- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,436
- Reactions
- 6,230
- Points
- 113
I wrote this in response to shivashish's request. I decided to not publish it as a blog, as I don't want to do too many blogs and I've got a couple more in the pipe-line.
ANDRE & ANDY
Tennis Frontier forum member shivashish made the request that I compare the careers of Andre Agassi and Andy Murray, to see if we could “discover similarities/differences.” To be honest, I never thought of comparing the two but upon a first cursory look, there are several interesting resonances between the two.
Second Fiddle
First of all, one non-statistical similarity is that they were both overshadowed by a greater peer. For Agassi it was Pete Sampras, who not only had superior career accomplishments—most notably six more Slams and Pete's six years as the year-end #1 to Andre's one—but also ruled the head-to-head: 20-14.
The contrast between Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray is even starker, with Novak leading 12 Slams to 3 and four year-end #1s to Andy's one, and, of course, the 24-11 head-to-head. So in this sense at least, the comparison is less Sampras-Agassi and more Sampras-Courier (Courier had one year end #1, four Slams, and an abyssmal 4-16 h2h vs. Sampras). But neither Novak or Andy are done yet, so it could be that these numbers move a bit.
It is also worth pointing out that Andy was not really only “second fiddle,” but fourth among the Big Four, so in this way also he was more like Courier than Agassi (although Jim was the easy third greatest of his generation, far behind Agassi but far ahead of Chang, Ivanisevic, and Rafter).
Late Bloomers
Andre Agassi was a very talented, but troubled, young player. He ranked #91 in the year he turned 16-years old (1986) and was #3 the year he turned 18 (1988). Despite that, he didn't win his first Slam until he was 22 (1992) and didn't reach #1 until just shy of his 25th birthday in 1995. While these are remarkable achievements on their own, the point is that while Andre was an early bloomer, it took him a few years to win big. He actually lost in three Slam finals before winning his first.
Andy's early career was very good, but also quite frustrating. For a couple years he and Novak Djokovic were neck-and-neck in their development. Novak played his first ATP pro tournament in 2004, Andy in 2005. At the end of that year, Novak ranked #78 and Andy #65, both 18 years old. In 2006 they jumped to #16 and #17, respectively, both winning their first titles. Then Novak jumped ahead, reaching #3 and winning two Masters titles in 2007, while Andy reached #11, not winning his first Masters title until 2008.
Novak won his first Slam in 2008 and from 2007-10, he was the third man behind the great Fedal, but then finally broke through as #1 in 2011 and the rest is history. Andy's trajectory was more stalled; while he joined the Big Four in 2008, he lost four Slam finals before winning his first at the US Open in 2012. He was the fourth of the top four from 2008 really until 2014 or 2015, when he probably surpassed Rafa, who was beginning to fade. Even though he ranked ahead of Roger in 2013 and 2015, it was understood that Andy was the lesser player , aside from Roger's struggles of 2013.
Andy, like his former mentor Ivan Lendl, won his first Slam at a relatively old age. Lendl was 24, Andy 25. Among 6+ Slam winners, Lendl won his first at the oldest age, followed by Agassi at 22. If Andy wins three more, he'll be the oldest.
Late Best Year
Perhaps the way in which Andre and Andy are most similar is that they both had their best year at age 28-29, or the year they turned 29. Starting in 1998, Andre was having a career resurgence. After missing most of 1997 and dropping out of the top 100, he came back a more mature man, and also at a time when his greatest rival, Pete Sampras, was beginning to decline. After a solid, but unspectacular, 1998, Andre took off in 1999: he won two Slams, the only time he did that in a year, and finished world #1. From 1999 to 2003, he had the best five-year span of his career, and remained a potent player through 2005, when he lost in the US Open final to Roger Federer.
At the end of 1998, Andre was 28 years old and with three Slams to his name. No one would have guessed that he had five more Slams in him, from age 29 to 32. To put that in context, Andre won five Slams at an age when Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, and so far, Rafael Nadal, didn't win any. From 29 onward, Jimmy Connors won three, and Lendl, Sampras, and Federer all won just a single Slam each. The point being, among Open Era greats, Andre Agassi's later career stands alone, or at least is the best since Rod Laver, who won seven Slams after turning 29 (two Pro and five Open), and of course the ageless Ken Rosewall, who won eight Slams after turning 29 (four Pro and four Open).
