Eras of Tennis

I saw a comment by Tenez and social1976 on another thread where there was a little banter and misunderstanding over strengths of various era. One point made was that we cannot judge the strength of the 2005 top 10 by todays tops ten unless we wait a few years to see how respective careers pan out. This seems reasonable. So with that in mind, below is the YE top ten every 5 years back to 1980, ignoring 2010. My question is - even with 20/20 hindsight can we say are all these eras equal, or do any stand out as strong/weak?

1980 - Men
1 Bjorn Borg 10 slams
2 John McEnroe 2 slams
3 Jimmy Connors 5 slams
4 Gene Mayer
5 Guillermo Vilas 4 slams
6 Ivan Lendl
7 Harold Solomon
8 Jose-Luis Clerc
9 Vitas Gerulaitis 1 slam
10 Eliot Teltscher

1985 - Men
1 Ivan Lendl 2 slams
2 John McEnroe 7 slams
3 Mats Wilander 4 slams
4 Jimmy Connors 8 slams
5 Stefan Edberg 1 slam
6 Boris Becker 1 slam
7 Yannick Noah 1 slam
8 Anders Jarryd
9 Miloslav Mecir
10 Kevin Curren

1990 - Men
1 Stefan Edberg 4 slams
2 Boris Becker 4 slams
3 Ivan Lendl 8 slams
4 Andre Agassi
5 Pete Sampras 1 slam
6 Andres Gomez 1 slam
7 Thomas Muster
8 Emilio Sanchez 3 slams
9 Goran Ivanisevic
10 Brad Gilbert

1995 - Men
1 Pete Sampras 7 slams
2 Andre Agassi 3 slams
3 Thomas Muster 1 slam
4 Boris Becker 5 slams
5 Michael Chang 1 slam
6 Yevgeny Kafelnikov
7 Thomas Enqvist
8 Jim Courier 4 slams
9 Wayne Ferreira
10 Goran Ivanisevic

2000 - Men
1 Gustavo Kuerten 2 slams
2 Marat Safin 1 slam
3 Pete Sampras 12 slams
4 Magnus Norman
5 Yevgeny Kafelnikov 2 slams
6 Andre Agassi 6 slams
7 Lleyton Hewitt
8 Alex Corretja
9 Thomas Enqvist
10 Tim Henman

2005 - Men
1 Roger Federer 6 slams
2 Rafael Nadal 1 slam
3 Andy Roddick 1 slam
4 Lleyton Hewitt 2 slams
5 Nikolay Davydenko
6 David Nalbandian
7 Andre Agassi 8 slams
8 Guillermo Coria
9 Ivan Ljubicic
10 Gaston Gaudio 1 slam



Some comments from me:

Very close generally, but 1985 looks like a daddy to me and 1990-1995 also look very strong. 2000 - not so good and 2005 bar the immense top two and and aging Agassi does look (marginally) light.

Agassi appears here 4 times - quite amazing for some one with such inconsistent ranking[img][/img]

Just added the graph of slam numbers. Its seems these back up even more clearly the 1985 argument, with the most slams held, the highest number of players with slams and the highest slam count even if you discount the most sucessful/aging player. 1980 is very high, but a lot of that is from Borgs dominance at that time, 1990 and 1995 are as strong (1 slam behind)

Fast forward to 2000 and it looks ok until you take out Pete and behind him theres a very low number of slams (Blue line), same in 2005 behind Agassi - 2005 has the lowest score in total slams (sudden dip) and total slams minus leader - it had been worse than that from 2003 forward after Sampras retired.

But we cannot talk in those lines.

Let's take the 2003-5 era. Hewitt had just put the bar physically to a higher level than anybody else before him. He could run everything down, like Borg did 30 years ago or Chang did in his youth. There is not much players can do bar having an excellent day at the office and blast him of the court. That requires a talent that noone has, at the time, as he wins Wimbleodn 2002 and teh USO 2001 in very convincing fashion.

You can imagine that in 2003, noone is going to be prepared at that time to beat someone like Nadal and even less Djokovic who are going to be pushing the physical bar even higher. Not even Federer who has just enough talent to beat Hewitt.

But now Hewitt's physical shape seems the norm cause many top 50 players can run as quickly and as long as Hewitt and Nadal physical advantage has quickly melted as some players are getting even fitter than him.

What people don;t realise is that When everybody runs and lasts as long as Djokovic, people will say Nadal had it easy and it was the weakest clay era cause he had relative poor shots and coudl rely essentially on his stamina to win 5 FOs. Djoko is showing that with having as much stamina, Nadal can't win a set against him despite being at his peak.

And it will go on and on.

This is why I have always looked at other factors than physical superiority to determine the strength of a player which can certainly be improved with as science itself improves as opposed to tennis skills and technique which are down to proper hard work and talent.

It is very short sighted to think that the last era is the strongest. Well it is in a way but it won;t remain the strongest for long and in relative terms, I would rather put a strong era down to players being able to dominate the physical progress brought by science.

