Which decade had the toughest overall competition for men

[grafselesfan]

Which decade for mens tennis do you believe had the toughest competition from the 60s to now. This would be my order:

1. 1990s- most overall depth and competition throughout the top 15
2. 1970s- the consistently deepest top 4 or 5 of any decade
3. 1960s- hard to evalute since only in 1968 and 1969 were all the best together, when they were it was an excellent field
4. 1980s- alot of great players throughout the decade, although maybe not all at their primes at onc.
5. 2000s- definitely the weakest decade with Federer and Nadal the only two true greats, and Kuerten (early 2000s), Hewitt, Safin, Roddick the only other semi noteables.

 

[clayman2000]

Which decade for mens tennis do you believe had the toughest competition from the 60s to now. This would be my order:

1. 1990s- most overall depth and competition throughout the top 15
2. 1970s- the consistently deepest top 4 or 5 of any decade
3. 1960s- hard to evalute since only in 1968 and 1969 were all the best together, when they were it was an excellent field
4. 1980s- alot of great players throughout the decade, although maybe not all at their primes at onc.
5. 2000s- definitely the weakest decade with Federer and Nadal the only two true greats, and Kuerten (early 2000s), Hewitt, Safin, Roddick the only other semi noteables.

Thread fail

How an the 90's have the most depth.... players were flopping in the rankings all the time. The consesnus 2nd best player of the decade Agassi was only 2 or 1 in the world 3 years.... also had the worst no 1 of all time: Rios, Moya, Kaflenikov. Probably the weakest generation in the Open Era.... how else could Cedric Pioline and Todd Martin make 2 slam finals. How esle could Peter Korda win 1.....

 

[grafselesfan]

Thread fail

How an the 90's have the most depth.... players were flopping in the rankings all the time. The consesnus 2nd best player of the decade Agassi was only 2 or 1 in the world 3 years.... also had the worst no 1 of all time: Rios, Moya, Kaflenikov. Probably the weakest generation in the Open Era.... how else could Cedric Pioline and Todd Martin make 2 slam finals. How esle could Peter Korda win 1.....

The 90s had:

Sampras
Agassi
Becker still a huge force in the early to mid 90s
Edberg in the early 90s
Courier a huge force in the early to mid 90s
Ivanisevic a monsterous presence on grass and carpet, would have won multiple Wimbledons in virtually any other era
Muster and Bruguera both clay court demons, plus Kuerten in late 90s another
Rafter a huge force at the end of the decade

Then you have a supporting cast of guys like Chang, Stich, Krajicek, Kafelnikov, Moya in the late 90s, Rios in the late 90s.

You metion Martin and Pioline. Guys like Martin, Pioline, and Medvedev, (who nearly won the FO in 99 past his prime of the early to mid 90s), Philipoussis in the late 90s, Henman in the late 90s, were all either multiple slam finalists or frequent top tenners who nearly won a slam, and yet they are barely in the top 20 most important players of the decade behind all those I mentioned. That is depth.

 

[lawrence]

dont get me wrong, but having more slam winners in a decade doesn't mean its a tougher competition.. it could just mean the GOAT candidates of the respective decades didn't dominate enough to close out the competition?
just my opinion

 

[clayman2000]

The 90s had:

Sampras
Agassi
Becker still a huge force in the early to mid 90s
Edberg in the early 90s
Courier a huge force in the early to mid 90s
Ivanisevic a monsterous presence on grass and carpet, would have won multiple Wimbledons in virtually any other era
Muster and Bruguera both clay court demons, plus Kuerten in late 90s another
Rafter a huge force at the end of the decade

Then you have a supporting cast of guys like Chang, Stich, Krajicek, Kafelnikov, Moya in the late 90s, Rios in the late 90s.

You metion Martin and Pioline. Guys like Martin, Pioline, and Medvedev, (who nearly won the FO in 99 past his prime of the early to mid 90s), Philipoussis in the late 90s, Henman in the late 90s, were all either multiple slam finalists or frequent top tenners who nearly won a slam, and yet they are barely in the top 20 most important players of the decade behind all those I mentioned. That is depth.

Chang, Stich, Krajicek, Kaflenikov and Moya were all pylons.... nothing more than todays Nalbandians, Davydenkos, and Ljubicic's. Difference is that the 90's guys had at least 1 chance where Sampras and Agassi and the big boys were out, thus there moment to shine. Nalby and Davy and Ljubicic never had that, becuase there was this guy named Roger who beat everyone not named Nadal

As for Becker... its pretty sad that from 92 - 94, he was in the top 5, despite making only 1 slam QF each year. Now i suspect youll bring up Blake in 06 here so before you can ill say, that was 1 year... with Becker it happened 3 years in a row.

