John McEnroe: Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz cannot dominate like ‘Big Three’ did

[jimmy0slams]

From the Telegraph (UK) paywalled so here is a copy and paste job

John McEnroe: Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz cannot dominate like ‘Big Three’ did

This was the first season since 2002 in which none of Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer won a men’s major

www.telegraph.co.uk

John McEnroe: Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz cannot dominate like ‘Big Three’ did​

This was the first season since 2002 in which none of Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer won a men’s major

Simon Briggs, Tennis Correspondent, in New York9 September 2024 • 5:00pm

Jannik Sinner won his second hard-court grand slam at the US Open Credit: Getty Images/Angela Weiss

Jannik Sinner’s US Open victory heralds “the official changing of the guard” in men’s tennis, according to 1980s giant John McEnroe.
Sunday night’s showpiece found Sinner defeating Taylor Fritz, the reliable American, in straight sets to complete the hard-court double this year. He had already opened his grand-slam account in Melbourne in January.
With Carlos Alcaraz lifting trophies on the other two surfaces in Paris and London, this has been the first season since 2002 when the “Big Three” men – Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer – have not landed a major.
Here was the statistic that led McEnroe to declare a new era of men’s tennis. The question now is whether Alcaraz and Sinner can close the door on the other contenders.
At the peak of the Big Three’s reign, four years went past between Stan Wawrinka’s success at the 2016 US Open and Dominic Thiem’s in the pandemic year of 2020.
Going back further, Djokovic, Nadal and Federer mopped up 63 of 76 titles between Federer’s first Wimbledon triumph in 2003 and his last appearance at that tournament 19 years later.
Such a lengthy reign looks unrepeatable, no matter how gifted Sinner and Alcaraz might be.
“These guys can’t possibly – can they? – dominate like these last three guys have,” said McEnroe. “[Alexander] Zverev is currently No2 in the world after this tournament. Those guys who have been bypassed, you would think it would increase the hunger to finally get over the hump and win one.”
It is unusual for two men to split the four majors equally in a single season. Nadal and Federer did it in 2017, the year of Federer’s sensational return from knee trouble, before Djokovic and Nadal also went Dutch in 2019.
The last season to deliver such a youthful crop of champions – in the sense that nobody over the age of 23 lifted a major – was 1993, when the winners were Jim Courier, Sergi Bruguera and Pete Sampras.

Carlos Alcaraz comprehensively outplayed Novak Djokovic in the Wimbledon men's singles final Credit: Getty Images/Julian Finney

Sinner and Alcaraz, like their predecessors, have a neat way of dividing the tennis virtues between them. Alcaraz is the more emotional player, relying on feel and creativity, and finding it difficult to focus when his muse eludes him. Sinner is the more consistent and relentless performer, whether from point to point or week to week.
Yet even the ultra-focused Sinner admits this has been a challenging season, not only on account of the hip trouble that flared up during the spring, but also because of the shadow cast by his two failed doping tests in March.
He said in the wake of Sunday’s triumph: “It’s difficult to describe everything, because me and my team and the people who are close to me, they know what I’ve been through in the last months.
“Obviously it was very difficult for me to enjoy in certain moments. Also how I behaved or how I walked on the court in certain tournaments before, it was not the same as I used to be, so whoever knows me better, they know that something was wrong.
“But during this tournament, slowly I restarted to feel a little bit more how I am as a person. Doesn’t really matter how or what the result was. So this tournament, for sure, helped me a little.”
Sinner’s case was an unusual one, in that his lawyers reacted with such speed that he did not even serve a temporary suspension. Within a few days, the independent tribunal convened by the International Tennis Integrity Agency had reached a conclusion of “no fault or negligence”, accepting Sinner’s claim that he was accidentally contaminated during a massage.
But when the news finally emerged into the public domain, less than a week before the US Open, a number of players and former players – including Federer – questioned whether Sinner had received preferential treatment.
On Sunday evening, Sinner’s coach Darren Cahill spoke about his charge’s experiences on the ESPN tennis broadcast. “Today has been amazing considering what he has been through,” said Cahill. “It has been a journey, the last three weeks, for sure.
“It has been like carrying 20kg on his shoulders for the past four months. And then 40kg on his shoulder for the last three weeks. So for him to be able to do that and be able to perform … he was a set and a break down in his first match to Mackenzie McDonald. He was able to turn that around and day by day, build his confidence and feel a little bit lighter.”

