Tier 1 players from Sampras' Era

[THE FIGHTER]

What if Pistol Pete had to contend with another tier 1 player during his generation?

Is there merit in saying that if he only managed 14 majors in an era with no real tier 1 player aside himself among his contemporaries, it wouldnt be as impressive as if Nadal were to win is 14th—considering he had to contend with the highest of tiered players in Federer?


It could be argued that Pete was just so good, he made his contemporaries look bad. if pete was slightly less of a player, it may have allowed the second greatest from his generation, Dre, to balance out the slam count between them, thus fabricating the perception that both are tier 1 players with around 11 slams each.

On the other hand, can't it be said that act of redistributing slams between Andre and Pete to produce two tier 1 players make Federer and Nadal's achievements so much more impressive? Federer's 17 and Nadal's 13 would look awfully good compared to Emerson's 12 and Borg, Laver, Sampras, and Agassi's 11.food for thought

 

[NatF]

Pete didn't have a consistant rival, especially one on the level of Nadal to deny him slams. Andre was MIA for most of Pete's peak years, he only showed up at the end of 94 through 95 then after 99 when Pete was already declining.

This talk of Pete dominating a strong era is a load of BS.

 

[JRAJ1988]

Was Agassi considered tier 1? Becker gave Pete a good run for his money at Wimbledon, was Boris a tier 1?

 

[NatF]

Becker won his last Wimbledon 4 years before Pete won his...he was still a great grasscourter for sure but he most certainly wasn't at his peak or near it.

 

[helloworld]

Becker won his last Wimbledon 4 years before Pete won his...he was still a great grasscourter for sure but he most certainly wasn't at his peak or near it.

No, Becker couldn't win Wimbledon in the 90s because Sampras was clearly better than him, not because his level of play dropped. He was still going deep in the tournament, but lost to Sampras too many times.

 

[dominikk1985]

Was Agassi considered tier 1? Becker gave Pete a good run for his money at Wimbledon, was Boris a tier 1?

I would consider at least double digit slam winners Tier 1.

agassi might be close because of the career slam but boris certainly was not a tier 1 great.

clear tier 1 greats are IMO Fed, nadal, pete, laver and borg. not sure about emerson because of his era.

 

[paulorenzo]

Was Agassi considered tier 1? Becker gave Pete a good run for his money at Wimbledon, was Boris a tier 1?

I dont think the OP is asking if there were any other Tier 1 greats in Sampras's era, since there clearly wasnt anyone as dominant.

I think she's saying that Nadal and Federer had to face Tier 1 greats in each other and still have impressive resumes, and is asking if Sampras is the calibre of player to be able to do the same thing—considering he has only 1 more slam than Nadal, but didn't have to face another Tier 1 player.

 

[NatF]

No, Becker couldn't win Wimbledon in the 90s because Sampras was clearly better than him, not because his level of play dropped. He was still going deep in the tournament, but lost to Sampras too many times.

10 years after his first slam win his level of play hadn't dropped? He was beaten by Sampras 3 times at Wimbledon. Clearly in 1997 he was well past his prime, you ony have to look at his results to see it. In 1993 he dropped out of the top 10 lol. So yes that was peak Becker Sampras was facing...

 

[aldeayeah]

Nadal's game matches up very well with Fed's, so even with Fed out of the picture, I don't think Nadal would have won many more slams. One more, maybe?

 

[Russeljones]

Only people who watched a minimum of tennis during Pete's career would denigrate the quality of his opposition.

 

[NatF]

Only people who watched a minimum of tennis during Pete's career would denigrate the quality of his opposition.

The early 90's was great, the latter 90's not so much.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I think it balances out because, whilst not having other "tier 1" players as rivals, he probably had better opposition in the top 50 as a whole. And because the surfaces were more polarized than nowadays, it was difficult for any "specialist" to become a tier 1 player, even though he could win multiple Slams. There are a couple of very good players whose only Slam victories came at Roland-Garros, such as Bruguera and Kuerten. Imagine, if Nadal had only won on clay, his tally would still equal Agassi's. In fact, this is very interesting: the winners of the French Open in the 90's rarely did well in other Slams, with the exception of Courier and Kafelnikov (both at the Australian).

 

[TheTruth]

Only people who watched a minimum of tennis during Pete's career would denigrate the quality of his opposition.

Agreed.....

