The Era of The Big Three

K

Kirijax

Hall of Fame
Was taking a look at The Big Three's Grand Slams records and it's amazing to see what these three have done since 2003.

RF-RN-ND_zpse3kcqnt2.jpg


It all started with Federer dominating, then Nadal starting challenging him, and then winning more with Djokovic now taking up Federer's slack and challenging Nadal. Federer started this era, Nadal continued it and now it's up to Djokovic. We as fans get to see if Djokovic will hold up his end of the Big Thee and rack up a few more Grand Slams before the next generation takes over. Personally, I think if Djokovic can win 3, or 4 more Slams, then he will have held up his part of the Big Three. And ending his career with a winning record against one of the other two would help as well. But just looking at the chart makes us realize that we may never see a Big Three like this again.
 
Some people would say it is another definite proof of the weakest era we've seen, where the rest of the field (apart from Murray maybe) are so far behind that they can't even win a Masters.
 
Number of different players sharing the big pie (tier 1 events = slams, WTF, super 9) since 1970:
2014: 6
2013: 3 (Nadal, Djoko, Murray)
2012: 5
2011: 4 (Djoko, Nadal, Fed, Murray)
2010: 6
2009: 6
2008: 6
2007: 4 (Fed, Nadal, Djoko, Nalbandian)
2006: 5
2005: 5
2004: 7
2003: 8
2002: 10
2001: 9
2000: 9
1999: 9
1998: 9
1997: 10
1996: 10
1995: 5
1994: 6
1993: 7
1992: 8
1991: 10
1990: 10
1989: 7
1988: 5
1987: 6
1986: 6
1985: 7
1984: 7
1983: 6
1982: 9
1981: 9
1980: 7
1979: 6
1978: 7
1977: 7
1976: 7
1975: 10
1974: 6
1973: 8
1972: 9
1971: 9
1970: 9

2005 started the era of the most dominant elite ever seen in tennis. Note that Djoko and Nadal are the common denominator for the 3 most "exclusive" seasons: 2013, 2011 and 2007.
The weakest era lasted from 1996 to 2002. During those years, no top player was good enough, consistent enough or versatile enough to have any kind of grip over the main events, which allowed a lot of mid-tier players to join the party.
 
m2nk2 said:
Some people would say it is another definite proof of the weakest era we've seen, where the rest of the field (apart from Murray maybe) are so far behind that they can't even win a Masters.
Click to expand...

.... And those people would be correct
 
you have to be completely blind and oblivious not to recognize what special occurrence these 3 are.
 
xan said:
you have to be completely blind and oblivious not to recognize what special occurrence these 3 are.
Click to expand...

2 of 3 are borderline washed up/retired and the rest of the field STILL Can't consistently break through. This is the FIRST time in history you have all these early-mid 20 something year olds (who SHOULD BE at the peak of their careers) and they can't even manage consecutive tournament wins in a row.


Its about as lame as the WTA field at the moment (With Serena managing to win more slams in her 30s than she could even during her prime due to the lame field)


Its probably safe to say both the men and the women's game are in the most PATHETIC state they have ever been in history
 
Last edited:
Weak era starting in 2010 is obvious.

Nadal was at his best in 2008 and was declining by 2011-12, and had his Federer 2009 in 2013.
 
Another way of looking at this(other than weak era theory) is to think that the big 4 are such great players that they would've dominated most of other players in any era. Then, we would feel privileged to have all 4 of them at the same time to entertain us. I'm sure the current top 30 players would've been top 30 or better in another era, and we have some really good players who are capable of winning slams in another era.
 
It's the Big Three. The other one does not belong with these three. Maybe if he has a dominating year and gets to 5 or 6 slams. But this "Big Four" is really "The Big Three + one" at best.
 
chjtennis said:
Another way of looking at this(other than weak era theory) is to think that the big 4 are such great players that they would've dominated most of other players in any era. Then, we would feel privileged to have all 4 of them at the same time to entertain us. I'm sure the current top 30 players would've been top 30 or better in another era, and we have some really good players who are capable of winning slams in another era.
Click to expand...

