The Big 3 are getting old

zvelf

Hall of Fame
Some people believe that Djokovic and Nadal can dominate for a few more years. Some people deride the young guns. Some people call this a weak era. I’d say these are all now questionable. 2017-2019 were relatively weak years, but 2020 finally saw a player in his 20s win a major and the current top 8 players in the world who are not the Big 3 have mostly come into their own: #3 Dominic Thiem, #4 Daniil Medvedev, #6 Stefanos Tsitsipas, #7 Alexander Zverev, and #8 Andrey Rublev. (Granted Thiem benefited from Djokovic defaulting.) Djokovic and Nadal at ages 33 and 34 would have been considered ancient in tennis 10 years ago and even though they and Federer have aged gracefully, they can’t fight time forever. Federer at 39 will struggle to win tournaments going forward and his chances at another major are extreme longshots at best. Federer probably won’t win 6 more to tie Connors’ 109 tournament-wins record unless he starts playing a lot of 250s.

This younger group of players have already surpassed Federer and are approaching parity with Djokovic and Nadal even if they are not quite there yet. This is most apparent in the year-end championship won by Tsitsipas last year when neither Djokovic nor Nadal made it out of the round robin round and this year’s version is currently being led by Medvedev and Thiem, who beat Djokovic and Nadal, respectively. Djokovic and Nadal may come back and win the championship, but clearly this field is presenting a difficult challenge for them.

Here are some head-to-head stats to provide context. Note that this is before the Nadal-Tsitsipas match later today. Nadal is still doing very well against these younger players but Djokovic is handling that field slightly less well than Thiem himself is. Federer is handling that field about as well as Tsitsipas is, both with losing records against the field. As the Big 3 continue to age, these younger players will beat them more and more regularly and at least 2 or 3 of them will become regular major winners. That's even before someone like Sinner matures into another big threat.

5uHzvCu.jpg
 
So Djokovic and Nadal will stop dominating some day, is that your conclusion? Well, no sh*t Sherlock. Might as well say that the sky is blue while you're at it.
 
So Djokovic and Nadal will stop dominating some day, is that your conclusion? Well, no sh*t Sherlock. Might as well say that the sky is blue while you're at it.

No, it's that they will stop dominating soon by which I mean within the next year and that Federer has already stopped.
 
Some people deride the young guns. Some people call this a weak era. I’d say these are all now questionable.

No. The young guns deserve to be derided, and this is a weak era.

The Big-3 are "getting" old? The Big-3 are old (Federer is beyond old), and it's pathetic that the young guns are simply "approaching parity" with Nadal and Djokovic. They should've taken over by now. Even with Federer, they haven't gained much on him at the slams. It seems that the young guns won't take down the Big-3, but that the Big-3 will have to lay down for them to take over.
 
No. The young guns deserve to be derided, and this is a weak era.

The Big-3 are "getting" old? The Big-3 are old (Federer is beyond old), and it's pathetic that the young guns are simply "approaching parity" with Nadal and Djokovic. They should've taken over by now. Even with Federer, they haven't gained much on him at the slams. It seems that the young guns won't take down the Big-3, but that the Big-3 will have to lay down for them to take over.

Yeah practically all the all time greats had retired by this point besides Connors and Agassi
 
They won 14 of the last 15 slams.

Hard to imagine, especially since the tour is getting stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger.
 
Hard to imagine, especially since the tour is getting stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger.

stop being such a salty Djokodal hater.
better be happy that you had the chance to witness how they dominated the ever stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger competition from youngers
:laughing:
 
Hard to imagine, especially since the tour is getting stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger and stronger.
Competition matters only to a certain point. I wouldn't say that Federer didn't play some of his best tennis in 2004-07 despite his competition being relatively weak.

14/15 slams won by Big3 is an amazing stat no matter what the competition is, and I would never call them old.
 
By the standards of the 80s and 90s, even Thiem is getting old, Medwedev and Zverev are in their middle age, peak years. When the ATP launched the young guns campaign around 2000, the young players were 19-23 or so. Sinner is young.
 
By the standards of the 80s and 90s, even Thiem is getting old, Medwedev and Zverev are in their middle age, peak years. When the ATP launched the young guns campaign around 2000, the young players were 19-23 or so. Sinner is young.

True, but players also used to play well into their late 30s to early 40s in the past. Laver, Rosewall, Pancho, Fred Perry, etc. So, it's not really new in tennis to have great players still playing well in their mid 30s.
 
Maybe the age standards are changing. I think, Lendl said something, that 33 would be the new 27 or so. Arthur Gore won Wimbledon with 41. Tyson will fight for the over 50 crown. Bernhard Langer shot a 68 at the Masters and made the cut at age 63.
 
True, but players also used to play well into their late 30s to early 40s in the past. Laver, Rosewall, Pancho, Fred Perry, etc. So, it's not really new in tennis to have great players still playing well in their mid 30s.

In normal eras younger talents kept them at bay. The musketeers overtook Tilden, Rosewall overtook Gonzales, Laver overtook Rosewall. Although Tilden and Rosewall returned to the top spot briefly aged 36/37 during a bit of a lapse in competition, like Fred would in 2017 if Nadal weren't back as well. Meanwhile Djodal are collecting slems like cakes even nearing 35.
 
Competition matters only to a certain point. I wouldn't say that Federer didn't play some of his best tennis in 2004-07 despite his competition being relatively weak.

14/15 slams won by Big3 is an amazing stat no matter what the competition is, and I would never call them old.

care to explain the logic?
I don't see any in these 2 lines.

if the competition is weak, and Fed GS don't count because of it, how does the 14/15 slams all of a sudden become "amazing stat" when you try to mask weak competition by replacing it with "no matter what the competition is"
if Fed GS don't count cause of weak competition, then the 14/15 should be rubbish as well, no?
 
care to explain the logic?
I don't see any in these 2 lines.

if the competition is weak, and Fed GS don't count because of it, how does the 14/15 slams all of a sudden become "amazing stat" when you try to mask weak competition by replacing it with "no matter what the competition is"
if Fed GS don't count cause of weak competition, then the 14/15 should be rubbish as well, no?
who said that?
 
Maybe the age standards are changing. I think, Lendl said something, that 33 would be the new 27 or so. Arthur Gore won Wimbledon with 41. Tyson will fight for the over 50 crown. Bernhard Langer shot a 68 at the Masters and made the cut at age 63.
Yeah, gotta disagree massively with Lendl here.
 
You have serious comprehension problems. Now I'll keep ignoring you.

tell me that I am wrong
The difference is Djokovic peaked in 2011, then 4 years later, then again 4 more years later (5/7 last slams won)...

While Federer could never get back to the previous level of domination after the Roddick/Hewitt/Baghdatis competition faded away...

that is just 10 seconds invested in search.
guess what I will find if I put anything between 1 - 5 minutes into searching through your "creations"
 
As crazy as this may sound, all of them besides Stefanos are already older than Rafa was when he won AO '09 (Rafa was just 22 years and 8 months old when he won).

But no one is saying any of them are the next Rafa so that comparison isn't meaningful. You don't have to be Nadal to be good enough to beat Djokovic and Nadal as they approach 35.
 
Back
Top