Collective Big 3 Dominance: Why Less So at US Open?

RaulRamirez

RaulRamirez

Legend
Like them, love them, like some or one of them, I still marvel at what tennis fans have been witnessing these last (roughly) 18 seasons.

Even though I followed tennis- and many other men's and women's players - before The Big 3 emerged, I admit to enjoying this era. While on the one hand it's great to see young talent emerge, and I'm ready for that in some ways, I also want to see these guys still do their thing.

Starting with Roger's first slam title -- Wimbledon03, look what The Big 3 have done collectively.
57 of 69 slams. That's crazy when you consider that Roger had no help from his other two rivals for a little while.
(No, that's not a slight to anyone...and this is not a thread to bash anyone...please!)

Broken down by event, this is somewhat curious to me:
15 out of 17 at the Australian Open -- Safin; Wawrinka.
15 out of 17 at Roland Garros -- Gaudio; Wawrinka.
15 out of 17 at Wimbledon - Murray (2)
(only) 12 out of 18 at US Open - Roddick; DelPotro; Murray; Cilic; Wawrinka, Thiem.

Now, 12 out of 18 is still pretty dominant, but compared to the other three slams, it's where they've collectively been the most vulnerable.
Yet at the same time, this is the major where the three have the best balance of titles won: Fed 5, Rafa 4, Novak 3.

Question: Why do you think the US Open has been the most (by a good margin -- 6 times, as opposed to two apiece at the other slams) open to other players winning?

 
I think it's an interesting question, and I don't have the faintest idea, although look how unpredictable the WTF has been. So could it be the time of year?
 
Nadal would be more dominant at the US Open, but he didn't play in 2012, 2014, 2020, and he retired from 2018 USO Semi, and played with a torn stomach muscle in 2009 USO Semi.
Still, he's won the US Open FOUR times, and has a 2-1 record vs. Djokovic.
 
It might be the fact that it is played near the tail-end of the season and they are all worn down more. Also, they are all European and the USO is played at the end of what is usually a 2-month business trip which must be emotionally grueling in addition to the physical attrition. Also, the semifinals and finals are usually played in the daytime (until recently) in high heat/humidity and wind unlike at the AO where the final rounds are played at night - I think it affects Novak more and he is less dominant in the final two rounds.
 
First of all I think you can pretty much discount Roddick, Gaudio and Safin as at the time of those there was no big 3, so winning a slam was far simpler a task :-D that then makes it all that much more one sided, and it becomes more so if you make it a big 4 rather than big 3 dominance thing.

I think certainly in more recent times it basically has to do with the fact that the US Open is the last one, and by that point they have less left in the tank, either physically or mentally, the season has taken a toll on them, and by extension are often not even in attendance.

Del Potro wins his after a summer in which Federer breaks historic records, Murray wins his with Nadal absent and Djokovic having no days rest before the final. With Cilic also only 2 of the 3 were even there to begin with, with Thiem only one of them was there, Wawrinka also only one of them was there, etc. Hell, this extends beyond the US Open (only Stan's first two, and Murray's first Wimbledon were accomplished with all three in the draw).
 
Milanez82 said:
What????

Then grass and clay have predictable bounce???
Click to expand...
I meant unpredictable results.

For example the highest win percentages are all on clay or grass:

clay Nadal 91.75
grass Federer 87.38
clay Borg 85.94
grass McEnroe 85.82
grass Borg 85.71
 
Last edited:
Milanez82 said:
What????

Then grass and clay have predictable bounce???
Click to expand...
HC can be unpredictable in that the court speed for quite a few HC events is changed from one year to the next. Sometimes significantly. Slowing of the USO courts, no doubt, were a factor in Rafa winning it 4x. Doubtful he would have done it on faster USO courts.

This, along with weather variations (temp, humidity, barometric pressure, wind), can result in some unpredictability. Roof open or closed? But then weather variations will also affect grass and clay events.
 
Last edited:
Lew II said:
I meant unpredictable results.