Good Post except I believe it has been, is and always will be Big 3.

If Murray's achievements so far deserves tag of Big or Dominant Champion then be sure in every era has it's dominant Big 4. Every era is Golden or Weak.
 
90's Clay said:
2 of 3 are borderline washed up/retired and the rest of the field STILL Can't consistently break through. This is the FIRST time in history you have all these early-mid 20 something year olds (who SHOULD BE at the peak of their careers) and they can't even manage consecutive tournament wins in a row.


Its about as lame as the WTA field at the moment (With Serena managing to win more slams in her 30s than she could even during her prime due to the lame field)


Its probably safe to say both the men and the women's game are in the most PATHETIC state they have ever been in history
Click to expand...

One could argue that WTA is in an even weaker era than ATP at the moment. SHarapova has been a top player for many years, yet she hasn't won against Serena for over a decade. It's ridiculous.

But yeah ATP isn't far behind. Fed at 34 still wins over the 'young' guns easily.
 
Kirijax said:
It's the Big Three. The other one does not belong with these three. Maybe if he has a dominating year and gets to 5 or 6 slams. But this "Big Four" is really "The Big Three + one" at best.
Click to expand...

*Nods head and smiles*
 
veroniquem said:
Number of different players sharing the big pie (tier 1 events = slams, WTF, super 9) since 1970:
2014: 6
2013: 3 (Nadal, Djoko, Murray)
2012: 5
2011: 4 (Djoko, Nadal, Fed, Murray)
2010: 6
2009: 6
2008: 6
2007: 4 (Fed, Nadal, Djoko, Nalbandian)
2006: 5
2005: 5
2004: 7
2003: 8
2002: 10
2001: 9
2000: 9
1999: 9
1998: 9
1997: 10
1996: 10
1995: 5
1994: 6
1993: 7
1992: 8
1991: 10
1990: 10
1989: 7
1988: 5
1987: 6
1986: 6
1985: 7
1984: 7
1983: 6
1982: 9
1981: 9
1980: 7
1979: 6
1978: 7
1977: 7
1976: 7
1975: 10
1974: 6
1973: 8
1972: 9
1971: 9
1970: 9

2005 started the era of the most dominant elite ever seen in tennis. Note that Djoko and Nadal are the common denominator for the 3 most "exclusive" seasons: 2013, 2011 and 2007.
The weakest era lasted from 1996 to 2002. During those years, no top player was good enough, consistent enough or versatile enough to have any kind of grip over the main events, which allowed a lot of mid-tier players to join the party.
Click to expand...

That's actually pretty interesting.
 
90's Clay said:
.... And those people would be correct
Click to expand...

Some people even say that if Sampras played today at his mid 40s we could win the grand slam .

Too many idiots live in our planet :))

Get over it Sampras boy if your man played between 205-2015 we would win at best 1 masters event and nobody would remember him except his close family
 
FEDisanAlien said:
Some people even say that if Sampras played today at his mid 40s we could win the grand slam .

Too many idiots live in our planet :))

Get over it Sampras boy if your man played between 205-2015 we would win at best 1 masters event and nobody would remember him except his close family
Click to expand...

Rather, if the big 3 played in the 90s they would have a really difficult time.
 
It is true that all 3 are fields ahead of those below them. Why I think fed is called the goat, Nadal one of the greatest and djokovic one of the greatest returners and top ten of all time, is because of form and style. No matter who you throw against these guys they will do very well whether it's sampras, laver, connors or whoever. Based on Fed's offensive game, or how Djoko returns and subdues what's thrown at him or how Nadal hustles and grinds for every point, no one would have a chance to dominate them. Agassi might be the only one who would trouble djokovic. Nadal obviously troubles fed and due to his style, idk who would trouble Nadal. It's hard to say. Sure davydenko was his Achilles heel on hardcourt. On hardcourt and grass Nadal is bound to lose to random players more frequently than the other two but he is less likely to,be consistently beaten by the same player versus the other two.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
m2nk2 said:
Some people would say it is another definite proof of the weakest era we've seen, where the rest of the field (apart from Murray maybe) are so far behind that they can't even win a Masters.
Click to expand...

