The inflated legacy of the big 3: consequences

#51
Oh, you will be surprised. I am currently working on compiling the list of opponent of Nadal at RG. The glaring "curiosities" are out there. Comfortable opponents, difficult opponents thrown on the other part of the draw, dark horses as far from him as possible. It is all there. Ferrer was in his part of the draw 10 out of possible 13 times, and one time he wasn't he has beaten him at the AO that year. Almagro was literally scheduled in Nadal's draw at RG. Thiem being thrown in his opponent's part of the draw in the last 4 years. It is a farce.
This is factually incorrect - Thiem and Nadal met in the semifinal in 2017.

As for the other part - looking forward to seeing your list and conlusion. I hope it is not biased.
 
#52
I recall a time before where conversation was focus on the topic of was previous players X as good as current player Y? These questions do not have to be ask since the Xs are still playing and the Ys are not making the grade! LOL! To digress, Rafa not only wins on clay but wins on all other surfaces too! LOL!
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#53
This is factually incorrect - Thiem and Nadal met in the semifinal in 2017.

As for the other part - looking forward to seeing your list and conlusion. I hope it is not biased.
Yes, I somehow forgot about it. That is the outlier in the recent trend. As Thiem gets stronger he is increasingly in the "other" half. The part of it being a farce is correct.

The lists (it is multiples) are coming at some point soon, and you and everyone else is welcome to make comments, and if necessary corrections like you did now.

:cool:
 
#54
Yes, I somehow forgot about it. That is the outlier in the recent trend. As Thiem gets stronger he is increasingly in the "other" half. The part of it being a farce is correct.

The lists (it is multiples) are coming at some point soon, and you and everyone else is welcome to make comments, and if necessary corrections like you did now.

:cool:
If someone ever troubles Nadal, he will never see them in his draw again. The exception is, for example, 2015 when he wasn't going to win with any draw. So they gave him Djokovic in the QF to at least guarantee that blockbuster match-up happened.

I notice that, with Federer, if he's in good form and has a good chance of making the SF or F, they will give him a kinder draw. If he looks like he likely wouldn't get through any draw, they just say F it and give him the dogs. Since someone has to draw them so they should focus their efforts on helping the other top draws.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#55
If someone ever troubles Nadal, he will never see them in his draw again. The exception is, for example, 2015 when he wasn't going to win with any draw. So they gave him Djokovic in the QF to at least guarantee that blockbuster match-up happened.

I notice that, with Federer, if he's in good form and has a good chance of making the SF or F, they will give him a kinder draw. If he looks like he likely wouldn't get through any draw, they just say F it and give him the dogs. Since someone has to draw them.
Yes, that is a correct observation: the purpose is quite clear: look to guarantee the marquee final, and if possible to pile up as many desirable match ups as possible. If something stands in the way it is removed. If there is a danger of the marquee match up being spoiled by upsets, measures are taken to prevent that. I am currently reviewing RG and the only anomaly in the line up since Nadal and Federer started their rivalry till now is 2013. For some reason all the favourite players of Nadal were on the other side of the draw. I will be looking into that as well.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
#56
It fully demonstrates that while tennis is a game of footwork and fitness, it is more a game of experience and mentality. The top three have engrained patterns of play and practiced them 100,000's of times to exectute them at a level that a young 10000 times practiced player cannot match. Easy to see the top three losing some very physical matches, bt it takes every ounce of energy and play to beat that wiley verteran mindset and skill. Bring it back to our level and it is still true and you'll see solid 50 year old 4.5 players going head to head with 20 and 30 somethings.

There will still be a point of diminishing returns, where skill just cannot get you to the ball, but with the evolution of players the time frames have been stretched with the improvement of fitness through careers.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#57
It fully demonstrates that while tennis is a game of footwork and fitness, it is more a game of experience and mentality. The top three have engrained patterns of play and practiced them 100,000's of times to exectute them at a level that a young 10000 times practiced player cannot match. Easy to see the top three losing some very physical matches, bt it takes every ounce of energy and play to beat that wiley verteran mindset and skill. Bring it back to our level and it is still true and you'll see solid 50 year old 4.5 players going head to head with 20 and 30 somethings.

