A match between two 1 slam winners in a QF being the de facto Final .... Has Men's Tennis been weaker in 20 years ?

Match between two 1 slam winners in a QF being the defacto Final .... Hs tennis been weaker ?

  • Yes, we are probably in the weakest era since 2004

    Votes: 10 28.6%

  • This is definitely the 2nd weakest Slam after US open 2020 in 20 years

    Votes: 9 25.7%

  • Nope, we are in a relatively strong era right now with Sinner dominating.

    Votes: 16 45.7%
  • Total voters
    35
Razer

Razer

G.O.A.T.
So SInner-Med QF match is the de facto final with mugs like Frances Tiafoe, Taylor Swift, De Minaur, Draper still in the tournament ???

With Djokovic, Alcaraz and Zverev out this Slam is probably the weakest in the past 20 years with the only exception of US Open 2020 that can be rated as a weaker Slam.
 
No. You are just still used to seeing Big 3 always at the tail end of slams. This is the norm, seeing different players come up and surprise along with the big guys of the tour (Djoko, Alcaraz, Sinner, Med, Z etc). We are just incredibly spoilt and accustomed to see big 3 always there + Murray.
 
Define 'weaker'. It seems like you're just complaining because your stars with all their titles are on the way out. So, what do you want, for them to play forever? A new era has to take over some time, welcome to that time.

If you don't like it, you could stop watching till they rack up titles and become worthy of your attention. This new generation is bringing variety back to tennis it hasn't seen in over 20 years. The potential of the future hasn't been brighter since the turn of the century.
 
Yes, if you mean there's no dominant player there but again Sinner is just 23 and Carlos 21 they might very well be on their starting phase of domination. If they stuck on 1 and 4 slams then you might have a point
 
Yes it does feel different and middling. Something we all have to get used to.

However, one could say the big 3 being dominant for so long might also have been a sign that they themselves might have played in a weaker era. The lack of quality depth was more obvious once they got into their early 30s and we saw so many youngsters who never really pushed them.
 
Razer said:
So SInner-Med QF match is the de facto final with mugs like Frances Tiafoe, Taylor Swift, De Minaur, Draper still in the tournament ???

With Djokovic, Alcaraz and Zverev out this Slam is probably the weakest in the past 20 years with the only exception of US Open 2020 that can be rated as a weaker Slam.
Click to expand...
Yawn, you guys are getting mad because other players are being talked about this US Open. This forum only want to the talk about Djokovic who done nothing all year, Nadal the same and Federer who is retired and only mention him hoping he will say something controversial about a current player.
 
ibbi said:
Define 'weaker'. It seems like you're just complaining because your stars with all their titles are on the way out. So, what do you want, for them to play forever? A new era has to take over some time, welcome to that time.

If you don't like it, you could stop watching till they rack up titles and become worthy of your attention. This new generation is bringing variety back to tennis it hasn't seen in over 20 years. The potential of the future hasn't been brighter since the turn of the century.
Click to expand...
NeutralFan said:
Yes, if you mean there's no dominant player there but again Sinner is just 23 and Carlos 21 they might very well be on their starting phase of domination. If they stuck on 1 and 4 slams then you might have a point
Click to expand...

If Alcaraz was in the draw at the other end or even in Sinner's half then we would not need this conversation, but Alcaraz and Djokovic both losing so early means Sinner winning a slam with a joke of a SF and F, how many times have se seen this in the last 20 years outside of USO2020 ? Heck even Medvedev won his slam beating Djokovic... Cilic won his slam beating Federer ... Stan and Murray earned their slams beating big 3 .... the last person to win something cheap was Gaston Gaudio more than 20 years ago. So Sinner facing Med in a QF with everyone being mugs to follow should bother you. Alcaraz's presence means the future is good but this doesn't mean we are in any strong era, this era is still a transition era.
 
