Top 3 players of each decade in order.

[pc1]

Great discussions between Sgt John and Carlo. Just great, detailed and well-reasoned posts by both -- while I very much respect both views -- and I concur with Sgt John and Carlo on their lists except in two instances:

30s 1) Vines 2) Perry 3) Budge -- which is Carlo's view but not Sgt Johns and:

70s 1) "Burken" 2) "Belleville Basher" 3) "Newk" -- why Newk and not the excellent choices Smith and "Nasty"?

Well, as I see it, Newk is a genius and one of the strongest match-players ever during his peak. Growing up in the total eclipse of the greatness of Rodman and Kenny -- he battled on and won Wimby twice against supremely competitive opponents in extremely tough five-setters and being one of the best doubles players ever. And Newk was robbed of several Wimby-starts to increase his records during the turmoil that was the Pro scene in the 70s. To cap it off for me was Newk's 1974. Being the No. 1 guy on the WCT-circuit he lost two draining battles at Wimby and US Open that clearly for me drained Kenny's batteries in the coming finals against Jimbo.

And I also think he under-performed at Wimby and USO 1974 -- these circumstances paved the way for Jimbo's great success. And Newk, the spring-No. 1, and Jimbo, the summer and fall No. 1 never met H2H until their AO-final on January 1st 1975 (which to me counts as the last match of 1974 -- when it was broadcast live to USA it was in fact in the evening of December 31st 1974 -- their only match-up that strange year.

Newk had the toughest road to the GS-final at Kooyong that I've heard about. So many grueling five-setters and even doubles matches in just one week (the last week of 1974) that logically Newk should've lost that final against Jimbo simply out of fatigue. Newk had no memories of the last set against Roche the day before that's how flattened he had become (add to that that Newk only had ten days prep before the tourney and his achievement is simply beyond anything)...

Newk faces a Jimbo who has won three straight GS-titles in 1974 on grass and had a win-loss record that was just a shade lower than Mac's of 1984.

And Newk, the man who lost twice to the finalist that Jimbo crushed at Wimby and USO (Rosewall), beat the "invincible" Jimbo in one of the finest matches I've seen. Amazing.

So many "clutch"-moments by Newk at important stages he's got to be my 70s third guy.

Smith and Nastase -- very good choices also...

Newk had a presence about him that made you think that he owned the court. It's always been interesting to me that while Newk didn't win too many tournaments in 1973, I believe he did win two majors, the Australian and the U.S. Open. Newcombe played a young (but great) Jimmy Connors in the quarterfinals of the U.S. Open that year and won 6-4 7-6 7-6 on just one service break of Connors the entire match. Connors, despite his awesome service return did not break Newcombe once! The two tiebreaks went to 4-4 and whoever won the next point would win the set and Newcombe won both crucial points. The third set tiebreak had a simultaneous match and set point for both players. The match was of extremely high quality.

Another super clutch performance that year was his defeat of Stan Smith in the Davis Cup final opening match. It went to five sets and Smith, if I recall correctly had a break and match point against him in the last set in the ad court. Newcombe, as he often did on big points, moved well over into the alley to show Smith that he was going to belt his forehand if at all possible. I think this may have psyched Smith as he went for it on second serve and double faulted the match away. Of course Australian won the Davis Cup. Newcombe was just a big match player.

He won five majors in the 1970's including two Wimbledons.

Not that it means anything but I think it's a shame how forgotten Newcombe is nowadays. The guy had a serve comparable to Sampras, a great volley, stamina and a forehand that could compare to anyone.

