Which decade had the weakest competition for men

[grafselesfan]

I had a thread about the best competition, now which decade had the worst competition overall amongst the men for you.

[grafselesfan]

I picked the current decade, the 2000s one. This decade thus far has produced only 3 players with more than 2 slam titles. Those are Federer, Nadal, and Kuerten who won his 2nd and 3rd French Opens to open the decade. It has allowed 90s players to claim 6- Agassi claimining 3 slam titles, Sampras claiming an additional 2, Ivanisevic winning his only slam. It has allowed slam champions such as past his prime Costa, Johansson, and Gaudio. Outside of those 9 wasted slams by this decades players the remaining 7 slams have been split amongst Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Djokovic, Ferrero, all worthy contenders and slam winners but none great champions.

[GPG]

post fail

both Hewitt and Safin have won 2 slams each

[raiden031]

If it wasn't for Federer and Nadal, this decade would probably be the strongest because there would be many slam winners.

[grafselesfan]

Originally Posted by GPG

post fail

both Hewitt and Safin have won 2 slams each

Note I said more than 2. 2 is not more than 2.

[egn]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

I picked the current decade, the 2000s one. This decade thus far has produced only 3 players with more than 2 slam titles. Those are Federer, Nadal, and Kuerten who won his 2nd and 3rd French Opens to open the decade. It has allowed 90s players to claim 6- Agassi claimining 3 slam titles, Sampras claiming an additional 2, Ivanisevic winning his only slam. It has allowed slam champions such as past his prime Costa, Johansson, and Gaudio. Outside of those 9 wasted slams by this decades players the remaining 7 slams have been split amongst Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Djokovic, Ferrero, all worthy contenders and slam winners but none great champions.

Okay so wait the 70s are weak cause Ashe, Newcombe and etc. could grab slams.

The 80s were weak because Connors+Borg grabbed slams

The 90s were weak because Becker, Lendl and Edberg could grab slams.

Those slams were not wasted, they were won by players who played their careers. MOST CAREERS DO NOT RUN FROM 80-90 etc. How many actually do this? So an era is now week because guys have a 10 year range of slam winning. Yet players are weak if they can not do this and can't cross eras to win slams. I mean come on So is the 2010s instantly weak if Nadal or Fed wins a slam in that era? That makes no sense.

That has to be the dumbest justification ever because players who won most of their slams in a previous decade could wins slams there it is week. It shows a players longievity not the weakness of an era. Gaudio and Johansson were not past their prime...Costa was but its not a big deal. Costa was a strong clay courter and him winning a French Open was not like OH WOW. Costa was no worse than Moya or Noah on the surface. Johansson was not a great slam winner don't get me wrong but there is no difference between him and Cash, Kodra etc. who were lucky and never made anything of it outside of that.

Also your juding for weakness is based only on slams won by players. In that case the 80s are the best as multiple guys grabbed at least 3 slams in that era and every other era fails. The problem is the 00s and 90s are characterized by one player consistently dominating slams over other players. The 00s even worse becuase Fed has done it so condensly. It is a paradox really your theory the more Fed wins the more weak the field looks. So in your theory it almost looks as if 1969 was the worst ever tennis year because only 1 player could win slams. No 1969 was characterized by one player who could dominate the rest. To say an era is weak based on achievements is not the best way to judge. If on player like Sampras, Federer, Laver and Borg is so far ahead of the others and accomplish far more their era is not weak.

Personally the weak era is how you look at it. If one guy dominating is a sign of a weak era than yes the 2000s are really weak and as much as they like to hide it the 90s come in next then the 70s/60s and then 80s. However if you feel an era lacking a strong dominate player is weak then the 80s are the weakest of them all >.> It is all a matter of opinion and their is no formula. I personally feel the 80s were the strongest but I don't think there is an era that is the weakest at times every decade is weak (early 70s, late 80s, late 90s, early 00s.) however as a whole proving the competition is weaker than the other is hard.

