Best and 2nd best players of every decade- men and women

abmk

Bionic Poster
^^

Just two things to add there. Becker won 2 AOs on rebound ace. Edberg zero ...., though edberg made 3 AO finals to becker's 2.

I wouldn't say wilander was that inferior to either Becker/Edberg on slow HC either ...even on fast HC, both wilander and becker won one USO each ...
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
^^

Just two things to add there. Becker won 2 AOs on rebound ace. Edberg zero ...., though edberg made 3 AO finals to becker's 2.

I wouldn't say wilander was that inferior to either Becker/Edberg on slow HC either ...even on fast HC, both wilander and becker won one USO each ...

That also means Edberg won more grass slams than Becker though which is interesting to note, especialy in light of Edberg's winning record in Wimbledon finals as well. One would think of Becker as the better grass courter, and he still probably is, so one wouldnt expect Edberg to be so close in grass achievements.

Edberg at the 1990 Australian Open was playing unstoppable tennis and only lost due to an injury in the final. 1992 and 1993 he lost to Courier who became an awful matchup for him at that point, and was the best player in the World in 92 and early 93. Becker had many early losses in Australian, unlike Edberg who made the semis or finals almost every year. The 2 years he won he played great tennis, but also had great draws and avoided nearly all his toughest competition, facing his pigeons Lendl and Chang. I definitely think Edberg is the better hard court player overall. He won event like Indian Wells and Cincinnati which Becker didnt, he had streaks where he won many tournaments and matches in a row on hard courts like 1990 going into the U.S Open, and he has more hard court titles overall, and more consistently good performances at the hard court slams by far.

Becker I would say is better on grass, carpet, or indoors, although not by nearly as much on grass as some would think, and Edberg was better on hard courts (pretty much all types) and clay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

abmk

Bionic Poster
That also means Edberg won more grass slams than Becker though which is interesting to note, especialy in light of Edberg's winning record in Wimbledon finals as well. One would think of Becker as the better grass courter, and he still probably is, so one wouldnt expect Edberg to be so close in grass achievements.

Edberg at the 1990 Australian Open was playing unstoppable tennis and only lost due to an injury in the final. 1992 and 1993 he lost to Courier who became an awful matchup for him at that point, and was the best player in the World in 92 and early 93. Becker had many early losses in Australian, unlike Edberg who made the semis or finals almost every year. The 2 years he won he played great tennis, but also had great draws and avoided nearly all his toughest competition, facing his pigeons Lendl and Chang. I definitely think Edberg is the better hard court player overall.

I agree ..... edberg was unlucky in 90 ... and more consistent at the AO than becker ..

Just found it a bit ironical that becker being the better grass court player has 3 grass slams to edberg's 4 and edberg being the better HCer overall has 2 HC slams to becker's 3 ..
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
I agree ..... edberg was unlucky in 90 ... and more consistent at the AO than becker ..

Just found it a bit ironical that becker being the better grass court player has 3 grass slams to edberg's 4 and edberg being the better HCer overall has 2 HC slams to becker's 3 ..

Yeah it is funny. I guess it shows stats can be deceiving at times, as much as well all use stats to prove our point.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Becker I would say is better on grass, carpet, or indoors, although not by nearly as much on grass as some would think, and Edberg was better on hard courts (pretty much all types) and clay.

Edberg better than Becker on clay? Are you sure? They only met twice on the surface, and one was Becker beating Edberg in 3 straight sets in the 1988 Davis Cup final, which was also on indoor clay, so maybe that helped Becker. And although Edberg beat Becker to reach the 1989 French Open final, Becker had the most consistent French Open record with 3 semi finals, and all those multiple masters clay-court finals (3 Monte Carlos, 1 Hamburg, 1 Rome).
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
^^

but edberg actually won clay court titles, 3 of them to becker's zero, including a master series in Hamburg ..his win % on clay is slightly higher than becker's as well .
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Edberg was more consistent, but I always felt Becker could bring his best tennis for the big occasion, even though the reverse seemed to be the case in their head-to-head rivalry.

As I said before, though, with Becker, Edberg and Wilander, you can make a very good case for each of them being better than the other two.
 

kiki

Banned
Those 3 can amke their own case.Edberg, fi, beat Wilander in a one sided AO final, in 1985...but Wilander won their USO and AO semifinals in 1988.Both were unable to beat the Becker led German team in the 1989 DC final.

