grafselesfan
Banned
I had a thread about the best competition, now which decade had the worst competition overall amongst the men for you.
Which decade had the weakest competition for men
- Thread starter grafselesfan
- Start date
grafselesfan
Banned
I picked the current decade, the 2000s one. This decade thus far has produced only 3 players with more than 2 slam titles. Those are Federer, Nadal, and Kuerten who won his 2nd and 3rd French Opens to open the decade. It has allowed 90s players to claim 6- Agassi claimining 3 slam titles, Sampras claiming an additional 2, Ivanisevic winning his only slam. It has allowed slam champions such as past his prime Costa, Johansson, and Gaudio. Outside of those 9 wasted slams by this decades players the remaining 7 slams have been split amongst Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Djokovic, Ferrero, all worthy contenders and slam winners but none great champions.
Last edited:
grafselesfan
Banned
egn
Hall of Fame
Okay so wait the 70s are weak cause Ashe, Newcombe and etc. could grab slams.
The 80s were weak because Connors+Borg grabbed slams
The 90s were weak because Becker, Lendl and Edberg could grab slams.
Those slams were not wasted, they were won by players who played their careers. MOST CAREERS DO NOT RUN FROM 80-90 etc. How many actually do this? So an era is now week because guys have a 10 year range of slam winning. Yet players are weak if they can not do this and can't cross eras to win slams. I mean come on So is the 2010s instantly weak if Nadal or Fed wins a slam in that era? That makes no sense.
That has to be the dumbest justification ever because players who won most of their slams in a previous decade could wins slams there it is week. It shows a players longievity not the weakness of an era. Gaudio and Johansson were not past their prime...Costa was but its not a big deal. Costa was a strong clay courter and him winning a French Open was not like OH WOW. Costa was no worse than Moya or Noah on the surface. Johansson was not a great slam winner don't get me wrong but there is no difference between him and Cash, Kodra etc. who were lucky and never made anything of it outside of that.
Also your juding for weakness is based only on slams won by players. In that case the 80s are the best as multiple guys grabbed at least 3 slams in that era and every other era fails. The problem is the 00s and 90s are characterized by one player consistently dominating slams over other players. The 00s even worse becuase Fed has done it so condensly. It is a paradox really your theory the more Fed wins the more weak the field looks. So in your theory it almost looks as if 1969 was the worst ever tennis year because only 1 player could win slams. No 1969 was characterized by one player who could dominate the rest. To say an era is weak based on achievements is not the best way to judge. If on player like Sampras, Federer, Laver and Borg is so far ahead of the others and accomplish far more their era is not weak.
Personally the weak era is how you look at it. If one guy dominating is a sign of a weak era than yes the 2000s are really weak and as much as they like to hide it the 90s come in next then the 70s/60s and then 80s. However if you feel an era lacking a strong dominate player is weak then the 80s are the weakest of them all >.> It is all a matter of opinion and their is no formula. I personally feel the 80s were the strongest but I don't think there is an era that is the weakest at times every decade is weak (early 70s, late 80s, late 90s, early 00s.) however as a whole proving the competition is weaker than the other is hard.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Any era that has Gaston Gaudio as a slam champion is in serious trouble for competition.
GameSampras
Banned
Its difficult to prove one era of the other in terms of weakness or strengths..
I mean you can make the argument that the 90s for instance or even the 80s were not AS STRONG, since there were no dominant forces like Nadal or Fed stealing every slam that would come up.
Thus why you can actually say the 00's have been the strongest era since it had the top 2 most dominant players that stopped everyone else from winning slams.
I dont necessarily believe that. But thats what people will argue.. I look at the 2000's as two great legitimate champions, Fed the consistent monster, and Nadal the only other player who even seem CAPABLE of winning slam and actually staying consistent each year doing so. The rest of the era has truly been lacking in such.. Yes there have been consistent players such as Roddick probably the most noteable one, but yet a player who still couldnt grab more than 1 slam to his resume. Now you can say thats all Fed's fault, yet the facts scream Roddick was taken out at multiple slams by other players at the slams, and Fed really only stopped Roddick from winning a few more.
