Wimbledon 2009

[TheManc]

Its tennis man, who cares?

Laver was better anyway.

Top 5, along with Federer, Sampras, Borg and Aggasi.

But you can't use the logic that Laver was the best because he missed 5 years, because Aggasi didn't enter the Austrailian Open for the first 8 years of his career, or Wimbledon from 1988-1990. Thats 13 slams, so he would have won more also. (won 8 GS and 1 Olympic godl medal)

Likewise Borg retired when he was 26, and was on 11 grand slams at the time, so he would also have won much more.

[Jazz 16]

Sampras and Borg both say that Federer is the best ever, so you would be inclined to believe them.

TM-Why didnt Agassi enter the Oz open for all those years?

[TheManc]

Sampras and Borg both say that Federer is the best ever, so you would be inclined to believe them.

TM-Why didnt Agassi enter the Oz open for all those years?

Not sure, but I've heard it was simply because he couldn't be bothered to go to Australia. He wasn't really motivated until he was in his late 20's, which is when the Grand Slam's came.

I found this regarding what slams he could/would have won had he played in them all:

Here's a slam by slam analyisis:

IMO, Andre underachieved at the French. During the 1990-93 period, He should've won twice. He was a more complete baseliner than Courier and played a poor match against Gomez.

Anything he won at Wimbledon was a bonus. It was a tournament dominated by Pete and the big servers.

The AO, medium paced, high bouncing courts, were tailor made for his baseline style of play. Pete Sampras never beat Andre here. If he played the AO more, he'd have won another title or 2.

During the 90's, the USO was dominated by big serving all court players(Sampras) and serve/volleyers (Rafter/Edberg). Pete was the dominant player here. I thought the courts were a little to quick for Andre. Two titles seem about right.

His best case scenario slam count:
6 AO titles
2 Roland Garros
0/1 Wimbledon
2 US Open titles