Courier was a good player for 3 years.... then he disappeared of the face of the earth

Ivanisevic had 1 slam semi off of grass... he would suck today, and his consistency was worse than Agassi

Rafter a huge force HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. His slam wins ere over Martin and and Rusedski..... he made 7 slam semis.... fail

Clay court specialist like Brugera and Muster just add to my point. It shows that the top are ineffective on all surfaces.... in this decade even the clay courters could play off grass. Ferrero made a slam semi at the AO, Final at USO and 2 Wimby QF. Even Coria made 2 HC slam masters finals, and 3 HC slam QF. Brugera was an embarresment to the 90's how bad must the top field have been for him to do well

 

[T1000]

70s
60s
80s
00s
90s

 

[film1]

Depends on the Country, In the USA the 70s with out a doubt.

 

[Arafel]

I voted the 70s. You had Laver and Rosewall and Ashe and Newcombe early, then Connors and Borg, with players like Tanner and Vilas just under them, and then the emergence of McEnroe in 78.

 

[grafrules]

Definitely the 70s.

 

[grafrules]

I voted the 70s. You had Laver and Rosewall and Ashe and Newcombe early, then Connors and Borg, with players like Tanner and Vilas just under them, and then the emergence of McEnroe in 78.

Dont forget Stan Smith and even Jan Kodes in the early 70s who were both huge factors in the early part of the decade, and Nastase in the early-middle of the decade too.

 

[GameSampras]

80s-early 90s IMO.

You might be able to include some mid 90s in there too. But then the rest of the 90s (late 90s-early 00s) it kind of hit a wall talent wise.

 

[egn]

80s. 10 char.

 

[Borgforever]

When I voted my main concern was the top ten players. The pro scene -- with Pancho, Ken and Rod as heavy duty GOAT-contenders (flanked by several great players) making a serious impact -- just competing among themselves created IMO an unmatched tennis-battleground.

That said I remain convinced that the level from R1 to QF has risen quite markedly, step-by-step, from 1968 onwards. But great champions are always just that -- regardless of era.

Ted Schroeder said some wise words to differentiate players: "A player who has great skill and no heart -- he's pretty good. A player who lacks a lot of skill but has great heart -- he's a much better player. A player who has both great skill and great heart. That's a great champion."

From the 1960s on -- IMO -- we've seen a steady and impressive increase in players with great skill -- but not much heart. The other two types are still as rare as hen's teeth. Always was. Those guys lacking heart never caught my attention...

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

70s
60s
80s
00s
90s

00s stronger that the 90s :lol: in your dreams.

 

[FiveO]

Chang, Stich, Krajicek, Kaflenikov and Moya were all pylons.... nothing more than todays Nalbandians, Davydenkos, and Ljubicic's. Difference is that the 90's guys had at least 1 chance where Sampras and Agassi and the big boys were out, thus there moment to shine. Nalby and Davy and Ljubicic never had that, becuase there was this guy named Roger who beat everyone not named Nadal

Sampras at Majors v. the above:

Chang: 4-0
Stich: 1-0
Krajicek: 1-1
Kafelnikov: 1-1

Federer vs. your guys at Majors.

Davydenko: 3-0 (12-0 overall)
Nalbandian: 2-2 (10-8 overall)
Ljubicic: Never played him (12-3 overall)

Interesting tid-bits, not only are the above Sampras foes Major winners here's their career records:

Stich (low man): 385-176
Krajicek: 411- 219
Kafelnikov: 609-306
Chang: 662-312

for comparison:

Nalby: 306-148 (14-7 in '09)
Davydenko: 336-220 (18-7 in '09)
Ljubicic: 360-243 (17-14 in '09)

I know, these guys aren't done. In truth Nalby could go 105 and 60 over the next few years to catch Krajicek career record, maybe. But is he suddenly going to go on a 79-26 tear anytime soon? Davy and Ljubicic? Ain't catching any of these guys.

So these Sampras peers not only played better vs. their respective peers, they had the experience and the stones to reach into the later rounds of Majors than Feds peers and Sampras faced and denied guys like this with at least the same frequency as Fed does his. And yet these aren't the best guys, just more of them.

As for Becker... its pretty sad that from 92 - 94, he was in the top 5, despite making only 1 slam QF each year. Now i suspect youll bring up Blake in 06 here so before you can ill say, that was 1 year... with Becker it happened 3 years in a row.

Of course what you meant to say was that Becker was ranked #3, #11 and #5 from '92-'94.

That he played 9 of 12 Majors those years due to recurring injury going 23-9, making one QF and TWO SF's at Wimbledon in that span, losing to Agassi, Sampras and Ivanisevic.

It also slipped your mind that he also won 2 MS level events and reached another MS Final, another SF and 3 QF during this span.

