Have Alcaraz and Sinner finally restored the balance in Tennis by ending the Inflation to become Year End 1s ???

[Razer]

Wait a minute, before we get into strong slams and weak slams, weak eras and strong eras, let at look at HISTORY first.

Strong Slams, Weak Slams, Old Champions etc etc have always existed without any pattern, but 1 thing that never existed until 2019 was old Year End 1s. As we all know, your 20s is your prime, your testosterone levels are at an all time high in your 20s, after that you suffer athletically from the late 20s onwards. It is no rocket science, it is just science. So what does this have to do with Year end 1 ????

Number of times the year end 1 was a person born in 1950s = 11
Number of times the year end 1 was a person born in 1960s = 7
Number of times the year end 1 was a person born in 1970s = 9
Number of times the year end 1 was a person born in 1980s = 22
Number of times the year end 1 was a person born in 1990s = 0
Number of times the year end 1 was a person born in 2000s = 2 [this number will grow close to 8-10... these boys are just getting started]

A generation having 7-10 was pretty normal, if you find a champ born in the late side of your decade as well the number could become 11+ like it happened for 1970s which is understandable but 22 ??? ... this can only happen if the next generation won nothing

Look at history, only Nadal and Djokovic won Year end 1s in their 30s, no other athlete, someone like Nadal who had problems of being being fit in his prime years outside the clay season is suddenly winning year end 1s so late ? Is it magic ?

The 2000s gen are already 2-0 up on the 1990s gen and you can safely be that Medvedev/Zverev will never end as year 1, the grip of 2000s gens is now strong on tennis.

So the inflation has been ended, look at this chat, no YE1 has been in 30s until Nadal and Djoko.

 

[Razer]

This is the reason why I always stress that when comparing greats across eras only factor in performance before 30th birthday, the performance in 30s should not be factored in because it is not fair when modern day players are having 90s gens to feast on and modern day science & medicine to stay more fit + focussed in their 30s..... totally unfair to Sampras.

In any strong era when great athletes are peaking in 20s with high testosterone levels, no old fart in his 30s can ever become year end rank 1 by gaining enough points, this should be evident to anyone who has a 3 digit IQ.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Maybe. But 2025 could be interesting if sinner gets suspended and Carlos doesn't take it. Might have a 90s boy take it or even another 80s yikes

 

[Razer]

Maybe. But 2025 could be interesting if sinner gets suspended and Carlos doesn't take it. Might have a 90s boy take it or even another 80s yikes

Impossible

Med is a 1 trick pony restricted to HCs, thats not enough to become 1 .... Zverev is too big a choker at slams to be 1.... other than these 2 nobody else can even come close to being 1, surely don't expect Casper Ruud to come close or Tsitsipas? those kind of people are not meant for this thing.

 

[Galvermegs]

Maybe. But 2025 could be interesting if sinner gets suspended and Carlos doesn't take it. Might have a 90s boy take it or even another 80s yikes

Thats very true
Its hard to really see anything post us open 2023 as completely straightforward now... sinner is definitely good enough to be top 5 bu i cant take to him being so routinely strong lately. Even novak and roger had dips on their periods of dominance or needed to win matches with more than just endless power off both sides.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Impossible

Med is a 1 trick pony restricted to HCs, thats not enough to become 1 .... Zverev is too big a choker at slams to be 1.... other than these 2 nobody else can even come close to being 1, surely don't expect Casper Ruud to come close, that kind of people are not meant for this thing.

No djoker? Cause if no sinner then it would have to be Carlos but you never know.

 

[Razer]

No djoker? Cause if no sinner then it would have to be Carlos but you never know.

No man, Djokovic cannot pip Alcaraz to become 1 anymore.

Alcaraz is the firm leader of the tour now IMO with only Sinner having the strength and fitness to remain 1 above him, so if Sinner is out next year then Alcaraz ends the year as 1. No way is Djokovic becoming 1 again, he just cannot even get a week as 1, let alone end the year.