In that respect Federer is as pecial case cause he was faced with people who were physically in a different league than him but yet held his own for an extremely long period despite the tennis being slowed down to facilitate the physical players trained for long rallies.

I have no doubt that Vincent Spaeda woudl crush Rod Laver. DOes that make Laver's era weak?

Yes certainly actually. BUt noone at laver's time could quite beat him. And that is all we can say.

I don;t expect Djokovic to last long either cause the gluten free diet will be available for all soon despite him wanting to keep it a secret.

Great list Tom, absolutely have to agree the best five year period had to 85-90 those players from my youth have a very special place in my heart. Don't know if I would rate Edberg over Boris, I think Boris had that extra gear of power on the serve and the forehand, both won six slams Edberg was more consistent but Boris for me edges him out. Jim Courier should be ranked higher and shouldn't he be ranked more in 90-95 the period he was #1. Other than that don't want to nitpick definetly a very thorough compilation.

Socal

These are year end rankings for the particular years, so there are some anomalies depending on whether someone had a good or bad year or missed out through injury.

One thing that you could look at is who were the 'great' players in each era - say multi slam winners who challenged consistently.

In the 1980 list, we have only 3 (Borg, Mac, Connors) with Lendl being few years short of his prime.
1985 all the top 6 were undisputed greats, as were the top 5 in the 1990 list (I'd say the #6 to #10 were a bit stronger in the 1990 list).

95 was a great top 2, plus a rejuvenated Becker, but is otherwise a lot of good rather than great players.

2000 is a bit short, as Kuerten failed to become a great mainly because of injuries restricting his career, and Safin wasn't a consistently great player mainly because of what went on inside his head.

2005 definitely has a look of being 2 greats and then the rest, although that may be harsh on Hewitt and Roddick, both of whom had slam titles and multiple GS final appearances to their names.

From tha above, it is probably fair to say there was a strong era in the late 80s, where there was some overlap between the Edberg-Becker-Lendl generation and the Americans (Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang), and that the strength in depth declined through the 90s with the older players retiring and Courier being worked out, before a relatively weak era (at least a lack of a dominant great) between Sampras's domination ending and Federer coming to the fore (closely followed by Nadal). My suspicion is that the 2010 vintage will be looked back on as a strong era once their careers are over (noting that Del Potro wasn't in the year end top 10 solely because of a long-term injury absence) - with Federer aging and some questions regarding NAdal's continued dominance, there is an opportunity for others (Murray amongst them) to do a Djokovic and have a streak of great form leading to a couple of slams.

dummyhalf, I see what you are saying it definetly looks like the depth in 2000 was not what we currently enjoy, and 2005 is similar as well. For me the tennis stars of the mid-80s to early mid 90s really were something special. I am not saying that the game has gone backwards or that today's players can't play. But back then it seemed like we had more depth at the very top of the game while today it seems like we have more depth from top to bottom but less truely legendary performers. Plus the players of the 80s had more dynamic and controversial personalties than today's stars. There was a type of showmanship involved in the game with the hair, the clothes, and the bad attitudes that we don't see today.

Socal
Obviously the game has not gone backwards, and the best players today are playing at a level that the best of say 15 or 20 years ago would not be able to match - improved technique, coaching, racket technology and fitness all play their parts in this (although of course if e.g. Edberg or Becker were developing as players now with all the advantages available to the modern player, they would still be top 5 and challenging for titles).

There is a bit of a chicken and egg question though - the later 80s, when there was greater apparent strength in depth, was this because the best one or two were less outstanding and hence less dominant, or that the next 3 or 4 were better than now? After all, Hewitt and Roddick would almost certainly have won a lot more slams through the mid 00s had Federer and Nadal not arrived on the scene, and so would have been considered better than we now view them.

That is true dummy Fed and Nadal won everything there was to win and therefore stunted the legacies of other stars. Also I remember watching tennis back then and outside of the top ten there was big drop off. So while you had a lot of great stars the players outside of that circle were not that impressive. While I agree that the game gets better all the time I don't think this progression is linear, I think that sometimes it goes two steps forward and one step back. I think the game got better from the mid 80s to the mid to late 90s, then from lets say 1998-2003 we had a bit of step back in the quality as the great stars left the game and other greats had yet to emerge. Certainly, if you look at it in the long run the game continues to strengthen but the advancement isn't always a straight line. Take for example the murray, djoko, gasquet, berdych, nadal, and monfils generation. They clearly are better than the generation of players like Gulbis, Cilic, Delpo etc that came up a couple of years behind them. Outside of delpo none of the players from 18-22 have had the same impact as crop of 23-26 year olds that came before them. Rafa winnig his first slam at 18 Djoko at 20.