Razer said:
If Alcaraz was in the draw at the other end or even in Sinner's half then we would not need this conversation, but Alcaraz and Djokovic both losing so early means Sinner winning a slam with a joke of a SF and F, how many times have se seen this in the last 20 years outside of USO2020 ? Heck even Medvedev won his slam beating Djokovic... Cilic won his slam beating Federer ... Stan and Murray earned their slams beating big 3 .... the last person to win something cheap was Gaston Gaudio more than 20 years ago. So Sinner facing Med in a QF with everyone being mugs to follow should bother you. Alcaraz's presence means the future is good but this doesn't mean we are in any strong era, this era is still a transition era.
Click to expand...
If you require someone to beat one of 3 guys to legitimize a major win I feel sorry for you, brother. Big hugs.
 
Not sure if you're including 2004, but the French Open SF that year featured 4 players who hadn't won a Major coming into the event: Gaudio, Coria, Nalbandian, and Henman. Of course, Gaudio eventually took the title over Coria in the final, with that being the only Major any of the four won in their careers.
 
Of course, there's the 2022 U.S. Open, where no player in the QF had won a Major coming in: Alcaraz, Sinner, Ruud, Rublev, Tiafoe, Berrettini, Khachanov, and Kyrgios.
 
buscemi said:
Of course, there's the 2022 U.S. Open, where no player in the QF had won a Major coming in: Alcaraz, Sinner, Ruud, Rublev, Tiafoe, Berrettini, Khachanov, and Kyrgios.
Click to expand...

2022 US open would be coming of age for an ATG similar to Wimbledon 2003 for Federer, I think thats not counted. Gaudio example is valid but thats outside 20 years, US open 2004 till now is the past 20 years.
 
Razer said:
If Alcaraz was in the draw at the other end or even in Sinner's half then we would not need this conversation, but Alcaraz and Djokovic both losing so early means Sinner winning a slam with a joke of a SF and F, how many times have se seen this in the last 20 years outside of USO2020 ? Heck even Medvedev won his slam beating Djokovic... Cilic won his slam beating Federer ... Stan and Murray earned their slams beating big 3 .... the last person to win something cheap was Gaston Gaudio more than 20 years ago. So Sinner facing Med in a QF with everyone being mugs to follow should bother you. Alcaraz's presence means the future is good but this doesn't mean we are in any strong era, this era is still a transition era.
Click to expand...

Again Sinner is just 23 and if he was one slam wonder at 31 about to win another slam then i could have understood your point but 23 year talent with one slam is no indication of a weak era or strong era.
 
Razer said:
2022 US open would be coming of age for an ATG similar to Wimbledon 2003 for Federer, I think thats not counted. Gaudio example is valid but thats outside 20 years, US open 2004 till now is the past 20 years.
Click to expand...
That's fair, but the same could be said here, with this being a coming of age for Sinner, who could become an ATG. The main difference just being that Sinner already has one Major.
 
It’s not good for sure, but Sinner’s level is something worthy of any slam. He was in complete control after a slow start against a motivated Paul who was serving well and trying to redline since it was so difficult to stay even with Sinner in rallies.

The real issue is Carlitos playing like trash.
 
Pablo1989 said:
Tired of the haters and the Big 3 glory hunters and not true tennis fans
Click to expand...
Tennis shouldn't only be about the big 3 but even if we had a few Alcaraz's and Murray's it would be in very good hands. The standard the big 3 set isn't really the norm.
 
RS said:
Tennis shouldn't only be about the big 3 but even if we had a few Alcaraz's and Murray's it would be in very good hands. The standard the big 3 set isn't really the norm.
Click to expand...

Tennis has to be about someone as good as the Big 3 if not the Big 3, you certainly need people with 10+ slams potential facing each other if not 20+ slams. Downgrading from the Big 3 is like downgrading from driving a sportscar to one of the slow budget cars, thats certainly not desirable.
 
Several of the players in the circuit right now will end up as multi slam winners now that the Big 3 era is over.
 
Razer said:
Tennis has to be about someone as good as the Big 3 if not the Big 3, you certainly need people with 10+ slams potential facing each other if not 20+ slams. Downgrading from the Big 3 is like downgrading from driving a sportscar to one of the slow budget cars, thats certainly not desirable.
Click to expand...
I am speaking personally for me but fair enough.
 