 

[MichaelNadal]

The 80's were just the GOAT generation

 

[Unseeded Player]

Yes, Novak won't be number 1 again on the list, he might get 1 more slam or some masters but 2023 won't be happening again. It's ok, things are going as they should, let the younger battle now.

 

[Gary Duane]

This is the reason why I always stress that when comparing greats across eras only factor in performance before 30th birthday, the performance in 30s should not be factored in because it is not fair when modern day players are having 90s gens to feast on and modern day science & medicine to stay more fit + focussed in their 30s..... totally unfair to Sampras.

In any strong era when great athletes are peaking in 20s with high testosterone levels, no old fart in his 30s can ever become year end rank 1 by gaining enough points, this should be evident to anyone who has a 3 digit IQ.

Until recently a lot of people were saying that no young players would ever dominate again. The talking points were about medicine and about changes in the game and that the new norm would be for players in their 30s to continue dominating.

My argument has been that players peak defensively until around age 24. After that all time greats start to decline statistically in that area. So as players age, the only way they can compensate is to improve their dominance on service games. That's exactly what both Djokovic and Nadal did. Federer was the oddball because his defensive numbers went back up in his 30s. But that was undoubtedly because he made a monumental playing adjustment by changing his racket. Federer dominated earlier with equipment that did not allow him to maximize his one-handed backhand.

All three of these guys were anomalies. What we saw happening at the end of their careers was unique and to some extent it's still going on with Djokovic. He still raises his level so high on good days that he is almost defying time. In a few minutes we'll find out if he can do it again. But I don't believe for a minute that Sinner or Carlos have yet attained a level that is comparable to the height of the Big Three.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

My argument has been that players peak defensively until around age 24. After that all time greats start to decline statistically in that area. So as players age, the only way they can compensate is to improve their dominance on service games.

i would argue Nadal got better on return of serve as he got older, and that is why he was able to regain some semblance of non-clay form, not just whatever meager serve improvements he made and his general strategic shift. that being said, it wouldn't be as doable for someone who put a greater priority on return quality to begin with (vs Nadal's return quantity bias), but Nadal still deserves credit for largely maintaining his standard of putting returns in play until the very end

 

[zagor]

This is the reason why I always stress that when comparing greats across eras only factor in performance before 30th birthday, the performance in 30s should not be factored in because it is not fair when modern day players are having 90s gens to feast on and modern day science & medicine to stay more fit + focussed in their 30s..... totally unfair to Sampras.

In any strong era when great athletes are peaking in 20s with high testosterone levels, no old fart in his 30s can ever become year end rank 1 by gaining enough points, this should be evident to anyone who has a 3 digit IQ.

Is it a strong era now and are Sinner and Alcaraz legit or did Novak's level just fall of a cliff in 2024 and well, someone had to win the big tourneys?

Alcaraz did prove his mettle by winning 2023 Wimbledon but it was a very tight match that could have easily gone the other way. When Novak turned the clock and played like himself in Olympics this year he was able to beat an in-form Alcaraz in a pretty high quality match.

I agree it's unfair to previous greats because they weren't able to have as long careers (which makes cross-era comparisons very difficult) but it's still a big credit to Novak how well he was able to maintain his fitness, consistency and form to be able to have a 3 slam/4 slam finals year at 35-36. As a tennis fan you want to see greats and legends of the sport perform at a high level as long as possible, can't just dismiss their post 30 achievements.

 

[Razer]

Until recently a lot of people were saying that no young players would ever dominate again. The talking points were about medicine and about changes in the game and that the new norm would be for players in their 30s to continue dominating.

My argument has been that players peak defensively until around age 24. After that all time greats start to decline statistically in that area. So as players age, the only way they can compensate is to improve their dominance on service games. That's exactly what both Djokovic and Nadal did. Federer was the oddball because his defensive numbers went back up in his 30s. But that was undoubtedly because he made a monumental playing adjustment by changing his racket. Federer dominated earlier with equipment that did not allow him to maximize his one-handed backhand.

