Which was/is Best Era in Tennis [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Which was/is Best Era in Tennis

supersexynadal
06-10-2006, 04:51 PM
What do people think about this. I read a few articles saying how we're having the best rivalry and how tennis has chaged and its much more competetive than before bla bla. Unfortunately, i was too young to understand sampras, agassi and graff etc and never wathed the other legends play. Is this the bet era? We have a lot of 20 and unders in the top 100, will they step up a notch and show us GOOD QUALITY tennis? What was tennis like before?

juanpablo18
06-10-2006, 04:56 PM
great question, I want to know too
=D

Boris Franz Ecker
06-10-2006, 04:57 PM
Boris Becker Aera

Bagelicious
06-10-2006, 05:00 PM
You should post some type of poll. And the only people who can answer that question are the ones who have been watching tennis for a long time (20 yrs +) and even then the answers will be subjective.

Besides, it appears hitchiker beat you to it. (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=78615)

supersexynadal
06-10-2006, 05:15 PM
You should post some type of poll. And the only people who can answer that question are the ones who have been watching tennis for a long time (20 yrs +) and even then the answers will be subjective.

Besides, it appears hitchiker beat you to it. (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=78615)
Can y tell me what options to put in the poll?? Im not too sure who was in what era. Thanks :wavey:

In_Disguise
06-10-2006, 09:59 PM
The Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang era in the nineties, and the McEnroe, Lendl, Becker era in the 80s were both much more competitive than today's. Even when Sampras was dominating, he was only winning 5 or 6 tournaments a year on average - there were so many great players in both those generations, so made the game much more appealing than today's!

NicoFan
06-10-2006, 10:09 PM
I really am enjoying the tennis being played today, and love the Rafa-Fed rivalry.

But I think the other eras that I've watched were more competitive. The Borg/Connors/Mac and especially the Agassi/Sampras/Courier eras.

Now we have Fed on all surfaces as a threat to win every tournament he enters. The only one that can compete against him is Rafa who seems to have his number. But Fed definitely is a much better overall player. And then there's a huge drop in talent after both of them. Yes, Fed and Rafa can be beaten by these other players - but only when they are having a bad day - or their opponent is having a miracle day which never will be repeated.

Personalities though have been fun throughout. Even though I love what happens on the court, the personalities of the players bring an added dimension to the sport.

DDrago2
06-10-2006, 10:56 PM
Yes, tennis LOOKED more competitive before. BUT: it's because Federer made modern tennis look less competitive. Without him, it would probably look even more competitive than ever.

It's interesting to remember what Andy Roddick thought about competitiveness on tour in the beggining of 2004: "I don't think there will be a dominant no.1 in future. It will rotate, because modern tennis is too competitive" (or something like this). And this was a common view-point - no one dreamed that domination such as Roger's is possible today! So I think we already forgot what a wonder Roger Federer is. Maybe he would make any other era look similarly uncompetitive?

Anyway, I clearly remember that some time ago tennis had more charm and emotion. My first memory is Becker-Edberg Wimbledon final (Edberg winning from two sets down, if I remember well) and it was deffinitely very different - in a positive way. It was not better quality-wise - on the contrary, it was slower, more amateurish etc. But it was somehow more classy. I mean, a few players had that SOMETHING that no one seem to have today. Things were looking somehow more mature and more serious - while there was more show on the court... Also, tennis was more "in" than today. Wimbledon finals were important even to people who are not tennis fans.

But then again, I never saw better player then Federer. When I watched him for the first time in 2003, I immediately thought: this guy is the best player ever! And I became interested for tennis again after a long, long pause (since mid 90-ies). So my answer would be: tennis as a whole was certainly better before, but in modern tennis we can watch the most complete, most subtle, most incredible player ever.

anserq
06-10-2006, 11:02 PM
Definitely the sampras/agassi era.

mdhallu
06-10-2006, 11:04 PM
the era when Connors, Agassi, Courier, Sampas, Becker were all playing at the same time

Scotso
06-10-2006, 11:20 PM
McEnroe, Lendl, etc.

MisterQ
06-11-2006, 12:42 AM
Renshaw vs. Renshaw

Timariot
06-11-2006, 01:06 AM
The Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang era in the nineties, and the McEnroe, Lendl, Becker era in the 80s were both much more competitive than today's. Even when Sampras was dominating, he was only winning 5 or 6 tournaments a year on average - there were so many great players in both those generations, so made the game much more appealing than today's!

Sampras peaked in 1994, when he won 10 tournaments. And he actually lost more to relative journeymen than his peers. Sampras actually suffered from lack of consistent rivals, much like Fed - Courier faded after 1993, and Agassi was consistently threat to Sampras only in 94-95.

Jimnik
06-11-2006, 02:24 AM
The 90s was more competitive with more multiple Grand Slam champions. Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Courier and Bruguera were all playing at the same time in the early 90s. All 6 of them were tennis legends.

Now-a-days, the world's top 10 is filled with players like Nalbandian, Ljubicic, Davydenko, Robredo, Blake and Gonzalez most of whom have never even come close to winning a slam. Federer is currently the only multiple slam winner, although Nadal and Roddick will probably win more slams.

I think players back then were able to spread out their success over longer periods of time. For instance, Becker won his first slam in 85 and his last in 96. Agassi won his first slam in 92 and his last in 03. Sampras won his first in 90 and his last in 02. Edberg won his first slam in 85 and his last in 92.

Safin and Hewitt look like they're not going to win any more slams. Ferrero didn't keep up the potential of winning more slams. So currently we're stuck with only two tennis legends in the top 10.

Scotso
06-11-2006, 02:42 AM
I think it's odd to say that Roddick will "probably" win more slams. There's a chance he might, but I wouldn't go with "probably." Especially not with Federer, Nadal, and a few others players that I see as being more talented.

There was definitely a lot more competition in the past than there is now. I just wish there were at least 5 guys that could challenge for majors. Oh well.

robert6061
06-11-2006, 03:05 AM
I think that this particular era of men's tennis is particularly special. While it is correct that there were multiple champions of Grand Slam tournaments in the late 80s and throughout the 90s which possibly has the attraction of diversity, the primary reason that this does not happen today is because no player from that era had to face Federer across the net. Looking back,the Becker Edberg rivalry seems less exciting with the passage of time. Lendl was a dour character which took away some of the zest of his rivalry with McEnroe and Becker. The Sampras Agassi rivalry was superb when they were both playing well but there were too many peaks and troughs in their careers to make their rivalry as compelling as Federer Nadal.
I think Nalbandian is an excellent number 3 and I regard him as a superior player to both Courier and Chang. Safin is a huge unfulfilled talent too who is capable of making a surge at any time and grabbing anothr grand slam title. However, I feel that the best days of Hewitt and Roddick are behind them.
Only the days of Borg connors and McEnroe were as special. Even here,with the exception of Vilas and Gerulaitis,there were no other players who could challenge them.

The bottom line is that no era has the depth of talent that this era has. This is particularly true of players ranked outside the top 30. Players today are far superior as athletes and their work ethics are overall far more professional.

Also a player ranked 50 in the world today would beat a player ranked 20 fifteen years ago.

Let's enjoy it while we can guys...the Federer Nadal rivalry will go down in tennis history.

dlk1992
06-24-2009, 04:18 AM
It has been argued by many that Federer is the greatest of all time, and if using total slams won as the barometer, with one more win, he will certainly be the greatest, whenever it may come. Federer's first slam win came in 2003. As of this moment, he has 14 slams halfway through 2009. If Federer is indeed the best, does it mean he came from the best era of tennis? Does his era make it the best of all time because of his dominance? Let's take a look at who was active and competing during Federer's era on the tour and use the slams won by his contemporaries as a barometer of quality of his era. I'll also compare this list with another 7 year span, '84-'90. Players will be listed with the slams won in parenthesis. Some of these players were on the downside of their careers, some just beginning and some had won their slams before the time periods in question. Some in the second list never competed on the tour at the same time. But all were actively competing on tour for a period during some point of these eras. Ivanisevic, Krajicek & Agassi's career touched both eras, so they'll be listed on both. Kafelinikov is listed for the more recent era, even though he retired during the 2003 seasoon. Keep in mind that the second list would've had Borg compete in at least part of that era had he not retired at 25 years of age, a fun thing to think about when adding his totals to the others. First, Federer's era.


Agassi (8)
Nadal (6)
Kuerten (3)
Kafelinikov (2)
Hewitt (2)
Safin (2)
Johansson (1)
Djokovic (1)
Ferrero (1)
Gaudio (1)
Costa (1)
Moya (1)
Ivanisevic (1, came out of retirement for Wimbledon 2004)
Krajicek (1)
Roddick (1)


Now, '84-'90.

