The big 3 are so intrinsically connected, it is ever possible to put them in separate tiers?

Hitman

Bionic Poster
The holy trinity of tennis, the three tennis Gods that ruled like no other.

They have all won so much, and for so long, sharing many similar traits and achievements.

Are they always destined to be seen as a single tier? And if yes, when did that tier become ironclad? Was it when they all won 20 slams each? Or something else?
 

ND-13

Legend
Djokovic is in a separate tier by achievements

Federer is in a separate tier for endorsements, class, style and substance and as tennis icon

Nadal is in a separate tier when it comes to big matches
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
Op you want them to

Djokovic is quickly separating himself from them. Now he has many more slam wins where they are not present.

Roger while retiring said he had some time before the big 4 came and now they should have some time too.

Guess what

Murray gone. Rafa is irrelevant.

Djokovic is playing Medvedev Tsitsipas Zverev Sinner Alcaraz now. No Federer no Nadal.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
If Djokovic retires in 2025/2026,

Last time that he played fed would be 5/6 years ago.

People will forget the older rivalries.
 

MyFearHand

Professional
They’ll always be connected but they’re in 3 separate tiers.

Djokovic is the best, Nadal is the second best and Federer is the 3rd best.

I’m a HUGE fed fan (and not a Nadal nor Djokovic fan) but it’s time to cede that he’s not the goat.

Back when he led the slam race and held so many different records everyone would point to that as justification for why he was the GOAT. Now that Djokovic holds most of them the argument shifts to “well Fed had a big impact on the game and he plays beautiful tennis.”

No, just no. The numbers don’t lie and we don’t get to change our arguments just because we like Fed best. Most liked player of all time is either Fed or Nadal. The greatest player of all time is Djokovic.

There are tiers.
 

StrongRule

Talk Tennis Guru
Op you want them to

Djokovic is quickly separating himself from them. Now he has many more slam wins where they are not present.

Roger while retiring said he had some time before the big 4 came and now they should have some time too.

Guess what

Murray gone. Rafa is irrelevant.

Djokovic is playing Medvedev Tsitsipas Zverev Sinner Alcaraz now. No Federer no Nadal.
He is not separating anything but winning these asterisk era titles.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
They’ll always be connected but they’re in 3 separate tiers.

Djokovic is the best, Nadal is the second best and Federer is the 3rd best.

I think you're muddying the concept of "tier." If every player is only ranked as an individual, then there are no tiers. We just have rankings -- 1, 2, 3, etc. That's not an unreasonable approach, but it doesn't involve tiers.

Tiers consist of groups of players with similar levels of achievement, though not necessarily identical. I.e., Tier 1 might consist of all male players with 20 or more slams -- the Big Three, obviously. Tier 2 might then be Sampras, Borg, Laver, etc. -- whomever you'd like to argue for.

Having a Tier 1 is compatible with saying the Djokovic is the GOAT based on his numbers. In other words, it's possible to combine tiers with individual rankings.
 

thrust

Legend
The holy trinity of tennis, the three tennis Gods that ruled like no other.

They have all won so much, and for so long, sharing many similar traits and achievements.

Are they always destined to be seen as a single tier? And if yes, when did that tier become ironclad? Was it when they all won 20 slams each? Or something else?
20 slams, 90+ tournament wins, 50+ Big Titles Won, 5 YE at #1
 

pirhaksar

Professional
Djokovic is in a separate tier by achievements

Federer is in a separate tier for endorsements, class, style and substance and as tennis icon

Nadal is in a separate tier when it comes to big matches
Overall I think the 3 can be a tier. Numbers wise Novak has quite a lead vs the other 2 (it’s not just slams) so that makes it Novak, Rafa and Roger. But Roger is tennis for a lot of people and in terms of the intangibles like brand and popularity it’s going to be Roger, Rafa and Novak in that order.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Nadal has the most French Open titles of the big 3
Djokovic has the most Australian Open titles of the big 3
Federer has the most Wimbledon titles and US Open titles of the big 3
Rog also has the less Slams of the 3. Still on the same tier IMO, but you spelled it out as if he was the GOAT.
 

GrandSlam24

Semi-Pro
It's not always just about how many people like you, but also WHO likes you.

I notice that Federer has still won more matches in 3 Slams than Novak. That's really annoying. How can that be? It just doesn't feel right.
 