All three of these guys were anomalies. What we saw happening at the end of their careers was unique and to some extent it's still going on with Djokovic. He still raises his level so high on good days that he is almost defying time. In a few minutes we'll find out if he can do it again. But I don't believe for a minute that Sinner or Carlos have yet attained a level that is comparable to the height of the Big Three.

I dare say Federer never reached the full potential of his defensive prowess because the game was still evolving in his peak years, the apex of the baseline era would not be reached until the late 2000s-early 2010s period, the players who peaked at that time have athletically peaked higher from a defense perspective. Like you said age 24, Djokovic was at his defensive peak in 2011, Nadal was at it in 2008, Federer ideally got caught up in the wrong era in 05 at that time. One can easily look back at say ohh his opponent was Roddick but Roddick himself was a product of the era in which they turned pro, as did Federer. Federer if born later would have been forced to use his current raquet from the earlier years itself and thus being able to harness the full potential of his baseline prowess since the field would also be evolved at that point. His attacking game might have suffered a bit since he would grow up later? Maybe not so much, he isn't a serve and volleyers anyway. I think nobody appreciates Federer's youth still being in a transition phase while Djokodal's in a more evolved phase, they just see it in a simplistic way that opponent roddick = weak era, opponent nadal/djokvoic = strong era, thats the simplistic approach people have always had to this.

Is it a strong era now and are Sinner and Alcaraz legit or did Novak's level just fall of a cliff in 2024 and well, someone had to win the big tourneys?

Alcaraz did prove his mettle by winning 2023 Wimbledon but it was a very tight match that could have easily gone the other way. When Novak turned the clock and played like himself in Olympics this year he was able to beat an in-form Alcaraz in a pretty high quality match.

I agree it's unfair to previous greats because they weren't able to have as long careers (which makes cross-era comparisons very difficult) but it's still a big credit to Novak how well he was able to maintain his fitness, consistency and form to be able to have a 3 slam/4 slam finals year at 35-36. As a tennis fan you want to see greats and legends of the sport perform at a high level as long as possible, can't just dismiss their post 30 achievements.

Weak Slams, Strong Slams have always existed. Even 2010 existed in the heart of the strong era, but never before have people ended year as 1 in their 30s, thats where things look shady.

Novak turned the clock because it was BO3, I dont think he could have done it if it was bO5, he would have run out of gas. Great win at the olympics but no, he did not turn the clock enough because nobody can turn it like that at 37, it is biologically impossible.

Definely full credit to Novak for his performance in 30s and for Federer too who was exceptional, I am not denying it at all but we also need to ignore 30s if we are hell bent on doing any sort of comparison between previous eras vs Novak's one, otherwise it would make no sense at all.

 

[chjtennis]

The thing is, if the next group of youngsters who could match Sinner and Alcaraz in talent don't come along in the next 5 years, Sincaraz themselves will enjoy the inflation of records. The normal cycle of changing of the guards is about 5-10 years in tennis, but Big 3 era lasted way longer than that, more like 15-17 years.

 

[Razer]

The thing is, if the next group of youngsters who could match Sinner and Alcaraz in talent don't come along in the next 5 years, Sincaraz themselves will enjoy the inflation of records. The normal cycle of changing of the guards is about 5-10 years in tennis, but Big 3 era lasted way longer than that, more like 15-17 years.

5-10 years for sure has to happen and will happen. When Sinneraz are like 29 then youngsters who are 19-20 will appear and those guys will bring them. That is the textbook definition of next gen. Doesn't matter how great you are, your prime does end at 30, nobody is supposed to end the year as 1 in the presence of younger players , this is still a game of young players and youth has to prevail over the entire year. You could beat the youth a few times but the entire year if you are ahead of them it is a weak era.

You could probably consider era strength like a theorem in mathematics.... the strength of an era is directly proportional to the number of prime ATGs in their 20s or close to it in that era... So I am not surprised that 2011 is such a strong year because for more than half of that year Federer was still 29, Djoker and Nadal were at their peak/near peak... So that has to be it,.... my theorem holds.

 

[Tano]

The 80's were just the GOAT generation

Music peaked at that time.

