Tennis player achievements feel hollow to me now. The Big 3 will dominate into their 40s unopposed

[USO19]

Watching a nearly 38-year-old Federer sprinting around the Wimbledon court like he was 25, it became clear to me that I'm numb to this stuff. It doesn't fit into any historic context. These guys will have careers twice as long as prior greats, making the numbers pointless to even compare. Why even talk about "GOAT" when we likely won't even know who the best player of this era was?

All 3 of these guys are clearly going to end up with 20+ slams. All 3 of them will be Top 5 in their early 40s.

None of the newer players are as good as them. In the past, players would actually decline with age, and this meant we were never quite sure if the younger players catching the old ones was because of age-related decline or the younger players simply being better.

That isn't happening here. The Big 3 are playing as well as they ever have, and as long as that continues to be the case, it's silly to think any of the younger players are going to catch them. Like, how often do players as great as prime form versions of Fedalovic come around?

All their Grand Slam wins at this point are just redundant. We get the point. They're far ahead of everyone else. They can't be compared to past greats. The end.

There's really no reason to even watch tennis anymore until they decide they're bored with their dominance.

 

[Tennisbg]

There will be generation that will use medicines even better than what they use now. They will play until 50s and will run around like 20 year olds. Then there will come the generation that stays young eternally and we will have guys with 100+ slams... We will be stuck watching them forever as they will accumulate knowledge and skill that newer guys can't overtake.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

"Big 3 have not declined"

Ban OP, end thread.

 

[Lleytonstation]

"Big 3 have not declined"

Ban OP, end thread.

That's the point. They have declined and they are still dominating the sport. It should not happen. I am fine with them playing great for as long as possible, but if NO ONE can win a slam except these guys, it is "redundant."

I will enjoy it, but at some point, these numbers become irrelevant. I mean I had forgotten Rafa's masters count the other day, was it 33/34/35? I mean, does it matter anymore?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

That's the point. They have declined and they are still dominating the sport. It should not happen. I am fine with them playing great for as long as possible, but if NO ONE can win a slam except these guys, it is "redundant."

I will enjoy it, but at some point, these numbers become irrelevant. I mean I had forgotten Rafa's masters count the other day, was it 33/34/35? I mean, does it matter anymore?

OP directly said they didn't decline, rofl. Of course they did and no one yet can stand up to them yet, sad times. They've established themselves as top 3 OE regardless though, so the growing numbers only matter for the race between them three anyway.

 

[ChrisRF]

"Big 3 have not declined"

Ban OP, end thread.

It isn’t that clear to be honest when we look at the Slams. Yes, they don’t dominate every Masters at will anymore, but just look at some facts.

- Federer won Wimbledon in 2017 for the first time without losing a set
- Nadal lost 3 sets in total (!) during the last 3 years at RG, and his 2017 win was even more dominant concerning games lost than 2008 or 2010.
- Djokovic likely played his best AO final ever this year, despite Nadal being really bad in this one.

Facts don’t lie. Now they peak for the Slams, and that is the tribute to age, but ONLY that I think.

Also I think older players are better to a certain degree now compared to earlier periods in history, but this impression is even more increased due to no technology changes in the past 15 years. In earlier eras younger player had the advantage to start their careers with new technology at some point, while the older players had to adapt (which is always more difficult).

Combine that advantage with 3 GOAT candidate players who don’t have declined that much when it matters most, and today’s results are explainable.

 

[Pandora Mikado]

Watching a nearly 38-year-old Federer sprinting around the Wimbledon court like he was 25, it became clear to me that I'm numb to this stuff. It doesn't fit into any historic context. These guys will have careers twice as long as prior greats, making the numbers pointless to even compare. Why even talk about "GOAT" when we likely won't even know who the best player of this era was?

All 3 of these guys are clearly going to end up with 20+ slams. All 3 of them will be Top 5 in their early 40s.