Socal

Agree with most of that - clearly over a few years there are stronger and weaker clusters of players, but over say 10 years plus I think the standard progresses (and I think this is true of just about every sport). It is interesting that Murray and Djokovic are still the youngest players in the top 20, and that they've both been up there for 3 or 4 years. Obviously Del Potro would be up there but for his injury problems, but it does suggest that the rankings in 2015 or a bit after might look a bit weak (Fed and perhaps Rafa will be gone, Andy and Djoko maybe starting to decline

Was there a stronger era than the one where the best player ever was at his peak?
Not for the players who were unfortunate to play against him.

Today despite having more physical players, none can show the variety of shots, the anticipation, the timing and the volleying the Swiss has.

Sure they can retieve his shots a bit more nowadays and hope to pull a BH UE after a 20-shot rally but that is more thanks to teh teams behind the new physical players than the skills of the player himself.

Tenez wrote:Was there a stronger era than the one where the best player ever was at his peak?
Not for the players who were unfortunate to play against him.

Today despite having more physical players, none can show the variety of shots, the anticipation, the timing and the volleying the Swiss has.

Sure they can retieve his shots a bit more nowadays and hope to pull a BH UE after a 20-shot rally but that is more thanks to teh teams behind the new physical players than the skills of the player himself.

Tenez get over it, nadal beat federer when he was 17 years old and on a hardcourt. nadal never seemed unfortunate when he played Roger. You never get tired of grinding the same axe. Roger Federer isn't a volleyer, he is a power baseliner who relied on his incredible speed to win most of his grandslam titles less than 10 percent of his points does he finish at the net.

Dummy half like you said unless we see an explosion of young stars the current top guys who are still young Nadal, Murray, Djoko, and Del po could develop a golden generation of their own where they dominate the game for a few years. People have made a big deal about Raonic, but he is 21 years old and hasn't even won an ATP 500 event. At his age Nadal, Djoko, Murray, Gasquet, and Berdych where all top 20 type guys. (Although dickie gasket regressed a little bit. )

Tenez get over it, nadal beat federer when he was 17 years old and on a hardcourt.
-----------------
Federer had just won IW and wanted a break.

Besides an old Federer just beat a peak Nadal a few months ago.

Nadal has a lot to prove in the coming weeks.

If ever there was a weak era it woudl be 2010.

Djoko completely off form, Delpo injured, Davydenko injured, Nalby injured, Federer injured at Wimbledon, Murray injured at the USO and the list carries on.

I don't know any era were Ivan Ljubicic and james blake figure in the top 5 could be considered a weak era. Yes and young Nadal repeatedly beat Federer at his peak. Personally, I don't like the weak era arguments because I don't think its ever easy to dominate on the ATP tour and all you can ask of a player is to beat the players in front of him.

Personally, I don't like the weak era arguments
-----------------------------

But you never waste an occasion to try to prove that the strongest era, with guys like Safin, Nalbandian, Ljubo, all amazing shot makers, was a weak era.

Disguised wumming if you ask me.

Tenez, can you please not hijack my first v2 thread with Federer Nadal guff, it has no place here, primarily because the only time in my list Fed and Nadal appear is under the same section, we are meant to be comparing between sections. You know its chilish to start arguing that Fed wanted a break when Nadal beat him, then say Fed beat Nadal last year, without admitting that Nadal had been tired hugely by Murray in the SF. These single loses occur, but its abundantly clear that the disparity between these two is far wider than most rivals in tennis history, a disparity that will liikely grow more before the two retire as the age difference takes its toll on the elder as always

I think its important to realise the game has changed and maybe players do have more abilility now. But - are the players from these different eras equal in measurable ways. I think a lot of this is to do with the mental toughness of players.

For example look at the 85 list: - 5 or 6 of these guys are true champions - that takes mental toughness as well as ability

hewitt and Roddick on the other hand aren't really champion material, Slam champs, yes, but something there just didn't let them progress to the level we saw Nadal and Federer achieve - or Mac, conners edbergs ags, Pete, courier etc. I said this before, but Safin and Nalby should have been in that top bracket of champs through the mid 00s and those two for me are what drags that era down, as they could have won slams in spite of Federer and Nadal - albeit unlucky for safin to be badly injured which ruined his career. Nalby just didn't want it enough it seems. In the 80s/90s it seems there was not a shortage of mental and physical champs - for me it makes the difference.

Tom ... that's an excellent list. I first started watching tennis in the '70s but you can see by the list from 1980-2000 why tennis continued to be so popular. Such great names and playing styles, and as you say, such true Champions amongst them. The Class of 2000 has actually reminded me why for that 5 year period to 2005, I lost a bit of interest in the game that I really enjoy to watch, I turned off almost completely at one point. I suppose becoming a fan of one player again which I hadn't been since 1980 (which was John McEnroe) sparked me up. I'll be too old to support anyone else again if they only come along every 25 years.

Tenez wrote:Personally, I don't like the weak era arguments
-----------------------------

But you never waste an occasion to try to prove that the strongest era, with guys like Safin, Nalbandian, Ljubo, all amazing shot makers, was a weak era.