Than we got guys like Safin (great player who played his best tennis 10 percent of his career), Nalbandian very talented who never showed up to play at the slams, Davydenko, poor man's Chang, Djokovic, very talented but has seemed to regressed in his career instead of improved. Murray- an unproven commodity really IMO. Still very young.. Del Potro-still very young..
There are just a lot of unproven commodities tennis today or players who HAD talent, but just never amounted a great career for themselves of fizzeled out fast like Hewitt, Safin etc. Insignificants like Blake, Ljubicic, Gonzales, Baghaditis.
The 00's takes the cake for me overrall. Because at the end of this decade, this era has produced exactly 2 legit CHAMPIONS........................................................................ and then the rest.
90s overrall were stronger IMO. Due to the great competition of the early to mid 90s filled with greats even if some were a bit passed their prime like Becker, Edberg, etc. But you still had Andre, Courier, Chang, Goran, Pete and down the line. Late 90s it really went south I felt. But the early to mid 90s made it pretty good IMO overrall. Though the 80s trumps it of course
The 00's overrall really has just been riddled with less than subpar competiton or achievers.
When I look back and think of the 00's, I will only think of two players. Thats kind of scary... For better or worse.. I will only think of Nadal and Fed. Of course, maybe I will think of Andre hangiing on and still managing 2 more AO titles and some strong USO runs
I mean you can make the argument that the 90s for instance or even the 80s were not AS STRONG, since there were no dominant forces like Nadal or Fed stealing every slam that would come up.
Thus why you can actually say the 00's have been the strongest era since it had the top 2 most dominant players that stopped everyone else from winning slams.
I dont necessarily believe that. But thats what people will argue.. I look at the 2000's as two great legitimate champions, Fed the consistent monster, and Nadal the only other player who even seem CAPABLE of winning slam and actually staying consistent each year doing so. The rest of the era has truly been lacking in such.. Yes there have been consistent players such as Roddick probably the most noteable one, but yet a player who still couldnt grab more than 1 slam to his resume. Now you can say thats all Fed's fault, yet the facts scream Roddick was taken out at multiple slams by other players at the slams, and Fed really only stopped Roddick from winning a few more.
Than we got guys like Safin (great player who played his best tennis 10 percent of his career), Nalbandian very talented who never showed up to play at the slams, Davydenko, poor man's Chang, Djokovic, very talented but has seemed to regressed in his career instead of improved. Murray- an unproven commodity really IMO. Still very young.. Del Potro-still very young..
There are just a lot of unproven commodities tennis today or players who HAD talent, but just never amounted a great career for themselves of fizzeled out fast like Hewitt, Safin etc. Insignificants like Blake, Ljubicic, Gonzales, Baghaditis.
The 00's takes the cake for me overrall. Because at the end of this decade, this era has produced exactly 2 legit CHAMPIONS........................................................................ and then the rest.
90s overrall were stronger IMO. Due to the great competition of the early to mid 90s filled with greats even if some were a bit passed their prime like Becker, Edberg, etc. But you still had Andre, Courier, Chang, Goran, Pete and down the line. Late 90s it really went south I felt. But the early to mid 90s made it pretty good IMO overrall. Though the 80s trumps it of course
The 00's overrall really has just been riddled with less than subpar competiton or achievers.
When I look back and think of the 00's, I will only think of two players. Thats kind of scary... For better or worse.. I will only think of Nadal and Fed. Of course, maybe I will think of Andre hangiing on and still managing 2 more AO titles and some strong USO runs
Last edited:
Imagine if you greatly increased the strength of the 90's by adding Federer and Nadal to that era. You have in actuality weakened the era considerably, by making sure only 2 people in the decade have won grand slam tournaments, and then we here would be arguing that Roddick with his 7 slams against superior competition would annihilate both Federer and Nadal, as proven by his 1-0 H2H against both players in matches at the end of their careers and the beginning of his.
chrisdaniel
Semi-Pro
..
No because it is not certain that they would dominate. Andy Roddick is a good measuring tool since he is very consistent.
