10+ slams will be a norm.

djokerer

Banned
I was saying the same in another thread.
Sampras era was the last to have varied surfaces and surface specialists. Federer started to win on all surfaces and slams. people thought he is once in a life time player. Then when Nadal was on song, he dominated all surfaces. Now Nole does. Three is not a coincidence. Even other guys like Murray, Stan etc are surface agnostic.
I can totally see future generations arise say at age 22/23, win 2-3 slams per year for 5-8 years quite easily. Federer's record will be broken lot sooner than most of you think, assuming Nole doesnt do it, that is.
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
In the early years of Djoker, I remember thinking this guy will never win more than 2 or 3 slams. Utterly impossible.
I also predicted Roddick with his massive serve and FH would win several slams.

I was totally wrong on both accounts.

I also would have bet tons of money on Patriots last weekend and lost big time. Thank god I dont gamble and live in Vegas
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
No doubt that DJoker will not only win the French but will win it at least TWICE !!

I could see CAnadian star winning Wimbledon this year
 

Inanimate_object

Hall of Fame
Not sure about 10 slams being the "norm" but I don't think it will be as uncommon as it once was. This is just how the tour operates now. The meta-game of slam titles is completely different than it was when Connors, Mcenroe and Lendl were winning titles. The ATP is actively trying to create year-round one-upping dominant champions. And yes, their modern champions are great tennis players, but by the mere fact that their achievements are inflated and/or aided by a complicit tour makes them incomparable to tennis players of the past (in neither a positive or negative way). Understand, many times the tour of the past operated in order to stymie or impede a player (Laver, Connors and Borg among them), whereas the relationship could not be more different in this day and age.

In ten years we saw three players whose achievements led ALL THREE of them to be promoted as the greatest tennis player of all time. 3 players in 10 years, all playing at the same time, all somehow the greatest players that ever have been or will be. These things DON'T just happen. A very smart poster on this forum said: "The best promotion you'll ever have is convincing the audience they are watching the greatest ever." That's so very accurate. Every new star will be marketed to us as the greatest of all time - and efforts will be made so that, at a cursory glance, this passes a basic litmus test for tennis punditry. And it works. We all think we will tell our grandchildren that we were alive to watch these players. Only to wait another five years, and lo! Suddenly another greatest of all time player emerges.

10 slams today, is not 10 slams in the past. And yes, these modern players are still wonderfully talented, and yes they all deserve their titles, but there is a very big problem with constantly selling the audience with narrative of "history in the making". At some point, the audience stops buying it. It ceases to become special. Slams are devalued, career-achievements become somewhat noteworthy stepping-stones, and the game becomes confusingly meta. No longer about winning slams, but winning the slam record. No longer about winning Wimbledon, but winning the most Wimbledons.

It's a strategy that has worked incredibly well so far, as almost no one seems to question (or care) about the incredibly phenomena of having the three greatest tennis players of all time playing in the same time period. Or at the very least, questioning whether or not their achievements are being framed in such a way that encourages us to revise history.

So this is all to say..,.Federer came along and became the greatest player of all time. Then Nadal became the greatest of all time, then Djokovic became the greatest. And the next guy that comes along will be the greatest, and on and on. Because we love the idea of witnessing history more than respecting it.
 

djokerer

Banned
No doubt that DJoker will not only win the French but will win it at least TWICE !!

I could see CAnadian star winning Wimbledon this year
People with half the game can no longer win slams . Sorry Roanic won't win any slams.
For all the flak Tennis gets for the current state of surfaces, I believe this one fact is one good thing and the reason tennis moved in this direction.
Surface differentiation is good but not when you can win slams with just serve and little forehand.
Roanic is not pulling an ivanisevic.
 

adil1972

Hall of Fame
yes i never thought that nadal will win slams outside roland garros

and i thought djokovic will end with one slam only 2008 australian open

i was wrong on both account
 

djokerer

Banned
Not sure about 10 slams being the "norm" but I don't think it will be as uncommon as it once was. This is just how the tour operates now. The meta-game of slam titles is completely different than it was when Connors, Mcenroe and Lendl were winning titles. The ATP is actively trying to create year-round one-upping dominant champions. And yes, their modern champions are great tennis players, but by the mere fact that their achievements are inflated and/or aided by a complicit tour makes them incomparable to tennis players of the past (in neither a positive or negative way). Understand, many times the tour of the past operated in order to stymie or impede a player (Laver, Connors and Borg among them), whereas the relationship could not be more different in this day and age.

