Top 10 players from each decade. Which is the strongest decade?

EnglishNadal

EnglishNadal

New User
You can’t name a player in more than one decade because a few players in history would feature in 2 decades. So I name players in the decade that represents there peak.

I’m not going off grand slam wins or stats just my opinion on who was better.


70s
1. Borg
2. Connors
3. Vilas
4. Newcombe
5. Nastase
6. Kodes
7. Ashe
8. Smith
9. Orantes
10. Tanner

80s
1. Lendl
2. McEnroe
3. Wilander
4. Becker
5. Edberg
6. Noah
7. Kriek
8. Cash
9. Mecir
10. Curren

90s
1. Sampras
2. Agassi
3. Courier
4. Bruguera
5. Rafter
6. Kafelnikov
7. Moyà
8. Ivanisevic
9. Chang
10. Muster

00s
1. Federer
2. Roddick
3. Hewitt
4. Safin
5. Kuerten
6. Ferrero
7. Söderling
8. González
9. Nalbandian
10. Henman

10s
1. Djokovic
2. Nadal
3. Murray
4. Wawrinka
5. Ferrer
6. Clilic
7. Del Potro
8. Berdych
9. Tsonga
10. Anderson

Best decades
1. 10s
2. 80s
3. 70s
4. 90s
5. 00s
 
EnglishNadal said:
You can’t name a player in more than one decade because a few players in history would feature in 2 decades. So I name players in the decade that represents there peak.

I’m not going off grand slam wins or stats just my opinion on who was better.


70s
1. Borg
2. Connors
3. Vilas
4. Newcombe
5. Nastase
6. Kodes
7. Ashe
8. Smith
9. Orantes
10. Tanner

80s
1. Lendl
2. McEnroe
3. Wilander
4. Becker
5. Edberg
6. Noah
7. Kriek
8. Cash
9. Mecir
10. Curren

90s
1. Sampras
2. Agassi
3. Courier
4. Bruguera
5. Rafter
6. Kafelnikov
7. Moyà
8. Ivanisevic
9. Chang
10. Muster

00s
1. Federer
2. Roddick
3. Hewitt
4. Safin
5. Kuerten
6. Ferrero
7. Söderling
8. González
9. Nalbandian
10. Henman

10s
1. Djokovic
2. Nadal
3. Murray
4. Wawrinka
5. Ferrer
6. Clilic
7. Del Potro
8. Berdych
9. Tsonga
10. Anderson

Best decades
1. 10s
2. 80s
3. 70s
4. 90s
5. 00s
Click to expand...

The 80’s top 5 - woof!!! I’d even possibly suggest that looks the strongest decade.

Ferrer top 5 in the 10’s. Ouch.
 
1. 80s
2. 10s
3. 00s
4. 90s
5. 70s

I know literally nothing about 70s tennis other than Borg being every teenage girls dream so please forgive me.
 
The flaw is not being able to name players in more than one decade (especially in the case of our recent stars Fed 14+year slam winning span, Nadal 13 year span, Djokovic 10+ winning span) and restricting decades to years beginning with zero to 9.

Obviously some players start being a threat in the middle of a decade - such as Nadal who began winning slams in 2005. But he figures in the 10s decade. Ok he has spent more time in that decade, but he still won 6 slams between 05 and 09. Djokovic does belong more in the 10s since all but 1 of his slams have been won there, but delpo won his only slam back in 2009. Ok he's spent more time in this era but he still won his only slam in the 00s. Since winning a slam Fed has spent more time in this decade than in the 00s
 
tennis_pro said:
I don't get this. How isn't Nadal a part of the 00s or Fed's not a part of the 10s?
Click to expand...

He's stressed that player can only be part of one decade which obviously makes little sense with fed who's won slams across 14 plus years, Nadal who's won slams across 13 years and started in the middle of a decade (6 slams in 00s decade, 8 in 10s) and even Djokovic who spans 10 plus years though won all but 1 of his slams in this decade.
 
Of all players born from september 1971 to may 1986, only one (Federer) reached more than 5 slam finals.
 
Come on woah woah woah PETE's era was a lot better than that. At least he had competition in his way instead of these SCARECROW ZOMBIE NextGen pushers ROFLMAO.
 
Number 2 in 2005, #2 in 2006, #2 in 2007, #1 in 2008, #2 in 2009...Nadal is a 00s player. Even his #1 in 2010 is more associated with 00s than 10s.
 
