@Keolarrapao - Sorry, but do you know who Agassi is? He was 2005 us open finalist at age 35! And he didn't seems to be killed at all by much younger players.
@indyk91 The greatest clay court player ever was Sergio Brugera and Michael Stich. Tim Henman wasn't a good clay court player but he is very friendly and smart.
@indyk91 That is not my opinion. Nadal and Federer are not better than players from the eighteens or nighteens. I suppose that the old generation had more touch and played a nice tennis. Nadal is not nice to see, it is very powerful and they are playing only from the baseline no way to the net or serve and volley. The volley from Edberg, Stich, Sampras and Becker were excellent and they could play from the baseline too.
@kokser29 nadal has a lot more to his game than just power. he's improved a lot in the last few years. and his volley has improved immensely. you should watch him play more often if you think he doesnt come to the net. same goes for federer. federer has one of the most agressive styles in history. he comes to the net often and volleys extremely well. every generation tends to be an improvement on the last. federer and nadal are better all round player than becker, edberg and co.
@indyk91 - Ok, you may be right on some degree about being better all round players, but Edberg's volleys were pure poetry and cannot be compared to Nadal. Plus, I don't think this generation is better than the last one, there're just much less competitors.
@aleksandrpondios I remember him being #2 in 2008, and then after lossing to Nadal in the Australian Open final, he must have been down...so what happened after that to Nadal and Fed?
Agassi's two French finals, plus his French Open win gives Agassi a much more complete resume than Pete. When you consider that Pete only reached the FO semifinals ONCE, that goes a long way toward proving that Agassi was the more complete player. Not necessarily the "better" player, but more complete.
@Scoclamor Forgot about the gold. With a bit more focus, Agassi probably could have pulled off one more French Open win, but he had an amazing career. Especially for a guy who hated tennis.
@pitbull103 Funny, I talked to someone who was close to the tour years back, and he felt that Wilander really never considered tennis life and death...in fact, he treated it more like a hobby. He completely lost interest after the 1988 US Open. I saw him in person beat Edberg in the 1995 Masters Series Semi-Finals in Montreal. Then he got destroyed by Agassi in the finals. I saw Agassi beat Tarango earlier...some fan kept telling Tarango off in the match...it was funny!
@Scoclamor I love those stories/analysis. Thanks for that. Incidentally, Tarango was responsible for Agassi's very first loss as a competitive tennis player in the juniors. That fact was in Agassi's recent book. What made it awful was that Tarango made a completely ridiculous call on an all-or-nothing point in a lightning tiebreaker. The ball was literally 2 feet in and Tarango called it out. Probably the biggest jerk in the history of tennis.
@pitbull103 Got lots of stories...Still know this teaching pro who got to know a lot of the players from the 40s to the present! Tennis players are by far the niceist people you will ever meet.
Cincy in '97 I almost got trampled by the Agassi camp. Nicest guy I ever met? Remember David Wheaton? CLASS!
Incorrect. The wig fell apart in 1990, when Agassi played against Gomez in the final. By 94, Agassi was wearing baseball caps both on and off court all the time, there was no need for the wig. On the very rare occasion when he did not wear the cap, he had grown his hair long on top as well (not buzzed on the sides, and short on top as it was in 1990), and he just let it drop all forward to cover the hairloss, though it was clearly quite thin and stringy.
agassi ahead of mac..jesus kid,sttats,record and influence on the game say otherwise. Agassi was a great, no doubt, but mac was a god.took the whole game into a different era.before it was a one dimensional game..johnnie made it 3d.
I hate it when commentators talk during points, but it's still a great clip of history. When commentators talk during points, you can't hear the sound of the ball and the amazing sound of the ball hitting the sweet spot of the racquet.
@Pitonto I agree. Wilander is one of the top 5 greatest players of all time on the dirt. I would have to put Nadal and Borg at 1 & 2. Wilander at 3. Lendl & Kuerten at 4 & 5. Thomas Muster, Bruguera, Fererro, Chang, Courier in the second tier. And by the way, in my prime I could throw a pigskin a quarter-mile!
I would say Wilander's career pretty much ended after 88 US Open. He didn't look hungry or even interested after that. Like he was just going thru the motions but didn't want to be there. Big shame as he was such a fascinating mental player and his game v versatile, probably had a few grand slams left him if he didn't have such dedication problems. Although must give credit for what is still an awesome career & record- a legend. Would have been good to see this rematch during Wilanders peak.
im curious about your top ten list of all time players. mine is 1 to five in any order: laver, borg, sampras, fedexpress and McEnroe and then 6.Agassi 7. Connors 8. Lendl 9. Becker 10. Edberg and wilander. what's yours?