Or this era isn't so weak it would ever in a million years allow someone like Kafelnikov to win 2 slams, or Rios to reach #1, like a certain other era did.
 
VolosozharGOAT said:
Or this era isn't so weak it would ever in a million years allow someone like Kafelnikov to win 2 slams, or Rios to reach #1, like a certain other era did.
Click to expand...

Kafelnikov would easily beat Berdych, Murray, Tsonga, Ferrer, Dimitrov and Nichikori though.
 
Last edited:
m2nk2 said:
Rather, if the big 3 played in the 90s they would have a really difficult time.
Click to expand...

Yes yes, so you are saying that if Federer peaked during the 90s would have problems wininng the slams except FO ??
Or Nadal would win only 1 french during the 90s ?

Come on man you are more clever than that :))
 
FEDisanAlien said:
Yes yes, so you are saying that if Federer peaked during the 90s would have problems wininng the slams except FO ??
Or Nadal would win only 1 french during the 90s ?

Come on man you are more clever than that :))
Click to expand...

I think Federer would have no chance at winning FO. He would win a few W and USO. But Sampras would take most of the USO, the home crowd would help as well.

Nadal would win a 3-4 FO tops. Players like Muster and Bruguera would win the rest.
 
m2nk2 said:
Kafelnikov would easily beat Berdych, Murray, Tsonga, Ferrer, Dimitrov and Nichikori though.
Click to expand...

LOL easily beat Murray. What the hell are you smoking. The same Kafelnikov who doesn't even have a freaking Masters title and had the biggest cakewalk draws to his 2 slams imaginable. Murray would whoop Kafelnikov's arse atleast 8 times out of 10. Remember Kafelnikov's head to head with Hewitt. Murray is basically this eras version of Hewitt (or a bit better).

As for the others Kafelnkov lost 8 times in a row to Tomas Johansson. Don't be so sure he would have an easy time with Berdych, Ferrer, or even Nishikori who have all beaten way better players than Kafelnikov multiple times in their career.
 
m2nk2 said:
Nadal would win a 3-4 FO tops. Players like Muster and Bruguera would win the rest.
Click to expand...

Muster and Bruguera only have 3 French Opens between them. They didn't even win anywhere near enough French Opens without Nadal to bring his total down to 3-4 even if they beat him each time they won a French (yeah right). You are living in some bizarre la la land.

Players like Muster and Bruguera would never beat Nadal on clay either. They are basically much poorer versions of Nadal's game. Muster of 95 would have a shot on clay only, and that is it. Kuerten and maybe 92 version of Courier would be his only potential real threats.

Federer would win anywhere from 1-3 French Opens in the 90s.
 
VolosozharGOAT said:
LOL easily beat Murray. What the hell are you smoking. The same Kafelnikov who doesn't even have a freaking Masters title and had the biggest cakewalk draws to his 2 slams imaginable. Murray would whoop Kafelnikov's arse atleast 8 times out of 10. Remember Kafelnikov's head to head with Hewitt. Murray is basically this eras version of Hewitt (or a bit better).

As for the others Kafelnkov lost 8 times in a row to Tomas Johansson. Don't be so sure he would have an easy time with Berdych, Ferrer, or even Nishikori who have all beaten way better players than Kafelnikov multiple times in their career.
Click to expand...

Have they? They usually lose against the big 3.

Berdych vs Nadal 4-18
Ferrer vs Nadal 6-22
Wawrinka vs Nadal 1-12 (Only win came when Nadal was heavily injured)

So I think even a guy like Kafelnikov would put away these weak era clowns with ease.
 
