Which decade had the toughest overall competition for men

[tennisplayer1993]

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.

It was an exciting decade to say the least. I started watching tennis in the 2000s because of age. The people I know who have followed tennis since the early 1980s, adored the 1990s because it was so hard to chose slam winners at each event making it more fun to predict who will win which.

 

[Dan L]

It was an exciting decade to say the least. I started watching tennis in the 2000s because of age. The people I know who have followed tennis since the early 1980s, adored the 1990s because it was so hard to chose slam winners at each event making it more fun to predict who will win which.

The nineties?

Too many in-and-outers, inconsistent.

 

[Dan L]

The nineties?

Too many in-and-outers, inconsistent.

What you want to see is a GROUP of top players who were consistently tough throughout the period.

For example, the fifties:

Kramer, Gonzales, Sedgman, Rosewall, Hoad, Trabert, Segura...others

These guys were tough year after year.

 

[ravelok]

90s is an interesting case as it probably had the toughest competition ever per surface. So many great players on each surface, both some of the all arounds and specific speicalists. However for the #1 ranking it had the weakest competition ever, which is why I don't put as much stock in Sampras's 6 year end #1s. There was literally nobody consistent all year round and on all surfaces to compete for #1, and Sampras was literally #1 by default most of the time.

 

[ibbi]

Tough to single out a specific decade. I think late 70s/early 80s, and late 80s/early 90s are probably the two strongest periods. If I had to single out a singular decade I guess I'd probably go with the 80s ever so slightly.

 

[BobbyOne]

1980-1981

Men: Mac,Borg,Connors,Lendl,Vilas,Gerulaitis and Tanner
Women:Evert,Mandlikova,Navratilova,Austin,Goolagong,Jaeger and Shriver

1971

Laver,Newcombe,Rosewall,Nastase,Kodes,Ashe,Smith
Court,King,Goolagong,Evert,Bueno ( if healthy),Casals,Wade

kiki, Why ranking Laver first? Why ranking Smith 7th?

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

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.

The worst years were 1997-2002

2003-2004 transitional era. 2005+ was complete fedal domination. ( not only in slams but everywhere..)

Then we saw an insane amount #1 in a short span of time ( muster, Rios, Moya, Kafelnikov,rafter, safin,kuerten, Hewitt,Ferrero, Roddick)

In 5 years and 8 months span ( march 1998 - november 2013) we witnessed 9 new #1 switching within eachother, and 11number #1 ( including sampras and agassi who snatched weeks in that period, but had weeks from years before too)

Now since february 2004- june 2014, we have had only 3 number #1 switching for the spot, and the funny thing is that even in 2014, the 3 guys who have been in the spot during the last decade are still all ranked in the top 4, ( #1, #2 and #4 respectively).

 

[NatF]

The worst years were 1997-2002

2003-2004 transitional era. 2005+ was complete fedal domination. ( not only in slams but everywhere..)

2003-2004 had strong top 10s.

 

[kiki]

kiki, Why ranking Laver first? Why ranking Smith 7th?

No order intended

 

[90's Clay]

90s is an interesting case as it probably had the toughest competition ever per surface. So many great players on each surface, both some of the all arounds and specific speicalists. However for the #1 ranking it had the weakest competition ever, which is why I don't put as much stock in Sampras's 6 year end #1s. There was literally nobody consistent all year round and on all surfaces to compete for #1, and Sampras was literally #1 by default most of the time.

I think that was mainly because the 90s was also the most polarized conditions in history. Do the same in the 2000's-present and you wouldn't see a consistent top 5-10 year after year during this period either.

Makes the sport more fun to watch because it was always fun to see how guys would adapt to the ever changing conditions of the 90s. Unlike today where you just go from slow to slow court all year round

 

[BobbyOne]

No order intended

kiki, I see.

 

[kiki]

advantage of the 70´s:

Unified - relatively-field
Some of the all time greats playing in it
a very solid and deep second stringers group

what else is required?