Disguised wumming if you ask me.

Tenez, come on marat was a talent but he loved models, nightclubs, and vodka more than tennis and was rarely healthy. Nalbandian, you mean Fat Dave. Another great shotmaker who often played with jelly roll around his waste. And Ljubi, come on. How many grandslam finals or semis for that matter did ljubi play in, ah zero.

But Tom is right this was not a Fed/Nadal argument until you invariably took it there. I am convinced you have a poster of Nadal in your living room. I for one love the modern era and the modern game. The players today have to be great both on the attack and the defense. And with the youthful nature of stars like Delpo, murray, Nadal, and Novak I think we are in for a great 3-5 years. Tom, the difference between the players today and the players of the mid to late 80s was that winning was not the most important thing for those guys it was the only thing. Nowadays players want to win so that they can become effective corporate spokespeople. Therefore you don't see the kind of controversial personalities and the in your face gladiatorial nature of what tennis was in the 80s. Take connors for one, he didn't care if you liked him, and I think (although he loved the money) even if he was playing for free he would have played just as hard.

Tom, I made the effort to explain why this weak/strong era is an absurdity and Socal is actually the one bringing the Federer and Nadal at 17 first so not very objective from you for a first post on 606V2. And yes Nadal was certainly not up to Federer's level there. Same when Murray won Federer in Cincy. Federer had just won Montreal.

BUt anyway, this thread is actually for the rafafans with a clear agenda.

All yours.

Tom, I think it was a wonderful first post. Good work! Tenez you are so touchy I only brought up nadal for the record because you claimed that Federer's era was the greatest era and those that played him were so unfortunate, I just pointed out that nadal wasn't that unfortunate to play him and you answered with how an old Federer just beat Nadal a few months ago, hence my Nadal at 17 comment.

I love your intensity though. By the way, you don't have an agenda? Tom don't get disconcerted this not how we usually operate on 606v2.

I have to say i didn't originally plan for this thread to be a platform on which Tenez could embarrass himself, but things work out differently to how you plan them..

Tenez, in case you couldn't figure it out, you drifted into irrelevance when you said this:

"
Was there a stronger era than the one where the best player ever was at his peak?
Not for the players who were unfortunate to play against him.

Today despite having more physical players, none can show the variety of shots, the anticipation, the timing and the volleying the Swiss has.

Sure they can retieve his shots a bit more nowadays and hope to pull a BH UE after a 20-shot rally but that is more thanks to teh teams behind the new physical players than the skills of the player himself."

you made a direct reference to today's players - this thread excludes todays players as it stops at 2005. I could debate many points you made above, but it is not for this thread. Nadal and Federer are not relevant particularly to this thread in my view - both greats, but the thing for me that drags 2005 down it who was behind them, not the two players themselves - they only add strength to any era

For the record, I never made a weak era argument in fact I don't believe in the weak era theory, it is never easy to dominate at the top of the game. Not in 1968, not in 1978, not in 2008. But i will say this Ivan Ljubicic and James Blake are the weakest #3 and #4 players that I can ever remember.

Agree social, I think there are Eras of tennis, but not necessarily stronger of weaker ones - i do think there are times when an abundance of champions exist though and other times when only a handful appear. The fact that Mecir (the 85 YE no.9) still gets talked about so much really says something for that tennis period imo.

Thing is, if there ever was a weak era, then somebody would have mopped up.

There may have been a year or a couple where a transition of power was in force, but weak or strong era's just don't sit well on the comparison table.

Hindsight and rose tinted glasses seem to be the order of the day with some people.

Jubba, Tom definetly agree. I am always partial to those mid 80s guys. A lot of different styles alot of different personalties and as Tom has pointed out a glut of really great grandslam champions. Jubba, I think tennis over the long run gets better and better but there are sort of transitional periods where the game maybe takes a small backward or sideways step and then builds again. The best champions can only be asked to win against the players that they face. Weak era or not that isn't there fault and its never easy to be the best.

Yep, and you can add that many players groom themselves on the top players style and bring their own into it as well, so its a kind of stop, step back, then step into it again, but with more to it than before.

All the great players brought the game to another level, and there is only one way you can beat them, that is to get better than them, and to me, the last person to do that was Federer, now we have players like Nadal, Djoko, Murray and Potro who all had to up their game or stay in his shadow and never make something of themselves.

Sampras, McEnroe, Borg, Agassi....a lot of players emulated them and went on to bigger and better things than they were maybe capable of.

you made a direct reference to today's players - this thread excludes todays players as it stops at 2005. I could debate many points you made above, but it is not for this thread. Nadal and Federer are not relevant particularly to this thread in my view - both greats, but the thing for me that drags 2005 down it who was behind them, not the two players themselves - they only add strength to any era
------------------------------------

You see, my point is extremely valid actually. I am hilighting the fact that players get more physical thanks to science but have less variety.
If you don;t want to take it on board in your argument, fine, but that's a fact.

