You tell me your idea of eras and then we can talk.
Greatest Myths in Tennis History
- Thread starter Dan Lobb
- Start date
I already have several times. You just don't like the answer. You are using a term of art and convenience that does not have firm boundaries or meaning. You can't use a term that is not an objective measurement of time such as ,for example, 'decades'. You cannot manipulate a decade to include what you want and exclude what you don't. Notice the 1950's does not have a players name as its defining characteristic. That's because once you start putting players names on these measurements, you are taking control of the data, rather than the data controling you. At every stage of this process, we would taking Dan Lobb's opinions out of the process.
Now with that, I probably won't be contributing to the development of a process that I just don't believe in.
Last edited:
Well, if you are uncomfortable with using the term "era", then I would recommend that you do not use it, that is your own choice.
However, the term "era" is frequently used in tennis history, as you can see from reading this forum, and it works when defined appropriately for most people. I suggest that you stay away from the term "era" and allow the rest of us to use it as we see fit.
. That's what I have been asking you to do so that you can begin to objectively measure the quality of these eras of yours. Share your definition. The next step is for you tell us what criteria you are using to determine the relative strength/ weakness of these eras.
How do you distinguish between good eras and bad eras?
bigbadboaz
Semi-Pro
You don't need to keep feeding the troll.
That depends upon which criteria you believe are important. If it is strictly a matter of tennis organization, then most historians talk about "pre-open era" as opposed to "open era". Rod Laver in 2012 distinguished between open era and pre-open era in his ranking of the greatest players. Laver had a separate ranking list for each of the two eras.
You could choose other criteria to establish eras, depending upon which criteria you believe are important.
Since you are obviously very interested in this subject, I would also point out the division into eras made by the most prominent historical Canadian tennis player, Bob Bedard. In a 2016 interview, Bedard divided tennis history into three periods
1) pre-WWII
2) post WWII until about 1990 (corresponding roughly to racquet technology change)
3) recent 1990-2016
Bedard named the three greatest players as being the top of each era, namely 1) Tilden 2) Hoad 3) Sampras
Bedard himself had played against Tilden and Hoad, although I am not sure that he ever traded strokes with Sampras.
Bedard and Laver are only two experts who have established eras in which to rank players, many other examples could be cited.
Last edited:
we are actually getting somewhere. The last player to win a slam with a wood racket was Evert in 1983 RG. There weren't any top 10-20 players that I know of that still played with wood past that date. That's a long way's away from 1990. Why the 2016 cut-off?
That was the year when the Bedard interview was given. I presume that Bedard would not change things since then.
But I suspect that the real cutoff of about 1990s had to do with the increase in the size of racquet heads which changed the game.
I am trying to get your standards not Bedard's, because you are the person making the claim about 'weak' eras right now. You divide tennis into your preferred eras, but make them equal, so that we are not comparing 4 cups of sugar with 2 cups of sugar while we measure sweetness.
There is no sense in talking about strength of eras until we reach some agreement on what the term "eras" actually means, and that requires seeing what sort of consensus exists in the experts in their discussion of eras.
I mentioned two experts above, Laver and Bedard, both outstanding players who played against most of the greats in in the game.
Laver makes the break at 1968, choosing the pre-open era and the open era as the divides.
Bedard looks at the style and equipment of the game and divides at 1945 (the serve and volley style predominated shortly after WWII until about 2000), and again at the 1990s, when the larger racquets and baseline style of play became the current norm.
If you take Bedard's division of eras, then I would suggest that the post-WWII era from about 1945 to 1990 was a stronger era than today, with more outstanding players in the fields in most decades.
I don't think there's an argument that modern players would not be as dynamic with many decades-old obsolete equipment. Everyone should agree that that's true. But this is where the comparison should end. The physicality and speed of modern tennis is light years beyond what it was in the wooden racquet era. It's also greater than it was 25 years ago, albeit much more incrementally. You simply cannot perform time travel and create these theoretical scenarios with 1950s/60s, etc. players using modern equipment and vice versa.
Clearly, you're partial to the past. There's nothing wrong with that. I am too, albeit more of the 1990s. But you have to be realistic and reasonable. The game and athletics evolve. It doesn't mean that past champions weren't incredible. It doesn't necessarily mean that modern players are technically more sound. All we can really do is compare people within their generations against their peers.
No, it does not necessarily follow that athletes from previous eras were less athletic or strong than today. In fact, in tennis it takes less strength and athleticism to wield the current racquets.
Were Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle less athletic and lesser hitters than today's players? Most experts would say that these older greats would be at least as successful in today's game, and they still rank near the top of all-time great lists. The same is true for tennis.
I am not interested in your 'experts'. I am only interested in your expertise. Please do not refer to them, when they are not the ones making claims in this thread. YOU ARE. You need to define the term because you are the one who is making assertions about it.
