Rating from strongest to weakest eras in the Open Era

[Druss]

With the ‘weak era’ topic being constantly brought up, I thought we could take a look at how other eras faired in contrast to the more recent ones. I started following tennis in the 90s thanks to Agassi, so my knowledge of who’s who in tennis prior to 1992 is mainly from reading articles and watching video clips on Youtube. This is merely my (unbiased) opinion. What is yours? Do you agree?

NB: Once a top tier player is winning slams and other prestigious events like WTF and masters 1000 (or equivalent) and are ranked inside the top 4, to me that says they BELONG to that era.

NB II: It is generally understood that a tennis generation is five years, give or take, hence, in order to maintain consistency, we are keeping this in five year blocks.

1) 1985-89 rating 10….extremely strong

Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander at full peak, McEnroe still going strong

Tier 2: Cash, Connors, Mecir. Huge gap between an aging Connors and other tier 2 from top tier. Big four plus McEnroe featuring in most big tourney finals and SFs, making this, in my opinion, the strongest era ever.

2) 2010-14 rating 9.5….extremely strong

Nadal, Djokovic, Murray at full peak, Federer still going strong

Tier 2: Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Wawrinka '13/14. Tier 2 light years away from big 4 until around 2014. Fed past his prime but still hanging in there with the other big 4 members, making it extremely tough for tier 2 players to break through.

3) 1980-84 rating 9….very strong

McEnroe, Connors, Lendl at full peak, Borg '80/81, Wilander '83/84

Tier 2: Noah, Vilas, Kriek. With Vilas fading, tier 2 no match for top tier… big gap. Four greats going for the big matches, with young 18yr old Wilander taking over from Borg to challenge the other three.

4) 1969-74 rating 8.75….very strong

Newcombe, Rosewall, Ashe, Nastase at full peak, Laver '69/70, Connors '73/74, Borg '74

Tier 2: Kodes, Roche, Smith. All very strong tier 2, not far removed from top tier, which makes for an extremely competitive era across the board, with the big tournies thrown wide open. The rise of an 18yr old Borg coincides with the end of the stalwart Rosewall.

5) 2005-09 rating 7.5….strong

Federer, Nadal at full peak, Djokovic from '07, Murray '08/09

Tier 2: Roddick, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Murray '06/07. With the exception of Roddick on grass (top tier there), tier 2 no match for the might of Fedal. The Fedal duopoly reached it’s zenith in 2006/07 with the two cleaning up the big tournies and meeting a whopping 11 times in finals across all 3 surfaces in those 2 years alone. Nadal took over from Fed in ’08, and Fed taking over again in ’09 as legit no 1 and multiple major winners for the year, making it tough for Djokovic & Murray (or anyone else) to break through.

6) 1990-94 rating 7.25….strong

Sampras, Agassi, Courier at full peak, Becker & Edberg early '90s

Tier 2: Chang, Ivanisevic, Stich, Bruguera. With Courier's short full peak and Becker and Edberg fading after early 90's, allowed for tier 2 players to 'break through'. The early 90’s was a very interesting period with the rise of 19yr old Sampras in 1990, and also Agassi, one year Pistol Pete’s senior, challenging the dominance of Becker/Edberg. Their rivalries stretched into the mid 90’s, with the younger Sampras/Agassi having the better of their older rivals by then.

7) 1975-79 rating 7….strong

Borg, Connors, Vilas at full peak, McEnroe '79

Tier 2: Gerulaitis, Tanner, fading Nastasie. Tier 2 no match for Borg and Connors esp at Wimbledon and USO, and RG for Borg. The rise of 20yr old McEnroe in ’79 added spice to the Borg/Connors duopoly.

8> 2000-04 rating 4….weak

Agassi still going strong, Federer coming of age, Safin flashes of brilliance.

Tier 2: Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Kuerten & Rafter '00/01, fading Sampras until '02. Not much of a gap between top tier and 2nd tier until early '04 when Federer finally came through to fulfil his potential. Agassi was the dominant force between ’00 & ’03, with Fed taking over by the end of ’03. This era was fairly weak due to the fact Fed was still finding his feet, and Agassi was on a slow but steady decline (similar to what Fed is going through since 2010-14), while Safin was too unpredictable, leaving the door open for journeymen such as Costa, Gaudio and ‘fluke of the century’ T.Johansson to collect majors.

9) 1995-99 rating 3….very weak

Sampras at full peak, Agassi '95 & '99 only....weakest era ever!

Tier 2: Muster, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Moya. Unfortunately with Agassi only a force in ’95 and ’99, this era left a ‘vacuum’ for a large chunk of the time, leaving Sampras in a class of his own. With perhaps Muster's 1995 run an exception, tier 2 players would never have won a slam in any other era (bar '00-'03). This paved the way for Sampras to rack up his slam haul, and a large number of one slam (and double slam) wonders get their chance to bask in glory.

