In the 1990s, no player had a season win/loss % above 90%, why do you think was?

M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
In the 1970s, a player had a win/loss % above 90% in:
1974 - Jimmy Connors -
1975 - Jimmy Connors
1976 - Jimmy Connors
1977 - Bjorn Borg, Guillermo Vilas
1978 - Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg
1979 - Bjorn Borg

In the 1980s, a player had a win/loss above 90% in:
1980 - Bjorn Borg
1982 - Ivan Lendl
1984 - John McEnroe
1985 - Ivan Lendl
1986 - Ivan Lendl
1987 - Ivan Lendl
1989 - Ivan Lendl

In the 2000s, a player had a win/loss above 90% in:
2004 - Federer
2005 - Federer
2006 - Federer

In the 2010s, a player had a win/loss above 90% in:
2011 - Djokovic
2013 - Nadal
2015 - Djokovic
 
When conditions don't favor different players (or groups of players) on different surfaces, you expect the best players to dominate everywhere.

This is obviously the case in the post-2002 homogenization world. That's why you have a tiny handful of players collecting all the slams -- because you'd expect the same guys to be successful on hardcourts, grass, or clay. And that's what we see.

Less obvious is that this was the case in the wood racquet era, as well, when the racquets didn't allow for the sort of power differential or spin production that would make one game style versus another disproportionally successful on fast courts or slow ones. You'd see competing strategies, but any strategy could (and did) work on any surface, so the best players still tended to prevail wherever they went.

It was only during the era AFTER graphite racquets came about, and BEFORE homogenization, polys, and extreme grips, that totally different styles of play dominated on the different surfaces. That started to be the case in the 80's, but the effect was tempered. Why? Because there were no pros on tour who had spent their whole lives training with powerful graphite racquets yet, so they weren't quite so adept at the different specialties as they would become in the next generation. Mac, Lendl, et al were playing wood racquet tennis -- they were just playing it with graphite racquets.

By the late 80's, you were seeing juniors who had mastered the play of graphite racquets entering the pro ranks, and they became either fast- or slow-court specialists, mostly, because that's what the combination of technology, training, and surface differences mandated. That era, nobody ever completely dominated the calendar year start-to-finish, because it was an impossibility. The best you could do was maximize your game for fast courts (since two of the four slams were played on very fast surfaces), and hope to win a little bit here and there in Australia and the slower Spring HC season.

Those days are, of course, gone. We're now back to circumstances that allow the best player on ANY surface to be the best player on EVERY surface. That's why we see one strategy, massive Slam trophy accumulations, and mind-numbingly boring tennis tournament after tournament. It's also why comparing eras by number of Slams marks a person as a nitwit who doesn't understand the history of the game he's trying to evaluate in historical terms.
 
Last edited:
Court surfaces............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 
Let's see who won GS' in the 90's..Lendl, Sampras, Edberg, Agassi, Bruguera, Krajicek, Rafter, Stich, Courier, Becker, Muster, Kuerten, Kafelnikov, Moyà, Korda.,,some big names, deep. Look at all of the SV players. SV players won more than half of the GS's in the 90's. To win a GS in the 90's you had to beat baseline players and SV players, it's difficult, more difficult than just beating one style of player. I think that is why there wasn't a 90% winner, different styles and lots of big name players in the 90's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Aretium said:
Court surfaces............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Click to expand...
and add slower balls and the Selfie and online addiction

END OF THREAD
 
Inconsistency. Much less training than today.

And remember, they played against other top players much less than today. And still they couldn't win consistently.
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
In the 1970s, a player had a win/loss % above 90% in:
1974 - Jimmy Connors -
1975 - Jimmy Connors
1976 - Jimmy Connors
1977 - Bjorn Borg, Guillermo Vilas
1978 - Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg
1979 - Bjorn Borg

In the 1980s, a player had a win/loss above 90% in:
1980 - Bjorn Borg
1982 - Ivan Lendl
1984 - John McEnroe
1985 - Ivan Lendl
1986 - Ivan Lendl
1987 - Ivan Lendl
1989 - Ivan Lendl

In the 2000s, a player had a win/loss above 90% in:
2004 - Federer
2005 - Federer
2006 - Federer

In the 2010s, a player had a win/loss above 90% in:
2011 - Djokovic
2013 - Nadal
2015 - Djokovic
Click to expand...
1982 - Ivan Lendl:eek:

Late 90's was decidely weak any way you slice it.