These lists are kinda pointless unless you allow players to be in MULTIPLE decades. This way you can actually make a real Top 10 list for each decade, otherwise the strength ratings are thrown off
 
Fun thread. Perhaps, re-frame it and allow a player to be part of more than one decade, but just count those players' achievements during that time frame. Also, define if, say is the 80's is 1980-1989 or 1981-1990. Technically, I think it would be the latter, but most use the first grouping.
 
KINGROGER said:
Yeah because Federer owned everyone. And there was more depth in general back then. Less homogenisation.

Weak era = 2014 - present.
Click to expand...

LOL it was because of Federer if no one could reach a decent amount of slam finals?Was he beating everyone in every round?
 
Lew said:
LOL it was because of Federer if no one could reach a decent amount of slam finals?Was he beating everyone in every round?
Click to expand...
It’s worth mentioning the injury issues many of Fed’s contemporaries had. Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero. Also I’ve already said the 00s generation weren’t as consistent. Doesn’t make them weaker competition.
 
Lew said:
Of all players born from september 1971 to may 1986, only one (Federer) reached more than 5 slam finals.
Click to expand...
Of all players born from 23 May 1987 to present no one has more than 3 slam finals.
Heck all the players from that era have combined have 8 slam finals. And 2 slam wins. And this is the competition your beloved has faced from the generation after him and will keep on facing this competition in the coming future.
While Federer for 10 years now has faced a group of players from the generation after him, born between 28 March 1985 to 22 May 1987, four players from that generation has won more than 3 slams.
If Djoker and Nadal had to face ATGs like themselves from the generations after them you'd see where their GS count would stand.
If you have the guts to point out Federer's Weak Era and cherry pick stats to prove your points then have the guts to point out the free ride your beloved and his Gen have enjoyed for the past 5-6 years.
Stupid kids with their mindnumbingly nonsensical agendas.
 
Last edited:
Lew said:
Of all players born from september 1971 to may 1986, only one (Federer) reached more than 5 slam finals.
Click to expand...

Considering that Agassi (15 slam finals) and Nadal (24 slam finals) both made slam finals within the first couple of years of Federer's winning run this is completely irrelevant. Nadal in fact made 8 slam finals in the 00's, Agassi made 5 - a third each of their finals, which is hardly insignificant. Federer has been in 9 slam finals in the 10's, so very comparable to Nadal in the prior decade.
 
Players with 72+% of wins in grand slams, by birth year:

1950 -
1951 Tanner 73.2
1952 Connors 82.6, Vilas 75.4
1953 -
1954 -
1955 -
1956 Borg 89.8
1957 -
1958 -
1959 McEnroe 81.5
1960 Lendl 81.9
1961 -
1962 -
1963 -
1964 Wilander 79.6
1965 -
1966 Edberg 79.1
1967 Becker 80.3
1968 -
1969 -
1970 Agassi 80.9, Courier 75.6
1971 Sampras 84.2
1972 -
1973 -
1974 Kafelnikov 73.3
1975 -
1976 -
1977 -
1978 -
1979 -
1980 -
1981 Federer 86.3
1982 Roddick 74.4
1983 -
1984 -
1985 Tsonga 74.5, Wawrinka 72.4
1986 Nadal 87.3
1987 Djokovic 86.3, Murray 81.1
1988 Del Potro 72.9, Cilic 72.5
1989 -
1990 Raonic 72.4
 
Yeah the restrictions don't work here.

00s: Federer, Nadal, Safin
10s: Djokovic, Nadal, Federer
 
ak24alive said:
Of all players born from 23 May 1987 to present no one has more than 3 slam finals.
Heck all the players from that era have combined have 8 slam finals. And 2 slam wins. And this is the competition your beloved has faced from the generation after him and will keep on facing this competition in the coming future.
While Federer for 10 years now has faced a group of players from the generation after him, born between 28 March 1985 to 22 May 1987, four players from that generation has won more than 3 slams.
If Djoker and Nadal had to face ATGs like themselves from the generations after them you'd see where their GS count would stand.
If you have the guts to point out Federer's Weak Era and cherry pick stats to prove your points then have the guts to point out the free ride your beloved and his Gen have enjoyed for the past 5-6 years.
Stupid kids with their mindnumbingly nonsensical agendas.
Click to expand...