There will still be a point of diminishing returns, where skill just cannot get you to the ball, but with the evolution of players the time frames have been stretched with the improvement of fitness through careers.
Speed up the surfaces/make the conditions more varied and let's see how much the mentality and experience help.

:cool:
 
#58
For the record, I can't reply to you post properly because you screwed up the format. ;)

But to your point about young players breaking through, it's kind of a chicken/egg thing.

Are/were the Big Three and some of the other guys like Murray really "that good"?

Or are the young guys "that bad"?

It pretty much comes down to opinion since there is no absolute objective measure of tennis level...
 
#63
Free lunch. No opponents of quality to stop them from amassing more achievements. Lack of resistance. Favourable circumstances that allow them to crush the prospective opponents before they even emerge.

:cool:
OK. But it’s not their fault, really. We could talk about the causes too.
About consequences, personally, I am not particularly thrilled by anyone of the new upcoming names.
Maybe the Big Three have turned in powerhouses with resources that newcomers can’t match.
I am more inclined to think that the Big Three are exceptionally good, an anomaly that three of this kind coincided in a big span of time. I lean more on that, than thinking that new gens are garbage.
I think there will be a big void when they retire, especially when Fed retires.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#64
OK. But it’s not their fault, really. We could talk about the causes too.
About consequences, personally, I am not particularly thrilled by anyone of the new upcoming names.
Maybe the Big Three have turned in powerhouses with resources that newcomers can’t match.
I am more inclined to think that the Big Three are exceptionally good, an anomaly that three of this kind coincided in a big span of time. I lean more on that, than thinking that new gens are garbage.
I think there will be a big void when they retire, especially when Fed retires.
Read post #16 (my answer to Gary). Your sentiments have been mostly addressed there.

:cool:
 
#65
Simple question: what do you think will be the consequences for the sport from the continuing inflating of the career results of the big three?

:cool:
One good consequence is that once they retire a lot of records will be out of reach for a while, so there will be less pressure on newer players to break said records
 
#67
I never took you for a conspiracy theorist, Tennis Hands.

I doubt draws are being fixed to favour Nadal, especially on clay. He’s just too good on the surface, I’m afraid.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#68
I never took you for a conspiracy theorist, Tennis Hands.

I doubt draws are being fixed to favour Nadal, especially on clay. He’s just too good on the surface, I’m afraid.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. All that is based on my observations of events and looking for the explanations behind those events. The profit driven pro sport is not a conspiracy, and decisions that are dictated by business/financial goals are taken all the time. The pressure to increase the profits is there and quite clearly decisions are taken with that in mind.

I am not looking to explain Nadal's results only. It is a system much bigger than any individual player or goal, but there are clear tendencies, that is why my thread is about all of the big 3. It just happens so that Nadal is the most recent example, and, yes, I believe that at 33 even he can use all the help he can get even on clay.

:cool:
 
#69
Being poised against ATGs with privileges creates mental fragility. I will be surprised if the current developments from RG don't have negative impact on Thiem. Not being able to get a foothold on your own terms does the same. The obvious victim from that tactic is Del Po, who literally broke himself because he was poised so much against Federer in his early years and was failing, thus being forced to overplay elsewhere. Thiem is the most recent example. Cilic is another. If you look up his draws in his best period 2014 and after until 2018 you will notice how often he was drawn in the Quarters and even in the R3 and R4 with possible the favourite or the second favourite and often his draws were nightmarish, including his winning USO run (Baghdatis 86 in R1 (but he retired after set and a half), Marchenko 163, Anderson #20 in R3!, Simon #31 in R4, Berdych #7 in QF, Federer #3 in the SF. Compare that to Nadal's USO runs and tell me what you see.

:cool:
The draw you've outlined for Cilic there is not a particularly difficult one. Anderson in R3 was a guy who had not achieved much at that time, Simon in R4 is pretty soft, Berdych in the QF is a stock standard match and the SF opponent was always likely to be a big 3 member. Nadal's 2017 draw wasn't easy, though his matches were. He was drawn in the infinitely stronger top half but it fell away due to circumstances rather than a contrivance of the draw.
 
#70
If someone ever troubles Nadal, he will never see them in his draw again. The exception is, for example, 2015 when he wasn't going to win with any draw. So they gave him Djokovic in the QF to at least guarantee that blockbuster match-up happened.