Razer said:
So SInner-Med QF match is the de facto final with mugs like Frances Tiafoe, Taylor Swift, De Minaur, Draper still in the tournament ???

With Djokovic, Alcaraz and Zverev out this Slam is probably the weakest in the past 20 years with the only exception of US Open 2020 that can be rated as a weaker Slam.
Click to expand...
Get used to it.
That's how it will be from now on.
The 3 kings have "died".
Let's welcome the "commoners".
 
Razer said:
Tennis has to be about someone as good as the Big 3 if not the Big 3, you certainly need people with 10+ slams potential facing each other if not 20+ slams. Downgrading from the Big 3 is like downgrading from driving a sportscar to one of the slow budget cars, thats certainly not desirable.
Click to expand...

Why? Because you say so?

The big 3 era was incredible. But there was tennis before...and now we have tennis after. A car is a vehicle to get you from point A to B at the end of the day.
 
1. Big 3 Era (and for a bit Big 4) was a general anomaly - both the concentration of dominance and the length that it lasted. Those who grew up with it and don't know anything else - I can see why they're always flummoxed when tourneys don't have a concentration of big names at the end. It will be more common now; but the big names are still going to advance and win a considerable majority of the time.

2. 2024 USO is an anomaly of sort. There's been other Slams with busted draws, but this year's USO is particularly busted. And to top it off, Med and Sinner were in the same quarter. The chances of all of that happening were pretty low. But it happened.

I just don't get all the hand wringing. I understand people want to see big matchups and the top players playing each other at the end. But, it's sports. Elimination sports where the matches have to be played. Occasionally things get messy and unexpected; that's just built into the infrastructure, and any true fan would accept that. Enjoy the randomness of what's happened. Sure, maybe the final will suck in terms of competitiveness. Hopefully not. Even if it does, I'll enjoy seeing how Fritz or Tiafoe comport themselves (and happy for them that they made it there) and enjoy seeing Med or Sinner ascend to their second Slam. That assumes of course that Draper or Demon don't pull an upset in the semis. Someone mentioned that Demon could over Med; I really don't know.

Don't get so down on tennis.
 
bluetrain4 said:
1. Big 3 Era (and for a bit Big 4) was a general anomaly - both the concentration of dominance and the length that it lasted. Those who grew up with it and don't know anything else - I can see why they're always flummoxed when tourneys don't have a concentration of big names at the end. It will be more common now; but the big names are still going to advance and win a considerable majority of the time.

2. 2024 USO is an anomaly of sort. There's been other Slams with busted draws, but this year's USO is particularly busted. And to top it off, Med and Sinner were in the same quarter. The chances of all of that happening were pretty low. But it happened.

I just don't get all the hand wringing. I understand people want to see big matchups and the top players playing each other at the end. But, it's sports. Elimination sports where the matches have to be played. Occasionally things get messy and unexpected; that's just built into the infrastructure, and any true fan would accept that. Enjoy the randomness of what's happened. Sure, maybe the final will suck in terms of competitiveness. Hopefully not. Even if it does, I'll enjoy seeing how Fritz or Tiafoe comport themselves (and happy for them that they made it there) and enjoy seeing Med or Sinner ascend to their second Slam. That assumes of course that Draper or Demon don't pull an upset in the semis. Someone mentioned that Demon could over Med; I really don't know.

Don't get so down on tennis.
Click to expand...
I don't understand the angst either and wonder how long many on this forum have been watching tennis or even understand the game. Someone earlier in the thread made the comment that tennis needs guys with 10+ slam potential facing each other in big matches. This literally NEVER happened until the Big 3. Sampras is #4 on the all time list with 14 and the only other player he ever played in a big match that had "10+ potential" during the majority of his career was Agassi. Prior to that, no one was even close.

I'm biased because I was a junior and college player in the 90s, but boy do I miss those days. There where any number of players that could make a final and win a slam. Sure, I wanted it to be Agassi and Sampras, but unless it was Wimbledon for Sampras, neither of those guys was a lock for anything.

