Top 3 players from each decade. Which decade has the strongest top 3?

Best top 3 from each decade?

  • 70s Borg Connors Villas

    Votes: 2 3.2%
  • 80s Lendl Wilander McEnroe

    Votes: 7 11.1%
  • 90s Sampras Agassi Courier

    Votes: 8 12.7%
  • 00s Federer Safin Hewitt

    Votes: 5 7.9%
  • 10a Djokovic Nadal Murray

    Votes: 41 65.1%

  • Total voters
    63

Towny

Hall of Fame
Not allowing players to feature in multiple decades is unhelpful. Nadal won 6 slams in the 2000s. That's more than Agassi won in the 90s and Connors in the 70s. Federer in the 2010s won 5 slams, more than Agassi, Safin and Hewitt in the 2000s, more than Vilas in the 70s and more than Courier in the 90s. Taking them away makes the decades seem weaker than they are.
 

tudwell

Legend
Not allowing players to feature in multiple decades is unhelpful. Nadal won 6 slams in the 2000s. That's more than Agassi won in the 90s and Connors in the 70s. Federer in the 2010s won 5 slams, more than Agassi, Safin and Hewitt in the 2000s, more than Vilas in the 70s and more than Courier in the 90s. Taking them away makes the decades seem weaker than they are.
It’s not unhelpful. It actually 100% helps the OP’s cause of making the 00s look laughably weak. It’s like when a certain Djokovic fanboy comes up with “top 3 ranked opponents” for one stat and then “top 5 ranked” for another or Elo of greater than 2200/2400/take your pick. Whatever ends up painting Fed in the weakest light is what gets posted to good old TTW. Nevermind context or thoughtfulness or objectivity.
 

skaj

Hall of Fame
Federer, Safin, Nalbandian would be a killer trio. Of course Marat and David would have to be at their best, which was often not the case.
 

AceSalvo

Legend
Lol at "Murray".

Someone who won 5 slams since 2010's onwards is blatantly missing. Very tough to guess why it's missing. :-D
 

AceSalvo

Legend
Can you read?
Yes and which is why "A player can't feature in multiple decades" is nonsense.

The exception should be Fed and Nadal for obvious reasons. This thread is just another Djoko fan fantasy stuff.
 
Last edited:

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
00s or 10s

question is, who is 3rd in 00s? Roddick, Hewitt, Safin or Djokovic:

But I will take 00s Fedal over any top 2.

10s for top 3, definitely (which is Djokovic,Nadal then Federer)
 

Lew II

Legend
Yes and which is why "A player can't feature in multiple decades" is nonsense.

The exception should be Fed and Nadal for obvious reasons. This thread is just another Djoko fan fantasy stuff.
Djokovic had to deal with Federer and Nadal more than anyone: 106 matches.

10s is the decade with the greatest top players however you put it.

Djokovic 15 slams, 24 finals
Nadal 13 slams, 19 finals
Federer 5 slams, 10 finals
Murray 3 slams, 10 finals

Ridicolous stuff. Big4 won 36/40 slams and played 63/80 finals.
 

Daniel Andrade

Professional
It's weird to have Murray paired with Nadal and Djokovic. Because as a pair they single-handed beat any other combination, if it weren't for Fed's presence in the 2000's there's no doubt who I would vote for.
 

FedeRadi

Rookie
Evaluating entire career from players you wrote i would go:
Number 1: Nadal('10s) > Federer('00s) > Sampras('90s) > Lendl('80s) > Borg('70s)
Number 2: Djokovic('10s) > McEnroe('80s) > Connors('70s) > Agassi('90s) > Hewitt('00s)
Number 3: Murray('10s) > Wilander('80s) > Vilas('70s) > Courier('90s) > Safin('00s)

1) '10s: 1+1+1=3.
2) '80s: 4+2+2=8.
T3) '70s: 5+3+3=11
T3) '90s: 3+4+4= 11
5) '00s 5+5+2=12.