I notice that, with Federer, if he's in good form and has a good chance of making the SF or F, they will give him a kinder draw. If he looks like he likely wouldn't get through any draw, they just say F it and give him the dogs. Since someone has to draw them so they should focus their efforts on helping the other top draws.
Prior to 2015, the last time a 1v6 QF was drawn was.... 1982.

interesting
 
#71
Everyone blaming the upcoming Gens for the inflated era, but the truth is - the Big 3 aren’t THAT much worse than they were five or ten years ago. We all know what kind of level they’re still capable of producing (Djoker AO 19, Fed AO 17, Nadal RG 17, and so on), their problem is the increasing lack of consistency. That’s why they’re not as dominant in Masters anymore, but they can protect the slams, because they are still able produce a very high quality tennis when it matters four times in a year in the slams, although NextGen not being able to do much in slams really helped as well.

The truth is - even at this advanced age, the Big 3 are the Big 3 and even their B- level is better than most people’s A level, not even taking into account their mental strength. And they are 3 of them. Even if two of them fail to deliver at slams, at least one of them can still bring out the goods. If they play their best in their match today, despite the slower movement and footwork, and longer time to recover afterwards, the shotmaking is still there.

It would probably need to take one of their younger versions to consistently beat them at slams, and given how rare their talent and work ethic is, that’s asking for too much.
 
#72
Everyone blaming the upcoming Gens for the inflated era, but the truth is - the Big 3 aren’t THAT much worse than they were five or ten years ago. We all know what kind of level they’re still capable of producing (Djoker AO 19, Fed AO 17, Nadal RG 17, and so on), their problem is the increasing lack of consistency. That’s why they’re not as dominant in Masters anymore, but they can protect the slams, because they are still able produce a very high quality tennis when it matters four times in a year in the slams, although NextGen not being able to do much in slams really helped as well.

The truth is - even at this advanced age, the Big 3 is the Big 3 and even their B- level is better than most people’s A level, not even taking into account their mental strength. And they are 3 of them. Even if two of them fail to deliver at slams, at least one of them can still bring out the goods. If they play their best in their match today, despite the slower movement and footwork, and longer time to recover afterwards, the shotmaking is still there.

It would probably need to take one of their younger versions to consistently beat them at slams, and given how rare their talent and work ethic is, that’s asking too much.
Has someone complied the stats for which younger players have the best winning % against non-Big 3?
 
#73
Everyone blaming the upcoming Gens for the inflated era, but the truth is - the Big 3 aren’t THAT much worse than they were five or ten years ago. We all know what kind of level they’re still capable of producing (Djoker AO 19, Fed AO 17, Nadal RG 17, and so on), their problem is the increasing lack of consistency. That’s why they’re not as dominant in Masters anymore, but they can protect the slams, because they are still able produce a very high quality tennis when it matters four times in a year in the slams, although NextGen not being able to do much in slams really helped as well.

The truth is - even at this advanced age, the Big 3 is the Big 3 and even their B- level is better than most people’s A level, not even taking into account their mental strength. And they are 3 of them. Even if two of them fail to deliver at slams, at least one of them can still bring out the goods. If they play their best in their match today, despite the slower movement and footwork, and longer time to recover afterwards, the shotmaking is still there.

It would probably need to take one of their younger versions to consistently beat them at slams, and given how rare their talent and work ethic is, that’s asking too much.
Well put, nothing else to really say. The big 3 are so great, not much the younger guys can do right now. But as you said, they are slipping slightly at the masters. Eventually they will have a big drop off and then slightly dip at slams. Then they will start to drop off there too. Only problem, it might be 4 years before this happens.
 
#74
The real , more concerning question is what is happening in the game below the big three.

The OP indicates that the big 3 ongoing success is hindering the game, but in fact it's keeping it afloat. Can one imagine if they all retired 2-3 years ago? How much of a void would be felt by the sport. Sorry but the so - called , hyped up Next Gen just aren't ready to carry the sport forward. Ideally we would want what the WTA had in the mid-late 90s - mid 2000s where they had Hingis, Williams, Davenport, Clijsters, Henin, Sharapova etc. All multiple slam winners reaching or contending for #1 ranking.

But the current younger generation don't have what it takes, so the big 3 are needed to keep producing great performances and records to set the standard. Hopefully one day the youngsters will reach and overcome this high standard but it's looking highly unlikely right now.
 