None of the newer players are as good as them. In the past, players would actually decline with age, and this meant we were never quite sure if the younger players catching the old ones was because of age-related decline or the younger players simply being better.

That isn't happening here. The Big 3 are playing as well as they ever have, and as long as that continues to be the case, it's silly to think any of the younger players are going to catch them. Like, how often do players as great as prime form versions of Fedalovic come around?

All their Grand Slam wins at this point are just redundant. We get the point. They're far ahead of everyone else. They can't be compared to past greats. The end.

There's really no reason to even watch tennis anymore until they decide they're bored with their dominance.

 

[sredna42]

I actually enjoy watching good amateur matches on youtube, or channels like londontennistube, for some reason its enjoyable because its more real or relatable.

The top of the ATP is just like a circus that travels from town to town performing the same zombie dreamwalk lately. Kyrgios is doing his best to save tennis though

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

It isn’t that clear to be honest when we look at the Slams. Yes, they don’t dominate every Masters at will anymore, but just look at some facts.

- Federer won Wimbledon in 2017 for the first time without losing a set
- Nadal lost 3 sets in total (!) during the last 3 years at RG, and his 2017 win was even more dominant concerning games lost than 2008 or 2010.
- Djokovic likely played his best AO final ever this year, despite Nadal being really bad in this one.

Facts don’t lie. Now they peak for the Slams, and that is the tribute to age, but ONLY that I think.

Also I think older players are better to a certain degree now compared to earlier periods in history, but this impression is even more increased due to no technology changes in the past 15 years. In earlier eras younger player had the advantage to start their careers with new technology at some point, while the older players had to adapt (which is always more difficult).

Combine that advantage with 3 GOAT candidate players who don’t have declined that much when it matters most, and today’s results are explainable.

Being more dominant is no indicator of level in isolation if opponents aren't taken into account. Early round wobbles are also irrelevant (unless it's a loss, obviously), as players routinely time their peaks for the more dangerous matches. Pronouncing 2017 Wimbledon a better campaign because Federer didn't drop a random early set as he did in 03 and 05, or because he could beat Raonic-Berdych-Cryic in straights as opposed to dropping a set to Hewitt/Roddick/Nadal in 04/06, makes no sense. Likewise, beautifying AO 19 final as if it were better than 08/11/13 campaigns because weakdull was moving like a log is equally silly.

We know level isn't determined by fancy numbers but the opposite, numbers influenced by both players and circumstances. Level manifests in quality of movement and ballstriking, which can be appreciated visually. Just compare how Federer deals with rally balls that fall into the broad 'neutral' category, then and now. Aggression dented considerably.

 

[Lew II]

Big3's records will be soon broken then. I'll wait.

 

[Tommy Haas]

Father time catches up to everyone. I don't think the big 3 will dominate into their 40s.

 

[ChrisRF]

Being more dominant is no indicator of level in isolation if opponents aren't taken into account. Early round wobbles are also irrelevant (unless it's a loss, obviously), as players routinely time their peaks for the more dangerous matches. Pronouncing 2017 Wimbledon a better campaign because Federer didn't drop a random early set as he did in 03 and 05, or because he could beat Raonic-Berdych-Cryic in straights as opposed to dropping a set to Hewitt/Roddick/Nadal in 04/06, makes no sense. Likewise, beautifying AO 19 final as if it were better than 08/11/13 campaigns because weakdull was moving like a log is equally silly.

We know level isn't determined by fancy numbers but the opposite, numbers influenced by both players and circumstances. Level manifests in quality of movement and ballstriking, which can be appreciated visually. Just compare how Federer deals with rally balls that fall into the broad 'neutral' category, then and now. Aggression dented considerably.

I fully agree that the level of the opposition matters, and I also agree with some instances of really bad form of the opponent. But it cannot be a coincidence if it happens over and over again. Also the whole field cannot be that much worse in the last 3 years than before.