I think that's pretty accurate, even this methodology doesn't take into account margins(i.e. I think Borg is arguably better than Lendl and even than Sampras. Hewitt is the worst number 2 by a wide margin).
'10s are clearly the better trio(3 ATGs imho, 2 of 3 open era greatest). '80s is the only other decade with 3/3 ATGs.
'90s and '70s are very similar: 1 pre-big 3 GOAT contender, 1 minor ATG and 1 great player but not ATG. I prefer the '70s trio because Borg is arguably better than Sampras, no way Agassi or Courier are better than, respectively, Connors and Vilas.
'00s is very difficult to rank: Federer is arguably the GOAT, but Hewitt and Safin(I'd wrote Roddick, but that doesn't change anything) are the worst players of the entire bunch.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Evaluating entire career from players you wrote i would go:
Number 1: Nadal('10s) > Federer('00s) > Sampras('90s) > Lendl('80s) > Borg('70s)
Number 2: Djokovic('10s) > McEnroe('80s) > Connors('70s) > Agassi('90s) > Hewitt('00s)
Number 3: Murray('10s) > Wilander('80s) > Vilas('70s) > Courier('90s) > Safin('00s)

1) '10s: 1+1+1=3.
2) '80s: 4+2+2=8.
T3) '70s: 5+3+3=11
T3) '90s: 3+4+4= 11
5) '00s 5+5+2=12.

I think that's pretty accurate, even this methodology doesn't take into account margins(i.e. I think Borg is arguably better than Lendl and even than Sampras. Hewitt is the worst number 2 by a wide margin).
'10s are clearly the better trio(3 ATGs imho, 2 of 3 open era greatest). '80s is the only other decade with 3/3 ATGs.
'90s and '70s are very similar: 1 pre-big 3 GOAT contender, 1 minor ATG and 1 great player but not ATG. I prefer the '70s trio because Borg is arguably better than Sampras, no way Agassi or Courier are better than, respectively, Connors and Vilas.
'00s is very difficult to rank: Federer is arguably the GOAT, but Hewitt and Safin(I'd wrote Roddick, but that doesn't change anything) are the worst players of the entire bunch.
Hold on, a couple questions.

How is Nadal's 2010s better than Federer's 00s? Second, how is Nadal's 2010s better than Djokovic's 2010s?

Nadal: 13 slams, 6 finals, 0 WTF, 4 years at #1, 20 Masters.
Federer: 15 slams, 6 finals, 4 WTF, 5 years at #1, 17 Masters.
Djokovic: 15 slams, 8 finals, 4 WTF, 5 years at #1, 29 Masters.

How can you possibly delude yourself into thinking Nadal's 2010s was better than either Djokovic or Federer's?
 

FedeRadi

Rookie
Hold on, a couple questions.

How is Nadal's 2010s better than Federer's 00s? Second, how is Nadal's 2010s better than Djokovic's 2010s?

Nadal: 13 slams, 6 finals, 0 WTF, 4 years at #1, 20 Masters.
Federer: 15 slams, 6 finals, 4 WTF, 5 years at #1, 17 Masters.
Djokovic: 15 slams, 8 finals, 4 WTF, 5 years at #1, 29 Masters.

How can you possibly delude yourself into thinking Nadal's 2010s was better than either Djokovic or Federer's?
As I wrote, I evaluated the entire career of the players, not only in the decade.
I interpretated the question like which is the better trio of players, and the decades only like a method to divide them. Not strictly related with players achievements in the decade.
And, currently, I have Nadal slightly above Nole and Federer.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
As I wrote, I evaluated the entire career of the players, not only in the decade.
I interpretated the question like which is the better trio of players, and the decades only like a method to divide them. Not strictly related with players achievements in the decade.
And, currently, I have Nadal slightly above Nole and Federer.
In career at large you put Nadal over Federer despite the 1 slam, many weeks at #1, and lack of any WTF titles from Nadal?
 