Ask yourself why we have the 2 fittest players ever at the same time in tennis. Strange coincidence isn't it? And it's not going to stop there, many will join them in this fitness race and those 20 and 30 shots rallies where the fitter will win.

Like Djoko is making Nadal look average nowadays, I have no doubt that in couple of years some will make Djoko look average.

However, once in a decade, if not a century, someone comes with extremely special talent and yes Federer has it, and trying to dismiss that or putting him in the same bag of those mere mortals doesn't make you more objective, on the contrary actually.

It's probably a bit too subtle for some here who simply don;t understand why this guy was able to dominate for so long effortlessly, without having a team of doctors, excess sweat or showing extreme physical energy won at 28 and a half his last slam giving a lesson to the previous generation and did it again just 6 months ago by inflicting a thrashing to the top 8 players including the number one.

Sure Nadal was tired but face it Tom, that is because Nadal cannot win his matches with his talent alone, he had to put every single ounce of his muscles to overcome Andy. Federer showed a couple of days before that when all clicks in his game, he is going to hurt without being hurt. Something those physical players can;t do. They keep injuring themsleves by playing too close to their physical limits.

Your point is simple, having a period with many big names makes that a strong era.

My point is also very simple but more accurate. When you have a very big name with special talent, it's tough for the others to make a name for themselves.

Tom

One thing that might have helped your lists would be to include number of slams won for each of the players listed (even better, the number of slams won to that time and their final total)

It's interesting looking at the lists that the late 80s / early 90s showed an overlap between two generations of players, so gives the appearance of a lot of strength in depth, whereas around 2000-2003 there was really a bit of a gap between the end of the Sampras generation and the start of the Federer generation, and so does look like a bit of a weakened period - could have looked different if Safin had been more focussed on the sport and if Kuerten had stayed healthy, as both had the game to win 5 or 6 slams even with a young Federer in the field.

Tenez, my problem with your article is that you assume the physical players lack technical prowess or the ability to being great shotmakers. Nadal didn't bring physicality in the game it started with borg and vilas, then lendl and wilander. In my mind you don't get to the top of the tennis world regardless of how physical you are unless you have weapons. Djokovic has one of the top ten forehands on tour, one of the top 5 backhands on tour and the best return in the game. He wins more than half of his matches is under 90 minutes. Its not just about wearing the opponent ragged. He is the best in the game at going up the lines, yes even better than federer and he takes the ball pretty early and positions himself on the baseline very aggressively. Even roger Federer won a lot of tournaments because of his speed and fitness, the greats have to have it all nowadays. Does novak have as good a serve or volley as federer no he doesn't, is he as gifted a shot maker, no he isn't but he is a much better returner and has a much better backhand. And he has other aspects to his game as well. Essentially, he is not just winning because he is fitter and faster.

Why do you refuse to see the share of physicality in todays tennis? With all the good shots Djoko had he could not beat Nadal on clay nor on hard in finals. Yes or no? Now that he can run around as much as Nadal, he is simply better.

Federer had a pretty good record against Djoko but now that Djoko can run around and retrieve more balls, he has shift the balance in his favour.

So stop dismissing the physicality of today's game, it makes your arguments very poor. What's the point of having good shots if you are not fast enough to get on the ball or tire after 20 rallies and haven't got the breath to pull your good shots?

Good article Tom, shame it became a forum for Tenez to get on his high-horse once again. He'd be happy if all players were fodder for Federer, but capable of hitting the odd good shot.

It was said above by another poster, but the Federer-Nadal dominance does cast a negative light on the likes of Roddick and Hewitt. Federer's consistency was unprecedented and didn't allow maverick talents such as Baghdatis or Gonzalez in Australia 2006 and 2007 respectively, say, to win a slam. Great player though he was, Pete Sampras suffered some early defeats in majors, giving the rest of the field a chance on occasion. Agree re 2000 though, that does seem a slightly weaker field. 1985 is a stellar line-up, and it is undoubtedly exciting when there are several players in with a shout of winning the big titles. Federer-Nadal was (is?) in its own way equally exciting, but if one of the two went out (usually Nadal) then it seemed like a procession for the other.

Tenez
I don't think anyone is blind to the requirements for top players to be good athletes (after all, look at how good the court coverage of all of the current top 4 is - including Federer, who is a fantastic athlete but at his best just made it look easier than Nadal or Murray do because he is a more natural mover) , but I think you overstate the case rather - Djokovic's great form is not simply based on him being able to run faster for longer, but is also that he is serving better (i.e. getting more cheap points) and particularly returning extremely well, so putting himself in the ascendency from the start of a lot of rallies. As such, he's often able to dictate and is the player running less while stretching his opponent around the court. Add to that, Djokovic is playing with enormous self belief (success breeding success) and so has more freedom to go for his shots.