For example the highest win percentages are all on clay or grass:

clay Nadal 91.75
grass Federer 87.38
clay Borg 85.94
grass McEnroe 85.82
grass Borg 85.71
Click to expand...

wait, wot?
it's not Novak?
I think you need to review this stat, in order to bring Novak to the top of the list
 
@RaulRamirez @ForehandCross
Druss said:
Save this and repost again after this id*t gets banned and unfortunately this thread will get deleted. Interesting topic.
Click to expand...
Surgical strike should be the appropriate response. Deleting the whole thread makes absolutely no sense. Nothing about the subject matter lends itself to this type of abuse.

The mods couldn't possibly be that lazy, could they? Would they really delete this and several other threads because of the actions of one deranged individual?
 
RaulRamirez said:
Like them, love them, like some or one of them, I still marvel at what tennis fans have been witnessing these last (roughly) 18 seasons.

Even though I followed tennis- and many other men's and women's players - before The Big 3 emerged, I admit to enjoying this era. While on the one hand it's great to see young talent emerge, and I'm ready for that in some ways, I also want to see these guys still do their thing.

Starting with Roger's first slam title -- Wimbledon03, look what The Big 3 have done collectively.
57 of 69 slams. That's crazy when you consider that Roger had no help from his other two rivals for a little while.
(No, that's not a slight to anyone...and this is not a thread to bash anyone...please!)

Broken down by event, this is somewhat curious to me:
15 out of 17 at the Australian Open -- Safin; Wawrinka.
15 out of 17 at Roland Garros -- Gaudio; Wawrinka.
15 out of 17 at Wimbledon - Murray (2)
(only) 12 out of 18 at US Open - Roddick; DelPotro; Murray; Cilic; Wawrinka, Thiem.

Now, 12 out of 18 is still pretty dominant, but compared to the other three slams, it's where they've collectively been the most vulnerable.
Yet at the same time, this is the major where the three have the best balance of titles won: Fed 5, Rafa 4, Novak 3.

Question: Why do you think the US Open has been the most (by a good margin -- 6 times, as opposed to two apiece at the other slams) open to other players winning?
Click to expand...
It's neither's favourite Slams, pretty simple. Since none of them peak at USO year after year, someone else can take advantage.

Federer has done nothing since 2012 (bar 2015), Novak underperformed and is partially the reason why some of these guys have a USO title to their names.

Tehnically, it's 12/17 if you count them since 2004 to make it equal.
 
SystemicAnomaly said:
@RaulRamirez @ForehandCross

Surgical strike should be the appropriate response. Deleting the whole thread makes absolutely no sense. Nothing about the subject matter lends itself to this type of abuse.

The mods couldn't possibly be that lazy, could they? Would they really delete this and several other threads because of the actions of one deranged individual?
Click to expand...
Why isn't he deleted yet???? This us becoming too shabby
 
RaulRamirez said:
Like them, love them, like some or one of them, I still marvel at what tennis fans have been witnessing these last (roughly) 18 seasons.

Even though I followed tennis- and many other men's and women's players - before The Big 3 emerged, I admit to enjoying this era. While on the one hand it's great to see young talent emerge, and I'm ready for that in some ways, I also want to see these guys still do their thing.

Starting with Roger's first slam title -- Wimbledon03, look what The Big 3 have done collectively.
57 of 69 slams. That's crazy when you consider that Roger had no help from his other two rivals for a little while.
(No, that's not a slight to anyone...and this is not a thread to bash anyone...please!)

Broken down by event, this is somewhat curious to me:
15 out of 17 at the Australian Open -- Safin; Wawrinka.
15 out of 17 at Roland Garros -- Gaudio; Wawrinka.
15 out of 17 at Wimbledon - Murray (2)
(only) 12 out of 18 at US Open - Roddick; DelPotro; Murray; Cilic; Wawrinka, Thiem.