In ten years we saw three players whose achievements led ALL THREE of them to be promoted as the greatest tennis player of all time. 3 players in 10 years, all playing at the same time, all somehow the greatest players that ever have been or will be. These things DON'T just happen. A very smart poster on this forum said: "The best promotion you'll ever have is convincing the audience they are watching the greatest ever." That's so very accurate. Every new star will be marketed to us as the greatest of all time - and efforts will be made so that, at a cursory glance, this passes a basic litmus test for tennis punditry. And it works. We all think we will tell our grandchildren that we were alive to watch these players. Only to wait another five years, and lo! Suddenly another greatest of all time player emerges.

10 slams today, is not 10 slams in the past. And yes, these modern players are still wonderfully talented, and yes they all deserve their titles, but there is a very big problem with constantly selling the audience with narrative of "history in the making". At some point, the audience stops buying it. It ceases to become special. Slams are devalued, career-achievements become somewhat noteworthy stepping-stones, and the game becomes confusingly meta. No longer about winning slams, but winning the slam record. No longer about winning Wimbledon, but winning the most Wimbledons.

It's a strategy that has worked incredibly well so far, as almost no one seems to question (or care) about the incredibly phenomena of having the three greatest tennis players of all time playing in the same time period. Or at the very least, questioning whether or not their achievements are being framed in such a way that encourages us to revise history.

So this is all to say..,.Federer came along and became the greatest player of all time. Then Nadal became the greatest of all time, then Djokovic became the greatest. And the next guy that comes along will be the greatest, and on and on. Because we love the idea of witnessing history more than respecting it.
Agree for the most part. Also to the point that experts are selling the product the way you are saying. But fans are not buying the way you are saying. Fans believe because they see some substance too. Although you said it as much too.
May be Nole and next two champs will win 18 slams each. And then on retrospect like you said we can see Federer is not so great after all. Everyone after him did it(and discount to Nadal saying he would have too if not for injuries especially in 2009).
But until it happens fans have the right reasons to think Fed was great. Rafa is greater but done by injuries. Now Nole is greatest. I don't really blame them.
I am just predticting like you said, in future in retrospect most of these current players will be stripped of their goathood.
 

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
Roanic has excellent groundies and this was very evident during his win against warwin

Yes I never thought nadal could possibly win outside Roland

The only player with a shot at beating djoker is Stan
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
Federer started to win on all surfaces and slams. people thought he is once in a life time player.
Federer is still very clearly a 'once in a lifetime' player. The AO final only served to further emphasize that.

What will become the norm, of course, is more and more players reaching the later stages of all 4 majors. Not that many here will draw the right conclusions from that fact.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Not sure about 10 slams being the "norm" but I don't think it will be as uncommon as it once was. This is just how the tour operates now. The meta-game of slam titles is completely different than it was when Connors, Mcenroe and Lendl were winning titles. The ATP is actively trying to create year-round one-upping dominant champions. And yes, their modern champions are great tennis players, but by the mere fact that their achievements are inflated and/or aided by a complicit tour makes them incomparable to tennis players of the past (in neither a positive or negative way). Understand, many times the tour of the past operated in order to stymie or impede a player (Laver, Connors and Borg among them), whereas the relationship could not be more different in this day and age.

In ten years we saw three players whose achievements led ALL THREE of them to be promoted as the greatest tennis player of all time. 3 players in 10 years, all playing at the same time, all somehow the greatest players that ever have been or will be. These things DON'T just happen. A very smart poster on this forum said: "The best promotion you'll ever have is convincing the audience they are watching the greatest ever." That's so very accurate. Every new star will be marketed to us as the greatest of all time - and efforts will be made so that, at a cursory glance, this passes a basic litmus test for tennis punditry. And it works. We all think we will tell our grandchildren that we were alive to watch these players. Only to wait another five years, and lo! Suddenly another greatest of all time player emerges.

