Which decade had the toughest overall competition for men
- Thread starter grafselesfan
- Start date
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
The late 90's - early 00's were weaker than other time span with a few weak winners like Gaudio, Johannson, Korda, or good but not awesome ones like Ivanisevic, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Costa, Safin.
More than these winners who are indeed weaker than most other slam winners, this period had a lot of poor runner-ups too. Verkerk, Clément, Schüttler, Nalbandian (especially at Wimbledon), Enqvist, Rios, Martin are not the strongest finalist ever.
None of these players are as bad as 90's clay says though. Better to play them in a final than a multi-slam winner in his prime, but they were still the guys who went to the last match.
gabybackhand
Banned
The 1990s by far had the most and toughest competition ever. There were atleast 15 players at every given point in time good enough to potentially win atleast 2 slams every year, and only 4 slams to go around amongst all them, plus the others behind who had a chance to win slams. Just incredible.
Weakest is 2000s.
Weakest is 2000s.
kiki
Banned
1971-1980: from Bueno to Mandlikova and Court to Jaeger.from Laver to Lendl and Rosewall to Mc Enroe.With Borg,Connors,Newcombe,Nastase,Vilas.Kodes,Ashe,Gerulaitis,Orantes,Panatta,Smith,Gimeno,Okker,Roche,Tanner,King,Navratilova,Goolagong,Evert,Austin,Wade.And Ramirez,Pecci,Gottfried,Amritraj,Fromholtz,Hanika,Barker,Ruzici,Jausovec,Bunge,Casals,Turnbull...
If you consider tennis as basically HAVING LOTS OF FUN AND EXCITMENT, look no further.The 70´s is your place.
If you consider tennis as basically HAVING LOTS OF FUN AND EXCITMENT, look no further.The 70´s is your place.
Paul Murphy
Hall of Fame
Easy, 1980s. So many great players, so much competition. Different surfaces. Tough, tough era.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Why do you rank the 20s so low? They had Tilden, Lacoste, Cochet, and Borotra. I would say they are at least second tier.
I also think you're a little harsh on the 60s and a little generous to this decade, but with those I can certainly understand your viewpoint.
gabybackhand
Banned
Tilden dominated most of that decade with the Frenchmen either not in their primes yet or mostly just playing the French Open, and sometimes Wimbledon, the way Tilden played mostly the U.S Open and sometimes Wimbledon. They didn't even start threatening Tilden, especialy on his turf in the U.S, until the late 20s.
kiki
Banned
The 20´s had three great champions in Lacoste,Cochet and Tilden plus Borotra, who was almost as good.But, other than Johnston or Richards, there was almost no depth for them to really be severely tested.Plus Tilden,Cochet and Borotra also did great in the first years of the 30´s.If it was just them, it certainly´d be 2 tier but that is the problem..almost no one else.
60´s were great only that fields were split and Gonzales and Hoad were , except on some ocassions, far from their late 50´s form.I also think that, in spite of Santana,Emerson and Newk, the ams field was quite better in the 50´s with prime Drobny,Patty,Savitt,Rose,Larsen,Seixas,Pietrangeli, guys who remained amateurs; and of course, the pros ranks in the second half was simply astoundishing.
I know , at the end of the day, it is more a question of feeling and instinct but that is my criterion.
kiki
Banned
NameNumber
New User
Late '80s and early '90s had the most mass-champions playing at once at the top of the game. '80s were more competitive overall as the later half of the '90s saw most of the greats retire.
kiki
Banned
4 decades clearly outstand as far as men´s tennis concerns: the 1930´s pros ( + Crawford and Von Cramm) had Vines,Budge,Perry,Tilden,Cochet,Riggs and clay courter Nusslein.
the 1950s pros ( but also 5-6 great amateurs) with Kramer,Sedgman,Gonzales,Trabert,Hoad,Rosewall and excelent complementary players like Segura,Cooper,Anderson and Olmedo ( Olmedo and Cooper had won Wimbledon as amateurs)
the 1970´s, from Laver to Mac Enroe with Rosewall,Kodes,Newcombe,Ashe,Nastase,Smith,Orantes,Connors,Vilas and Borg all in the middle and excelent secondary players ( 25-30 excellent players).IMO, the best mixture of great talent atop and deepth.Or said in other words,as great atop as the 30´s and 50´s as a whole and as deep as the 80´s and early to middle 90´s.
The 80´s, in spite of some weak slots of time in 1985,86 had Borg,Connors,Mc Enroe and Lendl at its start and next, after Borg´s departure came the likes of Wilander,Becker,Edberg plus Mecir,Noah,Cash,Gomez,Kriek and young Agassi playing the support roles.