[NonP]

A bit premature to say the '00s are the weakest decade. And as egn just noted it's misguided to evaluate the strength of an era just by the # of multiple Slam winners.

[helloworld]

Any era that has Gaston Gaudio as a slam champion is in serious trouble for competition.

[GameSampras]

Its difficult to prove one era of the other in terms of weakness or strengths..

I mean you can make the argument that the 90s for instance or even the 80s were not AS STRONG, since there were no dominant forces like Nadal or Fed stealing every slam that would come up.
Thus why you can actually say the 00's have been the strongest era since it had the top 2 most dominant players that stopped everyone else from winning slams.


I dont necessarily believe that. But thats what people will argue.. I look at the 2000's as two great legitimate champions, Fed the consistent monster, and Nadal the only other player who even seem CAPABLE of winning slam and actually staying consistent each year doing so. The rest of the era has truly been lacking in such.. Yes there have been consistent players such as Roddick probably the most noteable one, but yet a player who still couldnt grab more than 1 slam to his resume. Now you can say thats all Fed's fault, yet the facts scream Roddick was taken out at multiple slams by other players at the slams, and Fed really only stopped Roddick from winning a few more.

Than we got guys like Safin (great player who played his best tennis 10 percent of his career), Nalbandian very talented who never showed up to play at the slams, Davydenko, poor man's Chang, Djokovic, very talented but has seemed to regressed in his career instead of improved. Murray- an unproven commodity really IMO. Still very young.. Del Potro-still very young..

There are just a lot of unproven commodities tennis today or players who HAD talent, but just never amounted a great career for themselves of fizzeled out fast like Hewitt, Safin etc. Insignificants like Blake, Ljubicic, Gonzales, Baghaditis.


The 00's takes the cake for me overrall. Because at the end of this decade, this era has produced exactly 2 legit CHAMPIONS......................................... ............................... and then the rest.


90s overrall were stronger IMO. Due to the great competition of the early to mid 90s filled with greats even if some were a bit passed their prime like Becker, Edberg, etc. But you still had Andre, Courier, Chang, Goran, Pete and down the line. Late 90s it really went south I felt. But the early to mid 90s made it pretty good IMO overrall. Though the 80s trumps it of course


The 00's overrall really has just been riddled with less than subpar competiton or achievers.


When I look back and think of the 00's, I will only think of two players. Thats kind of scary... For better or worse.. I will only think of Nadal and Fed. Of course, maybe I will think of Andre hangiing on and still managing 2 more AO titles and some strong USO runs

[EtePras]

Imagine if you greatly increased the strength of the 90's by adding Federer and Nadal to that era. You have in actuality weakened the era considerably, by making sure only 2 people in the decade have won grand slam tournaments, and then we here would be arguing that Roddick with his 7 slams against superior competition would annihilate both Federer and Nadal, as proven by his 1-0 H2H against both players in matches at the end of their careers and the beginning of his.

[chrisdaniel]

Imagine if you greatly increased the strength of the 90's by adding Federer and Nadal to that era. You have in actuality weakened the era considerably, by making sure only 2 people in the decade have won grand slam tournaments, and then we here would be arguing that Roddick with his 7 slams against superior competition would annihilate both Federer and Nadal, as proven by his 1-0 H2H against both players in matches at the end of their careers and the beginning of his.

No because it is not certain that they would dominate. Andy Roddick is a good measuring tool since he is very consistent.

Would Roddick dominate the 90s ? No, he would not. He got demolished by Sampras when it mattered, and Andre took care of him almost all the time.
And they were aged at that point. Obviously he has not dominated the 2000's. Bring Fed and Nadal over to the 90s and I believe that would be the greatest. Imagine that top 4? Great match ups, I don't see any one really getting the better, with the exception that I think Fed would end up with the most slams. But it would not be how he dominated the 2000's.