Would Roddick dominate the 90s ? No, he would not. He got demolished by Sampras when it mattered, and Andre took care of him almost all the time.
And they were aged at that point. Obviously he has not dominated the 2000's. Bring Fed and Nadal over to the 90s and I believe that would be the greatest. Imagine that top 4? Great match ups, I don't see any one really getting the better, with the exception that I think Fed would end up with the most slams. But it would not be how he dominated the 2000's.
Agassi Vs Fed U.S Open , Nadal vs Sampras Wimbledon, any match up with any of those, except Sampras and Nadal at the French.
O.k thats all I wanted to say. I am not saying you can't be right, just I think that scenario you mentioned would be awesome actually.
No because it is not certain that they would dominate. Andy Roddick is a good measuring tool since he is very consistent.
Would Roddick dominate the 90s ? No, he would not. He got demolished by Sampras when it mattered, and Andre took care of him almost all the time.
And they were aged at that point. Obviously he has not dominated the 2000's. Bring Fed and Nadal over to the 90s and I believe that would be the greatest. Imagine that top 4? Great match ups, I don't see any one really getting the better, with the exception that I think Fed would end up with the most slams. But it would not be how he dominated the 2000's.
Agassi Vs Fed U.S Open , Nadal vs Sampras Wimbledon, any match up with any of those, except Sampras and Nadal at the French.
O.k thats all I wanted to say. I am not saying you can't be right, just I think that scenario you mentioned would be awesome actually.
grafrules
Banned
Roddick would not dominate the 90s but he could wins slams, as could Hewitt or Safin. If someone like Kafelnikov who is a clearly inferior player to all 3 could win 2 slams in the 90s than those guys could as well.
Agassis head to head with Roddick is telling but also deceiving somewhat. Other than late 94-95 Agassi played his best and most consistent tennis ever from 99-early 2003. Roddick until mid 2003 was pre prime and not the same player as mid 2003-
present either. 3 of the 6 matches between Agassi and Roddick were early 2003 or sooner. Their other 3 matches with Roddick hitting his stride and Agassi finally falling off with age Agassi still did win 2 of 3 but all 3 were very close. The erratic Agassi had many years in the 90s he was playing even worse than late 2003-2005 as well, and in those years Roddick might fare even better than he did in their final 3 matches.
Sampras and Roddick played three matches when neither player was in their primes and Roddick actually leads 2-1 although he got slammed in their biggest match.
Agassis head to head with Roddick is telling but also deceiving somewhat. Other than late 94-95 Agassi played his best and most consistent tennis ever from 99-early 2003. Roddick until mid 2003 was pre prime and not the same player as mid 2003-
present either. 3 of the 6 matches between Agassi and Roddick were early 2003 or sooner. Their other 3 matches with Roddick hitting his stride and Agassi finally falling off with age Agassi still did win 2 of 3 but all 3 were very close. The erratic Agassi had many years in the 90s he was playing even worse than late 2003-2005 as well, and in those years Roddick might fare even better than he did in their final 3 matches.
Sampras and Roddick played three matches when neither player was in their primes and Roddick actually leads 2-1 although he got slammed in their biggest match.
grafrules
Banned
Hewitt was slapping Kafelnikov silly even in 1999-2000 when Kafelnikov was at his absolute career peak and Hewitt was an up and coming kid. So how on earth could he ever be better than Hewitt or even Roddick. The guy was lucky as heck to win 2 majors with ridiculous dream draws, showing that often openings were there even in the 90s. His biggest ever win on the way to a slam title was Todd Martin on hard courts or a gassed Sampras on clay. His biggest ever win in a slam period was a badly injured Agassi on clay.
I sort of agree with your accessment of his game. Just solid, nothing great. Although solid serve is almost a bit generous much of the time for him. Nothing even as much a standout as the Hewitt return, Hewitt movement, Roddick serve, or even Roddick forehand (when confident). Also mentally he was weak.
grafrules
Banned
Anyway I picked the 60s for the simple fact it was an extremely depleted field with almost all the best players pro most of the decade. Any decade that has Roy Emerson who hardly anyone considers even a top 20 player all time winning 12 majors. My order would probably be:
1. 1980s
2. 1970s
3. 1990s
4. 2000s
5. 1960s
1. 1980s
2. 1970s
3. 1990s
4. 2000s
5. 1960s
Kafelnikov excelled on the slower surfaces prevalent in his era, going by Major speeds AO and RG conditions, were he to face Roddick and Hewitt on those surfaces the h2h would likely be lopsided in his favor, as those have remained the speeds that both Roddick and Hewitt have struggled most with.