 

[ND-13]

so, John McEnroe just said below but there is still so much text above ??

These guys can’t possibly – can they? – dominate like these last three guys have,” said McEnroe. “[Alexander] Zverev is currently No2 in the world after this tournament. Those guys who have been bypassed, you would think it would increase the hunger to finally get over the hump and win one.”

 

[Rovesciarete]

3>2 I agree

 

[InsuranceMan]

Shoutout OP for copy paste

 

[UnderArmServeOP]

He's right. I truly believe that. we will never see dominance like he Big 3 again.

 

[NeutralFan]

Nobody knows

 

[SneederFeeder]

Well, even if both Sinner and Alcaraz are gonna become Big 3 level (which is an extremely large If, obviously), they wouldn't have the dominance of 3 players instead of 2.

Think how many holes the Big 3 dominance would have if you removed either of the 3 entirely. Large periods relied on one or 2 of them going strong at different tournaments.

 

[Mustard]

Federer and Nadal in 2005-2009 had completely different auras (i.e. much bigger) compared to Alcaraz and Sinner. Those of us old enough to remember will know this.

For example, take 2005. Nadal that year had a 79-10 win-loss record, won 11 tournaments, won 1 major and 4 masters, and had his year cut short after October. Nadal had a clay-court winning streak of 36 wins in a row at the end of 2005 dating back to 11 April that year. Federer that same year had a win-loss record of 81-4, also won 11 tournaments, won 2 majors and 4 masters. Federer also won something like his last 40 hardcourt matches of 2005, after losing at the Australian Open to Safin. And another thing is that the Nadal vs. Federer rivalry was only at 2-1 to Nadal at the end of 2005, and didn't seriously heat up head-to-head wise until 2006.

 

[grandefrankie]

Federer and Nadal in 2005-2009 had completely different auras (i.e. much bigger) compared to Alcaraz and Sinner. Those of us old enough to remember will know this.

For example, take 2005. Nadal that year had a 79-10 win-loss record, won 11 tournaments, won 1 major and 4 masters, and had his year cut short after October. Nadal had a clay-court winning streak of 36 wins in a row at the end of 2005 dating back to 11 April that year. Federer that same year had a win-loss record of 81-4, also won 11 tournaments, won 2 majors and 4 masters. Federer also won something like his last 40 hardcourt matches of 2005, after losing at the Australian Open to Safin. And another thing is that the Nadal vs. Federer rivalry was only at 2-1 to Nadal at the end of 2005, and didn't seriously heat up head-to-head wise until 2006.

Djokovic ever since 2011 does as well, and I am not even a fan of his (or his crazy ass fans). Even today, having gone slamless for the year, possibly injured, and at age 37, some are (almost for certain wrongly, but if this isn't an example of aura, I don't know what is) touting him as the one to beat in slams going into next year.

 

[JMR]

Federer and Nadal in 2005-2009 had completely different auras (i.e. much bigger) compared to Alcaraz and Sinner.

That's partly because the two sets of players are/were in completely opposite positions. Federer swooped in after an interregnum. Within a couple of years, he was joined by Nadal. Whom were they ousting? Relatively minor figures like Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, etc. The Sampras-Agassi era was clearly already over. Fed and Nadal were exciting because the tennis public was hungry for real stars again, not a bunch of one- and two-slam wonders.

In contrast, Alcaraz and Sinner have to replace the Big 3 directly, since Djokovic, the youngest of the trio, has still been successful over the last two years. The new stars are being measured -- somewhat unfairly at this stage, let's be honest -- by the mighty shadows of just-departed kings. As they say, "tough act to follow."

 

[nolefam_2024]

Relax old man

Let Agassi and Pete do this talk now. You are too old.