GrandSlam24

Semi-Pro
It is of course cheating Novak, which is why Federer has won more matches in 3 tournaments out of 4.
RG is the only tournament where he was allowed to play through without cheating. With 2 wins he is ahead of Federer at the US Open. Either way.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
The holy trinity of tennis, the three tennis Gods that ruled like no other.

They have all won so much, and for so long, sharing many similar traits and achievements.

Are they always destined to be seen as a single tier? And if yes, when did that tier become ironclad? Was it when they all won 20 slams each? Or something else?

The 20+ Slam club is extremely exclusive. Interesting how it consists of 3 guys plus 3 women. A holy trinity for the guys and for the gals.
 

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
Federer defacto retired with the count at 20-19-17. They are in the same ballpark achievements wise, no amount of asterisk/degenerate era vulturing will change that.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
perfect blend of strength and mobility. there's reason why z missed wsm from 2005-08
Tbf the other side IFSA had more of the top competitors at that time and paid more money but it's a shame they couldn't compete for like 4 whole years was a big loss to the sport.
 

MyFearHand

Professional
I think you're muddying the concept of "tier." If every player is only ranked as an individual, then there are no tiers. We just have rankings -- 1, 2, 3, etc. That's not an unreasonable approach, but it doesn't involve tiers.

Tiers consist of groups of players with similar levels of achievement, though not necessarily identical. I.e., Tier 1 might consist of all male players with 20 or more slams -- the Big Three, obviously. Tier 2 might then be Sampras, Borg, Laver, etc. -- whomever you'd like to argue for.

Having a Tier 1 is compatible with saying the Djokovic is the GOAT based on his numbers. In other words, it's possible to combine tiers with individual rankings.

That’s a fair point, but the OP did ask if it was POSSIBLE for them to be separated into tiers. And I laid out reasonable criteria that would do so.
 

dapchai

Legend
Tbf the other side IFSA had more of the top competitors at that time and paid more money but it's a shame they couldn't compete for like 4 whole years was a big loss to the sport.
z already lost twice in a row to pudzian in 02 03 and given pudzian just entered his prime (and 2 years younger than z) so unlikely he would have lost any to z during 05-08 even without ifsa

too bad pudzian switched to mma in 09
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS

RS

Bionic Poster
z already lost twice in a row to pudzian in 02 03 and given pudzian just entered his prime (and 2 years younger than z) so unlikely he would have lost any to z during 05-08 even without ifsa

too bad pudzian switched to mma in 09
I would probably still give Pudz the edge of Z at WSM if they could compete together in 05-08. At the heavier shows Z would have the edge.

Z took longer to hit form but by 2004 which was just before it happened the gap between them was narrowing from 2002 and 2003 were Pudz steamrolled him.
 

dapchai

Legend
I would probably still give Pudz the edge of Z at WSM if they could compete together in 05-08. At the heavier shows Z would have the edge.

Z took longer to hit form but by 2004 which was just before it happened the gap between them was narrowing from 2002 and 2003 were Pudz steamrolled him.
wsm for me is the best strongman competition. raw power alone is not enough you need to take athleticism in consideration as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS

mike danny

Bionic Poster
They’ll always be connected but they’re in 3 separate tiers.

Djokovic is the best, Nadal is the second best and Federer is the 3rd best.

I’m a HUGE fed fan (and not a Nadal nor Djokovic fan) but it’s time to cede that he’s not the goat.

Back when he led the slam race and held so many different records everyone would point to that as justification for why he was the GOAT. Now that Djokovic holds most of them the argument shifts to “well Fed had a big impact on the game and he plays beautiful tennis.”

No, just no. The numbers don’t lie and we don’t get to change our arguments just because we like Fed best. Most liked player of all time is either Fed or Nadal. The greatest player of all time is Djokovic.

There are tiers.
More like the argument has shifted from previously using context to explain numbers to numbers are everything.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal has the most French Open titles of the big 3
Djokovic has the most Australian Open titles of the big 3
Federer has the most Wimbledon titles and US Open titles of the big 3

If the big 3 are the Charlie's Angels, then Federer is Farrah Fawcett
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
They’ll always be connected but they’re in 3 separate tiers.

Djokovic is the best, Nadal is the second best and Federer is the 3rd best.

I’m a HUGE fed fan (and not a Nadal nor Djokovic fan) but it’s time to cede that he’s not the goat.

Back when he led the slam race and held so many different records everyone would point to that as justification for why he was the GOAT. Now that Djokovic holds most of them the argument shifts to “well Fed had a big impact on the game and he plays beautiful tennis.”