 

[Tano]

I dare say Federer never reached the full potential of his defensive prowess because the game was still evolving in his peak years, the apex of the baseline era would not be reached until the late 2000s-early 2010s period, the players who peaked at that time have athletically peaked higher from a defense perspective. Like you said age 24, Djokovic was at his defensive peak in 2011, Nadal was at it in 2008, Federer ideally got caught up in the wrong era in 05 at that time. One can easily look back at say ohh his opponent was Roddick but Roddick himself was a product of the era in which they turned pro, as did Federer. Federer if born later would have been forced to use his current raquet from the earlier years itself and thus being able to harness the full potential of his baseline prowess since the field would also be evolved at that point. His attacking game might have suffered a bit since he would grow up later? Maybe not so much, he isn't a serve and volleyers anyway. I think nobody appreciates Federer's youth still being in a transition phase while Djokodal's in a more evolved phase, they just see it in a simplistic way that opponent roddick = weak era, opponent nadal/djokvoic = strong era, thats the simplistic approach people have always had to this.



Weak Slams, Strong Slams have always existed. Even 2010 existed in the heart of the strong era, but never before have people ended year as 1 in their 30s, thats where things look shady.

Novak turned the clock because it was BO3, I dont think he could have done it if it was bO5, he would have run out of gas. Great win at the olympics but no, he did not turn the clock enough because nobody can turn it like that at 37, it is biologically impossible.

Definely full credit to Novak for his performance in 30s and for Federer too who was exceptional, I am not denying it at all but we also need to ignore 30s if we are hell bent on doing any sort of comparison between previous eras vs Novak's one, otherwise it would make no sense at all.

Here I agree with you.
The format of the Olympic final favored him.

 

[Net Beast]

Until recently a lot of people were saying that no young players would ever dominate again. The talking points were about medicine and about changes in the game and that the new norm would be for players in their 30s to continue dominating.

My argument has been that players peak defensively until around age 24. After that all time greats start to decline statistically in that area. So as players age, the only way they can compensate is to improve their dominance on service games. That's exactly what both Djokovic and Nadal did. Federer was the oddball because his defensive numbers went back up in his 30s. But that was undoubtedly because he made a monumental playing adjustment by changing his racket. Federer dominated earlier with equipment that did not allow him to maximize his one-handed backhand.

All three of these guys were anomalies. What we saw happening at the end of their careers was unique and to some extent it's still going on with Djokovic. He still raises his level so high on good days that he is almost defying time. In a few minutes we'll find out if he can do it again. But I don't believe for a minute that Sinner or Carlos have yet attained a level that is comparable to the height of the Big Three.

Yes, the Big 3 were anomalies, and they were so dominant over the rest of the field (while competing with each other) that they somewhat stifled the younger players, the NextGen. It would have been one thing to deal with one of these players, but to deal with all three in the same draw made it almost impossible for young kids to break through.

Sinner and Alcaraz probably won't dominate like the Big 3 at all, as they both have weaknesses, and lack the aura of invincibility that the Big 3 built for many years.

 

[TMF]

Maybe. But 2025 could be interesting if sinner gets suspended and Carlos doesn't take it. Might have a 90s boy take it or even another 80s yikes

No one knows about the future. However if the worst case scenario that Sinner/Alcaraz aren't a slam contenders, we'll be back to square one

 

[Lleytonstation]

No one knows about the future. However if the worst case scenario that Sinner/Alcaraz aren't a slam contenders, we'll be back to square one

Not likely, but not impossible. A sinner ban and a Carlos injury and here we go again...

 

[BGod]

Can't vote as either option is untrue.

Weak era has continued since 2017.

 

[FeroBango]

Music peaked at that time.

Yes but for a reason y'all likely don't know: Ilaiyaraja!

 

[MichaelNadal]

Music peaked at that time.

 

[Gary Duane]

Yes, the Big 3 were anomalies, and they were so dominant over the rest of the field (while competing with each other) that they somewhat stifled the younger players, the NextGen. It would have been one thing to deal with one of these players, but to deal with all three in the same draw made it almost impossible for young kids to break through.

