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.