Just one way in which these arguments get silly. The points are often made that Federer had easy competition because he didn't have to face Roger Federer at his best. Rafa also didn't have to battle with Rafa and Novak never faced Novak. Yet, people essentially make this point over and over.
(The Beatles didn't have to compete with The Beatles - how unfair. It is kind of true that The Beatles were too busy being The Beatles to ever really enjoy The Beatles, though I digress on this slow work day.)

Michael Jordan won 6 NBA championships (2 3-peats with two years in between) in a weak era because he didn't have to face Michael Jordan and the Bulls.

Look, neither Fed nor Rafa nor Novak have had anything resembling a free ride. The main thing Fed has had has been a 5 or 6-year head start in compiling his achievements because he was born 5/6 years earlier than the other two ATGs. Yes, Rafa peaked a little earlier, age-wise, than the other two, and we don't know if Rafa and Novak will be as great as Fed is now, in 5/6 years. But I really see them as the three greatest ever who have different games and personalities but have all dominated to similar extents.

I also don't think that this thread has to be taken as another GOAT thread, though I didn't post it and can't be sure.
 
RaulRamirez said:
Just one way in which these arguments get silly. The points are often made that Federer had easy competition because he didn't have to face Roger Federer at his best. Rafa also didn't have to battle with Rafa and Novak never faced Novak. Yet, people essentially make this point over and over.
(The Beatles didn't have to compete with The Beatles - how unfair. It is kind of true that The Beatles were too busy being The Beatles to ever really enjoy The Beatles, though I digress on this slow work day.)

Michael Jordan won 6 NBA championships (2 3-peats with two years in between) in a weak era because he didn't have to face Michael Jordan and the Bulls.

Look, neither Fed nor Rafa nor Novak have had anything resembling a free ride. The main thing Fed has had has been a 5 or 6-year head start in compiling his achievements because he was born 5/6 years earlier than the other two ATGs. Yes, Rafa peaked a little earlier, age-wise, than the other two, and we don't know if Rafa and Novak will be as great as Fed is now, in 5/6 years. But I really see them as the three greatest ever who have different games and personalities but have all dominated to similar extents.

I also don't think that this thread has to be taken as another GOAT thread, though I didn't post it and can't be sure.
Click to expand...

I take the thread at its face value.
I often don't get into the GOAT debate.
I don't even think there's a clear GOAT(as I have mentioned many times here) and calling one of them GOAT is unfair to the other 2 of the big3 and the likes of Laver, Borg and Don Budge etc.
I sometimes call Federer GOAT but that's partially just me trolling on ttw and to some extent because of my habit from the days when I firmly believed Fed was the GOAT.

Having said all that, I admit that sometimes I get annoyed by posters trying to discredit players' achievements(not just Fedr's but others too)... So then I respond. Have argued with as many Nadal haters-- if not more-- than with Fed haters.
The user I quoted is an annoying breed of Fed haters.
 
tacou said:
I just find "If this legend had to face someone as legendary as themselves, they might not be as legendary" to be a dizzying and not very fruitful line of thinking.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
I don't need to clarify but clarify I will.

If you would have a look at my post again and see the post I quoted maybe you would understand the context better. It's not like I am trying to throw shade at Nad and Djoke. I was responding to a poster who understands that kind of language. And even without any context the thing is true. If Federer enjoyed a relatively easy field at some point and the poster sees it fit to point it out once every 2 posts then he should also point out the easy fields Nad and Djoke got to face.
I will be very happy if we stop talking about weakeras altogether.
But sometimes to shut up trolls like that we have to reciprocate in the way they understand better.
The only debatable point here is that, "will they ever shut up?".
I tend to forget that regardless of my silly attempts at troll beatdown, they never will.
So yeah I am guilty of falling for the same trap over and over again.
Though I am getting better.
 
ak24alive said:
I don't need to clarify but clarify I will.
Click to expand...
:D

fb_thumb_rotate.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SamprasisGOAT
  • Poll Poll
Top 3 players from each decade. Which decade has the strongest top 3?
2
Replies
70
Views
3K
BeatlesFan
BeatlesFan
The_Mental_Giant
Top 10 players by decade. 70s-2010s
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
The_Mental_Giant
The_Mental_Giant
Lew II
Grand Slam top performers - decade comparison
Replies
23
Views
1K
Linelicker
Linelicker
federerfanatic
Top 10 male players of the 2000s decade
2
Replies
91
Views
5K
SerbWhoLovesDelPo
S
AnOctorokForDinner
Top 10 W-L for YE Top 10 (YEC excluded) since 1990
2
Replies
67
Views
4K
NFN
N
Back
Top