We don't know what lies ahead for Andy, but after almost a decade of being the third or fourth best player on tour, he had his best season in 2016. At the time Wimbledon began, he was 29 years old and with two Slam titles to his name, and far behind world #1, Novak Djokovic. Andy was in a situation rather similar to Andre's 17 years ago. He won just Wimbledon this year, his first in three years, but won nine titles overall, including Wimbledon, three Masters, Olympic Gold for the second time, and the World Tour Finals, defeating his nemesis Novak Djokovic and clinching the year-end #1 at the same time.
Predicting the Future
Andy will start 2017 where he ended 2016: as the #1 ranked player on tour. He will face perhaps his biggest challenge, trying to dethrone six-time Australian Open champion, Novak Djokovic. So far Andy is 0-5 in Australian Open finals, including four losses to Novak. He has a good chance of holding onto #1 for a few months, as Novak has a ton of points to defend in the first half of the year, and Andy's first half in 2016 could be improved upon. One would think that Andy has at least another Slam or two in him, but both he and Novak turn 30 years old in May, so the hourglass is about to be turned, if only symbolically.
If I were to predict an over/under further Slam count for Andy, it would be two. For some reason I could see him finishing his career with five Slam titles, which would perfectly fit his rather unusual career. Andy has long been the “best of the rest” or “worst of the best,” and this extends to his career as a whole. As I discussed in my Open Era Top 20, Andy is now the gatekeeper between the true greats of the Open Era—those players winning six or more Slams—and the near-greats, such as Ilie Nastase, Arthur Ashe, Guillermo Vilas, Jim Courier, and Stan Smith. In my mind, right now he is the best of that latter group.
Just ahead of him on my list is Mats Wilander, then John Newcombe, Stefan Edberg, and Boris Becker. Aside from Slam count, his overall career has arguably already surpassed Wilander and perhaps even Newcombe. But those two won seven Slams each, more than double Andy's current total. If Andy can win just two more Slams, I think he'll be firmly in the middle of that next group. If he wins three more, then he becomes the leader of that cohort.
But first things first. Right now he's the greatest three-Slam winner in at least the history of the Open Era, with a greater career record than any player with less than six Slams, and at 29 years old, at the top of his game and the sport.
ANDRE & ANDY
Tennis Frontier forum member shivashish made the request that I compare the careers of Andre Agassi and Andy Murray, to see if we could “discover similarities/differences.” To be honest, I never thought of comparing the two but upon a first cursory look, there are several interesting resonances between the two.
Second Fiddle
First of all, one non-statistical similarity is that they were both overshadowed by a greater peer. For Agassi it was Pete Sampras, who not only had superior career accomplishments—most notably six more Slams and Pete's six years as the year-end #1 to Andre's one—but also ruled the head-to-head: 20-14.
The contrast between Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray is even starker, with Novak leading 12 Slams to 3 and four year-end #1s to Andy's one, and, of course, the 24-11 head-to-head. So in this sense at least, the comparison is less Sampras-Agassi and more Sampras-Courier (Courier had one year end #1, four Slams, and an abyssmal 4-16 h2h vs. Sampras). But neither Novak or Andy are done yet, so it could be that these numbers move a bit.
It is also worth pointing out that Andy was not really only “second fiddle,” but fourth among the Big Four, so in this way also he was more like Courier than Agassi (although Jim was the easy third greatest of his generation, far behind Agassi but far ahead of Chang, Ivanisevic, and Rafter).
Late Bloomers
Andre Agassi was a very talented, but troubled, young player. He ranked #91 in the year he turned 16-years old (1986) and was #3 the year he turned 18 (1988). Despite that, he didn't win his first Slam until he was 22 (1992) and didn't reach #1 until just shy of his 25th birthday in 1995. While these are remarkable achievements on their own, the point is that while Andre was an early bloomer, it took him a few years to win big. He actually lost in three Slam finals before winning his first.
Andy's early career was very good, but also quite frustrating. For a couple years he and Novak Djokovic were neck-and-neck in their development. Novak played his first ATP pro tournament in 2004, Andy in 2005. At the end of that year, Novak ranked #78 and Andy #65, both 18 years old. In 2006 they jumped to #16 and #17, respectively, both winning their first titles. Then Novak jumped ahead, reaching #3 and winning two Masters titles in 2007, while Andy reached #11, not winning his first Masters title until 2008.