1. Tell us what an era is, and how long one lasts?
2.Tell us how you know when one era ended and another started.
3. Tell us the proper criteria to use to establish the relative strength of an era
4. Tell us the proper criteria to use to establish the relative weakness of an era.
Thank-you for not referring to your 'experts' again. Nothing they say can answer these questions for you. Thank you, Dan, for not dodging these questions. Thank-you, Dan, for doing hard work all on your own. I know you can think this through.
Last edited:
There will always be some outliers, but yes, in general, athletes are continually pushing the envelope. It's impossible to objectively compare people who are many many decades or more apart.
Yes, Mantle and particularly Ruth were surely less athletic and less physically fit than the extreme majority of today's MLB players. There's no question that they put up historic numbers for any era. Were they "lesser hitters" than today's players? No, I don't think that can be said at all. But again, I'm not sure how to truly evaluate that. Baseball has its own set of intricacies that set it aside from other team sports.
As for tennis, you're focusing far too much on the racquets. Players from the distant past may have swung a heavier, less aerodynamic racquet, but in turn they also didn't have to react nearly as quickly, move nearly as quickly nor play the ferocity nor length of points compared to players of more recent times. It's not even close.
No "expert" can more effectively argue that someone who excelled 70 years ago can be time traveled to 2023 and defeat Alcaraz. An "all-time great list" is simply a subjective and fun exercise for fans and media. It has no bearing on who would win a theoretical matchup or who was "better."
Did I not just indicate one possible era delineation for you? It is right there in black and white. I find nothing wrong with those divisions given by Bedard, whose expertise is above anyone I have seen on the subject, as he played against the best players.
What problem do you have with those era delineations?
It is not just baseball where the historic great athletes like Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle are generally considered by baseball experts to be superior to the great athletes of today, but also the other major sports.
In football, Jim Brown and Gale Sayers are often regarded as the two greatest running backs of all time, and they played in the 1950s and 1960s.
Let me refer you to a special thread which I started and ended on this subject "Tennis in The Second Golden Age of Sports", click on "Search" and type this title in for threads, we discussed this subject in great detail.
Last edited:
On the evolution theme, i have no intend to get involved in a debate here, only some personal remarks. A couple of years ago around 2000, i thought, that tennis would make a big step into two directions.
1. Technical evolution:: I thought, the players would learn to play with two hands, so that the top players would play only with forehands. I wasn't the only one, some experts like the German expert Richard Schönborn thought the same. That would be a big step for evolution. It did not happen. In technical ways and in regard of the complexion of the game, i see indeed a sort of reduction in style. The volley art and the overall forecourt play is exstinct now. Alcaraz showed at Wimbledon a bit of a renaissance of the forecourt play. That would be a big step into a more complex game, and i hope, the coaches watch it closely..
2. Athletic evolution. Around 2000 i thought that real giants would take over tennis, like Safin or Flipper, who would be tall, strong, muscular AND fast. That did not happen. Alcaraz is only medium height, and certainly no Mr. Olympia bodybuilder. De Minaur looks frail, Ruud is no Adonis or Hercules, and even Djoker is more lean and thin, than muscular. And if tennis would be so athletic, why players in their late 30s could be so dominant.
1. Technical evolution:: I thought, the players would learn to play with two hands, so that the top players would play only with forehands. I wasn't the only one, some experts like the German expert Richard Schönborn thought the same. That would be a big step for evolution. It did not happen. In technical ways and in regard of the complexion of the game, i see indeed a sort of reduction in style. The volley art and the overall forecourt play is exstinct now. Alcaraz showed at Wimbledon a bit of a renaissance of the forecourt play. That would be a big step into a more complex game, and i hope, the coaches watch it closely..
2. Athletic evolution. Around 2000 i thought that real giants would take over tennis, like Safin or Flipper, who would be tall, strong, muscular AND fast. That did not happen. Alcaraz is only medium height, and certainly no Mr. Olympia bodybuilder. De Minaur looks frail, Ruud is no Adonis or Hercules, and even Djoker is more lean and thin, than muscular. And if tennis would be so athletic, why players in their late 30s could be so dominant.
Last edited:
Clearly my opinion is just that, and is highly subjective. But I tend to think that depth and competition-wise, men's tennis has very much passed its peak and has been on the downward trajectory. I would strongly disagree with any notion that there is more depth in the ATP top 100 in 2023, than there was 30 years ago in 1993 or 20 years ago in 2003 for example, but others might think I'm talking absolute nonsense there and have the complete opposite view.
I just find it difficult to square the notion that there is better depth in men's tennis nowadays, when the money on offer in the sport continues to trail further and further behind what male athletes can earn in team sports, compared to previous eras when tennis was far more lucrative relative to team sports, and a more 'glamourous' career option. Most athletes in team sports would have loved to have earned what the likes of Borg, McEnroe, Lendl etc. earned from playing in just a few invitationals. I mean wasn't Borg's annual prize money in 1979 and 1980 for example, higher than the annual salaries of any players in the NBA, NFL, Serie A, English First Division etc. at the time? His prize money just from winning the Pepsi Grand Slam in 1980, exceeded the average salaries in the MLB and NFL at the time.