Sampras (14)
Lendl (8)
Connors (8)
Agassi (8)
Wilander (7)
McEnroe (7)
Edberg (6)
Becker (6)
Courier (4)
Vilas (4)
Kriek (2)
Bruguera (2)
Cash (1)
Chang (1)
Gomez(1)
Muster (1)
Noah (1)
Stich (1)
Krajicek (1)
Ivanisevic (1)


So what does this all mean? While we are certainly fortunate to be witnessing history and quite possibly the best player of all time, as a tennis fan, it is not the best era for this tennis fan, IMHO. I can't help but think if Federer had had to compete during the '84-'90 era, I'm pretty sure he would have less slams. And if some of these players were competing now, the same would be true. Why? Most on this website have listed 3-6 of these players in the second list on an all time best top ten list. Besides Nadal (and this is debatable as of right now), can any players, barring Agassi, that have played during Federer's era be considered "one of the ten best of all time"? All this is just opinion, and I'm sure I'm going to get all kinds of counter points, but I think it's intersting to compare and contrast.

green25814
06-24-2009, 04:25 AM
I love how you wrote out this thread imagining it to being original.

I'll bite anyway, since you put some effort in:

1. You cant judge how good an era is by how many people the slams were spread amongst.

2. The game is constantly changing, both physically and technically, so again comparisons are impossible.

3. You cant have people from one era play people from another era.

Conclusion: Its impossible to tell, and always will be.

Arkulari
06-24-2009, 04:28 AM
I love how you wrote out this thread imagining it to being original.

I'll bite anyway, since you put some effort in:

1. You cant judge how good an era is by how many people the slams were spread amongst.

2. The game is constantly changing, both physically and technically, so again comparisons are impossible.

3. You cant have people from one era play people from another era.

Conclusion: Its impossible to tell, and always will be.

+1 :yeah:

JimmyV
06-24-2009, 04:37 AM
1880-1900 was the pinnacle of tennis by a landslide.

Chiseller
06-24-2009, 04:47 AM
What a poor attempt. You can do better.

mark73
06-24-2009, 05:13 AM
Federer has won 14 of the last 24 slams. This fact alone goes nowhere to deciding whether:

1)Federer is playing in the strongest era and is simply the greatest ever (in terms of playing ability).
2)Federer is playing in a relativly weak era (his top few main rivals lets say are relativly weak) so he picks up more slams then if he were playing in another.

mark73
06-24-2009, 05:23 AM
Another point worth making is your comparing one "era" with 48 slams (feds era including his 14) with 84-90 era with 84 slams. If you want to compare eras in this way make sure they are of the same size (i mean gosh youve got sampras and vilas in the same "era"

rocketassist
06-24-2009, 07:54 AM
1992 just needed Federer and it would have been one of sporting history's most incredible eras.

Action Jackson
06-24-2009, 08:06 AM
Original thread.

heya
06-24-2009, 08:23 AM
Mildly excited newbie with googly eyes for Federer. A clone of troll AJackson.

rocketassist
06-24-2009, 08:29 AM
heya you sexy thing :hearts:

Mimi
06-25-2009, 04:06 AM
Mildly excited newbie with googly eyes for Federer. A clone of troll AJackson.
Heya Shakespere :lol::bigclap:

lessthanjake
06-25-2009, 05:05 AM
How can you judge an era based on how many players in it won many slams? All that indicates is that things at the top were pretty equal.

Imagine if some completely perfect Tennis God played in an era including Federer, Borg, Laver, Sampras, Lendl, Connors, Agassi, Newcombe, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, and Nadal. Despite playing against a ridiculously stacked group of players, this Tennis God was so good that he basically still won everything, depriving those great players of any real grand slam success. By your measure, you would say that that was a weak era, because the other players wouldn't have won grand slams.

No. All we can tell is that for a while, Federer was head and shoulders above his peers. That does NOT mean his peers were weak in comparison to other eras.

habibko
06-25-2009, 06:55 AM
judging by the responses of this "original" thread, at least I can take joy in seeing more people are coming up with the right conclusion than before, good to see.

Goldenoldie
06-25-2009, 08:54 AM
Whenever there is a discussion about "greatest ever", whether it be for music, films, sportsmen or whatever, there is a natural bias in favour of the present day and the recent past.

Take the same poll 20 years later, and many of the current favourites have disappeared from the memory.

I believe the greatest era was the 1960s, because many of the players are still remembered today, Laver, Rosewall, Emerson, Stolle, Newcombe, Roche, etc.

It remains to be seen how many of the current players apart from Federer and Nadal will be remembered in 20 or 50 years.

vamosinator
06-25-2009, 08:59 AM
Mildly excited newbie with googly eyes for Federer. A clone of troll AJackson.

:worship:WOW EVERN JUST TWO SENTENCE IS FULL OF GENIUS:worship:

mistercrabs
06-25-2009, 09:05 AM
It's obviously the 80s. Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Becker and the genius who was Yannick Noah!

Commander Data
06-25-2009, 09:07 AM
Slam counts are pretty useless for the question, since every year 4 of those get handed out irrespective of the strenght of the era. Thus, Slam counts only tell you:

- if certain players stood out from the field (very unbalanced Slam distribution)

and

- if the field is old (many Slams owned).

The question about the strenght of an era must be judged from subjective impression of the machtes played. so, you could rewatch the Agassi-Sampras final and then rewatch the Federer-Nadal final, that should give you a hint which era was stronger (I haven't done so...) That would actually be interesting (but still completly subjective).

For a objective assessement, we would need something constant to messure the players against, eg. a robot that always has the same playing strenght or the like. Not (yet) happening (only in chess ;-) )

mcnasty
06-25-2009, 01:31 PM
Most of the players in the '84-'90 era were past their primes when Sampras started to dominate. Only Agassi and Courier and Chang might be said to be in their primes and even they were more or less dispatched with relative ease by Sampras.

CmonAussie
06-25-2009, 02:07 PM
It has been argued by many that Federer is the greatest of all time, and if using total slams won as the barometer, with one more win, he will certainly be the greatest, whenever it may come. Federer's first slam win came in 2003. As of this moment, he has 14 slams halfway through 2009. If Federer is indeed the best, does it mean he came from the best era of tennis? Does his era make it the best of all time because of his dominance? Let's take a look at who was active and competing during Federer's era on the tour and use the slams won by his contemporaries as a barometer of quality of his era. I'll also compare this list with another 7 year span, '84-'90. Players will be listed with the slams won in parenthesis. Some of these players were on the downside of their careers, some just beginning and some had won their slams before the time periods in question. Some in the second list never competed on the tour at the same time. But all were actively competing on tour for a period during some point of these eras. Ivanisevic, Krajicek & Agassi's career touched both eras, so they'll be listed on both. Kafelinikov is listed for the more recent era, even though he retired during the 2003 seasoon. Keep in mind that the second list would've had Borg compete in at least part of that era had he not retired at 25 years of age, a fun thing to think about when adding his totals to the others. First, Federer's era.


Agassi (8)
Nadal (6)
Kuerten (3)
Kafelinikov (2)
Hewitt (2)
Safin (2)
Johansson (1)
Djokovic (1)
Ferrero (1)
Gaudio (1)
Costa (1)
Moya (1)
Ivanisevic (1, came out of retirement for Wimbledon 2004)
Krajicek (1)
Roddick (1)


Now, '84-'90.

Sampras (14)
Lendl (8)
Connors (8)
Agassi (8)
Wilander (7)
McEnroe (7)
Edberg (6)
Becker (6)
Courier (4)
Vilas (4)
Kriek (2)
Bruguera (2)
Cash (1)
Chang (1)
Gomez(1)
Muster (1)
Noah (1)
Stich (1)
Krajicek (1)
Ivanisevic (1)


So what does this all mean? While we are certainly fortunate to be witnessing history and quite possibly the best player of all time, as a tennis fan, it is not the best era for this tennis fan, IMHO. I can't help but think if Federer had had to compete during the '84-'90 era, I'm pretty sure he would have less slams. And if some of these players were competing now, the same would be true. Why? Most on this website have listed 3-6 of these players in the second list on an all time best top ten list. Besides Nadal (and this is debatable as of right now), can any players, barring Agassi, that have played during Federer's era be considered "one of the ten best of all time"? All this is just opinion, and I'm sure I'm going to get all kinds of counter points, but I think it's intersting to compare and contrast.


You forgot Rafter:eek:

dlk1992
06-25-2009, 02:34 PM
You forgot Rafter:eek:


Rafter retired in 2002, so he was not playing when Federer started his slam run.


Guys, I apologize if the thread was not original to some of you. I did not bother using the search engine. I am indeed new to the site, but I'm not new to tennis. My first match I saw on TV was the '80 Wimby final. Suffice it to say, it made me an instant fan. I do think Federer is one of the best of all time, and possibly THE best. I'm lucky that from time time I get to talk to Mr Laver when I see him around the town where we both live. I do think there are players I've seen over the last 20 years who, in their prime, could beat Federer and play him fairly evenly, such as Becker, Edberg, Sampras and Agassi. Just my opinion. I think we're all pretty lucky to see Federer and Nadal play.

octatennis
06-25-2009, 03:35 PM
Federer has won 14 of the last 24 slams. This fact alone goes nowhere to deciding whether:

1)Federer is playing in the strongest era and is simply the greatest ever (in terms of playing ability).
2)Federer is playing in a relativly weak era (his top few main rivals lets say are relativly weak) so he picks up more slams then if he were playing in another.


finnish the thread already.