If the only meetings came on then Wimbledon and US Open speeds, Hewitt would likely have the same edge he had over YK, because that is where they met most, the one clay court meeting going YK's way. Roddick doesn't have a good fast court record, Wimbledon warm-ups are just that, warm-ups. Roddick would have his lack of return game and relative lack of court quickness and speed exploited on truly fast surfaces by a lot of 90's guys whose games were specifically well suited for fast conditions. IMO neither Roddick nor YK (as he never was) would be second week factors on actual fast surfaces, with the QF probably being their ceilings.
5
egn
Hall of Fame
The 90s had only two great legitimate champions. Becker was an 80s hangover and Courier fizzed out way too early for me to call him a great champion. What makes Roddick any different from Chang? Chang and Roddick are almost identical to each other. Same goes for Roddick and Goran? I don't really ever remember thinking Goran could beat Sampras on grass outside of 1993 or 1994 prior to Sampras beating down Goran. Sure Goran made his efforts but never once at Sampras' best did I feel that Goran could beat him when it had it all at stake. Also the 90s was made up of tons of guys who were good but not capable of winning slams, guys like Rudeski, Martin, Pilone and then there were those who nobody felt really should get one who got them Kodra, Moya and some weak guys who won multiples Kalfenikov. The 90s and 00s look a lot more alike just the difference is the 90s was a bit more spread out when the 00s had domination in a cluster. I think 98-02 only looks so weak because from 92-97 and 04-present was characterized by a dominate player running the tour.
gamesampras said:
I agree there but once again this is the paradox a player has to win less for his era to be stronger. Then great champions can't play in great eras because if they are in complete control of the tour then according to this theory they are beating nobodies. The 90s I feel produced only 2 legit champions. The 70s did the same. I feel the 80s had the most Mac, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander but then none of those can match the greatest from the 00s, the 90s or the 70s. So it is still confusing. Is Lendl the GOAT because his era had him beating 4 other great champions made n that era plus hold overs like Connors and newcomers like Agassi?
gamesampras said:
I doubt that. Most of us still remember guys like Cash and Mecir and guys like Clerc, Vilas and Tanner. I am sure down the road we will remember more than just Fed and Nadal if you still remember Chang you will definitely remember the guys like Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Ferrero. People will not forget the likes of Coria also as the flake who never could get the cake and Kuerten. I am sure a fair share will remember Nalbandian, Davydenko etc. Most people know a lot of the guys. Alot of people still remember Kevin Curren, Leconte, Martin, Teacher, Vitas, Panatta, Ornates and etc. I am sure a good portion of these guys will still be remembered. Besides the view of the next era might change and the 00s might be looked upon stronger. Only time will tell but the 00s and 90s seem to follow the same formula. Two strong greats, a few really good players and a field of good decent players.
People focus a lot on how many slams players in each decade were winning, but, in my opinion, what is more indicative of the quality of competition is the variety in styles seen. I think tennis was at it's best from 70-mid 90's, as you had a mixture of baseliners and serve volleyers, and even then there will still pretty drastic differences in the players. I think it was a hell of a lot harder to win slams then than it is now, an era when virtually every single player plays the same way. Fed and Rafa are the two best players of the last few years, but neither have ever even faced a decent serve volleyer (in their primes at least- Fed did face Rafter a few times). To win their slams they are playing identikit players, round after round, tournament after tournament, so all they have had to do is perfect one game, and if they do it well they can apply it against every player. Of course, they may have had the same success if they were playing a whole variety of styles, but the fact that they haven't had to is something to consider.
Also the surfaces are virtually all the same now too, but I guess that's a different issue.
