tacou
G.O.A.T.
Here's something a little different.
A lot of people debate whether there is/was a Big 4. They point to Murray's (or Stan's) comparatively low major total to separate them from Roger, Rafa, and Novak.
So for this thread, let's say we have the Fedalovic Big Three as they stand today.
Can you create another legendary player to compete alongside these 3, while damaging their legacies as little as possible?
With the career outlined below, I got a player with 9-10 majors between 2004 and present day.
I feel like such a player would have made the past 10 seasons/current tour appear much deeper, but maybe others think it'd somehow make for a weaker tour? Thoughts?
---
OK. Let's say Player A wins the 2004 French Open shortly after their 17th birthday. About 17.25 when they defeat Coria/Gaudio.
2004 French Open (17)
2005 Australian Open (17) Safin
2009 US Open (22) JMDP
2014 Australian Open (26) Stan
2014 US Open (27) Cilic
With these major titles all going to the same player, you've got a 5-time grand slam champion who still has another 2-4 solid years on tour. In this situation, you've got a pretty legit Big Four, but you also still have Murray's career untouched, leaving a pretty impressive Top 5 for the era. However, if you decide to say screw Muzza, Player A adds:
2012 US Open (25)
2013 Wimbledon (26)
That's seven majors for Player A, with the career slam and designation as youngest major winner ever. Throw in the 2005 and 2009 WTF trophies, some masters and various other tournaments, and perhaps the 2004 Olympic gold, and you've got a bona fide tier-2 hall of famer with Roger, Rafa, and Novak's careers all exactly the same. Now, here's where it gets a little fun. Imagine if this player also won:
2008 Australian Open (20)
2009 French Open (21)
Fed misses out on career slam and is knocked down to 17, while Novak drops to 10 and loses one of his AOs. However, Novak has plenty of AOs still and is still top dog in 2016 and beyond. Fed, meanwhile, wouldn't be criticized too harshly for not winning the French, as you'd have a 12 year period where one tournament is won by only two individuals.
Meanwhile, Player A now has 9 majors, perhaps 10 if you take one from Nadal, maybe even Player A defeats Nadal in a French final (blasphemy?!). To fill out the career, this player could also be given the "surprise finalist" spots like the 2006/2007 Australian Open finals, 2005 French Open final (instead of Puerta) and a couple others.
Anyways, my point is it's crazy that as much as 2-3 or 4 guys have dominated the last decade of tennis, there was room for another legendary career. Instead, we got a handful of random/one-time/fluke major/masters winners.
A lot of people debate whether there is/was a Big 4. They point to Murray's (or Stan's) comparatively low major total to separate them from Roger, Rafa, and Novak.
So for this thread, let's say we have the Fedalovic Big Three as they stand today.
Can you create another legendary player to compete alongside these 3, while damaging their legacies as little as possible?
With the career outlined below, I got a player with 9-10 majors between 2004 and present day.
I feel like such a player would have made the past 10 seasons/current tour appear much deeper, but maybe others think it'd somehow make for a weaker tour? Thoughts?
---
OK. Let's say Player A wins the 2004 French Open shortly after their 17th birthday. About 17.25 when they defeat Coria/Gaudio.
2004 French Open (17)
2005 Australian Open (17) Safin
2009 US Open (22) JMDP
2014 Australian Open (26) Stan
2014 US Open (27) Cilic
With these major titles all going to the same player, you've got a 5-time grand slam champion who still has another 2-4 solid years on tour. In this situation, you've got a pretty legit Big Four, but you also still have Murray's career untouched, leaving a pretty impressive Top 5 for the era. However, if you decide to say screw Muzza, Player A adds:
2012 US Open (25)
2013 Wimbledon (26)
That's seven majors for Player A, with the career slam and designation as youngest major winner ever. Throw in the 2005 and 2009 WTF trophies, some masters and various other tournaments, and perhaps the 2004 Olympic gold, and you've got a bona fide tier-2 hall of famer with Roger, Rafa, and Novak's careers all exactly the same. Now, here's where it gets a little fun. Imagine if this player also won:
2008 Australian Open (20)
2009 French Open (21)
Fed misses out on career slam and is knocked down to 17, while Novak drops to 10 and loses one of his AOs. However, Novak has plenty of AOs still and is still top dog in 2016 and beyond. Fed, meanwhile, wouldn't be criticized too harshly for not winning the French, as you'd have a 12 year period where one tournament is won by only two individuals.
Meanwhile, Player A now has 9 majors, perhaps 10 if you take one from Nadal, maybe even Player A defeats Nadal in a French final (blasphemy?!). To fill out the career, this player could also be given the "surprise finalist" spots like the 2006/2007 Australian Open finals, 2005 French Open final (instead of Puerta) and a couple others.
Anyways, my point is it's crazy that as much as 2-3 or 4 guys have dominated the last decade of tennis, there was room for another legendary career. Instead, we got a handful of random/one-time/fluke major/masters winners.