And aggression is only one factor of the game. Also such things stay subjective. What finally matters must be the numbers, because only they are objective.

Of course over a whole season Federer in 2006 or Djokovic in 2015 was better than now, but at the Slams they are not much worse I think, especially Djokovic.

 

[MichaelNadal]

 

[OhYes]

Watching a nearly 38-year-old Federer sprinting around the Wimbledon court like he was 25, it became clear to me that I'm numb to this stuff. It doesn't fit into any historic context. These guys will have careers twice as long as prior greats, making the numbers pointless to even compare. Why even talk about "GOAT" when we likely won't even know who the best player of this era was?

All 3 of these guys are clearly going to end up with 20+ slams. All 3 of them will be Top 5 in their early 40s.

None of the newer players are as good as them. In the past, players would actually decline with age, and this meant we were never quite sure if the younger players catching the old ones was because of age-related decline or the younger players simply being better.

That isn't happening here. The Big 3 are playing as well as they ever have, and as long as that continues to be the case, it's silly to think any of the younger players are going to catch them. Like, how often do players as great as prime form versions of Fedalovic come around?

All their Grand Slam wins at this point are just redundant. We get the point. They're far ahead of everyone else. They can't be compared to past greats. The end.

There's really no reason to even watch tennis anymore until they decide they're bored with their dominance.

Let us put aside Nadal and Djokovic (they are after all 5 and 6 years younger than our big hero). At the age of 38 Federer is capable to play his 2nd longest career match (first is from 2006 vs Nadal), and to be perfectly ok after it. In fact I could say with certainty that if that was semi final, he could've played final too.
So what do you think is the cause of your hollowness ?

 

[KINGROGER]

Yea we are in the inflation era. I judge them mostly on what they did in their prime 20s years.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Also the whole field cannot be that much worse in the last 3 years than before.

Why not? All it takes is reliable 1.5/2nd tier players declining with no upcoming quality to replace them. Murray, Wawrinka, del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer - all crashed, mostly due to health/age. Dimitrov, Raonic, Nishikori never lived up to potential for various reasons. Look at Cilic making two finals in this field, and he wasn't close to once-in-a-lifetime USO '14 peak but it was enough; and he has the ability but is an extreme choker, hence mostly stunk up the joint in those finals, even if I liked that Fed won. The entire weak era observation boils down to this second tier becoming totally barren, an unprecedented development in OE (the previous lean period pre-Fedr had more to do with the first tier lacking as Sampras declined and Agassi wasn't that consistent, though the second tier was a bit too up and down as well but Hewitt/Roddick/Safin/Ferrero were easily better than whoever we have now).

Of course over a whole season Federer in 2006 or Djokovic in 2015 was better than now, but at the Slams they are not much worse I think, especially Djokovic.

Oh no, I totally think they are. Djokovic would've run over this field if he was close to his best. That only happened in the second week of AO, which I accept as an isolated prime level performance. The USO final was pretty close despite the comfortably-looking scoreline (Djokovic's DR was 1.14), del Potro just couldn't win in the clutch at all. Prime Nadal wouldn't have given Thiem a set in the RG final, too (he's had a few early round struggles historically but always made sure to bring the best he could in the final, as ATGs normally do).

 

[mental midget]

There will be generation that will use medicines even better than what they use now. They will play until 50s and will run around like 20 year olds. Then there will come the generation that stays young eternally and we will have guys with 100+ slams... We will be stuck watching them forever as they will accumulate knowledge and skill that newer guys can't overtake.

physiologically it's possible to maintain 'peak physical health' up until an average age of around 35 or so. this is the first generation of players to take advantage of science and maximize to that generalized limit. this does not mean 50 will be the new 28 in coming years, but it does mean a lengthening of the historic average for a pro's career, barring serious injury.

 

[toby55555]

One thing for sure I no longer take any win against them outside of a GS as meaning anything; that’s clearly all they care about now, the rest is just meeting their obligations.