 

[TheTruth]

I[think it balances out because, whilst not having other "tier 1" players as rivals, he probably had better opposition in the top 50 as a whole. And because the surfaces were more polarized than nowadays, it was difficult for any "specialist" to become a tier 1 player, even though he could win multiple Slams. There are a couple of very good players whose only Slam victories came at Roland-Garros, such as Bruguera and Kuerten. Imagine, if Nadal had only won on clay, his tally would still equal Agassi's. In fact, this is very interesting: the winners of the French Open in the 90's rarely did well in other Slams, with the exception of Courier and Kafelnikov (both at the Australian).

That's for sure. All of them played, regardless of their ranking.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

That's for sure. All of them played, regardless of their ranking.

The equation "being a favourite at a Slam/being hopeless at another Slam" simply doesn't exist nowadays. If you're a favourite to win one Slam, you're automatically a favourite to win every Slam. This fundamental difference between eras changes everything. In matches where a top ranked player (let's say top 10) faced a lower ranked surface specialist on his favourite surface, I remember commentators (and myself) thinking that the lower ranked player was actually the favourite to win the match (eg. Sampras vs Kafelnikov on clay; Bruguera vs Siemerink on carpet). This doesn't happen nowadays, where the top ranked player is always the overwhelming favourite to win the match, independently of the surface.

 

[bluetrain4]

I would consider at least double digit slam winners Tier 1.

agassi might be close because of the career slam but boris certainly was not a tier 1 great.

clear tier 1 greats are IMO Fed, nadal, pete, laver and borg. not sure about emerson because of his era.

If these are your Tier 1s and beating other Tier 1s so important to a player's Slam total legitimacy, then isn't everyone screwed except Nadal and Fed? Borg didn't have to consistently play any other of your Tier 1s.

 

[Crose]

The equation "being a favourite at a Slam/being hopeless at another Slam" simply doesn't exist nowadays. If you're a favourite to win one Slam, you're automatically a favourite to win every Slam. This fundamental difference between eras changes everything. In matches where a top ranked player (let's say top 10) faced a lower ranked surface specialist on his favourite surface, I remember commentators (and myself) thinking that the lower ranked player was actually the favourite to win the match (eg. Sampras vs Kafelnikov on clay; Bruguera vs Siemerink on carpet). This doesn't happen nowadays, where the top ranked player is always the overwhelming favourite to win the match, independently of the surface.

When you have the current GOAT, the potential GOAT, and another potential tier 1 great in the same era ALONG with another potential tier 2 great, it becomes pretty natural for most of everyone else on tour to become hopeless.

It's sad, really, but the truth is that Djokovic, Nadal, Federer (not so much lately), and Murray are just way too good. 3 tier 1 greats (2 clear-cut and 1 potential) in one era is just unfair for the rest of the tour.

 

[bluetrain4]

When you have the current GOAT, the potential GOAT, and another potential tier 1 great in the same era ALONG with another potential tier 2 great, it becomes pretty natural for most of everyone else on tour to become hopeless.

It's sad, really, but the truth is that Djokovic, Nadal, Federer (not so much lately), and Murray are just way too good. 3 tier 1 greats (2 clear-cut and 1 potential) in one era is just unfair for the rest of the tour.

Djokovic is already what most people would call a tennis "great". But, by the OP's standards, not even close to Tier 1 yet.

 

[tennisaddict]

Who were the good players for the 6 years between 1995-2000 ?

IMO, it is the worst period ever.

 

[Crose]

Djokovic is already what most people would call a tennis "great". But, by the OP's standards, not even close to Tier 1 yet.

I think Djokovic has 4-5 slams left in him, as well as another stint at #1. If he ends up with 10-11 slams, around 140-150 weeks at #1, 18-20+ masters, I think that's a tier 1 caliber resume considering he played against Fedal and Murray. If he ever wins RG along with the previously mentioned resume, I think he's tier 1 without a doubt.

 

[mawashi]

What's interesting is how some old farts still think the current era is weak.

They will say how Borg would have destroyed Rafa or Pete will out served Djokovic etc etc. Cus of modern technology, poly graphite bla bla bla

What they fail to understand is the new breed are as talented as any of these past heroes and if they were brought up in eras of wood or anything else for that matter would just as easily adopted a style that would be just as dangerous as their current game.

Put a tier 1 vs another tier one in a certain era and you'll get a competition that's just as fierce as Nadal vs Fed.

 

[Crose]

What's interesting is how some old farts still think the current era is weak.