Depends on how you are judging your top 10. If its on grand slams then you only have to look at who has won the most. Lets imagine if all these players were playing at their top in the same time period with the same equipment then you would still have different players excelling on different surfaces. I never saw some apparently awesome players such as Rosewall, Hoad, Emerson, Ashe, Newcombe, Nastase etc that may be in the list. Its just too simple a question my friend.
I would put Agassi in the top five instead of McEnroe, Federer as the lonely number one, and Nadal instead of Edberg as number 10. If Nadal returns in top-shape I would put him above McEnore. And I would ad some dark horses who on the day could beat anyone: Stich, Ivanisevic, Rios, Safin who all were number ones or twos in the world. And last a special mental ranking for will-power where I can only see one number one: Tomas Muster.
@aleksandrpondios : I have mostly the same Top 10, but a little different. 1. Federer (simply due to the fact that he's broken MOST every record Pete ever set). 2. Pete 3. Borg (what he accomplished by the age of 25 is untouched by anyone) 4. Laver 5. Lendl 6. Connors 7. Agassi 8. Mac 9. Emerson 10. Elsworth Vines
@theatlantean2 i agree but by my opinion Pete had a harder oponnets to face.and he is fast court game is better,but in other hand federer is far away in clay court,
@aleksandrpondios Yeah that's a tough one. Being 39 years old, I agree that Pete's generation was probably the deepest generation ever as far as quality of players. However, I tour with two current pro's, where I see just how good everyone is. The worst players out there making a living are very tough. It makes me question the "Federer doesn't have anyone tough to face" issue. Today's generation isn't far off from Pete's as far as depth goes.
@theatlantean2 Federer's era is far better than Pete's. Edberg and Becker were both on the decline by '93, Lendl was about retired, Wilander was on his way out, Courier had won his last slam...
@Scoclamor Great point, mate. And to answer your other comment, I would put Becker and Edberg somewhere in that 6-10 category. I hold strong to my 1-4 (Fed, Pete, Borg, Laver), but after that there's probably 15 names that I would want to put as 6-10. (Not in orfer): Becker, Edberg, Connors, Agassi, Mac, Emerson, Rosewall, E.Vines, Poncho Gonzalez (I heard he was the greatest when he wanted to be), Nadal, Wilander, Hewitt (the toughest competitor, ever),Vilas, Nastase, Courier, Chang.
Tennis of the 80's and 90's is way more fun to watch, because more human... :)
Anyway, I believe these guys would be "killed" by any current top 100...the power difference has become just too much.
Keolarrapao 10 months ago
@Keolarrapao - Sorry, but do you know who Agassi is? He was 2005 us open finalist at age 35! And he didn't seems to be killed at all by much younger players.
Rimpianto 9 months ago
@Rimpianto guy is a freaking legend, one of the best ever, period!
Globox822 5 months ago
shame : / played a guy with a fricken 4 meter wide trampoline.
pocketsearch 1 year ago
I'm sorry but Malivai Washington doesn't even come close to the top 1000 of all time... please... he had 1 good run at Wimbledon
GunsNRoses269 1 year ago
@ indyk91: you are soooo right! Though Mark Woodforde is a close second... ;-)
neibaf3 1 year ago
@neibaf3
Of course! in the top ten i also would like to put Roscoe Tanner, John Lloyd, Peter Fleming, Vijay Armtraji and Malivai Mashington -) -)
THEKINKS08 1 year ago
these agassi wilander comparisons are pointless. the greatest clay court player ever was tim henman.
indyk91 1 year ago
@indyk91 The greatest clay court player ever was Sergio Brugera and Michael Stich. Tim Henman wasn't a good clay court player but he is very friendly and smart.
kokser29 1 year ago
@kokser29 i was only joking about henman. and kuerten, lendl, borg were all better than bruguera and stich. nadal and federer are better too.
indyk91 1 year ago
@indyk91 That is not my opinion. Nadal and Federer are not better than players from the eighteens or nighteens. I suppose that the old generation had more touch and played a nice tennis. Nadal is not nice to see, it is very powerful and they are playing only from the baseline no way to the net or serve and volley. The volley from Edberg, Stich, Sampras and Becker were excellent and they could play from the baseline too.
kokser29 1 year ago
@kokser29 nadal has a lot more to his game than just power. he's improved a lot in the last few years. and his volley has improved immensely. you should watch him play more often if you think he doesnt come to the net. same goes for federer. federer has one of the most agressive styles in history. he comes to the net often and volleys extremely well. every generation tends to be an improvement on the last. federer and nadal are better all round player than becker, edberg and co.
indyk91 1 year ago
@indyk91 - Ok, you may be right on some degree about being better all round players, but Edberg's volleys were pure poetry and cannot be compared to Nadal. Plus, I don't think this generation is better than the last one, there're just much less competitors.
Rimpianto 9 months ago
They played a gem in '88. Five sets!