 

[90's Clay]

Whats 2010-2014 doing at #2??:shock::shock: There has hardly been any talent or depth on tour for years now.

And how could 90-94/95 be so low?? And especially below 2005-2009 and 2010-2013. That ludicrous

 

[Indio]

Problems arise when you break the period in question into five-year segments. By maintaining the five-year pattern, you put some years into groups to which they clearly don't belong. For example, 1995 doesn't fit with the years that follow it. 1995 was a strong year and 1996 wasn't actually a bad one either. The real weakness begins with 1997 and it continued through 2002 (contrary to what many believe, 2003 was a strong year, with five players having very good, though not sensational, years).

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hewitt peaked in 2005 and was apart of that year too, also had a career resurgence in 2009.. He belongs in 2 eras, and in the "top tier" from 2000-2004..

Agassi was also in his prime from 1999-2003; he wasn't on a "slow decline" like Federer is going through now until 2004 when his back was ruined.. Before then he was fine.

And Federer had periods of playing prime level tennis.. like at the Masters Cup in 2002 and Hamburg 2002..

2001 also had players like Kafelnikov, Grosjean, Henman, Ivanisevic and others.. Sampras and Agassi weren't too bad in patches either..

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Problems arise when you break the period in question into five-year segments. By maintaining the five-year pattern, you put some years into groups to which they clearly don't belong. For example, 1995 doesn't fit with the years that follow it. 1995 was a strong year and 1996 wasn't actually a bad one either. The real weakness begins with 1997 and it continued through 2002 (contrary to what many believe, 2003 was a strong year, with five players having very good, though not sensational, years).

2000-2002 was stronger than 1996-1998 and they're two completely different periods also.

1996 was also pretty weak, especially at Wimbledon.. Washington in a slam final? LOL. Wasn't that the year they had the "seed issue"?

 

[Druss]

Where else would 2010-14 be?

 

[D.Nalby12]

2010-14 was strong era is myth. 2010 was one of weakest years I've seen and 2012-14 seasons highlighted by players like Murray, Cilic, Wawr winning GS titles taking advantage of weak Dimitrov- Raoinc generation, Ferrer making GS Final, rising to #3, average age of top 100 approaching it's highest in open era etc etc. I rate it 4/10 (average years)

 

[Druss]

Sabratha we are keeping this in 5 year blocks to maintain consistency.

 

[90's Clay]

2000-2002 was stronger than 1996-1998 and they're two completely different periods also.

1996 was also pretty weak, especially at Wimbledon.. Washington in a slam final? LOL. Wasn't that the year they had the "seed issue"?

2002 guys like Johansson were WINNING slams though:shock:

Overrall 96-98 wasn't that bad. Rafter, Rios, Kafelnikov, Sampras, Kuerten is still solid. Not as good as the first half of the 90s but not horrible either.

 

[RFGOAT1992]

federers era is the strongest era not talking bout certain years or anything but his whole careers. when he was at the top of his game there were new generations of players steady challenging his throne but he didn't get pushed aside and still adapted and improved his game to the point where he could still compete with these younger players. so id say the strongest era is federers era because he constsntly has to improved his game to stay on the top . and that he did

 

[The_Order]

2002 guys like Johansson were WINNING slams though:shock:

Overrall 96-98 wasn't that bad. Rafter, Rios, Kafelnikov, Sampras, Kuerten is still solid. Not as good as the first half of the 90s but not horrible either.

So did old washed up Petros.

2002 was a joke that's how weak it was.

 

[The_Order]

federers era is the strongest era not talking bout certain years or anything but his whole careers. when he was at the top of his game there were new generations of players steady challenging his throne but he didn't get pushed aside and still adapted and improved his game to the point where he could still compete with these younger players. so id say the strongest era is federers era because he constsntly has to improved his game to stay on the top . and that he did

I like the way he adapted and competed with Nadal.

 

[jm1980]

Every poster making their favorite players' eras stronger and their rivals' eras weaker. :lol:

 

[AngieB]

With the ‘weak era’ topic being constantly brought up, I thought we could take a look at how other eras faired in contrast to the more recent ones. I started following tennis in the 90s thanks to Agassi, so my knowledge of who’s who in tennis prior to 1992 is mainly from reading articles and watching video clips on Youtube..

#Child, there is no such a thing in #tennis #history as a "#weak era". There was a period during #war when #grandslam #tennis was #absent in #Europe, but beyond #absence, #weakness never #existed.