But the money on offer in the major leagues in team sports, not just for the best of the best, but also for the players earning the median or even minimum salaries, has really exploded over the past few decades (at a far greater rate than inflation), making it more difficult for individual sports such as tennis to compete. It's said that for tennis players to make a good living from a singles career, they need to establish themselves in the top 100 to ensure that they have direct entry into grand slam main draws. But the lowest earners in the NBA are raking in more than USD 1 million per year, and in the MLB more than USD 700k per year (I know next to nothing about baseball but I think that there are more than 800 players in the MLB for perspective). A huge number of football players outside the top 5 European leagues (including around 130 or so in the English 2nd tier league which itself is far removed from the glitz and glamour of the Premier League) earn the equivalent of USD 1 million or more per year etc. Clearly tennis, in which so many players fail to break even with another sizeable chunk of ones that do still not really earning big bucks, is going to suffer in comparison.
When Agassi's dad pushed him to take up tennis in the 70s, the sport went through it's boom both in the US and globally (though his dad said that if he could do it again he'd push him towards baseball or golf instead). And likewise when the likes of Federer and Nadal were growing up, that was when tennis had benefitted from that global boom (Federer witnessed the huge matches between Becker and Edberg amongst others), and before or at the early stages of the huge increase in prize money in football the 90s compared to the 80s. I've felt that if Nadal was born in 1996 instead of 1986, with the major European leagues including La Liga (and Barcelona and Real Madrid) becoming more and more popular and way more glamourous, the European Cup -> Champions League switch established with the Champions League then expanding and becoming more of a huge deal, it's highly likely that he would have chosen football over tennis.
I just find it difficult to square the notion that there is better depth in men's tennis nowadays, when the money on offer in the sport continues to trail further and further behind what male athletes can earn in team sports, compared to previous eras when tennis was far more lucrative relative to team sports, and a more 'glamourous' career option. Most athletes in team sports would have loved to have earned what the likes of Borg, McEnroe, Lendl etc. earned from playing in just a few invitationals. I mean wasn't Borg's annual prize money in 1979 and 1980 for example, higher than the annual salaries of any players in the NBA, NFL, Serie A, English First Division etc. at the time? His prize money just from winning the Pepsi Grand Slam in 1980, exceeded the average salaries in the MLB and NFL at the time.
But the money on offer in the major leagues in team sports, not just for the best of the best, but also for the players earning the median or even minimum salaries, has really exploded over the past few decades (at a far greater rate than inflation), making it more difficult for individual sports such as tennis to compete. It's said that for tennis players to make a good living from a singles career, they need to establish themselves in the top 100 to ensure that they have direct entry into grand slam main draws. But the lowest earners in the NBA are raking in more than USD 1 million per year, and in the MLB more than USD 700k per year (I know next to nothing about baseball but I think that there are more than 800 players in the MLB for perspective). A huge number of football players outside the top 5 European leagues (including around 130 or so in the English 2nd tier league which itself is far removed from the glitz and glamour of the Premier League) earn the equivalent of USD 1 million or more per year etc. Clearly tennis, in which so many players fail to break even with another sizeable chunk of ones that do still not really earning big bucks, is going to suffer in comparison.
When Agassi's dad pushed him to take up tennis in the 70s, the sport went through it's boom both in the US and globally (though his dad said that if he could do it again he'd push him towards baseball or golf instead). And likewise when the likes of Federer and Nadal were growing up, that was when tennis had benefitted from that global boom (Federer witnessed the huge matches between Becker and Edberg amongst others), and before or at the early stages of the huge increase in prize money in football the 90s compared to the 80s. I've felt that if Nadal was born in 1996 instead of 1986, with the major European leagues including La Liga (and Barcelona and Real Madrid) becoming more and more popular and way more glamourous, the European Cup -> Champions League switch established with the Champions League then expanding and becoming more of a huge deal, it's highly likely that he would have chosen football over tennis.
Last edited:
That is an important point, made by Gizo. How is the talent pool evolving for tennis, with the competition of other lucrative sports like football, basketball and so on? In some traditional tennis countries, like the US, Germany or France, young athletes would go more into football or basketball. If you see all those hugely talented African athletes, who go into Football in France or Europe, some also into Track and Fields, you can be surprised and regret, that after Noah only a few African players come up the ranks in tennis. And Noah was partly the product of an ATP youth program in Africa, strongly supported by Arthur Ashe. In the last years, we saw instead a strong stream of East European players, who often came from rather rich background and often went to academies in Spain or the US, some like Djoker also to Germany (Pilic in Munich). I also thought, that Asia with Japan, Korea and China would be more of a factor, in womens tennis it is stronger now than in mens tennis. Maybe we will see more in the future.