The early 90´s with Sampras,Courier, Agassi,Becker,Edberg,Stich,Burguera, young Rafter and Ivanisevic looked great but then something went wrong and it was never the same again.
the 1950s pros ( but also 5-6 great amateurs) with Kramer,Sedgman,Gonzales,Trabert,Hoad,Rosewall and excelent complementary players like Segura,Cooper,Anderson and Olmedo ( Olmedo and Cooper had won Wimbledon as amateurs)
the 1970´s, from Laver to Mac Enroe with Rosewall,Kodes,Newcombe,Ashe,Nastase,Smith,Orantes,Connors,Vilas and Borg all in the middle and excelent secondary players ( 25-30 excellent players).IMO, the best mixture of great talent atop and deepth.Or said in other words,as great atop as the 30´s and 50´s as a whole and as deep as the 80´s and early to middle 90´s.
The 80´s, in spite of some weak slots of time in 1985,86 had Borg,Connors,Mc Enroe and Lendl at its start and next, after Borg´s departure came the likes of Wilander,Becker,Edberg plus Mecir,Noah,Cash,Gomez,Kriek and young Agassi playing the support roles.
The early 90´s with Sampras,Courier, Agassi,Becker,Edberg,Stich,Burguera, young Rafter and Ivanisevic looked great but then something went wrong and it was never the same again.
Last edited:
kiki, I'm tired but I contradict that Nüsslein was a claycourter.
I also contradict that you put again the great Segura into second tier. Pancho was as strong as Trabert.
90's Clay
Banned
Great post. I guess one could argue after the early-mid 90s, Mens tennis never recovered as far as depth of talent on tour factoring in all surfaces is concerned. The men's game hasn't had the amount of talent since. And its been 20 years
kiki
Banned
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Is this Dan Lobb? If so I'm glad you're back.
Make it Dan L.
kiki
Banned
Kiki, are you a New Zealander?
I have cousins there, who correspond regularly.
Yes, the new Zealander's have taken their beatings on the court.
Dan, The old Dan Lobb is back: Right statement (1950's) and wrong one: Hoad and Gonzalez the two "greatest"...
That sounds like your own private definition, which I do not agree with.
I would say, the strongest top ten ever, yes.
But why the top 50?
Also, it is hard to compare, say, number 45 from 1959 with number 45 from today.
Who knows?
Especially with the changes in surface and equipment.
Top ten in 1959, the strongest year ever:
1) Hoad
2) Gonzales
3) Rosewall
4) Sedgman
5) Trabert
6) Anderson
7) Segura
8) Cooper
9) Fraser
10) Olmedo
Other notables: Laver, Emerson, Krishnan, Gimeno, Pietrangeli, Ayala, Rose, Giammalva, Hartwig, McGregor, Bedard
The first eight names were the ranking for the pros for the 1959-60 pro season.
No contest.
kiki
Banned
Olmedo beat Laver at Wimbledon, and I think he was just about as good or nearly as good as, say, Cooper and Anderson.
Segura, I wouldn´t know.
The problem with the 50´s is that there were 10 great pros ( we can include here Jack Kramer) and maybe 5 or 6 more amateurs who also would be regarded as all timers.But the 70´s had also a great bunch of 10-15 all timers plus 30-40 players who would be much more competitive than the 50´s equivalents.
I have posted some times that pro 30 and 50 and open 70 and 80 are the big four decades in my opinion.
Segura, I wouldn´t know.
The problem with the 50´s is that there were 10 great pros ( we can include here Jack Kramer) and maybe 5 or 6 more amateurs who also would be regarded as all timers.But the 70´s had also a great bunch of 10-15 all timers plus 30-40 players who would be much more competitive than the 50´s equivalents.
I have posted some times that pro 30 and 50 and open 70 and 80 are the big four decades in my opinion.
Kramer and Segura probably peaked in the early 50's, but Kramer made only one brief comeback after 1953, and that was in the fall of 1957, when he indulged his long-held wish to play against Hoad.
For his part, Hoad played off-form against Kramer at that time.
Segura won a tournament in 1959, Tel Aviv, and important titles in 1958 (L.A.) and 1957 (Melbourne).
He nearly beat Trabert in a head-to-head in 1958.
I am not convinced that the 70's had a better top 40 than, say, 1959.
Look at the supporting cast in the 50's, and see players who had some notable wins, players like Darmon, Bichant, Howe, and many other clay artists.
On clay, give them the edge over the seventies crew of rubber-court leaders.
kiki
Banned
Stretching it abit, the ams of the 50´s led by giats like Seixas,Patty,Pietrageli or Drobny would make an excellent supporting cast.Some of them were clearly better than many pros.
But in the 70´s you went from Laver to Borg.Now, two of the 4 best ever in the same decade and playing each other 8 times or so.
But in the 70´s you went from Laver to Borg.Now, two of the 4 best ever in the same decade and playing each other 8 times or so.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
QUOTE=kiki;8335822]Stretching it abit, the ams of the 50´s led by giats like Seixas,Patty,Pietrageli or Drobny would make an excellent supporting cast.Some of them were clearly better than many pros.
But in the 70´s you went from Laver to Borg.Now, two of the 4 best ever in the same decade and playing each other 8 times or so.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but the question is which decade had the toughest competition, not "which decade had the most good players". The amateurs did not play against the pros, therefor both field were weakened.