Color-me blasphemous for saying the Big 3 area was actually kind of boring in that it was so predictable. Long live the crazy.
 
ibbi said:
Define 'weaker'. It seems like you're just complaining because your stars with all their titles are on the way out. So, what do you want, for them to play forever? A new era has to take over some time, welcome to that time.

If you don't like it, you could stop watching till they rack up titles and become worthy of your attention. This new generation is bringing variety back to tennis it hasn't seen in over 20 years. The potential of the future hasn't been brighter since the turn of the century.
Click to expand...
hahaha what

Ill give you Alcaraz but anyone else? xDDDDDDDDDDD

variety in results maybe. Ferrer and Berdych were more consistent than these mugs
 
PapaTennis said:
I don't understand the angst either and wonder how long many on this forum have been watching tennis or even understand the game. Someone earlier in the thread made the comment that tennis needs guys with 10+ slam potential facing each other in big matches. This literally NEVER happened until the Big 3. Sampras is #4 on the all time list with 14 and the only other player he ever played in a big match that had "10+ potential" during the majority of his career was Agassi. Prior to that, no one was even close.

I'm biased because I was a junior and college player in the 90s, but boy do I miss those days. There where any number of players that could make a final and win a slam. Sure, I wanted it to be Agassi and Sampras, but unless it was Wimbledon for Sampras, neither of those guys was a lock for anything.

Color-me blasphemous for saying the Big 3 area was actually kind of boring in that it was so predictable. Long live the crazy.
Click to expand...

Sampras was always 10 slams potential, he has 7 at wimbledon alone, he had 13 slams on his 30th birthday which is in the same ballpark as Nadal's 14 and Federer's 16 or Djokovic's 12 for that matter. Agassi was also a 10 slams potential player. Mcenroe, Lendl, Connors all were also 10 slams potential if they played in today's era, their eras did not allow them great level of play into their 30s. Borg actually won 10+ slams by age 25. For the matter of fact even Becker had potential to win more slams than his 6, he too could be said to be a 10 slams potential player. History has always had players who could win 10+ slams in the present era.

bluetrain4 said:
Don't get so down on tennis.
Click to expand...

I think we are forgetting that the previous eras were not strong just because of Big 3, they cultivated a strong group of rivals too who became strong by playing them. Berdych/Murray/Tsonga/Wawrinka would never have been as good as they were if they never grew up with the Big 3, if Murray is born in the present era I see him being a worse player than he was because he would not be growing up with Big 3 to actually become so good. Strong players raise the level of the players around them as well, so when Big 3 are leaving someone else is supposed to take over in the same fashion (Alcaraz has shown great potential at a young age but he is inconsistent) otherwise the level of the game will drop. There is a reason why people blame the 90s gen, they never surpassed the levels of Berdych/Murray/Tsonga because they never grew up with the BIg 3. So level of tennis has definitely dipped with the big 3 weakening, it is not an unfair criticism. I still don't trust Sinner @NeutralFan but you are hopeful on him winning double digit slams, we'll see where he goes. I still believe Alcaraz is the flag bearer of this new era, not Sinner. Medvedev is a Roddick level player but he is reaping greater dividends because of being born almost a decade after Big 3.
 
Last edited:
Aabye5 said:
Why? Because you say so?

The big 3 era was incredible. But there was tennis before...and now we have tennis after. A car is a vehicle to get you from point A to B at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

Even a Bullock cart will get you from A to B, doesn't mean you rely on that to travel.
 
tennis_pro said:
hahaha what

Ill give you Alcaraz but anyone else? xDDDDDDDDDDD

variety in results maybe. Ferrer and Berdych were more consistent than these mugs
Click to expand...
Arnaldi, Cobolli, Musetti, Mpetshi Perricard, Mensik, Diallo, Fils have all shown in their short time on the scene far more competent touch and feel and willingness to get inside the court than 99% of the players born in the decade prior to them. Decade and a half even, when you consider their age.
 
Razer said:
Even a Bullock cart will get you from A to B.
Click to expand...

Very true. I think the strongest evidence for saying this is a weak era is when you look at a player like Ruud, who had not yet won a 500 tournament until this year, but was ranked as high as number 2. The weird rankings we saw under the COVID restrictions rewarded consistency.