Wilander was the best on clay, Becker on indoors and Edberg on grass...on hard courts, Wilander won two majors, Edberg won two majors and Boris won three majors, but Wilander and Edberg fared much better at venues ( they won it) like Cincinnati or Key Biscaine.it is really entertaining.

Another great trio was Borg/Mc Enroe/Connors.Borg won more majors but never the USO, while the americans never won RG.Mac has a great h2h record against Borg in major finals, Borg dominated Connors in the long term at the majors...while Connors and Mac both defeated each other at a Wimbledon and WCT final.However, the age difference was more signifiant in this case than in the WilBeckberg trio, which adds spice to the discussion.
 

kiki

Banned
Even if tennis history seems to have began in 120 century, there was also a starting generation of players in the 19 th century, just from Wimbledon´s first ever tournament dated 1886 till 1900.It was led by Lottie Dod in the females ranks and the renshaw brothers (Ernie and Willie) as well as the Doherty´s (Kaurie and Reggie) in the male´s ranks.1886-1900 is therefore the first tennis ever generation.
 

SusanDK

Semi-Pro
I know you are keen on sweden tennis.I also liked very much seeing Wilander ( whom I also met personally) and specially Edberg ( one of the best ever S&V´rs and an inmense joy to watch when he was keyed up).But Becker, not only won more majors ( in that time, a WCT/Masters was considered a major) but he also had a great H2H against Mats and Stefen ( including Davis Cup play).

You are right that I have a bias towards Swedish tennis, but can assure you that my ranking of this trio is not based on that. Becker is actually also among my favorite players - very entertaining, exciting, and brought a lot to the decade from mid-80's to mid-90's.

I rank Edberg highest of the three because of his consistency throughout his career, from winning the junior GS in '83 until he retired in '96. I don't have the statistic handy just now, but believe he was in the top 10 for something like 12 years, and in the top 5 for a good portion of his career.

He came closer to winning a career slam with his RG final than either Wilander (never past the QF at Wimbledon) or Becker (never past the SF at RG). Edberg also had 3 GS titles in doubles (to Wilander's one and Becker's none), and paired to win the year end Masters Doubles title twice. He stayed at #1 for more weeks (72) than either Becker (12) or Wilander (20), and was #1 in doubles for 15 weeks.

At the Olympics, Edberg has a gold in singles (exhibition year), plus bronzes in both singles and doubles. Becker has a gold in doubles.

It's never fair to compare based on "what-ifs" but Edberg probably would have won another AO had he not been injuried in his final against Lendl, which would have put him one ahead of Becker and tied with Wilander for 7 majors in singles. Had he done that, plus of course, gotten the French which he was a point or two away from serving for the match, I don't think there would even be a debate about who ranks ahead of the others.

Neither Wilander nor Becker had the consistency of Edberg. I concede that Becker could play exciting, unstoppable tennis at times, and was the better clutch player, however, he was also prone to self-destruct and had a lot of inconsistent performances. Yet his '85 Wimbledon and '86 repeat were legendary. Wilander had his great three-slam year in 1988, plus was a peak player at a very early age (he won 7 majors while age 24 or under), and his achievement at age 17 to win the 1982 French Open over some of the great clay court players at the time was amazing, but he lost interest and went on walk-about, plus only rose to the occasion for big tournaments.

Interestingly, I recently read an article in the Swedish news where they ranked the top Swedish tennis players, and they ranked Borg - Edberg - Wilander as the top 3, in that order.

That is why I give Boris the edge.He also had the greatest potential of the three.Better at the backcourt than Edberg and better at the net than Wilander.But, again, it is a very very clsoe call.

Not sure I agree about greatest potential. I think Edberg is the best athlete among the three, plus had the best footwork, although Wilander's footwork is also excellent. Edberg's volleys are superior to Becker's, but Becker was also a great net player. From the backcourt? Even Becker said that Edberg had a far superior backhand to his, although Becker had the better forehand.

Yes, a very close call. In any case, all three are favorites of mine and I still enjoy watching repeats of any of them play, and I understand why this debate is so close among fans of that era.
 

kiki

Banned
You are right that I have a bias towards Swedish tennis, but can assure you that my ranking of this trio is not based on that. Becker is actually also among my favorite players - very entertaining, exciting, and brought a lot to the decade from mid-80's to mid-90's.

I rank Edberg highest of the three because of his consistency throughout his career, from winning the junior GS in '83 until he retired in '96. I don't have the statistic handy just now, but believe he was in the top 10 for something like 12 years, and in the top 5 for a good portion of his career.