Yes, I'm aware that we've gone over all of this in another thread. I'm well aware of such consensus regarding Brown, Sayers, Payton, Williams, Ruth, Mantle, etc. But again, these lists are mostly made as a fun exercise for fans and media. There are too many objective and subjective factors at play and too many team-based factors in a sport like football to truly compare individual skill position players.
At the end of the day, any such "ranking" is someone's opinion or a compilation of opinions. Whether these opinions come from "experts" or not holds some weight, but not much. In most cases, it's impossible to make a definitive statement, particularly when comparing players who played many decades apart.
There's often no consistency in how the evaluation is made. Are we utilizing individual total statistics which account for longevity? Are we using season averages? Or per game averages? Are we factoring in awards or other accolades? What about team achievements? What weight do those hold? Or are we relying on more subjective evaluations of someone's talent and unique qualities? Oftentimes, those subjective factors are heavily involved in these "rankings."
Tennis has its own unique qualities that make it even more challenging to compare across wide timeframes. In many ways, modern tennis doesn't even resemble what we saw 50+ years ago. You have to throw out personal biases and agendas and simply call it like it is. We know in general who the most successful players are or have been. I wish the International Tennis Hall of Fame used a more objective career body of work approach to their induction process. It's clear that they do not.
Last edited:
King_olaf_the_hairy
Semi-Pro
I've actually mentioned this elsewhere. The argument seems to be that in the old days the sport was the preserve of USA/Australia/UK/France, whereas nowadays you're seeing breakout talent from e.g. Poland (Radwanska/Swiatek/Hurkacz), Greece (Tsitsipas/Sakkari), or Serbia (Ivanovic/Djokovic). More participating nations = a bigger talent pool.
However, it works both ways. According to this World Tennis Magazine article, the number of Americans playing tennis "from time to time" was as follows:
| Year | Tennis players | Population | Percentage |
| 1974 | 34 million | 213 million | c. 16% |
| 2014 | 18 million | 320 million | c. 5.5% |
If those numbers are accurate, the USA's talent pool is now one third the size it was during the 1970s' heyday, proportionately speaking. That would certainly explain their lack of success at the top end, where Connors/McEnroe were followed by Courier/Sampras/Agassi, who were followed by Roddick, who was followed by...nobody of consequence. Further, I'd argue that with the resources and infrastructure already existing in the USA, their talent pool was more productive in terms of converting raw young hopefuls into successful professionals. More rich parents, less need to travel far in search of coaches, facilities, competitions, etc. I have a hard time believing that all these emerging tennis nations are making up that much of a deficit.
So while I'm not going to be a Luddite insisting that tennis was definitely better in the old days, I'm also going to dispute any blithe declaration that "progress is inevitable, the sport always evolves", etc etc etc.
I’ll help you out. There are only 3 slam winners between the ages of 21-35 on tour, and none of them have won multiple slams. Can you name another time in the last 40 years where something even similar happened?
That does not help me out at all. Because I don't know if era strength/weakness = depth or dominance, or some mixture or combination of both those often contradictory attributes one of which you are referencing above. I know that in these era quality debates around here, we read some pretty self serving arguments depending on what a given preferred champion was 'dominating' in! A strong era looks like what Budge or Laver played in or Borg, or Connors if that's your cup of tea. If strength = depth when is too much dept too much depth? If strength = dominance by a few, when is too few players dominating too few or too long of domination too long?
Let me refer you to questions that will!
1. Tell us what an era is, and how long one lasts?
2.Tell us how you know when one era ended and another started.
3. Tell us the proper criteria to use to establish the relative strength of an era
4. Tell us the proper criteria to use to establish the relative weakness of an era.
How the hell are you objectively measuring all this? If there is some preferred balance of depth and dominance to this last 40 years as your post suggests, what is its ratio of depth to dominance look like so we can duplicate it?
Last edited:
Hmmm. I think more in terms of generations of players than eras, and each generation is roughly 5 years. I suppose eras could be 5 years too; what each generations peak years are supposed to be. We can evaluate relative strength and weaknesses of eras by evaluating the best players in those eras and their relative level at that time.
For the last 30 years i would say
93-97: sampras dominating at his peak, agassi near his best for a couple years, becker past his peak but still playing well. Courier relevant in the beginning of this era, brugera and muster the best players on clay. Chang, ivanisevic and some others relevant
98-02: transitional period, sampras and agassi past their peaks still the best players. Rafter plays well, guga the best on clay. Break through of young safin and hewitt.
03-07: federer dominates at his peak. Roddick, hewitt safin at their peak and agassi also a contender on hard courts. Ferrero had a good 2003. Young nadal dominates clay and makes 2 wimbledon finals.