For the rest of the 1990's, Agassi was inconsistent. Sampras was Sampras and a slam oriented player. Young Courier, old Edberg, old Becker were not up to the task. You've basically constructed a lost of ATGs here and Agassi and Sampras just weren't interested in dominating everything in the 1990's.
 
The 90s was the peak of tennis. I'm convinced of that now.

People look at the star power lately with the Big 3 but you had more appeal to different wealth classes from 85-95 for sure.

Surface specialists too.

Just go look at the Top 20 rankings for 87-93.
 
That Sampras won Cinci only twice in his career shows that Masters or non-slam hards was never a priority for him. Also, his winning only 11 masters and 14 slams meant he would not be dominating any slam. In fact, Pete never won even 3 slams in a year either. Surface homogenization apart, Pete was not dominant enough on hard courts as Fed on Grass and Hards, or Nole, or like Nadal on clay.
 
GabeT said:
Inconsistency. Much less training than today.

And remember, they played against other top players much less than today. And still they couldn't win consistently.
Click to expand...
whaaaaaaaaaa?

and how do you gather that the top guys played each other less?
 
BGod said:
The 90s was the peak of tennis. I'm convinced of that now.

People look at the star power lately with the Big 3 but you had more appeal to different wealth classes from 85-95 for sure.

Surface specialists too.

Just go look at the Top 20 rankings for 87-93.
Click to expand...

I don't know about peak but it was probably the most difficult era to dominate the entire field for reasons Tupelo has explained well. On the other hand, Sampras had a blast in the second half of the season. The only problem is it wasn't enough to offset his losses on clay. The three non clay court specialists who won French Open in the 90s - Courier, Agassi and Kafelnikov - were baseliners and it was near impossible for a baseliner to win Wimbledon in the 90s. Had Wimbledon bounce been increased in the 90s itself, we would have seen more baseliners break into the second half of the season. Already by late 90s, they began making more inroads (though Sampras still walloped Agassi in the 99 final). The same Agassi did not fear Sampras at all on slow hard and it was Sampras who looked tentative when he took him on at AO. That was the extent to which surface differences affected match ups.
 
The stark difference in speed of surfaces combined with emerging racquet technology. Servebots began to take over grass and fast hard, while grinders stopped them in their tracks on clay. Nowadays people have adjusted and honed their game to be used on all surfaces.
 
Navdeep Srivastava said:
Because Sampras was the only good enough to do that but his bad record at clay didn't allowed 90%.
Click to expand...

Even if we completely discount clay, Sampras wouldn’t be over 90 % in any year.

Here are his results on grass, hardcourt and carpet combined during his career:

1988: 10-9 (52,6 %)
1989: 16-16 (50,0 %)
1990: 51-16 (76,1 %)
1991: 49-16 (75,4 %)
1992: 50-11 (82,0 %)
1993: 71-12 (85,5 %)
1994: 65-10 (86,7 %)
1995: 65-11 (85,5 %)
1996: 60-8 (88,2 %)
1997: 53-8 (86,9 %)
1998: 52-14 (78,8 %) - and still Number One for that year!
1999: 36-5 (87,8 %)
2000: 40-9 (81,6 %)
2001: 32-12 (72,7 %)
2002: 22-11 (66,7 %)
Summary: 672-168 (80,0 %)

It is a myth that Sampras was ever really dominant apart from Wimbledon. And maybe apart from the 1st half of 1994 when he actually seemed to be unbeatable, but only for a few months (86,7 % overall off clay still isn’t close to the dominance of Federer or Djokovic and even behind Nadal’s 2013!)

It’s also staggering how mediocre Sampras was (again apart from Wimbledon) after 1997. Remember he was only 26 then. And after Wimbledon 2000 it was literally over for him, at turning 29! It was great that he had his last hurrah als the US Open 2002, but it was his first ATP title since Wimbledon 2000. If we consider Sampras’ results during those 26 months, even Nadal’s decline doesn’t look so dramatic.

