Cristiano Ronaldo dilemma in tennis!

tex123

Professional
Footie fans know about this. Juventus critics allege that Cristiano is stifling the rest of yhe team but his backers say there's no one like him. His goal scoring record proves that but the club did not manage to win what it wanted.

Cricket fans may remember Pietersen. A formidable batsman but with the team relying on him too much. His booting was controversial but England became a formidable team.

Bring that analogy to tennis. Big 3 have stifled the rest. They have perfected their game so much. The newcomers have no chance against them in Slams. Tennis is suffering and we are all waiting for new players. It is unfair to expect a 19 year old to win against experienced beasts like Nadal or Djoko or Fed. Back in the days, even multiple slam winners were fallible. Young Becker or Nadal won Slams in their teens and that was so exciting to see. Nowadays we look forward to a tournament without big 3. Any tournament with big 3 turns into a hot debate about h2h or trolling as if others don't even exist.
Ask a young tennis player about his idol and it will be one of big 3. He will have too much respect for his idol on the court. It's great to see how far Med and Thiem have come but they are still quite far behind and scarred forever by the big 3!
 
Last edited:

daphne

Hall of Fame
Who says I am looking forward to tennis tournaments without the Big 3? Miami was crap. Yeah, I watched it but it was crap. Tennis isn't suffering at all. How come tennis was not suffering during 2004-2007? Yet now, when Fedr's records are being obliterated tennis is suffering? Nah, not yet :)
 
Last edited:

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Who says I am looking forward to tennis tournaments without the Big 3? Miami was crap. Yeah, I watched it but it was crap. Tennis isn't suffering at all. How come tennis was not suffering during 2004-2007? Yet now, when Fedr's records re being obliterated tennis is suffering? Nah, not yet :)
Bc there were interesting players back then and tennis as a whole was just "bigger" than it is now tbh
 

tex123

Professional
So .. you would be in Ronaldo backer camp @daphne.
It will be when they retire and that is not far off. When they do there will be a question mark on every new player about how they are inferior to big 3 for years to come.
 

tex123

Professional
The point being the audience as well as the new players are in the grip of big 3.
If you are a Nadal fan, there's satisfaction in Thiem or Tsitsi or Med take out Fed/Djoko.

If you are a Djoko fan, there's satisfaction in Thiem or Tsitsi or Med take out Nad/Fed.

If you are a Fed fan, there's satisfaction in Thiem or Tsitsi or Med take out Nad/Djoko.

Most of the audience are big 3 fans with other players playing the supporting role. When a new player steps on the court with one of big 3 on the other side, he's already lost half of the battle. Even if he manages to win, he's overwhelmed and drained only to succumb in the next match. Example : Tsitsi at Aus open. Did you see Med perform in the finals of Aus open against Djoko?

That's the definition of "stifling" in tennis in my book.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal was outstanding as a teenager. He was beating slam winners and the top players more than 5 years older than him as a teenager. Djokovic and Murray were also above average as teenagers and quickly became part of the Big 4 when Federer's peers were still very much on tour. The LostGen failed to unsit them and the NewGen is still trying. So I think the Big 4 are definitely just great players that's why they have been able to dominate players who came before them and after them.
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
Nadal was outstanding as a teenager. He was beating slam winners and the top players more than 5 years older than him as a teenager. Djokovic and Murray were also above average as teenagers and quickly became part of the Big 4 when Federer's peers were still very much on tour. The LostGen failed to unsit them and the NewGen is still trying. So I think the Big 4 are definitely just great players that's why they have been able to dominate players who came before them and after them.
they are great players, no doubt about it
but their greatness is as well combined with the lower level of upcoming generations, that's was gives it a bitter after taste
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
I tend to think (and sometimes, this is unpopular here) that there is a lot of talent on tour - which also highlights just how special The Big 3 are.

Yes, each of The Big 3 has been on top for a remarkable amount of time, but even during these pandemic times, we've seen good matches not involving any of the three.
I only saw Hurcasz in the final...and I have no clue what he'll do from here...but that was an interesting final to me, and he played great.
Sinner had a lot of great moments in the tourney, and Karatsev has produced some very good moments so far, along with Rublev (don't like his style, but) and others to complement Med, Zverev and Thiem. Shapo has his moments as well -- exciting, if a bit maddening.
We may not get that generational talent or that galvanizing rivalry, but it's still a great sport and a very good tour (in my opinion).
Many of us have seen the tour go into little valleys, but Fed came along shortly after Pete's reign, and "Fedal" supplanted Pete-Andre when it came to rivalries. Within a "minute", Novak came into the picture and became the dominant player of the last 10-11 years - which added to the greatness of this era (unless you prefer more parity). But these guys don't happen every year, or 10 years.