Mint Chip
06-25-2009, 03:36 PM
Not this one

oz_boz
06-25-2009, 08:45 PM
My pick for the best period is 1984-88. Starting with Mac's best year and ending with Wilander's fabulous one, also includes Edberg and Becker breakthrouhs. Lendl who dominated the era still couldn't win more than 8 majors in total, says a lot IMO.

In the 90s, the clay game was worse in the first half, while the latter suffered from a weak generation from the guys born around '75. 1995 being the exception though :) (BTW saying Sampras&Agassi was part of the Lendl/Becker/Edberg era is a stretch...)

The game was restored partly after 2002, however the clay and grass depth is :lol: since then, everyone being a hc specialist due to tournament speed equalisation.

danieln1
06-25-2009, 09:39 PM
I think weīre very, very lucky to witness Roger Federer making history, winning all those slams and hopefully heīll break Samprasī record, thatīs gonna happen sooner or later...

But the level of tennis, I think it got better compared to the past eras, but I canīt say much because I didnīt see a lot of matches from the past...

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
06-26-2009, 01:11 AM
Just to be different

The greatest era was 2003-2006

Roddick prime
Agassi still a contender
Nalbandian with flashes of genius
Safin being a GOAT destoryer when he wanted
Hewitt reaching his true peak
Nadal in pure defense mode went 50-2 in 05
and in 06 Rafa had his only flawless clay year

and some bum called Roger won a few Mickey mouse tourneys aswell

rocketassist
08-27-2009, 12:38 AM
Been debated to an extent in some threads but I've grouped them as the following.

The early era of Laver, Newcombe and Orantes. Laver the dominant player. Players like Borg breaking through.

The Borg/McEnroe/Connors era from when Borg started dominating Roland Garros and SW19.

The Lendl/Becker/Edberg/Wilander era dominated by Lendl but the other three played major roles.

The Sampras era of the mid 90s with strong clay court players and grass court players as well as hard court players like Agassi, Kafelnikov, Rios around.

The variation/transition era featuring diverse players and good shotmakers like Guga and Safin emerging, and the warrior Hewitt.

Federer's domination era of 2004-07 where he faced off against Roddick in his prime, Hewitt at a strong level and Safin at a strong level as part of the fab four and then an emerging Nadal who came on strong.

The current era with a much weaker Federer, Nadal on a similar level, Roddick weaker, Murray and Djokovic the standout improvers.

So which era is the best?

You decide.

Har-Tru
08-27-2009, 01:03 AM
I'll take the late 70's-early 80's era. Three all-time champs with totally different styles and characteristics and attractive personalities, overall variety in game styles etc.

You should add Rosewall to the first era BTW I think.

fast_clay
08-27-2009, 01:18 AM
1. Open Tennis - 1975
2. 1976 - 1984
3. 1985 - 1992
4. 1994 - 1999
5. 2000 - 2003
6. 2004 - 2007
7. 2008 - current

there it is by years... arguably anyways...

of course taking into account MTF limitations on the matter, this is good grouping of eras...

Clydey
08-27-2009, 02:10 AM
Been debated to an extent in some threads but I've grouped them as the following.

The early era of Laver, Newcombe and Orantes. Laver the dominant player. Players like Borg breaking through.

The Borg/McEnroe/Connors era from when Borg started dominating Roland Garros and SW19.

The Lendl/Becker/Edberg/Wilander era dominated by Lendl but the other three played major roles.

The Sampras era of the mid 90s with strong clay court players and grass court players as well as hard court players like Agassi, Kafelnikov, Rios around.

The variation/transition era featuring diverse players and good shotmakers like Guga and Safin emerging, and the warrior Hewitt.

Federer's domination era of 2004-07 where he faced off against Roddick in his prime, Hewitt at a strong level and Safin at a strong level as part of the fab four and then an emerging Nadal who came on strong.

The current era with a much weaker Federer, Nadal on a similar level, Roddick weaker, Murray and Djokovic the standout improvers.

So which era is the best?

You decide.

Depends what you mean. Best players or most competitive?

Either way, the options that cover 2000-2007 shouldn't even get a look-in. One great player emerged in that time (Federer), with another about to fully mature (Nadal). It remains to be seen what Murray, Djokovic, et al can do.

I think 2000-2003 was a real low point. I could scarcely bring myself to watch it, such was the startling mediocrity of the era. 2004-2007 wasn't much better. It was only notable for the rise of Federer. No one could touch him. And it was only partly down to how good he was. His competition (the top guys from the prior era) was completely overrated. Hewitt couldn't manage a single win against him after 2003 and Safin was only capable of occasional brilliance.

duong
08-27-2009, 05:44 AM
For "Sampras and the 90s", the problem is that there are two eras : first half of the 90s and second half.

Very different.

Two very great eras are missing :

- MacEnroe-Connors-Lendl (82-84)
- Courier-Edberg-Becker-Stich-Sampras (91-93)

In my opinion :

- 1. 79-81 and 82-84 (I can't distinguish them : 79-81 -Borg-Mac-Connors- had Borg of course, but in 82-84 -Mc-Connors-Lendl-there was a huge competition between those three, and there were interesting lower players for me, like Wilander, the "great Swedes" and Noah)

- 2. (together) period 1991-1993 and 2008-to follow on

jonathancrane
08-27-2009, 06:10 AM
76-80 and 90-95

kooties
08-27-2009, 10:29 AM
80's by far

Has Great Champions

Edberg, Becker, Wilander, Lendl , McEnroe(most TALENTED player EVER!

awesome gatekeepers as well

Mecir, Leconte, Noah etc...

Goldenoldie
08-27-2009, 10:54 AM
Borg, Mac, Connors. Any two would have made the era great - three together puts it top in my book.

ShotmaKer
08-27-2009, 11:53 AM
2000 - 2003 was an history low. Current era is tough to make a judgement on since we dont have enough room for perspective.

MacTheKnife
08-27-2009, 12:03 PM
Two and three, it's close with #2 getting the nod. Period around 1992 was extremely solid too, but not sure it lasted a full "era".

duong
08-27-2009, 12:53 PM
Two and three, it's close with #2 getting the nod. Period around 1992 was extremely solid too, but not sure it lasted a full "era".

I think that 1991/1993, maybe 1991-1994 (Courier, Becker, Edberg, Stich, Sampras, Agassi, Ivanisevic ...), is as coherent as a "Lendl/Edberg/Becker/Wilander" era.

Lendl-Edberg-Becker-Wilander it can only be 1985-1988 (Wilander was finished after 1988 ; Edberg and Becker only started in 1985).

But Becker and Edberg were really young in that time ... it's mostly Lendl-Wilander's period ... and I would also identify that period with Mecir and Cash.

I guess that the problem for you or other fans to talk about an "era" about this period 1991-1993, is that people identify an era with a GREAT player ... and actually the most dominant of that period are Courier and Edberg, Courier a little bit ahead.

And Courier, well ... is not sexy :lol:

But there was a huge competition in that time, great tennis, many great players.

The same I see an era "Borg-MacEnroe-Conors" in the poll

... but there was also an era "Mac-Connors-Lendl" (82-84) with a lot of competition between those three (4th Wilander and the Swedes), MacEnroe being the most dominant of course,
but there were many changes between those three in the rankings.

They were always number 1, 2 and 3 (Wilander number 4) but the order changed regularly

duong
08-27-2009, 01:04 PM
Actually 82-84 (MacEnroe-Connors-Lendl) may be the most interesting in my opinion, with the Swedes and Noah, also the end of the tennis "before power era"

... but there's nothing like this in the poll.

tea
08-27-2009, 01:23 PM
The one that gave us the GOAT tops them all. Yes, I am talking about this century.

One legendary player has brought tennis to its absolute maximum these years, for good.:D

Allez-Ollie
08-27-2009, 01:42 PM
1. Open Tennis - 1975
2. 1976 - 1984
3. 1985 - 1992
4. 1994 - 1999
5. 2000 - 2003
6. 2004 - 2007
7. 2008 - current

there it is by years... arguably anyways...

of course taking into account MTF limitations on the matter, this is good grouping of eras...

Correct, except first era should read 1968 - 1973
Connors and Borg began to take over from 1974, then McEnroe joined the party from 1978 as a top 3 player. And Sampras, Agassi, Courier era starts from 1992 although Sampras had already won the US Open (1990). Naturally, there is a little bit of overlap with these eras.

1968 - 1973 Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Nastase
1974 - 1984 Borg, Connors, McEnroe
1985 - 1991 Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander
1992 - 2000 Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, Brugeura, Muster, Kuerten
2001 - 2002 Hewitt
2003 - 2007 Federer
2008 - now Nadal, Djokovic, Murray

stebs
08-27-2009, 02:15 PM
The thing is, in reality, these things change rapidly but we are influenced by recency effect. What I am saying is looking back we don't distinguish between changing era's as readily. If you look at these lists, the older eras people were discussing are like 8 or 9 years long and the current ones just 3 or 4 years. For me, tennis changes rapidly enough that usually there is a marked difference in the field every 5 years. I don't think a normal era can really be longer than that. Of course, this means the previous one, and sometimes even two, eras have a bearing on the current one.