No, just no. The numbers don’t lie and we don’t get to change our arguments just because we like Fed best. Most liked player of all time is either Fed or Nadal. The greatest player of all time is Djokovic.

There are tiers.

Problem with this is that Djoko didn't start really beating Fed consistently on the biggest stages until Fed was well past it.

If the H2H is everything (which Rafa fans have been saying since 2008), then the Fed/Djoko h2h isn't an open and shut case for Djoko
 

MyFearHand

Professional
Problem with this is that Djoko didn't start really beating Fed consistently on the biggest stages until Fed was well past it.

If the H2H is everything (which Rafa fans have been saying since 2008), then the Fed/Djoko h2h isn't an open and shut case for Djoko
H2h is a bad metric for determining the GOAT because it can’t be applied across “all time.”
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
H2h is a bad metric for determining the GOAT because it can’t be applied across “all time.”

I agree. But don't tell NadalFam that, lol

But I can't call Novak the best of all time when his main rival at Slams was a field of nobodies, Nadal on clay, and ancient Fed on grass. "Strength of Schedule" means a lot to me for the reasons you said
 

Matrix968

Semi-Pro
The holy trinity of tennis, the three tennis Gods that ruled like no other.

They have all won so much, and for so long, sharing many similar traits and achievements.

Are they always destined to be seen as a single tier? And if yes, when did that tier become ironclad? Was it when they all won 20 slams each? Or something else?
I agree, they were in a separate tier than everyone else, when they all won 20 slams each. They all had something that kept them i the same tier, no need to elaborate.

But, since Novak won 24 slams, along with WTF, Masters, YE#1, weeks at #1, Olympics gold and bronze medal, all of the listed all time records, they're not in the same tier anymore...
Even if Novak doesn't win anything more before he retires, he's in tier of his own, Novak's tier.

Nothing gonna change that unless someone in the future breaks at least two of those records mentioned above. Then and only then this conversation could be reopened, not before.

Many of the posters here already lost their sleep trying to find excuses or somehow relieve their pain, but, it's game over, nothing can change the reality now...
 
Federer defacto retired with the count at 20-19-17. They are in the same ballpark achievements wise, no amount of asterisk/degenerate era vulturing will change that.
Fedfan still living in the year 20-19-17 lol. Even if they were in the same ballpark, from here on out anyone contending for greatness will always be measured against Novak. Getting to 10 AOs, 14 RGs, 8 Wimbledons, or 400+ weeks at #1 are but mere pre-requisites to even get within eyesight of Novak's level or accomplishments.
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
I agree, they were in a separate tier than everyone else, when they all won 20 slams each. They all had something that kept them i the same tier, no need to elaborate.

But, since Novak won 24 slams, along with WTF, Masters, YE#1, weeks at #1, Olympics gold and bronze medal, all of the listed all time records, they're not in the same tier anymore...
Even if Novak doesn't win anything more before he retires, he's in tier of his own, Novak's tier.

Nothing gonna change that unless someone in the future breaks at least two of those records mentioned above. Then and only then this conversation could be reopened, not before.

Many of the posters here already lost their sleep trying to find excuses or somehow relieve their pain, but, it's game over, nothing can change the reality now...
Alcaraz can't be the goat without breaking both slams and world number 1 record.
 
The holy trinity of tennis, the three tennis Gods that ruled like no other.

They have all won so much, and for so long, sharing many similar traits and achievements.

Are they always destined to be seen as a single tier? And if yes, when did that tier become ironclad? Was it when they all won 20 slams each? Or something else?
Id separate out Federer from Nadal and Djokovic due to the age difference. He kind of created Nadal and Djokovic and Murray as all 3 used Federer as their benchmark.
Rafa and Novak's legacies may be much bigger than they already are 10 years from now depending what Alcaraz and Sinner do. I think though Nadal will always be wedded to clay court tennis, wrongly but his FO record is that insane its bound to happen, where as Novak i think will go down as the guy who perfected tennis.
 

Matrix968

Semi-Pro
I notice that Federer has still won more matches in 3 Slams than Novak. That's really annoying. How can that be? It just doesn't feel right.
The real question here my friend is for how much long? Most of those numbers will crumble under the Iron Fist, first to go is USO...

As a matter of fact, Novak already has more wins in history across all four, by quite a big margin. And I hope, icing on the cake will be 100 wins on each one, achievable in 2025, the latest a year after that.

Novak will stick around for couple more years, unless some career ending injury stops him, god forbid...
 
Top