Did Federer and Nadal Ruin Tennis?

[MadariKatu]

Just imagine, without Nadal and Federer destroying tennis, David Ferrer could have been the GOAT of the last decade.

Just imagine.

Ferrer hiself stated that they didn't stop him from achieving more, they made him a much better player and has his chances only because of that

 

[ChrisRF]

Thats the myth, Pet Slam thing cannot hide anything.

Federer is the greatest fast courts player ever, or at least in the last 20 years.
Novak is best fast court player of his generation and one of the best ever on the medium courts too, since he is younger than Federer it enables him to win over Roger in 2010s as well.
Rafa is the undisputed GOAT of clay which means nobody can beat him across eras.

Yes, but why is this the case? Because clay is still different than other surfaces of course. Otherwise his results on clay and off clay couldn’t be that divergent. If all of those players have just one title at one venue but 8, 9 and 13 on others, then this totally disproves homogenization. Otherwise the expected result would be an equal number on each venue for each Big 3 player. Of course luck or bad luck would show some differences, but never such big ones.

Also what do you mean with Federer being the best fast court player ever, while Djokovic being the best of his generation? They actually are the same generation in times where careers are 20 years long of which they spend 2/3 to 3/4 of the time together. The matches between the Big 3 essentially are tennis since 2005/06, so of course they will always be seen as the same Generation.

 

[mike danny]

Yes, but why is this the case? Because clay is still different than other surfaces of course. Otherwise his results on clay and off clay couldn’t be that divergent. If all of those players have just one title at one venue but 8, 9 and 13 on others, then this totally disproves homogenization. Otherwise the expected result would be an equal number on each venue for each Big 3 player. Of course luck or bad luck would show some differences, but never such big ones.

Also what do you mean with Federer being the best fast court player ever, while Djokovic being the best of his generation? They actually are the same generation in times where careers are 20 years long of which they spend 2/3 to 3/4 of the time together. The matches between the Big 3 essentially are tennis since 2005/06, so of course they will always be seen as the same Generation.

But they're not same generation and never will be. Same way Djokovic and Thiem are not same generation.

Djokovic started his peak when Fed was closing in on 30. That's all you need to know.

 

[Sunny014]

Yes, but why is this the case? Because clay is still different than other surfaces of course. Otherwise his results on clay and off clay couldn’t be that divergent. If all of those players have just one title at one venue but 8, 9 and 13 on others, then this totally disproves homogenization. Otherwise the expected result would be an equal number on each venue for each Big 3 player. Of course luck or bad luck would show some differences, but never such big ones.

Also what do you mean with Federer being the best fast court player ever, while Djokovic being the best of his generation? They actually are the same generation in times where careers are 20 years long of which they spend 2/3 to 3/4 of the time together. The matches between the Big 3 essentially are tennis since 2005/06, so of course they will always be seen as the same Generation.

Same generation?
Their peaks never clashed.

Follow this post please to see the different generations

WEAK ERA Conundrum SOLVED and explained

Every set of 5-6 years is a generation and great players emerge/have to emerge or else the previous generation will keep on winning, this is a known fact. So lets check evey set of 5 years and see who arrived and who didn't. Starting from the late 80s : Generation 1 : Becker's generation...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

 

[ChrisRF]

Djokovic started his peak when Fed was closing in on 30. That's all you need to know.

I know what you mean, but in our times things are different. For Federer 30 was almost half-way through his professional career only. Maybe in the end it is exactly half-way, who knows.

And of course the Big 3 will always have that connection to each other. They created a whole chapter of tennis history because of their direct encounters which reached from 2005/06 until 2021 and counting. 16 years and counting, while Federer was alone at the top for a very short time before. Of course that’s the same generation then.

All had their slumps somewhere in between, but nobody can say for example Djokovic had pushed out an "old" Federer in 2011 when Federer came back to dominate the way he did in 2017! Who knows, maybe Federer will really have a timespan of 20 years between Slam titles. So what a difference make 5-6 years of age then in the long term, if all their Slam winning careers overlaps by 15 years? That’s what I meant.

It’s always up and down with them though, and the only consistent and longer peak someone had was indeed Federer in 2004-07. Nadal’s RG peak on the other hand is actually is the past 4 years results wise, and on hardcourt in 2019. It’s not always age related. It's actually a mysterium to me what happened to Federer after 2007 when he wasn't "old" by any means of course. Mono cannot explain everything.

 

[tonylg]

No, there is no homogenisation of speed. Only bounce which is all very high.

Court speeds still vary between slow and very slow. Long live variety.

 

[mike danny]

I know what you mean, but in our times things are different. For Federer 30 was almost half-way through his professional career only. Maybe in the end it is exactly half-way, who knows.

And of course the Big 3 will always have that connection to each other. They created a whole chapter of tennis history because of their direct encounters which reached from 2005/06 until 2021 and counting. 16 years and counting, while Federer was alone at the top for a very short time before. Of course that’s the same generation then.

All had their slumps somewhere in between, but nobody can say for example Djokovic had pushed out an "old" Federer in 2011 when Federer came back to dominate the way he did in 2017! Who knows, maybe Federer will really have a timespan of 20 years between Slam titles. So what a difference make 5-6 years of age then in the long term, if all their Slam winning careers overlaps by 15 years? That’s what I meant.

It’s always up and down with them though, and the only consistent and longer peak someone had was indeed Federer in 2004-07. Nadal’s RG peak on the other hand is actually is the past 4 years results wise, and on hardcourt in 2019. It’s not always age related. It's actually a mysterium to me what happened to Federer after 2007 when he wasn't "old" by any means of course. Mono cannot explain everything.

Connors slso played with Mac and Lendl a lot but they're still not the same generation.

 

[PETEhammer]

No, the ATP ruined tennis by homogenizing tennis leading to a massive disruption and vacuum that first Federer, then Nadal took advantage of. At least Nadal had to beat Federer to win his majors though. Fed had almost a dozen skittle Slams before he started having some decent competition. No, Roddick, Baghdatis are not decent competiton.

 

[SonnyT]

Modern medicine, nutrition science and physiotherapy make all this possible! Two decades ago, neither Federer, Nadal nor Djokovic would be winning multiple majors while in their mid 30's!

In the past NFL season, the MVP's of the regular season and playoffs are Aaron Rodgers (37 years old) and Tom Brady (43).

LeBron won the NBA championship last year and, at 36, expects more in the future. As great as Michael Jordan was, his last championship was at 32!

Steph Curry, who has won 2 MVP awards, may be having his best season ever, at 33.

The list goes on and on, in every sport, and tennis is no exception!

 

[MadariKatu]

Modern medicine, nutrition science and physiotherapy make all this possible! Two decades ago, neither Federer, Nadal nor Djokovic would be winning multiple majors while in their mid 30's!

In the past NFL season, the MVP's of the regular season and playoffs are Aaron Rodgers (37 years old) and Tom Brady (43).

LeBron won the NBA championship last year and, at 36, expects more in the future. As great as Michael Jordan was, his last championship was at 32!

Steph Curry, who has won 2 MVP awards, may be having his best season ever, at 33.

The list goes on and on, in every sport, and tennis is no exception!

I don't know about those other sports you mention. It is true that several advancements in science allows them to keep competing at a later age. But in tennis, how is that no other player has kept up with them? People that competed with the big3 have come and gone; if not retired, they're kinda irrelevant in the rankings. Murray and Wawrinka had very serious injuries and multiple surgeries, as recently did Federer. Let's see if he follows their path or comes back to the top, as Del Potro managed to do.