Sinner and Alcaraz probably won't dominate like the Big 3 at all, as they both have weaknesses, and lack the aura of invincibility that the Big 3 built for many years.

The only thing I will say is that it is too early to predict Big Three type careers for these two. I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm just saying it's way too premature to make predictions.

 

[Sephiroth]

can't believe Gen Z Tik Tok generation beat us 90s millennials', embarrassing, but there we have it

 

[Jonas78]

Its still weak era, the gap from the new Big3 to the rest of the field has probably never been bigger.

 

[Jonas78]

Impossible

Med is a 1 trick pony restricted to HCs, thats not enough to become 1 .... Zverev is too big a choker at slams to be 1.... other than these 2 nobody else can even come close to being 1, surely don't expect Casper Ruud to come close or Tsitsipas? those kind of people are not meant for this thing.

Well although i agree, somebody actually has to win if the new Big3 for some reason doesnt.

 

[Gary Duane]

Wait a minute, before we get into strong slams and weak slams, weak eras and strong eras, let at look at HISTORY first.

Strong Slams, Weak Slams, Old Champions etc etc have always existed without any pattern, but 1 thing that never existed until 2019 was old Year End 1s. As we all know, your 20s is your prime, your testosterone levels are at an all time high in your 20s, after that you suffer athletically from the late 20s onwards. It is no rocket science, it is just science. So what does this have to do with Year end 1 ????

Number of times the year end 1 was a person born in 1950s = 11
Number of times the year end 1 was a person born in 1960s = 7
Number of times the year end 1 was a person born in 1970s = 9
Number of times the year end 1 was a person born in 1980s = 22
Number of times the year end 1 was a person born in 1990s = 0
Number of times the year end 1 was a person born in 2000s = 2 [this number will grow close to 8-10... these boys are just getting started]

A generation having 7-10 was pretty normal, if you find a champ born in the late side of your decade as well the number could become 11+ like it happened for 1970s which is understandable but 22 ??? ... this can only happen if the next generation won nothing

Look at history, only Nadal and Djokovic won Year end 1s in their 30s, no other athlete, someone like Nadal who had problems of being being fit in his prime years outside the clay season is suddenly winning year end 1s so late ? Is it magic ?

The 2000s gen are already 2-0 up on the 1990s gen and you can safely be that Medvedev/Zverev will never end as year 1, the grip of 2000s gens is now strong on tennis.

So the inflation has been ended, look at this chat, no YE1 has been in 30s until Nadal and Djoko.

I think your pole is flawed because of too few choices.

"No, weak era did not exist, we were always in a strong era in the last many years".

I couldn't choose that option because the question itself is a poor question.

Everything about weak and strong eras is an assumption. It is likely that any time only two or three players are totally dominating, the rest of the field is a bit weak. And when many players are fighting for domination then the rest of the field is stronger. I know this is simplistic. But there is no way to measure the strength of any era objectively. I'm not saying for a moment that the Big Three were not amazing players. But you have to wonder why for so long almost no one else but these three players was winning slams. You also have to wonder why a guy as old as Djokovic was able to dominate so completely in 2023. I think these are fair questions.

On the other hand, I would argue that from 2012 to 2014 tennis was incredibly competitive. So if I'm going to complain that Djokovic had easy in 2023 then I would say that he had it very very hard from 2012 to 2014. As for the players born in the 1990s, the same reasoning has to be used. Were these players really as weak as they are made out to be? Or were they very unfortunate to be playing at the time that the Big Three were so powerful?

 

[Jonas78]

Until recently a lot of people were saying that no young players would ever dominate again. The talking points were about medicine and about changes in the game and that the new norm would be for players in their 30s to continue dominating.

My argument has been that players peak defensively until around age 24. After that all time greats start to decline statistically in that area. So as players age, the only way they can compensate is to improve their dominance on service games. That's exactly what both Djokovic and Nadal did. Federer was the oddball because his defensive numbers went back up in his 30s. But that was undoubtedly because he made a monumental playing adjustment by changing his racket. Federer dominated earlier with equipment that did not allow him to maximize his one-handed backhand.