Probably just an oversight your part that you forgot to mention Becker winning the Year End Masters in '92, losing to #3 Sampras but beating #6 Korda and #2 Edberg in the RR, #4 Ivanisevic in the SF and defeating world #1 Courier in the Final in straights, winning it for the first time since '88. In '94 he reached the Final, going undefeated in RR play vs. Ivanisevic, Sampras and Edberg, beating Bruguera in the SF only to lose to world #1 Sampras in 4.

And we both know why you stopped there, don't we?

Becker would reach the YEC (now WTF) three straight years from '94 to '96, going undefeated to win the Title '95 for the second time in four years, to go along with a Wimbledon Final and US Open SF. In '96 Becker lost in the Final to world #1 Sampras in what is regarded as one of, if not the greatest indoor finals of all time, a tough loss, probably made a tad easier to take with the AO Title he won at the beginning of that year.

He played and lost to Sampras at Wimbledon in the '94 SF, '95 Final and '97 QF, to use your reasoning regarding how Federer single handedly prevented Roddick from being one of the greatest ever, Becker could of finished with 5, hell six Wimbledon titles were it not for Sampras.

And no I won't bring up Blake. Blake is a nice player and a nice guy but he and Becker don't belong in the same thought process nor in the same sentence.

Courier was a good player for 3 years.... then he disappeared of the face of the earth

'93 Wimbledon Final to Sampras
'94 AO SF to Sampras
'94 RG QF to Courier
'95 AO QF to Sampras
'95 USO SF to Sampras
'96 RG QF to Sampras

From '94 through '96 they played 8 times total including the above meetings at Majors. Of the eight 4 took place in the QF's and the other 4 in the SF's of the events. Courier wasn't done after '93 he was done in by Sampras.

You like to make alot out of guys Federer stopped blocking them from getting Majors. How's about the 5 times Sampras stopped Courier, another guy bringing the experience of multiple Major wins with into those matches. Not experience gained within Sampras's run, just prior to it. And nothing really changed, because Sampras was already 5-2 v. Courier in '91-'92 during Jim's time at #1 including a '91 QF USO to Courier, '91 ATP Tour World Championship F to Sampras and a '92 ATP Tour WC SF to Courier. From that point through '96 the h2h got worse, 9-1 Sampras, including those 6 meetings in the late rounds of Majors where Sampras went 5-1.

Ivanisevic had 1 slam semi off of grass... he would suck today, and his consistency was worse than Agassi

Why cause you say so? Ivanisevic was a devout grass and carpet star. Unlike Roddick he earned his bones on grass beating other actual grass court stars from the get go, as a teen, i.e. Kevin Curren, Boris Becker, prime Edberg and just pre-prime Sampras. He went on to go:

1-1 v. Becker (3 three Wimbledon titles)
1-0 v. Edberg (2)

0-1 v. Agassi (1)
1-0 v. Krajicek (1)

2-2 v. Martin
2-0 v. Rafter
1-0 v. Henman

and 1-3 v. Sampras

Compare that to Roddick's resume. Roddick never, as in not once between 2001 to 2008 ever beat anyone ranked within the top 10 at Wimbledon. The highest ranked players he ever beat there during that span and the only three ranked above #21 during that span of time, were #11 Paradorn Srichaphan, #14 Thomas Johansson and #18 Guillermo Coria. Who's resume looks thin now. Yeah in that span he lost 3 times to Federer and IMO THAT simple fact enhances his reputation, but that means he lost five other times to guys not named Federer or later Nadal at Wimbledon.

Rafter a huge force HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. His slam wins ere over Martin and and Rusedski..... he made 7 slam semis.... fail

It was Rusedski and Philippoussis. In '97 Rafter beat what would be, after 2000 six seeds ranked #30 and higher, including world #2 Chang to win the title. In '98, 4 seeds including Ivanisevic, Bjorkman, Sampras and Philippoussis.

Now Bjorkman and Philippoussis should be familiar to Fed-fanatics as those were the guys who reached the Wimbledon QF and Final respectively in 2003 and for Bjorkman a SF in '06.

Bjorkman had never got past the R16 at SW19 between 94 and 2000.

From '96 to 2000 Philippoussis had reached three QF's but no further losing to Sampras 3x, a #1 Agassi and once to Rusedski during that time span.

Clay court specialist like Brugera and Muster just add to my point. It shows that the top are ineffective on all surfaces.... in this decade even the clay courters could play off grass. Ferrero made a slam semi at the AO, Final at USO and 2 Wimby QF. Even Coria made 2 HC slam masters finals, and 3 HC slam QF. Brugera was an embarresment to the 90's how bad must the top field have been for him to do well

Um. Let's see.

