Big 3 are the luckiest players of all time

King_ Zeglan12

King_ Zeglan12

Professional
Big 3 are hands down the 3 luckiest players in tennis history..

Starting from Federer who had no real ATG contemporaries to Nadal and Djokovic having no future ATGs

The conditions have also been tailor made for them, including Federer.. Courts being slowed down has hugely reduced the risk of upsets for top players

Nadal has benefitted from a lack of clay courters to deal with... He would have won many RGs but definitely not 14

The less said about the grass field , the better....

HC field is not bad but when people push comes to shove you just the end result( A Djokovic win)

Let us look at the players themselves

Federer - lost 23 matches after having MPs(incl. Slam finals and SFs) and the constant BP issues

Nadal - can't win the ATP finals to save his life... The conditions have really benefitted his game

Djokovic - His net game is okay but that overhead... Has hugely benefited from the slowing down of courts

After this comes the in match luck...
Federer opponents were injured in Wim 17 final and AO 18 semi
Nadal was on course for a big physical fight in last year's semi before Zverev was injured
Djokovic was in a battle before Alcaraz was physically compromised...

All three have been beneficiaries of the weak era and all three have inflated slam counts.... Getting to 20 is highly improbable when you have young ATGs constantly behind your back

Starting from 2017 , all the slams have won don't really have that good a level barring a few

You can really the difference in level of play in slam victories a decade ago and now , it's really not anywhere near the same level

It's not big 3's fault that they were good enough to win slams in their 30s but if you really think they're that better than past ATGs , that's not the case

The game needed a lot more ATGs but we ended up having 3 goats which I feel has been bad for the game in the long run
 
I was wondering why this thread wasn't popular. Then again it was made early and maybe people are saving energy for ranting on the RG final.
 
RS said:
I was wondering why this thread wasn't popular. Then again it was made early and maybe people are saving energy for ranting on the RG final.
Click to expand...
Maybe it comes across as me being salty because Djokovic is going to win but I'm not biased against any of the big 3 here even though I'm a Nadal fan...

I feel all three have been hugely lucky
 
Lucky?

And how UNLUCKY have they been? Think about all the “what-if” moments they all had, during their injuries and time out of the game.

In truth we all know that Djokovic was robbed off a slam in US at a time when he was playing better than he is now (and I’m not even a fan of his)

We all know Nadal would have achieved much more had his body been kinder to him - but let’s not forget it is because of his body he plays like he does, giving him the success he has had.

And Federer? He was a victim of his own success inspiring all those around him to hit insane levels of tennis who would eventually supersede him as he aged.

So no I’m not going to buy lucky - they made their luck.

The truth is their levels have been so high that we have a 36 year old today who is odd-on favourite to win the FO
 
Djokovic_is_the_best#1 said:
How not Federer? He had no rivals at the start bar old Agassi?
Click to expand...

sometennisdot said:
Meeting Philippoussis, Baghdatis, a crying Cilic in finals is insane luck.
Click to expand...
Fed maybe had one year of no equals before Nadal showed up. Cry harder. Plus players like Safin, Davydenko, Nalbandian, and Soderling would destroy the competition from the last 8 years or so
 
King_ Zeglan12 said:
Big 3 are hands down the 3 luckiest players in tennis history..

Starting from Federer who had no real ATG contemporaries to Nadal and Djokovic having no future ATGs

The conditions have also been tailor made for them, including Federer.. Courts being slowed down has hugely reduced the risk of upsets for top players

Nadal has benefitted from a lack of clay courters to deal with... He would have won many RGs but definitely not 14

The less said about the grass field , the better....

HC field is not bad but when people push comes to shove you just the end result( A Djokovic win)

Let us look at the players themselves

Federer - lost 23 matches after having MPs(incl. Slam finals and SFs) and the constant BP issues

Nadal - can't win the ATP finals to save his life... The conditions have really benefitted his game

Djokovic - His net game is okay but that overhead... Has hugely benefited from the slowing down of courts

After this comes the in match luck...
Federer opponents were injured in Wim 17 final and AO 18 semi
Nadal was on course for a big physical fight in last year's semi before Zverev was injured
Djokovic was in a battle before Alcaraz was physically compromised...

All three have been beneficiaries of the weak era and all three have inflated slam counts.... Getting to 20 is highly improbable when you have young ATGs constantly behind your back

Starting from 2017 , all the slams have won don't really have that good a level barring a few

You can really the difference in level of play in slam victories a decade ago and now , it's really not anywhere near the same level

It's not big 3's fault that they were good enough to win slams in their 30s but if you really think they're that better than past ATGs , that's not the case

The game needed a lot more ATGs but we ended up having 3 goats which I feel has been bad for the game in the long run
Click to expand...
Dumb Federer Had 2 ATGs breathing behind him. In 2014-15 he lost 3 Finals to peak djoker. Without him who would have beaten him. He would have won 5 FOs without Nadal. Djokodal stopped him winning 5-6 slams in his 30s. 5 more in his prime.