Forget big 3

 

[Mustard]

That's partly because the two sets of players are/were in completely opposite positions. Federer swooped in after an interregnum. Within a couple of years, he was joined by Nadal. Whom were they ousting? Relatively minor figures like Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, etc. The Sampras-Agassi era was clearly already over. Fed and Nadal were exciting because the tennis public was hungry for real stars again, not a bunch of one- and two-slam wonders.

In contrast, Alcaraz and Sinner have to replace the Big 3 directly, since Djokovic, the youngest of the trio, has still been successful over the last two years. The new stars are being measured -- somewhat unfairly at this stage, let's be honest -- by the mighty shadows of just-departed kings. As they say, "tough act to follow."

Hewitt was world number 1 for 80 weeks, including the entire calendar year of 2002. Minor?

 

[JMR]

Hewitt was world number 1 for 80 weeks, including the entire calendar year of 2002. Minor?

Yes, in the grand sweep of tennis history -- even in the grand sweep of Open Era history -- Hewitt absolutely was a minor figure. A champion, yes, but a transitional one. Hewitt made four slam finals in his entire career. Even when Hewitt was at his peak, before injuries, I don't think anyone looked at him and thought, "Wow, this guy is going to dominate the game for a decade." He was a solid, scrappy counterpuncher, not a human highlight film -- which is what the game really needed.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

From the Telegraph (UK) paywalled so here is a copy and paste job

John McEnroe: Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz cannot dominate like ‘Big Three’ did

Possibly. Anyone making the argument that either will dominate in that way assumes:

1. Sinner and/or Alcaraz is as talented, which is clearly not the case.

2. Either will be active for as long. Alcaraz is not the healthiest physical specimen with his tendency to suffer injuries, and his fan-zealots assume he will maintain an interest in being a player as long as say, Djokovic.

3. Other players will not step up (like an improved Fritz, for example), and challenge Sinner and Alcaraz.

With option #1 being patently obvious, few would be able to dismiss McEnroe's statement.

 

[jmacdaununder2]

Yeah, ‘cause 2 don’t = 3…

 

[Wurm]

It has been like carrying 20kg on his shoulders for the past four months. And then 40kg on his shoulder for the last three weeks

Funny way to say "we've got him on a new drugs regime"

 

[Mustard]

Yes, in the grand sweep of tennis history -- even in the grand sweep of Open Era history -- Hewitt absolutely was a minor figure. A champion, yes, but a transitional one. Hewitt made four slam finals in his entire career. Even when Hewitt was at his peak, before injuries, I don't think anyone looked at him and thought, "Wow, this guy is going to dominate the game for a decade." He was a solid, scrappy counterpuncher, not a human highlight film -- which is what the game really needed.

Plenty of people thought that Hewitt would dominate for years, myself included. By dominate, I don't mean to big 3 standards, but something below Sampras and possibly 10 majors.

Watch the 2002 Indian Wells final commentary on Sky Sports if you can, when Hewitt beat Henman, and listen to Mark Petchey talk about Hewitt's likely dominance in the upcoming decade.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Plenty of people thought that Hewitt would dominate for years, myself included. By dominate, I don't mean to big 3 standards, but something below Sampras and possibly 10 majors.

Watch the 2002 Indian Wells final commentary on Sky Sports if you can, when Hewitt beat Henman, and listen to Mark Petchey talk about Hewitt's likely dominance in the upcoming decade.

Hewitt is minor now.

He was a big fish in small pond. That time people would think what they like. He was still ousted by ivo in r1 as a defending champ. And he did not dominate tennis , just better than all others.

This is like Carlos becoming number 1 in 2022 when the whole ranking was in disarray. It doesn't mean Carlos was dominating in 2022. Just better than rest.

In fact Nadal and djokovic both dominated that year but Nadal was gone due to injuries and Djokovic due to COVID.

 

[Mustard]

Hewitt is minor now.

Compared to the big 3, you mean?

He was a big fish in small pond. That time people would think what they like.

Hewitt was more mentally ready for the tennis elite at an early age than anyone in his generation of tennis players, a scrapper who thrived on competing.