The #mythical "#weak era" #term is #primarily used in this #forum as a #whipping #post to #diminish the #accomplishments of #generational #champions in #tennis #history by #irrational #fans (the #kids #call them "#fanboys" #here). #Hence, "#weak era" is #merely #political in #nature.

The #best #tennis #players from every #generation were #champions of their #era who #rose to the #top of the #sport. They did this by way of #accomplishment, later #rewarded by #induction into the #ITHOF. #Champions have been #cycling #through the #sport for #decades.

One #era is no more #stronger or #weaker than the #next. Some #champions #accomplish more than others, but there is #no, #nor will there ever be a #quantitative way of #measuring "#weak era's" in the #sport of #tennis by way of #consensus.

#Don't #buy into the #divisiveness. #Praise #be and #hallelujah!

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB​

 

[RFGOAT1992]

I like the way he adapted and competed with Nadal.

old man still trying to change his game still trying to compete. just wont leave them scrubs alone
just wont go away

 

[Deleted member 307496]

2002 guys like Johansson were WINNING slams though:shock:

Overrall 96-98 wasn't that bad. Rafter, Rios, Kafelnikov, Sampras, Kuerten is still solid. Not as good as the first half of the 90s but not horrible either.

2000-2002 also had Rafter, Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Safin, Kuerten, slightly past prime Sampras, Agassi, Grosjean, Henman, Moya, ect.

Johansson also only won the AO due to Safin choking.. and surprise finalists have happened MANY times at the AO, don't act like it's a tragedy someone outside the top 10 won a slam..

2001 also had Agassi, Kuerten, Ivanisevic and Hewitt winning slams. 2002 had slightly weaker slam winners overall, but Hewitt and Agassi were consistent where it mattered and ended No. 1 and No. 2...

 

[Deleted member 307496]

So did old washed up Petros.

2002 was a joke that's how weak it was.

Only because prime Agassi knocked Hewitt out.

 

[Indio]

2000-2002 was stronger than 1996-1998 and they're two completely different periods also.

1996 was also pretty weak, especially at Wimbledon.. Washington in a slam final? LOL. Wasn't that the year they had the "seed issue"?

1996 wasn't great, but it wasn't bad:
Chang had a good year with two majors finals
Kafelnikov had his best year.
Krajicek made his only memorable run in a major.
Becker was having a strong year prior to his injury at Wimbledon.
Agassi wasn't great (as he had been in 1995), but he wasn't terrible either, winning two Masters.
Ivanisevic had one of his better years, although his QF loss at Wimbledon would probably have been the most painful failure of his career.
Sampras had an excellent year (US, YEC, 8 wins).

Washington's career is remarkably similar to that of Baghdatis, and each will be remembered most for making a surprise run to a major final.

In 2002, only two players, Hewitt and Agassi, had very good years (Agassi only because he had a good W-L % and 5 titles). Three of the majors had surprise winners, none of whom won anything else all year, and none of whom was a young player making a breakthrough. This all adds up to weakness.

 

[The_Order]

Only because prime Agassi knocked Hewitt out.

That's Hewitt's fault.

 

[The-Champ]

2) 2010-14 rating 9.5….extremely strong

Nadal, Djokovic, Murray at full peak, Federer still going strong



5) 2005-09 rating 7.5….strong

Federer, Nadal at full peak, Djokovic from '07, Murray '08/09

So basically Nadal is at full peak from 2005-2014? Others have 4-5 years?

 

[Druss]

So basically Nadal is at full peak from 2005-2014? Others have 4-5 years?

Others like who? Connors? Lendl? Becker? Sampras? Agassi? Federer? Or do you simply see Nadal's name?

 

[Wynter]

1996 wasn't great, but it wasn't bad:
Chang had a good year with two majors finals
Kafelnikov had his best year.
Krajicek made his only memorable run in a major.
Becker was having a strong year prior to his injury at Wimbledon.
Agassi wasn't great (as he had been in 1995), but he wasn't terrible either, winning two Masters.
Ivanisevic had one of his better years, although his QF loss at Wimbledon would probably have been the most painful failure of his career.
Sampras had an excellent year (US, YEC, 8 wins).

Washington's career is remarkably similar to that of Baghdatis, and each will be remembered most for making a surprise run to a major final.

In 2002, only two players, Hewitt and Agassi, had very good years (Agassi only because he had a good W-L % and 5 titles). Three of the majors had surprise winners, none of whom won anything else all year, and none of whom was a young player making a breakthrough. This all adds up to weakness.

Amusingly you just described 2014 as well.

 

[beast of mallorca]

So did old washed up Petros.

2002 was a joke that's how weak it was.