VolosozharGOAT said:
Muster and Bruguera only have 3 French Opens between them. They didn't even win anywhere near enough French Opens without Nadal to bring his total down to 3-4 even if they beat him each time they won a French (yeah right). You are living in some bizarre la la land.

Players like Muster and Bruguera would never beat Nadal on clay either. They are basically much poorer versions of Nadal's game. Muster of 95 would have a shot on clay only, and that is it. Kuerten and maybe 92 version of Courier would be his only potential real threats.

Federer would win anywhere from 1-3 French Opens in the 90s.
Click to expand...

I didn't say Muster and Bruguera would win the rest. I said players like Muster and Bruguera would win the rest. I think Muster, even with his 1hbh would have a positive h2h against Nadal. Remember that Nadal wouldn't have his poly strings.
 
Kafelnikov is 2-11 vs Sampras, and 0-9 off clay. How is that any better.

He is 4-8 vs inconsistent as hell Agassi, so would likely be more like 2-15 if Agassi wasnt an AWOL crap journeyman in 96, 97, and 98 where Kafelnikov probably got most of his wins.

Yes beating Nadal 4 or 6 times is multiple times. It is as often or more than Kafelnikov beat the big guns of his career, who didnt fear him in the least. Sampras even mocked him in his book.
 
I think some people have an inflated view of the 'now'. It's unimaginable, to them, that players of the past were also quite good.
 
m2nk2 said:
I think Federer would have no chance at winning FO. He would win a few W and USO. But Sampras would take most of the USO, the home crowd would help as well.

Nadal would win a 3-4 FO tops. Players like Muster and Bruguera would win the rest.
Click to expand...

What are you smoking man ??

Firstly Federer definately has a chance winning the french in every except if Nadal plays also . Dont think any version of Muster or Brugera can beat Djoko 2.0 like fed did in 2011 at the French

Ok if you say Nadal would win max 3 F.O during the 90s then you are dellusional , I am not a Nadal fan but a healthy Nadal on clay is mostly unplayable
 
m2nk2 said:
I didn't say Muster and Bruguera would win the rest. I said players like Muster and Bruguera would win the rest. I think Muster, even with his 1hbh would have a positive h2h against Nadal. Remember that Nadal wouldn't have his poly strings.
Click to expand...


You think Muster would have a winning record against Nadal. Are you serious.
:lol: You were dropped hard on your head as a baby I guess. I hope you recover someday.
 
m2nk2 said:
Have they? They usually lose against the big 3.

Berdych vs Nadal 4-18
Ferrer vs Nadal 6-22
Wawrinka vs Nadal 1-12 (Only win came when Nadal was heavily injured)

So I think even a guy like Kafelnikov would put away these weak era clowns with ease.
Click to expand...

Kafelnikov vs Sampras 2-11 (both wins on clay)
Kafelnikov vs Agassi 4-8 (sounds good actually but remember he was someone who peaked during Agassi's worst years mostly)
Kafelnikov vs Hewitt 1-7 (a fellow 2 slam winner)
Kafelnikov vs Johansson 5-9 (the so called worst ever 1 slam winner)

Again those are an improvement how exactly. He was even Hewitt's beetch, which is alot worse than being Nadal's.
 
VolosozharGOAT said:
You think Muster would have a winning record against Nadal. Are you serious.
:lol: You were dropped hard on your head as a baby I guess. I hope you recover someday.
Click to expand...

You guys have to take more things into account here. You're just comparing number of slams and boom you have your answer. In that case Nadal will win easilyof course.

But it's more complicated than that if you want to make a fair assessment.
 
I have seen Muster play many times. I was a big fan of tennis in the 90s. And there is absolutely nothing in his arsenal or skill set that would worry Nadal. He is essentialy just a much poorer, slower version of Nadal with poorer technique. Even his court positioning is worse than Nadal's, which is a challenge. Nadal's biggest weaknesses, Muster just expands on, and Muster's biggest strengths are all eclipsed by Nadal. The only area Muster might equal or surpass him is fitness.
 