08-12: nadal at his peak, past peak federer still very good. Djokovic #3 from 08-10, and breaks through big time in 2011. At his peak in the later parts of this period. Murray del potro also contenders.
13-17: Djokovic firmly in his prime, nadal in the later parts of his prime but still does well at french open and us open. Wawrinka and murray do pretty well. Cilic sneaks in a slam. Fed still a contender and wins 2 majors in djokovic’s down period in 2017. Despite being in his 30s.
2018-present: Djokovic and nadal dominate despite being in their mid 30s. Rise of young alcaraz in the last 2 years. Fed a contender in the early portion, medvedev might be the 3rd best in this era. Thiem sneaks in a slam.
You can see from the last 2 eras that there were no players born from 1989-2002 that stood out thus allowing prime and past prime nadal and Djokovic to still dominate.
Slams won by players age 21-34 at the end of each era:
93-97: Sampras (10, 9 in this period), Becker(6, 2) courier(4,1) agassi (3,2) brugera (2, 2) several with one
98-2002: sampras (14, 4) agassi (7, 3), rafter (2, 1), kuerten (3, 3), hewitt (2, 2)several with 1.
03-07: federer (12, 12) nadal (3, 3), hewitt (2, 0), safin (2, 1), ferrero roddick gaudio also won 1 in this period.
08-2012: federer (17, 5), nadal (10,7), djokovic (5,5). Delpo and murray won 1 as well.
13-17: nadal (15,5), djokovic (12,7), murray (3,2), wawrinka (3,3), cilic (1,1), delpo (1,0)
18-present: thiem (1,1), medvedev (1,1)
You can clearly see that 18-present is a weak era with no talent from 14 years worth of players breaking through. Arguably made 13-17 weaker too, as the players born from 89-94/95 should have been winning slams by then.
And that has to be the worst possible way to define these periods from the perspective of objectivity. You are using the names of one, two or three players to define the entire tour of players underneath them. That's how we get these subjective arguments that the 'sampras era' is stronger era than the 'McEnroe era' or the 'McEnroe era' is stronger than the 'Laver era' - and its the names that fuels the divisions and the nature of the arguments. If there is a lot of dominance in a few names, everyone asks where the depth was? If you have a broad swathe of champions representing a lot of depth, everyone asks where the dominance was! Try doing this without a single human name, making sure these periods of time are exactly the same length and try looking at all the top 20 or 15 or 10 players rather than just the few at the very top because we really should not define quality of the entire professional tour by a few people. Remember also that a professional tennis tour season has a lot of a lot more than 4 events during its progression.
Don't find what you like and shine a light on it as an example of what strong eras should look like. Find your ideal standards in the abstract, and apply them to your eras. You may be surprised at how different that all is.
One distinguishing feature of the last 20 years is the absence of new young champions. That has NEVER happened in the past, there was always fresh super talent emerging from the younger generations of players. We do not see that today. Perhaps Alcarez will be a new star player, but that remains to be seen. That is one measure of of a truly weak era.
Holmes
Hall of Fame
He has 2 grand slams, so he qualifies as a new emerging talent. Prior to Alcaraz the young generation was underwhelming but the era was saved from being a farce by the existence of the big 3 as competitors.
The dominance of the Big Three for twenty years was an indication of weak generations of younger players.
That's really good stuff, and I couldn't agree more.
I remember reading a 'European Tennis Report', which showed that pre-pandemic, overall the number of tennis players across Europe had declined from 2009 to 2019. I know that individually there have been clear declines in both the UK and Germany. But within Europe, I believe that around 90% of players are concentrated and live in 10 different countries; Czech Republic, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Netherlands, Russia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland, and more than 60% in France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Russia and Spain.
And I recall seeing figures indicated that the numbers were declining in other major markets such as Japan and Brazil as well.
So certainly on the men's side, I'd definitely agree that the talent pool, contrary to common conceptions that it's constantly increasing, has shrunk, with decreasing participation in many prominent markets not close to offset by increases in other countries, and more lucrative sporting alternatives leaving tennis more and more in the dust. After tennis became 'cooler' and more accessible as a result of the boom from the 70s, in some ways it has become more restrictive again, as the playing expenses have increased at a faster rate with inflation, than lower level prize money.
It would be interesting to see participation numbers by gender. I understand that in the US, the number of female tennis players has overtaken the number of male tennis players, which isn't a surprise at all given that males have more well organised and well funded sporting alternatives than females do.
Holmes
Hall of Fame
Well said.
Last edited:
I can entertain the case for this argument. It has some merit. But I don't know if it's necessarily fair to demean other terrific players of the past 20 years simply because of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic's unique greatness. As @BTURNER alluded to, it's not prudent to define an entire generation based upon a handful of players. ATP Tour depth in recent years has probably never been higher. Players ranked in the bottom half of the top 100 or even outside of the top 100 are often factors at the ATP level. I'm not sure of the mental strength of some of the recent younger top guys like Sinner, Tsitsipas, Thiem, Rublev, etc., but I feel like there have been plenty of very good opponents for the Big Three. To me, it's more about Federer, Nadal and Djokovic simply being the most complete tennis players ever more so than it's about others being "weak."