clout

Hall of Fame
(1) 2010s: Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer (not a hard choice)

(2) 1980s: Lendl, McEnroe, and Wilander (most deep field ever in terms of ATG caliber players)

(3) 2000s: Federer, Nadal, and Agassi (Kinda falls off after Fedal but Fedal were pretty much tennis' Kobe/Shaq in the 2000s)

(4) 1990s: Sampras, Agassi, and Edberg (very solid trio)

(5) 1970s: Borg, Connors, and Vilas (with all due respect, Vilas is the weak link here)
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
Nice try OP.....2000s should be Federer, Nadal, Agassi, and NOT Federer, Hewitt, Safin/Roddick.
Slam wins in 2000s:
Hewitt - 2
Safin - 2
Agassi - 3
Nadal - 6
I think 9>4 no?
Agassi was a force up until 2005. Hewitt and Safin were no force post 2005, so same time-frame.
 

FedeRadi

Rookie
In career at large you put Nadal over Federer despite the 1 slam, many weeks at #1, and lack of any WTF titles from Nadal?
Yes.
I can see your point but I disagree.
Nadal enters the field with a 5 years older ATG and has 2 ATG(IMO, 1 clearly) 1 year younger. So he had elite competition with age advantage(Federer from 2005 to 2008/09) or no disadvantage(Djokovic, and Murray, for their entire careers).
Federer enters with no older ATGs in 10 years span, and can wait until 5/6 years youngers ATGs enter the field(So he has a clear age advantage in mid to late '00s).
In fact he won 12 slam in his early prime(From 22 to 26, 2003-07) and only 5 in his late prime(From 27 to 31, 2008-12). A huge difference, and he never been YE#1 after 28 years old(And in 2009 you can argue Rafa was better, he only struggles with injury and lost some points between RG and Wimbledon). So he can be viewed last time the best player in the world at 26. I think all this stats has more to do with competition than with his level.
And despite of this Rafa has only one slam less than Federer, more Masters and same big titles. So I think Rafa is better.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Yes.
I can see your point but I disagree.
Nadal enters the field with a 5 years older ATG and has 2 ATG(IMO, 1 clearly) 1 year younger. So he had elite competition with age advantage(Federer from 2005 to 2008/09) or no disadvantage(Djokovic, and Murray, for their entire careers).
Federer enters with no older ATGs in 10 years span, and can wait until 5/6 years youngers ATGs enter the field(So he has a clear age advantage in mid to late '00s).
In fact he won 12 slam in his early prime(From 22 to 26, 2003-07) and only 5 in his late prime(From 27 to 31, 2008-12). A huge difference, and he never been YE#1 after 28 years old(And in 2009 you can argue Rafa was better, he only struggles with injury and lost some points between RG and Wimbledon). So he can be viewed last time the best player in the world at 26. I think all this stats has more to do with competition than with his level.
And despite of this Rafa has only one slam less than Federer, more Masters and same big titles. So I think Rafa is better.
Alright. I disagree, but I guess if you view it through the competition lens it isn't crazy.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Yes.
I can see your point but I disagree.
Nadal enters the field with a 5 years older ATG and has 2 ATG(IMO, 1 clearly) 1 year younger. So he had elite competition with age advantage(Federer from 2005 to 2008/09) or no disadvantage(Djokovic, and Murray, for their entire careers).
Federer enters with no older ATGs in 10 years span, and can wait until 5/6 years youngers ATGs enter the field(So he has a clear age advantage in mid to late '00s).
In fact he won 12 slam in his early prime(From 22 to 26, 2003-07) and only 5 in his late prime(From 27 to 31, 2008-12). A huge difference, and he never been YE#1 after 28 years old(And in 2009 you can argue Rafa was better, he only struggles with injury and lost some points between RG and Wimbledon). So he can be viewed last time the best player in the world at 26. I think all this stats has more to do with competition than with his level.
And despite of this Rafa has only one slam less than Federer, more Masters and same big titles. So I think Rafa is better.
I mean which clay ATG did nadal beat for his 12 RG?
 