It's like Duong said, 85-88, 91-94. These are more realistic era's than going all the way from 85-92.

duong
08-27-2009, 02:24 PM
For me, tennis changes rapidly enough that usually there is a marked difference in the field every 5 years.

I think 3 years, sometimes 4, you can see a significant evolution about who's playing at the top and how they compete with each other.

MalwareDie
08-27-2009, 06:37 PM
The current era shouldn't be an option because there are people who will vote for it just because it's the present era. It's also the muggiest era ever and should not be a choice at all.

Ichiban1920
08-27-2009, 06:50 PM
LMAO at the Frauderer/Nadull fanboys voting for Frauderer's dominant/current era.

rocketassist
08-30-2009, 11:05 AM
Seems we have 14 idiots.

duong
08-30-2009, 11:11 AM
Seems we have 14 idiots.

if I did say anything like that, I would rather speak of the 13 who voted for Federer's domination era,

but you can rank me as an idiot :wavey:, as I consider that the current era is great, the best one since 1991-1993 and only maybe dominated by the 79-81 and 82-84 period ... and still : only for the very-top players (the current field is far more dense than in the first part of the 80s ... as was dense as well 1991-1993 actually).

rocketassist
08-30-2009, 11:12 AM
if I did say anything like that, I would rather speak of the 13 who voted for Federer's domination era,

but you can rank me as an idiot :wavey:, as I consider that the current era is great, the best one since 1991-1993 and only maybe dominated by the 79-81 and 82-84 period ... but only for the very-top players (the current field is far more dense than in that time).

Nah at least you aren't joining the hype idiots like Mark Petchey create by saying this is full stop the strongest era when it's nowhere near.

Simon 5 in the world. Greater than any other period obv.

duong
08-30-2009, 11:32 AM
Nah at least you aren't joining the hype idiots like Mark Petchey create by saying this is full stop the strongest era when it's nowhere near.

Simon 5 in the world. Greater than any other period obv.

he was 6 for one week, but it lasted shortly, and he's better than Schuettler and many players who preceded him in top-8

rocketassist
08-30-2009, 11:36 AM
he was 6 for one week, but it lasted shortly, and he's better than Schuettler and many players who preceded him in top-8

Who are these many players who preceded him in top 8? Go on, name them.

Commander Data
08-30-2009, 11:42 AM
I don't know which era is the strongest, but here is an argument for the current era:


Federers is considered maybe the best player ever. If not the best, at least virtually all experts agree, that he is among the top 4 of all time. Well, how can this era not be great if one of the best players ever suffers a 7-13 record against his main rival and world no.3 and a 3-6 record against current world no. 2? If Federer is great then the current era is great, if the current era is weak then Federer must be super weak.

Thats the reason why the nostalgia tards have resorted to the absurd idea that Federer is a medicore player.

Action Jackson
08-30-2009, 11:44 AM
Number 2 and 3, though 92 was fun.

rocketassist
08-30-2009, 11:46 AM
I don't know which era is the strongest, but here is an argument for the current era:


Federers is considered maybe the best player ever. If not the best, at least virtually all experts agree, that he is among the top 4 of all time. Well, how can this era not be great if one of the best players ever suffers a 7-13 record against his main rival and world no.3 and a 3-6 record against current world no. 2? If Federer is great then the current era is great, if the current era is weak then Federer must be super weak.

Thats the reason why the nostalgia tards have resorted to the absurd idea that Federer is a medicore player.

It's not just about achievements, it's about the level of play from the players in it as well. Federer has played, with the exception of the Cincinnati SF and F, mediocre all-serve tennis since early June yet was able to win two grand slams despite his groundstrokes being completely off.

Look at world no 2's grand slam record against him. Never beaten him in a major.

Federer is not great right now. He was truly great from 2004-2007, now he is not that great and if competition was better his recent performances would have been punished in both of the slams he won.

For example a clay court specialist with top spin (something this not very diverse period has) would have almost certainly bounced him out of the French the way he was playing, but he was coming up against hardcourt players and ballbashers and digging through.

duong
08-30-2009, 11:47 AM
Who are these many players who preceded him in top 8? Go on, name them.

Canas, Kiefer, Schuettler, Lapentti, Thomas Johansson, Rosset, Jay Berger ...

you can dislike Simon's game if you want (as I do ;) ) but he also has many qualities.

Qualities which are very important in tennis (eye and legs, mental especially)

And he beat Federer twice among which one in masters cup : I guess it's not too bad except if you think Federer is a mug ;)

Action Jackson
08-30-2009, 11:49 AM
Canas, Kiefer, Schuettler, Lapentti, Thomas Johansson, Rosset, Jay Berger ...

you can dislike Simon's game if you want (as I do ;) ) but he also has many qualities.

Qualities which are very important in tennis (eye and legs, mental especially)

And he beat Federer twice among which one in masters cup : I guess it's not too bad except if you think Federer is a mug ;)

Hahahahahaha funny guy.

duong
08-30-2009, 11:50 AM
Look at world no 2's grand slam record against him. Never beaten him in a major.

Murray (and Djokovic, JMDP) is young : at the same age, Federer was not better, and I can think of many other players in that case (Edberg, I know some people disagree, but he was not better than Murray at the same age)

rocketassist
08-30-2009, 11:51 AM
Canas, Kiefer, Schuettler, Lapentti, Thomas Johansson, Rosset, Jay Berger ...

you can dislike Simon's game if you want (as I do ;) ) but he also has many qualities.

Qualities which are very important in tennis (eye and legs, mental especially)

And he beat Federer twice among which one in masters cup : I guess it's not too bad except if you think Federer is a mug ;)

Canas won a very difficult Masters Series title in Canada beating some top players, Schuettler reached a slam final albeit in a bit of a fluke year but also reached Monte Carlo final the year after, ToJo won a slam and beat Safin in his prime while Rosset won Olympic gold against a good Spanish clay courter in his own backyard.

Lapentti, well, it's hard to say with him but the diversity back then meant there was clay court players who excelled on the dirt and he made the Wimbledon quarters when it was far, far tougher for a South American to get that far.

For me Jay Berger is the only player he is possibly better/greater than in that list.

duong
08-30-2009, 11:52 AM
Hahahahahaha funny guy.

only for information, you've seen a lot of tennis in the past, and I know you appreciated Wilander, whose main quality was the eye and tactics, and also legs, I mean not a buoyant player but a great one :

do you think Simon is a mug or worse than the players I mentioned ?

(once again I don't like Simon, and I don't think he will spend a lot of time in top-10 -still more than Massu)

duong
08-30-2009, 11:55 AM
Canas won a very difficult Masters Series title in Canada beating some top players, Schuettler reached a slam final albeit in a bit of a fluke year but also reached Monte Carlo final the year after, ToJo won a slam and beat Safin in his prime while Rosset won Olympic gold against a good Spanish clay courter in his own backyard.

Lapentti, well, it's hard to say with him but the diversity back then meant there was clay court players who excelled on the dirt and he made the Wimbledon quarters when it was far, far tougher for a South American to get that far.

For me Jay Berger is the only player he is possibly better/greater than in that list.

you just speak about results, but how could Simon win a MS title, how could Schuettler have won one with Fed, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic there ?

you can see these 4 trust everything.

Simon beat Nadal in Madrid, which I think is great, and he just lost to Murray, that's very near to a MS title in a mug era like Schuettler's.

bokehlicious
08-30-2009, 11:55 AM
People of yesterday did everything better than today. It's a common rule that applies to anything on this planet. Tennis is no different. Deal with it newbies...


:angel: :p

Action Jackson
08-30-2009, 11:56 AM
Canas won a very difficult Masters Series title in Canada beating some top players, Schuettler reached a slam final albeit in a bit of a fluke year but also reached Monte Carlo final the year after, ToJo won a slam and beat Safin in his prime while Rosset won Olympic gold against a good Spanish clay courter in his own backyard.

Lapentti, well, it's hard to say with him but the diversity back then meant there was clay court players who excelled on the dirt and he made the Wimbledon quarters when it was far, far tougher for a South American to get that far.

For me Jay Berger is the only player he is possibly better/greater than in that list.

ToJo won a TMS as well and made a semi of a Slam as well as winning one, something Simon dreams of doing. Rosset, well who he beat the Olympics was impressive, taking Courier apart for the loss of 7 games when Courier was RG champ. He won on all surfaces as well beat Stich in Halle, who was much better on grass than him.

duong
08-30-2009, 12:00 PM
ToJo won a TMS as well and made a semi of a Slam as well as winning one, something Simon dreams of doing. Rosset, well who he beat the Olympics was impressive, taking Courier apart for the loss of 7 games when Courier was RG champ. He won on all surfaces as well beat Stich in Halle, who was much better on grass than him.