However, all that doesn’t change one bit that Sampras is by far my favourite player of the 90s.
 
skip1969 said:
whaaaaaaaaaa?

and how do you gather that the top guys played each other less?
Click to expand...
Data is available online. For example Nole has played 257 matches against top 10 players, and won 68.5% of them. Sampras was 195 and 64.6% respectively. McEnroe was 146 and 56.9%.

Mandatory masters changed tennis enormously. A lot of the tournaments top players won back in the 70s and 80s today we would consider 250s or even less, with less chance of meeting other top players. And players in the past were much less consistent.
 
Last edited:
GabeT said:
Data is available online. For example Nole has played 257 matches against top 10 players, and won 68.5% of them. Sampras was 195 and 64.6% respectively. McEnroe was 146 and 56.9%.

Mandatory masters changed tennis enormously. A lot of the tournaments top players participated and win back in the 70s and 80s today we would consider 250s or even less, with less chance of meeting other top players. And players in the past were much less consistent.
Click to expand...
When Novak defeated Monfils he was rank 8 in the live rankings.... Wawrinka is rank 3 in live rankings?
 
ChrisRF said:
Even if we completely discount clay, Sampras wouldn’t be over 90 % in any year.

Here are his results on grass, hardcourt and carpet combined during his career:

1988: 10-9 (52,6 %)
1989: 16-16 (50,0 %)
1990: 51-16 (76,1 %)
1991: 49-16 (75,4 %)
1992: 50-11 (82,0 %)
1993: 71-12 (85,5 %)
1994: 65-10 (86,7 %)
1995: 65-11 (85,5 %)
1996: 60-8 (88,2 %)
1997: 53-8 (86,9 %)
1998: 52-14 (78,8 %) - and still Number One for that year!
1999: 36-5 (87,8 %)
2000: 40-9 (81,6 %)
2001: 32-12 (72,7 %)
2002: 22-11 (66,7 %)
Summary: 672-168 (80,0 %)

It is a myth that Sampras was ever really dominant apart from Wimbledon. And maybe apart from the 1st half of 1994 when he actually seemed to be unbeatable, but only for a few months (86,7 % overall off clay still isn’t close to the dominance of Federer or Djokovic and even behind Nadal’s 2013!)

It’s also staggering how mediocre Sampras was (again apart from Wimbledon) after 1997. Remember he was only 26 then. And after Wimbledon 2000 it was literally over for him, at turning 29! It was great that he had his last hurrah als the US Open 2002, but it was his first ATP title since Wimbledon 2000. If we consider Sampras’ results during those 26 months, even Nadal’s decline doesn’t look so dramatic.

However, all that doesn’t change one bit that Sampras is by far my favourite player of the 90s.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the fair and stat-based analysis.
That's the kind of thing of great post I hope for every day on this forum.
 
Meles said:
1982 - Ivan Lendl:eek:

Late 90's was decidely weak any way you slice it.

For the rest of the 1990's, Agassi was inconsistent. Sampras was Sampras and a slam oriented player. Young Courier, old Edberg, old Becker were not up to the task. You've basically constructed a lost of ATGs here and Agassi and Sampras just weren't interested in dominating everything in the 1990's.
Click to expand...

You are simply wrong. The 90's had more SV players than the '80's and 2000's. SV players won more than half of all the Slams in the 90's. The variety of playing styles made it more difficult to dominate. What worked against Agassi probably wouldn't work against Rafter, etc. Today, you only need to beat one baseline player after another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The fact that we had 90% seasons in the last years is even more remarkable when you consider that the top-10 players face each other more than in the past.

We didn't have 90% seasons in the 90's because there were simply no players of the calibre of Federer or Djokovic. Who also were much more consistent at slams than any 90s players (for example Federer and Djokovic in their best years reached nearly every slam semifinal at least).
 
Hyde said:
The fact that we had 90% seasons in the last years is even more remarkable when you consider that the top-10 players face each other more than in the past.

We didn't have 90% seasons in the 90's because there were simply no players of the calibre of Federer or Djokovic. Who also were much more consistent at slams than any 90s players (for example Federer and Djokovic in their best years reached nearly every slam semifinal at least).
Click to expand...