He was still ousted by ivo in r1 as a defending champ.

The match turned when Hewitt failed to take a set point that would have made it 2-0 in sets. Karlovic is also the only big server that Hewitt had issues with, likely because of the trajectory of the serve, due to Karlovic's height.

And he did not dominate tennis , just better than all others.

True. But "dominate" back then did not mean big 3 standards. Back then, you could dominate by winning 1-2 majors in a year, whereas now it means 2-3 majors in a year.

Sampras never had a calendar year where he won 3 majors, although he did twice have a time where he was the reigning champion of 3 of the 4 major titles, i.e. after the 1994 Australian Open, and after 1997 Wimbledon.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Compared to the big 3, you mean?


Hewitt was more mentally ready for the tennis elite at an early age than anyone in his generation of tennis players, a scrapper who thrived on competing.


The match turned when Hewitt failed to take a set point that would have made it 2-0 in sets. Karlovic is also the only big server that Hewitt had issues with, likely because of the trajectory of the serve, due to Karlovic's height.


True. But "dominate" back then did not mean big 3 standards. Back then, you could dominate by winning 1-2 majors in a year, whereas now it means 2-3 majors in a year.

Sampras never had a calendar year where he won 3 majors, although he did twice have a time where he was the reigning champion of 3 of the 4 major titles.

So like I said Hewitt was number 1 for 80 weeks but it's not at all like Lendl in 85 to 87 going toe to toe vs top players in slams

He was more big fish in small pond. Like Carlos in 2022.

 

[JMR]

Plenty of people thought that Hewitt would dominate for years, myself included. By dominate, I don't mean to big 3 standards, but something below Sampras and possibly 10 majors.

Watch the 2002 Indian Wells final commentary on Sky Sports if you can, when Hewitt beat Henman, and listen to Mark Petchey talk about Hewitt's likely dominance in the upcoming decade.

OK, then it was an exaggeration when I suggested that no one thought Hewitt would dominate for a decade. Apparently some folks did believe that. But since they were wrong in that belief, I'm not sure where that leaves us in the discussion. Hewitt still only has four slam finals, even you thought he could actually win 10 titles. Are you arguing that because some people had inflated expectations for Hewitt, that makes him a major figure?

Stan Smith also won the USO and Wimbledon at the outset of a decade. Stan Smith also reached no. 1. Stan Smith also won the tour finals. But looking back now at the tennis of the 1970s and '80s, I think it's fair to say that the major figures were guys like Connors, Borg, Mac, Lendl, etc., and the minor figures included champions like Stan Smith. I see Hewitt in the same way. He may have certain quantitative advantages over players like Safin and Roddick, but qualitatively, I think they're all in the same tier.

 

[Mustard]

So like I said Hewitt was number 1 for 80 weeks but it's not at all like Lendl in 85 to 87 going toe to toe vs top players in slams

He was more big fish in small pond. Like Carlos in 2022.

Guys like Roddick, Federer, Henman, Nalbandian, Safin, Haas etc. were around, not to mention Sampras and Agassi.

Sampras also said that Hewitt would dominate, but later said that certain things changed to prevent that happening, likely referring to the string changes. Hewitt tended to thrive against serve and volley players.

 

[nolefam_2024]

During those number 1 years between Jan 2001 to June 2003
Hewitt went 3-2 vs top 10 players in slams. That's too low. Just competition got disposed.

His best wins are 2 at usopen vs Kafelinkov and Sampras

And 1 at wimby vs henman who was in his maiden slam semi.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Andy Murray in 2011 to 2013 went 7-9 vs top 10 in slams.
The competition was so high that Murray was ranked 2nd to 4th during this time. Never even getting closer to number 1.


16 top 10 matches as number 2 for Murray
5 as number 1 for Hewitt.

 

[Mustard]

During those number 1 years between Jan 2001 to June 2003
Hewitt went 3-2 vs top 10 players in slams. That's too low. Just competition got disposed.

His best wins are 2 at usopen vs Kafelinkov and Sampras

And 1 at wimby vs henman who was in his maiden slam semi.