I don't know about that. I picked a random player from the 1980s/1990s: Nicolas Pereira. He was ranked around the 80-120 range during his career in the 1980s/1990s, peaking at #74. He won titles on clay and grass. He beat Edberg at Queen's Club in 1989, Becker in Doha in 1996, and Muster in Miami in 1996. He took both Lendl and Agassi to five sets at Wimbledon.
Then I looked at the live rankings and, when I checked, Grégoire Barrère was #74. He's 29 and actually got as high as #49 in the rankings earlier this year, i.e., 25 spots higher than Pereira got. He's won no titles and hasn't even made a final. I don't see any wins that approach Pereira's wins over Edberg/Becker/Muster, and I don't see any Major matches where he pushed a top player like Pereira did with Agassi and Lendl.
Last edited:
Fact is historically most majors and other big titles are won by the top 5ish players of the era. So i’m focusing on how good the best players were and how old they are
I remember Pereira and his upset of Muster in Miami in 1996. We can cherry pick more outlier examples, but I highly doubt the majority of informed tennis people would state that ATP Tour depth was better 30-40 years ago than it has been in the past decade. Former players, coaches, TV analysts, etc. who are mostly impartial and have been around for a long time will almost unanimously confirm this. Lower-ranked players are increasingly more professional, fitter, more consistent, more powerful, etc. than they were two or more decades ago. Make no mistake, there have always been upsets in big tournaments. Twenty-five-30 years ago, surface speed variation and player stylistic variation created an environment of parity throughout the season with certain players and styles peaking at different stages of the season.
A lot of the recent depth has been obscured, however, because of how incredibly dominant Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been. If we only focus on the end results in grand slams and Masters events, sure, we might surmise "There's obviously no depth because the same guys have won almost every big tournament." That's not really the true barometer of depth, however. Are Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Thiem, Sinner, Rublev, Alcaraz, Ruud, Rune, etc. as formidable of a recent top supporting cast as Sampras faced in the mid-'90s with Agassi, Becker, Courier, Edberg, Chang, Ivanisevic, Muster, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Enqvist, Ferreira, etc.? Most would probably say no. But was Sampras as consistently incredible during his run as say Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been for very long stretches? The answer to that is likely also no.
But that doesn't really fit with Pereira, though. His best surface was clay, but he won a grass title, had his three big wins on grass/hard, and pushed Lendl and Agassi to five sets on grass.
I decided to pick a random number outside the top 100: 109.
In the 1990s, Carsten Arriens reached a career high of #109. He beat Enqvist at the French Open and Kucera at the U.S. Open. He also won a title, beating Corretja in the Guarujá, Brazil final in 1992 on hard courts.
The current #109 is Zsombor Piros, who hasn't accomplished much but is only 23.
Going up 2 spots, 31 year-old Constant Lestienne is #107 in the live rankings. He's been as high as #48, i.e., 61 spots higher than Arriens ever got. He's won no titles and made no finals, and I'm not aware of any wins as big as Arriens's wins over Corretja, Kucera, and Enqvist.
Sure, but I'm talking about the overall landscape, not just Pereira. I'm not sure how we're coming up with these randomized checks or what this is supposed to tell us haha.
Carsten Arriens' career record at the ATP level was 28-36. Not to belittle those victories -- Corretja and Enqvist were among the third tier or so of the best of the '90s. Kucera was very solid during his peak in the late '90s. But not one of those three was close to his prime when Arriens beat them.
Corretja was 18 years old and ranked 110 when Arriens beat him in 1992. Enqvist was decently established by the start of 1993, but was also still just 19 years old, ranked #67 and entered Roland Garros with a 3-10 ATP record in '93 when Arriens beat him in the first round in five sets. Interestingly though, after another few opening round losses, Enqvist caught fire late in the summer of '93. Kucera was ranked #55 at the 1995 US Open and in the midst of his first full season at the ATP level. Kucera didn't reach his peak period for another two and a half to three years.
Arriens' best win in terms of beating an already established and higher-ranked foe who would go on to do big things was probably his opening round win over Albert Costa in Porta, Portugal in June 1995. Ranked #30 at the time, Costa had just pushed Muster to five sets in the quarters at Roland Garros and had already reached two clay court finals that spring. Later that summer, Costa stunned Muster in a five set thriller in Muster's backyard of Kitzbuhel to win his first ATP title. Also give Arriens credit for ATP-level defeats of Brad Gilbert, Berasategui and Santoro. So yeah, one can make a case that this little known German made a very small impact on the ATP Tour in the mid-'90s.
