My favourite player of all time is Lendl but I got huge respect for Agassi 'cause he won Career Slam when 10 top players were freaking champions ...not like today when there are only two players and Wimblendon's grass surface is depleted and slow
I cannot believe that people are comparing Agassi and Lendl as though they were similar calibre players. They were not. Just a few stats from wiki if people didnt actually live through their eras:
Lendl: no1 for 270 weeks, 81.8 win %, 144/94 tournaments
Agassi: no1 for 101 weeks, 76%win%, 68/60 tournaments
Moreover, Lendl was the dominant player for his era, on par with Borg, Sampras, Fed, Laver, etc. Agassi is a second tier player, a top challenger, definitely not a candidate for best ever.
Agree, agree and agree on all counts and points you bring up. Lendl was and always will be a tier above Agassi. I was at Tennis Express in Houston the other day watching Nadal at the French Open or was it Federer? I dont remember because it was so boring.
I remember the great matches between: Lendl, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg and later Sampras, Agassi and many others - not just one or two top players today. Who could ever forget Sabattini showing her underwear in 1989(?).
@millerowns agassi till this point is the only player in history to have won all 4 slams a gold medal, davis cup, and the world tour finals and you say he is top 15 those accomplishments automatically make him top 10
they asked lendl today if he still uses sawdust,he said no there is no reason to use it now because the rackets today have better grips and it doesnt slip like the old ones did.
@MaratSafinVideos I am gonna disagree. Lendl was superior in consistency and was so close to winning Wimbledon you might as well give it to him. I wouldn't trade Lendl's career for Agassi's. Lendl was a real champion. Agassi was a champion in spite of himself. He rarely had a five setter during those years he was number one. To sum up, Lendl was head and shoulders better than Agassi.
@robertedwardn, you really seem to like Lendl. But respectfully, your argument just doesn't ring true. I do acknowledge that Lendl always gave Agassi trouble. And while they both have 8 slams each, the bottom line is that Agassi had a more complete career. He won all four slams and the Olympic gold medal. How many others have that on their resume?! And despite coming close, Lendl never could win Wimbledon. These are facts and they can't be denied. Mad respect to both players though.
@rch9000 I think Lendl was overall better. He was in the top 10 for the entire 1980s and had a solid machine like consistency. He never lost to palookas in the early rounds the way Agassi did, not when he was number one. Nobody "owned" Lendl for very long. What you're talking about is kinda like saying that a jack of all trades is better than a comitted specialist. My argument is absolutely true - everybody was afraid to play Lendl in the 80s - you knew you had no chance. Lendl was much better.
@robertedwardn, with all due respect, your argument isn't necessarily true, it's your opinion. And I have mine, although I wouldn't simplify it to a "jack of all trades." Each surface provides its own unique challenges. There's a reason that most tennis fans, players, and critics put so much stock in the slams. Each surface provides its own unique challenges. Agassi is one of 6 men who all 4; Lendl, although he came close, will never be included in that elite group. Peace.
@robertedwardn Lendl should definitely be included in top 10 all-time, maybe top 5, simply because he ONLY had a losing head to head record against two players, Bjorn Borg (pre early career) and Pete Sampras (post late career). I cannot think of another tennis great with that kind of record. With that said, he did have an 8-11 grand slam final record, with losing GS head to head records to Becker, Edberg and Connors. An the US Open loss to Wilander was devastating. So Lendl is an enigma.
@MaratSafinVideos Agassi is not not even close to Lendl. Even Agassi admits this. Agassi was and has always been scared to play Lendl at his best. Agassi is a child compared to the man that Lendl is.. Still even today, Agassi acts like a child, still wanting to be the center of attention and blabbering away non-stop. Lendl is a no excuses.
sampras has a bigger serve and he was a better player than agassi so that proves how stupid and wrong you are,serve is a good indication that you are stronger than another player with a weaker serve,and lendl was stronger off the ground too than agassi.
@HTHAMMACK1 are you really saying Agassi is more talented than Sampras? Dont me laugh. Sampras had a light years better serve, far superior athletic ability in every sense, was faster, had a more dominant forehand, was a far better volley, had a better transition game. Agassi only had a better backhand and return of serve. And Agassi did not waste his career.
