Have tiebreakers become more important than the reason for the tie?

[James_Bolt]

Tiebreakers are used to decide a winner when competitors are tied.
In poker, it is called a kicker. It is the card that does not itself take part in determining the rank of the hand, but that may be used to break ties between hands of the same rank.

For example, ATP has rules to break ties when players have the same amount of points:
When two or more players have the same total number of points, ties shall be broken as follows:

1. The most total points combined from the Grand Slams, ATP Masters 1000 mandatory tournaments and ATP Finals main draws, and if still tied, then,
2. The fewest events played, counting all missed Grand Slams, ATP Masters 1000 tournaments and ATP Finals they could have played, and if still tied, then,
3. The highest number of points from one single tournament, then, if needed, the second highest, and so on.

(source: https://www.atptour.com/en/rankings/rankings-faq)

Some fans got to a point where the tiebreakers have become more important than the reason for the tie.

In Grand Slams for example, if 2 payers have the same number of Grand Slams then we should start looking for tiebreakers as:

• Number of finals
• Streaks in wins (CYGS, NCYGS, etc) or in finals or in semi-finals.
• Titles combination (Career Slams, Channel Slams, Surface Slams, etc.)
• Conversion rate
• H2H in Slams
• Win percentages
• Etc.

When the Big3 were all at 20 Slams or when Nadal and Djokovic were both at 22 Slams, then the discussion around the tiebreakers was important.
Currently Djokovic and Federer have both 6 ATP finals. Advantage Federer for the number of finals (10), advantage to Djokovic for the streak (4), and so on…

Before discussing about the kicker, the highest card should have the same rank.