Big3 played their best tennis in their 30s and that's why (ridicolous stat)

[Lew II]

Over30 yo Federer in Slam finals:

vs field (Nadal, Murray, Cilic, Cilic) --> 4-0
vs Djokovic --> 0-4

 

[MichaelNadal]

 

[Lew II]

He lost 3 sets in the last 4 RGs...

 

[MichaelNadal]

He lost 3 sets in the last 4 RGs...

You should be more of a fan then

 

[Jason Swerve]

It is unrealistic to expect each generation to produce players with the Big 3 calibre or talent. They are more than mere tennis players: they are tennis geniuses. We are witnessing the 3 best tennis players ever battling in the same epoch. Players with the Big 3 talent emerge once in a millenial, in the same sense that composers such as Beethoven, Mozart or Bach emerge once in a millenial, not every 5 or 10 years. Another example: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were alive over 2 millenial ago, yet the world never witnessed any philosopher comparably as great till Immanuel Kant publsihed the Kritik der Reinen Vernunft (1781). 2 millenial were necessary to produce another philosophical genius of the same order.

ATGs from other eras could have failed to become ATGs in the Big 3 era (roughly 2003-2021). Maybe Becker or Wilander would have had a Murray-like or Wawrinka-like career playing against the Big 3. Maybe they would be even Slamless. We will never know. The point is that it is unfair to compare other eras with the Big 3 era. Other eras produced more ATGs precisely because no one was good enough to dominate the field like the Big 3, nor did anyone from previous eras display the Big 3 talent. The only exception could be Borg, but we will never know because he retired early and it will remain as a "what if?" situation.

I'm with you, but it's still a blight on this generation whether we prop up the Big 3 or not. These guys don't have variety. Champions' minds adapt to the opponent's game and overcome that game with improvisation. The Melbourne final against Djokovic was the opposite of that.

 

[hoodjem]

Full list of Grand Slam finals and semifinals that Big3 played in their 30s against other players:

2012 WI Federer-Murray 3-1
2013 AO Federer-Murray 2-3
2014 WI Federer-Raonic 3-0
2014 UO Federer-Cilic 0-3
2015 WI Federer-Murray 3-0
2015 UO Federer-Wawrinka 3-0
2016 WI Federer-Raonic 2-3
2017 AO Federer-Wawrinka 3-2
2017 AO Nadal-Dimitrov 3-2
2017 RG Nadal-Thiem 3-0
2017 RG Nadal-Wawrinka 3-0
2017 WI Federer-Berdych 3-0
2017 WI Federer-Cilic 3-0
2017 UO Nadal-Del Potro 3-1
2017 UO Nadal-Anderson 3-0
2018 AO Federer-Chung 2-0
2018 AO Federer-Cilic 3-2
2018 RG Nadal-Del Potro 3-0
2018 RG Nadal-Thiem 3-0
2018 WI Djokovic-Anderson 3-0
2018 UO Nadal-Del Potro 0-2
2018 UO Djokovic-Nishikori 3-0
2018 UO Djokovic-Del Potro 3-0
2019 AO Djokovic-Pouille 3-0
2019 AO Nadal-Tsitsipas 3-0
2019 RG Djokovic-Thiem 2-3
2019 RG Nadal-Thiem 3-1
2019 WI Djokovic-Bautista Agut 3-1
2019 UO Nadal-Berrettini 3-0
2019 UO Nadal-Medvedev 3-2
2020 AO Djokovic-Thiem 3-2
2020 RG Djokovic-Tsitsipas 3-2
2020 RG Nadal-Schwartzmann 3-0
2021 AO Djokovic-Karatsev 3-0
2021 AO Djokovic-Medvedev 3-0

Wins: 30 (20 in straight sets)
Losses 5

This stat is ridicolous. They won nearly all big matches against the field and nearly 2 times out of 3 without dropping a set. In their 30s they may not have won 90 matches in a season but they peaked very high when it most mattered.

I used to think it was a myth, or at the very least impossible to prove.

But this looks like cogent proof of a weak era.

 

[Fintft]

I used to think it was a myth, or at the very least impossible to prove.

But this looks like cogent proof of a weak era.

Or rigged results.

 

[RedClayFan]

Or rigged results.

Or special sauce

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

It is unrealistic to expect each generation to produce players with the Big 3 calibre or talent. They are more than mere tennis players: they are tennis geniuses. We are witnessing the 3 best tennis players ever battling in the same epoch. Players with the Big 3 talent emerge once in a millenial, in the same sense that composers such as Beethoven, Mozart or Bach emerge once in a millenial, not every 5 or 10 years. Another example: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were alive over 2 millenial ago, yet the world never witnessed any philosopher comparably as great till Immanuel Kant publsihed the Kritik der Reinen Vernunft (1781). 2 millenial were necessary to produce another philosophical genius of the same order.

ATGs from other eras could have failed to become ATGs in the Big 3 era (roughly 2003-2021). Maybe Becker or Wilander would have had a Murray-like or Wawrinka-like career playing against the Big 3. Maybe they would be even Slamless. We will never know. The point is that it is unfair to compare other eras with the Big 3 era. Other eras produced more ATGs precisely because no one was good enough to dominate the field like the Big 3, nor did anyone from previous eras display the Big 3 talent. The only exception could be Borg, but we will never know because he retired early and it will remain as a "what if?" situation.

All good points.

 

[SonnyT]

Full list of Grand Slam finals and semifinals that Big3 played in their 30s against other players:

2012 WI Federer-Murray 3-1
2013 AO Federer-Murray 2-3
2014 WI Federer-Raonic 3-0
2014 UO Federer-Cilic 0-3
2015 WI Federer-Murray 3-0
2015 UO Federer-Wawrinka 3-0
2016 WI Federer-Raonic 2-3
2017 AO Federer-Wawrinka 3-2
2017 WI Federer-Berdych 3-0
2017 WI Federer-Cilic 3-0
2018 AO Federer-Chung 2-0
2018 AO Federer-Cilic 3-2

Wins: 30 (20 in straight sets)
Losses 5

This stat is ridicolous. They won nearly all big matches against the field and nearly 2 times out of 3 without dropping a set. In their 30s they may not have won 90 matches in a season but they peaked very high when it most mattered.

Fedfans, Federer bludgeoned other opponents just like Nadal and Djokovic, I don't see age hamper him at all. So why should Djokovic be unique?

Oh, he was unique because the matchup favored him over Federer!