At the time, people said "Nobody will dominate like Sampras did because the competition is too good".

 

[nolefam_2024]

At the time, people said "Nobody will dominate like Sampras did because the competition is too good".

True and they were wrong. I think sineraz will dominate just like big 3.

But my point was solely on fed's early years. Hewitt best time was already gone by the time fed became number 1 for whatever reason strings or not.

 

[Mustard]

True and they were wrong. I think sineraz will dominate just like big 3.

But my point was solely on fed's early years. Hewitt best time was already gone by the time fed became number 1 for whatever reason strings or not.

You can make the argument that Hewitt's peak in terms of form was 2004-2005, even though his best results were 2001-2002. Hewitt in 2004-2005 only lost to eventual champions in the majors.

 

[nolefam_2024]

You can make the argument that Hewitt's peak in terms of form was 2004-2005, even though his best results were 2001-2002.

It's possible but surfaces slowed down and even though he might be better his game was not suited for them probably. So overall still worse.

I don't think any 20 year old will be better than their 23/24 year self so definitely Hewitt was better later. But the changes made him worse for game that time.

 

[sportsfan1]

Djokovic ever since 2011 does as well, and I am not even a fan of his (or his crazy ass fans). Even today, having gone slamless for the year, possibly injured, and at age 37, some are (almost for certain wrongly, but if this isn't an example of aura, I don't know what is) touting him as the one to beat in slams going into next year.

That's due to his performance against alcaraz in the olympics gold match, reaching wimby final and he's only a year removed fromhis 2023 year of 3 slams + wtf. His knee issue was apparently minor.

 

[sportsfan1]

From the Telegraph (UK) paywalled so here is a copy and paste job

John McEnroe: Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz cannot dominate like ‘Big Three’ did

This was the first season since 2002 in which none of Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer won a men’s major

www.telegraph.co.uk

John McEnroe: Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz cannot dominate like ‘Big Three’ did​

This was the first season since 2002 in which none of Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer won a men’s major

Simon Briggs, Tennis Correspondent, in New York9 September 2024 • 5:00pm

Jannik Sinner won his second hard-court grand slam at the US Open Credit: Getty Images/Angela Weiss

Jannik Sinner’s US Open victory heralds “the official changing of the guard” in men’s tennis, according to 1980s giant John McEnroe.
Sunday night’s showpiece found Sinner defeating Taylor Fritz, the reliable American, in straight sets to complete the hard-court double this year. He had already opened his grand-slam account in Melbourne in January.
With Carlos Alcaraz lifting trophies on the other two surfaces in Paris and London, this has been the first season since 2002 when the “Big Three” men – Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer – have not landed a major.
Here was the statistic that led McEnroe to declare a new era of men’s tennis. The question now is whether Alcaraz and Sinner can close the door on the other contenders.
At the peak of the Big Three’s reign, four years went past between Stan Wawrinka’s success at the 2016 US Open and Dominic Thiem’s in the pandemic year of 2020.
Going back further, Djokovic, Nadal and Federer mopped up 63 of 76 titles between Federer’s first Wimbledon triumph in 2003 and his last appearance at that tournament 19 years later.
Such a lengthy reign looks unrepeatable, no matter how gifted Sinner and Alcaraz might be.
“These guys can’t possibly – can they? – dominate like these last three guys have,” said McEnroe. “[Alexander] Zverev is currently No2 in the world after this tournament. Those guys who have been bypassed, you would think it would increase the hunger to finally get over the hump and win one.”
It is unusual for two men to split the four majors equally in a single season. Nadal and Federer did it in 2017, the year of Federer’s sensational return from knee trouble, before Djokovic and Nadal also went Dutch in 2019.
The last season to deliver such a youthful crop of champions – in the sense that nobody over the age of 23 lifted a major – was 1993, when the winners were Jim Courier, Sergi Bruguera and Pete Sampras.

