Are we entering a version of the 2001-2003 ATP Era?

[Zardoz7/12]

In 2001-2003 there was a vacuum because the Sampras era was over and Hewitt, Gustavo Kuerten and the veteran Agassi among others picked up the pieces somewhat until Federer's ascension to the top, during this period of time there were surprises winning or making finals of high level tournaments like Albert Portas winning the Hamburg Masters from nowhere, Rainer Schuttler reaching a slam final, Thomas Johansson winning a slam (Though Thomas was a really decent player), more shocks like Ivo Karlovic beating Lleyton Hewitt at the first round of Wimbledon, Goran Ivanisevic coming from 125th in the World and seemingly on the verge of retirement winning Wimbledon. It felt like the tournaments were open and more players had a chance to win them, that doesn't categorically mean it's a positive thing.

In the absence of Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are we currently witnessing the same pattern? Look at the Finalists of the Indian Wells masters (Without spoilers), rewind the clock 5 years ago tournaments like that would have Djokovic, Federer, Nadal (with Murray, Del Potro and Wawrinka) in the mix now it's open.

I'm not sure Medvedev is going to be a superior dominant player going forward, he'll be World Number 1 at some point and he will more slams but if anyone expects the current crop of players to have anywhere near the dominance of Djokovic, Federer and Nadal it isn't going to happen but in the near future 1 player is going to step it up and dominate, it always happens and I think Alcaraz is going to be that player in the future.

We are privileged to have an era over the last near 20 years when 3 of the very best players Men's tennis produced played at the same time. People disparaged Djokovic's dominance as him being part of a "weak era" I disagree, I think we're now entering the stage.

 

[Milanez82]

Sadly yes, Djokovic staved it off with one last great run but he is pretty much done too, no. 21 will be hardest one to get.
And maybe Rafa can pull another magical recovery from injury though he turns 36.

 

[Sampras-Bruguera 1993]

2001-2003 was at least still exciting at times because Agassi was still playing some all time great tennis and Sampras could still destroy people on the big stage at slams like the US Open. Goran was awesome at 2001 Wimbledon. Rafter was still playing some great tennis once in a while. And Hewitt was a better player from 2001-2003 than Med/Zverev/Tsitsi are currently . This is terrible compared to that

 

[Lleytonstation]

Sadly yes, Djokovic staved it off with one last great run but he is pretty much done too, no. 21 will be hardest one to get.
And maybe Rafa can pull another magical recovery from injury though he turns 36.

Djoker is clear favorite for 2 of the next 3 slams and will likely win both.

 

[Rogerer]

Djoko maybe could win wim because there aren't next gen really good on grass

 

[Milanez82]

Djoker is clear favorite for 2 of the next 3 slams and will likely win both.

But he won't be allowed to play in Australia
So basically Wimbledon 22 is the last slam where he should be a favorite

 

[tex123]

In 2001-2003 there was a vacuum because the Sampras era was over and Hewitt, Gustavo Kuerten and the veteran Agassi among others picked up the pieces somewhat until Federer's ascension to the top, during this period of time there were surprises winning or making finals of high level tournaments like Albert Portas winning the Hamburg Masters from nowhere, Rainer Schuttler reaching a slam final, Thomas Johansson winning a slam (Though Thomas was a really decent player), more shocks like Ivo Karlovic beating Lleyton Hewitt at the first round of Wimbledon, Goran Ivanisevic coming from 125th in the World and seemingly on the verge of retirement winning Wimbledon. It felt like the tournaments were open and more players had a chance to win them, that doesn't categorically mean it's a positive thing.

In the absence of Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are we currently witnessing the same pattern? Look at the Finalists of the Indian Wells masters (Without spoilers), rewind the clock 5 years ago tournaments like that would have Djokovic, Federer, Nadal (with Murray, Del Potro and Wawrinka) in the mix now it's open.

I'm not sure Medvedev is going to be a superior dominant player going forward, he'll be World Number 1 at some point and he will more slams but if anyone expects the current crop of players to have anywhere near the dominance of Djokovic, Federer and Nadal it isn't going to happen but in the near future 1 player is going to step it up and dominate, it always happens and I think Alcaraz is going to be that player in the future.

We are privileged to have an era over the last near 20 years when 3 of the very best players Men's tennis produced played at the same time. People disparaged Djokovic's dominance as him being part of a "weak era" I disagree, I think we're now entering the stage.

Medvedev is only going to dominate the surface that suits his game. He does not have a lot of variety in his game to adapt - one dimensional. But his game is pretty solid. Expect him to dominate New York and Australia. The other two slams are open. I'm expecting Tsitsipas to win the French and Zverev to win Wimbledon.

Djokovic's dominance in 2021 is due to lack of a solid developed field and absence of Fed/Nadal and injuries to many players.

 

[Blahovic]

In 2001-2003 there was a vacuum because the Sampras era was over and Hewitt, Gustavo Kuerten and the veteran Agassi among others picked up the pieces somewhat until Federer's ascension to the top, during this period of time there were surprises winning or making finals of high level tournaments like Albert Portas winning the Hamburg Masters from nowhere, Rainer Schuttler reaching a slam final, Thomas Johansson winning a slam (Though Thomas was a really decent player), more shocks like Ivo Karlovic beating Lleyton Hewitt at the first round of Wimbledon, Goran Ivanisevic coming from 125th in the World and seemingly on the verge of retirement winning Wimbledon. It felt like the tournaments were open and more players had a chance to win them, that doesn't categorically mean it's a positive thing.