 

[USO19]

OP directly said they didn't decline, rofl. Of course they did and no one yet can stand up to them yet, sad times. They've established themselves as top 3 OE regardless though, so the growing numbers only matter for the race between them three anyway.

I see no evidence of it.

Does this really look "declined" to you? (check the 1st and 3rd points in the video):

I mean, honestly?

Anyone who moves like that has not declined. Unless you think Federer used to be Usain Bolt.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I see no evidence of it.

Does this really look "declined" to you? (check the 1st and 3rd points in the video):

I mean, honestly?

Anyone who moves like that has not declined. Unless you think Federer used to be Usain Bolt.

Just put peak Federer sprints side by side. He's not slow at all in absolute terms, obviously, but he sure used to be faster. (Nadal used to be even faster, of course.) Now he reaches those balls later and it's tougher for him to hit winning shots against them. It's a testament to Fed's racquet skills that he can still often make those shots on the stretch.

 

[BeatlesFan]

All 3 of these guys are clearly going to end up with 20+ slams. All 3 of them will be Top 5 in their early 40s.

Most would agree that the likelihood of this happening hovers around .0005%. Nadal has already stated many times he won't be playing in his late 30's. And if you think both Nadal and Djokovic will end up with 20+ slams, that also has little likelihood of happening. Yet you present this wild scenario as being almost certain to happen when it's wildly absurd.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Father time catches up to everyone. I don't think the big 3 will dominate into their 40s.

Neither does anyone else with two brain cells to rub together.

 

[duaneeo]

We get the point. They're far ahead of everyone else. They can't be compared to past greats.

Federer can, because like past greats, he actually faced strong young players who were good enough to win slams and surpass the older players. He achieved the slam record before tennis entered the LostGen era.

 

[helterskelter]

Neither does anyone else with two brain cells to rub together.

The part that probably is likely at this point is Federer being top five (or more likely top ten) in his early 40s. Assuming that 40 counts as "early 40s," that is, which it technically does. Federer turns 40 in two years and four days time. That's still a fairly long way away, but his chances of maintaining a level good enough to be in the top 10 on his 40th birthday are decent, especially when we consider that the rankings always lag results by up to a year (e.g. he could still be in the top 10 at 40 based in large part on results he achieved shortly after turning 39).

 

[Robert F]

One thing for sure I no longer take any win against them outside of a GS as meaning anything; that’s clearly all they care about now, the rest is just meeting their obligations.

I don't think they are just making their obligations. I think they use matches outside of a GS for practice and to stay match ready for the slams. So if something is going to interfere with the slams they'll back off. But they want to get quality matches under their belt. I think they are more concerned with keeping their tennis level high and less about wins in tournaments outside of the slams.

I wonder if the "weak Era" is a problem not of the current competition but the fact that tennis is getting a smaller pool of athletes to draw from. So maybe 2000-2007 was the last group where tennis was fed a lot of athletes hence you had some stellar players and a solid second and third tier of athletes. Now with all sports growing, athletes continue to play team sports, sports with less need for high end training early on (cause I think all athletes practice their butts off as they committ to their sport), and I think younger generations having less interest in sport/athletics. So all the great athletes are spread out more and tennis gets less of them.

Pat McEnroe mentioned on Jon Wertheim's podcast that US men's tennis is suffering because only wealthy families can afford it, so this cuts down the pool of athletes to join the sport. Looking at US men's tennis you have several great players out their and even with all their training they do well, but in the end might be limited by their genetics.

 

[USO19]

Just put peak Federer sprints side by side. He's not slow at all in absolute terms, obviously, but he sure used to be faster. (Nadal used to be even faster, of course.) Now he reaches those balls later and it's tougher for him to hit winning shots against them. It's a testament to Fed's racquet skills that he can still often make those shots on the stretch.

Got any proof that he used to be faster?