Carlos Alcaraz comprehensively outplayed Novak Djokovic in the Wimbledon men's singles final Credit: Getty Images/Julian Finney

Sinner and Alcaraz, like their predecessors, have a neat way of dividing the tennis virtues between them. Alcaraz is the more emotional player, relying on feel and creativity, and finding it difficult to focus when his muse eludes him. Sinner is the more consistent and relentless performer, whether from point to point or week to week.
Yet even the ultra-focused Sinner admits this has been a challenging season, not only on account of the hip trouble that flared up during the spring, but also because of the shadow cast by his two failed doping tests in March.
He said in the wake of Sunday’s triumph: “It’s difficult to describe everything, because me and my team and the people who are close to me, they know what I’ve been through in the last months.
“Obviously it was very difficult for me to enjoy in certain moments. Also how I behaved or how I walked on the court in certain tournaments before, it was not the same as I used to be, so whoever knows me better, they know that something was wrong.
“But during this tournament, slowly I restarted to feel a little bit more how I am as a person. Doesn’t really matter how or what the result was. So this tournament, for sure, helped me a little.”
Sinner’s case was an unusual one, in that his lawyers reacted with such speed that he did not even serve a temporary suspension. Within a few days, the independent tribunal convened by the International Tennis Integrity Agency had reached a conclusion of “no fault or negligence”, accepting Sinner’s claim that he was accidentally contaminated during a massage.
But when the news finally emerged into the public domain, less than a week before the US Open, a number of players and former players – including Federer – questioned whether Sinner had received preferential treatment.
On Sunday evening, Sinner’s coach Darren Cahill spoke about his charge’s experiences on the ESPN tennis broadcast. “Today has been amazing considering what he has been through,” said Cahill. “It has been a journey, the last three weeks, for sure.
“It has been like carrying 20kg on his shoulders for the past four months. And then 40kg on his shoulder for the last three weeks. So for him to be able to do that and be able to perform … he was a set and a break down in his first match to Mackenzie McDonald. He was able to turn that around and day by day, build his confidence and feel a little bit lighter.”

Yes it seems quite unlikely there will be a repeat of the 2015-2022 era with such few slam contenders.

 

[RS]

Some big Alcaraz and Sinner vs Hewitt agenda recently

 

[Mustard]

Some big Alcaraz and Sinner vs Hewitt agenda recently

C'mon!

 

[JMR]

You can make the argument that Hewitt's peak in terms of form was 2004-2005, even though his best results were 2001-2002. Hewitt in 2004-2005 only lost to eventual champions in the majors.

I regard Hewitt's peak as 2001 through 2005 -- a five-year period that's pretty normal for a top tennis player. His results in the years before and after this period are noticeably worse. Of course, Hewitt did not win a slam in each year of his peak period, but then "peak" does not mean just "year(s) in which the player won a slam."

 

[Mustard]

I regard Hewitt's peak as 2001 through 2005 -- a five-year period that's pretty normal for a top tennis player. His results in the years before and after this period are noticeably worse. Of course, Hewitt did not win a slam in each year of his peak period, but then "peak" does not mean just "year(s) in which the player won a slam."

Hewitt in 2003 was going to war with the ATP after the ATP heavily fined him for skipping a post-match press conference. Hewitt was also thinking of quitting tennis for Aussie rules football in 2003. He still had some highs that year (particularly Davis Cup), but a lot more lows than the years around it.

Basically, 2003 was the point where Hewitt's tenacity and pugnaciousness over the years was escalating to the point that it was affecting his tennis, so there was a bit of a slump. 2004-2005 was a recharge, and he had a bigger build.

 

[JMR]

Some big Alcaraz and Sinner vs Hewitt agenda recently

No, that's not it. The question is really Hewitt (and Safin, Roddick, etc.) vs. The Big 3. I injected Hewitt into this discussion by pointing out that Alcaraz and Sinner in some respects have a tougher challenge than the Big 3. The Big 3 took over from Hewitt and his ilk, whom I regard as good but transitional champions, i.e., minor figures. But Alcaraz and Sinner have to take over from, well, the Big 3.

This does not mean that Hewitt himself already has been left in the dust by Alcaraz and Sinner (although because Alcaraz already has four slams, perhaps his partisans do wish to make that case).