However, this year we are seeing something slightly different. Djokovic is slowly winding down and Alcaraz and Sinner are filling that void. However, it's still unclear how much better they are compared to the rest of the field.
 
ibbi said:
Arnaldi, Cobolli, Musetti, Mpetshi Perricard, Mensik, Diallo, Fils have all shown in their short time on the scene far more competent touch and feel and willingness to get inside the court than 99% of the players born in the decade prior to them. Decade and a half even, when you consider their age.
Click to expand...

The question with them is the same as it was for the players before them -- can they keep it up and can they challenge the top players?
 
Aabye5 said:
The question with them is the same as it was for the players before them -- can they keep it up and can they challenge the top players?
Click to expand...
Of course. They're far from the finished article. I'm just saying that, as someone who actually likes to watch tennis rather than just adding up stats, they are, so far, better to watch than we've had in decades.
 
Razer said:
Sampras was always 10 slams potential, he has 7 at wimbledon alone, he had 13 slams on his 30th birthday which is in the same ballpark as Nadal's 14 and Federer's 16 or Djokovic's 12 for that matter. Agassi was also a 10 slams potential player. Mcenroe, Lendl, Connors all were also 10 slams potential if they played in today's era, their eras did not allow them great level of play into their 30s. Borg actually won 10+ slams by age 25. For the matter of fact even Becker had potential to win more slams than his 6, he too could be said to be a 10 slams potential player. History has always had players who could win 10+ slams in the present era.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're saying. That past greats could have won 10+ in the current era? As in with modern technology and sports medicine they could have played longer and done so? But would they also have modern competition or the generally lower level of competition across the board that all sports had in the past? Comparing the tennis landscape from the 70s and 80s to now is difficult at best, and impossible if we take only the benefits of the modern era for past greats but not the depth of competition that the modern game has.

Either way, that wasn't exactly the statement made earlier to which I was responding. My point is that having the likes of the Big 3 is a complete anomaly and that there was never a time prior to that when we constantly had big matches of 10+ slam potential players, unless you have a more generous meaning of what 10+ slam potential is than I am thinking.

To take one of your examples from the 90s: I love Agassi and sure, he could have won 10 slams. So could Becker. I completely agree they could have, but 6 (Becker) is pretty far from 10. If that's what you mean by 10+ slam potential, then OK. The 90s had maybe three guys overlapping for large portions of their career in Agassi, Becker and Sampras. But even with that mindset, it's not even in the realm of the Big 3 as far as tennis dominance. Those three played each other 17 times in the majors. The Big 3 played 49 times and most of the time in the QF or later. It's crazy how dominant they were.

I don't see much difference between the current crop as far as highly skilled, competitive matches, and past eras. In a decade, surely we will look back (and can probably say so now) that Sinner and Alcaraz have 10+ slam potential. Depending on how far we want to stretch it, Medvedev is 10+ slam potential without the Big 3. So was Roddick.

I agree with you tennis needs good players playing big matches. No doubt. Maybe we're saying the same thing and I'm just not understanding you. My point is the Big 3 isn't the norm, and if 10+ slam potential means a player could win 10 if the all the cards fall in their favor, then I think we'll be fine, just as we were before the tennis gods descended upon us.
 
RF-18 said:
This tells us all we need to know about why you posted the way you did. When Djokovic loses it's a 'strong' field when he wins it's weak. Haha absolutely pathetic!
Click to expand...
Field is stronger in 2024. Sinner has reached his prime since very end of 2023. Alcaraz played prime tennis at 3 slams and won 2 of them. Zverev and Medvedev are similar to their 2021 peaks. 2023 was a shambles of a year, only 1 good slam (Wimbledon) with a prime Alcaraz. 2021 was similarly garbage.
 
When Novak and Alcaraz lost so early would it not indicate that the field is very deep and strong, thus explaining the early defeat?
 