The flawed assumption people make is that athletes have the same quality of training throughout their career. How do we know younger Federer put in the same speed work that he puts in today? How do we know he was training in all the same ways?

I mean, did Barry Bonds put up historically unprecedented numbers in his late 30s because pitching just got weaker, while he had actually declined? I think not.

 

[USO19]

Most would agree that the likelihood of this happening hovers around .0005%. Nadal has already stated many times he won't be playing in his late 30's. And if you think both Nadal and Djokovic will end up with 20+ slams, that also has little likelihood of happening. Yet you present this wild scenario as being almost certain to happen when it's wildly absurd.

? Nadal is just 2 slams away from 20. He might very well already have that by this time next year. He has at least a 95% chance of winning the French Open again next year. As long as he plays, he's the heavy favorite to win the French Open.

And Djokovic said he wants to play as long as Federer has, so it's basically a foregone conclusion. If he hadn't gotten injured and hooked up with some New Age quack, he would obviously already be ahead of Federer in slams.

I remember Nadal and Toni saying many years ago that Nadal wouldn't even be playing past 30, yet here he is at 33, showing no signs he has any interest in stopping any time soon. I take comments from their camp on that about as seriously as I take all their claims that Nadal is nearly cripped from injuries. They're PR stuntmen.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Watching a nearly 38-year-old Federer sprinting around the Wimbledon court like he was 25, it became clear to me that I'm numb to this stuff. It doesn't fit into any historic context. These guys will have careers twice as long as prior greats, making the numbers pointless to even compare. Why even talk about "GOAT" when we likely won't even know who the best player of this era was?

All 3 of these guys are clearly going to end up with 20+ slams. All 3 of them will be Top 5 in their early 40s.

None of the newer players are as good as them. In the past, players would actually decline with age, and this meant we were never quite sure if the younger players catching the old ones was because of age-related decline or the younger players simply being better.

That isn't happening here. The Big 3 are playing as well as they ever have, and as long as that continues to be the case, it's silly to think any of the younger players are going to catch them. Like, how often do players as great as prime form versions of Fedalovic come around?

All their Grand Slam wins at this point are just redundant. We get the point. They're far ahead of everyone else. They can't be compared to past greats. The end.

There's really no reason to even watch tennis anymore until they decide they're bored with their dominance.

The focus really needs to point in one direction and ask why the endless coaches, or whoever is responsible for that laughably overrated "Next Generation". In fact, to this day they are the Can't Win A Major Legion (Thiem, Nishikori, Kyrgios, Dimitrov, Simon, Pospisil, Tomic, Querry, et al), who have been propped up by the worst of the ATP defenders as if this Legion ever represented a strong men's field. They are the "Next Generation" to be sure--the second in a row of a Mount Denali-high pile of players who just stumbled on courts, collected checks, then aged before vanishing. It was their responsibility to rise to the challenge--do their job, by defeating the biggest majors winners (the now-Granddaddies otherwise known as the "Big Three") and take their own.

All we ever get are the most thin, lie-stuffed, shameful excuses of "w-w-well, the Big three a-a-are ATG, so they cannot win..." Really? At the time Edberg turned pro in 1983--with competition already considered ATGs in that era--he won his first major two years later. Becker, in that same environment (and I'm just waiting for some "Big Three"/modern men's tour defender to attempt to downgrade the field of those years) turned pro in 1984, winning his first major in 1985 as well. Tennis history has near endless examples of players doing their job no matter the size or talent level of the competition, yet for two recent generations, that has (in large part) never been the case. So, the Granddaddies will continue to suck up majors until one of the Can't Win A Major Legion finally decides to find talent / heart / determination / a purpose to do what is understood by everyone entering professional tennis.

If or when that happens is anyone's guess, but it paints a clear, undeniable picture of how men's tennis has suffered for nearly 20 years.

