Who was the Strongest Male Player in his 20s ??? (Rivals, playing conditions all considered..)

[MichaelNadal]

I'm glad the real Razer is back

 

[Razer]

Agreed. And Fed vs Sampras makes my head spin. Fed has the insane numbers with several seasons of having a winning pct over .900; something Pete was never close to. However, Pete was insanely clutch in the biggest tourneys. Toss in more polarized surfaces, and we get a a very dominant Pete. And I wouldn’t exclude Lendl; a guy who changed the game with his fitness and insane baseline play. That guy was 34-7 vs the top 5 from 1985-87, despite that insanely tough era. And by the way, 37 of those 44 matches vs the top 5 were against players that won 6+ slam titles in their career.

To me, it’s Lendl vs Sampras vs Federer. And I can’t pick a winner.

All of them are great, hard to separate them directly based on numbers because every era presents great challenges that are different. The moderan era is so slam comparison based that anyone except Sampras from the past fails to measure on a 20s vs 20s comparison and probably Borg too. Thats why Lendl misses out, I believe not winning wimbledon a few times did cost him a bit. Other than that he has everything.

Big 3 + Murray amassed 69 Slams between them. That’s as hard a competition as it gets.
I agree that it was harder to achieve a CGS back then, but it’s a huge achievement nonetheless and Agassi managed to do it.
Of course Agassi is better than Muster because, most of all, despite playing less semifinals, he won 8 Slams and Career Golden Slam. It was not a good analogy there as it was obvious stat picking to show something that no one believes.
As per Agassi v Murray, that’s a good debate. I think Agassi’s 8 Slams titles and 15 finals have the edge, but Murray’s numbers (3 titles, 11 finals) don’t do him any justice because of his peers.
I don’t see how poly strings increase the gap between players as every player has access to it the same. You could argue they benefit some players more than other due to stroke style, but that’s about it. Same way as non-poly strings didn’t benefit the same stroke styke as much back then. I’d call this progress, evolution in sport.
Is Steph Curry necessarily worse than Wilt Chamberlain because he is a three-point shooter in an era when it’s become one of the strongest fundamentals in the game that it wasn’t before? (Especially since Curry himself is a huge contributor to the growth of distance shooting).

Big 3 + Murray amassing 69 between them is not necessarily an indicator of a stronger era than the past, it is an indicator of some talent vacuum. Federer won slams at a period when second best guy was Roddick of all people, that would like Pete winning slams with Goran ranked 2 for years, how we would that era have to be ? Your boy Nadal was ranked 2 in the mid 2000s, that would be like Thomas Muster ranked 2 in the 90s for 3-4 years, was he ? Nope, he wasnt because there were others. Then look at 2010s the second half, why did the Big 3 grab so many slams? It is because pansies like weaklings like Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitisipas are among the top 5-6 players born in the 1990s, these fellows are the fellows who would reach grand slam finals in previous eras. You might say Med moves far better than anyone of his size of the past, but then where are the guys of his generation who are shorter to him and move+hit better than him ? WHERE ARE THEY ? There weren't any, so you cannot say that 69 slams between 3-4 people is the indication of any strong era with plenty of depth. Murray is a 1-2 slam winner in any era, send him the 90s, he would be paraded naked by Sampras on Grass... not even 1 slam for him..... he could be lucky to pick an AO/USO somewhere but thats it..... Think again, this era is not as strong as it look, it lacks depth, it lacks guys who can create upsets, it lacks diversity, thats why the tall 6'5-6'6 men are reaching deep in slams repeatedly because thats the best you have in the 1990s born segment.

 

[Razer]

I'm glad the real Razer is back

Eww, he is looks ugly, this must be the fake Razor which WWF introduced to mock Scott & Kevin.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Eww, he is looks ugly, this must be the fake Razor which WWF introduced to mock Scott & Kevin.

Yes lol one of the worst ideas of all time

 

[Silentchimera]

@Razer who is your favourite tennis player of all time?

 

[Razer]

@Razer who is your favourite tennis player of all time?

Now I have no favourites as such. I am only here for Tennis, not for any player. I was a huge Fed fan in 2000s and even in 2010s but I slowly realized that Tennis is beyond worshipping 1 player, so at this point as I praise Novak for winning the slams race & his toughness in breaking through Fedal I must also acknowledge that it is not worth having any fav tennis player. Among the next gens I am quite open minded to all of them at present, a clean slate, no favourites at all among 2000s gen.