PapaTennis said:
I'm not sure what you're saying. That past greats could have won 10+ in the current era? As in with modern technology and sports medicine they could have played longer and done so? But would they also have modern competition or the generally lower level of competition across the board that all sports had in the past? Comparing the tennis landscape from the 70s and 80s to now is difficult at best, and impossible if we take only the benefits of the modern era for past greats but not the depth of competition that the modern game has.

Either way, that wasn't exactly the statement made earlier to which I was responding. My point is that having the likes of the Big 3 is a complete anomaly and that there was never a time prior to that when we constantly had big matches of 10+ slam potential players, unless you have a more generous meaning of what 10+ slam potential is than I am thinking.

To take one of your examples from the 90s: I love Agassi and sure, he could have won 10 slams. So could Becker. I completely agree they could have, but 6 (Becker) is pretty far from 10. If that's what you mean by 10+ slam potential, then OK. The 90s had maybe three guys overlapping for large portions of their career in Agassi, Becker and Sampras. But even with that mindset, it's not even in the realm of the Big 3 as far as tennis dominance. Those three played each other 17 times in the majors. The Big 3 played 49 times and most of the time in the QF or later. It's crazy how dominant they were.

I don't see much difference between the current crop as far as highly skilled, competitive matches, and past eras. In a decade, surely we will look back (and can probably say so now) that Sinner and Alcaraz have 10+ slam potential. Depending on how far we want to stretch it, Medvedev is 10+ slam potential without the Big 3. So was Roddick.

I agree with you tennis needs good players playing big matches. No doubt. Maybe we're saying the same thing and I'm just not understanding you. My point is the Big 3 isn't the norm, and if 10+ slam potential means a player could win 10 if the all the cards fall in their favor, then I think we'll be fine, just as we were before the tennis gods descended upon us.
Click to expand...

With Great age shift yes they could win 10+ slams, I am definetly factoring the great age shift i.e longevity.

Becker was a great player, he was far greater than his 6 slams or his lack of time at the number 1 show, he would be a dominant force in this era if born in lets say 1998 like Tsitsipas, he would have become a thorn for Djokovic on Grass as early as 2016, would have made his life hell in his 30s, surely he would be a different player if he grew up now but talent is talent, it shines in any era, the cream rises to the top and quickly. Look at Becker's record vs the Top 10 players in his era and you will find him to be in the league of Big 3 / Sampras there, not surprising because he was that good, inconsistent but that good, if he is born in the place of Zverev/Tsitsipas then why not ? He can win 10+ slams. Becker had 10.5-11 years between his 1st and last slam even in that era, in today's era his longevity would be even more, probably rivalling big 3.... why not ? He was a freak.

Medvedev is not that great a player, you put Med born in 1981-82 like Roddick and then Med would be slamless. he would be a slightly better version of Davydenko but still slamless. Murray himself could go slamless or be a 1 slam wonder if we put him in 1981 along with Federer instead of 1987 with Djokovic. What I am implying is the non big 3 players of the previous era were better than today's Med and the previous ATGs before Big 3 were also not that much worse than Big 3 as the numbers show, potential for winning 10+ was always there in the past even if they did not win.
 
fast courts + early rounds == upsets
i think both djoker and alcaraz were playing themselves into form for later rounds
 
We're in a transition from the big 3 to the next era. There will be growing pains but hopefully the end game will be good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AO13
The final before the finale in QF
Replies
19
Views
1K
mike danny
mike danny
Aussie Darcy
  • Poll Poll
Is this the most wide open men's slam of the last 20 years? Given the inconsistency of the ATP outside of Alcaraz/Sinner
Replies
45
Views
588
Aussie Darcy
Aussie Darcy
M
Federer has reached at least one Grand Slam final in a year for 14 of the last 15 Years
2
Replies
66
Views
4K
Deleted member 720910
D
ghostofMecir
A slam runner up has never been this dominant over the slam winner in the last 28+years
2
Replies
50
Views
5K
ghostofMecir
ghostofMecir
ghostofMecir
Absurd streak: Sinner hasn’t been truly pushed in a hardcourt slam match since the 2024 AO Final
Replies
30
Views
1K
ghostofMecir
ghostofMecir
Back
Top