30 years after it took place, I recently watched this YouTube recap of the 1992 US Open:
It looked like a thrilling tournament, and Edberg's title run with epic matches against Krajicek, Lendl and Chang followed by beating Sampras in the final (so he beat opponents with a range of different playing styles to boot) was incredible.
I've said in the past that on the women's side there was basically no serious depth outside the top 10 or top 20 at most until we were into the 21st century. It was regularly mentioned how the standard of early round matches was a complete joke, the tournaments only really started properly from the QF stage (or sometimes even only from the SF stage), and that 128 player grand slam draws were excessive for the women.
On the men's side in contrast, it seems like there was already pretty strong depth overall and within the top 100 from when the open era began in 1968 and certainly in the 70s when Connors and Borg were on top (when Borg won Wimbledon 5 in years in a row he had to come through numerous tough early round matches against dangerous serve-volleyers for example). It seems like the depth in the ATP 100 was far superior in 1992 than it currently is 30 years later (would anyone seriously doubt that it was also far superior 10 years ago in 2012 than it currently is as well?), and that men's tennis nowadays has began to resemble women's tennis in the 80s and 90s more and more. I guess that for men, tennis has become a less glamorous career option for aspiring male athletes, with the gulf in money in team sports (plus golf) and tennis widening considerably over time), plus the fact that lower ranked / challenger players are financially worse off nowadays than in previous eras (playing expenses have increased at a faster rate with inflation than lower level / challenger prize money) so it has actually become harder to make a good living from the sport at least in comparison to many others. That has surely contributed to a shrinking talent pool.
