Opinion: When the changing of the guard occurs in the 2020's there will be a renaissance in tennis.

Sparlingo

Hall of Fame
I base my "renaissance" prediction on this: Tennis isn't at its' best either when it is completely dominated by 3 people or when it seems completely random. The drama of tennis at its' best occurs when there is a bigger pool of contenders (hypothesis 10) with different styles, with different personalities, with villains and hero's, conflict and quirks. Despite the beauty and skillfullness of the big 3, their domination of the game has made tennis stale. It's too much the same story for too long. The pool of new talent is emerging and they will cause a renewed interest in tennis. Right now I see that pool as; Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Shapo, Felix, Sinner with occasional surprises from guys like DeMineur and Coric and even Kyrgios and a couple of people who haven't emerged yet and the occasional servbot. There is going to be a future for tennis after the big three retire, and that future is going to be better.
 

King No1e

Legend
I could see it happening. Especially the Medsipas rivalry with the off-court drama and contrasting styles and personalities. Zverev (outside of TTW obviously) was quite popular in 2017 and 18 when he burst on the scene as a future star, so he will still be a brand name in tennis.

I see this upcoming era as similar to the late 80's/early 90's: not a golden age, but a solid era with lots of depth in competition but no GOAT contenders.
 

Sparlingo

Hall of Fame
I didn't expect much support for my opinion here because hard core tennis fans are too invested in their fandom of the big three. The new product of non-big three dominance will appeal to new fans because of the reach of new potential stars and the multiple rivalry stories. Present tennis fans will stay tennis fans, it's the appeal to new fans that would cause a renaissance. An influx of new stars brings fans from more countries. It's a shame there isn't a big potential star emerging from the United States though, that would add quite a lot.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
I didn't expect much support for my opinion here because hard core tennis fans are too invested in their fandom of the big three. The new product of non-big three dominance will appeal to new fans because of the reach of new potential stars and the multiple rivalry stories. Present tennis fans will stay tennis fans, it's the appeal to new fans that would cause a renaissance. An influx of new stars brings fans from more countries. It's a shame there isn't a big potential star emerging from the United States though, that would add quite a lot.
Nah it will definitely be interesting after the Big 3 retire. I do think it's gonna be weird to judge them after a 15 year window of players got wrecked under their dominance, so they'll basically have no reference from previous era's.

Mostly I'm just not really feeling it with the young players like I did with a guy like Andy Murray.

If Murray comes back to win a Slam before the youngers. I will have more than a few chuckles and probably die happy
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
The same rival that finally beat him at WB when Fedr was ~32.9yo, even older than the 16-slam champ currently is? ;)

You're a Sampras fan. Maybe step back a bit knowing that Sampras wasn't even a pro at ~32.9yo? :unsure:
We've been over this, no modern juices & conditioning to keep Pete going, plus he was undisputed king of his time so no need to (unlike Fed which is why he keeps going)

"Finally" is a bit much, they played once before 2014 with Fed edging it out in a very tight 4 set match. And remember, Fed played smokin in 2015 (annihilated Murray in the semis) so no excuses please
 

oldmanfan

Hall of Fame
We've been over this, no modern juices & conditioning to keep Pete going, plus he was undisputed king of his time so no need to (unlike Fed which is why he keeps going)

"Finally" is a bit much, they played once before 2014 with Fed edging it out in a very tight 4 set match. And remember, Fed played smokin in 2015 (annihilated Murray in the semis) so no excuses please
~32.9yo wasn't an opinion, no?

Sampras retired in 2002, not 1992. He could've played further. I was quite surprised he didn't. It was what it was.
 

topher

Professional
I base my "renaissance" prediction on this: Tennis isn't at its' best either when it is completely dominated by 3 people or when it seems completely random. The drama of tennis at its' best occurs when there is a bigger pool of contenders (hypothesis 10) with different styles, with different personalities, with villains and hero's, conflict and quirks. Despite the beauty and skillfullness of the big 3, their domination of the game has made tennis stale. It's too much the same story for too long. The pool of new talent is emerging and they will cause a renewed interest in tennis. Right now I see that pool as; Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Shapo, Felix, Sinner with occasional surprises from guys like DeMineur and Coric and even Kyrgios and a couple of people who haven't emerged yet and the occasional servbot. There is going to be a future for tennis after the big three retire, and that future is going to be better.
I don’t agree, not that I won’t enjoy it myself. Look at the viewership and revenue increases during the Big 3 age. Compare this to the 90s and early 2000s, when the WTA was arguably more popular than the ATP. The only thing imo that would increase interest in tennis beyond the Big 3 would be introducing an ATG player from America or China.