Edberg winner of Wimbledon, the US and AO titles was an RG finalist.
Becker winner of Wimbledon, the US and AO titles was an RG semi-finalist.
Courier winner of AO and RG, Wimbledon and US Open finalist
Kuerten 3X RG winner, QF-ist at Wimbledon and US Open
Rafter 2X US Open titleist, 2X Wimbledon finalist, RG and AO SF-ist.
Kafelnikov AO and RG winner, US SF, Wimbledon QF-ist
Bruguera 2X RG winner, R16 at AO, Wimbledon and US Open.
Chang RG winner, finalist at AO and USO, QF-ist at Wimbledon
Stich winner of Wimbledon, was a US and RG finalist.
Moya RG winner, AO finalist, US Open SF-ist
Krajicek Wimbledon titleist, was a SF-ist at AO and RG and a 3X QF at the US.
Korda AO winner, RG r/u, US and Wimbledon QF-ist
Muster RG winner, AO SF-ist, US Open QF-ist

and then there's

Sampras, W, US and AO titleist, RG SF and 3x RG QF.

and of course there's Agassi and that career Slam thingy.

Yeah damn that Bruguera Major winner guy.

5

 

[urban]

I wouldn't go for decades, but shorter periods. My criterium is around 6 very strong or even great players at the top.
1934-39: It had 3 alltime greats Budge, Vines, Perry with some greats like Crawford, von Cramm, Riggs behind them. Its a pity, that the amateur-pro-split didn't let those rivalries evolve.
1957-9: Had great depht on the pro tour with Gonzales, Hoad, Sedgman, Rosewall, Trabert, Segura fighting it out. Some Forest Hills round-robins were as tough as anything in history.
1968-73: The early years of open era had some alltime great pros like Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, even Gonzales, and amateurs like Emerson, paired with young guns like Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Smith, and Nastase. Connors and Borg got on the horizon. It was a pity, that this era was overshadowed by promotional struggles and boycotts.
1986-1991: Some older established greats like Lendl and McEnroe, had to battle with new stars like Becker, Edberg, Wilander. For a short time, talented people like Courier and Stich were in the mix. Agassi and Sampras were coming along.

 

[zagor]

80s in my opinion.

 

[NLBwell]

1986-1991: Some older established greats like Lendl and McEnroe, had to battle with new stars like Becker, Edberg, Wilander. For a short time, talented people like Courier and Stich were in the mix. Agassi and Sampras were coming along.

Agree for number one

1968-73: The early years of open era had some alltime great pros like Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, even Gonzales, and amateurs like Emerson, paired with young guns like Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Smith, and Nastase. Connors and Borg got on the horizon. It was a pity, that this era was overshadowed by promotional struggles and boycotts.

Since the older pro players got a new lease on life, maybe the best in terms of talent with multiple generations of players playing at the top of their game. But the problems with the feuds of competing tours/power structures limited the opportunities and so the level of competition. So, number two.

 

[jimbo333]

1980's was toughest!

That's why I think Lendl is so underrated

 

[hoodjem]

1968-73: The early years of open era had some alltime great pros like Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, even Gonzales, and amateurs like Emerson, paired with young guns like Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Smith, and Nastase. Connors and Borg got on the horizon. It was a pity, that this era was overshadowed by promotional struggles and boycotts.

1986-1991: Some older established greats like Lendl and McEnroe, had to battle with new stars like Becker, Edberg, Wilander. For a short time, talented people like Courier and Stich were in the mix. Agassi and Sampras were coming along.

Great post by Urban, as usual. For me the choice is between these two eras. Tough call.

Postscript: I believe that the present era is quite shallow in terms of tennis talent. Other than Fed and Rafa, there seems to be a paucity of champions. Without either one, the other dominates and runs the table.

 

[FiveO]

I wouldn't go for decades, but shorter periods. My criterium is around 6 very strong or even great players at the top.
1934-39: It had 3 alltime greats Budge, Vines, Perry with some greats like Crawford, von Cramm, Riggs behind them. Its a pity, that the amateur-pro-split didn't let those rivalries evolve.
1957-9: Had great depht on the pro tour with Gonzales, Hoad, Sedgman, Rosewall, Trabert, Segura fighting it out. Some Forest Hills round-robins were as tough as anything in history.
1968-73: The early years of open era had some alltime great pros like Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, even Gonzales, and amateurs like Emerson, paired with young guns like Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Smith, and Nastase. Connors and Borg got on the horizon. It was a pity, that this era was overshadowed by promotional struggles and boycotts.
1986-1991: Some older established greats like Lendl and McEnroe, had to battle with new stars like Becker, Edberg, Wilander. For a short time, talented people like Courier and Stich were in the mix. Agassi and Sampras were coming along.

I also agree with these though I would be inclined to stretch the last time frame one more year to '92 as Ivanisevic and Krajicek at their names to the contenders list.