Hang in there. The NBA recovered after Bird-Magic and we had the Michael Jordan era. Then came Kobe, and LeBron. Obviously, there were many other great players and great teams along the way, as well. Enjoy what's out there.
 

Raiden

Hall of Fame
There is no dilemma.

Sports is supposed to be meritocratic. It shouldn't be like businesses or the entertainment world where a new generation of leaders have to be given opportunities by providing them top jobs occupied by oldies. In sports it's the job of young players themselves to actively push the old generation into retirement. The oldies are not supposed to be artificially removed by some order while they are still capable of being on top.

As for Juventus that's team sport — so it's perfectly reasonable for them to consider various strategies and tactics — including putting Ronaldo out to pasture

 
Last edited:

Devtennis01

G.O.A.T.
I concur with the OP.
Sadly, I am coming to the conclusion that it matters not. The ATP is cashing in now and most of the execs will be long retired when the ATP has a sport with no stars and losing ratings. The game will recover in a few years if the ATP marketing peeps can conjure up some starpower and interest in the players. They have a great track record of that; I mean, it's not as if the Big 3 were easy money or anything and that's why they have led us down this road.....
And while I get the point about meritocracy, I think the ATP and ITF did their best to support big 3 as long as possible by keeping the big bucks at the top and slowing down those surfaces.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Nadal was outstanding as a teenager. He was beating slam winners and the top players more than 5 years older than him as a teenager. Djokovic and Murray were also above average as teenagers and quickly became part of the Big 4 when Federer's peers were still very much on tour. The LostGen failed to unsit them and the NewGen is still trying. So I think the Big 4 are definitely just great players that's why they have been able to dominate players who came before them and after them.
Fed's peers were still on tour but got unlucky with injuries that cut their primes short.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Footie fans know about this. Juventus critics allege that Cristiano is stifling the rest of yhe team but his backers say there's no one like him. His goal scoring record proves that but the club did not manage to win what it wanted.

Cricket fans may remember Pietersen. A formidable batsman but with the team relying on him too much. His booting was controversial but England became a formidable team.

Bring that analogy to tennis. Big 3 have stifled the rest. They have perfected their game so much. The newcomers have no chance against them in Slams. Tennis is suffering and we are all waiting for new players. It is unfair to expect a 19 year old to win against experienced beasts like Nadal or Djoko or Fed. Back in the days, even multiple slam winners were fallible. Young Becker or Nadal won Slams in their teens and that was so exciting to see. Nowadays we look forward to a tournament without big 3. Any tournament with big 3 turns into a hot debate about h2h or trolling as if others don't even exist.
Ask a young tennis player about his idol and it will be one of big 3. He will have too much respect for his idol on the court. It's great to see how far Med and Thiem have come but they are still quite far behind and scarred forever by the big 3!
The problem is not the 19 year olds. No one is expecting them to beat the Big 3. The problem is that even the early to mid 20's guys are useless.
 

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
Even Nadal with a back injury won 14 sets in a row at the AO - his worst slam event - and almost beat Tistsipas in straight sets!
In fact Nadal didn't even lose a point on serve in the 3rd Set until 5-6 40-0.
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
When Sampras and Agassi reigned, people were saying the exactly same thing, 'There will be nobody with their kind of talent and charisma, to replace them! Bhah, bhah..."

How right they were!
 

Jonesy

Hall of Fame
History repeats itself, all this whine is useless.

The field of tennis has never been deeper and couch potatos have no idea how hard it is to even penetrate the layers over layers of thousands of people trying to have a single chance.

All these complaints are offensive to all the effort the low ranked players make to reach up a little higher day by day.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
History repeats itself, all this whine is useless.

The field of tennis has never been deeper and couch potatos have no idea how hard it is to even penetrate the layers over layers of thousands of people trying to have a single chance.