Your argument WOULD apply for someone like Gasquet - a very talented shot maker, but who has never shown the same commitment to fitness, and as such is not able to compete on a regular basis with the elite players who have equally good shots, better movement and better mentality.

(Federer had a pretty good record against Djoko but now that Djoko can run around and retrieve more balls, he has shift the balance in his favour. )
Tenez

Wrong, the biggest improvement in Djokovic's game has come in his serve, and his serve went in the tank because he tinkered with the motion. He had a good serve but from mid 09 to mid 10 he tried to become a big server hitting more aces and changed the motion. Last year he was barely in the top 50 for percentage of service games held, he was also double faulting alot. This year he is holding at an 89 percent rate putting him in the top 5 as opposed to barely in the top 50. So the biggest most dramatic improvement in Djokovic's game was technical a much more consistent and improved serve. Now he double faults like once every three matches. Last year he used have games were he would double fault 3 times.

His fitness is always improved but he was always a great mover. The biggest difference is not a gluten free diet but a technically better serve.

dummy_half wrote:
Your argument WOULD apply for someone like Gasquet - a very talented shot maker, but who has never shown the same commitment to fitness, and as such is not able to compete on a regular basis with the elite players who have equally good shots, better movement and better mentality.

That's the core of the problem. Is it a case of Gasquet not committing enough to his fitness or a case of Djoko and Nadal relying too much on it?

We are deprived of more variation at the top at the expense of better fitness.

The Gasquet v Murray matches are clearly summing up my points. Gasquet despite being technically better and able to lead 2 sets to love in convincing fashion v Murray belongs to the "weak era of 2003-2005" kind of players, shot makers, but lack of consistence, while Murray's game is seen as the strong era of 2008-now.

Nowadays the sharpest blades aren;t of any use. To win one needs an axe.

To go back to the strong and weak era and compare it with Formula one, I think it's fair to say we have better cars, I am not sure we have better drivers at the top.

Can't say I disagree with anything that dummyhalf has stated. Djokovic has a remarkable ball striker, as are all those who make it to the very top of the game. He hits it early, well off of both sides, up the line well. In fact one of the things that never seems to get mentioned about Djokovic which has always been a strength of his is that he changes direction on the ball so well. If Tenez's theory is correct we should just send Usain bolt to a tennis camp for six months and he would be the #1 player in the world.

"You see, my point is extremely valid actually. I am hilighting the fact that players get more physical thanks to science but have less variety.
If you don;t want to take it on board in your argument, fine, but that's a fact"

Tenez, your point re.2010 was sadly irrelevant, as if you want to point out increasing physicality over the ages, then simply compare 1980 with 1995, or 1990 with 2000. You could attempt to make that point valid without bringing 2010 into into it. Seriously, grow up a tad, you're acting like a child wielding a stick of grammar- why don't you start an article titled 'physicality of the sport'. Debate on here should be about which ,if any, of the groups posted above are strongest. Talking about Djokovic's 2011 speed is totally irrelevant - why don't you talking about Hewitt's fitness and speed - make the same points - was he able to dominate the game for a long period? Was Safin's power enough to dominate in 2005?

Talking about Djokovic's 2011 speed is totally irrelevant - why don't you talking about Hewitt's fitness and speed - make the same points - was he able to dominate the game for a long period? Was Safin's power enough to dominate in 2005?
----------------------

Of course it;s totally irrelevant to talk about the recent success of our future number one, also former number 3 who could not finish matches, could not even start some due to respiratory problems.

And I make exactly those same points about Hewitt actually. He was number one and won 2 slams thanks to his fitness with relatively no weapons.

Same story...those guys get the better car but are not recognised as belonging to strong eras because they are not the best drivers.

You created this era discussion and to me this is a non-sense one. Any of today's top 20 players woudl beat top 20 past players and that will be the case for the seeable future, simply because fitness comes into it.

That is essentially my point. Singling out 1985 is wrong and you make a poor argument of it with your slam counts.

Tom_____ wrote:Tenez, can you please not hijack my first v2 thread with Federer Nadal guff, it has no place here, primarily because the only time in my list Fed and Nadal appear is under the same section, we are meant to be comparing between sections. You know its chilish to start arguing that Fed wanted a break when Nadal beat him, then say Fed beat Nadal last year, without admitting that Nadal had been tired hugely by Murray in the SF. These single loses occur, but its abundantly clear that the disparity between these two is far wider than most rivals in tennis history, a disparity that will liikely grow more before the two retire as the age difference takes its toll on the elder as always

I think its important to realise the game has changed and maybe players do have more abilility now. But - are the players from these different eras equal in measurable ways. I think a lot of this is to do with the mental toughness of players.
For example look at the 85 list: - 5 or 6 of these guys are true champions - that takes mental toughness as well as ability

hewitt and Roddick on the other hand aren't really champion material, Slam champs, yes, but something there just didn't let them progress to the level we saw Nadal and Federer achieve - or Mac, conners edbergs ags, Pete, courier etc. I said this before, but Safin and Nalby should have been in that top bracket of champs through the mid 00s and those two for me are what drags that era down, as they could have won slams in spite of Federer and Nadal - albeit unlucky for safin to be badly injured which ruined his career. Nalby just didn't want it enough it seems. In the 80s/90s it seems there was not a shortage of mental and physical champs - for me it makes the difference.