Scoclamor 1 year ago
@Scoclamor federer is n 2 even now
aleksandrpondios 1 year ago
@aleksandrpondios I remember him being #2 in 2008, and then after lossing to Nadal in the Australian Open final, he must have been down...so what happened after that to Nadal and Fed?
Scoclamor 1 year ago
Agassi's two French finals, plus his French Open win gives Agassi a much more complete resume than Pete. When you consider that Pete only reached the FO semifinals ONCE, that goes a long way toward proving that Agassi was the more complete player. Not necessarily the "better" player, but more complete.
pitbull103 1 year ago
@pitbull103 Olympic gold, too, don't forget!
Scoclamor 1 year ago
@Scoclamor Forgot about the gold. With a bit more focus, Agassi probably could have pulled off one more French Open win, but he had an amazing career. Especially for a guy who hated tennis.
pitbull103 1 year ago
@pitbull103 Funny, I talked to someone who was close to the tour years back, and he felt that Wilander really never considered tennis life and death...in fact, he treated it more like a hobby. He completely lost interest after the 1988 US Open. I saw him in person beat Edberg in the 1995 Masters Series Semi-Finals in Montreal. Then he got destroyed by Agassi in the finals. I saw Agassi beat Tarango earlier...some fan kept telling Tarango off in the match...it was funny!
Scoclamor 1 year ago
@Scoclamor I love those stories/analysis. Thanks for that. Incidentally, Tarango was responsible for Agassi's very first loss as a competitive tennis player in the juniors. That fact was in Agassi's recent book. What made it awful was that Tarango made a completely ridiculous call on an all-or-nothing point in a lightning tiebreaker. The ball was literally 2 feet in and Tarango called it out. Probably the biggest jerk in the history of tennis.
pitbull103 1 year ago
@pitbull103 Got lots of stories...Still know this teaching pro who got to know a lot of the players from the 40s to the present! Tennis players are by far the niceist people you will ever meet.
Cincy in '97 I almost got trampled by the Agassi camp. Nicest guy I ever met? Remember David Wheaton? CLASS!
Scoclamor 1 year ago
Mats Wilander is a legend. He is the Ken Rosewall of his generation who won on his brains and heart.
mrbobevans 1 year ago
he was actually wearing a wig back then... a fell appart when i read it ... his beautyful long hair- nothing but fake!
zillyberlin 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
AGASSI= DRUGS
agassi= illuminati LOL!
melende1966 2 years ago
@zillyberlin it was just in the front i think
tangerine44 2 years ago
@zillyberlin No, Agassi really did have long hair. He wore a wig for a while cover up a bald spot and then just started wearing the hat.
chapaev36 6 months ago
@zillyberlin
Incorrect. The wig fell apart in 1990, when Agassi played against Gomez in the final. By 94, Agassi was wearing baseball caps both on and off court all the time, there was no need for the wig. On the very rare occasion when he did not wear the cap, he had grown his hair long on top as well (not buzzed on the sides, and short on top as it was in 1990), and he just let it drop all forward to cover the hairloss, though it was clearly quite thin and stringy.
datacipher 4 months ago
agassi ahead of mac..jesus kid,sttats,record and influence on the game say otherwise. Agassi was a great, no doubt, but mac was a god.took the whole game into a different era.before it was a one dimensional game..johnnie made it 3d.
jjayster 2 years ago
for juandi2570: pancho gonzalez is the greateste player ever !
eueueueueu111 2 years ago
I loved Wilander, but his double-hander was pissweak. Agassi has the best one of all time.
Snaurt 2 years ago
Wilander was so talented. he just lost his hunger after 1988.
juandi2570 2 years ago 3
yes and he also lost his power
melende1966 2 years ago
not so sure about Wilander losing his power, he lost his motivation to achieve more and he was only 25 years old when he lost his groove.
juandi2570 2 years ago 2
I hate it when commentators talk during points, but it's still a great clip of history. When commentators talk during points, you can't hear the sound of the ball and the amazing sound of the ball hitting the sweet spot of the racquet.
kinglear 3 years ago
In his prime Wilander was way better than Agassi on clay.
Pitonto 3 years ago 9
@Pitonto I agree. Wilander is one of the top 5 greatest players of all time on the dirt. I would have to put Nadal and Borg at 1 & 2. Wilander at 3. Lendl & Kuerten at 4 & 5. Thomas Muster, Bruguera, Fererro, Chang, Courier in the second tier. And by the way, in my prime I could throw a pigskin a quarter-mile!
theatlantean2 1 year ago
I would say Wilander's career pretty much ended after 88 US Open. He didn't look hungry or even interested after that. Like he was just going thru the motions but didn't want to be there. Big shame as he was such a fascinating mental player and his game v versatile, probably had a few grand slams left him if he didn't have such dedication problems. Although must give credit for what is still an awesome career & record- a legend. Would have been good to see this rematch during Wilanders peak.