All these complaints are offensive to all the effort the low ranked players make to up to reach a little higher day by day.
Please, people denigrate Federer's competition all the time. Now, suddenly, the field is deeper than ever... :rolleyes:
 

BH40love

Rookie
Even Nadal with a back injury won 14 sets in a row at the AO - his worst slam event - and almost beat Tistsipas in straight sets!
In fact Nadal didn't even lose a point on serve in the 3rd Set until 5-6 40-0.
Then he proceeded to lose that set and the next two sets after :-D
 

BH40love

Rookie
How about the big 3 of Federer Nadal and Djokovic have all absolutely rewritten all the record books in tennis and all 3 are arguably the best athletes of any sport.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
How about the big 3 of Federer Nadal and Djokovic have all absolutely rewritten all the record books in tennis and all 3 are arguably the best athletes of any sport.
Well, that is also happening because the generations after them aren't remotely good. So, it's both: the Big 3 are tremendous athletes and the generations after them are terrible.
 

daphne

Hall of Fame
History repeats itself, all this whine is useless.

The field of tennis has never been deeper and couch potatos have no idea how hard it is to even penetrate the layers over layers of thousands of people trying to have a single chance.

All these complaints are offensive to all the effort the low ranked players make to reach up a little higher day by day.
Finally someone with a brain!!
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
The problem is not the 19 year olds. No one is expecting them to beat the Big 3. The problem is that even the early to mid 20's guys are useless.
not even that.
problem is that folks in their prime, 26 - 32 are losing, and not only to Big 3, but as well to the younger upcomers
so everyone has an excuse
 

Shaj

Rookie
Analogy between team game and Individual game is wrong. You cannot compare it but i get the idea.

Now Football is a team game so no matter how brilliant one man is, team is always gonna get exposed unless the individual is Maradona..Now the brilliance of ronaldo also coincides with the fact that Italian Football is crap these days, there is no one player in the team who is gonna stand up and say, Okay we have Ronaldo, but so what i am gonna be equal to him if not better than him.

Secondly, the coaches who coached Ronaldo at Juventus were mediocre as well, no Allegri and No Zidane, they got Sarri and Pirlo.

Now in Tennis, The Big 3 have raised the bar so high, but still nobody is standing upto them and saying, Mate i am equal to you if not better. Just dont complain work hard, eat good(all due to Novaks dieting habbits), he has raised that aspect as well, if gamewise his level wasnt high enough.
 

BH40love

Rookie
Well, that is also happening because the generations after them aren't remotely good. So, it's both: the Big 3 are tremendous athletes and the generations after them are terrible.
Generations after are good athletes but most are terrible tennis players. it’s unfortunate but even as a 30 yo the generations that have followed after are all so mentally weak and so blah with their attitude it’s rather sad
 

Forehanderer

Professional
When Sampras and Agassi reigned, people were saying the exactly same thing, 'There will be nobody with their kind of talent and charisma, to replace them! Bhah, bhah..."

How right they were!
But Sampras was beaten by Hewitt in a slam final before retiring and Agassi by Federer in a slam final. Which of the next gen or lost gen has the capability to do that to the big 3 and win a slam. Thiem barely vultured when the 3 were absent/dq beating the other vulture Zverev
 

Jonas78

Legend
Lol. So now football is in a weak era too because the great players past 30 are still damn good.
I dont know if thats a good analogy. The problem isnt that 30+ players are good, its the inconsistency and provable weak statistics among every player born after Djokovic. Take away Big3 and you have 20 players that could win Miami, thats not a sign of a strong field.
 

tex123

Professional
The analogy between team sport and individual sport is apt. In a team sport, they are playing around the best player Ronaldo serving his needs.

In an individual sport, players are thinking about big 3. One is a clay beast. One is a hard court beast. One is a grass court beast ... they have all perfected their skills. If Nadal wanted he could play until 40 and win or still reach finals or semis of RG. In the process he would kill aspirations and potential of upcoming players. Same for Djokovic. He could keep reaching semis or finals or win hard courts for a long time stifling potential new champions.
Winning is a special thing. Once you win you get confidence and develop fear factor in your opponents. Thiem won USO but deep down he knows big 3 were missing. That aura is there and everyone dreads that.
These new players could've honed a different style. Instead, the whole world and coaches are thinking about big 3 and developing game around them. Who would even attempt serve and volley against the likes of Djoko and Nadal?
 

tex123

Professional
There's a reason why players who couldve gone on to dominate for years have retired to give younger players a chance. It happens in every sport.
58 Slams between the 3 of them with big egos. Is that good for tennis? I don't think so. Don't get me wrong. I'm a huge Nadal fan but I know the dangers of big 3 lurking around for far too long.