5

 

[grafselesfan]

Postscript: I believe that the present era is quite shallow in terms of tennis talent. Other than Fed and Rafa, there seems to be a paucity of champions. Without either one, the other dominates and runs the table.

I agree and that and that factors heavily against my willingess to crown Federer the greatest ever, especialy when he has yet to win a grand slam (even a non calender one) vs such an overall weak field with only one other true great player who he has allowed to do so much damage vs him while inflicting so little back despite being overall the far more accomplished of the two at this point.

 

[pc1]

I wouldn't go for decades, but shorter periods. My criterium is around 6 very strong or even great players at the top.
1934-39: It had 3 alltime greats Budge, Vines, Perry with some greats like Crawford, von Cramm, Riggs behind them. Its a pity, that the amateur-pro-split didn't let those rivalries evolve.
1957-9: Had great depht on the pro tour with Gonzales, Hoad, Sedgman, Rosewall, Trabert, Segura fighting it out. Some Forest Hills round-robins were as tough as anything in history.
1968-73: The early years of open era had some alltime great pros like Laver, Rosewall, Gimeno, even Gonzales, and amateurs like Emerson, paired with young guns like Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Smith, and Nastase. Connors and Borg got on the horizon. It was a pity, that this era was overshadowed by promotional struggles and boycotts.
1986-1991: Some older established greats like Lendl and McEnroe, had to battle with new stars like Becker, Edberg, Wilander. For a short time, talented people like Courier and Stich were in the mix. Agassi and Sampras were coming along.

Urban,

Superb post. I like your comments on 68-73 because it was terrible that the major tournaments were affect so badly by these disputes.

It's hard to pick one decade for me but the 1970's had Laver, Rosewall, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Newcombe, Roche, Gimeno, Nastase, Vilas, Ashe, Orantes, Smith all near or at their peaks. Well maybe Rosewall was a few years past his peak but still good. Problem is, as Urban mentioned, not all were at their peaks at the same time.

For one year in the decade I would pick 1974 because Connors, Laver, Rosewall, Smith, Borg, Newcombe, Nastase, Ashe, Orantes and Vilas were all tremendous. Actually that's an interesting question, what year had the greatest talent with players at or near their peaks?

 

[grafselesfan]

I actually agree with urban it is probably best to break it down into certain time periods rather than just whole decades. I guess I did it this way as I figured it would involve less flame wars than if I just named players eras, but yes breaking it down into specific time frames, many which crossed one decade to a next, makes more sense.

 

[anointedone]

Wow, only one vote for the 60s.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Of course what you meant to say was that Becker was ranked #3, #11 and #5 from '92-'94.

That he played 9 of 12 Majors those years due to recurring injury going 23-9, making one QF and TWO SF's at Wimbledon in that span, losing to Agassi, Sampras and Ivanisevic.

It also slipped your mind that he also won 2 MS level events and reached another MS Final, another SF and 3 QF during this span.

Probably just an oversight your part that you forgot to mention Becker winning the Year End Masters in '92, losing to #3 Sampras but beating #6 Korda and #2 Edberg in the RR, #4 Ivanisevic in the SF and defeating world #1 Courier in the Final in straights, winning it for the first time since '88. In '94 he reached the Final, going undefeated in RR play vs. Ivanisevic, Sampras and Edberg, beating Bruguera in the SF only to lose to world #1 Sampras in 4.

And we both know why you stopped there, don't we?

Becker would reach the YEC (now WTF) three straight years from '94 to '96, going undefeated to win the Title '95 for the second time in four years, to go along with a Wimbledon Final and US Open SF. In '96 Becker lost in the Final to world #1 Sampras in what is regarded as one of, if not the greatest indoor finals of all time, a tough loss, probably made a tad easier to take with the AO Title he won at the beginning of that year.

He played and lost to Sampras at Wimbledon in the '94 SF, '95 Final and '97 QF, to use your reasoning regarding how Federer single handedly prevented Roddick from being one of the greatest ever, Becker could of finished with 5, hell six Wimbledon titles were it not for Sampras.

And no I won't bring up Blake. Blake is a nice player and a nice guy but he and Becker don't belong in the same thought process nor in the same sentence.

Nice details about Boris which are rarely posted on the boards.

 

[hoodjem]

I agree and that and that factors heavily against my willingess to crown Federer the greatest ever, especialy when he has yet to win a grand slam (even a non calender one) vs such an overall weak field with only one other true great player who he has allowed to do so much damage vs him while inflicting so little back despite being overall the far more accomplished of the two at this point.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Put Federer in a tougher and more competitive era, ban him for six years from the majors, and then let's see how many slams he wins.?