jordanaus75 3 years ago 2
im curious about your top ten list of all time players. mine is 1 to five in any order: laver, borg, sampras, fedexpress and McEnroe and then 6.Agassi 7. Connors 8. Lendl 9. Becker 10. Edberg and wilander. what's yours?
juandi2570 3 years ago
Depends on how you are judging your top 10. If its on grand slams then you only have to look at who has won the most. Lets imagine if all these players were playing at their top in the same time period with the same equipment then you would still have different players excelling on different surfaces. I never saw some apparently awesome players such as Rosewall, Hoad, Emerson, Ashe, Newcombe, Nastase etc that may be in the list. Its just too simple a question my friend.
jordanaus75 3 years ago
I would put Agassi in the top five instead of McEnroe, Federer as the lonely number one, and Nadal instead of Edberg as number 10. If Nadal returns in top-shape I would put him above McEnore. And I would ad some dark horses who on the day could beat anyone: Stich, Ivanisevic, Rios, Safin who all were number ones or twos in the world. And last a special mental ranking for will-power where I can only see one number one: Tomas Muster.
altfratuben 2 years ago
Interesting point, Nadal is number 10 i agree. Agassi and Mac could be number 5, tough call.
juandi2570 2 years ago
@altfratuben and waht about sampas anv borg and lavermwhich nadal and muster waht are you taking about
aleksandrpondios 1 year ago
@aleksandrpondios 1.sampras.2.laver.3.federer.4.borg.5connors.6mcenroe.7.rosewall.8.lendl.
aleksandrpondios 1 year ago
@aleksandrpondios Federer #1
Scoclamor 1 year ago
@aleksandrpondios 1.sampras.2.laver.3.federer.4.borg.5connors.6mcenroe.7.rosewall.8.lendl.9.agassi.10.tilden
aleksandrpondios 1 year ago
@aleksandrpondios : I have mostly the same Top 10, but a little different. 1. Federer (simply due to the fact that he's broken MOST every record Pete ever set). 2. Pete 3. Borg (what he accomplished by the age of 25 is untouched by anyone) 4. Laver 5. Lendl 6. Connors 7. Agassi 8. Mac 9. Emerson 10. Elsworth Vines
theatlantean2 1 year ago
@theatlantean2 i agree but by my opinion Pete had a harder oponnets to face.and he is fast court game is better,but in other hand federer is far away in clay court,
aleksandrpondios 1 year ago
@aleksandrpondios Yeah that's a tough one. Being 39 years old, I agree that Pete's generation was probably the deepest generation ever as far as quality of players. However, I tour with two current pro's, where I see just how good everyone is. The worst players out there making a living are very tough. It makes me question the "Federer doesn't have anyone tough to face" issue. Today's generation isn't far off from Pete's as far as depth goes.
theatlantean2 1 year ago
@theatlantean2 Federer's era is far better than Pete's. Edberg and Becker were both on the decline by '93, Lendl was about retired, Wilander was on his way out, Courier had won his last slam...
Scoclamor 1 year ago
@Scoclamor Great point, mate. And to answer your other comment, I would put Becker and Edberg somewhere in that 6-10 category. I hold strong to my 1-4 (Fed, Pete, Borg, Laver), but after that there's probably 15 names that I would want to put as 6-10. (Not in orfer): Becker, Edberg, Connors, Agassi, Mac, Emerson, Rosewall, E.Vines, Poncho Gonzalez (I heard he was the greatest when he wanted to be), Nadal, Wilander, Hewitt (the toughest competitor, ever),Vilas, Nastase, Courier, Chang.
theatlantean2 1 year ago
@theatlantean2 Sorry, I shouldn't say this...How about Tilden and Perry? Winning men in their time!
Scoclamor 1 year ago
@theatlantean2 What about Edberg and Becker?
Scoclamor 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aleksandrpondios 1.sampras.2.laver.3.federer.4.borg.5connors.6mcenroe.7.rosewall.8.lendl.9.agassi.10.tilden
aleksandrpondios 1 year ago
@juandi2570 i agree vbut sampras is the best fast court player-sure
aleksandrpondios 1 year ago
I remember to have seen an oldest Wilander-Agassi on 1988, semifinal roland garros....
Wilander destroyed LasVegas Kid, on the fifth !!!
ofpeter 3 years ago
two of my all time favorites, thanx!
lovley7000 3 years ago
Hi, does anyone know the score of this match?
Thanks.
jkygogo 3 years ago
6/2 7/5 6/1
neibaf3 3 years ago
I see, thanks.
jkygogo 3 years ago
You could say maybe late '88. Mats really went off the boil after he reached the pinnacle of men's tennis.
BusyManIAm 4 years ago
It was ashame Wilander's career pretty much ended late 1989.
xedvux 4 years ago