See, this is what is so wrong-headed about these threads. It is absurd to say the players of today have more ability than any previous era; indeed, with the advances in technology it takes LESS skill to perform an insane passing shot than when Borg was doing it with a tiny-headed wooden racquet.
What has advanced is technology, including the science of fitness. Ability and talent just get generated now and then. The two most talented players I've ever seen are McEnroe and Federer, anything else is just technology.

If a player comes along who wins 5 successive Grand Slams because he's the most incredible player ever, is that a weak era because he's got no Slam winners against him? If Lendl had been 10% better you'd not have heard of Becker, Edberg & Wilander as multiple Slam winners, so would you discard that era as populated by weak-minded failures? If we want to make a thread about favourite eras then it's valid, but this strong/weak era thing is just daft.

Bog, just to clarify, i meant players have more ability now in the same way Bolt can run 100m faster than they could in 1970 - nothing more. not saying hes better, just has more ability - due to diet, equipment, training etc I agree passing shots take less skill - BUT these days you are required to hit line after line to win a point - the shots move on, but the skill stays the same imo.

Tenez - i never did slam counts.

secondly i agree today top 20 would beat those of yesteryear - thats irrelevant to greatness surely? and is actually a point you are trying to make. Glad you agree about Hewitt, as he was usurped by Federer who beat physicality with skill, hence you agree with my point that physicality is only part of it and greatness shines through, thankyou Tenez. Hewitt shows clearly that to be top for a long period, physicality does not get you there. The reason i single out 85 is that there were many players at the top who had the x-factor in one way or another. That isn't true in 2000/2005, even though those latter players would probably beat the 85 players through fitness.

My point about 2005 is that Nalbandian (+Safin) had the x-factor to be up there as a multislam winners, but parts of him/them failed, hence for me that period was not as strong as it could have been regardless of any other era.

Indeed BB!

At least what we could look at is the pool of youngsters taking the sport seriously. I think there has been a steady growth of people taking on tennis. The bigger the pool of players, the more likely we are to get more talent but again, fitness has come to such proportion nowadays that talent doesn;t play as big a role at the top of the pyramid.

Imagine not so long ago, someone as short but talented as Lander Paes coudl rival with the likes of Pete Sampras. However very quickly the game moved to new physical spheres and Paes and other very talented players were reduced to playing double.

Define x-factor. Explain, without reference to Slam wins, why those players had it. Without that there's nothing to the comment.

Second, physicality can survive for extended periods. Hewitt just got injured (as did Nadal) but his injuries were different to Nadal, and treatment is better now otherwise Nadal probably would have been a memory by now. When Federer came along he took the game to a new level by combining speed with variety and creativity. There's no young player around now to do that to the Hewitts of 2011, and probably won't be as these guys are once in 25 year types.

Finally, players used to hit lines you know. They're doing nothing now that wasn't done before, except they are doing it routinely for a dozen strokes a rally. And don't overdo the "hitting lines" thing, neither Federer nor Nadal built their success on doing that.

The reason i single out 85 is that there were many players at the top who had the x-factor in one way or another.
---------------------------
BUt in 85 Edberg and Becker were way to young and only became really good in late 80s. They however benefited over the old generation from having learned tennis with bigger racquet frames. That makes a huge difference and the reason why McEnroe's success was cut short. He had to handle a ball, he was not used to with kids blasting everything and his half volleys became a liability...a bit like Federer handling this crazy topspin from Nada, unlike Djoko he was never trained to handle that when he learnt his tennis on the tour. Connors was also 34 or 35, etc...

There are quite a few wholes in that list and we could make a case for each of those list you came up.

Slams (Singles only - with starting year as indicated)....

1980 - Men
1 Bjorn Borg - 3 (1980 W, FO, 1981 FO)
2 John McEnroe - 6 (1980 USO, 1981 W, USO, 1983 W, 1984 W, USO)
3 Jimmy Connors - 3 (1982 W, USO, 1983 USO)
4 Gene Mayer
5 Guillermo Vilas
6 Ivan Lendl - 1 (1984 FO)
7 Harold Solomon
8 Jose-Luis Clerc
9 Vitas Gerulaitis
10 Eliot Teltscher

1985 - Men
1 Ivan Lendl - 6 (1985 USO, 1986 FO, USO, 1987 FO, USO, 1989 AO)
2 John McEnroe
3 Mats Wilander - 4 (1985 FO, 1988 AO, FO, USO)
4 Jimmy Connors
5 Stefan Edberg - 3 (1985 AO, 1987 AO, 1988 W)
6 Boris Becker - 4 (1985 W, 1986 W, 1989 W, USO)
7 Yannick Noah - 1 1983 FO
8 Anders Jarryd
9 Miloslav Mecir
10 Kevin Curren