If Tiger did not have his injuries, we would be saying the same about golf. Same for motor sports with Hamilton etc.
 

Fabresque

Hall of Fame
If anything the big 3 should be helping them out by keeping the standard high so guys like Zverev and Tsitsipas can get to those standards.

Old guys are basically finished anyways. Cilic and Tsonga are struggling to stay relevant, Delpo and Murray crippled by injuries. Stan still around the Top 20 but looks a shadow of his former self. Federer looks finished as well, judging by his fitness levels and age. Only Djokovic and Nadal are the hold-outs, but Nadal just dropped to no. 3 for the first time in a while and Djokovic doesn’t look as good as he used to either.
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
There's a reason why players who couldve gone on to dominate for years have retired to give younger players a chance. It happens in every sport.
and you know what is that reason?
the younger players come and defeat the older players
happened to Federer, happened to Sampras and Agassi, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Borg and so on

the lion doesn't walk away from the pride to the sunset undefeated.
if the young lion wants to take over the pride, he shall defeat the old lion.
it's the same law everywhere: sport, business, every other species out there in the wild.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Roddick, Davydenko, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, Gonzalez, Safin, Ferrer, Ferrero, etc were all still playing.
No one considers Ljubicic, Ferrer, Davydenko and Gonzalez the best players of Fed's era anyway.

Safin, Hewitt and Ferrero succumbed to injuries and had their primes cut short because of it. It doesn't matter if they were still playing. Murray, Delpo and Stan are still playing and they're not contenders anymore.
 
Last edited:

tex123

Professional
and you know what is that reason?
the younger players come and defeat the older players
happened to Federer, happened to Sampras and Agassi, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Borg and so on

the lion doesn't walk away from the pride to the sunset undefeated.
if the young lion wants to take over the pride, he shall defeat the old lion.
it's the same law everywhere: sport, business, every other species out there in the wild.
Not always. Some get bored. Some want to spend time with family. Some do it for future generations. Some truly lose to younger players.
Kasparov could've decided to play on. I don't know enough about basketball but Michael Jordan could've done the same. Sampras did not just start losing - he also lost the drive. He said to his coach he did not want to travel and do it anymore. He had nothing more to achieve. By all standards at the time, he was the goat.

I would like to see big 3 retire and take on coaching younger generation. The dangers of big 3 lurking around and killing potential new champs does not help tennis.
 

JackSockIsTheBest

Professional
The point being the audience as well as the new players are in the grip of big 3.
If you are a Nadal fan, there's satisfaction in Thiem or Tsitsi or Med take out Fed/Djoko.

If you are a Djoko fan, there's satisfaction in Thiem or Tsitsi or Med take out Nad/Fed.

If you are a Fed fan, there's satisfaction in Thiem or Tsitsi or Med take out Nad/Djoko.

Most of the audience are big 3 fans with other players playing the supporting role. When a new player steps on the court with one of big 3 on the other side, he's already lost half of the battle. Even if he manages to win, he's overwhelmed and drained only to succumb in the next match. Example : Tsitsi at Aus open. Did you see Med perform in the finals of Aus open against Djoko?

That's the definition of "stifling" in tennis in my book.
So basically Timmy is the guy that each group likes, got it (y)
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
Not always. Some get bored. Some want to spend time with family. Some do it for future generations. Some truly lose to younger players.
Kasparov could've decided to play on. I don't know enough about basketball but Michael Jordan could've done the same. Sampras did not just start losing - he also lost the drive. He said to his coach he did not want to travel and do it anymore. He had nothing more to achieve. By all standards at the time, he was the goat.