 

[CEvertFan]

1960s women: 1. Court, 2. Bueno, 3. King
1960s men: 1. Laver, 2. Rosewall, 3. Emerson
1970s women: 1. Evert, 2.Court, 3. King
1970s mens: 1. Borg, 2. Connors, 3. Newcombe
1980s women: 1. Navratilova, 2. Evert, 3. Graf (only because Graf only really dominated from 87-89 whereas Evert was at #1 or #2 for most of the entire decade - 7 years > 3years - I'll acknowledge that one could argue for Graf at #2 because of the 1988 Grand Slam)
1980s men: 1. Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3. Becker/Wilander
1990s women: 1. Graf, 2. Seles, 3. Hingis
1990s mens: 1. Sampras, 2. Agassi, 3. Edberg/Courier
2000s women: 1. Serena, 2. Henin, 3. Venus
2000s men: 1. Federer, 2. Nadal, 3. Hewitt

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

1960s women: 1. Court, 2. Bueno, 3. King
1960s men: 1. Laver, 2. Rosewall, 3. Emerson or Gonzales
1970s women: 1. Court, 2. Evert, 3. Goolagong or King
1970s mens: 1. Borg, 2. Connors, 3. Nastase
1980s women: 1. Navratilova, 2. Graf, 3. Evert
1980s men: 1. Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3. Wilander
1990s women: 1. Graf, 2. Seles, 3. Hingis
1990s mens: 1. Sampras, 2. Agassi, 3. Edberg
2000s women: 1. Serena, 2. Henin, 3. Venus
2000s men: 1. Nadal, 2. Federer, 3. Hewitt

 

[CEvertFan]

1960s women: 1. Court, 2. Bueno, 3. King
1960s men: 1. Laver, 2. Rosewall, 3. Emerson or Gonzales
1970s women: 1. Court, 2. Evert, 3. Goolagong or King
1970s mens: 1. Borg, 2. Connors, 3. Nastase
1980s women: 1. Navratilova, 2. Graf, 3. Evert
1980s men: 1. Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3. Wilander
1990s women: 1. Graf, 2. Seles, 3. Hingis
1990s mens: 1. Sampras, 2. Agassi, 3. Edberg
2000s women: 1. Serena, 2. Henin, 3. Venus
2000s men: 1. Nadal, 2. Federer, 3. Hewitt

LOL Nadal over Federer at this point in time? Not likely. How many weeks at #1? How many majors? Enough said. Nadal can't come close to matching what Federer did this decade. He might in the next decade though.

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

LOL Nadal over Federer at this point in time? Not likely. How many weeks at #1? How many majors? Enough said. Nadal can't come close to matching what Federer did this decade. He might in the next decade though.

It is pretty simple for me. Nadal's ownership of Federer is so extreme, during a long time period they were #1 and #2 in the world (despite Nadal being ranked #2 the majority of the time) that I just cant consider Federer better than Nadal. I am a big fan of both, but it is how I see it. Anyway the decade isnt over yet. Nadal certainly will win more slams before the decade is done, Federer will not.

9 slams and the Calender Slam, dominant head to head vs biggest rival > 13 slams and no French Open, terrible head to head vs biggest rival

 

[CEvertFan]

It is pretty simple for me. Nadal's ownership of Federer is so extreme, during a long time period they were #1 and #2 in the world (despite Nadal being ranked #2 the majority of the time) that I just cant consider Federer better than Nadal. I am a big fan of both, but it is how I see it. Anyway the decade isnt over yet. Nadal certainly will win more slams before the decade is done, Federer will not.

9 slams and the Calender Slam, dominant head to head vs biggest rival > 13 slams and no French Open, terrible head to head vs biggest rival

Nadal would need to win the calendar Grand Slam this year to even be in contention because this is the last year of the decade, next year is 2010 which is the first year of a brand new decade. Just because he has a winning record over Federer doesn't mean as much as you make it out to be, considering that most of those wins are on clay and Nadal is well on his way to being the all time GOAT on clay. Federer is on the decline right now which is why Nadal has started winning on hard and grass against Federer but that still doesn't make him better. The younger player is always eventually going to start dominating the older player.