10 slams today, is not 10 slams in the past. And yes, these modern players are still wonderfully talented, and yes they all deserve their titles, but there is a very big problem with constantly selling the audience with narrative of "history in the making". At some point, the audience stops buying it. It ceases to become special. Slams are devalued, career-achievements become somewhat noteworthy stepping-stones, and the game becomes confusingly meta. No longer about winning slams, but winning the slam record. No longer about winning Wimbledon, but winning the most Wimbledons.

It's a strategy that has worked incredibly well so far, as almost no one seems to question (or care) about the incredibly phenomena of having the three greatest tennis players of all time playing in the same time period. Or at the very least, questioning whether or not their achievements are being framed in such a way that encourages us to revise history.

So this is all to say..,.Federer came along and became the greatest player of all time. Then Nadal became the greatest of all time, then Djokovic became the greatest. And the next guy that comes along will be the greatest, and on and on. Because we love the idea of witnessing history more than respecting it.
This post is worth a separate thread.
 

Inanimate_object

Hall of Fame
This is why I fear tennis may lose its popularity. People will expect this to happen in every generation. The fact is we are witnessing a very rare moment in the sport with these 3 playing at the same time.
I don't think that's true at all. This is not a rare moment as much as it is a manufactured moment. The tour is expecting to have this every generation. It feeds into the audience's innate sense of self-importance, and always maintains the illusion that the man you are watching is the best that has ever been...until there is a new guy the tour wants to push - and then they will promptly forget about their previous claim and promote this new guy with 22 slams. And then another new guy with 25 slams.

Slams used to be rare. Now three active players have more than 10 slams each? o_O
I dread to think about what the tour will do to try and one-up and escalate this.
 

edmondsm

Legend
It's true tennis is much more "all-court" now. The best player from the baseline will be the favorite to win any slam. This is a relatively new development. There is also this issue of slam-counting. This idea of having 4 majors and they are the defining accomplishment of a top pro, that didn't really come about until the 90s. Sampras and especially Agassi just flat out skipped the Aussie multiple times, and the previous generation cared even less about it. So yeah, top players will be winning a lot more majors now.
 

djokerer

Banned
This is why I fear tennis may lose its popularity. People will expect this to happen in every generation. The fact is we are witnessing a very rare moment in the sport with these 3 playing at the same time.
I disagree. Tennis popularity is on the rise because of these changes.
No more players with half game can sniff a slam.
I mean Roanic doesn't know the meaning of the word backhand. I don't think he will reach another slam semis. In Sampras era he would have pulled a Roddick or ivanisevic.
You need to have a great body, fitness and all court game to win slams now.
Nadal showed with his style of play and physique how it is done in the modern age. Federer stayed relevant with his gifted body(lean body with broad shoulders) couple with his serve, without much slam success though.
Now Nole one-ups both of them with Federer like body + elasticity. All three have great footwork and all court game. Rafa might be a special case. He was a unique specimen physically in his prime. He dominated everyone in his prime. But also showed his downfall will be quick.
Nole's physique might turn out to be the best of all. Still small sample size. Still new in this modern age. Jury is not out yet. When it's all done and dusted players might model themselves after Nole and not Rafa. Anyways that's the way to go in the future. We will see players dominating on all surfaces equally.. Records will be broken easily.
I also think this huge shift in playing conditions abruptly has something todo with lack of a generation of upcoming players currently. Dust has not settled yet.
 

KG1965

Legend
Not sure about 10 slams being the "norm" but I don't think it will be as uncommon as it once was. This is just how the tour operates now. The meta-game of slam titles is completely different than it was when Connors, Mcenroe and Lendl were winning titles. The ATP is actively trying to create year-round one-upping dominant champions. And yes, their modern champions are great tennis players, but by the mere fact that their achievements are inflated and/or aided by a complicit tour makes them incomparable to tennis players of the past (in neither a positive or negative way). Understand, many times the tour of the past operated in order to stymie or impede a player (Laver, Connors and Borg among them), whereas the relationship could not be more different in this day and age.