Tojo won Melbourne in a mug period.

As for Rosset, he was utterly irregular : it's just a very different style than Simon, the fact is they play in periods which favorize different styles of play, but his tennis was "bof" in my eyes

rocketassist
08-30-2009, 12:00 PM
you just speak about results, but how could Simon win a MS title, how could Schuettler have won one with Fed, Nadal, Murray, Djokovic there ?

you can see these 4 trust everything.

Simon beat Nadal in Madrid, which I think is great, and he just lost to Murray, that's very near to a MS title in a mug era like Schuettler's.

Nadal could barely walk at the end of that. Mardy Fish, Radek Stepanek, Agustin Calleri, James Blake have all reached TMS finals, it's not the same as winning one.

Simon wouldn't have won an AMS in 2003 either. You think he beats a powerful hitting Roddick, Agassi, Federer, Ferrero, Safin, Hewitt, Henman, Schalken, Coria (clay and hard), Gonzalez, Nalbandian in a six-match event?

Commander Data
08-30-2009, 12:00 PM
mediocre all-serve tennis since early June yet was able to win two grand slams despite his groundstrokes being completely off.





His groundstrokes being completly off?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vpuQkmoRyw

Holy shit, how is the guy playing when his groundstrokes are completly on?

duong
08-30-2009, 12:04 PM
Nadal could barely walk at the end of that.?

People always give excuses to Nadal like that :rolleyes:
Simon was also completely exhausted (had won his 3 previous matches 7/6 final set), but he won : that's tennis :shrug:


Simon wouldn't have won an AMS in 2003 either. You think he beats a powerful hitting Roddick, Agassi, Federer, Ferrero, Safin, Hewitt, Henman, Schalken, Coria (clay and hard), Gonzalez, Nalbandian in a six-match event.

Yes I think so (he beat Federer and Nadal)
, maybe top-Federer is just a little bit apart but he also had his bad days in his best years like beating Suzuki 7/6 final set

I don't like Simon, but the fact is he beat Federer twice and Nadal once in MS and MAsters Cup, several months after they played what's considered by many (wrong or not, but MCEnroe thinks so) as "the greatest or one of the greatest matches of all time"

He also was near to beating Djokovic in semifinals of the masters cup, who won it

The guy has specific qualities and uses them well

This year, he's been often injured

Mardy Fish, Radek Stepanek, Agustin Calleri, James Blake have all reached TMS finals, it's not the same as winning one.

Why didn't Blake win an AMS in your opinion ?
Because he's less good than Schuettler ?

The fact is Federer was there :shrug:

rocketassist
08-30-2009, 12:05 PM
His groundstrokes being completly off?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vpuQkmoRyw

Holy shit, how is the guy playing when his groundstrokes are completly on?

Haha, he was awful that match. Throughout his career, ballbashers with big serves were like dinner to Roger and here he was getting bashed about and only Del Potro's choking saved him.

rocketassist
08-30-2009, 12:08 PM
People always give excuses to Nadal like that :rolleyes:
Simon was also completely exhausted (had won his 3 previous matches 7/6 final set), but he won : that's tennis :shrug:

Yes I think so (he beat Federer and Nadal)
, maybe top-Federer is just a little bit apart but he also had his bad days in his best years like beating Suzuki 7/6 final set

Whyb didn't Blake win an AMS in your opinion ?
Because he's less good than Schuettler ?

The fact is Federer was there :shrug:

Blake didn't win one cause he wasn't good enough. He couldn't win one before 2004 and he couldn't win one after 2007, so you can't say it's because of Federer's complete dominance.

Nadal is always tired when he loses (j/k) but that was a day when he was clearly not fit to play.

Commander Data
08-30-2009, 12:08 PM
Haha, he was awful that match. Throughout his career, ballbashers with big serves were like dinner to Roger and here he was getting bashed about and only Del Potro's choking saved him.

Serve is enough to win GS these days? why didn't Karlovic and Roddick win some then?
Yeah, yeah, you know what? If Federer fluked his way to 15 GS, question arises, why didn't you even fluke 1 GS?

rocketassist
08-30-2009, 12:12 PM
Yes I think so (he beat Federer and Nadal)
, maybe top-Federer is just a little bit apart but he also had his bad days in his best years like beating Suzuki 7/6 final set


Federer of 2003 (post Wimbledon) would destroy Simon with ease. Fedmug of 08/09 is a different player.

Agassi, Roddick, Ferrero, Safin and Nalbandian would find him to be cannon fodder.

duong
08-30-2009, 12:13 PM
Nadal is always tired when he loses (j/k) but that was a day when he was clearly not fit to play.

In France, everybody considered it as a great match, as great as what Tsonga did in Bercy.

Action Jackson
08-30-2009, 12:13 PM
Tojo won Melbourne in a mug period.

As for Rosset, he was utterly irregular : it's just a very different style than Simon, the fact is they play in periods which favorize different styles of play, but his tennis was "bof" in my eyes

Not at all so Safin is shit now.

Rosset could play on all surfaces except grass and won on all of them in spite of his handicap on the surface.

Simon is no better than any of the ones you mentioned, perhaps Berger.

rocketassist
08-30-2009, 12:14 PM
Serve is enough to win GS these days? why didn't Karlovic and Roddick win some then?
Yeah, yeah, you know what? If Federer fluked his way to 15 GS, question arises, why didn't you even fluke 1 GS?

:haha: that last sentence is the sign of someone getting desperate. Federer was an unreal player from 2004-2007 and maimed everyone with his spectacular complete game, but since the end of 07 his forehand has been inconsistent with the odd pearler mixed with some paceless shots and shanks and his backhand has gone way down the pan.

Despite this, he's still no 1 and winning slams with ease because he's playing the same type of player every match- hardcourt hitter, ballbasher. No topspin on clay bar Nadal, no grass specialists at SW19.

Action Jackson
08-30-2009, 12:15 PM
Serve is enough to win GS these days? why didn't Karlovic and Roddick win some then?
Yeah, yeah, you know what? If Federer fluked his way to 15 GS, question arises, why didn't you even fluke 1 GS?

You really can't handle it can you? Fed was below par in the whole event, but dug deep and was able to win it.

duong
08-30-2009, 12:15 PM
Blake didn't win one cause he wasn't good enough. He couldn't win one before 2004 and he couldn't win one after 2007, so you can't say it's because of Federer's complete dominance.


Blake was a very late bloomer and lost interest in 2008-2009

And in 2008-2009 Nadal, Murray, Djokovic are there : believe it or not, I consider them as great players, not just that Federer was a mug in 2008-2009 (over-exaggerated, he was not so good before and not so bad now) : Federer had lost to the 3 of them before, even though they were all young.

duong
08-30-2009, 12:17 PM
Simon is no better than any of the ones you mentioned, perhaps Berger.

maybe not better, but not worse either

Commander Data
08-30-2009, 12:19 PM
:haha: that last sentence is the sign of someone getting desperate. Federer was an unreal player from 2004-2007 and maimed everyone with his spectacular complete game, but since the end of 07 his forehand has been inconsistent with the odd pearler mixed with some paceless shots and shanks and his backhand has gone way down the pan.

Despite this, he's still no 1 and winning slams with ease because he's playing the same type of player every match- hardcourt hitter, ballbasher. No topspin on clay bar Nadal, no grass specialists at SW19.

Okay. Federer is shit these days but the others are so fucked up that shit is enough. got it.

Commander Data
08-30-2009, 12:20 PM
You really can't handle it can you? Fed was below par in the whole event, but dug deep and was able to win it.

see above :wavey:

duong
08-30-2009, 12:22 PM
:haha: that last sentence is the sign of someone getting desperate. Federer was an unreal player from 2004-2007 and maimed everyone with his spectacular complete game, but since the end of 07 his forehand has been inconsistent with the odd pearler mixed with some paceless shots and shanks and his backhand has gone way down the pan.

Despite this, he's still no 1 and winning slams with ease because he's playing the same type of player every match- hardcourt hitter, ballbasher. No topspin on clay bar Nadal, no grass specialists at SW19.

that's over-exaggerated : yes he declined, but not as much as you say. And he also had some moments playing quite badly in the past even though less of them.

Fed lost to the very young Nadal, Murray and Djokovic on hardcourts, Nadal was equal to him on grass, when he was in his best period, then why not when these players get more mature ?

I'm a Fedfan but he's been lucky this year, and don't think Nadal, Murray and Djoko are done.