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

Nadal would need to win the calendar Grand Slam this year to even be in contention because this is the last year of the decade, next year is 2010 which is the first year of a brand new decade. Just because he has a winning record over Federer doesn't mean as much as you make it out to be, considering that most of those wins are on clay and Nadal is well on his way to being the all time GOAT on clay. Federer is on the decline right now which is why Nadal has started winning on hard and grass against Federer but that still doesn't make him better. The younger player is always eventually going to start dominating the older player.

Give me a break on the age thing. Federer is only 27 now. He has been in the last 4 slam finals so would have won the non calender slam the last year without Nadal. Federer certainly did not have the age disadvantage when he was losing multiple times to a teenage Nadal on both clay and hard courts from 2004-2006.

Even if you exclude clay their head to head is almost tied. When you exclude one players best surface, one player worst, and you still have a virtual tie it is clear who has the edge. Not to mention the fact Federer has most of his wins over Nadal on non-clay surfaces from 2004-2006 when Nadal wasnt nearly as good a player non non-clay surfaces yet. Lets say outdoor hard courts are the most neutral surface for them to meet on. Nadal is 3-1, Federer's only win he was on the verge of a 3 straight sets loss, and Nadal even beat him when he was only 17 years old and a nobody on tour in 2004.

Nadal will win the Calendar Slam this year. You can mark my words and come back to this thread in September if you wish, but it will happen.

 

[Borgforever]

Newk had a presence about him that made you think that he owned the court. It's always been interesting to me that while Newk didn't win too many tournaments in 1973, I believe he did win two majors, the Australian and the U.S. Open. Newcombe played a young (but great) Jimmy Connors in the quarterfinals of the U.S. Open that year and won 6-4 7-6 7-6 on just one service break of Connors the entire match. Connors, despite his awesome service return did not break Newcombe once! The two tiebreaks went to 4-4 and whoever won the next point would win the set and Newcombe won both crucial points. The third set tiebreak had a simultaneous match and set point for both players. The match was of extremely high quality.

Another super clutch performance that year was his defeat of Stan Smith in the Davis Cup final opening match. It went to five sets and Smith, if I recall correctly had a break and match point against him in the last set in the ad court. Newcombe, as he often did on big points, moved well over into the alley to show Smith that he was going to belt his forehand if at all possible. I think this may have psyched Smith as he went for it on second serve and double faulted the match away. Of course Australian won the Davis Cup. Newcombe was just a big match player.

He won five majors in the 1970's including two Wimbledons.

Not that it means anything but I think it's a shame how forgotten Newcombe is nowadays. The guy had a serve comparable to Sampras, a great volley, stamina and a forehand that could compare to anyone.

I fully agree. Newcombe has my highest respect and I continually find (for me) new interesting matches to watch of him. That first serve of his is just amazing -- and that second serve as well...

He could even slay with his BH -- at important stages of a match -- like that instant return BH-winner he just rips on set-point in the third in the AO-final of 1975.

Very, very inspiring and sensational player to watch. Although I rank him lower than Björn, Pancho and Rod -- he's just as great a competitor as they are in my eyes...

 

[CEvertFan]

Even if you exclude clay their head to head is almost tied.

Enough said.

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

Hello gentlemen,

Jonathan I've slightly edited the previous post to indicate that I don't think anymore that Smith was #1 in 1971 (but #3 behind Rod and Kenny).

Borgforever and pc1,
there are several reasons why I don't choose Newk as 3rd player of the 70's (Nastase being my choice) :
as I've said before in my mind he was never the #1 in a calendar year. His mental strength could be very strong as you've stated (and it is very well explained in his own book "Newk" published in 2002 where he indicated all his thinkings during some of his great matches) except against Laver. When I was young many told me that the champion of the early 70's was Newcombe but when I've discovered his record on the ATP Website I was so disappointed by his so numerous defeats even at his peak and when I found that even in the 70's he trailed Laver, the latter being past his peak I couldn't believe it.