Also the surfaces are virtually all the same now too, but I guess that's a different issue.
samprasvsfederer123
Banned
how could people vote the 90s
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
Simple. After Sampras, the most consistent player was Chang. And even he was only a major factor from 95 - 97. Agassi was really absent in 90 - 91 and 96 - 98.
And its hard to say Sampras really dominated that well as he only had 1 season where he made at least the QF of all the slams.
Also the 90's easily produced the weakest world no 1's ever: Moya, Rios, Kaflenikov, Rafter, and even Muster who was extremely inconsistent.
While there was many good players, the game was a lot more open. Now usually that is an inference for a stronger field. However, it could also easily mean a weaker top.
These whole set of threads grafrules is creating is very stupid and very idiotic. He cannot except change and thus must put down every good player in this generations
Only and idiot tried to rate generations. We can look and compare, but ultimately we have no clue
zagor
Bionic Poster
I don't know if I would agree that Agassi was "badly" injuried,true he did hurt his hip early in the first set and he might have won the match otherwise(although he didn't ask for medical timeout until the second set when he came back bandaged around his hip)but if Agassi was badly injuried he would have probably had to miss Wimbledon or at the very least wouldn't play that well there that year(he was playing amazing tennis until Becker turned their encounter around and beat him).So not saying Agassi wasn't injuried,but it wasn't a serious injury IMO.
Agree with the rest of your post,no offense to any Kafelnikov fans but I rate a lot of one slam winners ahead of him,I just never was impressed by his game and it's a bit surprising to me that he won 2 slams.
Grafselesfan not grafrules,you got them mixed up.
egn
Hall of Fame
Because it is an opinion..and is just another tool to fuel GOAT arguements so people will vote for what they feel is best.
I am going to go out on a limb if I had to choose from the options I would pick the 1960s. (Note I support Laver as GOAT). No I do not feel the competition and players were a step below the others and I feel they had tons of great players who provided strong competitions, but the fields were divided in two. There were great players on both parts who did not meet and the professionals although great athletes did play a smaller field than today's professionals. Although the field was a bunch of top notch it lacks the same punch as today's field. I will agree to the consenus that Laver's pro majors in a way were easier than a major today as it was less rounds even though it was like playing the later rounds, but I would say it was the overall lack of depth and meeting the same guys over and over again that is what makes it weaker. Sure it was tough for the weaker guys who could beat a lot of other players not on the tour but would run into the likes of Laver, Rosewall and Pancho over and over agian but for the top guys it could almost be an advantage. You play a guy 20-30 times you really know what to expect. Laver and Rosewall met 5 times as many times as Nadal and Federer, how many times can you try something new? Laver and Rosewall knew each other inside and out and personally that is a bit of an advantage. Sure it is also a disadvantage but by that point you are comfortable playing that opponenet. Nadal and Federer about now are starting to really know each other and even at Madrid Fed was able to come with a new plan that threw off Nadal and we saw Nadal mix it up at the AO this year. By the end of the Laver Rosewall rivalry in the 60s (67-70) and watching matches from that period their is very little diversity happening. Maybe this is me but they played each other the same way and it was whoever won and disagree if you want but thats how it seems. It is my opinion I guess and if most find it wrong okay, but anyone playing tennis who has played matches against close friends over and over (we all have) you know what they are capable of doing, what they will try to do and what you plan on going out and doing and they know the same. Neither of you really try to switch it up because after playing each other oh 30-40 times you know what is smart to do and even if you know they know it you are now going out and playing to win. You are just out there hoping you can play better. So I give the later decades nods as the tour started to fully develop not because of say stronger guys at the top but less encounters with the same guys. The lack of one on one tours and the larger tournament draws I feel make the competition more tough as no matter how much scouting you do you never really know today when your opponent can throw out something new and win.
That is my opinion. Bring on the flaming =]
NonP
Legend
egn, that's a fair assessment, but one could counter and say that the constant encounters made the competition tougher because the top dogs had to play each other as opposed to journeymen 24/7. I think you'll agree that Sampras and Fed would rather face Pioline and Blake rather than Agassi and Nadal, respectively.
egn
Hall of Fame
Yes agreed there it is basically however you look at it. THough today in the big matches the top dogs still do meet like in the old days but they had to go through of a bunch of other guys first.