 

[Razer]

To me, it’s Lendl vs Sampras vs Federer. And I can’t pick a winner.

Sampras's 20s had the maximum depth and probably the worst in Federer's 20s @Pheasant @Holmes @Underdog .... Now we know why Murray made so many Semi finals at will and then surrendered. In the 90s he would losing before Semis more.

Number of players who made 200+ 4th Round matches

In Sampras's 20s -> 27 Players made 200+ 4R+ Matches
In Lendl's 20s -> 16 Players made 200+ 4R+ Matches
In Federer's 20s -> 18 Players made 200+ 4R+ Matches
In Nadal's 20s -> 22 Players made 200+ 4R+ Matches
In Djokovic's 20s -> 20 Players made 200+ 4R+ Matches


Number of people who made 100+ QFs+ matches

In Sampras's 20s - > 30 people made 100+ QF+ matches
In Lendl's 20s -> 21 people made 100+ QF+ matches
In Federer's 20s -> 19 people made 100+ QF+ matches
In Nadal's 20s -> 23 people made 100+ QF+ matches
In Djokovic's 20s -> 21 people made 100+ QF+ matches

Number of people who made 100+ SFs+ matches

In Sampras's 20s - > 6 people made 100+ Semis+ matches (Sampras, Agassi, Chang, Kafelnikov, Ivanisevic & Muster)
In Lendl's 20s -> 5 people made 100+ Semis+ matches (Lendl, Mcenroe, Connors, Wilander & Edberg)
In Federer's 20s -> 4 people made 100+ Semis+ matches (Federer, Roddick, Nadal and Djokovic)
In Nadal's 20s -> 5 people made 100+ Semis+ matches (Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Murray & Ferrer)
In Djokovic's 20s -> 5 people made 100+ Semis+ matches (Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Murray & Ferrer)


Number of people who made 60+ SFs+ matches

In Sampras's 20s - > 20 people made 60+ Semis+ matches
In Lendl's 20s -> 14 people made 60+ Semis+ matches
In Federer's 20s -> 11 people made 60+ Semis+ matches
In Nadal's 20s -> 15 people made 60+ Semis+ matches
In Djokovic's 20s -> 15 people made 60+ Semis+ matches

Number of players who made 30+ Finals

In Sampras's 20s - > 8 people made 30+ Finals
In Lendl's 20s -> 9 people made 30+ Finals
In Federer's 20s -> 4 people made 30+ Finals
In Nadal's 20s -> 5 people made 30+ Finals
In Djokovic's 20s -> 5 people made 30+ Finals

 

[Underdog]

All of them are great, hard to separate them directly based on numbers because every era presents great challenges that are different. The moderan era is so slam comparison based that anyone except Sampras from the past fails to measure on a 20s vs 20s comparison and probably Borg too. Thats why Lendl misses out, I believe not winning wimbledon a few times did cost him a bit. Other than that he has everything.



Big 3 + Murray amassing 69 between them is not necessarily an indicator of a stronger era than the past, it is an indicator of some talent vacuum. Federer won slams at a period when second best guy was Roddick of all people, that would like Pete winning slams with Goran ranked 2 for years, how we would that era have to be ? Your boy Nadal was ranked 2 in the mid 2000s, that would be like Thomas Muster ranked 2 in the 90s for 3-4 years, was he ? Nope, he wasnt because there were others. Then look at 2010s the second half, why did the Big 3 grab so many slams? It is because pansies like weaklings like Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitisipas are among the top 5-6 players born in the 1990s, these fellows are the fellows who would reach grand slam finals in previous eras. You might say Med moves far better than anyone of his size of the past, but then where are the guys of his generation who are shorter to him and move+hit better than him ? WHERE ARE THEY ? There weren't any, so you cannot say that 69 slams between 3-4 people is the indication of any strong era with plenty of depth. Murray is a 1-2 slam winner in any era, send him the 90s, he would be paraded naked by Sampras on Grass... not even 1 slam for him..... he could be lucky to pick an AO/USO somewhere but thats it..... Think again, this era is not as strong as it look, it lacks depth, it lacks guys who can create upsets, it lacks diversity, thats why the tall 6'5-6'6 men are reaching deep in slams repeatedly because thats the best you have in the 1990s born segment.

