Big 3 and what more slams means...?

[Tailspin]

Been reading all sorts about number of a Grand Slams and where the big 3 could finish and how it affects legacy. It got me thinking... at this point does another Slam for any of the big 3 even make that much difference. Think about it, what does it actually prove? None of them are going to get better or are playing their peak tennis (could maybe argue Djock is close). If Nadal snaps his ACL next week and never gets another Slam does that affect how good he should be remembered? Nope he’s already proved it. If Fed had retired in 2013 he would be now be ‘ranked’ third.

My point is that they have all won enough to have to prove anything, in terms of Goat (I hate this btw) an argument can convincingly be made for any of them. IMO once a certain amount of success has been had (career slam, no 1 for ages etc.) then an extra Slam here and there doesn’t change a whole lot...

 

[Lew II]

If it worked like that, they wouldn't be still playing.

They do are peaking. They're always adding something new to their game. Federer on sunday maybe played his best match ever at Wimbledon. He endured long rallies with risky shots for 5 hours.

 

[mr tonyz]

If it worked like that, they wouldn't be still playing.

They do are peaking. They're always adding something new to their game. Federer on sunday maybe played his best match ever at Wimbledon. He endured long rallies with risky shots for 5 hours.

You must be one of those "tennis is always evolving" b.s. The amount of times I've heard Fed mention "how it's more athletic these days" every year for the last 10 years (it seems) . I did not see anything new from Djoker nor Fed .

The one thing where a lot of people get confused with is that no 2 matches are ever the same (Rafa good old days pounding on Feds bh notwithstanding lol) so it just seems as though they 'added' something or are improving , when really it was just another match with a different mixture of the same Ingredients.