BO5 M1000s impact on Big-3 dominance

gjm127

Hall of Fame
Has the removal of BO5 M1000 Finals contributed to the dominance of the Big-3 in Slams?

After all, BO5 Masters Finals would have provided younger generations more experience in such situations.

:unsure:
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
I mean... I don't think the Lost Gen played that many 1000 finals, did they? :-D Maybe 10 altogether? There were other, smaller tournaments that had best of five finals, but you're less likely to run into the big 3 in those events, and dealing with the big 3 in best of 5 is the only major problem most of these people have. They get plenty of general practice playing bo5 tennis in the first weeks of majors.
 

topher

Hall of Fame
I mean... I don't think the Lost Gen played that many 1000 finals, did they? :-D Maybe 10 altogether? There were other, smaller tournaments that had best of five finals, but you're less likely to run into the big 3 in those events, and dealing with the big 3 in best of 5 is the only major problem most of these people have. They get plenty of general practice playing bo5 tennis in the first weeks of majors.

I think the main benefit could be making it more physically demanding and therefore less likely for the Big3 to win as many of the M1000s. Would make the Big3 exit from M1000 dominance sooner (which has today taken age, injuries and a vaccine ban) and allow better rankings and confidence for the nextGen.
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
I think the main benefit could be making it more physically demanding and therefore less likely for the Big3 to win as many of the M1000s. Would make the Big3 exit from M1000 dominance sooner (which has today taken age, injuries and a vaccine ban) and allow better rankings and confidence for the nextGen.
Hmm, it's a tough one. You could just as easily say that if you still had best of 5 finals then the big 3 dominance would have continued at 1000 level given the upsets would be harder to come by, and your theory would primarily apply only to Miami, Rome, and Cincinnati given the back-to-back way they're scheduled. That said, playing a best of 5 final on a Sunday a day after a tough semi-final might have given the younger players a physical advantage against the older guys in the longer format they'd be less likely to have in best of 3, and that certainly could have given them more confidence in the bigger picture.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
How many finals did they even make is the question.

I just saw the usual suspects in masters finals most of the time.
 

Omega_7000

Legend
Has the removal of BO5 M1000 Finals contributed to the dominance of the Big-3 in Slams?

After all, BO5 Masters Finals would have provided younger generations more experience in such situations.

:unsure:

You might have had a point if not for glaring holes in younger gen games
 
You might have had a point if not for glaring holes in younger gen games

I think the main thing is there is just a visible talent level difference between the big three and everyone else (and in some ways it’s not fair for every young guy to be dismissed as a failure when compared to the 3 ATGs).

After all these years of familiarity it’s easy to forget how freakish these guys are. They hit a few shots a match that are career shots for just about anyone else e.g. they will take an incoming missile and casually half-volley it for a winner from the baseline.
 
IMO the main reasons for big three slam dominance are:

1. talent
2. surface homogenization
3. seeding 32 players at slams instead of 16 like they used to

#2 and #3 are related. In the past, it was possible for a top player to face #17-32 in the first or second round on a surface that suited him better. Now the top seeds get a softball first two rounds to ease them into the tournament, after which their engines are up and running.
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
The failure of NextGen is not just a Big3 issue. The entire Djokodal and Fed gens were better than NextGen, which is why we have players like Fognini, Simon, RBA, Isner, Kandy, and Monfils still doing fine and even peaking in the rankings in their 30s.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
IMO the main reasons for big three slam dominance are:

1. talent
2. surface homogenization
3. seeding 32 players at slams instead of 16 like they used to

#2 and #3 are related. In the past, it was possible for a top player to face #17-32 in the first or second round on a surface that suited him better. Now the top seeds get a softball first two rounds to ease them into the tournament, after which their engines are up and running.

There is another main reason.

4. The instagram generation. These guys spend way too much time on social media.
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
There is another main reason.

4. The instagram generation. These guys spend way too much time on social media.
But what is cause and what is effect? Maybe their failure to advance far in tournaments gives them more free time to post on Instagram on the weekends?
 

gjm127

Hall of Fame
But what is cause and what is effect? Maybe their failure to advance far in tournaments gives them more free time to post on Instagram on the weekends?

They have the wrong attention seeking objectives. With the older generation, winning titles was what was sought. With NextGen, Instagram likes and Twitter retweets are sufficient.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
But what is cause and what is effect? Maybe their failure to advance far in tournaments gives them more free time to post on Instagram on the weekends?

Cause is certainly social media, when they are young and should be putting in the time to get ready for the pro tour, they are spending all that valuable time on other things, this then leads to a weaker final product of a tennis player, who then continues to do all this, as it is ingrained into their being. Being away gives them withdrawl symptoms.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Has the removal of BO5 M1000 Finals contributed to the dominance of the Big-3 in Slams?

After all, BO5 Masters Finals would have provided younger generations more experience in such situations.

:unsure:

I think you could just as easily say it decreased their dominance - we saw many, many times - first hand via the Slams - how hard it is to take them out B05. Better shot at getting hot and taking them out B03.
 

Lozo1016

Hall of Fame
I'm looking back at the Masters 1000 Finals and I didn't realize how embarrassing it was for Lost Gen. They made a few finals, but the only Lost Gen finals wins were by Dimitrov (2017 Cincinnati) and Sock (2017 Paris). Wow.
 
Top