Now, 12 out of 18 is still pretty dominant, but compared to the other three slams, it's where they've collectively been the most vulnerable.
Yet at the same time, this is the major where the three have the best balance of titles won: Fed 5, Rafa 4, Novak 3.

Question: Why do you think the US Open has been the most (by a good margin -- 6 times, as opposed to two apiece at the other slams) open to other players winning?
Click to expand...
Maybe, it's because it's late in the year, so they are mentally and physically tired already. Can't say it's true, just a theory.
 
ibbi said:
First of all I think you can pretty much discount Roddick, Gaudio and Safin as at the time of those there was no big 3, so winning a slam was far simpler a task :-D that then makes it all that much more one sided, and it becomes more so if you make it a big 4 rather than big 3 dominance thing.

I think certainly in more recent times it basically has to do with the fact that the US Open is the last one, and by that point they have less left in the tank, either physically or mentally, the season has taken a toll on them, and by extension are often not even in attendance.

Del Potro wins his after a summer in which Federer breaks historic records, Murray wins his with Nadal absent and Djokovic having no days rest before the final. With Cilic also only 2 of the 3 were even there to begin with, with Thiem only one of them was there, Wawrinka also only one of them was there, etc. Hell, this extends beyond the US Open (only Stan's first two, and Murray's first Wimbledon were accomplished with all three in the draw).
Click to expand...
Technically, it was not easier to win a slam even with just Federer around. He just got beaten at 2003 USO and 2004 RG by othets and Safin did the dirty job himself at AO 2005.
 
mike danny said:
Technically, it was not easier to win a slam even with just Federer around. He just got beaten at 2003 USO and 2004 RG by othets and Safin did the dirty job himself at AO 2005.
Click to expand...
Well, doesn't that prove it?? :D Like, do Roddick or Gaudio win those slams if after Federer loses early you have two other non mortals left to deal with in the draw? Does Safin if after doing the miraculous job he has to then immediately do it again?
 
ibbi said:
Well, doesn't that prove it?? :D Like, do Roddick or Gaudio win those slams if after Federer loses early you have two other non mortals left to deal with in the draw? Does Safin if after doing the miraculous job he has to then immediately do it again?
Click to expand...
Well, you didn't always have to beat more than 1. Murray didn't have to beat more than 1 in most of his GS losses to them.

Even Stan didn't exactly win his slams by beating 2 of them at their best with Nadal injured in 2014 AO and 34 year old Fed ineffective in BO5 on clay.
 
blablavla said:
I am not bothered by this kiddo.
Actually as long as I keep this kiddo busy answering to me, the kiddo can't search for more images / video and post crapola all over the forum.
Hopefully the mauds wake up soon
Click to expand...
You may need to slow him down even more. Don't know how many images he's posted but it looks like he's generated well over 100 posts in just the past few hours. Let's hope this guy doesn't have access to a semi-automatic or a sniper rifle.
 
Lew II said:
I meant unpredictable results.

For example the highest win percentages are all on clay or grass:

clay Nadal 91.75
grass Federer 87.38
clay Borg 85.94
grass McEnroe 85.82
grass Borg 85.71
Click to expand...
I'm reluctant to reply on a thread that will likely be torched. Now, I can see why there would be more true contenders in hard courts slams, as that's the dominant surface, but why US Open and not AO?
 
InsideOut900 said:
It's neither's favourite Slams, pretty simple. Since none of them peak at USO year after year, someone else can take advantage.

Federer has done nothing since 2012 (bar 2015), Novak underperformed and is partially the reason why some of these guys have a USO title to their names.

Tehnically, it's 12/17 if you count them since 2004 to make it equal.
Click to expand...
I started purposely with Fed's first slam - Wimby03.
 
mike danny said:
Well, you didn't always have to beat more than 1. Murray didn't have to beat more than 1 in most of his GS losses to them.

Even Stan didn't exactly win his slams by beating 2 of them at their best with Nadal injured in 2014 AO and 34 year old Fed ineffective in BO5 on clay.
Click to expand...
No, you're right, but the chances are still far greater that you'll be likely to have to when there's 3 rather than 1!
 