I never said Federer had it tougher than Sampras, actually. I said Nadal. Really don’t understand how you come with some of those points.
Nadal reached world number 2 in 2005 by winning as much HC masters as CC masters, 2 of each, alongside the RG title in his first appearance. That’s double the amount of HC masters Muster has won in his career and half the masters in general for his career. In a single year. Completely different players, Nadal and Muster.
As for the second half of 2010s, when Nadal and Djokovic were over their 30s (since you mentioned Med and Zed I assumed you’re talking mainly 2017 onwards) that would be the same as Sampras winning over the Roddicks of the early 2000s (Agassi was older and probably more injured and still win in 2003 and lost only to Federer at USO 04 and 05).
I never said that the baseline of the field during Sampras’ era wasn’t higher, but he simply didn’t have to deal with as many big time players, and that’s all that’s needed to make it tougher. Because it doesn’t matter how many quarter or semifinals you male because your average peers are weaker, you would have to face one of the Big 4 (if not two or three) to reach the title. That’s harder than Sampras.
You are underestimating Murray there, imo.

 

[Razer]

I never said Federer had it tougher than Sampras, actually. I said Nadal. Really don’t understand how you come with some of those points.
Nadal reached world number 2 in 2005 by winning as much HC masters as CC masters, 2 of each, alongside the RG title in his first appearance. That’s double the amount of HC masters Muster has won in his career and half the masters in general for his career. In a single year. Completely different players, Nadal and Muster.
As for the second half of 2010s, when Nadal and Djokovic were over their 30s (since you mentioned Med and Zed I assumed you’re talking mainly 2017 onwards) that would be the same as Sampras winning over the Roddicks of the early 2000s (Agassi was older and probably more injured and still win in 2003 and lost only to Federer at USO 04 and 05).
I never said that the baseline of the field during Sampras’ era wasn’t higher, but he simply didn’t have to deal with as many big time players, and that’s all that’s needed to make it tougher. Because it doesn’t matter how many quarter or semifinals you male because your average peers are weaker, you would have to face one of the Big 4 (if not two or three) to reach the title. That’s harder than Sampras.
You are underestimating Murray there, imo.

Send Nadal to the 90s and let him play him with gut strings and a small racquet, he wins nothing except the french open. At best could take 2-3 slams outside Clay with great luck, not more. Plus his french opens would also be less since his career would not be this long, could be 3-4 frenchs shot minimum. That puts him at around same slams as Sampras won, so this whole notion of Nadal having it tougher is a big joke when most of his slams are at french where is already supreme.

To have strong competition you should have formidable rivals who are your direct competitors in the slams which you actually won on your fav surfaces, that means DJokovic whose resume like Fed is outside clay will be judged on their field outside clay because clay already has Nadal, so we need not worry about it. In Nadal's case only few of his slams like 2008W, 2009AO, 2013USO are strong, rest I dont think he has had strong slams outside of french. Djokovic and Sampras had direct guys blocking them on their own fav surfaces itself.... hence they faced tougher

 

[Underdog]

Send Nadal to the 90s and let him play him with gut strings and a small racquet, he wins nothing except the french open. At best could take 2-3 slams outside Clay with great luck, not more. Plus his french opens would also be less since his career would not be this long, could be 3-4 frenchs shot minimum. That puts him at around same slams as Sampras won, so this whole notion of Nadal having it tougher is a big joke when most of his slams are at french where is already supreme.

To have strong competition you should have formidable rivals who are your direct competitors in the slams which you actually won on your fav surfaces, that means DJokovic whose resume like Fed is outside clay will be judged on their field outside clay because clay already has Nadal, so we need not worry about it. In Nadal's case only few of his slams like 2008W, 2009AO, 2013USO are strong, rest I dont think he has had strong slams outside of french. Djokovic and Sampras had direct guys blocking them on their own fav surfaces itself.... hence they faced tougher

You’re trying and argument which is the same as “put Curry in Chamberlain’s era and see if he performs as well”. Nadal excelled with the tools he had at his disposal. Players of different eras can mainly only be compared by their achievements and how tough it was in their respective eras. Equipment change is not a good argument because the players Nadal faced on his way to greatness were also using poly and bigger racquets. If anything, Sampras was probably hurt by poly and bigger racquets.
You’re basing your point on your arbitrary decision that Nadal would win X or Y french opens in said era or some amout of the other Slams. You can’t test that. What we have is a bigger racquet and poly user Nadal, facing a bigger racquers ans poly user field including the two other best players of all time.
Check the times Nadal has lost a final outside the french. It’s either to Federer, Djokovic or redline Wawrinka. That screams formidable rivals to me.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Federer had highest ever peak..

 

[ChaelAZ]

Nadal.