Action Jackson
08-30-2009, 12:23 PM
maybe not better, but not worse either

Yes, he is worse than Caņas, Schuettler, Rosset, ToJo and Lapentti.

duong
08-30-2009, 12:26 PM
Yes, he is worse than Caņas, Schuettler, Rosset, ToJo and Lapentti.

we will see : he has many years left in his carreer, maybe not as injured as this year

Commander Data
08-30-2009, 12:52 PM
thanks again for all the great teachers that joined forces to help me out of my misery. Assisted by great mods, once again this site has helped me to find the bad in todays tennis with its overwhelming pessimism and way of looking at things negativly. :worship: such a bunch of optimists is hard to find. you have corrected my erring view that todays tennis can bring about great matches and that i can witness great sport. i now look forward with great eager to see the ultimate mugs of our time play some utter shit matches at this years US Open. :bounce:

cocrcici
08-30-2009, 01:14 PM
The current era:):devil:

Action Jackson
08-30-2009, 01:30 PM
thanks again for all the great teachers that joined forces to help me out of my misery. Assisted by great mods, once again this site has helped me to find the bad in todays tennis with its overwhelming pessimism and way of looking at things negativly. :worship: such a bunch of optimists is hard to find. you have corrected my erring view that todays tennis can bring about great matches and that i can witness great sport. i now look forward with great eager to see the ultimate mugs of our time play some utter shit matches at this years US Open. :bounce:

Once again critical thinking has passed you by.

abraxas21
08-30-2009, 05:21 PM
This is a great era for tennis.

rocketassist
08-30-2009, 05:23 PM
This is a great era for tennis.

Given you have bashed Andy Murray and he's no 2 in the world, aren't you contradicting yourself?

Corey Feldman
08-30-2009, 05:46 PM
i have went for current era just ahead of sampras era/90's and then Lendl/Edberg/Becker/Wilander .. and there was nothing it for all 3, for me.

abraxas21
08-30-2009, 05:53 PM
Given you have bashed Andy Murray and he's no 2 in the world, aren't you contradicting yourself?

there are many more players besides murray in this era that don't have such a good ranking but are still quite good and talented... players i enjoy watching, i should say.

in any case, my dislike of andy murray has to do with his unattractive and untalented game more than anything else. he does have some pretty good qualities that i have acknolowdged in the past such as his mentality, his good physical shape and even more importantly -as it is the fact that makes murray so unique- the intelligence that he shows when it comes to select his shots in a tennis court. however, in spite of this, i still don't like his (untalented and defensive) game and for me that's the main criterion to like or dislike a player.

dusan1610
08-30-2009, 05:56 PM
the current era..

maxardy
08-30-2009, 07:49 PM
i dont think you can compare eras cause every single year, though we may not notice that, tennis is improving - balls, courts, rackets, training, athleticism, i guess federer or any other top 20 players would have smashed laver, borg, mac in SS

Burrow
08-30-2009, 07:52 PM
i dont think you can compare eras cause every single year, though we may not notice that, tennis is improving - balls, courts, rackets, training, athleticism, i guess federer or any other top 20 players would have smashed laver, borg, mac in SS

:lol: That's why most players still use 10 year old rackets and in some cases 15 year old rackets.

Courts improving, how? Athleticism? How has that improved since last year?

Of course anybody would have smashed Laver, but that as ActionJackson said is like saying Isner would beat Borg on clay.

:haha:

maxardy
08-30-2009, 07:56 PM
:lol: That's why most players still use 10 year old rackets and in some cases 15 year old rackets.

Courts improving, how? Athleticism? How has that improved since last year?

Of course anybody would have smashed Laver, but that as ActionJackson said is like saying Isner would beat Borg on clay.

:haha:

show me a top player using a wooden/metal racket?
are there more bad bounces at wimbledon than in serve/volley era? no, that's why there are longer rallies and nadal won it.
and don't tell me that laver or borg were training in the gym, running faster that rafa or murray.

Corey Feldman
08-30-2009, 08:25 PM
unreal, only 6 of 91 votes for Pistol Pete's era

this is tennis!

8HbSn-tLmH8

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
08-30-2009, 09:33 PM
imo asking this sort of question only leads to another era war between nostalgia tards and fed/nadal tards

so lets not ask teh qu

http://www.theallineed.com/webmasters/animations/street_fighter_027.gif

Burrow
08-30-2009, 09:41 PM
show me a top player using a wooden/metal racket?
are there more bad bounces at wimbledon than in serve/volley era? no, that's why there are longer rallies and nadal won it.
and don't tell me that laver or borg were training in the gym, running faster that rafa or murray.

You said rackets improve every year, Head haven't improved since the Prestige Classic and Wilson haven't improved since the Pro Staff original 6.0

That's one surface, what about the rest?

Do you know that training techniques, technology have all improved and are more necessary now than in 70's because of racket technology and the fact guys are now several inches taller now than back then.

The guys in the 70's had no choice in the matter, you are only a product of your generation. Just like there will be a guy in 50 years time better than Federer with nowhere near the credentials to go with it. Doesn't mean he is better.

Bargearse
08-31-2009, 10:54 AM
Those of us the picked Borg/Mac/Connors are showing our age! Just for fun, I'd like there to be a tournament where the players have to play with the same wooden racket (rebranded to satisfy their sponsors). That would be something. Hey, there are different surfaces, how about different rackets? :lol:

Action Jackson
08-31-2009, 11:10 AM
Those of us the picked Borg/Mac/Connors are showing our age! Just for fun, I'd like there to be a tournament where the players have to play with the same wooden racket (rebranded to satisfy their sponsors). That would be something. Hey, there are different surfaces, how about different rackets? :lol:

Dreams are free.

Commander Data
08-31-2009, 11:20 AM
:lol: That's why most players still use 10 year old rackets and in some cases 15 year old rackets.

Courts improving, how? Athleticism? How has that improved since last year?

Of course anybody would have smashed Laver, but that as ActionJackson said is like saying Isner would beat Borg on clay.

:haha:

Courts improving for example by building roofs, Hawkeye, changing the kind of grass used in Wimbledon, less bad bounces etc.


Athleticism clearly improved if you look back, say 10 -20 years. assuming it is a steady improvement, it follows that it improves year by year. Just becasue you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there ;)

Anybody would smash Laver? Well, what does that tell us?

Burrow
08-31-2009, 01:18 PM
Courts improving for example by building roofs, Hawkeye, changing the kind of grass used in Wimbledon, less bad bounces etc.


Athleticism clearly improved if you look back, say 10 -20 years. assuming it is a steady improvement, it follows that it improves year by year. Just becasue you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there ;)

Anybody would smash Laver? Well, what does that tell us?

This tells us that people are comparing wrong, you can't compare players like this, otherwise you'd be saying Berrer is a better and more talented guy than Laver or Rosewall.

Building a roof isn't improving a court, hawkeye neither, changing kind of grass used at Wimbledon?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "improving" the grass doesn't mean hardcourts have improved or clay courts have improved. That's a load of bullcrap, it shows from the fact you started talking about hawkeye and roofs that you don't have any arguments to say the courts have improved themselves.

Commander Data
08-31-2009, 02:20 PM
This tells us that people are comparing wrong, you can't compare players like this, otherwise you'd be saying Berrer is a better and more talented guy than Laver or Rosewall.

Building a roof isn't improving a court, hawkeye neither, changing kind of grass used at Wimbledon?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "improving" the grass doesn't mean hardcourts have improved or clay courts have improved. That's a load of bullcrap, it shows from the fact you started talking about hawkeye and roofs that you don't have any arguments to say the courts have improved themselves.

The question was, if our era is stronger. you seem to imply stronger = more talented. I don't think so, that was not the question. otherwise the question should be "which is the most talented era?" discussion was not held in that way, otherwise you could just have replied to "court improvements" and "racket changes" or "athlethism", that they are irrelevant to the question. now, that would be a funny discussion "which era was the most talented?" (and probably more accurate for the discussions on MTF, as people some to discuss that very question quite often) It becomes then also clearer how subjective it is, how would anybody determine if Laver is more taltented then Federer?


Stronger does not equal more talented, thus saying Murray is stronger then Laver might be a valid statement. probably a much more useful statement then saying Laver is more talented then Murray, like you seem to suggest. More useful because, Like I said above, discussing who is more talented is a completely subjective discussion, and thus futile.


Concerning improving Courts: Form the context it seems clear that improving court was meant in a more general way, talking about general improvements surounding the game. Thus, mentioning Hawkeye and building roofs is legitimate. The courts themself, I have no infos, I just know that they have changed courts quite broadly. Question: Which courts do have the same surface then 15 years ago?

Improving the grass is, of cours, completly legitimate to mention when discussion court improvements. after all certain courts are grass, thus, if we are to survey court changes we have to include changes in grass court as well and mention them. Your argument that the changes do not apply to HC or clay, shows how little you understand about logic.

Burrow
08-31-2009, 02:38 PM
The question was, if our era is stronger. you seem to imply stronger = more talented. I don't think so, that was not the question. otherwise the question should be "which is the most talented era?" discussion was not held in that way, otherwise you could just have replied to "court improvements" and "racket changes" or "athlethism", that they are irrelevant to the question. now, that would be a funny discussion "which era was the most talented?" (and probably more accurate for the discussions on MTF, as people some to discuss that very question quite often) It becomes then also clearer how subjective it is, how would anybody determine if Laver is more taltented then Federer?