 

[jackson vile]

Sinner seems the most consistent, he may take three next year

 

[mike danny]

That's partly because the two sets of players are/were in completely opposite positions. Federer swooped in after an interregnum. Within a couple of years, he was joined by Nadal. Whom were they ousting? Relatively minor figures like Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, etc. The Sampras-Agassi era was clearly already over. Fed and Nadal were exciting because the tennis public was hungry for real stars again, not a bunch of one- and two-slam wonders.

In contrast, Alcaraz and Sinner have to replace the Big 3 directly, since Djokovic, the youngest of the trio, has still been successful over the last two years. The new stars are being measured -- somewhat unfairly at this stage, let's be honest -- by the mighty shadows of just-departed kings. As they say, "tough act to follow."

Fed did beat Sampras and Agassi coming up so he did displace them.

 

[mike danny]

OK, then it was an exaggeration when I suggested that no one thought Hewitt would dominate for a decade. Apparently some folks did believe that. But since they were wrong in that belief, I'm not sure where that leaves us in the discussion. Hewitt still only has four slam finals, even you thought he could actually win 10 titles. Are you arguing that because some people had inflated expectations for Hewitt, that makes him a major figure?

Stan Smith also won the USO and Wimbledon at the outset of a decade. Stan Smith also reached no. 1. Stan Smith also won the tour finals. But looking back now at the tennis of the 1970s and '80s, I think it's fair to say that the major figures were guys like Connors, Borg, Mac, Lendl, etc., and the minor figures included champions like Stan Smith. I see Hewitt in the same way. He may have certain quantitative advantages over players like Safin and Roddick, but qualitatively, I think they're all in the same tier.

Hewitt only reached 4 finals because injuries finished off his career.

 

[Neptune]

Federer and Nadal in 2005-2009 had completely different auras (i.e. much bigger) compared to Alcaraz and Sinner. Those of us old enough to remember will know this.

For example, take 2005. Nadal that year had a 79-10 win-loss record, won 11 tournaments, won 1 major and 4 masters, and had his year cut short after October. Nadal had a clay-court winning streak of 36 wins in a row at the end of 2005 dating back to 11 April that year. Federer that same year had a win-loss record of 81-4, also won 11 tournaments, won 2 majors and 4 masters. Federer also won something like his last 40 hardcourt matches of 2005, after losing at the Australian Open to Safin. And another thing is that the Nadal vs. Federer rivalry was only at 2-1 to Nadal at the end of 2005, and didn't seriously heat up head-to-head wise until 2006.

3 Matches (1-2) against top5, and 8 (5-3) against top10, feel like playing in vacuum....
What an era...

 

[smoledman]

Sinner/Alcaraz do not have such a talent gulf above the field compared to Fedal. That was a once in a generation deal.

 

[Mustard]

3 Matches (1-2) against top5, and 8 (5-3) against top10, feel like playing in vacuum....
What an era...

That rather depends on the players. Using that criteria of yours, Nadal's 2006 was better than his 2005, as he beat Federer 4 times in 2006 and had a couple more top 5 wins. Yet he won 11 tournaments in 2005, including two masters on hardcourt in Canada and Madrid Indoor, whereas in 2006 the French Open was his last title of the year.

And Nadal was the master at winning the biggest matches on the biggest stages for a long time.

 

[Tallawah Tennis]

Man, the article states ".....“These guys can’t possibly – can they? – dominate like these last three guys have,” said McEnroe...." He is asking the question that has already been asked ad nauseam. These kids have only just begun their careers at this level, are aged 23 / 21 and could accomplish many things. Who knows for certain whether they will / won't beat existing records?

The constant refrain of 'no one will ever match the Big 3' is tedious, regurgitated as though it is some previously undisclosed revelation. Carlitos/Jannik ( others coming up) will hopefully progress their careers to achieve great things, the forenamed having both already made records of their own. Dudes are leading this context, this field, feck the rest.