 

[Robert F]

I find it almost ironic, that Federer is the one who has to defend his slam record. In the past you could count on the rest of the competition to help you out so you could finally retire. But no one is really stepping up on a consistent basis. If the next gens/younger gens were at least more present in semifinals you'd figure they were making progress. But even that is tough for them to do. One or two guys at most show up, but it hasn't routinely been a new guy.

2018 US Open Semifinals Nadal vs. JM Delpo; Nishikori vs Djokovic
2019 OZ Semis Djokovic vs. Pouille; Tsitsipas vs. Nadal
2019 Frenchie Djokovic vs Thiem; Federer vs. Nadal
2019 Wimby, Fed vs Nadal; Djokovic vs. RBA.

16 semi final spots in a Grand Slam year. 10 taken by the Big 3. 6 chances for someone besides the big 3 to make it into a final. You'd think 1 out of the 6 could make it. Crazy.

Guys just aren't playing at a consistently high level. Seems they might have one good slam in them only to get shut down by the Big 3.
Could Pouille or RBA make another semi-final?

 

[mr tonyz]

It isn’t that clear to be honest when we look at the Slams. Yes, they don’t dominate every Masters at will anymore, but just look at some facts.

- Federer won Wimbledon in 2017 for the first time without losing a set
- Nadal lost 3 sets in total (!) during the last 3 years at RG, and his 2017 win was even more dominant concerning games lost than 2008 or 2010.
- Djokovic likely played his best AO final ever this year, despite Nadal being really bad in this one.

Facts don’t lie. Now they peak for the Slams, and that is the tribute to age, but ONLY that I think.

Also I think older players are better to a certain degree now compared to earlier periods in history, but this impression is even more increased due to no technology changes in the past 15 years. In earlier eras younger player had the advantage to start their careers with new technology at some point, while the older players had to adapt (which is always more difficult).

Combine that advantage with 3 GOAT candidate players who don’t have declined that much when it matters most, and today’s results are explainable.

Bolded is an opinion not a fact.

Comparing playing levels with stats like sets/won lost doesn't work either. You could play @ a higher level yet still lose on any given day whilst you could also play @ a lower level & still win. All that matters is that you play a little better than your opponent on any given day.

Do you really think Nadal of '08/'10 would lose to Nadal of '17-'19? You might say yes , but deep down inside you know it's a real long shot.

Do you really think Fed of 2017 would beat every other Wimbly championship winning Fed? in 06'/'08 Fed went through to the finals without dropping a set also, then he ran into Nadal on both ocassions. in 2017 he had a mentally & physically exhausted Cilic to feast on , it's not even comparable.

 

[mr tonyz]

I find it almost ironic, that Federer is the one who has to defend his slam record. In the past you could count on the rest of the competition to help you out so you could finally retire. But no one is really stepping up on a consistent basis. If the next gens/younger gens were at least more present in semifinals you'd figure they were making progress. But even that is tough for them to do. One or two guys at most show up, but it hasn't routinely been a new guy.

2018 US Open Semifinals Nadal vs. JM Delpo; Nishikori vs Djokovic
2019 OZ Semis Djokovic vs. Pouille; Tsitsipas vs. Nadal
2019 Frenchie Djokovic vs Thiem; Federer vs. Nadal
2019 Wimby, Fed vs Nadal; Djokovic vs. RBA.

16 semi final spots in a Grand Slam year. 10 taken by the Big 3. 6 chances for someone besides the big 3 to make it into a final. You'd think 1 out of the 6 could make it. Crazy.

Guys just aren't playing at a consistently high level. Seems they might have one good slam in them only to get shut down by the Big 3.
Could Pouille or RBA make another semi-final?

The main problem is is that the Big-3 is in fact a 3 , which means the rest of the field have to take out @ the very least 2 of them . On top of which the Big-3 only get in eachother's way in the Semifinals @ the earliest whilst the top of the 3 always has the field in his path through to the final. Yes the field is underperforming , but i also feel that they are a little unlucky to have the top 3 Slam champs of all-time all playing @ the same time , it's incredibly rough for them.