All three of these guys were anomalies. What we saw happening at the end of their careers was unique and to some extent it's still going on with Djokovic. He still raises his level so high on good days that he is almost defying time. In a few minutes we'll find out if he can do it again. But I don't believe for a minute that Sinner or Carlos have yet attained a level that is comparable to the height of the Big Three.

Yeah almost unbelieveable what I had to read and discuss with people some years ago. Some people were claiming a player under 25y probably never would win a slam again, because tennis has "become too physical". Then it was the "30 is the new 25" BS which even some former pro players believed in. Just look at the top20 now, one or two players older than 30? Mean age in top10 suddenly dropped like a rock when most of the Djokodal generation retired. Of course players can extend their careers more than earlier, but that doesnt change when human beings peak.

 

[Gary Duane]

i would argue Nadal got better on return of serve as he got older, and that is why he was able to regain some semblance of non-clay form, not just whatever meager serve improvements he made and his general strategic shift. that being said, it wouldn't be as doable for someone who put a greater priority on return quality to begin with (vs Nadal's return quantity bias), but Nadal still deserves credit for largely maintaining his standard of putting returns in play until the very end

According to statistics Nadal won 30% of his return games in 2008. According to what I've seen his return of serve on fast surfaces has never been as good as others. With his other defensive skills he was able to work himself back into defensive points. Nevertheless I would stick to the return game percentage. That number is almost identical in 2009.

There was a big drop in 2010. But then a rise to almost 32% in 2011. 32% in 2012, 30% in 2013. Almost 33% in 2016, But his serve fell in the toilet that year.

I don't see an increase later on in his career in returning. What I do see is a surprising lack of decline before around age 30 which frankly surprises me.

 

[Razer]

I think your pole is flawed because of too few choices.

"No, weak era did not exist, we were always in a strong era in the last many years".

I couldn't choose that option because the question itself is a poor question.

Everything about weak and strong eras is an assumption. It is likely that any time only two or three players are totally dominating, the rest of the field is a bit weak. And when many players are fighting for domination then the rest of the field is stronger. I know this is simplistic. But there is no way to measure the strength of any era objectively. I'm not saying for a moment that the Big Three were not amazing players. But you have to wonder why for so long almost no one else but these three players was winning slams. You also have to wonder why a guy as old as Djokovic was able to dominate so completely in 2023. I think these are fair questions.

On the other hand, I would argue that from 2012 to 2014 tennis was incredibly competitive. So if I'm going to complain that Djokovic had easy in 2023 then I would say that he had it very very hard from 2012 to 2014. As for the players born in the 1990s, the same reasoning has to be used. Were these players really as weak as they are made out to be? Or were they very unfortunate to be playing at the time that the Big Three were so powerful?

But there has to be some level of comparison which says an era if strong or it is weak.

Losing to the Big 3 is fine, but that still doesn't mean the loser is great. I would also lose to big 3 and so did david ferrer, but ferrer is 500 times better than me as a tennis player. Likewise if compare the 90s gen players with the past then you might at least see the players of the past had better attitude in mentality, they were not defeatist types and they found a solution to even tough problems in life despite their limited skillset or whatever. The players who came before the 2000s gen are really bad at tennis, their leader is dominic thiem, medvedev, zverev, that explains it when in a full gen of 10 years these are the people born.

Best 3 players from a generation of birth

1950s - Connors, Borg, Mcenroe
1960s - Lendl, Becker, Edberg
1970s - Sampras, Agassi, Courier
1980s - Federer, Djokvoic, Nadal
1990s - Thiem, Medvedev, Zverev
2000s - Alcaraz, Sinner ... and we will know in future.

Don't you see why we have had oldies being ranked 1 at the end of the year now ? This is the real inflation.

My theorem of "Strength of an era directly proportional to the number of great players in their peak 20s " stands firm.