You are making my point for me....of course Fed or Djokovic were more consistent...they only have to beat one style of player....a baseline player. Beat baseline player, wash rinse repeat. Same thing, over and over and over. The game has been homogenized, less difference in playing style, less variety, hard court and grass are both slower. The game is much more predictable, not bad or good, it's just a fact.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I would throw into the mix McEnroe's and Wilander's comments over the past few days about modern players. We have known for a long time many of them give in at the slightest hint of trouble. I am happy to name names; Berdych, Monfils, Dimitrov, Almagro, Kyrgios, Tomic, and others. Warwinka managed to save himself because Magnus Norman got into his head and persuaded him to train much harder, his agent Lawrence Frankopan has told of their first training, Stan couldn't believe it but Magnus told Lawrence that was just normal for him.

I remember how they used to talk about Rafter's guts and determination. Even times when he was getting hammered by Sampras or Agassi, he would still be trying.

In today's climate, I think it is easier for top players' to post these percentages. Of course, McEnroe is a Maniac has got you lot worked up again. He disappears for two weeks to a month and comes up with more rubbish each time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dr7
Laurie said:
I would throw into the mix McEnroe's and Wilander's comments over the past few days about modern players. We have known for a long time many of them give in at the slightest hint of trouble. I am happy to name names; Berdych, Monfils, Dimitrov, Almagro, Kyrgios, Tomic, and others. Warwinka managed to save himself because Magnus Norman got into his head and persuaded him to train much harder, his agent Lawrence Frankopan has told of their first training, Stan couldn't believe it but Magnus told Lawrence that was just normal for him.

I remember how they used to talk about Rafter's guts and determination. Even times when he was getting hammered by Sampras or Agassi, he would still be trying.

In today's climate, I think it is easier for top players' to post these percentages. Of course, McEnroe is a Maniac has got you lot worked up again. He disappears for two weeks to a month and comes up with more rubbish each time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, from the non big four (plus Stan) only Ferrer has consistently shown that quality, to keep fighting and never yield even in match ups where he is overwhelmingly disadvantaged. Hewitt also had that never say die attitude. On the other hand, Agassi had a millionaire's attitude without which perhaps he may have won more slams. 90s had all sorts of characters, a very interesting era albeit not suited to the needs of TV programming.
 
ChrisRF said:
It is a myth that Sampras was ever really dominant apart from Wimbledon. And maybe apart from the 1st half of 1994 when he actually seemed to be unbeatable, but only for a few months (86,7 % overall off clay still isn’t close to the dominance of Federer or Djokovic and even behind Nadal’s 2013!)
Click to expand...

Well, 4 of 7 US opens from 1990 to 1996 would count for something, I reckon. Esp when you consider Edberg nicked two in the middle and a third went to Agassi. All worthy winners, in other words.

All told, Sampras had notched 8 slams between 1990 and 96. Nobody since Borg had won so many slams so fast. Ok, Lendl did but Sampras was AWOL in 91-92 so 7 of his 8 slams came in just 4 years from 93 to 96. And this was in the strong half of the 90s. In the weak second half, Sampras himself was on the wane and unable to capitalise. But for his thalassemia condition and Annacone pushing him to S&V, maybe Sampras would have had more slams by the time he was done. It was not to be. This ties in with the point Tupelo was making. We are comparing Sampras to the Big Three and berating his 'mediocrity' but compared to past champions, Sampras was a domination machine. What does it say about the tennis audience if they don't mind Federer or Djokovic winning everything in sight for years at a stretch but objected to Sampras making everything boring? That we are both confused and very susceptible to marketing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dr7
RacquetAbuse101 said:
Depth of field.
Click to expand...

Depth_of_field_photography_cheat_sheet.jpg
 
pete would have gotten there in 94 had he not gotten injured. Agassi might have in 95 had he not mailed it in after USO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

5555
Djokovic clinches the year-end No. 1
Replies
33
Views
4K
glazkovss
glazkovss
T
Can Nadal maintains a 90+ winning percentage for the rest of the 2022 ?
2
Replies
62
Views
3K
Sudacafan
Sudacafan
RF-18
What does this list say?
Replies
34
Views
3K
xFedal
xFedal
Hops
Game W% at slams
Replies
0
Views
813
Hops
Hops
yellowoctopus
US Open Champions and their backhands
Replies
5
Views
2K
yellowoctopus
yellowoctopus
Back
Top