In the long term Newk hadn't a great mental strength : he was a sort of Agassi (but I recognize not so low, far from that) with many downs. The really first one came at the US Open 1971 when he injured in the doubles. He didn't go to the doctor and therefore played badly until the spring in 1972 and then he told to his countrymen (I don't remember who but there were two, it's written in "Newk") that he wanted to retire. They answered that he behaved like a coward. So Newk got to the doctor, was healed and came back and in a few weeks won the Vegas tournament and reached 8th place just to qualify for the WCT Finals.
And next year after the Wimbledon disaster he wanted again to retire but this time this is his wife who told him to think about it and after a night Newk once again decided to come back, then he won the US Open, beat Smith in Davis Cup, apparently one of the best matches of the year, but lost to Hrebec (and Sakai in the spring), won the WCT Finals but as he was to reach the #1 spot at the end of the year he didn't win either Wimby or Forest and let the 1st place to Jimbo. Yes he beat Connors superbly in the Australian 1975 but it was an ordinary tournament with only two players among the Top20 (but it is true that those two players were the best two) : I will be hard but except Connors, Newk and Rochey there was no one in that tourney (this is why I don't rate Newk's win from Connors as high as Ashe's win at Wimbledon final).
And once again Newk decided to quietly retired though he was only 30 years old. This time it was the good one (he sort of played for the pleasure afterwards).

About 1973 I won't say he has won two majors. The US Open no doubt it was the only event in the year where all the players came but the Australian Open was so weak : only Rosewall and Newcombe of the Top20 (as in 1972), no Smith, no Nastase, no Laver, no Ashe, no Richey, no Drysdale, no Okker, no Gimeno, no Lutz, no Riessen, no Orantes, no Gorman, no Hewitt, no Connors, no ..., so in my mind Newk has won only 4 majors (2 Wimby, 1 US, 1 WCT).

This is why I don't rate him as high as both of you.

But it is completely true that he had superb 1st and 2nd services (probably the most beautiful service movement of the 70's) very effective, a great forehand, and a great forehand volley (and with Rochey one of the greatest doubles in tennis history).

And it is also clear that his 5th set in the 1970 Wimby final and his come back in the 1971 Wimby final were pure masterpieces. And Newk was also popular because he had much sex-appeal especially since he let his moustache grow late in 1970.

About Tilden and Johnston :
apparently Johnston reached his peak in 1922 and even in June-July 1923 when he won the World Hard Court Chps in Saint-Cloud (next to Paris) and then Wimbledon (Tilden didn't play in Europe). If I believe EC Potter in World Tennis then Johnston came back to the US apparently tired by his European journey and didn't play as well in the US as in Europe so Tilden (besides not tired by a European expedition) won easily enough the US Champs in 1923.
If I also believe AW Myers, Tilden had immensely improved between his 1923 US final and his 1924 US final : at the time Myers (and apparently others as possibly Brookes) and all the witnesses of that last match considered that no one had played as well as Tilden in that 1924 final.
So in conclusion between 1919 and mid-1923 Johnston and Tilden seemed to be quite equal but since 1924, Tilden probably "flew in the sky" while Johnston steadily declined (as apparently proved by his loss to Richards in the East-West matches in 1924).

 

[pc1]

Hello gentlemen,

Jonathan I've slightly edited the previous post to indicate that I don't think anymore that Smith was #1 in 1971 (but #3 behind Rod and Kenny).

Borgforever and pc1,
there are several reasons why I don't choose Newk as 3rd player of the 70's (Nastase being my choice) :
as I've said before in my mind he was never the #1 in a calendar year. His mental strength could be very strong as you've stated (and it is very well explained in his own book "Newk" published in 2002 where he indicated all his thinkings during some of his great matches) except against Laver. When I was young many told me that the champion of the early 70's was Newcombe but when I've discovered his record on the ATP Website I was so disappointed by his so numerous defeats even at his peak and when I found that even in the 70's he trailed Laver, the latter being past his peak I couldn't believe it.