Agassi Vs Fed U.S Open , Nadal vs Sampras Wimbledon, any match up with any of those, except Sampras and Nadal at the French.

O.k thats all I wanted to say. I am not saying you can't be right, just I think that scenario you mentioned would be awesome actually.

[grafrules]

Roddick would not dominate the 90s but he could wins slams, as could Hewitt or Safin. If someone like Kafelnikov who is a clearly inferior player to all 3 could win 2 slams in the 90s than those guys could as well.

Agassis head to head with Roddick is telling but also deceiving somewhat. Other than late 94-95 Agassi played his best and most consistent tennis ever from 99-early 2003. Roddick until mid 2003 was pre prime and not the same player as mid 2003-
present either. 3 of the 6 matches between Agassi and Roddick were early 2003 or sooner. Their other 3 matches with Roddick hitting his stride and Agassi finally falling off with age Agassi still did win 2 of 3 but all 3 were very close. The erratic Agassi had many years in the 90s he was playing even worse than late 2003-2005 as well, and in those years Roddick might fare even better than he did in their final 3 matches.

Sampras and Roddick played three matches when neither player was in their primes and Roddick actually leads 2-1 although he got slammed in their biggest match.

[scootad.]

I disagree about Kafelnikov being inferior to Roddick or even Hewitt. Yevgeny had a complete game. Solid groundies, solid serve, good movement. After tasting a little success, he became satisfied and lost all hunger.

[scootad.]

I also think Kafelnikov after a few years become only interested in $$$. This is why he entered tournaments seemingly almost every week. By overplaying he ruined his chances but he mostly wanted to collect a nice paycheck and get the hell out of there

[grafrules]

Originally Posted by scootad.

I disagree about Kafelnikov being inferior to Roddick or even Hewitt. Yevgeny had a complete game. Solid groundies, solid serve, good movement. After tasting a little success, he became satisfied and lost all hunger.

Hewitt was slapping Kafelnikov silly even in 1999-2000 when Kafelnikov was at his absolute career peak and Hewitt was an up and coming kid. So how on earth could he ever be better than Hewitt or even Roddick. The guy was lucky as heck to win 2 majors with ridiculous dream draws, showing that often openings were there even in the 90s. His biggest ever win on the way to a slam title was Todd Martin on hard courts or a gassed Sampras on clay. His biggest ever win in a slam period was a badly injured Agassi on clay.

I sort of agree with your accessment of his game. Just solid, nothing great. Although solid serve is almost a bit generous much of the time for him. Nothing even as much a standout as the Hewitt return, Hewitt movement, Roddick serve, or even Roddick forehand (when confident). Also mentally he was weak.

[grafrules]

Anyway I picked the 60s for the simple fact it was an extremely depleted field with almost all the best players pro most of the decade. Any decade that has Roy Emerson who hardly anyone considers even a top 20 player all time winning 12 majors. My order would probably be:

1. 1980s
2. 1970s
3. 1990s
4. 2000s
5. 1960s

[FiveO]

(duplicate post)

[FiveO]

(duplicate post)

[FiveO]

Originally Posted by grafrules

Hewitt was slapping Kafelnikov silly even in 1999-2000 when Kafelnikov was at his absolute career peak and Hewitt was an up and coming kid. So how on earth could he ever be better than Hewitt or even Roddick. The guy was lucky as heck to win 2 majors with ridiculous dream draws, showing that often openings were there even in the 90s. His biggest ever win on the way to a slam title was Todd Martin on hard courts or a gassed Sampras on clay. His biggest ever win in a slam period was a badly injured Agassi on clay.

I sort of agree with your accessment of his game. Just solid, nothing great. Although solid serve is almost a bit generous much of the time for him. Nothing even as much a standout as the Hewitt return, Hewitt movement, Roddick serve, or even Roddick forehand (when confident). Also mentally he was weak.