Stronger does not equal more talented, thus saying Murray is stronger then Laver might be a valid statement. probably a much more useful statement then saying Laver is more talented then Murray, like you seem to suggest. More useful because, Like I said above, discussing who is more talented is a completely subjective discussion, and thus futile.


Concerning improving Courts: Form the context it seems clear that improving court was meant in a more general way, talking about general improvements surounding the game. Thus, mentioning Hawkeye and building roofs is legitimate. The courts themself, I have no infos, I just know that they have changed courts quite broadly. Question: Which courts do have the same surface then 15 years ago?

Improving the grass is, of cours, completly legitimate to mention when discussion court improvements. after all certain courts are grass, thus, if we are to survey court changes we have to include changes in grass court as well and mention them. Your argument that the changes do not apply to HC or clay, shows how little you understand about logic.

Typo's again? I think not.

According to your logic you're comparing era's from who is hitting the ball harder with more spin. The Laver era didn't have this contingency. You compare era's by examining the quality of players they had around thus allowing talent to come into the discussion.

Just because Pablo Cuevas can hit the ball harder, with more spin and has the benefits of more advanced training methods and technology does not mean that he is a better player than Laver, there is a reason why some regard him, still as the Greatest of All Time, they wouldn't be doing this if they were following your atrociously pointless logic. These discussions wouldn't be happening if people were listening to you cause that would mean that each era is becoming stronger and stronger, when it clearly isn't the case.

As I've said before, you're only a product of your own generation, you can't help when you're born, you can't say that Mcenroe or Borg would be useless today because you never know how one can adapt to the surrounding circumstances.

Roof/Hawkeye ≠ Courts. I don't care what you say, it doesn't. You talk about surface and then you start rambling on about an electronic line calling system, that doesn't make any sense.

If you think by making all of the courts the same speed, then yes, the courts have dramatically "improved".

The initial person I was talking to said that courts and rackets improve each year, which is bullshit.
The courts haven't improved in the last 10 years and have only gotten worse for the game and 15 year old rackets are chosen over new crappy rackets which only purpose is to market casual club players.

"Strong" or "Stronger" has many definitions, it doesn't seem like you know this, you seem to only think that "strong" means force or physical power.

Commander Data
08-31-2009, 02:48 PM
I may have some typos, but your reading skills and/or logical thinking is aweful. I stop right there:



According to your logic you're comparing era's from who is hitting the ball harder with more spin.

Now, please provide quotes of mine that substantiate your claim.

Burrow
08-31-2009, 02:50 PM
You're claming Murray is a stronger player than Laver, enough said. :haha:

Commander Data
08-31-2009, 03:37 PM
You are not very smart are you?

You're claming Murray is a stronger player than Laver, enough said. :haha:

Please provide a quote of mine that substantiate your claim!


Or is correcting typos all you can do?

Burrow
08-31-2009, 04:54 PM
Look back and read your own posts or are you too senile?

Not very smart? :haha: Coming from you? Who the fuck are you?

A typo is a spelling error when you hit the wrong key by accident, I guess you've been hitting e instead of a accidentally non-stop for the past couple of years then. :tape:

Commander Data
08-31-2009, 05:01 PM
Look back and read your own posts or are you too senile?

Not very smart?

You are really not very smart. It only took me like 3 posts to outsmart you and I did't even try hard. All people with avarage reading skills can see for themselfs, that I have never said like you claimed. So it's no wonder you can't provide a quote of me saying so. Of course you have to resort to cheap personal attacks.


You are a clown.

Burrow
08-31-2009, 05:02 PM
:spit:

I'm sure you are very, very proud of yourself. :retard:

Commander Data
08-31-2009, 05:06 PM
:spit:

I'm sure you are very, very proud of yourself. :retard:

Being more intelligent then a :retard: is nothing to be proud of.

Burrow
08-31-2009, 05:26 PM
Being more intelligent then a :retard: is nothing to be proud of.

Another typo, Einstein?

Commander Data
08-31-2009, 06:03 PM
Another typo, Einstein?

Like I said, all you can do is find my typos. congrats. There is no Einstein needed to know that one needs to use "than" to compare things. As in the context of this board, comparing things (like eras) is the typical case. Like I already said yesterday, I just don't care, but thanks anyway.

Chiseller
08-31-2009, 06:11 PM
Typo's again? I think not.

According to your logic you're comparing era's from who is hitting the ball harder with more spin. The Laver era didn't have this contingency. You compare era's by examining the quality of players they had around thus allowing talent to come into the discussion.

Possessive != Plural

Har-Tru
08-31-2009, 06:53 PM
Possessive != Plural

http://usversusthem.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/owned.jpg

Har-Tru
08-31-2009, 06:55 PM
Like I said, all you can do is find my typos. congrats. There is no Einstein needed to know that one needs to use "than" to compare things. As in the context of this board, comparing things (like eras) is the typical case. Like I already said yesterday, I just don't care, but thanks anyway.

Then why do you keep using it wrong?

Nidhogg
08-31-2009, 07:08 PM
Just how did a thread about comparing eras evolve into a spelling contest? :lol:

Chiseller
08-31-2009, 07:45 PM
http://basszje.vrijwazig.org/files/2009/04/grammar-nazi.jpg

Commander Data
08-31-2009, 08:01 PM
Then why do you keep using it wrong?

More and more I start to think it is a subconscious thing to annoy you people :shrug:

Seriously, because i'm careless. I will do my best to spell it correct in the future. okay? everybody happy? And of course all of you are warmly welcome to supervise me.

ad-out
08-31-2009, 08:10 PM
Seriously, because i'm careless. I will do my best to spell it correct in the future. okay? everybody happy? And of course all of you are warmly welcome to supervise me.

Actually it is "correctly".. Just kidding!!!! :)

Back on topic, I think "Fed's domination era" as the OP put it is the strongest and is my favorite. The 2000-2006 years rocked IMO!

Har-Tru
08-31-2009, 08:28 PM
Just how did a thread about comparing eras evolve into a spelling contest? :lol:

In my case, cause comparing eras has become a boring topic and I love languages. :shrug: Also, I can't stand it when people confuse "typo" with "spelling mistake".

CyBorg
08-31-2009, 08:35 PM
1, 2 or 3. Can't go wrong with any of those.

I went with 1 with reservations. It was the golden age of tennis. The sport's boom in the United States. Rod Laver won the grand slam at a time when there were some of the deepest fields in memory. The Australian was still a real major. In 1972, the US Open had a 148-man draw. Newcombe, Rosewall, Smith, Nastase, Roche, Ashe were all amazing (Orantes belongs more to the following era).

However, past 1969 there were legal issues galore. The WTT was a threat to the tour and dried up the attendance at the French. There was a Wimbledon strike in 1973, the year after the ATP came into existence.

rocketassist
04-22-2011, 03:09 AM
Bumpppppppp

Snowwy
04-22-2011, 03:36 AM
The reason why this is so hard is the following:

1) Is an era better than all other eras because there was parity with all a bunch of players winning but no dominant player that was amazing.

2) Is an era better than all other eras because one player was above and beyond all the other players and made the competition *look* weak while if it were playing in the absence of that one player, we would have situation 1.

What is better? That's why I don't think this thread has an answer.

tribalfusion
04-22-2011, 05:48 AM
1) Is an era better than all other eras because there was parody with all a bunch of players winning but no dominant player that was amazing


I hope you meant parity :)

oranges
04-22-2011, 08:28 AM
Results as hilarious as best serve ones :haha: Nowtards FTW :rocker2:

finishingmove
04-22-2011, 08:36 AM
2011+

jonathancrane
04-22-2011, 08:56 AM
Nole era, the day it comes

sexybeast
04-22-2011, 09:55 AM
This is a difficult one, I was just about to go with the first one but then Laver and Rosewall were kind of old and past their prime. Still Laver managed to win the grand slam at 31, tells alot about the great man but also about the rest of the tour. Rosewall was in a grand slam final when he was 42 or something, even old Pancho, who was 40+ was still doing some damage in the late 60s despite not practicing and most of the time gambling away all his money.

I think the late 60s and early 70s is more kind of a midera after a great era (that never happened in the real tour), the early and mid60s was probably much greater but the tour was divided in different leagues of amateurs and pros which hurt the myth of the legends from that era.

I really like the Borg/Mac/Connors era, what a splendid mix of styles we have there.

The transition era is horrible, by far the worst. We have ofcourse another transition era with Courier dominating the early 90s which is also weak but better than the 00s transition era. Early 70s was also kind of a transition era, all transition eras are most often a feast for avarage players to get their fair share of trophies before a true great sweeps them all and they go back to play mere supporting actors to the great star(s) of the era.

I think Wilander winning 3 slams in 88 is also sign of a weak era, except on grass where the rivalry between Becker and Edberg was quite stunning thing to witness, Wilander was never good enought to win 3 slams out of 4.

Gagsquet
04-22-2011, 10:12 AM
Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Noah or the current era.
Hard choice. All different answers are incorrect.