In ten years we saw three players whose achievements led ALL THREE of them to be promoted as the greatest tennis player of all time. 3 players in 10 years, all playing at the same time, all somehow the greatest players that ever have been or will be. These things DON'T just happen. A very smart poster on this forum said: "The best promotion you'll ever have is convincing the audience they are watching the greatest ever." That's so very accurate. Every new star will be marketed to us as the greatest of all time - and efforts will be made so that, at a cursory glance, this passes a basic litmus test for tennis punditry. And it works. We all think we will tell our grandchildren that we were alive to watch these players. Only to wait another five years, and lo! Suddenly another greatest of all time player emerges.

10 slams today, is not 10 slams in the past. And yes, these modern players are still wonderfully talented, and yes they all deserve their titles, but there is a very big problem with constantly selling the audience with narrative of "history in the making". At some point, the audience stops buying it. It ceases to become special. Slams are devalued, career-achievements become somewhat noteworthy stepping-stones, and the game becomes confusingly meta. No longer about winning slams, but winning the slam record. No longer about winning Wimbledon, but winning the most Wimbledons.

It's a strategy that has worked incredibly well so far, as almost no one seems to question (or care) about the incredibly phenomena of having the three greatest tennis players of all time playing in the same time period. Or at the very least, questioning whether or not their achievements are being framed in such a way that encourages us to revise history.

So this is all to say..,.Federer came along and became the greatest player of all time. Then Nadal became the greatest of all time, then Djokovic became the greatest. And the next guy that comes along will be the greatest, and on and on. Because we love the idea of witnessing history more than respecting it.
The best post I've read here all this time .
 

sarmpas

Hall of Fame
It's true tennis is much more "all-court" now. The best player from the baseline will be the favorite to win any slam. This is a relatively new development. There is also this issue of slam-counting. This idea of having 4 majors and they are the defining accomplishment of a top pro, that didn't really come about until the 90s.
It was a big deal that Borg won 6 FOs and 5 Wimbledon titles, also back to back three times. The slams were important long before the 90s.
 

okdude1992

Hall of Fame
It's a strategy that has worked incredibly well so far, as almost no one seems to question (or care) about the incredibly phenomena of having the three greatest tennis players of all time playing in the same time period. Or at the very least, questioning whether or not their achievements are being framed in such a way that encourages us to revise history.

So this is all to say..,.Federer came along and became the greatest player of all time. Then Nadal became the greatest of all time, then Djokovic became the greatest. And the next guy that comes along will be the greatest, and on and on. Because we love the idea of witnessing history more than respecting it.
Excellent post. Myself and others have similar thoughts.

The last line especially hits so hard :(
 

ultradr

Legend
I was saying the same in another thread.
Sampras era was the last to have varied surfaces and surface specialists. Federer started to win on all surfaces and slams. people thought he is once in a life time player. Then when Nadal was on song, he dominated all surfaces. Now Nole does. Three is not a coincidence. Even other guys like Murray, Stan etc are surface agnostic.
I can totally see future generations arise say at age 22/23, win 2-3 slams per year for 5-8 years quite easily. Federer's record will be broken lot sooner than most of you think, assuming Nole doesnt do it, that is.
Exactly. This is pretty much what happened last 15 years in a nut shell.

It is still possible for Djokovic & Nadal to end up close to (or surpass) 17 and some will do 20+ slams.

And that's why year end #1 matters. Federer had dominant 4 years and 1 lucky year.
Djokovic will end dominant 5th year end #1, possibly tieing or surpassing Sampras' 6.
If he does he will be open era GOAT and Nadal is clay GOAT.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Homogenization breeds consistency and year round domination for a select few players who are the best from the baseline so yea we will probably be seeing quite a few players winning 10 plus slams and the career grand slam.

Giving baseline year round slow, higher bouncing conditions is the equivalent of giving serve/volley attackers year round fast low bouncing conditions.

Years ago players weren't so fortunate to play to their strengths year round.
 

djokerer

Banned
Homogenization breeds consistency and year round domination for a select few players who are the best from the baseline so yea we will probably be seeing quite a few players winning 10 plus slams and the career grand slam.

Giving baseline year round slow, higher bouncing conditions is the equivalent of giving serve/volley attackers year round fast low bouncing conditions.

