Is there as much depth in men's tennis as there was in the eighties and early nineties?

Question

I know it's hard to compare, but it just seems to me that as good as Fed and Nadal are that there is no way they would be able to dominate guys like Johnny Mac, Becker, Lendel, Edberg, Sampras, and the like as much as they dominate everyone else.

It's getting boring.

Answer 1

I think it was deeper in the 80's. But I don't think it's getting boring at all. It's starting to get even more interesting as Nadal closes the gap on the #1 ranking.

Answer 2

exactly what kind of dominating do you see? Federer is still the only one dominating in my opinion. Nadal is my favorite mens tennis player but he has only dominated since the clay season. Clay through Grass and he has struggled when it's time for hard court again back here in the U.S. I really hope things are much better this season though because he definitely has to have a lot of confidence now and he isn't cocky.

I'm not bored but I am sick of our American mens players loosing in the 2nd and 3rd rounds of grand slam tourneys. If you are ranked top 10 then you have to last. This whole points thing should be thrown out of the window when it's time for the grand slams because it's starting to get pointless.

How many times have to seen #4-davendenko get to the Semis or even Quarters of a grand slam? It's sad

Answer 3

there was more depth back then yes... it has changed

Answer 4

Back in the day, there weren't just two people who won everything.  The top ten players were pretty much equally great!  They were battling it out in every tournament, you saw drama and passion on the court.  So no, now there is not as much depth, and you're right - it is boring.  So far as actually winning goes, if you took Federer now and had him play against John McEnroe back then, there's no question that Federer would win.  But you have to remember - McEnroe was playing with a wooden racket.  McEnroe didn't have the special strings or shoes or anything like that.  Back then, players relied on skill because that's all they had.  Put Federer in a wooden racket, and that's a different story!

Answer 5

federer can prob beat all those players u mentioned in their prime but the depth of the good players is getting slimmer other than nadal and roger nonoe of them can ball

Answer 6

Those were the days, in that era, they had more competitions because of huge numbers of first class players...And then it goes into a phase, a sluggish. I agree with you, the reason why Federer had dominated the world tennis over 4 years winning almost every Grand Slam, except the Roland Garros was partly due to the tennis drought ? I may say. And we are seeing a few more top guns in the making, we shall see...Nadal is one of our hope, but we have to see how well he'll perform on hard surface.

I'm a Nadal fan, at 22, he has done remarkably well, considering his humble background, still coached by Toni.

Answer 7

Well I guess that's a very subjective opinion.

Myself, I find if there when one person solely dominates and never has competition *That* is boring. I love tennis and I certainly love it as a competition.

I enjoyed watching the close match Wimbledon final with Federer and Nadal much more than I did watching them dispatch some unseeded player in straight sets.

Answer 8

Personally I like certain players dominating their games. Such as Tiger Woods, Roger Federer etc. It's like Super Man. Come and get me if you can type of players. But I get your point. That's why I'm a fan of NCAA basketball, where any team can bet anyone any time.