Novak won his first Slam in 2008 and from 2007-10, he was the third man behind the great Fedal, but then finally broke through as #1 in 2011 and the rest is history. Andy's trajectory was more stalled; while he joined the Big Four in 2008, he lost four Slam finals before winning his first at the US Open in 2012. He was the fourth of the top four from 2008 really until 2014 or 2015, when he probably surpassed Rafa, who was beginning to fade. Even though he ranked ahead of Roger in 2013 and 2015, it was understood that Andy was the lesser player , aside from Roger's struggles of 2013.
Andy, like his former mentor Ivan Lendl, won his first Slam at a relatively old age. Lendl was 24, Andy 25. Among 6+ Slam winners, Lendl won his first at the oldest age, followed by Agassi at 22. If Andy wins three more, he'll be the oldest.
Late Best Year
Perhaps the way in which Andre and Andy are most similar is that they both had their best year at age 28-29, or the year they turned 29. Starting in 1998, Andre was having a career resurgence. After missing most of 1997 and dropping out of the top 100, he came back a more mature man, and also at a time when his greatest rival, Pete Sampras, was beginning to decline. After a solid, but unspectacular, 1998, Andre took off in 1999: he won two Slams, the only time he did that in a year, and finished world #1. From 1999 to 2003, he had the best five-year span of his career, and remained a potent player through 2005, when he lost in the US Open final to Roger Federer.
At the end of 1998, Andre was 28 years old and with three Slams to his name. No one would have guessed that he had five more Slams in him, from age 29 to 32. To put that in context, Andre won five Slams at an age when Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, and so far, Rafael Nadal, didn't win any. From 29 onward, Jimmy Connors won three, and Lendl, Sampras, and Federer all won just a single Slam each. The point being, among Open Era greats, Andre Agassi's later career stands alone, or at least is the best since Rod Laver, who won seven Slams after turning 29 (two Pro and five Open), and of course the ageless Ken Rosewall, who won eight Slams after turning 29 (four Pro and four Open).
We don't know what lies ahead for Andy, but after almost a decade of being the third or fourth best player on tour, he had his best season in 2016. At the time Wimbledon began, he was 29 years old and with two Slam titles to his name, and far behind world #1, Novak Djokovic. Andy was in a situation rather similar to Andre's 17 years ago. He won just Wimbledon this year, his first in three years, but won nine titles overall, including Wimbledon, three Masters, Olympic Gold for the second time, and the World Tour Finals, defeating his nemesis Novak Djokovic and clinching the year-end #1 at the same time.
Predicting the Future
Andy will start 2017 where he ended 2016: as the #1 ranked player on tour. He will face perhaps his biggest challenge, trying to dethrone six-time Australian Open champion, Novak Djokovic. So far Andy is 0-5 in Australian Open finals, including four losses to Novak. He has a good chance of holding onto #1 for a few months, as Novak has a ton of points to defend in the first half of the year, and Andy's first half in 2016 could be improved upon. One would think that Andy has at least another Slam or two in him, but both he and Novak turn 30 years old in May, so the hourglass is about to be turned, if only symbolically.
If I were to predict an over/under further Slam count for Andy, it would be two. For some reason I could see him finishing his career with five Slam titles, which would perfectly fit his rather unusual career. Andy has long been the “best of the rest” or “worst of the best,” and this extends to his career as a whole. As I discussed in my Open Era Top 20, Andy is now the gatekeeper between the true greats of the Open Era—those players winning six or more Slams—and the near-greats, such as Ilie Nastase, Arthur Ashe, Guillermo Vilas, Jim Courier, and Stan Smith. In my mind, right now he is the best of that latter group.
Just ahead of him on my list is Mats Wilander, then John Newcombe, Stefan Edberg, and Boris Becker. Aside from Slam count, his overall career has arguably already surpassed Wilander and perhaps even Newcombe. But those two won seven Slams each, more than double Andy's current total. If Andy can win just two more Slams, I think he'll be firmly in the middle of that next group. If he wins three more, then he becomes the leader of that cohort.
But first things first. Right now he's the greatest three-Slam winner in at least the history of the Open Era, with a greater career record than any player with less than six Slams, and at 29 years old, at the top of his game and the sport.