It is not a coincident that Nadal entered his peak in 2008 to make it 2 (Fed and Nadal) while Djokovic also left his 20s in 2016 to make it 0 and we have an inflation from 2016 itself. 2011 being the peak of era strength when Djokovic was 24, Nadal was 25 and Federer was still 29-30.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

According to statistics Nadal won 30% of his return games in 2008.

for non-clay per Tennis Abstract, i've got him at 28.1% in '05, 28.2% in '08, 30.4% in '09, 30.2% in '11, 29.4% in '13, 28.0% in '17, 30.0% in '19, and 28.3% in '22 (left out worse or more injury-heavy years)

According to what I've seen his return of serve on fast surfaces has never been as good as others. With his other defensive skills he was able to work himself back into defensive points. Nevertheless I would stick to the return game percentage. That number is almost identical in 2009.

There was a big drop in 2010. But then a rise to almost 32% in 2011. 32% in 2012, 30% in 2013. Almost 33% in 2016, But his serve fell in the toilet that year.

I don't see an increase later on in his career in returning.

considering the numbers from the first half of his career were relatively propped up more by his baselining and defensive efforts, i think that suggests an improvement in pure returning later on

 

[Net Beast]

The only thing I will say is that it is too early to predict Big Three type careers for these two. I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm just saying it's way too premature to make predictions.

Absolutely, and I also am not sure it would be good to go back to a Big 3 type domination. I know Carlos is flawed and his game can break at times,, he is not as consistent by far as Fed was during his best years, and he is vulnerable against lower ranked players. And he is still young also. But if he remained like this, I wouldn't mind it. It adds a certain degree of unpredictability, and when his game is clicking it is amazing to watch.

 

[Gary Duane]

But there has to be some level of comparison which says an era if strong or it is weak.

The problem is that there has to be some kind of objective measurement and there isn't one. We can only go by a series of head to heads. I don't trust your eyes or my eyes or the eyes of anyone. I don't believe in the eye test. I assume that in any year where one player totally dominates it has to be a combination of an incredibly high level combined with lower competition. It could be that in the early 2000s the average level of all the players could have been reasonably high in combination with no one totally dominating at the top. And it could be that in years like 1984 where John McEnroe seemed to be winning everything that no one else was stepping up to challenge him. We simply can never know.

I think all we can do is take a look at each era and make some conclusions. I think that in much of the 1990s, especially in the early 1990s., there are a lot of players who were dangerous and that could be part of the reason why Pete in today's terms seems so weak on clay. I still think of him as the alpha player of the 1990s and I don't judge him by today's standards because I think that is recently bias. To me as a Federer fan the obvious weakness for Federer was his inability to solve the problem of Nadal on slower surfaces. And the fact that Nadal beat him at Wimbledon makes me think that he was never the same kind of alpha animal that Pete was.

I also don't see a clear career dominance of Djokovic over Nadal. So my point of view is that the Big Three can all be argued about as best. I simply have all three of them as being so equal that I don't choose one over the other That's been my position for years.

Here is one final example of how complicated it gets.

When Laver won the Grand Slam in 69, wasn't that a weak era? It took years for amateur tennis players to slowly improve to the level of the former professionals. Who was going to stop Laver that year? It seems to me that in any year where one player wins three slams, it is also likely that the competition generally speaking is not as good as it could be in a really strong year.

 

[Rosstour]

Impossible

Med is a 1 trick pony restricted to HCs, thats not enough to become 1 .... Zverev is too big a choker at slams to be 1.... other than these 2 nobody else can even come close to being 1, surely don't expect Casper Ruud to come close or Tsitsipas? those kind of people are not meant for this thing.

It'll be Djokovic

 

[fedfan24]

90s gen is a black hole in tennis history and Djokovic was in prime position to exploit it. Complete free run with no prime ATG rivals for years.

 

[Gary Duane]

Absolutely, and I also am not sure it would be good to go back to a Big 3 type domination. I know Carlos is flawed and his game can break at times,, he is not as consistent by far as Fed was during his best years, and he is vulnerable against lower ranked players. And he is still young also. But if he remained like this, I wouldn't mind it. It adds a certain degree of unpredictability, and when his game is clicking it is amazing to watch.