He came closer to winning a career slam with his RG final than either Wilander (never past the QF at Wimbledon) or Becker (never past the SF at RG). Edberg also had 3 GS titles in doubles (to Wilander's one and Becker's none), and paired to win the year end Masters Doubles title twice. He stayed at #1 for more weeks (72) than either Becker (12) or Wilander (20), and was #1 in doubles for 15 weeks.

At the Olympics, Edberg has a gold in singles (exhibition year), plus bronzes in both singles and doubles. Becker has a gold in doubles.

It's never fair to compare based on "what-ifs" but Edberg probably would have won another AO had he not been injuried in his final against Lendl, which would have put him one ahead of Becker and tied with Wilander for 7 majors in singles. Had he done that, plus of course, gotten the French which he was a point or two away from serving for the match, I don't think there would even be a debate about who ranks ahead of the others.

Neither Wilander nor Becker had the consistency of Edberg. I concede that Becker could play exciting, unstoppable tennis at times, and was the better clutch player, however, he was also prone to self-destruct and had a lot of inconsistent performances. Yet his '85 Wimbledon and '86 repeat were legendary. Wilander had his great three-slam year in 1988, plus was a peak player at a very early age (he won 7 majors while age 24 or under), and his achievement at age 17 to win the 1982 French Open over some of the great clay court players at the time was amazing, but he lost interest and went on walk-about, plus only rose to the occasion for big tournaments.

Interestingly, I recently read an article in the Swedish news where they ranked the top Swedish tennis players, and they ranked Borg - Edberg - Wilander as the top 3, in that order.



Not sure I agree about greatest potential. I think Edberg is the best athlete among the three, plus had the best footwork, although Wilander's footwork is also excellent. Edberg's volleys are superior to Becker's, but Becker was also a great net player. From the backcourt? Even Becker said that Edberg had a far superior backhand to his, although Becker had the better forehand.

Yes, a very close call. In any case, all three are favorites of mine and I still enjoy watching repeats of any of them play, and I understand why this debate is so close among fans of that era.

Yes, a really difficult debate.I could, at any moment, bring arguments for each of the three and so would you.We have to broaden our minds, always carrying in mind that they were separated by a hair or two.

Wilander and Becker were very young ( 17) when they won their first major,Edberg was more of a late blossomer, even if he was ¡ JUST 19¡ when he got the 1985 Ao title, beating both Wilander and Lendl.a guy at 19 seemingly late blossomer¡¡¡ it´s kinda weird.

Wilander was, clearly, the best at the backcourt, even if he lacked a winning shot like Edberg´s BH and Becker´s Fh and also BH return.Becker was not too consistent, but he was the guy that could go for the winner; Edberg was not a good returner and Mats was good because of his excelent footwork, but not because of his shots.

Of course, Stefan is one of the best ever volleyers.Terrific.Becker could be both deadly but laso, didn´t move as well as the Sweden, so he was passable much more often.Wilander was a pretty good net man, he learned to come to the net and seldom missed a volley.But, of course, the net game was not the foundation of his game, as it was for the other two, and it was a complementary range that, when he mastered it, allowed him win 3 out of 4 slams.neither Becker, neither Edberg had a similar year like Wilander in 88, although the level of play of Becker in 89 and Edberg in 90-91 was even higher, IMO.

So, as you can see, the more you think about it, the most difficult it gets.Based on his dominance indoors, I had picked Becker.neither Wilande ron clay, neither Edberg on grass were as dominant as Boris indoors.That is why I picked him over the 2 swedes, and because of his 88 year, I tend to lean on Wilander against Edberg, who finishes the third...and you know what, Edberg was my favourite player to watch out of the 3...I think it is a psychiatric case.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
I take Lendl for the 80s over McEnroe. Way more consistency and insane streaks.

For the #2 in the 90s it's tempting to pick Courier but Agassi's 99 puts him ahead. Still though Agassi's top YE finishes for the decade are #1, #2x2 and #4. Insane he finished #3 at 18 in 88. Courier has #1, 2, 3 in 3 consecutive seasons but Agassi just has more volume. Hard to argue peaks though.