Agassi a better person!?! That is why he wrote out a book cussing all his former rivals and associates and admited to using drugs.
@millerowns I read Agassi's book. I detested the parts of the book concerning Brooke Shields. He trashed her for simply being a nice person. Moreover, he blamed her for his slump. I think Pete has much more class. Briefly met Mats Wilander yesterday - now that guy has tons of class.
So? What did Agassi do in 89? Basically nothing and especially in comparison to what he would achieve during his prime.
His fitness here was nowhere close to what it would become and what I'm saying is that the story could be a little different if Lendl had played prime Agassi.
making the grand slams semifinals is not nothing,and lendl in his prime is still stronger and bigger serve than agassi in his prime,lendl is an old man already here near retirement and he is a better player in his prime than agassi was and stronger.
This isn't prime Lendl but this isn't prime Agassi either, yes he had a bigger serve but this has nothing to do with this match. They both had a close career, Lendl was the more dominant but this is off topic. And why keep saying stronger? This is before Agassi met Gil Reyes...
it had alot to do with this match u fool lendl's serve was very key to helping him win this match and gil reyes didnt help agassi have a big serve agassi serve was still pretty weak compared to most men on the tour and he never had a big serve like lendl thats why i keep saying stronger.
i already told you what his serve has to do with this match it was a huge disadvantage for agassi and a huge advantage for lendl,and the serve is proof how much power and strength you have and agassi never had a serve as big as lendl's not even in his prime thats the point that lendl was stronger.
marat, go back to russia. agassi was nothing in 89? he won the most tour titles in 88, so he was something. looks like you had a man crush on agassi's hair and the image has everything deal. get real, lendl kicked his skinny ass back to the poker tables of vegas, and two years in a row in the semis, no less
oh really what is prime agassi then to you?how about 1994 when he lost to people like todd martin at wimbledon,or maybe 1995 when he lost to pete sampras at the us open.
@MaratSafinVideos Prime Agassi? Agassi's prime was basically 2 years- 1995 and 1999. There was almost no such thing as prime Agassi. And in 1995 he lost to Kafelnikov, a past his prime Becker, and Sampras in 3 of the 4 slams, and won no tournaments on clay, carpet, or grass. In 1999 he lost to Vince Spadea at the Australian Open, nearly to about 5 people with a piss easy draw at the French, and took 5 sets to beat an old Todd Martin at the U.S Open, while getting owned again by Sampras.
The post match interviews are silly. I liked the way Lendl handled this one though.
quietboy2005 6 months ago
My favourite player of all time is Lendl but I got huge respect for Agassi 'cause he won Career Slam when 10 top players were freaking champions ...not like today when there are only two players and Wimblendon's grass surface is depleted and slow
goodyears73 9 months ago
Lendl proved how good he was in his prime, by teaching the young boy what its like to play in the big time league
leverwork1 9 months ago
@dwellceller
Yes you are correct. He admitted as much.
onecunningfox 11 months ago
Can't imagine the patience it must take to play Lendl - wow, he was methodical and SLOW! A bit like Nadal these days I guess.
cottreau 1 year ago
I cannot believe that people are comparing Agassi and Lendl as though they were similar calibre players. They were not. Just a few stats from wiki if people didnt actually live through their eras:
Lendl: no1 for 270 weeks, 81.8 win %, 144/94 tournaments
Agassi: no1 for 101 weeks, 76%win%, 68/60 tournaments
Moreover, Lendl was the dominant player for his era, on par with Borg, Sampras, Fed, Laver, etc. Agassi is a second tier player, a top challenger, definitely not a candidate for best ever.
alin1975 1 year ago
@alin1975
Agree, agree and agree on all counts and points you bring up. Lendl was and always will be a tier above Agassi. I was at Tennis Express in Houston the other day watching Nadal at the French Open or was it Federer? I dont remember because it was so boring.