 

[ChrisRF]

Bolded is an opinion not a fact.

Comparing playing levels with stats like sets/won lost doesn't work either. You could play @ a higher level yet still lose on any given day whilst you could also play @ a lower level & still win. All that matters is that you play a little better than your opponent on any given day.

Do you really think Nadal of '08/'10 would lose to Nadal of '17-'19? You might say yes , but deep down inside you know it's a real long shot.

Do you really think Fed of 2017 would beat every other Wimbly championship winning Fed? in 06'/'08 Fed went through to the finals without dropping a set also, then he ran into Nadal on both ocassions. in 2017 he had a mentally & physically exhausted Cilic to feast on , it's not even comparable.

I can only say that Federer himself believes that and has said it in multiple interviews. He thinks he’s a much more complete player now and the slightly better footwork of back then couldn’t compensate that. He explicitly mentioned his 2003 version and said that version wouldn't have much chances against the Federer of today. It think this interview was in 2017 or 2018.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Federer has shown Rafa and Novak its possible to play longer than they thought possible. And they are both going for the slam record. Cant imagine they wont take it. Cause they aint giving up. If so they would have retired already and they are still winning slams.

? Nadal is just 2 slams away from 20. He might very well already have that by this time next year. He has at least a 95% chance of winning the French Open again next year. As long as he plays, he's the heavy favorite to win the French Open.

And Djokovic said he wants to play as long as Federer has, so it's basically a foregone conclusion. If he hadn't gotten injured and hooked up with some New Age quack, he would obviously already be ahead of Federer in slams.

I remember Nadal and Toni saying many years ago that Nadal wouldn't even be playing past 30, yet here he is at 33, showing no signs he has any interest in stopping any time soon. I take comments from their camp on that about as seriously as I take all their claims that Nadal is nearly cripped from injuries. They're PR stuntmen.

 

[KINGROGER]

I can only say that Federer himself believes that and has said it in multiple interviews. He thinks he’s a much more complete player now and the slightly better footwork of back then couldn’t compensate that. He explicitly mentioned his 2003 version and said that version wouldn't have much chances against the Federer of today. It think this interview was in 2017 or 2018.

The Federer of today struggles with anyone who can hit with consistent depth off both sides... IE Thiem, Zverev on occasion, Djokovic etc.

If he can be beaten by a mindless ball basher Thiem.... any version of Federer since 2003 YEC will have a field day

 

[ABCD]

He explicitly mentioned his 2003 version and said that version wouldn't have much chances against the Federer of today. It think this interview was in 2017 or 2018.

That interview was in March, 2019.

 

[mr tonyz]

That interview was in March, 2019.

You'll have to revise Fed's best ever from 2015 Fed to 2019 Fed as we've heard it yet again straight from the horses mouth .

We'll check back in a few more years & revise it again when Fed admits that he's playing better in his 40s than he was back in his mid 20s.

 

[Sephiroth]

It's cuz you've gotten used to watching the Big 3 win all the **** every single day but if you watch a non big 3 player winning a Master title for example like Del Potro winning his first ever masters last year and just how hard he had to win it, it brings you to reality and makes you realize just how impressive the Big 3's records are.

It just happens the Big 3 do it easier, and a lot of it is through aura itself. Well earned ofc

 

[Lew II]

No one complained about Fed in his 30s playing good.

Djokovic and Nadal do the same and everyone goes out of his mind.

 

[Sephiroth]

No one complained about Fed in his 30s reaching latter stages.

Djokovic and Nadal do the same and everyone goes out of his mind.

Mr J...is that you?

 

[ABCD]

You'll have to revise Fed's best ever from 2015 Fed to 2019 Fed as we've heard it yet again straight from the horses mouth .

We'll check back in a few more years & revise it again when Fed admits that he's playing better in his 40s than he was back in his mid 20s.

You need to brush up your comprehension skills. In 2015 Federer said that he played better than any time up to that point. In 2019 he said that he played better than in 2003. He did not compare between 2015 and 2019 so his more recent statement does not exclude a possibility that his best was in 2015. However, it is clear that he claims that he is a better player in post-2015 period than in mid-2000 period.

 

[thrust]

Watching a nearly 38-year-old Federer sprinting around the Wimbledon court like he was 25, it became clear to me that I'm numb to this stuff. It doesn't fit into any historic context. These guys will have careers twice as long as prior greats, making the numbers pointless to even compare. Why even talk about "GOAT" when we likely won't even know who the best player of this era was?

All 3 of these guys are clearly going to end up with 20+ slams. All 3 of them will be Top 5 in their early 40s.

None of the newer players are as good as them. In the past, players would actually decline with age, and this meant we were never quite sure if the younger players catching the old ones was because of age-related decline or the younger players simply being better.

That isn't happening here. The Big 3 are playing as well as they ever have, and as long as that continues to be the case, it's silly to think any of the younger players are going to catch them. Like, how often do players as great as prime form versions of Fedalovic come around?

All their Grand Slam wins at this point are just redundant. We get the point. They're far ahead of everyone else. They can't be compared to past greats. The end.

There's really no reason to even watch tennis anymore until they decide they're bored with their dominance.

Which is why players accomplishments should only be compared to the players of the era they played In. Players, from the 2003-2020 era surely need to be separated from previous eras due to modern equipment, court speeds, sports medicine and superior playing conditions.

 

[KINGROGER]

You need to brush up your comprehension skills. In 2015 Federer said that he played better than any time up to that point. In 2019 he said that he played better than in 2003. He did not compare between 2015 and 2019 so his more recent statement does not exclude a possibility that his best was in 2015. However, it is clear that he claims that he is a better player in post-2015 period than in mid-2000 period.

Facts and reality say otherwise.

 

[USO19]

No one complained about Fed in his 30s playing good.

Djokovic and Nadal do the same and everyone goes out of his mind.

Because one is an anomaly. If it were just Federer, we would just say, "well, Federer is just a freak."

When it's three guys dominating tennis forever, something else is at play.

 

[SaintPetros]

Most would agree that the likelihood of this happening hovers around .0005%. Nadal has already stated many times he won't be playing in his late 30's. And if you think both Nadal and Djokovic will end up with 20+ slams, that also has little likelihood of happening. Yet you present this wild scenario as being almost certain to happen when it's wildly absurd.

Wasn't the idea of Fred playing this long and winning 20 slams once wildly absurd?

 

[scotus]

The Swiss pharma has no equal.

 

[Fridge]

I completely understand. Any player outside of the Big 3 is labeled a mug when in reality they are in the top 0.1% of the world at what they do. I would just love to see some random top 200 player that no one recognizes walk into a club and smoke the best player there without breaking a sweat.

 

[SaintPetros]

I completely understand. Any player outside of the Big 3 is labeled a mug when in reality they are in the top 0.1% of the world at what they do. I would just love to see some random top 200 player that no one recognizes walk into a club and smoke the best player there without breaking a sweat.

They're mugs mostly because they're mental midgets without ambition, not because they're bad players.

 

[Fridge]

They're mugs mostly because they're mental midgets without ambition, not because they're bad players.

You don't become a professional athlete without having ambition

 

[SaintPetros]

You don't become a professional athlete without having ambition

Tomic has ambition?

 

[Fedforever]

Because one is an anomaly. If it were just Federer, we would just say, "well, Federer is just a freak."

When it's three guys dominating tennis forever, something else is at play.

I agree. Ironically, I think the fact that all 3 players could end up with 20+ slams makes the GOAT discussion ridiculous (as well as annoying). There's no way all three of them happen to be naturally so much better than all players who have gone before. There must be changes in the game that have allowed this to happen.