We have one more seasons for this decade and it might be an interesting finish. I know it's 13-11 for Novak and I do think he has it locked up for #1 but Fed coming up who the hell knows. Obviously people will say 11>5 but let's assume Fed wins AO and WMB even though he's not favoured for either let's just take that at face value:

AO: Federer 4>0 Nadal
FO: Nadal 7>0 Federer
WMB: Federer 3>1 Nadal
USO: Nadal 3>0 Federer
WTF: Federer 2>0 Nadal

Nadal has 150 weeks at #1 for the decade and he's not adding more to that. Federer is also stuck at 48 which looks bad but that's why you have Fed winning 2 WTFs over Nadal with 3 additional Finals there.

IW: Fed 2>1
Miami: Fed 1>0
Rome: Nad 4>0
Cin: Fed 4>1

Tilts slightly in Fed's favour for the big Masters titles. Then it really comes down to what people value if it's consistency or peak.

Slam Semifinals: Federer 19>18 Nadal right now, in the above scenario I guess we add 2 more for Fed.
 

brystone

Semi-Pro
1950s women: Connolly 1st, Hart 2nd
1960s women: Court 1st, Bueno 2nd (tough choice between Bueno and King)
1970s women: Evert 1st, Court 2nd (tough choice between Court, King, and Goolagong)
1980s women: Navratilova 1st, Graf 2nd (tough choice again between Graf and Evert)
1990s women: Graf 1st, Hingis 2nd (tough choice between Seles and Hingis)
2000s women: Serena 1st, Henin 2nd (tough choice beween Henin and Venus)
2010s women: Serena 1st, Kerber 2nd (tough choice between Kerber and Azarenka)

The womens was hard to do, 1st was easy for every decade but 2nd was hard for every decade.

Men:

1950s men: Gonzales 1st, Rosewall 2nd
1960s men: Laver 1st, Rosewall 2nd
1970s men: Borg 1st, Connors 2nd. Considering just the decade it is actually very close between Borg and Connors though.
1980s men: McEnroe 1st, Lendl 2nd. Close between McEnroe and Lendl, career wise I probably have Lendl a bit ahead, but just this decade I would probably go with McEnroe for his amazing 81 and 84, and his epic rivalry with Borg.
1990s men: Sampras 1st, Agassi 2nd
2000s men: Federer 1st, Nadal 2nd
2010s men: Djokovic 1st, Nadal 2nd
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
1950s women: Connolly 1st, Hart 2nd
1960s women: Court 1st, Bueno 2nd (tough choice between Bueno and King)
1970s women: Evert 1st, Court 2nd (tough choice between Court, King, and Goolagong)
1980s women: Navratilova 1st, Graf 2nd (tough choice again between Graf and Evert)
1990s women: Graf 1st, Hingis 2nd (tough choice between Seles and Hingis)
2000s women: Serena 1st, Henin 2nd (tough choice beween Henin and Venus)
2010s women: Serena 1st, Kerber 2nd (tough choice between Kerber and Azarenka)

The womens was hard to do, 1st was easy for every decade but 2nd was hard for every decade.

Men:

1950s men: Gonzales 1st, Rosewall 2nd
1960s men: Laver 1st, Rosewall 2nd
1970s men: Borg 1st, Connors 2nd. Considering just the decade it is actually very close between Borg and Connors though.
1980s men: McEnroe 1st, Lendl 2nd. Close between McEnroe and Lendl, career wise I probably have Lendl a bit ahead, but just this decade I would probably go with McEnroe for his amazing 81 and 84, and his epic rivalry with Borg.
1990s men: Sampras 1st, Agassi 2nd
2000s men: Federer 1st, Nadal 2nd
2010s men: Djokovic 1st, Nadal 2nd
Rosewall never reached number one in the fifties.

Or even number two.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
I would reverse Lendl and McEnroe if only because Lendl's consistency was higher than McEnroe from year to year, . . .
(y)

World no. 1
1980—Borg(4)
1981—McEnroe
1982—Connors(3)
1983—McEnroe/Wilander
1984—McEnroe(3)
1985—Lendl
1986—Lendl
1987—Lendl
1988—Wilander
1989—Becker/Lendl(4)

Lendl - 4
McEnroe - 3
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Fair point. Half decades then:

First Half 20s: Best women Lenglen, 2nd best women Mallorey. Best man Bill Tilden, 2nd best man Bill Johnson

Second Half 20s: Best women Helen Wills Moody, 2nd best women Lenglen. Best man Rene LaCoste, 2nd Best man Henri Cochet

