Assigning slam winners with no big three since 2017

[weakera]

AO 2017 - Wawrinka
RG 2017 - Wawrinka
W 2017 - Cilic
USO 2017 - Del Potro
AO 2018 - Cilic
RG 2018 - Thiem
W 2018 - Del Potro
USO 2018 - Del Potro
AO 2019 - Tsitsipas
RG 2019 - Thiem
W 2019 - Bautista Agut
USO 2019 - Medvedev
AO 2020 - Thiem
RG 2020 - Tsitsipas
USO 2020 - Thiem
AO 2021 - Medvedev
RG 2021 - Tsitsipas
W 2021 - Berrettini
USO 2021 - Medvedev
AO 2022 - Medvedev
RG 2022 - Zverev
W 2022 - Kyrgios
USO 2022 - Alcaraz
AO 2023 - Tsitsipas
RG 2023 - Alcaraz
W 2023 - Alcaraz
USO 2023 - Medvedev

1. Medvedev - 5
2. Thiem - 4
3. Tsitsipas - 4
4. Del Potro - 3
5. Alcaraz - 3
6. Wawrinka - 2
7. Cilic - 2
8. Bautista Agut - 1
9. Berrettini - 1
10. Zverev - 1
11. Kyrgios - 1
12. Murray - 0

 

[Breakpointerer]

W 2019 - Bautista Agut

That would've been something

 

[RS]

I assume people would give Wim 19 to Nishikori.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

wut about since 04, it woulda been an amazing trip

 

[GabeT]

Without the Big 3 around players like Med and Thiem would be ATGs or close to it. And no one would talk of weak eras

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

2017 -
AO Wawrinka
FO Wawrinka
WIM Berdych
USO Delpo

2018 -
AO Cilic
FO Delpo
WIM Delpo
USO Delpo

2019 -
AO Medvedev
FO Thiem
WIM Bautista Agut
USO Medvedev

2020 -
AO Thiem
FO Tsitsipas
WIM ---
USO Zverev

2021 -
AO Medvedev
FO Tsitsipas
WIM Shapovalov
USO Medvedev

2022 -
AO Medvedev
FO Zverev
WIM Kyrgios
USO Alcaraz

2023 -
AO Tsitsipas
FO Alcaraz
WIM Alcaraz
USO Alcaraz

Total -
Delpo 4
Wawrinka 2
Cilic 1
Berdych 1
Medvedev 5
Thiem 2
Kyrgios 1
Shapovalov 1
Tsitsipas 2
Alcaraz 4
Bautista Agut 1

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

wut about since 04, it woulda been an amazing trip

You're asking for too much of a hypothesis, pal.

 

[Benf15harp]

Where’s Kevin Anderson? I bet he’s pissed

 

[Deleted member 758560]

 

[weakera]

You're asking for too much of a hypothesis, pal.

How can you give Alcaraz USO 23 when Medvedev just beat his brains in?

 

[zvelf]

wut about since 04, it woulda been an amazing trip

This analysis was done in either 2018 or 2019 by Tennis Abstract here. The methodology differed from the speculation here and was more fair and foolproof. It also included Murray as a blocker of slam titles. So it is if the Big Four did not exist. The conclusion then was that these players would have won 2 or more extra slams over what they did or did not win:

Player
Stan Wawrinka 6 (2 AO - 2 FO - 2 US)
David Ferrer 6 (2 AO - 2 FO - 2 US)
Andy Roddick 5 (1 AO - 3 WIM - 1 US)
Jo Wilfried Tsonga 4 (2 AO - 2 WIM)
Tomas Berdych 3 (1 AO - 1 FO - 1 US)
Richard Gasquet 3 (2 WIM - 2 US)
Milos Raonic 3 (1 AO - 2 WIM)
Juan Martin del Potro 2 (1 WIM - 1 US)
Marin Cilic 2 (1 AO - 1 WIM)
Nicolay Davydenko 2 (1 FO - 1 US)
Dominic Thiem 2 (FO)
Marat Safin 2 (1 AO - 1 WIM)
Marcos Baghdatis 2 (1 AO - 1 WIM)
Robin Soderling 2 (FO)
Kevin Anderson 2 (1 WIM - 1 US)
Grigor Dimitrov 2 (1 AO - 1 WIM)

So Wawrinka could have been a 9-time slam winner and been considered an Agassi-level player!

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

How can you give Alcaraz USO 23 when Medvedev just beat his brains in?

Because Alcaraz won't do that in a F

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

 

[Fedeonic]

RG 2022 - Zverev

I agree with all your list, except this one. Casper Ruud was the better player at that Roland Garros and proving how he dismantled Sascha this year, that's a Casper win.

 

[DSH]

I agree with all your list, except this one. Casper Ruud was the better player at that Roland Garros and proving how he dismantled Sascha this year, that's a Casper win.

Outdoors at RG, the German 'giraffe' couldn't beat the "Iceman".

 

[Third Serve]

Without the Big 3 around players like Med and Thiem would be ATGs or close to it. And no one would talk of weak eras

If you completely ignore the major technical weaknesses of both players, sure. But when has watching tennis ever factored into the equation for our resident Wikipedia Warriors?

This statement does implicitly hint at the flaws with relying solely on results, by the way. If you can drastically change the stats like that without actually changing the levels of the players at all, then perhaps the stats aren’t the be-all end-all we’ve been led to believe they are?

 

[weakera]

Because Alcaraz won't do that in a F

I didn't watch the match but I was told Medvedev played at his 11/10 and it didn't matter what Alcaraz did

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

I didn't watch the match but I was told Medvedev played at his 11/10 and it didn't matter what Alcaraz did

I didn't watch it either because the time was unfavorable for me.
But its safe to assume that Alcaraz would be a totally different beast in the F.