In the long term Newk hadn't a great mental strength : he was a sort of Agassi (but I recognize not so low, far from that) with many downs. The really first one came at the US Open 1971 when he injured in the doubles. He didn't go to the doctor and therefore played badly until the spring in 1972 and then he told to his countrymen (I don't remember who but there were two, it's written in "Newk") that he wanted to retire. They answered that he behaved like a coward. So Newk got to the doctor, was healed and came back and in a few weeks won the Vegas tournament and reached 8th place just to qualify for the WCT Finals.
And next year after the Wimbledon disaster he wanted again to retire but this time this is his wife who told him to think about it and after a night Newk once again decided to come back, then he won the US Open, beat Smith in Davis Cup, apparently one of the best matches of the year, but lost to Hrebec (and Sakai in the spring), won the WCT Finals but as he was to reach the #1 spot at the end of the year he didn't win either Wimby or Forest and let the 1st place to Jimbo. Yes he beat Connors superbly in the Australian 1975 but it was an ordinary tournament with only two players among the Top20 (but it is true that those two players were the best two) : I will be hard but except Connors, Newk and Rochey there was no one in that tourney (this is why I don't rate Newk's win from Connors as high as Ashe's win at Wimbledon final).
And once again Newk decided to quietly retired though he was only 30 years old. This time it was the good one (he sort of played for the pleasure afterwards).

About 1973 I won't say he has won two majors. The US Open no doubt it was the only event in the year where all the players came but the Australian Open was so weak : only Rosewall and Newcombe of the Top20 (as in 1972), no Smith, no Nastase, no Laver, no Ashe, no Richey, no Drysdale, no Okker, no Gimeno, no Lutz, no Riessen, no Orantes, no Gorman, no Hewitt, no Connors, no ..., so in my mind Newk has won only 4 majors (2 Wimby, 1 US, 1 WCT).

This is why I don't rate him as high as both of you.

But it is completely true that he had superb 1st and 2nd services (probably the most beautiful service movement of the 70's) very effective, a great forehand, and a great forehand volley (and with Rochey one of the greatest doubles in tennis history).

And it is also clear that his 5th set in the 1970 Wimby final and his come back in the 1971 Wimby final were pure masterpieces. And Newk was also popular because he had much sex-appeal especially since he let his moustache grow late in 1970.

About Tilden and Johnston :
apparently Johnston reached his peak in 1922 and even in June-July 1923 when he won the World Hard Court Chps in Saint-Cloud (next to Paris) and then Wimbledon (Tilden didn't play in Europe). If I believe EC Potter in World Tennis then Johnston came back to the US apparently tired by his European journey and didn't play as well in the US as in Europe so Tilden (besides not tired by a European expedition) won easily enough the US Champs in 1923.
If I also believe AW Myers, Tilden had immensely improved between his 1923 US final and his 1924 US final : at the time Myers (and apparently others as possibly Brookes) and all the witnesses of that last match considered that no one had played as well as Tilden in that 1924 final.
So in conclusion between 1919 and mid-1923 Johnston and Tilden seemed to be quite equal but since 1924, Tilden probably "flew in the sky" while Johnston steadily declined (as apparently proved by his loss to Richards in the East-West matches in 1924).

Carlo my friend, I didn't pick Newcombe as the third best player of the 1970's. Frankly I'm not sure who it is yet because I haven't studied all the possibilities. Nastase is one, Newcombe, Smith, Rosewall and Ashe are also possibilities among others. Clearly Connors and Borg are the top two.

Since Borgforever mentioned Newcombe I thought it gave me the opportunity to discuss him. I always found him to be an interesting player in his ability to rise to the occasion for one match but very boring to watch overall. However I respected Newcombe's ability.

You may very well be correct about his inability to commit himself to tennis. The best form I have ever seem for Newcombe was from the 1973 U.S. Open to about the middle of 1974 in which he probably was the best player in the world. Winning the WCT in those days was probably considered a better accomplishment than winning the Australian. But that, aside from his amazing 1975 Australian win over Connors was really his last harrah as a top player.