I remember the great matches between: Lendl, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg and later Sampras, Agassi and many others - not just one or two top players today. Who could ever forget Sabattini showing her underwear in 1989(?).
onecunningfox 11 months ago
@haha81290 Lendl is definitely a top 10 player of all time. Agassi is top 15 at best, maybe only top 20. Lendl is clearly greater than Agassi.
millerowns 1 year ago
@millerowns agassi till this point is the only player in history to have won all 4 slams a gold medal, davis cup, and the world tour finals and you say he is top 15 those accomplishments automatically make him top 10
shogold10 10 months ago
Lendl had Agassi's number, a bit like the way he had Jim Courier's too.
zephyruk 1 year ago
lol agassi was the coolest back then
drugstoremarc 1 year ago
lendl must have went through a ton of saw dust through out his career lol
fatsmut 1 year ago
they asked lendl today if he still uses sawdust,he said no there is no reason to use it now because the rackets today have better grips and it doesnt slip like the old ones did.
jayfey77 1 year ago
@MaratSafinVideos I am gonna disagree. Lendl was superior in consistency and was so close to winning Wimbledon you might as well give it to him. I wouldn't trade Lendl's career for Agassi's. Lendl was a real champion. Agassi was a champion in spite of himself. He rarely had a five setter during those years he was number one. To sum up, Lendl was head and shoulders better than Agassi.
robertedwardn 1 year ago
@robertedwardn, you really seem to like Lendl. But respectfully, your argument just doesn't ring true. I do acknowledge that Lendl always gave Agassi trouble. And while they both have 8 slams each, the bottom line is that Agassi had a more complete career. He won all four slams and the Olympic gold medal. How many others have that on their resume?! And despite coming close, Lendl never could win Wimbledon. These are facts and they can't be denied. Mad respect to both players though.
rch9000 1 year ago
@rch9000 I think Lendl was overall better. He was in the top 10 for the entire 1980s and had a solid machine like consistency. He never lost to palookas in the early rounds the way Agassi did, not when he was number one. Nobody "owned" Lendl for very long. What you're talking about is kinda like saying that a jack of all trades is better than a comitted specialist. My argument is absolutely true - everybody was afraid to play Lendl in the 80s - you knew you had no chance. Lendl was much better.
robertedwardn 1 year ago
@robertedwardn, with all due respect, your argument isn't necessarily true, it's your opinion. And I have mine, although I wouldn't simplify it to a "jack of all trades." Each surface provides its own unique challenges. There's a reason that most tennis fans, players, and critics put so much stock in the slams. Each surface provides its own unique challenges. Agassi is one of 6 men who all 4; Lendl, although he came close, will never be included in that elite group. Peace.
rch9000 1 year ago
@robertedwardn Lendl should definitely be included in top 10 all-time, maybe top 5, simply because he ONLY had a losing head to head record against two players, Bjorn Borg (pre early career) and Pete Sampras (post late career). I cannot think of another tennis great with that kind of record. With that said, he did have an 8-11 grand slam final record, with losing GS head to head records to Becker, Edberg and Connors. An the US Open loss to Wilander was devastating. So Lendl is an enigma.
mrbobevans 6 months ago
@MaratSafinVideos Agassi is not not even close to Lendl. Even Agassi admits this. Agassi was and has always been scared to play Lendl at his best. Agassi is a child compared to the man that Lendl is.. Still even today, Agassi acts like a child, still wanting to be the center of attention and blabbering away non-stop. Lendl is a no excuses.
dura1mater 1 year ago
sampras has a bigger serve and he was a better player than agassi so that proves how stupid and wrong you are,serve is a good indication that you are stronger than another player with a weaker serve,and lendl was stronger off the ground too than agassi.
jayfey77 2 years ago
haha, Agassi was much shorter than Lendl.
Love your bias.
SoooBlue 2 years ago
@jayfey77
Agassi was a far more talented player who wasted the first 10 years of his career by slagging off. But Sampras did have the better career.
Then again, Andre is a better person, has done far more for other people, and could buy Pete Sampras a hundred times over.
HTHAMMACK1 1 year ago
@HTHAMMACK1 are you really saying Agassi is more talented than Sampras? Dont me laugh. Sampras had a light years better serve, far superior athletic ability in every sense, was faster, had a more dominant forehand, was a far better volley, had a better transition game. Agassi only had a better backhand and return of serve. And Agassi did not waste his career.