By the way the result of the poll is quiet interesting. Several posters voted for the 80's, although I have never seen anyone on this forum claiming to be a fan of a player of this decade. It suggest that voters where objective and didn't vote for the decade in which their favorite players competed.
But in the 70´s you went from Laver to Borg.Now, two of the 4 best ever in the same decade and playing each other 8 times or so.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but the question is which decade had the toughest competition, not "which decade had the most good players". The amateurs did not play against the pros, therefor both field were weakened.
By the way the result of the poll is quiet interesting. Several posters voted for the 80's, although I have never seen anyone on this forum claiming to be a fan of a player of this decade. It suggest that voters where objective and didn't vote for the decade in which their favorite players competed.
kiki
Banned
Yeah but the question is which decade had the toughest competition, not "which decade had the most good players". The amateurs did not play against the pros, therefor both field were weakened.
By the way the result of the poll is quiet interesting. Several posters voted for the 80's, although I have never seen anyone on this forum claiming to be a fan of a player of this decade. It suggest that voters where objective and didn't vote for the decade in which their favorite players competed.[/QUOTE]
You can makie a case for 80´s and I am fine with that.But I think the 70´s were safely richer.Close but still better.
crabdoc
New User
the future
When do we get to the unfortunate point when the sport is compromised by drugs and performance enhancers, just like every other athletic endeavor from MMA to cycling? That will obviously be the most challenging time for competition, but the true warriors of the court will be those that remain "natural" in the pursuit of excellence. Do I sound like a hippy? Hope not. haha.
When do we get to the unfortunate point when the sport is compromised by drugs and performance enhancers, just like every other athletic endeavor from MMA to cycling? That will obviously be the most challenging time for competition, but the true warriors of the court will be those that remain "natural" in the pursuit of excellence. Do I sound like a hippy? Hope not. haha.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Yeah I'm fine with this opinion. Frankly I'm impressed by a lot of players of each decade, and to my opinion the level was always very high and interesting. Only the split era is a bit weaker, but it's quiet compensated by the giants that were Rosewall, Laver and Gonzales. You can't really say it was a weak era when even only one of them play can you?
kiki
Banned
Yes, I agree.Rosewall and Laver were ( mainly Rosewall) great in 50´s and again in the 70´s ( again specially Rosewall) while both peaked in the 60´s.
Gonzales was great from the late 40´s to ( stretching a bit) the late 60´s, although clearly surpassed by the two aussies.He was, however, Mr 50´s, I rate him higher than Hoad and Kramer for the title of best player of the 1950´s.
I like the 80´s, to me one of the best decades.Many posters whose favourite player/decade is 70´s, will still regard very highly the next decade because guys like Borg,Connors,Mc Enroe were also very brilliant at both decades ( and Navratilova and Evert in the ladies ranks).
The difference, as I tried to explain is more about details and mixture/balance than anything else.The 70´s were so well balanced in my two criterion: an amazingly rich top 10-12 and then a very dense ( and high quality) supporting cast of 40-50 players at one period or the other.The 50´s met the first criterion but not the second and that is why I give the edge to the 70´s.
NatF
Bionic Poster
The 2000-2014 era includes;
Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Safin, Hewitt, Kuerten, Agassi, Sampras,winning multiple slams. And a host of other great players like Roddick, Ferrero, Moya, Del Potro, Wawrinka, Coria, Nalbandian, Davydenko etc...
Nadal and Federer alone mean the 2000-2014 era can't be that weak, two champions with double digit slams in the same era hasn't been seen for a long time.
It' not the strongest but looking at the whole stretch there have been tons of great players.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Were the 60's weak because Laver and Rosewall won nearly everything?
kiki
Banned
not as good as the 50´s.But there were far more winners than Laver and Rosewall alone
NatF
Bionic Poster
Likewise in the 13.5 years since 2000. There have only been 3 years where Nadal and Federer were the sole slam winners.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
The Pro Tour in the 1960's in my opinion was weaker than the 1950's Pro Tour because of the greater depth in the 1950's. You had GOAT candidates in the early 1950's in Kramer and Gonzalez. You also had superb players (most were great) like Sedgman, Segura, Van Horn, Riggs and Kovacs. Later in the 1950's they had Gonzalez at his peak, Hoad, Rosewall, Trabert, Cooper, Anderson, Olmedo, Segura was still excellent, Sedgman was superb, McGregor, Hartwig etc.
I don't think the 1960's were weak but not as strong as the 1950's overall. You of course added Laver to the mix which is super but Gonzalez was older and no one the peak level Gonzalez of the 1950's and early 1960's. Gimeno was excellent and so was Hoad for a short time in the early 1960's but Sedgman and Segura while still good weren't great anymore.
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
So Laver was a less talented?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Obviously I wasn't talking about Laver one of my 3 GOAT's...
The depth was clearly lesser though, with 30 year old plus Sedgmen, Trabert and Segura declining but still filling the draws etc...
Similar threads
- Poll