NonP
Legend
egn, I think we may be talking past each other. My point was that back then the top dogs had to play each other more often precisely because there were less rounds and fewer lower-ranked players to overcome. That's like Fed and Rafa having to defeat the likes of Blake and Stepanek in 3 rather than 5 or 6 rounds before playing each other. Is this what you had in mind?
Brought this up because I think it's an interesting debate and there might be other people out there who have something to say. For me the '90 are the weakest decade for not being able to give more than one GOAT contender. There are Laver and Rosewall for the '60, Connors and Borg for the '70, McEnroe and Lendl for the '80, Federer and Nadal for '00. Only Sampras comes to mind for the '90 (I don't believe anyone can seriously consider Agassi as a GOAT contender) and that's a clear clue about the level of competition during that decade.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I think Lendl started around 1980 so I guess it's about 1980-1981. But even before 1980 with all those greats it was pretty awesome. Tanner, Gerulaitis, Clerc are other top players during that time. Arthur Ashe was still competitive in the late 1970's also.
Last edited:
Great call....
Best tennis ever played was probably between 74-84... so many different styles of play all effective. We still had aging players like Laver & Rosewall, established greats like Connors & Borg... and a young Mac. This is my favorite 10 year span of tennis in my lifetime. I don't remember the 60's since I started playing in about 74... but my least favorite would be somewhere around 93-03 if I was to guess. Now we pretty much have cookie cutter players... with not nearly the imagination or flair of a Nastase or LeConte.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
I dont think any era was weak. Maybe 90's.
The weak competiton complaint is biased and its purpose is to take away acheivments. Can not accept it.
The more I do research and compare the great players from the past with Federer/Nadal and to a lesser degree Murray, Stonga, etc...the more I appreciate just how great Federer truly is.
The weak competiton complaint is biased and its purpose is to take away acheivments. Can not accept it.
The more I do research and compare the great players from the past with Federer/Nadal and to a lesser degree Murray, Stonga, etc...the more I appreciate just how great Federer truly is.
tennisdad65
Hall of Fame
I am an old timer, but 2000>1990>1980>1970>1960
It just gets stronger every decade.. More money, more guys playing, more countries, better training, more competition..
It just gets stronger every decade.. More money, more guys playing, more countries, better training, more competition..
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
I love the old timers! Petes sake when those classics are played on ESPN and tennis channel I am glued. I dont watch reruns of new tennis. They were so special. Rock stars. Tennis was like an event back then. Just different now.
Now the skills are so crazy and the speed and almost all of them now are like elite.
That is what is special about the greats of the past: They were SPECIAL.
Now the skills are so crazy and the speed and almost all of them now are like elite.
That is what is special about the greats of the past: They were SPECIAL.
I agree... the equipment is better... the courts are better... the athletes train better thus the competition is more consistant... and now we have pretty much cookie cutter tennis. For the most part... players that blast away from the baseline...
But the question was "Which Decade had the Weakest Competition for Men". I believe the question is the division of skills from top to bottom... from every decade the biggest skill required to win was not so much the skill on the court... since I think most of us would agree... there is not a lot to choose between the top 100 or so players... but the skill in the 8 or so inches between the ears.
They were diverse.... every match was different. If you were into pain... you could watch Solomon play Dibbs... if you wanted a servingfest... Tanner and Dibley... if you wanted to see a contrast in styles... Mac and Borg... there was so much to choose from... Becker and Edberg..... Connors and Nastase... on and on and on...
Today... other than watching Federer... I find it pretty much the same.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
There's a YouTube vid of Fed vs. Hewitt in a 45-shot point that lasts quite a while and both players run all over--side to side and front to back--using the whole damn court.
Incredible playing. I think Hewitt acrtually wins the point but it really sdoesn't matter, it is such great playing from both. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tZhQi8aDcg
My point: great tennis uses the whole court; great tennis requires the complete game (every shot in the book).
Strong era: full of complete players who will use every shot they have, and every square inch of the court.