They will say how Borg would have destroyed Rafa or Pete will out served Djokovic etc etc. Cus of modern technology, poly graphite bla bla bla

What they fail to understand is the new breed are as talented as any of these past heroes and if they were brought up in eras of wood or anything else for that matter would just as easily adopted a style that would be just as dangerous as their current game.

Put a tier 1 vs another tier one in a certain era and you'll get a competition that's just as fierce as Nadal vs Fed.

This is the argument that everyone fails to see.

The people who claim that Nadal or Djokovic are only a product of their equipment..they ignore that greatness transcends equipment. Of course if you took them as they are right now and switched out their racquets with wooden racquets, they'd be less effective obviously. But that's just an unfair argument, considering they've played their entire career with something else. If they grew up on wooden racquets, and played their entire career that way, they would've adapted and been just as great.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I think Djokovic has 4-5 slams left in him, as well as another stint at #1. If he ends up with 10-11 slams, around 140-150 weeks at #1, 18-20+ masters, I think that's a tier 1 caliber resume considering he played against Fedal and Murray. If he ever wins RG along with the previously mentioned resume, I think he's tier 1 without a doubt.

Doesn't it strike you as odd how easily this era seems to generate tier 1 players? Of course, it could be that they're all exceptional, and that's certainly part of the explanation. But I think it could also be a characteristic or a by-product of the way tennis is played nowadays.

 

[NatF]

Doesn't it strike you as odd how easily this era seems to generate tier 1 players? Of course, it could be that they're all exceptional, and that's certainly part of the explanation. But I think it could also be a characteristic or a by-product of the way tennis is played nowadays.

It's not that odd really, there's Federer and then there's Nadal. If Andre Agassi had been dedicated in his early-mid 20's there could have been two in the 90's as well. In the 70's/80's you had McEnroe, Borg, Connor's and then Lendl, Becker and Edberg. In the 60's you had Laver and Rosewall etc...it's not uncommon for an era to have 2-3 standout players.

Djokovic is far from tier one as it is anyway.

 

[TheTruth]

The equation "being a favourite at a Slam/being hopeless at another Slam" simply doesn't exist nowadays.

If you're a favourite to win one Slam, you're automatically a favourite to win every Slam. This fundamental difference between eras changes everything. In matches where a top ranked player (let's say top 10) faced a lower ranked surface specialist on his favourite surface, I remember commentators (and myself) thinking that the lower ranked player was actually the favourite to win the match (eg. Sampras vs Kafelnikov on clay; Bruguera vs Siemerink on carpet). This doesn't happen nowadays, where the top ranked player is always the overwhelming favourite to win the match, independently of the surface.

Absolutely. Everything did change, but that's what I like about today's game. It doesn't resemble the 90's, it's a whole new ball game and I appreciate what today's athletes bring as well. After this era, it will change again, and if you like tennis you'll stick around to see what the wind ushers in.

I remember how nervous I used to get when Pete had to play a clay courter on clay. And clay courters didn't transcend their surface as much, so at different times of the season you got to see different players shine. I particularly enjoyed his matches with Corretja.

But, I don't know how it would be if the eras were reversed, because honestly, Novak, Rafa, and Federer are otherworldly, and greedy. They want to win everything.

And keep your eyes on Murray, because when he comes down from his high and disbelief, he's going to settle in. I see good things for Murray

 

[TheTruth]

When you have the current GOAT, the potential GOAT, and another potential tier 1 great in the same era ALONG with another potential tier 2 great, it becomes pretty natural for most of everyone else on tour to become hopeless.

It's sad, really, but the truth is that Djokovic, Nadal, Federer (not so much lately), and Murray are just way too good. 3 tier 1 greats (2 clear-cut and 1 potential) in one era is just unfair for the rest of the tour.

I just made a similar post. This truly is a golden era. We are so lucky to be able to witness it.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

It's not that odd really, there's Federer and then there's Nadal. If Andre Agassi had been dedicated in his early-mid 20's there could have been two in the 90's as well. In the 70's/80's you had McEnroe, Borg, Connor's and then Lendl, Becker and Edberg. In the 60's you had Laver and Rosewall etc...it's not uncommon for an era to have 2-3 standout players.

Djokovic is far from tier one as it is anyway.