 

[grafselesfan]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Put Federer in a tougher and more competitive era, ban him for six years from the majors, and then let's see how many slams he wins.?

Yep exactly. Lets say ban him from 2004-2009 perhaps. Then give him a tougher overall field of players to play against to boot when the guy seems to be having trouble winning vs only one legitimate rival (Nadal).

 

[boredone3456]

First thought I had was the 1960's...but the problem with the 60's was for many years during them the best were not allowed to play everywhere together at the same time. I would go with Urban's breakdown and say 1968-1973 were probably the deepest at the top. However, knowing who was around in the 60's as a whole of a decade...whether amateur, pro, somewhere in the middle, the list of names in and of themselves stand, many are known even today by people who may not know much about tennis, and are just casual fans. The 60's could be considered by some the strongest decade in tennis as a whole (mens and womens) in history. But since for the entire 70's everyone was allowed to compete everywhere and there was no longer pro and amateur I can see how that decade has so many votes, and rightfully so.

 

[GameSampras]

Now does this truly say how weak the current era is in terms of talent and legimitate champions, or just how dominant Fed and Nadal have been..

Just asking.

I think its a mixture of both. But it has been provided that, outside of Nadal, there just hasnt been that pestering rival there for Fed to have to deal with.. Nadal seems to be the only player with that will to win, that champions mindset. Something that is really lacking with the rest of the field.

 

[NikeWilson]

the 2000s is probably the weakest era.
if not, then the 1960s is. but they're definitely the 2 weakest eras in my opinion.

if Federer's greatest rival during his years of dominance was Andy Roddick, then that tells you how weak the field was. and no wonder Fed racked up all those Grand Slams, during that span.
it wasn't until Nadal emerged in 2007/2008where Federer started getting beat. and now Nadal owns him.

 

[Pete Semper]

The 90's was definitly the rawest , and you had diversity in the tennis game. 90's = The rawest and the most interesting decade IMO. (70's was not a bad choice).

 

[kiki]

Very close call.I´d separate 70´s and 80´s and rather say 1968-1979, then 1980-1989 because the Open era started in 68.

In terms of overall talent and diversity of play, 68 to 79 is the best one, with top form laver,Rosewall,Newcombe,Nastase,Ashe,Smith,Kodes,Borg,Connors,Vilas and second stringers as good as Orantes,Gimeno,Panatta,Gerulaitis,Tanner and emerging JMac.There are different styles in this package.

In 1980´there is 2 different parts: the first half, with Borg,Connors,Mac,Lendl and still competitive Vilas and Gerulaitis was excellent.In the second half, Lendl,Wilander,Becker,Edberg and also Cash,Mecir,Noah,Leconte,Gomez.Possibly the hardest overall competition.

The 1990´s were really good till 1995 or so, with prime Sampras,Agassi,Courier,Stich,Bruguera,Rafter,Goran,Krajicek and still tough Becker,Edberg.But the second half, except for Kuerten didn´t bring anything new, so in overall terms the 1990´s do not sound as good to me as the former 2 decades.And 2000 to 2009 has only 2 really great players (Federer,Nadal) plus some good but not great ones (Hewitt,Safin,Djokovic,Roddick,Murray and Del Potro); that is why I rank this era as the weakest one from 1968 till now.

 

[kiki]

Very close call.I´d separate 70´s and 80´s and rather say 1968-1979, then 1980-1989 because the Open era started in 68.

In terms of overall talent and diversity of play, 68 to 79 is the best one, with top form laver,Rosewall,Newcombe,Nastase,Ashe,Smith,Kodes,Borg,Connors,Vilas and second stringers as good as Orantes,Gimeno,Panatta,Gerulaitis,Tanner and emerging JMac.There are different styles in this package.

In 1980´there is 2 different parts: the first half, with Borg,Connors,Mac,Lendl and still competitive Vilas and Gerulaitis was excellent.In the second half, Lendl,Wilander,Becker,Edberg and also Cash,Mecir,Noah,Leconte,Gomez.Possibly the hardest overall competition.

The 1990´s were really good till 1995 or so, with prime Sampras,Agassi,Courier,Stich,Bruguera,Rafter,Goran,Krajicek and still tough Becker,Edberg.But the second half, except for Kuerten didn´t bring anything new, so in overall terms the 1990´s do not sound as good to me as the former 2 decades.And 2000 to 2009 has only 2 really great players (Federer,Nadal) plus some good but not great ones (Hewitt,Safin,Djokovic,Roddick,Murray and Del Potro); that is why I rank this era as the weakest one from 1968 till now.

