Based on what? The big 3 being too good? The Big 3 ended as the top 3 in 2018 and 2019. 1 and 2 in 2017. 1 and 2 in 2020. 2017-2020 had Thiem, 2018 and 2019 had del Potro.
It's not like you can even say that they were winning playing badly except on some rare occasions. Djokovic's level at AO 2019 is "inflation"?
no, inflation slam means not good enough level+mediocre competition. both are required
not all slams in inflation era are inflation obviously.
as far as why inflation era began in 2016, because every year from 2016 onwards is weaker than every year this century save maybe 2002. competition weakened.
levels which would have been semi/finalist level only began to win multiple slams.
no way would Murray be able to make up vs Djokovic in a decent enough competition year. But he did and became YE#1, winning almost everything from Queens onwards. federer, nadal out for big chunks of the year. Only USO 16 had good competition for winner (even if Djokovic AO/RG and Murray Wim 16 were high levels)
djoko's AO 19 level was obviously high and not inflation. neither is Nadal RG 17 obviously.
But almost every slam win of Djokovic after AO 19 has had meh or poor competition except for RG 21 and not high enough level for the whole slam (not talking about 1/2 matches like AO 21 SF/F).
even nadal obviously had such wins in USO 19, AO 22, RG 22 etc.
AO 18 is an example for fed.
the reason for all this inflation is the 2 worst generations of all time: nishi-rao-dimi and med-zed-tpas. Stop hiding behind 2000+ generation of Alcaraz, Sinner, Rune etc.
If they didn't meet more it is because Alcaraz lost to Medvedev in the USO SF, for instance, Djokovic won their previous and following matches anyway.
so? point is Alcaraz was not an actual slam rival from 2016 to 2022.
Yeah, he finished #5 twice in that period. Huge difference lol. Tsitsipas finished ranked 3 or 4 twice.
yes 2006 and 2007. davy was up vs prime fed. 2007 easily beats 14 competition wise, let alone 15 or inflation years. so what's your point?
tpas vs well past prime versions or ancient versions of djokovic or nadal and ancient fed. but easy for you to ignore, eh?
Nadal made the SF at Wimbledon and played the USO unlike Djokovic in 2022. Nadal didn't do well at the USO but Djokovic wasn't allowed to play. 2022 Nadal as actually ranked higher than Djokovic. So Nadal benefited from that era as much as Djokovic. And in 2020 Djokovic only won one slam, same amount as in 2022. The only weak year he dominated after Nadal's decline was 2023, but you already had Alcaraz, Medvedev and Sinner. He beat Alcaraz in Roland Garros, Cinci and the YEC, Medvedev at the USO, Sinner at Wimbledon and the YEC. Hardly as weak as it is made out to be. AO was weaker but it's not like Djokovic needs weak draws there to win. He dropped one set only and was destroying opponents in the way, a tougher draw would have made him drop a few more sets but hardly cost him the title.
yeah, cramps means beating Alcaraz there (rolls eyes)
2021 absolutely poor year with a mediocre level for CYGS coming so close.
22 nadal withdrew from wimbledon SF due to injury and was in pretty mediocre form at USO.
nadal benefitted a lot himself from inflation era - 2nd only to djokovic, but still clearly lesser.
med was meh in USO 23 final. that's a really weak draw at USO.
AO as well obviously.
And RG gifted with Alcaraz cramps and Ruud in the final. another really weak draw.
and if djoko faced prime Wawa at AO 20/21/23 he'd lose, plain and simple. just like fed lost Wim 14/15 to djoko. so yes, he did need weaker competition at AO past prime or atleast no really high level competition. Wim 15 level Murray or AO 20 thiem level handlable for 14/15 Wim fed and 20/21 AO djoko (not 23 AO djoko), but not the above ones in prime 14/15 Wim djoko or 13/14 AO Wawa respectively.
2018 and 2019 had the Big 3 as top 3, it's ridiculous to call it inflation or weak or whatever.
not prime nadal (except maybe on grass in 18) ...
federer was very inconsistent and slipped down to like 5 or 6 after early part of 2018.
2019 - injury affected in USO, bundled out in AO early round. Wim was good, but choked big time in final. RG was nice, but never winning realistically.
2018 first half djokovic AWOL. prime-ish stretch from grass season 18 to AO 19, but past prime after that.
so stop throwing out names just for sake of it.
2006 had peak fed everywhere and prime nadal on clay and grass.
give 06/07 fed 18/19 nadal at RG and he takes one of those 2 and completes CYGS.
its ridiculous to not call 2016 onwards as weak - if you have proper knowledge of tennis from 2000 to 2015.
Mind you, you can remove the 3 slams Djokovic won last year and he still has more slams than Federer, so it's not like he "needs" those titles. And that's not removing any of Federer's, because it's not like he always had tough draws. Djokovic last year had Paul and Shelton in a SF but Federer had Bjorkman or Kiefer too.
djokovic's AO 21/Wim 21/Wim 22 were inflation slams too, not just the 3 slams in 2023.
federer faced haas and davydenko in AO 06 before facing Kiefer in AO 06.
fed's AO 06 is similar to djoko's AO 15 actual competition level wise (if you actually look at levels, not just names)
comparing AO 06 with the **** poor draws of AO 23 and USO 23? get out of here
and fed was prime in AO 06. question of inflation does not arise.
Wim 06 - fed has gasquet, henman, mahut, berdych, ancic, bjorkman and nadal. bjorkman was the weakest. everyone else still capable on grass in 06. that is a deep draw, though not tough.
just throwing out bjorkman name for semi? do you have any shame? that's just dishonest BS like saying djokovic had easy Wim 18 because he had Anderson as finalist - ignoring nadal playing very well in the semi.
I'm going to give one last chance here before deciding you are too much of a djoko--bot/BSer and deserve to be on ignore.
Here's a clue: AO 18 would be an example for federer. weak draw before final (only berdych decentish to decent) and one good opponent in the final - federer cracks showing. so level while good, not high enough.