Except Stan In few Finals No one robbed djoker of anything.
 
No luck. Novak is the only one with no holes in the resume. Nadal (too clay heavy, but definitely clay GOAT) and Fed (only 1 French Open, h2h issues) are both far far behind Novak. Was not even close before today's result.
 
cm77au said:
Novak is the only one with no holes in the resume. Nadal (too clay heavy, but definitely clay GOAT) and Fed (only 1 French Open, h2h issues) are both far far behind Novak. Was not even close before today's result.
Click to expand...
I'm not comparing their resumes now.... Djokovic has the least holes in his resume.... What I'm just telling is all 3 are the probably the luckiest players of all time
 
King_ Zeglan12 said:
I'm not comparing their resumes now.... Djokovic has the least holes in his resume.... What I'm just telling is all 3 are the probably the luckiest players of all time
Click to expand...
Would have to respectfully disagree. If any of the big 3 were in an era without the other 2 they may have reached 30-40 slams. The fact that 3 of the greatest played at the same time is unlucky if anything.
 
Maybe all of you weak era folks should consider that the Big 3 are truly that - the Big 3. These are three extraordinary individuals who played the game at almost the same time and dominated (and still are). As I’ve said in numerous other threads, humankind didn’t just stop producing top tier tennis players for 20 years. The game today is more physical and demanding than ever before. There is a ton of talent on the tour today. Players hit harder, last longer and are more skilled than ever before. But the Big 3 were something to behold and each helped the other outlast and outhit the rest of the competition up and through today. What we are witnessing is unprecedented and has nothing to do with supposed weak eras, career inflation, etc. It is simply athletic brilliance at is best and I for one will be very sorry when it is truly over.
 
cm77au said:
Would have to respectfully disagree. If any of the big 3 were in an era without the other 2 they may have reached 30-40 slams. The fact that 3 of the greatest played at the same time is unlucky if anything.
Click to expand...
No issues on the disagreement, I just don't see them being that much better than the past ATGs ... To each his own
 
King_ Zeglan12 said:
No issues on the disagreement, I just don't see them being that much better than the past ATGs ... To each his own
Click to expand...
Comparing ATGs is always difficult. I am a big Pete fan and was lucky enough to to ballboy for him twice. But again many holes in his resume (biggest rival Agassi semi-retired for years, no French Open, and if he played on slow grass conditions like today would he have done as well?).

But in the end you can't control when you are born, just have to make the most of the era and conditions you get dealt.
 
Of course they are, but big 2 had to best each other and Fed and Murray to win most of their slams so while it doesn't compensate for a pitiful field it's certainly better than just winning against a pitiful field.
 
Realfan said:
Maybe all of you weak era folks should consider that the Big 3 are truly that - the Big 3. These are three extraordinary individuals who played the game at almost the same time and dominated (and still are). As I’ve said in numerous other threads, humankind didn’t just stop producing top tier tennis players for 20 years. The game today is more physical and demanding than ever before. There is a ton of talent on the tour today. Players hit harder, last longer and are more skilled than ever before. But the Big 3 were something to behold and each helped the other outlast and outhit the rest of the competition up and through today. What we are witnessing is unprecedented and has nothing to do with supposed weak eras, career inflation, etc. It is simply athletic brilliance at is best and I for one will be very sorry when it is truly over.
Click to expand...
I can appreciate the big 3 for being the 3 greatest players of all time and at the same time see that they have been clearly lucky... I just wish we get hight quality good tennis which has sadly not been the case for the last few years
 
T007 said:
Dumb Federer Had 2 ATGs breathing behind him. In 2014-15 he lost 3 Finals to peak djoker. Without him who would have beaten him. He would have won 5 FOs without Nadal. Djokodal stopped him winning 5-6 slams in his 30s. 5 more in his prime.

Except Stan In few Finals No one robbed djoker of anything.
Click to expand...
Djokovic and Nadal have been more luckier than Federer but all 3 have been insanely lucky .... That's the main point
 
Alcaraz as a future ATG should consider himself lucky to be in a position to share the same court with great champions such as Djokovic and Nadal.

I wish Djoko had the same opportunity, but alas PETE retired way too early. Djoko had to settle for the next best thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
  • Poll Poll
Remove one of the Big 3; who benefits the most?
2
Replies
93
Views
3K
Adam Copeland
Adam Copeland
lud
Luckiest and unluckiest players of all time?
2
Replies
75
Views
4K
racquetreligion
racquetreligion
Sport
  • Poll Poll
Agassi vs. The Big 3. Are they on the same tier of ATGs?
2 3
Replies
149
Views
3K
Holmes
Holmes
cuddles26
  • Poll Poll
Luckiest player of last 10 years
3 4 5
Replies
204
Views
10K
Anaconda
A
MichelaDe
Comparing Big3s at the age of 31-35
Replies
2
Views
326
Kralingen
K
Back
Top