Yes, but as some people predict Djokovic to win at least 5 more Slams, thus overtaking the 10 Slam marker that usually defines tier 1... I don't know. It doesn't look impossible by any means. We could have three contemporary players with a grand total of over 40 Slams. It's not uncommon for an era to have 2/3 standout players, but it seems to be that we're in an era of "supersized" records.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Absolutely. Everything did change, but that's what I like about today's game. It doesn't resemble the 90's, it's a whole new ball game and I appreciate what today's athletes bring as well. After this era, it will change again, and if you like tennis you'll stick around to see what the wind ushers in.

I remember how nervous I used to get when Pete had to play a clay courter on clay. And clay courters didn't transcend their surface as much, so at different times of the season you got to see different players shine. I particularly enjoyed his matches with Corretja.

But, I don't know how it would be if the eras were reversed, because honestly, Novak, Rafa, and Federer are otherworldly, and greedy. They want to win everything.

And keep your eyes on Murray, because when he comes down from his high and disbelief, he's going to settle in. I see good things for Murray

I agree. I mean, my favourite era is definitely the 90's (that's when I was growing up and giving tennis a teenager's undivided attention to detail), but I'm still around following the sport and enjoying it. When you're a fan of the sport, you always find details you like, even in the eras that you dislike the most.

 

[mawashi]

This is the argument that everyone fails to see.

The people who claim that Nadal or Djokovic are only a product of their equipment..they ignore that greatness transcends equipment. Of course if you took them as they are right now and switched out their racquets with wooden racquets, they'd be less effective obviously. But that's just an unfair argument, considering they've played their entire career with something else. If they grew up on wooden racquets, and played their entire career that way, they would've adapted and been just as great.

Exactly put the great Borg prime in this setting and I'm sure he'll flounder for a while at the very least!

If every there was a more useless argument it would be the greats of the past vs the greats of the present.

If you want a perfect competition of all the greats have baby Fed, Nadal, Borg, Becker, Sampras, Edberg, Mac, Djoker etc etc all grow up and play against each other during that same period.

SINCE that is IMPOSSIBLE and even if somehow possible it would effectively make any other time in tennis history as boring as crap.

So why not just enjoy the competition for what it is when it is and stop looking everywhere else but now and say oh how great it must have been etc etc.

For those Rip Van Winkles who just woke up into this century and long for faster courts, small headed racquets, S&V, curse polys, hawk-eye and God forbid... slower courts...

Guess what be grateful for new technologies or else your room would be filled with nothing but VHS tapes of all those grainy Borg, Mac, Edburg matches.

Hate modern tennis, good go find some other game that hasn't changed in hundreds of years and stay there.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Guess what be grateful for new technologies or else your room would be filled with nothing but VHS tapes of all those grainy Borg, Mac, Edburg matches.

I want an Edburger.

 

[TheTruth]

Yes, but as some people predict Djokovic to win at least 5 more Slams, thus overtaking the 10 Slam marker that usually defines tier 1... I don't know. It doesn't look impossible by any means. We could have three contemporary players with a grand total of over 40 Slams. It's not uncommon for an era to have 2/3 standout players, but it seems to be that we're in an era of "supersized" records.

But don't you think there could be other factors? Like, as the Big Four were growing up they had Sampras and Agassi to look up to and dream big. Other than Pete and Andre, other past players were getting 4, 6, 7 majors. Between Laver, Borg, and Emerson there had been a lull.

Pete taking it into double digit slams and breaking the record gave them a higher threshold. No way would this era, being potential greats be satisfied with anything less than double digits considering how high the bar had already been set.

I can see Djokovic making it to ten, he already has six and 16 opportunities. You know how it ebbs and flows, and look at the legacy this generation is leaving for the next crop.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

This is the argument that everyone fails to see.

The people who claim that Nadal or Djokovic are only a product of their equipment..they ignore that greatness transcends equipment. Of course if you took them as they are right now and switched out their racquets with wooden racquets, they'd be less effective obviously. But that's just an unfair argument, considering they've played their entire career with something else. If they grew up on wooden racquets, and played their entire career that way, they would've adapted and been just as great.

It's not really true. A player must at least give a hint that he has the skill set necessary to be as good in any era. Mc Enroe didn't showed enough to make me believe that he would find a way to be one of the top players in today baseline game. Djokovic's volley and overhead...well, should I really argue? he showed nothing that tells me that he could be as successful in a net oriented era.

The very very best, like Sampras, Nadal, Fed, Borg, Laver, Rosewall, yeah they could probably find a way any time.