Admittedly, I had not heard of current #109 Zsombor Piros. However, current #108 Radu Albot has quite a storied Challenger Tour history along with 102 ATP-level match wins, a career high ranking of #39, one ATP title and a bevy of quality wins. Current #110, Alex Michelsen, a 19 year old, has skyrocketed up the rankings this year and nearly won an ATP title in Newport before recording two ATP wins in Winston-Salem followed by an opening round triumph at the US Open.
Constant Lestienne, whom you also mentioned, like so many others nowadays, is a late bloomer. After years spent hovering around the 200s of the rankings, Lestienne reached back-to-back ATP quarters and semis in September 2022. He began 2023 with a semifinal showing in Auckland and just won his eighth Challenger Tour title in St. Tropez, beating some quality top 100 players and Liam Broady in the final. Lestienne's career has been substantially longer and fuller than that of Arriens from the '90s.
I'm not offering any sort of grand takeaway here other than we can pick and choose situations to fit whatever narrative we wish to promote. Rankings and players ebb and flow. The game is continuously evolving. Name recognition may not necessarily equate to more or less quality of play/quality of depth. Each period is unique.
Last edited:
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
That Navratilova is the unlucky one to not win many more majors due to less people playing the Australian and French in the 70s or 80s. Hell no, it is Chris Evert by far. When you break down the years they actually missed, Chris likely gains like 5-7 slams, while Martina gains maybe 1 or something. Not saying I think Chris should rank higher, but if one goes there, she winds up with many more slams than Navratilova under that hypothetical, and is the true one damaged by that circumstance, yet strangely it is regarded as Martina by many (and I like Martina more than Chris, but not blind to facts).
That Seles was the future certain guaranteed GOAT and ensured atleast 40 slams and atleast 10 Wimbledons without the stabbing. Or atleast what her bizarre cult following of fans, some who are on exhibit on a site like this all believe. That every future player she struggled with was only due to the stabbing, and the Williams sisters, Hingis, Davenport, Henin, and anyone else you can name would have obviously been as easy for her as Mary Joe Fernandez had the stabbing not occured. That Graf was an easy opponent for her and would have remained so forever without the stabbing, when even at her peak she lost 3 of 5 matches to one of the worst versions of Graf, who at one point lost 7 of 8 matches to Sabatini, and lost a slam semi final to Sanchez 6-2, 6-0. That somehow even with Monica's dad long, slow death of cancer she also would have remained fully peak this period, only ever getting better, no slump periods at all, something that no player in history including Navratilova or Graf have come anywhere near experiencing, but magically Seles with a couple serious off court issues (even without the stabbing) was going to be only one in history to have. And lastly despite her obvious lack of athleticsm, and the sound evidence that exists of her actual playing, post stabbing or not, she was magically destined for great longevity, without the stabbing, much better than even a far better like Graf experienced, and atleast as much as a far better athlete who was a late bloomer like Navratilova experienced.
That Novak Djokovic is miracelously peaking now in his mid to late 30s, and not just doing a historical hoarding on the worst field in tennis history these last 5 years. As proven by that Nadal, who despite being only 1 year older, is like a decade further past his physical prime than Djokovic, and held together by duct tape also has won so many slams, and not just Roland Garros titles, in that span.
That people like Marat Safin and Hana Mandlikova could have dominated and won well into double digit slams and been in the GOAT conversation if they were more commited or mentally tougher. Both were extremely talented, but their games were simply not stable, percentage, and too volatile in nature to win that much, yes they could have won more, but not that much more.
That Margaret Court should not be near the GOAT conversation and that her numbers would all pale in comparision to Navratilova, Graf, Serena, Evert, had the Australian Open been a real slam. This is in fact nonsense, even if the Australian Open were fully attended those years, Court likely wins 7-9 at minimum, and is still at 20-22 slams, more slams than Navratilova and Evert, quite likely close to Serena and Graf. One reason she won the Australian much more than any others, was 3 years she stopped mid year and missed the end of the year due to pregnancy or temporary retirement so it was the only one she even played each time, contrasted to say the US Open. Wimbledon she underperformed as it was no question, but still it is a skewed argument. She and Graf are the only two players with 2 seperate 3 slam years, which reflects her overall dominance. I am not saying she is the GOAT, but she should be more in consideration than she is, and the slant given to write her off as being in the league of these others is absurd. I bet there are some who even think Billie Jean King is the best player of that era which is laughable, no disrespect to Billie Jean who is of course a truly great and high end all time great player in her own right, and also one of the most important figures in tennis and even sports history, who did more for womens tennis and activism off the court than just about anyone (far more than Court in those areas, no question there, lol)
That Seles was the future certain guaranteed GOAT and ensured atleast 40 slams and atleast 10 Wimbledons without the stabbing. Or atleast what her bizarre cult following of fans, some who are on exhibit on a site like this all believe. That every future player she struggled with was only due to the stabbing, and the Williams sisters, Hingis, Davenport, Henin, and anyone else you can name would have obviously been as easy for her as Mary Joe Fernandez had the stabbing not occured. That Graf was an easy opponent for her and would have remained so forever without the stabbing, when even at her peak she lost 3 of 5 matches to one of the worst versions of Graf, who at one point lost 7 of 8 matches to Sabatini, and lost a slam semi final to Sanchez 6-2, 6-0. That somehow even with Monica's dad long, slow death of cancer she also would have remained fully peak this period, only ever getting better, no slump periods at all, something that no player in history including Navratilova or Graf have come anywhere near experiencing, but magically Seles with a couple serious off court issues (even without the stabbing) was going to be only one in history to have. And lastly despite her obvious lack of athleticsm, and the sound evidence that exists of her actual playing, post stabbing or not, she was magically destined for great longevity, without the stabbing, much better than even a far better like Graf experienced, and atleast as much as a far better athlete who was a late bloomer like Navratilova experienced.