Weak era: either pure S&V or pure baseline. You pick.
Incredible playing. I think Hewitt acrtually wins the point but it really sdoesn't matter, it is such great playing from both. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tZhQi8aDcg
My point: great tennis uses the whole court; great tennis requires the complete game (every shot in the book).
Strong era: full of complete players who will use every shot they have, and every square inch of the court.
Weak era: either pure S&V or pure baseline. You pick.
Last edited:
I agree. The current players can only push the young, future players better, not the other way around.
Federer vs. Nadal in 2006. These guys generate much more pace, better angle, and painted the line. The way they have to cover the court is insane, especially when doing it on clay. Pressure was put on each other on every moment. They both had to prepare to run on every point, if one of them were a half a step slow, the match wouldn't have gone to 5 sets. The match was brutal, incredibly physical demanding that went to the limit which both of them had to skipped the next tourney(Hamburg).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WAt-PEqeqk
Here's Borg vs. Lendl in 1981. The game is alot slower, hardly much running to cover the court b/c their shot isn't penetrating, thus not much taxing on the body in compared to the match above. They also hit alot safer shot with alot of high looping ball over net, and it's also easy to hit the ball receiving at such a slow pace. No one is taking the initiative, but wait for the other to make error. You can't do this to Roger/Rafa, against them, you have to be offensive not just play great defense alone. Any weak reply by Borg/Lendl in this match would set for Rafa/Roger to unload their vicious forehand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
ivanisevic, rafter, stich, becker, edberg ( the last 2 in their last legs) in grass and not only, courrier, muster, kuerten, brugera, corretja and costa in clay to name only a few, becker, rafter, rusedski and rosset in carpet, sampras, agassi, and the above in hard.. yeah... that is a weak field...
\wit...
\wit...
kiki
Banned
so, to enjoy the best competition, my pick for combined men and women are:
1950,1970,1980,1990 and some slots of 1930 for men and 1960 for women
illusions30
Banned
2000s was by far the weakest era. I cant think of a single year that was what I would term a strong year.
illusions30
Banned
I imagine the people who voted for the 60s were thinking of the amateur game, which was missing almost all its best players until the very end of the decade. On that lone basis alone one could legitimately vote the 60s.
illusions30
Banned
Sounds about right. Although for the ladies it is more like only the first quarter of the 80s was strong.
IMO the two weakest options by far were 1970s and 2000s. The 2000s were the poll winner, but 1970s got the second fewest votes, what?
By 1970 Laver had already won his final Slam and was on the downside of his career. Rosewall turned 36yo in 1970. The rest of the field was Nastase, Smith, Roche, Okker, Ashe until 1974 when Connors broke through.
Borg doesn't become elite until 1976, McEnroe doesn't become elite until 1979, and Lendl doesn't crack the top 10 until the 1980s.
By 1970 Laver had already won his final Slam and was on the downside of his career. Rosewall turned 36yo in 1970. The rest of the field was Nastase, Smith, Roche, Okker, Ashe until 1974 when Connors broke through.
Borg doesn't become elite until 1976, McEnroe doesn't become elite until 1979, and Lendl doesn't crack the top 10 until the 1980s.
YaoPau, you forgot Newcombe, Kodes and Orantes. Borg won majors already from 1974 onward.
Oops yep forgot Newcombe, the other two... meh.
And Borg did win the early Slams, but they're of arguably legitimacy. In 1974, the top 3 players in the world (Connors, Newcombe, Rosewall) didn't play the French, neither did a somewhat-relevant Laver. Borg went nowhere in the US Open or Wimbledon that year.
Similar story in '75 when Connors, Newcombe, Ashe didn't play the French. '76 Borg is beginning of his prime I think.
And Borg did win the early Slams, but they're of arguably legitimacy. In 1974, the top 3 players in the world (Connors, Newcombe, Rosewall) didn't play the French, neither did a somewhat-relevant Laver. Borg went nowhere in the US Open or Wimbledon that year.
Similar story in '75 when Connors, Newcombe, Ashe didn't play the French. '76 Borg is beginning of his prime I think.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