 

[NatF]

Yes, but as some people predict Djokovic to win at least 5 more Slams, thus overtaking the 10 Slam marker that usually defines tier 1... I don't know. It doesn't look impossible by any means. We could have three contemporary players with a grand total of over 40 Slams. It's not uncommon for an era to have 2/3 standout players, but it seems to be that we're in an era of "supersized" records.

Certainly in the last 5 years or so the courts do appear to have slowed even more. I'm not denying that. But I seriously doubt Djokovic will win another 5 slams. Although perhaps the greatest reason why people believe that will happen is because there are no top youngsters threatening to break through.

Even those that dislike Federer and say his era was weak will admit there was atleast the presence of great young talents who emerged near the end of the 00's. These prevented him from scooping up slams as he declined. This won't be the case with Nadal/Djokovic/Murray if things continue.

 

[Crose]

It's not really true. A player must at least give a hint that he has the skill set necessary to be as good in any era. Mc Enroe didn't showed enough to make me believe that he would find a way to be one of the top players in today baseline game. Djokovic's volley and overhead...well, should I really argue? he showed nothing that tells me that he could be as successful in a net oriented era.

The very very best, like Sampras, Nadal, Fed, Borg, Laver, Rosewall, yeah they could probably find a way any time.

It is true because McEnroe and Djokovic focused their game on the aspects that dominated their time. Yes, the players at the end of your comment are complete players. But that's why they're all tier 1 or damn near close to it, while Djokovic and McEnroe are tier 2.

Djokovic focused his game into developing a phenomenal baselining game. McEnroe focused his game into developing a tremendous net presence. That's why they're all-time greats, but not on the level of guys like Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Borg, Laver, etc.
If Djokovic was in the same time period as McEnroe, who knows? Maybe he would've grown up building his net game rather than becoming a hard-court sliding baseliner, and he would still be where he is now in terms of greatness, just in a different way.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Pete taking it into double digit slams and breaking the record gave them a higher threshold. No way would this era, being potential greats be satisfied with anything less than double digits considering how high the bar had already been set.

Oh I absolutely agree with this. And the relative importance given to certain titles/achievements is also inherited from previous generations.

 

[NatF]

Another thing to note when saying this generation has too many double digit champions is that until the late 80's the AO wasn't played often by the top players. How many slams would Borg, Connors and Mac won if they played the AO every year? Connors also missed tons of FO's.

 

[mawashi]

It's not really true. A player must at least give a hint that he has the skill set necessary to be as good in any era. Mc Enroe didn't showed enough to make me believe that he would find a way to be one of the top players in today baseline game. Djokovic's volley and overhead...well, should I really argue? he showed nothing that tells me that he could be as successful in a net oriented era.

The very very best, like Sampras, Nadal, Fed, Borg, Laver, Rosewall, yeah they could probably find a way any time.

I wonder how many times even in the last year Nadal was written off as never to win a hard court GS or how many times he was condemned to be a clay court specialist like all his former peers.

Laver and Rosewall are tiny guys, in this era they would have a hard time in the WTA much less against the likes of Nadal, Fed or Djoker.

These greats are as much a creation of their specific era as their talent, luck, timing, skill, equipment etc etc.

Who, what, when all play a role and to ignore all the other factors is simply myopic.

 

[TheTruth]

Oh I absolutely agree with this. And the relative importance given to certain titles/achievements is also inherited from previous generations.

Exactly, we were able to enjoy the tennis without all the silly "my dad's bigger than your dad"comparisons. I don't remember during the 90's there being such an emphasis on GOAT, great, and all that.

Kids these days.

 

[TheTruth]

I wonder how many times even in the last year Nadal was written off as never to win a hard court GS or how many times he was condemned to be a clay court specialist like all his former peers.

Laver and Rosewall are tiny guys, in this era they would have a hard time in the WTA much less against the likes of Nadal, Fed or Djoker.

These greats are as much a creation of their specific era as their talent, luck, timing, skill, equipment etc etc.

Who, what, when all play a role and to ignore all the other factors is simply myopic.

Good stuff, mawashi. Very enjoyable post.

 

[90's Clay]

Pete didn't have a consistant rival, especially one on the level of Nadal to deny him slams. Andre was MIA for most of Pete's peak years, he only showed up at the end of 94 through 95 then after 99 when Pete was already declining.

This talk of Pete dominating a strong era is a load of BS.

Im sorry was Nadal a consistent rival from 2004-2007 when he was failing to make even hardcourt slam semifinals? I must have missed that one. Federer only had to deal with Nadal for maybe half the season (if that) through that time period.