Sonja1989
04-22-2011, 10:16 AM
The current era :worship:

Don't cry to older era because we won't see them anymore. Criticizing this era isn't good.

stebs
04-22-2011, 10:18 AM
Here's a small sum which I hope may elucidate the shortcomings of this thread:

'Discussion about strongest era' - 'Commonly accepted definition of strongest as applied to tennis' = 'Pointless and arbitrary discussion'

Without a common definition, only arrogance or ignorance could possibly give rise to a person thinking they know the 'correct' answer.

luie
04-22-2011, 01:26 PM
Option 3..the 80s imo. Strong elite players on all surfaces ,,secondly the surfaces were very distinct,,with elite players able to excell on different surfaces despite this.

luie
04-22-2011, 01:29 PM
Canas, Kiefer, Schuettler, Lapentti, Thomas Johansson, Rosset, Jay Berger ...

you can dislike Simon's game if you want (as I do ;) ) but he also has many qualities.

Qualities which are very important in tennis (eye and legs, mental especially)

And he beat Federer twice among which one in masters cup : I guess it's not too bad except if you think Federer is a mug ;)
Simon is a worthless pusher.:o

barbadosan
04-22-2011, 02:04 PM
I voted for the heck of it, but really the question is moot since no criteria have been defined by the OP. It's all been left up to each person's peculiar criterion

--- not to mention that it is perfectly possible and legitimate for one to arrive at a different answer using different sets of criteria

rocketassist
04-22-2011, 02:13 PM
I'm gonna spin this one like I do if the Tories win an election- 68% didn't vote for the current era, hence the majority don't believe it's the best era :)

peribsen
04-23-2011, 11:58 AM
I's say the 80s for sure, several top quality guys playing at the same time. With the late 90s and specially the early 2000s as a low point.

Blackbriar
04-23-2011, 12:04 PM
Current era is the strongest: Melzer, Almagr, Monfils all in top 10, too good.

.-Federers_Mate-.
04-23-2011, 01:13 PM
Federer era. Had it all. Diversity,great matches, winners, champions past and present. Level of play was unheard of and still is.

Lanthanide
04-23-2011, 01:28 PM
Lendl/Edberg/Becker/Wilander.

peribsen
04-23-2011, 01:40 PM
Federer era. Had it all. Diversity,great matches, winners, champions past and present. Level of play was unheard of and still is.

That's a huge homage for Nadal, what a change for you!
(Now try to undo what you just said, jeje).

swisht4u
04-23-2011, 02:16 PM
I went with 2003-2007.
It was the hardest ERA for any player to get a slam.

Nadal and Fed where the strongest slam gatekeepers in history and may very well end up as the 2 best players in history.

SetSampras
04-23-2011, 06:52 PM
mid 80s-early 90s for sure.. Greats on ALL surfaces.. Haven't seen it since

ROFL... Fucking Federer era.. What did it consist of? Pre-Puberty Nadal only good on clay,, Fucking worthless on hardcourts, and still learning grass, Old brokeback elderly Agassi with a bad back, garbage Roddick, Hewitt injured and past prime by 2006, clowns like Blake, Ljubicic, two guys who showed once every half a decade to play tennis, bar flea Safin, and Doughnuts Nalbandian... Wow... What an era

Nole fan
04-23-2011, 08:35 PM
I voted for Lendl/Edberg/Becker/Wilander but looks like current era is winning by far. :cool:

Clashcityrocker
04-23-2011, 08:40 PM
the first 4 options i like the best, the other options have their great players but don't really do it for me. voted for the lendl/becker/edberg/wilander era btw

rocketassist
04-24-2011, 12:27 AM
As I said, I am spinning this poll like I would a Tory election victory. The majority did not vote for them.

I voted 90s, as it was the first tennis I saw, and I loved it. And the diversity.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
04-24-2011, 12:55 AM
best year in tennis

1995

/thread

BK 201
04-24-2011, 06:52 AM
mid 80s-early 90s for sure.. Greats on ALL surfaces.. Haven't seen it since

ROFL... Fucking Federer era.. What did it consist of? Pre-Puberty Nadal only good on clay,, Fucking worthless on hardcourts, and still learning grass, Old brokeback elderly Agassi with a bad back, garbage Roddick, Hewitt injured and past prime by 2006, clowns like Blake, Ljubicic, two guys who showed once every half a decade to play tennis, bar flea Safin, and Doughnuts Nalbandian... Wow... What an era



Safin was frikkin awesome when he wasn't injured and also when his injuries pretty much ruined his career in 2005. But definately a great career and a great player - no matter how many more slams he could have won.




Safin worked his ass off to get into great shape many times after injuries. He was by no means lazy. he even stated his biggest accomplishment was not getting lazy before the end of his career.

Yes, he might have not been dedicated or 'tryhardy' as someone like Nadal but to say Safin went from one bar getting sh!tfaced whilst playing tournaments is stupid. If that were the case, it would show how talented the guy is if he could club before tournaments and get far....

Blackbriar
04-24-2011, 07:01 AM
mid 80s-early 90s for sure.. Greats on ALL surfaces.. Haven't seen it since

ROFL... Fucking Federer era.. What did it consist of? Pre-Puberty Nadal only good on clay,, Fucking worthless on hardcourts, and still learning grass, Old brokeback elderly Agassi with a bad back, garbage Roddick, Hewitt injured and past prime by 2006, clowns like Blake, Ljubicic, two guys who showed once every half a decade to play tennis, bar flea Safin, and Doughnuts Nalbandian... Wow... What an era

but Federer won 16 GS, and Sampras only 14. The best player in Tennis history is no more american, but swiss.

ossie
04-24-2011, 08:12 AM
fedal, del potro and the djoker are probably the most complete players this game has ever seen. there is really no comparison.

BK 201
04-24-2011, 10:58 AM
fedal, del potro and the djoker are probably the most complete players this game has ever seen. there is really no comparison.

Have you been watching tennis for 5 years?

Voo de Mar
04-24-2011, 11:13 AM
IMO definitely the 90's, it's the era which cumulated all the biggest names, at the beginning of the era players who started in the 70's were still active: Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Vilas and Borg, albeit the last two in a laughable style, at the end of the 90's began his career Federer.

Shinoj
01-07-2012, 04:40 PM
To Mods : I checked the Best Era thread,they didn't have the Poll option and the separate Eras. that's why

Amongst

The 50s and 60s with Laver,Rosewall,Pacho Gonzales,Lew Hoad amongst others.

Late 70s to Early 80s. With GOATS like Borg in that Era. McEnroe,Connors,Vilas amongst others.

Late 80s to Early 90s with the likes of Ivan Lendl,Mats Wilander,Peak Stefan Edberg,Peak Boris Becker, Young and prodigious Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi. To other highly talented players like Michael Stich,Jim Courier and others.

Late 90s to Early 2000s with Agassi Peaking,Sampras hanging in there, Lleyton Hewitt coming up,Marat Safin emerging,Gustavo Kuerton and others

Mid 2000s. Federer dominating tennis with his exquisite tennis.

Late 2000s. With Djokovic emerging along with two other GOATS contender, Federer and Nadal. With others like Andy Murray and so on.

alter ego
01-07-2012, 05:03 PM
What the hell is up with the poll? There was no such thing as a Laver Connors McEnroe era. Laver is 19 years older than john and 14 years older than Jimmy.

SetSampras
01-07-2012, 05:30 PM
Always loved the early-mid 90s followed by the 80s. More talent and threats stacked from top to bottom because of the polarization of conditions. Thus every slam was pretty big to watch. You had a direct contrast and clash in styles because everyone played the game different From the 00s-on surfaces began slowing down and the game began being primarily played from the baseline and that leads us to what we have today. Baseline ball bashing at every slam on every surface. Boring

Pirata.
01-07-2012, 07:24 PM
The Late 70s to Early 80s having the likes of Laver,Connor,McEnroe

:confused:

Shinoj
01-08-2012, 01:53 AM
I ,for,one liked the late 80s to the Early 90s era a lot. That was when there was a massive presence of talent and variety. If you liked S&V you had Edberg,Sampras,Becker.. If you liked Baseline game there was Agassi,Courier. Some might point that Agassi and Sampras didn't have a GOAT presence but they were still formidable.

Also it had a great amalgamation of personalities too. If you liked a Quiet and Graceful Performer Edberg was there, If you liked a Swashbuckling and flamboyant one, Becker and Agassi were there. If you liked mercurial ones young Goran was there.

I like the current one too. The Top 4 or 5 looks one of the most formidable ones in recent history. Others may argue that the rest of them suck. But you cannot really say that whether that judgment is based on their performance alone or is being influenced by the brilliance of the Top 4.


:confused:

What the hell is up with the poll? There was no such thing as a Laver Connors McEnroe era. Laver is 19 years older than john and 14 years older than Jimmy.

Yeah, some of the Superstars when past their prime played in the next era so i included them by unwittingly. Silly Me:tape:

Topspindoctor
01-08-2012, 02:08 AM
50-60's obviously. 170cm midgets hitting the ball at 80kmh with wooden racquets is where real tennis is at :rocker2: