Since 2003 the “big 3” have won 85% of the slams

[fedfan08]

57 of the 67 slams played from 2003 to today were won by one of the big 3. Does that indicate a big problem with the sport? Roy Emerson held the all time grand slam title count record for 30 years when Pete Sampras broke it. It took only 7 years for Sampras’s record 14 slams to be broken and only 2 years to tie Federer’s record 20 slams. At what point do fans of the big 3 question whether their favorite was/is that great or the competition was/is incredibly weak? I don’t think it‘s possible for 3 players (who played against each other for a good part of their careers) to all end up with double digit slam counts if their competition wasn’t incredibly weak. And I say this as a huge Federer fan. I didn’t say it when he was dominating because of course it was fun to watch him dominate. But I am wondering it now as this sport has become more and more uncompetitive. Having the same 3 players win all the slams is not good for the sport.

 

[r2473]

No, I think the Big 3 are just that good.

 

[fedfan08]

No, I think the Big 3 are just that good.

Nadal has won 8 of the last 10 French Opens. Is there another sport where anything close to that has happened?

 

[ibbi]

You ask two questions really Is it good for the sport, and is something wrong with the sport.

Regarding the former, in terms of allowing younger guys to gain confidence with wins and go to the next level it is not good, sure, but just as the Lost Gen came and went, so too will the Next Gen and there will be plenty more youngsters in the years ahead to take up that mantle that so desperately needs to be taken up. On the other hand now that we are entrenched in this era, it is absolutely good for the sport I would think. Having these three guys in this seemingly endless dick measuring contest is a pretty fascinating story, and I would imagine will draw more eyes to the sport in the immediate future than a bunch of random youngsters winning these titles would.

Regarding the latter question - Is something wrong with the sport? Again, yes and no. The transformation of the game in the past 15 years from the racquets and strings, and surfaces and ever increasing athleticism has made tennis easier to play, so it has deepened the field more than it has ever been, which is I guess good for competitiveness, and should help eliminate to some degree the idea that this is just a sport for rich people. On the other hand it has absolutely not only homogenized the game so the best players in one place are basically the best players everywhere with minimal degrees of difference leading to the racking up of titles by a very small number of people, but it has also clearly made it far easier to significantly extend careers because guys are fitter than ever, and getting more aid from the weapon they wield.

 

[RS]

That competition debate goes forever. Some say the big 3 are too good and others say the lack of depth makes them look better.

 

[clout]

If you go from 2004 Wimbledon or 2005 French Open onward the ratio is even crazier. With 2003, you had 3 other champs, then you had Gaudio in ‘04 and Safin in ‘05.

 

[fedfan08]

If you go from 2004 Wimbledon or 2005 French Open onward the ratio is even crazier. With 2003, you had 3 other champs, then you had Gaudio in ‘04 and Safin in ‘05.

I picked 2003 because that was the first year Fed won a slam.

 

[Rosstour]

Nadal has won 8 of the last 10 French Opens. Is there another sport where anything close to that has happened?

Basketball, Bulls won 6 in 8 years. And people therefore believe Jordan is the greatest. Not that the NBA was weak between 1990 and 2000.

 

[clout]

Basketball, Bulls won 6 in 8 years. And people therefore believe Jordan is the greatest. Not that the NBA was weak between 1990 and 2000.

Bill Russell won 11 titles in 13 years, he was even a player/coach in his last 1-2 titles. Obviously this was a much different era