1990 - Men
1 Stefan Edberg - 3 (1990 W, 1991 USO, 1992 USO)
2 Boris Becker - 1 1991 AO
3 Ivan Lendl - 1 1990 AO
4 Andre Agassi - 3 (1992 W, 1994 USO, 1995 AO)
5 Pete Sampras - 5 (1990 USO, 1993 W, USO, 1994 AO, W)
6 Andres Gomez - 1 1990 FO
7 Thomas Muster
8 Emilio Sanchez
9 Goran Ivanisevic
10 Brad Gilbert

1995 - Men
1 Pete Sampras - 7 (1995 W, USO, 1996 USO, 1997 AO, W, 1998 W, 1999 W)
2 Andre Agassi - 3 (1995 AO, 1999 FO, USO)
3 Thomas Muster - 1 1995 FO
4 Boris Becker - 1 1996 AO
5 Michael Chang
6 Yevgeny Kafelnikov - 2 1996 FO, 1999 AO
7 Thomas Enqvist
8 Jim Courier
9 Wayne Ferreira
10 Goran Ivanisevic

2000 - Men
1 Gustavo Kuerten - 2 (2000 FO, 2001 FO)
2 Marat Safin - 1 2000 USO
3 Pete Sampras - 1 2002 USO
4 Magnus Norman
5 Yevgeny Kafelnikov
6 Andre Agassi - 3 (2000 AO, 2001 AO, 2003 AO)
7 Lleyton Hewitt - 2 (2001 USO, 2002 W)
8 Alex Corretja -
9 Thomas Enqvist
10 Tim Henman

2005 - Men
1 Roger Federer -12 (2005 W, USO, 2006 AO, W, USO, 2007 AO, W, USO, 2008 USO, 2009 FO, W)
2 Rafael Nadal - 6 (2005 FO, 2006 FO, 2007 FO, 2008 FO, W, 2009 AO)
3 Andy Roddick
4 Lleyton Hewitt
5 Nikolay Davydenko
6 David Nalbandian
7 Andre Agassi
8 Guillermo Coria
9 Ivan Ljubicic
10 Gaston Gaudio

This perhaps points to an issue with the breakdown of 'eras' by calendar.

Please point any errors.

Just added the graph of slam numbers. Its seems these back up even more clearly the 1985 argument, with the most slams held, the highest number of players with slams and the highest slam count even if you discount the most sucessful/aging player. 1980 is very high, but a lot of that is from Borgs dominance at that time, 1990 and 1995 are as strong (1 slam behind)

Fast forward to 2000 and it looks ok until you take out Pete and behind him theres a very low number of slams (Blue line), same in 2005 behind Agassi - 2005 has the lowest score in total slams (sudden dip) and total slams minus leader - it had been worse than that from 2003 forward after Sampras retired.

P.S you can't list the slams like that Laverfan as some those were won in the future - the graph above show slams won 'at the time' - remember its Year End ranking so 1985 slams count in the 1985 ranking

Nice to be able to present stats, unlike 606 v1

I think what this does indicate is that after 2000 there were more players who were unable to maintain a top 10 ranking who came in a snaffled a couple of slams here and there and then went. I also forgot to mention that before the early-mid90s not that many players played the Aus open consistently and so the 80s look even stronger taking that into account.

I think you need to take a step back and consider this singular point:

"Does a broad spread of Slams prove that there are many great players, or that no singular talent towered above the rest?"

You appear to me to be fixated upon the first option, and the second doesn't occur to you. I refer you to the last paragraph of my post at 12.27:

"If a player comes along who wins 5 successive Grand Slams because he's the most incredible player ever, is that a weak era because he's got no Slam winners against him? If Lendl had been 10% better you'd not have heard of Becker, Edberg & Wilander as multiple Slam winners, so would you discard that era as populated by weak-minded failures?"

EDIT: And laverfans treatment of future Slams is no less valid than yours of using past Slams. Neither measure accurately the ability of the player at the time, although his maybe is closer in showing the potential.

Bog,
Please tell me where i have said anything about spread meaning a strong era - all i said was several champion quality players.

Ive long said a spread of slam winners can indicate weakness - but truthfully it could indicate both. For instance the womens game right now i think is quite weak, but it does have a big spread of slam winners. The men in 85 were clearly very high quality - same thing, different result

I presented data 3 ways, so certainly am not fixated upon any of them - in fact the spread appears to be the poorest indicator of the 3 as the line is nearly horizontal.

Clearly though theres a drop off after 2000 looking at the other indicators. Please try to find and indicator that statistically shows 2005 to be strong compared to other years, that isn't related to equipment such as speed of shots - i'll add it to my chart if applicable