Why is the period 1990s-03 such a volatile phase in win% ?? ... Looks like a weak era ...... Why so?

[Razer]

@razor ? What do you think

Obviously Sampras was a very strong champ, he was as lethal on the fastest of courts as Nadal is on the slowest of courts.

Conditions were more polarized than ever in 1990s, so it is understandable if the win% are lower than other decades. Rally Length Stats shows the greatest disparity between surfaces in the 1990s.

Also it is worth being noted that longevity into 30s was worst in 80s and 90s due to all this, players were injury prone too.

 

[Rovesciarete]

Obviously Sampras was a very strong champ, he was as lethal on the fastest of courts as Nadal is on the slowest of courts.

Conditions were more polarized than ever in 1990s, so it is understandable if the win% are lower than other decades. Rally Length Stats shows the greatest disparity between surfaces in the 1990s.

Also it is worth being noted that longevity into 30s was worst in 80s and 90s due to all this, players were injury prone too.

Excellent graphs, thank you. Lots of great clay courters and some brutal first strike tennis on grass influenced by surface differentials and tech revolution. Truly polarised as you stated and fits my three sweet spot theory vs baseline gravitation on surface homologation with some gradual tech evolution.

 

[Rovesciarete]

To follow it up it is actually quite neat to have a mental model of Federer coming up from the first strike tennis sweet spot, Nadal descending from the clay style and Djokovic spreading out from the hardcourt center.

 

[nolefam_2024]

To follow it up it is actually quite neat to have a mental model of Federer coming up from the first strike tennis sweet spot, Nadal descending from the clay style and Djokovic spreading out from the hardcourt center.

That's why Fed is in same tier as Nole. He played from a different era early on and went to change his game a lot to dominate even late 2000s and until 2018.
Nole will win 6/7 more slams than Fed but he never had to go through this change.

 

[Silentchimera]

Obviously Sampras was a very strong champ, he was as lethal on the fastest of courts as Nadal is on the slowest of courts.

Conditions were more polarized than ever in 1990s, so it is understandable if the win% are lower than other decades. Rally Length Stats shows the greatest disparity between surfaces in the 1990s.

Also it is worth being noted that longevity into 30s was worst in 80s and 90s due to all this, players were injury prone too.

I think it's important to mention that the number of players >30 in the top 100 has fallen 50% between 2017 and now from 42 to 21 players.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I think it's important to mention that the number of players >30 in the top 100 has fallen 50% between 2017 and now from 42 to 21 players.

Nole is the only guy who is in top 20 rankings over age 30.

 

[tkramer15]

Claycourter Chang with 77% ranked 2 in 96 ?
Then Rafter 69% ranked 2 in 97
Then some guy called Rios without a slam ranked 2 in the year end in 98??
Kafelnikov with 65% ranked 2 ahead of Sampras in 99
Then Safin and Hewitt who were like 19-20 quickly rose because these guys quickly got outdated? String Technology cannot cause such a big change that these veterans failed to adapt, these veterans were all crap all along .... Compare that to someone like Lendl who had so many years when he was above 90% in win % for the year, Sampras never even came close to 90..... How did rios without a slam become 1? This was a weak era for sure as @mike danny pointed out once on Sampras not having as good competition as Federer or Nadal, this is true.

Tennis continually evolves. In the mid-'90s, there was very clearly a significant increase in the depth of the men's tour. Guys like Kafelnikov, Rios, Moya, Rafter, Corretja, Albert Costa, Kuerten, Mantilla, Rusedski, Henman, Philippoussis, Berasategui, Enqvist, etc. all emerged around the same time. That list alone includes several wildly different playing styles and strengths and weaknesses. Those guys joined the established guard of Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Courier, Muster, Ivanisevic, Chang, Bruguera, Stich, Krajicek, Ferreira, etc.

For those who followed the tour closely back then, it was pretty exciting. Sure, Sampras was the best. He was favored in many non-clay tournaments that he entered. But outside of a few utterly dominant stretches, he was beatable and he did lose.

The stylistic variety and varying surface speeds and conditions from tournament to tournament created much more parity. Seeding only 16 players at slams also occasionally created very disparate draws for top players. Each surface had leading candidates to hoist big trophies, but you wouldn't have been surprised had one of about 10+ players triumphed.

Towards the end of the decade, Haas, Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero and Federer among others showed up. By then, much of the old guard had retired or faded from regular top contention. The new crew started to raise the level of play ever so slightly again.

 

[tkramer15]

The last 15 years have been an anomaly. All of us have been truly blessed to have witnessed this era. Because what we had was a champion (Federer) who set a new standard. He raised the bar without question. Those of us who watched Fed in 2002-2004 when he first started winning every tournament in sight will remember how the commentators oooh'd and aaah'd all over him and unanimously said Fed (1) played at a level they hadn't witnessed before and (2) could go on to become the GOAT. They were saying these accolades when he had won only his 3rd Slam. Think about that. In any other era, Fed talent and drive would have gotten him to breaking Sampras's Slam record and he would have likely retired at 15 or 16 Slams. But then two other, significantly younger, players (we all know who they are) showed up and pushed him to sustain his quality for probably 5-8 years longer than typical. And then these two guys themselves were huge talents motivated to chase down Federer's record and this mutual competition resulted in a roughly 15 year period of triumvirate dominance. For me, it's clear that Fed is the one who raised the game to a new level. Nadal and Djokovic have, to be sure, matched it but it can't be said that they have surpassed it. The CYGS could have been something viewed as a new, unprecedented level of dominance (in the modern era), but it didn't happen. So we are where we are.

Very well stated and rational post.