I don't think Newcombe had the talent of a Nastase, Hoad, Laver and I believe his doubles partner Tony Roche but he got a lot out of his talent, which was a lot. But I think you are correct, he could have done more.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Who do you believe are the top 3 players of each decade in order. Here are mine:

1960s women: 1. Court, 2. Bueno, 3. King
1960s men: 1. Laver, 2. Rosewall, 3. Emerson
1970s women: 1. Court, 2. Evert, 3. Goolagong
1970s mens: 1. Borg, 2. Connors, 3. Newcombe
1980s women: 1. Navratilova, 2. Graf, 3. Evert
1980s men: 1. Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3. Becker
1990s women: 1. Graf, 2. Seles, 3. Hingis
1990s mens: 1. Sampras, 2. Courier, 3. Agassi
2000s women: 1. Serena, 2. Henin, 3. Venus
2000s men: 1. Federer, 2. Nadal, 3. Hewitt

You should have Edberg and Wilander as nr 2 or 3 on the 80s men and 90s men.

 

[thalivest]

You should have Edberg and Wilander as nr 2 or 3 on the 80s men and 90s men.

Wilander wouldnt even be on the radar screen for the 90s men. He achieved nothing in the 90s. He wouldnt even be in the top 30 men of the 90s. The 80s maybe.

Edberg's accomplishments were split over 2 decades, 3 slam titles in the 80s and 90s each. Thus he couldnt be in the top 3 for the 80s with what Lendl, Mcenroe, Wilander, and Becker achieved. The 90s maybe.

 

[pc1]

Wilander wouldnt even be on the radar screen for the 90s men. He achieved nothing in the 90s. He wouldnt even be in the top 30 men of the 90s. The 80s maybe.

Edberg's accomplishments were split over 2 decades, 3 slam titles in the 80s and 90s each. Thus he couldnt be in the top 3 for the 80s with what Lendl, Mcenroe, Wilander, and Becker achieved. The 90s maybe.

I was surprised Edberg declined so rapidly in the mid 1990's. If you had to pick a player up to the mid 1990's, he was up there with Sampras.

He was still fairly young when he won the U.S. Open over Sampras and you would have figured he was good for at least one more major, perhaps several more.

 

[jean pierre]

Doesn't anybody think maybe Vilas should be #3 for the 70s? He won four Slams on two different surfaces (clay and grass), and also made three more Slam finals in that decade, losing two to Borg and one to Tanner.

Absolutely ! Vilas is n°3 for the 70's.

 

[DunlopDood]

Who do you believe are the top 3 players of each decade in order. Here are mine:

1960s women: 1. Court, 2. Bueno, 3. King
1960s men: 1. Laver, 2. Rosewall, 3. Emerson
1970s women: 1. Court, 2. Evert, 3. Goolagong
1970s mens: 1. Borg, 2. Connors, 3. Newcombe
1980s women: 1. Navratilova, 2. Graf, 3. Evert
1980s men: 1. Lendl, 2. McEnroe, 3. Becker
1990s women: 1. Graf, 2. Seles, 3. Hingis
1990s mens: 1. Sampras, 2. Courier, 3. Agassi
2000s women: 1. Serena, 2. Henin, 3. Venus
2000s men: 1. Federer, 2. Nadal, 3. Hewitt

I think you may have made a mistake, shouldn't it read 1990s mens: 1. Sampras, 2. Agassi, 3. Courier ?

 

[droliver]

The consideration of Edberg, who kind of straddles the mid 80's-90's got me thinking. Just for fun, let's change the periods to

1975-85
1985-95
1995-05+

 

[boredone3456]

The consideration of Edberg, who kind of straddles the mid 80's-90's got me thinking. Just for fun, let's change the periods to

1975-85
1985-95
1995-05+

I like Edberg but by changing the times to accomodate for one player could possibly hurt other players chances, now I dunno off the top of my head whether it does but I say leave it the way it is. You can't pick times to make every player in history fit, wish you could but its not possible.

