[supersexynadal]

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]

Re: The best era??

great question, I want to know too
=D

 

[Boris Franz Ecker]

Re: The best era??

Boris Becker Aera

 

[Bagelicious]

Re: The best era??

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.

 

[supersexynadal]

Re: The best era??

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.

Can y tell me what options to put in the poll?? Im not too sure who was in what era. Thanks :wavey:

 

[In_Disguise]

Re: The best era??

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]

Re: The best era??

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]

Re: The best era??

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]

Re: The best era??

Definitely the sampras/agassi era.

 

[mdhallu]

Re: The best era??

the era when Connors, Agassi, Courier, Sampas, Becker were all playing at the same time

 

[Scotso]

Re: The best era??

McEnroe, Lendl, etc.

 

[MisterQ]

Re: The best era??

Renshaw vs. Renshaw

 

[Timariot]

Re: The best era??

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]

Re: The best era??

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]

Re: The best era??

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]

Re: The best era??

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]

The best era of tennis?

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]

Re: The best era of tennis?

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]

Re: The best era of tennis?

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]

Re: The best era of tennis?

1880-1900 was the pinnacle of tennis by a landslide.