Fed's "consistent rivals' when he was amassing the most slams was Roddick/Hewitt/Old Agassi. Younger Agassi is far superior to any of those guys. In fact, older Becker is probably superior to any of those guys

 

[90's Clay]

Sampras had ALOT of consistent main rivals throughout the years in the 90s. Its not as though he had many free passes. He had to deal with Agassi and Courier and later on Rafter etc. on hard courts throughout the years, Becker/Goran/Agassi on grass, Courier/Bruguera/Kafelnikov/Agassi on clay etc.

Its not as though Sampras only had a bunch of Gaudios or Johannsons to deal with

 

[Flash O'Groove]

It is true because McEnroe and Djokovic focused their game on the aspects that dominated their time. Yes, the players at the end of your comment are complete players. But that's why they're all tier 1 or damn near close to it, while Djokovic and McEnroe are tier 2.

Djokovic focused his game into developing a phenomenal baselining game. McEnroe focused his game into developing a tremendous net presence. That's why they're all-time greats, but not on the level of guys like Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Borg, Laver, etc.
If Djokovic was in the same time period as McEnroe, who knows? Maybe he would've grown up building his net game rather than becoming a hard-court sliding baseliner, and he would still be where he is now in terms of greatness, just in a different way.

So what you mean is a player "posess" within himself a certain amount of talent that he can focus in different direction. Djokovic choose to focus his talent in one, but he could have focused it in another? Could he have become a great soccer player?

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Another thing to note when saying this generation has too many double digit champions is that until the late 80's the AO wasn't played often by the top players. How many slams would Borg, Connors and Mac won if they played the AO every year? Connors also missed tons of FO's.

I would never argue there are "too many" double digit champions though. The Australian Open becoming one of the big four is obviously a good reason for that. That's exactly why I think each era should be judged on its own merits. When comparing across eras, many tend to define the current one as a golden era based precisely on the idea of double digit champions coexisting. But one has to be careful when doing that, because defining a golden era means that you automatically inferiorize other eras. And that's problematic for many reasons, one of them being the definition of what an "era" is, where it starts and where it ends, etc. I think we can only accept the broad notion of an "era" if we look at it metaphorically and judge it according to its own merits (which could include "great matches", etc). As a subjective experience. Once we start analyzing it with "scientific" method, everything becomes comparable, we open Pandora's box, and any claim of a generation over another is possible. Paradoxically, it's science that creates chaos. It's the search for a universal formula of truth, rather than the peaceful and subjective discussion of taste(s), that makes the GOAT or the "golden era" debate irrational.

 

[TMF]

Sampras had ALOT of consistent main rivals throughout the years in the 90s. Its not as though he had many free passes. He had to deal with Agassi and Courier and later on Rafter etc. on hard courts throughout the years, Becker/Goran/Agassi on grass, Courier/Bruguera/Kafelnikov/Agassi on clay etc.

Its not as though Sampras only had a bunch of Gaudios or Johannsons to deal with

Sampras had many worst number one players of all time - Rios, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Moya. There was a poll came out and these players ranked at the top of the list.

 

[90's Clay]

Sampras had many worst number one players of all time - Rios, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Moya. There was a poll came out and these players ranked at the top of the list.

A lot of that can be boiled down to polarized conditions however where upsets would certainly be more bound to happen.

Its a different time. How "consistent" would Nadal or Djoker be in the 90s years round without the benefit of playing on their strengths all year?

And all 4 of those guys weren't "bad" number 1's either. All four were very good players. Its not as though they had long reigns at #1.

Take a look at some of the guys we have had in the top 5-10 in the world in the recent years in this era.

Top guys today can keep a STRANGEHOLD on the top spots in tennis because of homogenized conditions. Just as if in the 90s all surfaces were fast. Guys like Sampras/Becker/Goran/Agassi would never lose top spots. Sampras would have been #1 for probably 10 straight years if he got to play on his strengths all year like these guys get to today

Unfortunately, in the 90s they had a surfaces of varying degree and speeds all year. Today its slow slow slow slow from one tournament to the next.

Put some fast courts on tour today and watch guys like Berdych, Raonic, Del Potro and some other heavy hitters get to #1 and guys like Nole/Nadal/Murray wouldn't have a strangle hold on the men's game anymore like they do under these slow conditions

 

[TheTruth]

I would never argue there are "too many" double digit champions though. The Australian Open becoming one of the big four is obviously a good reason for that.

That's exactly why I think each era should be judged on its own merits. When comparing across eras, many tend to define this as a golden era based precisely on the idea of double digit champions coexisting. But one has to be careful when doing that, because defining a golden era means that you automatically inferiorize other eras. And that's problematic for many reasons, one of them being the definition of what an "era" is, where it starts and where it ends, etc. I think we can only accept the broad notion of an "era" if we look at it metaphorically and judge it according to its own merits (which could include "great matches", etc). As a subjective experience. Once we start analyzing it with "scientific" method, everything becomes comparable, we open Pandora's box, and any claim of a generation over another is possible. Paradoxically, it's science that creates chaos. It's the search for a universal formula of truth, rather than the peaceful and subjective discussion of taste(s), that makes the GOAT or the "golden era" debate irrational.

Good points, but I think it's a golden era because of the mindset of the top guys. They're all hungry, at the same time.

But, like you, there's no way to compare eras. There are way too many variables and anyone who thinks that you can extrapolate any logic from that is over-intellectualizing.

The 90's were great and imo, their strength has not diminished. You have to judge everything according to the time in which it occurred. For one thing, the entire tennis culture was different. As I said before, the focus was on tennis not on GOATs and who was the greatest.

Switching between time and comparing eras is like comparing PacMan to Black Ops. Neither is better, both were great for their time.

I especially love the AO reference.

 

[mawashi]

So what you mean is a player "posess" within himself a certain amount of talent that he can focus in different direction. Djokovic choose to focus his talent in one, but he could have focused it in another? Could he have become a great soccer player?

Have you seen Fed, Djoker or Fed play soccer? All three have mad skills and could be damn good if not great. If tennis didn't exist I'm sure they would be great athletics in some other field.

Now would it matter if they have or don't have the skills in some other area? Some great golfers can't even hit a decent tennis ball or some... ahem... most soccer players are about dumb as the grass they play on. Or how most NBA players would really suck at almost every "normal" sized sports.

All the ifs... buts... does it matter at all?

What if Nadal suddenly decides to play S&V and chooses to wear really short shorts? Would that suddenly make him a lot more talented because his game looks cooler or more refine?

What if Fed won another GS cus he switched to a baseline game with an oversized stick would it make him no better then another baseline basher?

In many ways I'm glad that the courts, racquets, equipment are the way they are now. I have seen some really boring tennis matches during the so called golden 90s where no one moved and the game was just about hitting a serve to win points.

Or how wooden sticks and guts resulted in long ping pong like rallies with almost zero angles.

A lot of Ferrer or Nadal's matches are considered boring cus it looks like a lot of bashing and running. I appreciate the physicality of such matches much like a boxing slug fest.

 

[NatF]

Im sorry was Nadal a consistent rival from 2004-2007 when he was failing to make even hardcourt slam semifinals? I must have missed that one. Federer only had to deal with Nadal for maybe half the season (if that) through that time period.

Fed's "consistent rivals' when he was amassing the most slams was Roddick/Hewitt/Old Agassi. Younger Agassi is far superior to any of those guys. In fact, older Becker is probably superior to any of those guys

Nadal was going deep in hardcourt masters winning several during that period, he was also constantly there on clay and a threat on grass. They met twice at the YEC during that period too. He was as much of a rival to Federer as Agassi.

Younger Agassi is hardly far superior to those guys. Only Agassi from 95 could be said to be noticably superior. Agassi best sustained period was 99-03 and Agassi of 03-05 was much better than he was from 96-98 or 93-first half of 94. He made the quarters or better at every hardcourt slam during that period, the only times he failed to make the semi's he ran into Federer. Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Agassi, Nalbandian and later on Djokovic/Murray. That's solid competition on hardcourts for sure. Old Becker was definately not superior to the best of those guys except for indoors and on grass. Although on grass I'd say Roddick/Hewitt of 2004 were as good as old Becker in general.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Good points, but I think it's a golden era because of the mindset of the top guys. They're all hungry, at the same time.

But, like you, there's no way to compare eras. There are way too many variables and anyone who thinks that you can extrapolate any logic from that is over-intellectualizing.

The 90's were great and imo, their strength has not diminished. You have to judge everything according to the time in which it occurred. For one thing, the entire tennis culture was different. As I said before, the focus was on tennis not on GOATs and who was the greatest.

Switching between time and comparing eras is like comparing PacMan to Black Ops. Neither is better, both were great for their time.

I especially love the AO reference.

I think the strength of the 90's has to do with 1) the preservation of variety in the game (overlapping from the previous era that was even more so), 2) the rise of the power game and its clean, brutal and well-placed groundstrokes (which overlapped into the following generation), 3) the existence of a Slam and year-end-#1 oriented mindset driving the most successful player of the decade (we have to thank Sampras for that: it was his will to end the year as #1 that made for some of the most exciting indoor seasons that I can remember), 4) the continuation or twilight years of previous legends of the game (Lendl, Becker, Edberg) who could still compete at a high level until the mid 90's, 5) the changing landscape at the top of the game, with many "flakey" players reaching incredible heights and disappointing lows, some making comebacks, others disappearing in agonizing downward spirals, 6) the existence of interesting and competitive rivalries between a handful of players (most notably Sampras-Agassi, but also Sampras-Becker, Becker-Agassi, Sampras-Courier, Edberg-Courier, Sampras-Stich, Rafter-Agassi, Rafter-Sampras, etc) despite the up-and-down nature of many of these players and Sampras' overall dominance, 7) polarized conditions, which made it possible for the #1 player to be an average player in one of the ATP Tour's main surfaces and for specialists to thrive periodically whilst almost disappearing for the remainder of the season, 8 ) a variety of players winning only one or two Slams (Gomez, Muster, Korda, Krajicek, Stich, Rafter, Kafelnikov), showing how open the field was when the so called "top" players weren't at their absolute best (and even then they could be beaten).

Just off the top of my head, here are some of the reasons why the 90's were exciting for me. If you want to add other reasons or suggest a similar exercise for another decade, you're welcome. By doing this I think we can see what makes an "era" unique - a fingerprint of sorts.

 

[TheTruth]

I think the strength of the 90's has to do with 1) the preservation of variety in the game (overlapping from the previous era that was even more so), 2) the rise of the power game and its clean, brutal and well-placed groundstrokes (which overlapped into the following generation), 3) the existence of a Slam and year-end-#1 oriented mindset driving the most successful player of the decade (we have to thank Sampras for that: it was his will to end the year as #1 that made for some of the most exciting indoor seasons that I can remember), 4) the continuation or twilight years of previous legends of the game (Lendl, Becker, Edberg) who could still compete at a high level until the mid 90's, 5) the changing landscape at the top of the game, with many "flakey" players reaching incredible heights and disappointing lows, some making comebacks, others disappearing in agonizing downward spirals, 6) the existence of interesting and competitive rivalries between a handful of players (most notably Sampras-Agassi, but also Sampras-Becker, Becker-Agassi, Sampras-Courier, Edberg-Courier, Sampras-Stich, Rafter-Agassi, Rafter-Sampras, etc) despite the up-and-down nature of many of these players and Sampras' overall dominance, 7) polarized conditions, which made it possible for the #1 player to be an average player in one of the ATP Tour's main surfaces and for specialists to thrive periodically whilst almost disappearing for the remainder of the season, 8 ) a variety of players winning only one or two Slams (Gomez, Muster, Korda, Krajicek, Stich, Rafter, Kafelnikov), showing how open the field was when the so called "top" players weren't at their absolute best (and even then they could be beaten).

Just off the top of my head, here are some of the reasons why the 90's were exciting for me. If you want to add other reasons or suggest a similar exercise for another decade, you're welcome. By doing this I think we can see what makes an "era" unique - a fingerprint of sorts.

I love number three.

I never thought about it like that, but you're right. That insistence upon setting that record added new dimensions to the game.

You've pretty much covered everything.

1. I liked that everyone competed to the death and didn't appear to be intimidated, regardless of rank. I don't remember ever watching a match back then where someone who was beaten acted like it was OK to lose.

2. I don't think it was as pageant-y as it is now. Now the commentators act like cheerleaders, talking through matches, so much innuendo, and repeating false stories when informed fans know the real deal. Now, I wish there was a way to mute the commentators without muting the sound of the ball.

3. And, I did like the way the tennis season highlighted different stars depending on the surface.

4. I don't remember all of this comparing Pete and Agassi's era to Laver and Emerson era's. Nor do I remember all of this stat checking. People just played the game and that's what it was about.

5. More than anything I think the commentators are the ones ruining the game. If I was just coming into tennis, I would have left a long time ago, because the stuff they talk about is just noise and it interferes with the game, imo.