People like predictable matchups to a certain extent. Look at the NBA ratings when MJ or Lebron were an auto entry to the NBA Finals every year, for example.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
I base my "renaissance" prediction on this: Tennis isn't at its' best either when it is completely dominated by 3 people or when it seems completely random. The drama of tennis at its' best occurs when there is a bigger pool of contenders (hypothesis 10) with different styles, with different personalities, with villains and hero's, conflict and quirks. Despite the beauty and skillfullness of the big 3, their domination of the game has made tennis stale. It's too much the same story for too long. The pool of new talent is emerging and they will cause a renewed interest in tennis. Right now I see that pool as; Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Shapo, Felix, Sinner with occasional surprises from guys like DeMineur and Coric and even Kyrgios and a couple of people who haven't emerged yet and the occasional servbot. There is going to be a future for tennis after the big three retire, and that future is going to be better.
In other words you need an era like the 90s when you have a wolf leading a pack of wolves, 'greed
 

Sparlingo

Hall of Fame
I don’t agree, not that I won’t enjoy it myself. Look at the viewership and revenue increases during the Big 3 age. Compare this to the 90s and early 2000s, when the WTA was arguably more popular than the ATP. The only thing imo that would increase interest in tennis beyond the Big 3 would be introducing an ATG player from America or China.

People like predictable matchups to a certain extent. Look at the NBA ratings when MJ or Lebron were an auto entry to the NBA Finals every year, for example.
You make a good counter point. To a certain extent I am captivated by the potential rivalries that will emerge and I like the personalities of the current young crop. I still think 10 stars is better than 3, and 10 stars is better than randomness. A charm about tennis is it brings out personalities like no other sport. I guess we shall see, I'll buy you a beer in 10 years if it turns out you are right.
 

topher

Professional
You make a good counter point. To a certain extent I am captivated by the potential rivalries that will emerge and I like the personalities of the current young crop. I still think 10 stars is better than 3, and 10 stars is better than randomness. A charm about tennis is it brings out personalities like no other sport. I guess we shall see, I'll buy you a beer in 10 years if it turns out you are right.
I agree 10 consistent stars will be better than randomness, no doubt really. I think if you mix in an ATG from a major non-European country that would help more than anything. Europeans already watch tennis, I feel, there’s more untapped fanbases elsewhere.

Beer sounds good, I’ll return the favor and be happy if you’re right.
 

stringertom

Bionic Poster
It’s way too early to predict how deep the youth brigade will be but there is a good chance we’ll see a sharing of big titles more similar to the decade from 1985-1994 (12 different champions) when we reach 2025-34. Until then, I think one or more of the Big 3 will combine to win at least two slams a year. If two of them fade, then the other remaining Big will win at least a slam title until mid-decade. That would mean 23 consecutive years with at least one slam title won by the Big 3.
 
Last edited:

Sparlingo

Hall of Fame
I don’t agree, not that I won’t enjoy it myself. Look at the viewership and revenue increases during the Big 3 age. Compare this to the 90s and early 2000s, when the WTA was arguably more popular than the ATP. The only thing imo that would increase interest in tennis beyond the Big 3 would be introducing an ATG player from America or China.

People like predictable matchups to a certain extent. Look at the NBA ratings when MJ or Lebron were an auto entry to the NBA Finals every year, for example.
One other point is that there was renewed interest in tennis when the big 3 and Murray first came along but in recent years interest tennis has stagnated and lost viewership.
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
Rivals was plural. Means beating em all, and when his record is 1-3 on his literal lawn v one of em it ain't pretty folks
I'll let that technicality save your arse this time. And the stupid use of 'literal' can slide, too.

Still, 1 point away twice for a 2-2 split with the only rival he 'failed' against there, and the age factor should be obvious (inb4 'excuses' bollocks - I suppose retiring at 31 is the way to do it, right? Timing is everything but you just wont care because Fed must burn at all costs). Wrecks Murray there twice while Djoker loses in straights but who cares because main rivals, favourite surface blah blah arbitrary conditions for positive recognition blah blah.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
I'll let that technicality save your arse this time. And the stupid use of 'literal' can slide, too.

Still, 1 point away twice for a 2-2 split with the only rival he 'failed' against there, and the age factor should be obvious (inb4 'excuses' bollocks - I suppose retiring at 31 is the way to do it, right? Timing is everything but you just wont care because Fed must burn at all costs). Wrecks Murray there twice while Djoker loses in straights but who cares because main rivals, favourite surface blah blah arbitrary conditions for positive recognition blah blah.
aaaaaaand we are back in excuse territory, ya gave me one I hadn't thought of.

Excuse #4015: One point away from winning match
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
aaaaaaand we are back in excuse territory, ya gave me one I hadn't thought of.

Excuse #4015: One point away from winning match
How on Earth is that even being used as an excuse? It's merely an acknowledgement of the close proximity to a different result that manifested. But as is usual with people these days, nuance is dead. You'd like to pretend there's this disasterous gulf but really it's an extremely competitive rivalry.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Absolutely, that is the case,
Then Rog > Rafa > Djok > Pete
(At the moment)
More like:
Pete - top o' his class
Novak v Rafa v Fed fighting for top, with Fed likely ending as Bronze medalist overlooked by everyone when all is said and done, like the beans&cheese burrito you order ONLY when chicken and beef are unavailable.