Anyway I have said Courier of 91-93 (especialy 92) could give Nadal some trouble on clay, and Courier is overall less accomplished than Muster on clay despite the extra French Open. So no I am not only looking at achievements. Muster's playing style and abilities are just not enough to seriously challenge Nadal, let alone have a winning record as you suggested which is utterly laughable. Even Federer and Djokovic dont have a winning record vs Nadal, yet the like of Muster ever would. I know Davydenko does, but he played almost every match with Nadal on hard courts, which obviously wouldnt be the case for Muster.

Muster of 95 and maybe 96 could give some competition with Nadal on clay (would still probably be the underdog), and that is the only time of his career that he would give Nadal any trouble on any surface period. Anyway who followed tennis during Muster's time who isnt insanely biased to either that time period or against Nadal, would agree with me.
 
Russeljones said:
I think some people have an inflated view of the 'now'. It's unimaginable, to them, that players of the past were also quite good.
Click to expand...

I think some people are stuck in the past so they post drivel like 90's here does. It goes both ways.
 
xan said:
I think some people are stuck in the past so they post drivel like 90's here does. It goes both ways.
Click to expand...

But there needs to be a sense of balance.

Put the big 3 in 80's and they are not winning as much. Put a player like Sampras, Agassi in this era and they would still win a lot.

It is an undeniable fact that all past era players were upset more frequently . It is a combination of weaker competition and surface homogenization / slowed down courts.
 
You can't know that, we can only speculate.
I'm not trying to force my opinion onto others.

I don't think it's outrageous to say all 3 are very special talents. this weak era/strong era is fan made nonsense I have no interest in whatsoever.
 
xan said:
You can't know that, we can only speculate.
I'm not trying to force my opinion onto others.

I don't think it's outrageous to say all 3 are very special talents. this weak era/strong era is fan made nonsense I have no interest in whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I didn't say weak era. I said weaker competition with respect to the big 3.
 
I wasnt adressing you personally with 2nd part of my post.
Would have they win just as much? I have no means of knowing.

Ill tell you tho, i keep them in higher regard than most past greats,
 
tennisaddict said:
I didn't say weak era. I said weaker competition with respect to the big 3.
Click to expand...

What on earth does that mean? By definition, the greater you are the weaker the competition will be, relative to yourself.

You interpret their dominance as evidence of weak competition. Someone attributes that to their greatness.

You interpret upsets in the past as evidence of stronger, deeper draws. Someone's sees that as evidence that the past players weren't as good because they didn't dominate their competition thoroughly enough.

There's no evidence to support either opinion. I tend to believe the truly great ones would have excelled in any era. Federer and Sampras would have been great in the 70s with wooden racquets. Borg would have been great today with graphite and polyester. But, I can't agree with the idea that the depth of talent is weaker. Tennis has expanded tremendously into Eastern Europe and Asia, opening up whole new populations to the sport. Physical training and conditioning is better. The field is stronger than it gets credit for. The problem for them is that the elite players are always there and bringing their best at every major. We've never had an era where the best players tried so hard to win every single major. Sampras didn't care about Roland Garros, and you'd have a hard time convincing me that he always gave his best in Australia. Agassi almost quit during what should have been his prime physical years. Borg never even played in Australia. He even skipped Roland Garros once.

But, you are entitled to your own opinion. It's just as valid as mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

George Turner
big three talk
Replies
16
Views
588
George Turner
George Turner
Levi_Ackerman
Can we stop talking about the Big Four Era? It should be Big Three.
2
Replies
86
Views
6K
Sreeram
Sreeram
weakera
How did Rafael Nadal become the most consistent performer out of the big three?
2
Replies
95
Views
6K
weakera
weakera
tennis_hack
Predict the 2014 Slam upsets* of the Big Three**
Replies
9
Views
1K
Backspin1183
Backspin1183
NBP
Big Three following up 3-slam year
Replies
38
Views
2K
AceSalvo
AceSalvo
Back
Top