Is there something new over the last few years that make it change opinions? Not mine, certainly

 

[90's Clay]

The 2010's really haven't improved upon the 2000's. We went from 2 greats in Fedal in the 2000's to 2 greats (With murray with POSSIBLE potential to be great but not yet) in Rafa and Nole. And field of decent talent but hardly any greats

The last 13 years have been rather poor. Well the late 90s was pretty poor too actually as far talent is concerned. I guess you could say the men's field has been lacking major depth of talent for the last 16-17 years. (1996 or 1997-present)

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Very close call.I´d separate 70´s and 80´s and rather say 1968-1979, then 1980-1989 because the Open era started in 68.

In terms of overall talent and diversity of play, 68 to 79 is the best one, with top form laver,Rosewall,Newcombe,Nastase,Ashe,Smith,Kodes,Borg,Connors,Vilas and second stringers as good as Orantes,Gimeno,Panatta,Gerulaitis,Tanner and emerging JMac.There are different styles in this package.

In 1980´there is 2 different parts: the first half, with Borg,Connors,Mac,Lendl and still competitive Vilas and Gerulaitis was excellent.In the second half, Lendl,Wilander,Becker,Edberg and also Cash,Mecir,Noah,Leconte,Gomez.Possibly the hardest overall competition.

The 1990´s were really good till 1995 or so, with prime Sampras,Agassi,Courier,Stich,Bruguera,Rafter,Goran,Krajicek and still tough Becker,Edberg.But the second half, except for Kuerten didn´t bring anything new, so in overall terms the 1990´s do not sound as good to me as the former 2 decades.And 2000 to 2009 has only 2 really great players (Federer,Nadal) plus some good but not great ones (Hewitt,Safin,Djokovic,Roddick,Murray and Del Potro); that is why I rank this era as the weakest one from 1968 till now.

Great post. Couldn't agree more.

 

[TMF]

Is there something new over the last few years that make it change opinions? Not mine, certainly

That's your opinion but most fans beg to differ.

 

[NatF]

The mid 70's to end of the 80's was the toughest period IMO. So many all time greats peaking and playing eachother.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

1. 80's: the era I wish I had seen. The diversity of surfaces allowed different playing style to be successful complicated the hierarchy from one surface to another. Yet, the top players were able to perform well outside of their best surface. The number of all time great is also to damn high: Lendl, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Connors, Wilander.

2. 70's: Could have easily been ahead of the 80's in awesomeness if not for the turmoil of the beginning of the open era. Laver, Rosewall, Ash, Smith, Newcombe, Nastase, Borg, Connors.

3. 00's: When you have Federer and Nadal at the top, you don't really need anything else. The homogenization of surfaces hit hard the attractivity of the sport, but increased the competition a lot: Everyone can compete everywhere, using a style honed all years long. The result is easy prediction of the last 4 in all tournaments and a sad homogenization of the playing style, but the highest level at that style.

4. 60's: When you have Rosewall and Laver, you don't really need anyone else. I rank the 60's that low because of the split fields which prevented some great matches between the top amateurs and the top pros. Emerson, Roche, Santana missed dearly in the pro field.

5. 90's: The same surfaces diversity than in the 80's, but with an inability of surfaces specialist to transcend these surfaces and have some success on their weaker ones. The clay courts specialist didn't had to worry about the top players of their era because they where fast court specialist who struggled too much on clay. The top clay courters didn't care to play Wimbledon. It was hard to dominate all surfaces, but it was easy to dominate one. The 90's saw the weakest n°1 ever. The lack of dedication of Agassi doesn't help.

 

[NatF]

1. 80's: the era I wish I had seen. The diversity of surfaces allowed different playing style to be successful complicated the hierarchy from one surface to another. Yet, the top players were able to perform well outside of their best surface. The number of all time great is also to damn high: Lendl, McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Connors, Wilander.

2. 70's: Could have easily been ahead of the 80's in awesomeness if not for the turmoil of the beginning of the open era. Laver, Rosewall, Ash, Smith, Newcombe, Nastase, Borg, Connors.

3. 00's: When you have Federer and Nadal at the top, you don't really need anything else. The homogenization of surfaces hit hard the attractivity of the sport, but increased the competition a lot: Everyone can compete everywhere, using a style honed all years long. The result is easy prediction of the last 4 in all tournaments and a sad homogenization of the playing style, but the highest level at that style.

4. 60's: When you have Rosewall and Laver, you don't really need anyone else. I rank the 60's that low because of the split fields which prevented some great matches between the top amateurs and the top pros. Emerson, Roche, Santana missed dearly in the pro field.

5. 90's: The same surfaces diversity than in the 80's, but with an inability of surfaces specialist to transcend these surfaces and have some success on their weaker ones. The clay courts specialist didn't had to worry about the top players of their era because they where fast court specialist who struggled too much on clay. The top clay courters didn't care to play Wimbledon. It was hard to dominate all surfaces, but it was easy to dominate one. The 90's saw the weakest n°1 ever. The lack of dedication of Agassi doesn't help.