Years ago players weren't so fortunate to play to their strengths year round.
When it's all said and done, people will give Sampras more credit than he gets now.
Many be open era greatness rankings must be done in two halves. First ending with Sampras era.
Fed and rest come into the new generation.
 

Mr.Lob

Legend
The slam count will eventually top out at 45. Our Sun will then go supernova, and all life on earth will cease to exist. /thread.
 

insideguy

Legend
Really 10 slams already is not that odd. Look if the tour back in the 70s was like it is today conners and mac would probably have ten slams. Conners didnt even play french for four peak years and only played 2 aussie opens his whole career. Mac didnt play aussie open much. 10 slams is awesome but its not as unusual as people make it out to be. Its unusual cause slams didnt become the be all end all till bout 1985.
 

DerekNoleFam1

Hall of Fame
No it won't become the norm.
Just because we have had 4 in recent times, does not mean that players can dominate to this level consistently.
Things will eventually head back to the uncertainty of past eras, with upsets, and one and two slam wonders again.
This is what we had in the WTA, until Serena's late career surge and destruction of her non-rivals.
 

DerekNoleFam1

Hall of Fame
Really 10 slams already is not that odd. Look if the tour back in the 70s was like it is today conners and mac would probably have ten slams. Conners didnt even play french for four peak years and only played 2 aussie opens his whole career. Mac didnt play aussie open much. 10 slams is awesome but its not as unusual as people make it out to be. Its unusual cause slams didnt become the be all end all till bout 1985.
Good points about Mac and Connors, and then the likes of Lendl skipped the French late in his career (in his ultimately doomed attempt to win Wimbledon) and the AO was also on grass early in his career.
So this current group may not be as superhuman as they may seem.
But my other points are still valid, that double digit Slam winners will not become commonplace.
I think we will probably also get more crash and burn types, a la - Courier and Hewitt types, who have a couple of very good years, and then just as spectacularly drop back to the chasing field.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
I mostly agree with Inanimate Object but one thing which is nearly NEVER taken into account when comparing current and past achievements is the professionalism and dedication of the current star:

- Laver and Rosewall were consummate professionals, and they have the record to back it up.
- Borg was too but quit at 25. Too early.
- Lendl was too but maybe he simply wasn't the best.
- Sampras was too and he had the best record between Laver and Federer.
- Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Agassi, Safin, Wilander, on the other hand, either were mostly not professional or only for a few years. They didn't have the hunger and dedication shown by the like of Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

The next generation isn't showing this level of hunger and dedication, except for Raonic and Nishikori who maybe are simply not good enough. But the like of Dimitrov or Kyrgios...maybe he would have won Wimbledon already if he played in the mid 80's like Becker, when defending champion McEnroe simply didn't bother anymore.

So this have to be taken into account. Some young men don't live a young men life in order to become the greatest tennis player ever. Some enjoy the money, the fame and some success and it's enough for them.
 

insideguy

Legend
Good points about Mac and Connors, and then the likes of Lendl skipped the French late in his career (in his ultimately doomed attempt to win Wimbledon) and the AO was also on grass early in his career.
So this current group may not be as superhuman as they may seem.
But my other points are still valid, that double digit Slam winners will not become commonplace.
I think we will probably also get more crash and burn types, a la - Courier and Hewitt types, who have a couple of very good years, and then just as spectacularly drop back to the chasing field.
Yea looking up mac he only played in one aussie open in his prime. If he would have played it on grass you have to think he would have won at least two. And conners well he just missed crap everywhere. Wasnt sure bout lendle. Everything is just more laser focused on slams now. For mac it was davis cup. But i do think its good to be focused on slams.
 

edmondsm

Legend
It was a big deal that Borg won 6 FOs and 5 Wimbledon titles, also back to back three times. The slams were important long before the 90s.
The Aussie Open was not important. That was my main point. The slam counting was also not happening. The economics of the sport were totally different. McEnroe and Connors could play an exo in Madison Square Garden and make more money than a Wimbledon win.
 