Kafelnikov excelled on the slower surfaces prevalent in his era, going by Major speeds AO and RG conditions, were he to face Roddick and Hewitt on those surfaces the h2h would likely be lopsided in his favor, as those have remained the speeds that both Roddick and Hewitt have struggled most with.

If the only meetings came on then Wimbledon and US Open speeds, Hewitt would likely have the same edge he had over YK, because that is where they met most, the one clay court meeting going YK's way. Roddick doesn't have a good fast court record, Wimbledon warm-ups are just that, warm-ups. Roddick would have his lack of return game and relative lack of court quickness and speed exploited on truly fast surfaces by a lot of 90's guys whose games were specifically well suited for fast conditions. IMO neither Roddick nor YK (as he never was) would be second week factors on actual fast surfaces, with the QF probably being their ceilings.

5

[egn]

Originally Posted by GameSampras

I dont necessarily believe that. But thats what people will argue.. I look at the 2000's as two great legitimate champions, Fed the consistent monster, and Nadal the only other player who even seem CAPABLE of winning slam and actually staying consistent each year doing so. The rest of the era has truly been lacking in such.. Yes there have been consistent players such as Roddick probably the most noteable one, but yet a player who still couldnt grab more than 1 slam to his resume. Now you can say thats all Fed's fault, yet the facts scream Roddick was taken out at multiple slams by other players at the slams, and Fed really only stopped Roddick from winning a few more.

The 90s had only two great legitimate champions. Becker was an 80s hangover and Courier fizzed out way too early for me to call him a great champion. What makes Roddick any different from Chang? Chang and Roddick are almost identical to each other. Same goes for Roddick and Goran? I don't really ever remember thinking Goran could beat Sampras on grass outside of 1993 or 1994 prior to Sampras beating down Goran. Sure Goran made his efforts but never once at Sampras' best did I feel that Goran could beat him when it had it all at stake. Also the 90s was made up of tons of guys who were good but not capable of winning slams, guys like Rudeski, Martin, Pilone and then there were those who nobody felt really should get one who got them Kodra, Moya and some weak guys who won multiples Kalfenikov. The 90s and 00s look a lot more alike just the difference is the 90s was a bit more spread out when the 00s had domination in a cluster. I think 98-02 only looks so weak because from 92-97 and 04-present was characterized by a dominate player running the tour.

Originally Posted by gamesampras

The 00's takes the cake for me overrall. Because at the end of this decade, this era has produced exactly 2 legit CHAMPIONS......................................... ............................... and then the rest.

I agree there but once again this is the paradox a player has to win less for his era to be stronger. Then great champions can't play in great eras because if they are in complete control of the tour then according to this theory they are beating nobodies. The 90s I feel produced only 2 legit champions. The 70s did the same. I feel the 80s had the most Mac, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander but then none of those can match the greatest from the 00s, the 90s or the 70s. So it is still confusing. Is Lendl the GOAT because his era had him beating 4 other great champions made n that era plus hold overs like Connors and newcomers like Agassi?

Originally Posted by gamesampras

When I look back and think of the 00's, I will only think of two players. Thats kind of scary... For better or worse.. I will only think of Nadal and Fed. Of course, maybe I will think of Andre hangiing on and still managing 2 more AO titles and some strong USO runs

I doubt that. Most of us still remember guys like Cash and Mecir and guys like Clerc, Vilas and Tanner. I am sure down the road we will remember more than just Fed and Nadal if you still remember Chang you will definitely remember the guys like Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Ferrero. People will not forget the likes of Coria also as the flake who never could get the cake and Kuerten. I am sure a fair share will remember Nalbandian, Davydenko etc. Most people know a lot of the guys. Alot of people still remember Kevin Curren, Leconte, Martin, Teacher, Vitas, Panatta, Ornates and etc. I am sure a good portion of these guys will still be remembered. Besides the view of the next era might change and the 00s might be looked upon stronger. Only time will tell but the 00s and 90s seem to follow the same formula. Two strong greats, a few really good players and a field of good decent players.