8x Grandslam champion (4 Australian Open, 2 US Open, 1 Wimbledon Open and 1 French Open)
Golden Career Slam (Won Australian Open, US Open, Wimbledon Open, French Open and 1996 Olympic Gold)
Career slam (Won US, Australian, Wimbledon and French. Only 4 players have done this.)
16x Masters-Series titles (record holder)
1990 Masters Cup champion
Won 60 singles titles
870-274 career singles record
Earned a total of $31,152,975 in tennis
Forbes’ world’s richest tennis player 2000-2006 earning $28 million annually in 2006 and 2005.
I think that AndreВґs achievements have always been under-rated, and I don’t know why! First of all, I would put any professional tennis player who hasn’t won a career grand slam below those who have. So Agassi would be above Federer (No French), Sampras (No French), Borg (no US Open)…and listed among the real greats like Rod Laver.
That’s why I really routing for Federer to win the French. Until he wins this event, he can’t be considered the greatest player of all time, and neither can Pete Sampras.
I really think that Federer has the talent to win on this service, (like Borg at the US Open), but somehow he’s been denied. And unlike Sampras, Federer CAN play on clay.
AndreВґ Agassi…one of the best players of all times.
I would rank him at 5 behind Federer, Sampras, Laver, and Borg in that order. The reason why I put there is because he didn’t dominate quite as totally as these guys did and had major gaps in his career. His legacy is somewhat tarnished by his absences and the fact that he underachieved when he was younger losing his first 3 slam finals, all of which he was favored to win. He more than made up for that though by his career slam and the fact that he was at the top in 3 different decades. If he had been a little more focused earlier on, he would definitely be in the top 2 or 3.
As is true of any other mostly backcourt player, Agassi lacked a great serve and could be overpowered on some surfaces by a very good opponent. This was also true of Ken Rosewall, Bjorn Borg, Stefan Edberg–and true of anyone without a very strong first serve.
Agassi was the most versatile at playing on all surfaces: by that measure he was the best tennis player of his time.
I saw him play Sampras and Federer–they were both better than he was on at least two surfaces, very fast and medium fast courts.
He’s in the top four of the last 20 years, I judge.
But I don’t think he was the best of the three.
I would have loved to see him play Becker, Gonzales, Trabert, Laver, Budge, Kramer, Hoad, Roche in their primes and his–if McEnroe had lasted longer, he’d be among them, and he could have beaten all three of them on a fast court on any given day at his best, I say.
He should be ranked as one of the top three players because he is one person who has a grandslam. The only problem was that he was very inconsistent and made a big issue about the dress code for one of the tournaments, but once he got over that stuff, he bloomed and became a true champion. He had a wonderful attitude on and off the court, which made him the crowd favorite.He played as long as he could and never gave up, which is also a reason why he stands out.
I adore Andre. For me, I will rate him after Sampras, Bjom &: Roger. The main thing is the more grandslams the best. Total #s of winnings is what counts. Earning wise? It only matters, whose pocket it goes. Besides, Roger is still in contention, he may surpass that earnings, winning prizes &: with product endorsements are far more higher today than 10 yrs back. Winning all slams might made him complete but he lacks the #s in total slams. It proved his versatility in all court surfaces, still lacking in total # of slams.
Just wait a bit more for a while, then we’ll add up all of Roger’s total earnings when he finally retires in tennis. Be patient buddy, don’t jump into conclusions. just yet.
Good times bro.
1/2: Sampras/Federer (order subject to change)
4/5: Borg/Agassi (toss up between 4 and 5)
I like him.
I think he was different to other players, he really had his own way of doing things.
I don’t really have a rank for him but I will say this: I think he will be in the books 100%!
He has a great way to get combacks and always gives a fight no matter what his position is, he really tries so he can get to the best of the best and I have respect for that!
He is definently a person I look up to in tennis.
Sorry why I didn’t give a rank, I just got no idea where do put him in to be honest!
What about you, what do you rank him?
>:>: this is how it goes
Melodrama pls shut up because of Nadal who is the best of all time on caly , Fedex can’t win the French Open for the past three years.But Fedex can beat Agassi when he is at his best on clay so pls don’t deny this fact . Go Roger to make the French Open this yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaar.
agassi should be the number 1..
even though his grandslam is not as much as pete sampras..
But his achievement was just too great for a tennis player..
he is the number one..