I agree with this for the most part, I'd say homogenization didn't really kick in until the very late 00's IMO. I think the mid 00's still had variety with the last few serve volleyers like Henman still doing well.

The 90's being last won't be popular but it really only had one all time great who was consistantly in his prime during that decade and that was Sampras. Agassi was MIA for half the decade.

 

[dominikk1985]

The 2010's really haven't improved upon the 2000's. We went from 2 greats in Fedal in the 2000's to 2 greats (With murray with POSSIBLE potential to be great but not yet) in Rafa and Nole. And field of decent talent but hardly any greats

The last 13 years have been rather poor. Well the late 90s was pretty poor too actually as far talent is concerned. I guess you could say the men's field has been lacking major depth of talent for the last 16-17 years. (1996 or 1997-present)

I agree. I think the top now is a little better than in the 00s, but the rest of the field might be even weaker than in the early 00s.

also the future doesn't look that good. if nadal, novak and murray are gone we might have another period like 98-03. there are junior players around but most of the junior winners have failed in the last years. hopefully the next generation of juniors will be better than the 1989-1994 born guys.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I agree with this for the most part, I'd say homogenization didn't really kick in until the very late 00's IMO. I think the mid 00's still had variety with the last few serve volleyers like Henman still doing well.

The 90's being last won't be popular but it really only had one all time great who was consistantly in his prime during that decade and that was Sampras. Agassi was MIA for half the decade.

Yeah if I wanted to be popular I would rank the 80's and the 00's last, because the players of this decades have few die-hard fan in this section. I think few people will be offended because:

1) The 80's were great, nobody will be butt hurt because I rank this decade slightly ahead of the 70's.
2) The lower rank of the 60's is compensated by the high rank of the 70's, which featured the best players of the 60's and their heirs. Also the split field is a strong, objective argument.
3) So basically the only fan base who will go mad is the Sampras fans, and I'm sorry to upset them but well, the 90's were bleh.

 

[NatF]

Yeah the 90's were overrated. The early 90's were great but the later 90's were easily the weakest period of the last 40 years.

 

[andreh]

1986-1991: Some older established greats like Lendl and McEnroe, had to battle with new stars like Becker, Edberg, Wilander. For a short time, talented people like Courier and Stich were in the mix. Agassi and Sampras were coming along.

Agree with this. There were also a lot of tough players below the greats, like Mecir, Krickstein, Gilbert, Chang, Curren, Masur, Stich etc.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Yeah the 90's were overrated. The early 90's were great but the later 90's were easily the weakest period of the last 40 years.

Yeah they may be, but to me it doesn't mean that the champions of the late 90's, early 00's are not worthy. I think we tend to exagerrate the differences of level of play from a period to another.

 

[NatF]

Yeah they may be, but to me it doesn't mean that the champions of the late 90's, early 00's are not worthy. I think we tend to exagerrate the differences of level of play from a period to another.

Oh I agree for sure. You need to have game to get to #1 in the world for sure.

 

[helterskelter]

I would say that the entire first half of the 1990s was very strong. Look at the year-end rankings in 1995 and 1996. They are just stacked. 1995: 1. Sampras; 2. Agassi (who had a great year, probably his most consistently high level of play even above 1999); 3. Muster (who also had a wonderful year); 4. Becker (who returned to form in style that summer); 5. Chang (who was approaching his best).

But many of those players dropped off markedly in 1997, leaving Sampras to dominate completely.

Anyway, the weakest level of competition was certainly the 2000s. This decade is marginally stronger, because there have been four top players rather than two for much of it, although it would be fair to say that there has never really been more than three top players at any one time, with the possible exception of 2011 and early 2012. Federer's level dropped off markedly this year, Nadal was injured in 2012, and in 2010 neither Djokovic nor Murray was playing particularly well on a consistent basis.

In any case, to my mind a world with four top players and a bunch of no-hopers is a world with less tough overall competition than a world with 15 or 20 very good players.

 

[helterskelter]

Right now, it looks as though 2014 will only have two top players also, although if Murray comes back strong from his injury that may get extended to three, and there is a chance for Del Potro to take a step forward and complete the foursome.

 

[90's Clay]

Late 90s weren't nearly as bad as the early 2000's. The early 2000s was the major Grand Puba of CRAP!!! with horrible talent winning slams (Johannson and Gaudio? Come on!!)

 

[robertharris]

Late 90s weren't nearly as bad as the early 2000's. The early 2000s was the major Grand Puba of CRAP!!! with horrible talent winning slams (Johannson and Gaudio? Come on!!)

Yet the 90s are 2nd on this poll!?! Is 70% of this forum 12 or under or something.