Agassi a better person!?! That is why he wrote out a book cussing all his former rivals and associates and admited to using drugs.
millerowns 1 year ago
@millerowns I read Agassi's book. I detested the parts of the book concerning Brooke Shields. He trashed her for simply being a nice person. Moreover, he blamed her for his slump. I think Pete has much more class. Briefly met Mats Wilander yesterday - now that guy has tons of class.
mrbobevans 6 months ago
lendl owned the uso in the 80s. 8 straight finals, 3 consecutive wins in 85-87, and beat agassi two years in a row in the semis in 88 and 89
bjornsiborgsi 2 years ago
Very right. It´s a shame that he lost so many finals of majors :(
bragunovskoie 2 years ago
Agassi was basically just starting on tour so that's hardly a huge deal.
MaratSafinVideos 2 years ago
agassi started on the atp in 86 so he had been on the tour for years already,hell he made the finals at the french in 90 and the us open too.
jayfey77 2 years ago
So? What did Agassi do in 89? Basically nothing and especially in comparison to what he would achieve during his prime.
His fitness here was nowhere close to what it would become and what I'm saying is that the story could be a little different if Lendl had played prime Agassi.
MaratSafinVideos 2 years ago
making the grand slams semifinals is not nothing,and lendl in his prime is still stronger and bigger serve than agassi in his prime,lendl is an old man already here near retirement and he is a better player in his prime than agassi was and stronger.
jayfey77 2 years ago
This isn't prime Lendl but this isn't prime Agassi either, yes he had a bigger serve but this has nothing to do with this match. They both had a close career, Lendl was the more dominant but this is off topic. And why keep saying stronger? This is before Agassi met Gil Reyes...
MaratSafinVideos 2 years ago
it had alot to do with this match u fool lendl's serve was very key to helping him win this match and gil reyes didnt help agassi have a big serve agassi serve was still pretty weak compared to most men on the tour and he never had a big serve like lendl thats why i keep saying stronger.
jayfey77 2 years ago
Agassi's serve wasn't as big as most men on tour, still, what does this have to do with this match with Agassi far from his best?
thanks for the insult, did i touch a nerve? haha
MaratSafinVideos 2 years ago
i already told you what his serve has to do with this match it was a huge disadvantage for agassi and a huge advantage for lendl,and the serve is proof how much power and strength you have and agassi never had a serve as big as lendl's not even in his prime thats the point that lendl was stronger.
jayfey77 2 years ago
And no, serve isn't proof on how much strength and power you have. Lendl is three or four inches taller than Agassi.
Agassi hits much harder off the ground, doesn't that make him "stronger"?
Pathetic.
After Agassi met Gil Reyes, he was a physical machine for the most part of his career. In this match, he wasn't under Reyes.
MaratSafinVideos 2 years ago
yeah serve is proof how much stronger you are and lendl hit harder than agassi off the ground ive had enough of your ignorance.
jayfey77 2 years ago
well Lendle's prime was probably 85-87. It's not like he's a young guy on tour at this point.
MrPernell27 2 years ago
marat, go back to russia. agassi was nothing in 89? he won the most tour titles in 88, so he was something. looks like you had a man crush on agassi's hair and the image has everything deal. get real, lendl kicked his skinny ass back to the poker tables of vegas, and two years in a row in the semis, no less
bjornsiborgsi 2 years ago
wasn't prime agassi
SoooBlue 2 years ago
oh really what is prime agassi then to you?how about 1994 when he lost to people like todd martin at wimbledon,or maybe 1995 when he lost to pete sampras at the us open.
jayfey77 2 years ago
from the 1999 RG to AO 2000, holding 3 slams?
But nah, you will say he was playing just as good here, haha.
SoooBlue 2 years ago
Lendl was pretty fucking skinny himself, haha.
SoooBlue 2 years ago
@MaratSafinVideos Prime Agassi? Agassi's prime was basically 2 years- 1995 and 1999. There was almost no such thing as prime Agassi. And in 1995 he lost to Kafelnikov, a past his prime Becker, and Sampras in 3 of the 4 slams, and won no tournaments on clay, carpet, or grass. In 1999 he lost to Vince Spadea at the Australian Open, nearly to about 5 people with a piss easy draw at the French, and took 5 sets to beat an old Todd Martin at the U.S Open, while getting owned again by Sampras.
millerowns 1 year ago