Express

New User
Your contention is counterintuitive, effectively countering itself. If everyone is surface agnostic, then everyone has an equal chance unless a contender as an ATG emerges, in which case only that champion will probably get 10 slams. 10+ spams will never become norm. Maybe more people will accomplish over time, but the chances of multiple active players having more than ten slams is very unlikely. It's amazing we have Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic on the tour simultaneously in and of itself.

Either Nole will break the record or we have to wait a decade or two.
 

djokerer

Banned
If everyone is surface agnostic, then everyone has an equal chance .
No . Your inference is the one that is wrong.
Earlier Player A is 9 in one surface and 5 in another. Player B can be 5 and 9 respectively on same surfaces.
Now A is 9 on all surfaces and next ranked B is 7 on all surfaces.
So no, this doesn't mean everyone has equal chances of winning.
 

djokerer

Banned
No it won't become the norm.
Just because we have had 4 in recent times, does not mean that players can dominate to this level consistently.
Things will eventually head back to the uncertainty of past eras, with upsets, and one and two slam wonders again.
This is what we had in the WTA, until Serena's late career surge and destruction of her non-rivals.
I disagree. I am not talking about a player who gets hot for a season.
Talking about future champs. Almost everyone will have 10+.
If a player becomes no1 by 22-23, he will end up with 10+ barring unusual circumstances
 

Express

New User
No . Your inference is the one that is wrong.
Earlier Player A is 9 in one surface and 5 in another. Player B can be 5 and 9 respectively on same surfaces.
Now A is 9 on all surfaces and next ranked B is 7 on all surfaces.
So no, this doesn't mean everyone has equal chances of winning.
Could you explain that a bit more? I don't quite understand how that works. From the way you worded it, it sounds like both hypothetical players are the same skill-wise. Is there something obvious I'm missing?
 

BGod

Legend
Not sure about 10 slams being the "norm" but I don't think it will be as uncommon as it once was. This is just how the tour operates now. The meta-game of slam titles is completely different than it was when Connors, Mcenroe and Lendl were winning titles. The ATP is actively trying to create year-round one-upping dominant champions. And yes, their modern champions are great tennis players, but by the mere fact that their achievements are inflated and/or aided by a complicit tour makes them incomparable to tennis players of the past (in neither a positive or negative way). Understand, many times the tour of the past operated in order to stymie or impede a player (Laver, Connors and Borg among them), whereas the relationship could not be more different in this day and age.

In ten years we saw three players whose achievements led ALL THREE of them to be promoted as the greatest tennis player of all time. 3 players in 10 years, all playing at the same time, all somehow the greatest players that ever have been or will be. These things DON'T just happen. A very smart poster on this forum said: "The best promotion you'll ever have is convincing the audience they are watching the greatest ever." That's so very accurate. Every new star will be marketed to us as the greatest of all time - and efforts will be made so that, at a cursory glance, this passes a basic litmus test for tennis punditry. And it works. We all think we will tell our grandchildren that we were alive to watch these players. Only to wait another five years, and lo! Suddenly another greatest of all time player emerges.

10 slams today, is not 10 slams in the past. And yes, these modern players are still wonderfully talented, and yes they all deserve their titles, but there is a very big problem with constantly selling the audience with narrative of "history in the making". At some point, the audience stops buying it. It ceases to become special. Slams are devalued, career-achievements become somewhat noteworthy stepping-stones, and the game becomes confusingly meta. No longer about winning slams, but winning the slam record. No longer about winning Wimbledon, but winning the most Wimbledons.

It's a strategy that has worked incredibly well so far, as almost no one seems to question (or care) about the incredibly phenomena of having the three greatest tennis players of all time playing in the same time period. Or at the very least, questioning whether or not their achievements are being framed in such a way that encourages us to revise history.

So this is all to say..,.Federer came along and became the greatest player of all time. Then Nadal became the greatest of all time, then Djokovic became the greatest. And the next guy that comes along will be the greatest, and on and on. Because we love the idea of witnessing history more than respecting it.
Could not be more accurate my good chum.