So, it looks like the main reasons being offered as to why The Big 3 haven't been quite as dominant at US Open are (randomly):
# Time of year - last slam of the season.
## - Rafa's condition, in particular, in four of those years.
### - HC is the least predictable surface

Of those, I kind of lean most to #3, not saying the bounce is less predictable, but because there are more good/great hard court players than there are good/great HC players on grass or on clay.
But why at the US Open, but not so much at the AO? (Time of year?...Not sure I buy that completely.)
 
Djokovic doesn't like the conditions in NYC is a big reason why honestly and big 3 injuries and other randomness is another factor
 
I think because it’s at the end of the year, and is the most unforgiving surface. It also hasn’t been a fast surface in the last 10 years, so the older players suffer wear and tear from longer rallies.
 
RaulRamirez said:
So, it looks like the main reasons being offered as to why The Big 3 haven't been quite as dominant at US Open are (randomly):
# Time of year - last slam of the season.
## - Rafa's condition, in particular, in four of those years.
### - HC is the least predictable surface

Of those, I kind of lean most to #3, not saying the bounce is less predictable, but because there are more good/great hard court players than there are good/great HC players on grass or on clay.
But why at the US Open, but not so much at the AO? (Time of year?...Not sure I buy that completely.)
Click to expand...
Well, as you point out Australia discounts the ‘because it’s on hard court’ argument. So did Indian Wells which from 2004 till 2018 by which point they had sort of stopped dominating best of 3 had 1 non big 3 winner. Miami coming back to back with Indian Wells has probably through no surprise had 5 of them in the same span (Canada and Cincy also have 5/6 in that time frame) what else could it be but time of year? :D
 
The Guru said:
Djokovic doesn't like the conditions in NYC
Click to expand...
Neither does anyone else. Nobody thought 37 year old Fed liked the humidity at the USO when he had his sweating meltdown against Millman in 2018.

I would also add to the OP's original question: Fed won the USO five times in a row, which is unprecedented dominance. Lendl made 8 USO finals in a row, but only won 3 of them. Of course the GOAT of the US Open is Connors, but he never managed to win five straight either. Nadal has out-performed his HC credentials at the USO while Novak has curiously under-performed there. It's the end of the year, they're running on fumes basically.
 
The numbers should really be 13 out of 17, which puts it more in line with the others. Thiem's win last year shouldn't be part of the equation.
 
Beacon Hill said:
The numbers should really be 13 out of 17, which puts it more in line with the others. Thiem's win last year shouldn't be part of the equation.
Click to expand...
How the heck does 12 out of 18 become 13 of 17?! If you want to toss out Thiem's win, there have still been 5 unique slam winners at the USO outside of The Big 3. Two at AO, two at RG, and just one (Murray, twice) at Wimby.
 
[Australia is] kind of like the 'Happy Slam,' so to speak, because people are happy to play again, happy to see each other....Maybe at the U.S. Open, you're like, 'OK I hope it's over soon," Federer said, smiling. "That's just the way it is."
 
MeatTornado said:
[Australia is] kind of like the 'Happy Slam,' so to speak, because people are happy to play again, happy to see each other....Maybe at the U.S. Open, you're like, 'OK I hope it's over soon," Federer said, smiling. "That's just the way it is."
Click to expand...

actually this is what he said about the USO in August of 2009:

"It's my tournament," the tennis record holder often says about the US Open. He says he likes it even more than Wimbledon, and he was a winner five times in a row. In addition, the triumph in Cincinnati and the clear victories over Murray and Djokovic showed that even as a new father, Federer is in shape. He is currently riding a wave of parental love, and with the birth of his daughters, his self-confidence has increased. "I am not stressed. On the contrary, I'm fine because I've had the most beautiful summer of my life. And I want to extend it. "

source: https://www.sport.cz/tenis/clanek/155334-us-open-vyjasni-tenisove-otazniky-roku.html

first paragraph
 
StANDAA said:
actually this is what he said about the USO in August of 2009:

"It's my tournament," the tennis record holder often says about the US Open. He says he likes it even more than Wimbledon, and he was a winner five times in a row. In addition, the triumph in Cincinnati and the clear victories over Murray and Djokovic showed that even as a new father, Federer is in shape. He is currently riding a wave of parental love, and with the birth of his daughters, his self-confidence has increased. "I am not stressed. On the contrary, I'm fine because I've had the most beautiful summer of my life. And I want to extend it. "

source: https://www.sport.cz/tenis/clanek/155334-us-open-vyjasni-tenisove-otazniky-roku.html

first paragraph
Click to expand...
Fraud clearly can't be trusted
 
Well there wasn't really a big 3 until 2007/08 when Novak emerged and there wasn't Fedal until Rafa emerged in spring '05 so I'm not sure the slams won by Roddick, Gaudio & Safin have much relevance in this scenario.

To answer OP's point, they're a few reasons:

- Djokovic has underperformed a bit as he played a role the years Murray, Cilic, Wawrinka and Thiem won titles in NYC
- Nadal did not play in years Murray, Cilic & Thiem won
- Federer has underperformed here since '08 and he directly lost to eventual champs Delpo (in '09) and Cilic (in '14); he also didn't play in years Wawrinka & Thiem won
- Last slam of the season after greulling spring/summer months across 3 surfaces in several countries
- Big 3 invest a lot of energy into their pet slam especially as they've gotten older (Djoker at AO, Rafa at RG & Fed at WI)
- NYC is the so-called land of opportunity :)
- Historically, this has been the hardest slam to dominant: Australian Open has Fedovic winning 6+ titles; Rafa winning 13 in Paris & Borg winning 6; Wimbledon has Fed, Pete and Borg all winning 5+ titles; USO has a bunch of multi-time winners but no one in OE has more than 5 - Fed/Pete/Connors have 5, Rafa/Mac have 4, Lendl/Djoker have 3.
 
Last edited:
clout said:
Well there wasn't really a big 3 until 2007/08 when Novak emerged and there wasn't Fedal until Rafa emerged in spring '05 so I'm not sure the slams won by Roddick, Gaudio & Safin have much relevance in this scenario.

To answer OP's point, they're a few reasons:

- Djokovic has underperformed a bit as he played a role the years Murray, Cilic, Wawrinka and Thiem won titles in NYC
- Nadal did not play in years Murray, Cilic & Thiem won
- Federer has underperformed here since '08 and he directly lost to eventual champs Delpo (in '09) and Cilic (in '14)
- Last slam of the season after greulling spring/summer months across 3 surfaces in several countries
- Big 3 invest a lot of energy into their pet slam especially as they've gotten older (Djoker at AO, Rafa at RG & Fed at WI)
- NYC is the so-called land of opportunity :)
- Historically, this has been the hardest slam to dominant; Australian Open has Fedovic winning 6+ titles; Rafa winning 13 in Paris & Borg winning 6; Wimbledon has Fed, Pete and Borg all winning 5+ titles; USO has a bunch of multi-time winners but no one in OE has more than 5 - Fed/Pete/Connors have 5, Rafa/Mac have 4, Lendl/Djoker have 3.
Click to expand...
How Djokovic underperformed when he nearly decapitated the linesjudge last year?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mahesh69a
Big 3 dominance and US open diversity
Replies
4
Views
399
MichaelNadal
MichaelNadal
Plamen1234
Interesting Big 3 stat regarding US Open
Replies
26
Views
2K
moonballs
moonballs
M
Dominance at French Open - Federer and Nadal
Replies
31
Views
3K
Fiji
Fiji
M
Dominance of Big 3
Replies
5
Views
1K
Moose Malloy
M
M
Big 3 and Dominance at their Best Grand Slam
Replies
23
Views
3K
Mustard
Mustard
Back
Top