That Novak Djokovic is miracelously peaking now in his mid to late 30s, and not just doing a historical hoarding on the worst field in tennis history these last 5 years. As proven by that Nadal, who despite being only 1 year older, is like a decade further past his physical prime than Djokovic, and held together by duct tape also has won so many slams, and not just Roland Garros titles, in that span.
That people like Marat Safin and Hana Mandlikova could have dominated and won well into double digit slams and been in the GOAT conversation if they were more commited or mentally tougher. Both were extremely talented, but their games were simply not stable, percentage, and too volatile in nature to win that much, yes they could have won more, but not that much more.
That Margaret Court should not be near the GOAT conversation and that her numbers would all pale in comparision to Navratilova, Graf, Serena, Evert, had the Australian Open been a real slam. This is in fact nonsense, even if the Australian Open were fully attended those years, Court likely wins 7-9 at minimum, and is still at 20-22 slams, more slams than Navratilova and Evert, quite likely close to Serena and Graf. One reason she won the Australian much more than any others, was 3 years she stopped mid year and missed the end of the year due to pregnancy or temporary retirement so it was the only one she even played each time, contrasted to say the US Open. Wimbledon she underperformed as it was no question, but still it is a skewed argument. She and Graf are the only two players with 2 seperate 3 slam years, which reflects her overall dominance. I am not saying she is the GOAT, but she should be more in consideration than she is, and the slant given to write her off as being in the league of these others is absurd. I bet there are some who even think Billie Jean King is the best player of that era which is laughable, no disrespect to Billie Jean who is of course a truly great and high end all time great player in her own right, and also one of the most important figures in tennis and even sports history, who did more for womens tennis and activism off the court than just about anyone (far more than Court in those areas, no question there, lol)
I feel like these are pretty fringe Seles positions you're presenting.
-I don't know that I've ever seen anyone claim that Seles won have would 40+ Majors or 10+ Wimbledons w/out the stabbing. I might be the biggest Seles fan on here, and you're more than doubling what I think her final Major/Wimbledon totals would have been w/out the stabbing.
-I don't know that I've ever seen anyone claim that Seles wouldn't have struggled against the like of the Williams sisters, Hingis, Davenport, and Henin w/out the stabbing. My own belief is that Seles wouldn't have seriously struggled w/anyone other than Graf from 1993-1996 w/out the stabbing and that things would have then gotten a lot tougher from 1997-2002.
-I don't know that I've ever seen anyone claim that Graf wasn't a tough opponent for Seles. The claim I do see (and make) is that Seles had gone 3-1 against Graf in Majors from 1990-1993 and seemed to be making specific improvements in her game that would have helped her against Graf at the time of the stabbing.
-I don't know that I've ever seen anyone claim that Seles never would have slumped or been impacted by off-court issues. That's what would have been required for her to achieve 40+ Majors, but, again, I don't see anyone making anything close to that claim.
-I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim that Seles would have had magical longevity w/out the stabbing. The claim I do see (and make) is that Seles was competitive through 2002, when she made the Australian Open SF and lost a tight three setter to Hingis. This leads me (and others) to think that Seles would have been competitive in Majors from 1990-2002, with a good deal of growth in her game b/c she was barely 19 when she was stabbed, and with the ebbs and flows that all players have.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
No, you are saying those aren't things YOU have said. Make no mistake, there are many Seles fans who say those things and often. Trust me when I say I am not creative enough to make that stuff up, so obviously that I was able to list it all pretty much confirms it.
You wrote: "That Seles was the future certain guaranteed GOAT and ensured atleast 40 slams and atleast 10 Wimbledons without the stabbing. Or atleast what her bizarre cult following of fans, some who are on exhibit on a site like this all believe."
Can you point to even one poster on this site who has ever written that Seles was a future certain guaranteed GOAT who was ensured of 40+ Slams and 10+ Wimbledons? I've never seen anyone on here make that claim.