Frankly put, up until the 90s, only two Slams were seriously contested by the majority of top players. That being Wimbledon and the USO. The French, even by European players, was not valued as highly but became more of a focus in the 90s by players struggling on hard courts, largely from Spain/Belgium/France and SA. Then you have the Aussie Open pick up and becomes a mainstay by those heavily invested in the USO and Wimbledon. Wimbledon gets slowed down to be more friendly to the USO/AO crowd and here we are now where 3/4 of the Slams are easier to get for the top player in the game.

Simple math now:

2 majors contended yearly= 5-7 years to reach 10
3 major contended yearly= 4-5 years to reach 10
4 majors contended yearly= 3-4 years to reach 10
 

GabeT

Legend
Not sure that homogeneity of surfaces is the main issue. There was a time when three of the four slams were played on grass. Did that lead to multiple 10+ slam winners? No. And plenty of difference remains as you can see with Federer, Nadal, and Nole all dominating different slams.

I think a bigger issue is the increasing importance top players place on breaking prior records which, among other things, means everyone participates, and trains for, all the big tennis tournaments. A Borg, a very great player that does not play in all Slams and cuts his career short, is inconceivable today.
 

BGod

Legend
Not sure that homogeneity of surfaces is the main issue. There was a time when three of the four slams were played on grass. Did that lead to multiple 10+ slam winners? No. And plenty of difference remains as you can see with Federer, Nadal, and Nole all dominating different slams.
That was largely due to travel. A lot of players wouldn't be willing to travel to Australia or play clay in Paris.

So it didn't matter. Go look at the nationalities of French and Aussie Open winners.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Not sure about 10 slams being the "norm" but I don't think it will be as uncommon as it once was. This is just how the tour operates now. The meta-game of slam titles is completely different than it was when Connors, Mcenroe and Lendl were winning titles. The ATP is actively trying to create year-round one-upping dominant champions. And yes, their modern champions are great tennis players, but by the mere fact that their achievements are inflated and/or aided by a complicit tour makes them incomparable to tennis players of the past (in neither a positive or negative way). Understand, many times the tour of the past operated in order to stymie or impede a player (Laver, Connors and Borg among them), whereas the relationship could not be more different in this day and age.

In ten years we saw three players whose achievements led ALL THREE of them to be promoted as the greatest tennis player of all time. 3 players in 10 years, all playing at the same time, all somehow the greatest players that ever have been or will be. These things DON'T just happen. A very smart poster on this forum said: "The best promotion you'll ever have is convincing the audience they are watching the greatest ever." That's so very accurate. Every new star will be marketed to us as the greatest of all time - and efforts will be made so that, at a cursory glance, this passes a basic litmus test for tennis punditry. And it works. We all think we will tell our grandchildren that we were alive to watch these players. Only to wait another five years, and lo! Suddenly another greatest of all time player emerges.

10 slams today, is not 10 slams in the past. And yes, these modern players are still wonderfully talented, and yes they all deserve their titles, but there is a very big problem with constantly selling the audience with narrative of "history in the making". At some point, the audience stops buying it. It ceases to become special. Slams are devalued, career-achievements become somewhat noteworthy stepping-stones, and the game becomes confusingly meta. No longer about winning slams, but winning the slam record. No longer about winning Wimbledon, but winning the most Wimbledons.

It's a strategy that has worked incredibly well so far, as almost no one seems to question (or care) about the incredibly phenomena of having the three greatest tennis players of all time playing in the same time period. Or at the very least, questioning whether or not their achievements are being framed in such a way that encourages us to revise history.

I was saying the same in another thread.
Sampras era was the last to have varied surfaces and surface specialists. Federer started to win on all surfaces and slams. people thought he is once in a life time player. Then when Nadal was on song, he dominated all surfaces. Now Nole does. Three is not a coincidence.

I partially disagree with you, djokerer, I think the 90's just had one once-in-a-generation player and this one has three, although I *do* agree that the conditions are more homogenized now.

Remember that the 70's-80's (also addressed to djokerer) had FOUR all-time great players in the same era, as I_O made note of...and you can argue that three of them didn't maximize their slam-winning potential. Borg retired at 25 when he had more slams in him, McEnroe had one of the greatest years ever and then totally lost his marbles and fell off the map when HE was 25....and Connors was unlucky that his later-prime years coincided with the emergence of the other three, but still ended up with a healthy 8. Lendl ended up with 8 as well, and probably should have won more given that he reached 19 slam finals, the same amount as Djokovic.