 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
I base my "renaissance" prediction on this: Tennis isn't at its' best either when it is completely dominated by 3 people or when it seems completely random. The drama of tennis at its' best occurs when there is a bigger pool of contenders (hypothesis 10) with different styles, with different personalities, with villains and hero's, conflict and quirks. Despite the beauty and skillfullness of the big 3, their domination of the game has made tennis stale. It's too much the same story for too long. The pool of new talent is emerging and they will cause a renewed interest in tennis. Right now I see that pool as; Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Shapo, Felix, Sinner with occasional surprises from guys like DeMineur and Coric and even Kyrgios and a couple of people who haven't emerged yet and the occasional servbot. There is going to be a future for tennis after the big three retire, and that future is going to be better.
Unlike you I won't make predictions. I don't know what will happen in the next few years. But I can tell you that I liked tennis a lot better when the Big 3 were younger, and even then I personally did not like such a lopsided tour where for the most part only three guys were winning everything important, with Murray and Wawrinka edging in a bit and one out-of-the-blue major for Cilic and Delpo.

I've been ready for younger players to take over for some time. It's overdue.
 

Sparlingo

Hall of Fame
Unlike you I won't make predictions. I don't know what will happen in the next few years. But I can tell you that I liked tennis a lot better when the Big 3 were younger, and even then I personally did not like such a lopsided tour where for the most part only three guys were winning everything important, with Murray and Wawrinka edging in a bit and one out-of-the-blue major for Cilic and Delpo.

I've been ready for younger players to take over for some time. It's overdue.
Glad to hear that comment. My belief is that there were structural changes to the game of tennis that extended the big threes dominance. These structural changes included nutrition, towards uniformity of courts, training programs, sports science and equipment technology. It benefited the big three disproportionately due to putting a premium on experience as these changes seeped in, but it also held back the natural renewal process of bringing in new blood. Those same structural changes to the game where the equipment technology, fitness programs, and nutrition etc are evenly available to everyone should mean that things should be more even on the court between players going forward. That's why I don't think it will be so lopsided when the big three age out. My wish isn't for 3 new Wayne Gretzky's to take over, my hope is for 7 new Wayne Gretzky's to take over and a couple of Sidney Crosby's and Kyrgios.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Glad to hear that comment. My belief is that there were structural changes to the game of tennis that extended the big threes dominance. These structural changes included nutrition, towards uniformity of courts, training programs, sports science and equipment technology. It benefited the big three disproportionately due to putting a premium on experience as these changes seeped in, but it also held back the natural renewal process of bringing in new blood. Those same structural changes to the game where the equipment technology, fitness programs, and nutrition etc are evenly available to everyone should mean that things should be more even on the court between players going forward. That's why I don't think it will be so lopsided when the big three age out. My wish isn't for 3 new Wayne Gretzky's to take over, my hope is for 7 new Wayne Gretzky's to take over and a couple of Sidney Crosby's and Kyrgios.
I think you are right. I also think that when only 3 people dominate it has a domino effect on the whole sport. It's kind of group tennis PTSD. For a long time all other players have been conditioned to think they can't win, and I think when that breaks there will be a tsunami of change. I only hope that when the dust settles someone like Shapo is around to win some big titles, someone with an aggressive game. I don't want another Lendl/Wilander era.
 

Sparlingo

Hall of Fame
You stole my heart by mentioning my boy Shapo in that context. That's what I want to see too, an aggressive style that sets the standard. Sinner, I think, could be another one that could capture my heart that yearns for aggressive and fun tennis.
 
More like:
Pete - top o' his class
Novak v Rafa v Fed fighting for top, with Fed likely ending as Bronze medalist overlooked by everyone when all is said and done, like the beans&cheese burrito you order ONLY when chicken and beef are unavailable.

I agree with the fact that pete was the best of his generation, but so is federer. Just because of his longetivity, people usually miss the fact that Djokodal are a generation after him.
It's like saying that if sampras played till 2010, fed was superior than him in his generation...
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
I do believe there will be an influx of new tennis fans.

And when they believe 9 time Slam champion Alexander Zverev is better than Andy Roddick ever was I will ridicule them.
pls no
even 0 slam champ Zverev is better than ARod ever was no?
 

Raphael Nadal

Professional
I find women's tennis is boring because the rivalries are lacking, as the best players are often beaten before the semis and finals.
Rivalries are very important in one-on-one sports :)
Hingis was 11-10 vs. Venus Williams.
Hingis was 6-7 vs. Serena Williams.
Also Hingis vs. Davenport, and Hingis vs. Capriati.
And earlier Hingis vs. Graf, and before that Graf vs. Seles.
So you need to have a Big 3 in each era, so the rivalries can develop.
 
Last edited:
Top