Yes and which is why "A player can't feature in multiple decades" is nonsense.

The exception should be Fed and Nadal for obvious reasons. This thread is just another Djoko fan fantasy stuff.
I am confused though. Shouldn't a Djokovic fan want to add Federer to the 2010s to make the 2010s where Djokovic was the decades best player seem stronger?
 
Yes, but the best and the most majors is not the same thing.
If someone wins 7 majors in the decade. which btw is in fact the same number as Lendl and 1 more than McEnroe, they are certainly objectively better than guys who won only half that. Becker won only 4 majors and spent no time at #1. Edberg won only 3 majors and also spent no time at #1. There isn't possible case to be made WIlander isn't atleast the 3rd best player of the 80s. You seem to be confusing nicest to watch or most interesting with best. The fact you even mention Mecir suggests that.
 

skaj

Hall of Fame
If someone wins 7 majors in the decade. which btw is in fact the same number as Lendl and 1 more than McEnroe, they are certainly objectively better than guys who won only half that. Becker won only 4 majors and spent no time at #1. Edberg won only 3 majors and also spent no time at #1. There isn't possible case to be made WIlander isn't atleast the 3rd best player of the 80s. You seem to be confusing nicest to watch or most interesting with best. The fact you even mention Mecir suggests that.
If someone wins 7 majors in the decade. which btw is in fact the same number as Lendl and 1 more than McEnroe, they are certainly not objectively better than guys who won only half that. You seem to confuse the number of titles and abilities.
 

Olli Jokinen

Semi-Pro
Not? I would say yes. Mecir also, although he was not nearly as successful as those 3.
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Mecir is not even a regular top 10 player in the 80's. Edberg and Becker only won 4 slams each in the 80s. None of them reached a no. 1 ranking in the 80's.

Wilander had 33 titles, 7 GS (numerous GS finals and semifinals), No. 1 ranking and 3 slams in a calendar year (1988), 3 Davis Cup trophees – and you are saying Mecir was the better player?
Mecir had 11 titles, 2 GS finals and an olympic gold. He was good, but come on...
 

skaj

Hall of Fame
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Mecir is not even a regular top 10 player in the 80's. Edberg and Becker only won 4 slams each in the 80s. None of them reached a no. 1 ranking in the 80's.

Wilander had 33 titles, 7 GS (numerous GS finals and semifinals), No. 1 ranking and 3 slams in a calendar year (1988), 3 Davis Cup trophees – and you are saying Mecir was the better player?
Mecir had 11 titles, 2 GS finals and an olympic gold. He was good, but come on...

Again, this is about who is a better player, not who won more titles. so come on...
 

Olli Jokinen

Semi-Pro
That's not a strong case, that's just you presenting your opinion twice in one post without any arguments.
That's exactly what you did with Mecir. I feel like I'm in the "I'd Like to Buy an Argument"-sketch by Monty Python.

Carl-Uwe Steeb is the best player in the history of tennis.
 

skaj

Hall of Fame
That's exactly what you did with Mecir. I feel like I'm in the "I'd Like to Buy an Argument"-sketch by Monty Python.

Carl-Uwe Steeb is the best player in the history of tennis.
I didn't state that I have a strong case and tried to back that statement up with repeating my opinion. Anyway, my point was that the number of titles is not enough for judging which player is better, is that so hard to digest?
 

Olli Jokinen

Semi-Pro
So, who would be your choice for 3rd best player of the 80's then?

For me, the order would be (excluding Borg and Connors)
Lendl
McEnroe
Wilander
Becker
Edberg
...
Cash
Kriek
... and after that I guess players like Noah, Leconte, Mecir, Vilas in no specific order.
 
Top