Surface homogenization/slowed down courts is the tennis equivalent of global warming/climate change. It is literally responsible for everything it seems.
The Era of The Big Three
- Thread starter Kirijax
- Start date
Surface homogenization/slowed down courts is the tennis equivalent of global warming/climate change. It is literally responsible for everything it seems.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Murray is closer to Wawrinka, Delpo than he is to Djokovic.
And I don't even dislike Murray really.
17 > 14 >> 8 >>> 2.
The pecking order is extremely clear.
And I don't even dislike Murray really.
17 > 14 >> 8 >>> 2.
The pecking order is extremely clear.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Agreed. Fixed it for you.
Ah, keep forgetting that one.
I had Wawrinka down as winning that in my excel file until last week, can you believe that? :twisted:
bjsnider
Hall of Fame
I think if you look at a bell curve in any sport you'll see that the extreme outliers are always far ahead of even the best in the world. So the most productive basketball player, Lebron James, in terms of production is worth many all-stars combined. I've seen this graphed because basketball production can be tracked with statistics. So the question in terms of a weak era is, how many other players are out there in the same class as the extreme outlier? In the case of some generations, one guy is totally dominant.
Other times, and I would argue Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray are part of one generation being about one year apart in age, you have several of them out there within reach of each other. That would qualify as a strong era.
I think the strength of the current generation of guys in their mid-20s can be questioned because they're not able to defeat the older players consistently and carve out a place for themselves in history. Tennis is a meritocracy. Nothing but their own skills or lack thereof is stopping them. Who is the extreme outlier in the current generation? Cilic? Nishikori? I still can't say and these guys are, what, 25 already? At that age Federer, Sampras, McEnroe, Borg et al. had already made their case in unambiguous terms. Many players historically had already had their best days by age 25 -- certainly that's true of McEnroe.
By around 2002-2003, a bunch of players 20-21 years old or so had smashed Sampras and his contemporaries. For example, Hewitt and Safin had gotten to #1, then Roddick and Federer. Half the top 10 were barely 20 years old. Who do we have that age playing well and dominating now? Who is the best 20-21 year old? There doesn't appear to be a defining player in that generation either. There appear to be 2 lost generations of tennis players and counting.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Same court conditions and the 32 seeds at majors helps ensure that the top seeds continue to stay at the top.
It is not just the top 4. Players like Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych continue to stay in the top. In fact, Ferrer is doing better than ever.
Average age of top 100 is 28.5 and at an all time high.
This era has the Most number of players above 30 as part of top 100.
Players like Robredo, Lopez, Haas are in top 20. A guy like Agut and an inconsistent player like Gulbis are in top 15.
We cannot prove that it is a weak era or not. What can be proven is that there is a huge gap between the top 4, the top 10 and the rest of ATP
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yes, one could logically make this argument.
But, because it is all relative (there are no absolute measures in tennis like a clock), it is impossible to truly judge.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
It doesn't sound like a terribly logical argument to me, and that's coming from a chronically open minded and fence-sitting poster.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Corrected which proves this is weak era.(*)
*Strictly applies for last couple of years may be three.
Last edited:
90's Clay
Banned
Its not hard to stay dominant when the homogenized conditions and play suit you're game to a T.
Slow court baseline ball bashing? Naturally the most solid baseliners will stay at the top as long as they are physically capable.
Imagine if Sampras/Becker etc. got fast courts ALL YEAR ROUND year after year like these guys get slow courts ALL YEAR ROUND.
Sampras could have stayed on top for 20 years winning 40-50 slams.
Slow court baseline ball bashing? Naturally the most solid baseliners will stay at the top as long as they are physically capable.
Imagine if Sampras/Becker etc. got fast courts ALL YEAR ROUND year after year like these guys get slow courts ALL YEAR ROUND.
Sampras could have stayed on top for 20 years winning 40-50 slams.
Last edited:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
At least 45 Slams.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
That's true.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.
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.
Djokovic more than held up big 3 on his own for these years.
2015
2016
2021
2023
Maybe he did some damage along the way.
Krish872007
Talk Tennis Guru
Why do you keep bumping 9+ year old threads
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
I don't. I have only bumped 2. Which are relevant to today's threads.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
jl809
Legend
Oh boy have I got news for you
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
He's the hardest working man on TTW lol, those 2 extra slams beating RuudTsipas didn't convince him that Novak is really better than Fedal.
Similar threads