The transitional era of Hewitt has been the weakest, imo :twisted:

 

[FEDisanAlien]

non sense , u dont have the slightest common sense

Whats 2010-2014 doing at #2??:shock::shock: There has hardly been any talent or depth on tour for years now.

And how could 90-94/95 be so low?? And especially below 2005-2009 and 2010-2013. That ludicrous

Peak federer and a young Nadal made the 2005-2010 the strongest era
Think of it from this side , if you were a talanted pro with a top ten potential you would choose any other 5 year period than 2005-2010 reason is because Federer and for a smaller part Nadal were so consistent in performing on grand slams the other very talanted pros couldnt even reach slam finals

 

[FEDisanAlien]

Winning a slams in any other period than 2005-2010 was easier

 

[70sHollywood]

I'm always surprised the 80s gets so highly praised in this type of discussion. People seem to think that if a top player stops being a top player - whether it be down to injury or form or whatever - another player of equal ability automatically takes their place. So, in the 80s you had:

Borg essentially retiring after 81, which removes a top player whilst still in their prime. By the time Borg would have started his natural decline (85/86) McEnroe fell off a cliff whilst still in his prime. Then, by the time McEnroe would have started his natural decline (89/90) Wilander went the same way, even though he should still have been in his prime.

So there was an unbroken run of about 10 years where the top of the game was basically missing an all-time great who should have been there but wasn't. I don't see how it can be considered strong. It's like saying the amateur game was as strong in 1963 as it was in 1962 (i.e after Laver turned pro).

 

[mike danny]

Why is 2010 grouped in there? Djokovic had better results in 2007 than 2010. Actually only Nadal was playing great, the others were subpar. 2010 belongs in the previous era. 2004 as well belongs in the era preceeding 2011. Federer wasn't just "finding his feet". He had one of the all-time greatest years in 2004. And Hewitt and Roddick were both playing very well that year. Roddick played amazing tennis at Wimb. Just go and watch. Hewitt as well didn't drop a set untill the USO final.

So for me:

2011-2014 IMO the strongest. Credit to Novak.

2004-2010: the official Fedal era.To establish it, the moments they reached the top 2 positions must be mentioned. So, Federer became no.1 in 2004 and Nadal became no.2 in 2005. So 2004 is the establishment of Federer and 2005 the establishment of Nadal. After that only quality tennis appeared. This era is actually quite underrated. I mean it was very hard for anybody to break through, with monters like Fedal. Federer was the wall on HC and grass and Nadal was the wall on clay. How could anybody breakthrough with such roadblocks on all surfaces?

1996-1998 is the weakest IMO. Becker gone after AO 1996, Agassi going MIA, Edberg completely done, Courier done as well.

 

[Praetorian]

Sabratha we are keeping this in 5 year blocks to maintain consistency.

Who are "we" exactly? Why can't eras be 3 years, or 1, or 2, or 10. Is there a rule or something that says tennis players can only be born every 5 years?

 

[m2nk2]

2010-2014 extremely strong? What a joke mate. It's the weakest era ever.

 

[Indio]

2010-2014 extremely strong? What a joke mate. It's the weakest era ever.

By what criteria is 2000-2014 the "weakest era ever"?

 

[Mustard]

The best tennis year of the 1990s was 1995.

 

[hoodjem]

federers era is the strongest era not talking bout certain years or anything but his whole careers. when he was at the top of his game there were new generations of players steady challenging his throne but he didn't get pushed aside and still adapted and improved his game to the point where he could still compete with these younger players. so id say the strongest era is federers era because he constsntly has to improved his game to stay on the top . and that he did

federer era is greatest era blah blah blah fed is goat blah blah blah fed is amazing blah blah blah fed is wonderful blah blah blah fed is fantastic blah blah blah fed is awesome blah blah blah fed is incredible blah blah blah fed is wonderful blah blah blah fed is unbelievable blah blah blah fed is god blah blah blah fed in unstoppable blah blah blah fed is stupendous blah blah blah fed is incredible blah blah blah

 

[nowhereman]

Where does the current era rank?

 

[mattosgrant]

I agree 1995-1999 was the weakest of all those 5 year periods. Although 1995 was a very strong year. 1999 was an alright year. 1996, 1997, 1998 all majorly sucked though.

 

[mattosgrant]

Why is 2010 grouped in there?

Since it is obvious the OP is going by half decades, which would make 2010-2014 automatic. Notice the cut off he is automatically giving each era. 85-89, 90-94, 95-99, 2000-2004, etc...Obviously if we based it around specific players one could argue all day, so his method makes more sense actually.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Arbitrary intervals starting with an ending number of 0 or 5, all lasting exactly the same duration. Not interested, sorry.

 

[Russeljones]

What do you call it when someone fails at a pointless exercise?