I would like to see big 3 retire and take on coaching younger generation. The dangers of big 3 lurking around and killing potential new champs does not help tennis.
I don't think that Sampras lost the drive when he lost to:
Safin at AO in 2002
Hewitt at USO 2001
Fed at Wim 2001
Safin at USO 2000

the youngsters were defeating him regularly.
so, he could have tried to stay, but there is no way he would remain #1

Same happened to Agassi.
Same happened to everyone else.

now you need to ask yourself which youngster is capable of beating Fed regularly on big stages, except for Djokovic and Nadal.
and then you need to ask yourself which youngster is capable of beating Djokovic and Nadal regularly on big stages.
here lies the answer to the question why they still play.

and don't tell me about athletes volunteering for retirement.
Djokovic and Nadal didn't wait for anyone to retire.
Safin and Hewitt didn't wait for anyone to retire.
Guga didn't wait for anyone to retire.
Sampras and Agassi didn't wait for anyone to retire.
Becker didn't wait for anyone to retire.
Edberg didn't wait for anyone to retire.
and the list goes on and on and on
 

tex123

Professional
I don't think that Sampras lost the drive when he lost to:
Safin at AO in 2002
Hewitt at USO 2001
Fed at Wim 2001
Safin at USO 2000

the youngsters were defeating him regularly.
so, he could have tried to stay, but there is no way he would remain #1

Same happened to Agassi.
Same happened to everyone else.

now you need to ask yourself which youngster is capable of beating Fed regularly on big stages, except for Djokovic and Nadal.
and then you need to ask yourself which youngster is capable of beating Djokovic and Nadal regularly on big stages.
here lies the answer to the question why they still play.

and don't tell me about athletes volunteering for retirement.
Djokovic and Nadal didn't wait for anyone to retire.
Safin and Hewitt didn't wait for anyone to retire.
Guga didn't wait for anyone to retire.
Sampras and Agassi didn't wait for anyone to retire.
Becker didn't wait for anyone to retire.
Edberg didn't wait for anyone to retire.
and the list goes on and on and on
Ah no. Here's the thing you're missing. Sampras was definitely losing his motivation. He said it himself. Let's leave that aside for a moment. He was that good that if he had decided to stay, he would've stifled so many young players who managed to the top because there was no Sampras. That could Sampras at no 2 or no 3 or 4.

Look at the big 3. There's no way Nadal or Fed or Djoko would've managed to win so much on their own. It's like they are a team. If a player capable of beating Djoko runs into Nadal where his style does not match up, he loses and there goes his dreams and aspirations. If he does manage to beat one, the other one is waiting with the poor guy emotionally and physically drained.

Nadal slipped to no 6 or 7 or 8 in his worst years. He came back. Samps did not - he could've but he did not. Djoko also went downhill. So did Fed. They all came back after losing to younger players. There's nothing to say that players of 90s could not have done the same. It wasn't the norm. These 3 decided to continue and it is all about ego and records. 58 slams between the 3 with their games perfected on these type of courts and racket technology. That can't be good for tennis.
Mind you Djoko and Nadal can play until 40 and still reach semis or finals of Aus and French. In the process, they would kill so many juniors and ruin their confidence.
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
Ah no. Here's the thing you're missing. Sampras was definitely losing his motivation. He said it himself. Let's leave that aside for a moment. He was that good that if he had decided to stay, he would've stifled so many young players who managed to the top because there was no Sampras. That could Sampras at no 2 or no 3 or 4.

Look at the big 3. There's no way Nadal or Fed or Djoko would've managed to win so much on their own. It's like they are a team. If a player capable of beating Djoko runs into Nadal where his style does not match up, he loses and there goes his dreams and aspirations. If he does manage to beat one, the other one is waiting with the poor guy emotionally and physically drained.

Nadal slipped to no 6 or 7 or 8 in his worst years. He came back. Samps did not - he could've but he did not. Djoko also went downhill. So did Fed. They all came back after losing to younger players. There's nothing to say that players of 90s could not have done the same. It wasn't the norm. These 3 decided to continue and it is all about ego and records. 58 slams between the 3 with their games perfected on these type of courts and racket technology. That can't be good for tennis.
Mind you Djoko and Nadal can play until 40 and still reach semis or finals of Aus and French. In the process, they would kill so many juniors and ruin their confidence.
Sampras and Agassi were regularly defeated on the biggest stages by younger opponents. By the same younger opponents.
Can you please share the entire list of younger opponents that regularly defeat one of the Big 3 and then lose in the next round to another Big 3?

cause, Zverev, Tsitsipas, FAA, and other youngsters so far have a bigger history of losing in R1-R2 from someone else than Big 3, rather than hitting Big 3 as a roadblock
can you feel the difference?
 
Top