I think it would be wonderful if we had four or five young guys duking it out. I don't think the Big Three era was overall good for tennis. I know that I am in a small minority with this opinion.

 

[Razer]

I think all we can do is take a look at each era and make some conclusions. I think that in much of the 1990s, especially in the early 1990s., there are a lot of players who were dangerous and that could be part of the reason why Pete in today's terms seems so weak on clay. I still think of him as the alpha player of the 1990s and I don't judge him by today's standards because I think that is recently bias. To me as a Federer fan the obvious weakness for Federer was his inability to solve the problem of Nadal on slower surfaces. And the fact that Nadal beat him at Wimbledon makes me think that he was never the same kind of alpha animal that Pete was.

Federer never was the alpha, with all that crying after matches he basically lost any semblance of an alpha image that he had in our minds. Don't get me wrong, he had a very powerful aura around him in his good years and vs Roddick, Hewitt or anyone on tour minus Nadal you could see Federer very dominant in his body language too but somehow vs Nadal I never saw that body language even in his peak years. As far as Nadal goes, that guy always had an alpha like image. I donno if it is the muscles or the inherent confidence that comes from being so damn good on clay or just a stable head on his shoulders honed by Toni, I donno what it was but Nadal always had an alpha like body language and composure. I never saw fear in his eyes against anyone and the way he walked those biceps, jumped before the match etc etc looked like intimidatory tactiques or whatever, it was almost as if the guy knew that "I can overpower anyone with my body....so I am no less that anyone.. " I guess this sort of vibes were already there in his mind. Even Djokovic never had this alpha image but Djokovic himself was not scared of anyone, thats 1 thing he had but if you ask who had the intimidating body language of that the answer is Rafael Nadal. Pete definitely was the alpha, no doubt, he was the boss with his serve, even in his old matches he looks like a mini alcaraz type character, clearly knows that he is the best of his gen in the back of his mind. Alcaraz also has that feeling, I see alpha vibes in him.

By the way, Federer did solve the Nadal riddle eventually, just not on slow courts yes but lets not forget the 5 years age difference made it impossible, Fed had to beat Nadal in 05-06, once he lost that the ship had sailed, he doesn't have a 2 handed backhand and neither does he had a same age level playing field which NOvak had which Rafa,.

 

[Net Beast]

I think it would be wonderful if we had four or five young guys duking it out. I don't think the Big Three era was overall good for tennis. I know that I am in a small minority with this opinion.

I agree with you 100%. Domination in any sport by a small number of players is not good in general. The case of the Big 3 is a little more nuanced, and I am ambivalent about it. On one hand you had a small number of three players, occasionally adding Murray or Wawrinka, or even Thiem, to the mix, but very occasionally, who completely dominated the lower ranks, but on the other hand, there was this hyperbolic set of rivalries among the top 3, which in some way made things very interesting.

To me, the 2004-2014 period or so was tolerable, because Fed was competitive and his attacking all court game acted as counterpoise against the overwhelmingly baseline-based tennis of Nadal and Djokovic, but then things got a little more boring when Djokovic started being the dominant figure. Not to disrespect him as a player, just that his game is not my cup of tea.

 

[TMF]

90s gen is a black hole in tennis history and Djokovic was in prime position to exploit it. Complete free run with no prime ATG rivals for years.

Never seen the entire players born in one decade(90s) has managed to win 2 slams and now the window of opportunity is closing since the 2000s born players are peaking.

There will never be such a weak era like the CIE but who knows.. lightning can strike twice !

 

[Aabye5]

can't believe Gen Z Tik Tok generation beat us 90s millennials', embarrassing, but there we have it

Well, Carlitos wasn't really given a lot of phone time, iirc. Not sure about Sinner.

 

[fedfan24]

Never seen the entire players born in one decade(90s) has managed to win 2 slams and now the window of opportunity is closing since the 2000s born players are peaking.

There will never be such a weak era like the CIE but who knows.. lightning can strike twice !

A true vacuum and rare occurrence for sure. Luckily for Djokovic, he managed to outlast Fedal and take full advantage of the weakest decade of players in living memory to inflate his records.