Also, Borg, Connors and Mac pretty much didn't bother with the Australian Open, and Connors boycotted the French during his prime. How many slams did THAT cost them? You can bet it was a lot. Connors was already being labelled a GOAT candidate after his ridiculous '74, Borg got the GOAT treatment after his 5th Wimbledon and there were LOADS of articles calling Mac the GOAT after '84. So, if you think that there isn't at least somewhat of a precedent to Fedalkovic's monopoly on tennis, you're wrong. There was, and then the next generation just happened to be dominated by mainly one guy and a bunch of great-but-not-transcendent players. Now here we are where we pretty much were 35 years ago, with 3 guys (back then it was 4) fighting for the accolades.

So, (for both I_O and djokerer) if you want to insinuate that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic's greatness is somewhat illusory, that's fine, but again I disagree and I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the next generation will churn out 3 historically great players like this one did. However, I do concur that the media's willingness to anoint every great player that comes along as the new GOAT is getting tiresome and annoying. No fun witnessing that level of cultural amnesia and recency bias -- but it's not entirely new.
 
Last edited:

thomasferrett

Hall of Fame
The norm for who? The average ATP player?

No I don't think so. I don't see any one of the next generation achieving anywhere near that dominance.

And, so what, if conditions are homogenized, that means that you still need to be an exceedingly rare talent to dominate when every one else in the field is also used to the same homogenized conditions you play in.
 

Navdeep Srivastava

Hall of Fame
I disagree. I am not talking about a player who gets hot for a season.
Talking about future champs. Almost everyone will have 10+.
If a player becomes no1 by 22-23, he will end up with 10+ barring unusual circumstances
Didn't happened to Guga, Moya, Rios, Hewitt, Roddick and Safin, unless everybody is exception.
 

Navdeep Srivastava

Hall of Fame
Just want to ask one thing if Pancho, Rosewall and Laver played in slams , would they ended less than 10 or if Connors had taken RG and AO seriously he could have crossed the 10 .
Similarly Mac was not participating in AO and Agassi missed AO till 94 and some Wimbledon and still won 4 AO and 8 slams .
Because of homogenization there is a help and I am not goint to deny it, but in past generation also there were guys capable of doing similar feat.
 

Adv. Edberg

Hall of Fame
I was saying the same in another thread.
Sampras era was the last to have varied surfaces and surface specialists. Federer started to win on all surfaces and slams. people thought he is once in a life time player. Then when Nadal was on song, he dominated all surfaces. Now Nole does. Three is not a coincidence. Even other guys like Murray, Stan etc are surface agnostic.
I can totally see future generations arise say at age 22/23, win 2-3 slams per year for 5-8 years quite easily. Federer's record will be broken lot sooner than most of you think, assuming Nole doesnt do it, that is.
Agree with this. And together with a weak field Djoko and the next star will get 20+ slam.

The good thing is that people may understand that Sampras is ahead of Fed in the goat debate. And that the strongest era was indeed The Golden Era between 85-95.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Agree with this. And together with a weak field Djoko and the next star will get 20+ slam.

The good thing is that people may understand that Sampras is ahead of Fed in the goat debate. And that the strongest era was indeed The Golden Era between 85-95.
Were Chang and Becker even out of their diapers when they won slams in the middle of The Golden Era?
 

Adv. Edberg

Hall of Fame
This is why I fear tennis may lose its popularity. People will expect this to happen in every generation. The fact is we are witnessing a very rare moment in the sport with these 3 playing at the same time.
I think people will have higher expectations for tennis than this clown era. It's rare to have such a weak era. But I think it'll be better!
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, extraordinary talents. Just like Djoko and Nadal.
Actually, they must have been in quite another league than those two, given that, if I have my numbers right, Nadal and Djoko were 19 and 20 respectively when they won their first slam in the infamously weak era, which weakness is of course the only reason they were able to win slams so early. Chang and Becker won slams in The Golden Era at age 17. Quite another league indeed. Those who have finished puberty know that the difference between 17 and 20 is quite pronounced too. Amazing talents.
 
Top