In the absence of Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are we currently witnessing the same pattern? Look at the Finalists of the Indian Wells masters (Without spoilers), rewind the clock 5 years ago tournaments like that would have Djokovic, Federer, Nadal (with Murray, Del Potro and Wawrinka) in the mix now it's open.

I'm not sure Medvedev is going to be a superior dominant player going forward, he'll be World Number 1 at some point and he will more slams but if anyone expects the current crop of players to have anywhere near the dominance of Djokovic, Federer and Nadal it isn't going to happen but in the near future 1 player is going to step it up and dominate, it always happens and I think Alcaraz is going to be that player in the future.

We are privileged to have an era over the last near 20 years when 3 of the very best players Men's tennis produced played at the same time. People disparaged Djokovic's dominance as him being part of a "weak era" I disagree, I think we're now entering the stage.

I don't really see why people think the level will go down next year. Most likely thing is that it goes up.

Djokovic is still at the top; Nadal will always be elite on clay, provided he can walk; Medvedev is now an established elite hardcourter at slams and Masters; Zverev, Tsitsipas and Berrettini have all just had their best accomplishments at big events; Thiem will be back; the likes of Sinner, FAA and Alcaraz are reaching a more mature age and starting to have an impact at the latter stages of slams and Masters.

The competition will be big on clay and hard, the big question is will anyone else under the age of 25 learn to play on grass.

It's definitely true though that there is a big transition taking place underneath the umbrella of Djokovic's dominance.

Nonetheless, I'd be completely unsurprised if Djokovic/Nadal have another year where they take 2/3 slams.

 

[RaulRamirez]

It feels like a transition to the transition.
When non-Big 3 win at least 3 of the slams and have the YE#1 player, I'll say that the transition is really here (if that makes sense).

What The Big 3 (and for a while Big 4) did was change the way we viewed every other player. There were, and are, a lot of great tennis players. As of now, The Big 3 - not even Djokovic - can be as dominant year-round as they used to be. Most of the M1000s and even the ATP Finals (we'll see about this year) have been won by others, but they are still the players to beat at the slams. That can't last forever...can it? It may not even last in 2022...who knows.

But other players don't have to outdo "prime" Roger/Rafa/Novak - they just have to be better on a given day or tourney, as Med was at the US Open. We may not get another player as undeniably great as any of The Big 3 for a while to come. That's okay.
I'm a Big 3 fan, and don't necessarily want this era to end. But instead of focusing on flaws -- whether their tennis, or supposedly character flaws -- I find a lot to like in the games of (incomplete list) Med, Tsit, Zv, Sinner, Shapo, Hurcasz, Alcaraz, Musetti etc. Some more than the others, but let's give them a chance.

Lleyton Hewitt was not as great as Pete or Andre, let alone those three guys who would soon dominate the tour. But he was s till an extremely good player ...some liked his style, others not so much...and a legit #1 when he achieved it.

 

[Start da Game]

weak era started in 2002, not in 2001........i see 2002 - 2007 as weak era and 2000 - 2003 as transition era........2002 was a brief one year period which was weak and transitional with chumps winning grandslam titles except for the us open........

 

[Terenigma]

We absolutely are. I remember that era like it was yesterday and remember the feeling of it being a transitonal era with several players overachieving. Hewitt was dominating a weak field and he was a decent player but he was not world class in the way the players before and after he him were and it kind of feels like we're going through that now with the little 3.

There is quite a few similarities too if you think of Agassi/Djokovic as the aging player who is still playing well and then maybe you've got Roddick/Hewitt as the up and coming players Zverev/Tsitsipas and then Medvedev who has a few years on the others being Johanson. We're just missing the future talent who is the new Federer.

 

[aldeayeah]

2001-2003 was at least still exciting at times because Agassi was still playing some all time great tennis and Sampras could still destroy people on the big stage at slams like the US Open. Goran was awesome at 2001 Wimbledon. Rafter was still playing some great tennis once in a while. And Hewitt was a better player from 2001-2003 than Med/Zverev/Tsitsi are currently . This is terrible compared to that

202?-202? was at least still exciting at times because Djokovic was still playing some all time great tennis and Nadal could still destroy people on the big stage at slams like the French Open, etc

 

[D.Nalby12]

Med - Zed and Sisi are weak era chumps. They will keep winning big titles here and there till next dominant champ takes over.

 

[Lleytonstation]

But he won't be allowed to play in Australia
So basically Wimbledon 22 is the last slam where he should be a favorite

Why not?

 

[tex123]

Med - Zed and Sisi are weak era chumps. They will keep winning big titles here and there till next dominant champ takes over.

Zv defeated a red hot Djokovic at the Olympics. Zv took him to five sets again at the USO. Med destroyed Djokovic in the USO final. Tsitsipas should've won the French - led by 2-0 before folding. In BO3 format, they rule not Big 3. The ceiling was waiting to be broken in BO5 format which they have done.

If anything, they've earned it.

 

[Tony48]

Sadly yes, Djokovic staved it off with one last great run but he is pretty much done too, no. 21 will be hardest one to get.
And maybe Rafa can pull another magical recovery from injury though he turns 36.

Depending on Nadal, Novak might be the favorite for all 4 slams next year.

 

[NedStark]

2001-2003 was at least still exciting at times because Agassi was still playing some all time great tennis and Sampras could still destroy people on the big stage at slams like the US Open. Goran was awesome at 2001 Wimbledon. Rafter was still playing some great tennis once in a while. And Hewitt was a better player from 2001-2003 than Med/Zverev/Tsitsi are currently . This is terrible compared to that

Rafter was actually rock solid in 2001: AO SF, Wimbledon F, multiple finals (including a title) in the North American hardcourt seasons.