Nobody knows

Yah, man.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Man, the article states ".....“These guys can’t possibly – can they? – dominate like these last three guys have,” said McEnroe...." He is asking the question that has already been asked ad nauseam. These kids have only just begun their careers at this level, are aged 23 / 21 and could accomplish many things. Who knows for certain whether they will / won't beat existing records?

The constant refrain of 'no one will ever match the Big 3' is tedious, regurgitated as though it is some previously undisclosed revelation. Carlitos/Jannik ( others coming up) will hopefully progress their careers to achieve great things, the forenamed having both already made records of their own. Dudes are leading this context, this field, feck the rest.

Yah, man.

Exactly. John needs to stop at can they.

This no one can do what these guys did is ********.

 

[Sudacafan]

Fed Nad was a wonderful rivalry until a vile Serbian crashed the party.

 

[The_Order]

Plenty of people thought that Hewitt would dominate for years, myself included. By dominate, I don't mean to big 3 standards, but something below Sampras and possibly 10 majors.

Watch the 2002 Indian Wells final commentary on Sky Sports if you can, when Hewitt beat Henman, and listen to Mark Petchey talk about Hewitt's likely dominance in the upcoming decade.

Tbh, I never had that impression about Hewitt...

He was too flaky at slam level, very prone to losses to players that he'd be expected to beat. The gap between his best and worst was evident and most of the talk about his dominance was off the back of him beating aging ATGs in Agassi and Sampras or a patch of form that he'd hit from time to time.

He basically won Wimbledon off the back of one of the easiest draws in history and he nearly fluffed that too...

At the same time, one could argue if not for Federer and Nadal, he would've won a few more slams, but that's not a great argument to support his supposed dominance.

 

[JMR]

Hewitt only reached 4 finals because injuries finished off his career.

So? There are always reasons that transitional champions are only transitional champions.

 

[Mustard]

Tbh, I never had that impression about Hewitt...

He was too flaky at slam level, very prone to losses to players that he'd be expected to beat. The gap between his best and worst was evident and most of the talk about his dominance was off the back of him beating aging ATGs in Agassi and Sampras or a patch of form that he'd hit from time to time.

He basically won Wimbledon off the back of one of the easiest draws in history and he nearly fluffed that too...

At the same time, one could argue if not for Federer and Nadal, he would've won a few more slams, but that's not a great argument to support his supposed dominance.

I clearly remember thinking after Hewitt won Wimbledon in 2002 that it was the first of 3 or 4 Wimbledon titles for him. He had already won Queen's Club 3 years in a row.

Regarding the quarter final against Schalken at 2002 Wimbledon, Hewitt was very fortunate to win that match in the end after being down a break in the fifth set on two different occasions, but he could have just as easily have won in straight sets without any bother at all. Hewitt won 6-2, 6-2, 6-7, 1-6, 7-5, and had something like 20 break points in sets 3 and 4 without taking a single one.

 

[duaneeo]

When it comes to true dominance, 2004-2009 Federer is the only player to really look at. He lost only to three players at the AO (Safin, Djokovic, Nadal), two players at RG (Kuerten and Nadal), one player at Wimbledon (Nadal), and one player at the USO (Del Potro). He won five consecutive times at two different slams, made 20 of 24 slam finals, was #1 for 237 consecutive weeks, and lost the #1 ranking to only one player.

No other ATG at his peak/prime comes close to dominating like Federer.

 

[KingCarlitos]

When it comes to true dominance, 2004-2009 Federer is the only player to really look at. He lost only to three players at the AO (Safin, Djokovic, Nadal), two players at RG (Kuerten and Nadal), one player at Wimbledon (Nadal), and one player at the USO (Del Potro). He won five consecutive times at two different slams, made 20 of 24 slam finals, was #1 for 237 consecutive weeks, and lost the #1 ranking to only one player.

No other ATG at his peak/prime comes close to dominating like Federer.

Fed had easy opponents though. Not to degrade his achievements.

 

[KingCarlitos]

Why not, They’ve already dominated 2024 winning 2 slams apiece and when Djokovic goes nobody can really challenge both of them, While 1 may get dispatched in a slam the other will succeed.