 

[droliver]

Well, as any 10 year period is kind of arbitrary, shifting to mid decade changes your perspective. I think the 1985 break is kind of interesting as that kind of represents the modern raquet and power game era being thrust upon tennis. I think Becker's 1985 wimbledon is kind of a symbolic genesis of contemporary tennis. Lendl & Wilander kind of get the short stick with this time period breakdown I'd think.

Just for fun.

1975-1985
1. Borg
2. Connors
3. McEnroe

1985-1995
1. Becker
2. Edberg
3. Courier vs. Lendl(?)

1995-2005
1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Agassi

 

[Carlo Giovanni Colussi]

... The best form I have ever seem for Newcombe was from the 1973 U.S. Open to about the middle of 1974 in which he probably was the best player in the world. Winning the WCT in those days was probably considered a better accomplishment than winning the Australian. But that, aside from his amazing 1975 Australian win over Connors was really his last harrah as a top player. ...

Absolutely right. If we have to choose 12 months in a row as "July 1973 - June 1974" Newcombe was absolutely the best player of that period (and for once I agree the usually bad ATP ranking of the time who rightly ranked "Newk" n°1 in June 1974). But if we get back to calendar years, he was #2 in 1973 and probably in 1974.

 

[crabgrass]

Well, as any 10 year period is kind of arbitrary, shifting to mid decade changes your perspective. I think the 1985 break is kind of interesting as that kind of represents the modern raquet and power game era being thrust upon tennis. I think Becker's 1985 wimbledon is kind of a symbolic genesis of contemporary tennis. Lendl & Wilander kind of get the short stick with this time period breakdown I'd think.

Just for fun.

1975-1985
1. Borg
2. Connors
3. McEnroe

1985-1995
1. Becker
2. Edberg
3. Courier vs. Lendl(?)

1995-2005
1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Agassi

actually lendl would still be the clear number 1 for the 85-95 period also,
7 slam titles, 13 slam finals and something like 250 weeks at number1 leaves everyone else way behind.

 

[grafselesfan]

1975-1985
1. Borg
2. McEnroe
3. Connors

No way Connors is over McEnroe eliminating his 3 slam year in 1974, and keeping the span of all McEnroe's real achievements. They are close enough as it is.

1985-1995
1. Lendl
2. Edberg
3. Becker

Removing 1 Frenchie in no way would put Edberg or Becker over Lendl, the true dominant player of 85-87, something Becker and Edberg never were to that extent let alone for 3 consecutive years. Removing 1 hard court slam from Becker (96 Australian Open) would make it an easier call between him and Edberg as Edberg's record is now much more blanced.

1995-2005
1. Sampras
2. Federer
3. Agassi

I guess I go with Federer over Agassi as Agassi's Wimbledon title was not in this span and even though only 6 of Federer 13 majors are that matches Agassi's 6 in this span, and Federer dominated in a way Agassi never did during 2004-2005.

1975-1985

1. Evert
2. Navratilova
3. Austin

Evert loses alot less just removing 1974 and her pre-slam very good years than Navratilova does removing 86, 87, and her historic 1990 Wimbledon. Mandlikova loses 1 major and is now definitely enough to put Austin even with 2 slam titles to Hana 3 slam title over her now since she was a #1 player who did better vs Chris and Martina than Hana ever did. Heck I might put Tracy over Hana even as it is, although not as sure as I am when removing Hana's 87 Australian Open and 2nd Wimbledon final in 1986.

1985-1995

1. Graf
2. Seles
3. Navratilova

These seem pretty straightforward. Seles's won 8 of her 9 slams during this period, Navratilova 7 of her 18. Navratilova's most dominant years were 1982, 1983, and 1984, not included in this period.

1995-2005

1. Graf
2. Serena
3. Henin

Graf dominated completely 1995 and 1996. Serena dominated only 2002 the same degree. Serena's longevity aided more by weak competition rather than sustained excellence of play doesnt impress me all that much. JMO though. I almost want to rank Henin over Serena too but cant really.