
> lady
>> > Fortuna finally started to smile him 99 and he ended up with IMHO exact
>> > amoung of slams and achievements he deserved.

>> > .mikko

>> He's not tier 1.

> He isn't.

> High tier3 or low tier2 depending on your tastes...

by gosh mikko, i've been saying tier II/III border for eons now! think it's
pegged properly.

bob

 
 
 

Rodgeur : simply the best !

Post by Robert » Tue, 12 Jul 2005 05:55:24

Quote:






> > > It is a great achievement, but Agassi has proven you can do it at a
> > > leisurely pace over many yrs, benefitting from luck & soft draws.

> > > This isn't a description for tier 1 status.

> > At AO, no question: 4xchamp
> > At FO, the win itself was somewhat fluke (he of course beat defending
> > champion early rounds), but on the other hand Agassi missed three earlier
> > huge chances (88 lost to Wilander 5 set SF, 90 lost to Gomez final, when
> > Gomez played the ultimate match of his life, 91 lost final to Courier
> > after
> > rain delay leading 2-1 in sets, which brought Courier back to the
> > match....Courier admitted that his coach convinced him try try different
> > strategy at Agassi's serve games)....as a summary: lady Fortuna paid back
> > 1999
> > At Wimb, beat Becker, Mac and Ivanicevic in a row....no question (1 final,
> > 3
> > semis and some QF:s to boot)
> > At USO, 2 x Champ, 3 finals, 94 championship run was great (5 seeded
> > players
> > beaten)....no question

> > Agassi was ultimate jack-of-all-trades. The ultimately best only for few
> > occasions (94-95 some months, 99 debatable) but managed to win with his
> > highly efficient but limited game more and more as he matured to take
> > Lendl-route at his playing...

> > Agassi had somewhat bad luck at early years of his career 88-97, but lady
> > Fortuna finally started to smile him 99 and he ended up with IMHO exact
> > amoung of slams and achievements he deserved.

> > .mikko

> >>>Yes, good post. Agassi won some slams he was lucky to win (USO 99-
> Sampras pulling out, FO 99- scraping through), but at the same time you
> could argue that he was unlucky at some other slams (Should've won FO
> 90 or 91, kept runnig into Sampras at USO). He is not up there with
> Borg and Sampras though.

> but everybody runs into situations where they could've won, and where they
> shoud not have won but did..the key is agassi won 1 W (made 1 F), 1 FO in a
> long career, his best slam was AO..this isn't comparable to tier I..he's
> tier II/III border..

> bob

Agassi probably scrapes tier 2 based on career slam.
 
 
 

Rodgeur : simply the best !

Post by Vari L. Cinick » Tue, 12 Jul 2005 06:02:05

Quote:

> cygs or career slam, both are impressive..but we had this argument yrs ago,
> is it better to win each one once, or say 3 of them 10 times each? simple
> answer.

> nobody's criticizing agassi's career slam, it exists, but i'd say it's about
> the weakest career slam that once could achieve w/out fictional situations.

> bob

bob, calling it the weakest career slam that could be achieved smells
like strong criticism to me.

Measurement of achievements almost always takes rarity into account. If
it is rare, the implied difficulty gives it cachet.

The fact that Agassi has a mediocre career by Sampras standards does
make the one diamond in his collection shine that much brighter. After
all, Sampras struggled mightily to add that jewel (career slam and hence
the FO) to his collection.

vc

Of course, Sampras also wanted to establish that he was the best ever.
The FO has got to be his biggest disappointment.

 
 
 

Rodgeur : simply the best !

Post by Robert » Tue, 12 Jul 2005 06:12:08

Quote:


> > cygs or career slam, both are impressive..but we had this argument yrs ago,
> > is it better to win each one once, or say 3 of them 10 times each? simple
> > answer.

> > nobody's criticizing agassi's career slam, it exists, but i'd say it's about
> > the weakest career slam that once could achieve w/out fictional situations.

> > bob

> bob, calling it the weakest career slam that could be achieved smells
> like strong criticism to me.

> Measurement of achievements almost always takes rarity into account. If
> it is rare, the implied difficulty gives it cachet.

> The fact that Agassi has a mediocre career by Sampras standards does
> make the one diamond in his collection shine that much brighter. After
> all, Sampras struggled mightily to add that jewel (career slam and hence
> the FO) to his collection.

> vc

> Of course, Sampras also wanted to establish that he was the best ever.
> The FO has got to be his biggest disappointment.

Agassi's cs was unconvincing, but it's not like he reached all 4 slam
finals only once and just happened to win each time. Agassi deserves
his cs, no question, but there's no doubt that longevity of his career
played a big part in it also.
 
 
 

Rodgeur : simply the best !

Post by Stephen » Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:22:16

Quote:
> > It wasn't easy for Agassi, but it was easier for the "field" of players,
> > as
> > evidenced by more guys doing it.

> ? that defies logic..

um, no.

--
"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act?
He will conclude that he can do more to build an
arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday,
some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

- President Bill Clinton, explaining why
  Hussein must be forced to admit
  UN weapons inspectors, 1998

 
 
 

Rodgeur : simply the best !

Post by Stephen » Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:40:48

Quote:
> He had a game but mentally he was not a top player. I have said this
> earlier. Fed is improved version of Stich. Their ability to play any kind
of
> game on any surface with jaw-dropping shots is similar.

Stich was much more serve-dependent than Fed was. Didn't have nearly the
same baseline consistency.

--
"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act?
He will conclude that he can do more to build an
arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday,
some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

- President Bill Clinton, explaining why
  Hussein must be forced to admit
  UN weapons inspectors, 1998

 
 
 

Rodgeur : simply the best !

Post by Stephen » Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:41:48

Quote:
> but everybody runs into situations where they could've won, and where they
> shoud not have won but did..the key is agassi won 1 W

No, the key is Agassi won the career GS and was "best of open era" at AO.
Those are two legacy claims that put him in tier I (open era).

--
"what if Saddam fails to comply, and we fail to act?
He will conclude that he can do more to build an
arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday,
some way, i guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

- President Bill Clinton, explaining why
  Hussein must be forced to admit
  UN weapons inspectors, 1998

 
 
 

Rodgeur : simply the best !

Post by Superdav » Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:52:10



Quote:





>>> i'd say he's the most "complete" player i've ever seen, i.e. in terms
>>> of being able to play all facets of the game well, no weak area..and
>>> they showed some of his strokes in super slow motion, absolutely text
>>> book form..but still, winning is the bottom line and he has a ways to
>>> go to catch borg/sampras/laver type #s..i think he can be a 10 slammer,
>>> maybe 12 slammer at this rate..

>> Did you see the super slow footage they showed of that crazy run from
>> behind the backhand tramlines to the forehand tramlines up by the net to
>> create set point in the match against Gonzalez? It showed that while he
>> was making those long strides to get there and adjusting his grip on the
>> racquet to get under the ball...his head was always perfectly still and he
>> was always perfectly balanced.

>i didn't see that one, but saw specifically 3 super slo mo replays vs
>roddick. 1-was hitting  a routine forehand, but his eye concentration on the
>ball was amazing. 2- was hitting backhand volley, it was absolute textbook.
>3- running forehand, he was in full run, but as he struck the ball, they
>stopped the film--his entire body, torso, legs were in perfect position at
>the moment of contact..he's quit a talent.

>bob

that's right bob.