First Half 30s: Best man Elsworth Vines, 2nd best man Jack Crawford. Best women, Best women Helen Wills Moody, 2nd best women Helen Jacobs

Second Half 30s: Best man Donald Budge, 2nd best man Fred Perry. Best women Alice Marble, 2nd best women Helen Wills Moody

First Half 40s: Best man Donald Budge, 2nd best man Bobby Riggs. Best women Pauline Betz, 2nd best women Sarah Palfrey

Second Half 40s: Best man Jack Kramer, 2nd best man Bobby Riggs. Best women Margaret Osborne Du Pont, 2nd best women Louise Brough

First Half 50s: Best man Jack Kramer, 2nd best man Pancho Gonzalez. Best women Maureen Connolly, 2nd best women Doris Hart

Second Half 50s: Best man Pancho Gonzales, 2nd best man Lew Hoad. Best women Shirley Fry, 2nd best women Althea Gibson

First Half 60s: Best man Ken Rosewall, 2nd best man Rod Laver. Best women
Margaret Court, 2nd best women Maria Bueno

Second Half 60s: Best man Rod Laver, 2nd best man Ken Rosewall. Best women Billie Jean King, 2nd best women Margaret Court

First Half 70s: Best man John Newcombe, 2nd best man Jimmy Connors. Best women Margaret Court, 2nd best women Billie Jean King

Second Half 70s: Best man Bjorn Borg, 2nd best man Jimmy Connors. Best women Chris Evert, 2nd best women Evonne Goolagong

First Half 80s: Best man John McEnroe, 2nd best man Bjorn Borg, Best women
Martina Navratilova, 2nd Best women Chris Evert

Second Half 80s: Best man Ivan Lendl, 2nd best man Boris Becker. Best women Steffi Graf, 2nd best women Martina Navratilova

First Half 90s: Best man Pete Sampras, 2nd best man Jim Courier. Best women Steffi Graf, 2nd best women Monica Seles.

Second Half 90s: Best man Pete Sampras, 2nd best man Andre Agassi. Best women Steffi Graf, 2nd best women Martina Hingis.

First Half 2000s: Best man Roger Federer, 2nd best man Lleyton Hewitt. Best women Serena Williams, 2nd best women Venus Williams.

Second Half 2000s: Best man Roger Federer, 2nd best man Rafael Nadal. Best women Justine Henin, 2nd best women Serena Williams.
I see the Best Men......but no Grooms.
 
Last edited:

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Becker was clearly #1 in 1989, regardless of the rankings. I am fine with giving Lendl #1 for the 80s but it sure isnt because he supposably had a 4th year as the best player in 1989.
Interesting.

Lendl won the AO plus nine other tournaments. The ATP ranked him no. 1 from 30 Jan. 1989 throughout the entire year until 12 Aug 1990 (80 weeks). He was also runner-up at the USO and Tokyo.

Becker won Wimbledon and the USO plus three other tournaments (Milan, Philadelphia, Paris). He was runner-up at Monte Carlo and the YEC. Becker was not ranked no. 1 at all during 1989. (He did become no. 1 for three weeks in 1991.)
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
The last ATP rankings for 1989 came out on 18 Dec, and listed Lendl as no. 1, Becker as no. 2, Edberg as no. 3, Mac at 4, and Chang at 5. (I do not see point totals.)
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
1960s Laver, then Rosewall
70's Connors, then Borg
80's Lendl, then McEnroe
90's Sampras, then Agassi
00's Federer, then Nadal
10's Djokovic, then Nadal
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Interesting.

Lendl won the AO plus nine other tournaments. The ATP ranked him no. 1 from 30 Jan. 1989 throughout the entire year until 12 Aug 1990 (80 weeks). He was also runner-up at the USO and Tokyo.

Becker won Wimbledon and the USO plus three other tournaments (Milan, Philadelphia, Paris). He was runner-up at Monte Carlo and the YEC. Becker was not ranked no. 1 at all during 1989. (He did become no. 1 for three weeks in 1991.)
This tells me that the ATP points rankings do not necessarily give us the best player.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
This tells me that the ATP points rankings do not necessarily give us the best player.
Perhaps.
It could be another example also (somewhat like 1970) where a player with the most slam wins does not necessarily win much else, and another player with fewer slam victories wins alot more elsewhere. We, in distant hindsight, see mainly the slam winners and wonder what gives?

I do wonder how many points the ATP awarded in 1989 for each of the slams. Was it less than now?
 
Last edited:
Top