#78
Everyone blaming the upcoming Gens for the inflated era, but the truth is - the Big 3 aren’t THAT much worse than they were five or ten years ago. We all know what kind of level they’re still capable of producing (Djoker AO 19, Fed AO 17, Nadal RG 17, and so on), their problem is the increasing lack of consistency. That’s why they’re not as dominant in Masters anymore, but they can protect the slams, because they are still able produce a very high quality tennis when it matters four times in a year in the slams, although NextGen not being able to do much in slams really helped as well.

The truth is - even at this advanced age, the Big 3 are the Big 3 and even their B- level is better than most people’s A level, not even taking into account their mental strength. And they are 3 of them. Even if two of them fail to deliver at slams, at least one of them can still bring out the goods. If they play their best in their match today, despite the slower movement and footwork, and longer time to recover afterwards, the shotmaking is still there.

It would probably need to take one of their younger versions to consistently beat them at slams, and given how rare their talent and work ethic is, that’s asking for too much.
A very good explanation of the situation.

There was some additional lag for this next generation breaking through, as you would expect with Djokovic, Nadal and Federer being concurrently active and so good.

The benefit for us is that when you make the barrier for entry as high as Djokovic, Nadal and Federer have made it, the ones that do break through are going to be very special players indeed.

We see a glimpse in Tsitsipas, FAA, Thiem etc etc. The future is very bright once these generational superstars "put it all together" and mature fully as players.
 
Last edited:
#82
All of of the inflation happened since 2014. No one from Dimitrov, Nishikori, Goffin, Kyrgios, Raonic, Cilic, Thiem ever posed a threat. At least Becker agrees.

Boris Becker: we should question the quality and attitude of under-28 men

Even the current Next Gen is not failing to amuse us. At least they are too young, but the outlook is not good midway through 2019.
 
#83
I am basically baffled and confused about this era of tennis. I don't get how a 38 year old who barely plays clay makes semi finals. Not even mentioning Nadal or joker. Most if not all of their competition under 28 barely makes them sweat in slams. I don't understand. It just goes on and on.
 

mxmx

Professional
#84
The top isn’t always the same, that’s for sure. Not every 10 years have a GOAT candidate. But the field behind the top 5 or top 10 should always be quite comparable. At least it is highly unlikely statistically that a "full field" ist just that much weaker in another era. I think Sampras being pushed out of the game really was due to him being not exactly as good as the Big 3, at least not consistantly.

And the arrival of new racquet technology also played a part, because Sampras was too stubborn to change (and the others who started with it would have had an advantage anyway).

But by the way, even if Sampras really had a disadvantage, then that would have been an argument more that Federer would overtake him, and not the opposite.

No matter how we look at it, 14 was never that much. In the women’s game 4 players already had much more and the Open Era only existed some 30 years then with many players only played all 4 Slams for 10-15 years. That weren’t the right circumstances to already set a record for eternity with 14.
Tennis courts and clubs have been closing down for years in many countries now. Kids just are not as committed as young players of the past. That has been the foundation of most pros aside from the big 3/4. Federer is one of the last people I consider to have come through the channels as some great players of the past. Kid prodigies are far fewer and the selection pool found in development is smaller. Tennis is just too expensive and it has become harder and harder to become as good of a player as years gone by. Fewer kids are REALLY driven. Federer and the other greats of this era are lucky that the field has become so much weaker...this is why their records are so inflated (even though they are sharing everything). This is evedince that the field has been weak for quite some time. A stronger field would have limited it somewhat.

The coincidence that 3/4 atg players are in the same era is just too unlikely. It's more likely that the same atg players are benefitting from a weak field hence all the records. I believe they are atg...but they are most definitely inflated in greatness. My opinion on this will not change. People are too recency biased.
 

mxmx

Professional
#85
Isner and Dr. Ivo GOATs...no thanks. I like point construction and quality play. Not servebots and baseline bashers.
At least the game would have variety as well as players who specialise in one or the other. I'd much rather watch reruns of Agassi vs. Sampras than yet another borrrrrriiiiiiiiing Nadal French open final.
 
#86
At least the game would have variety as well as players who specialise in one or the other. I'd much rather watch reruns of Agassi vs. Sampras than yet another borrrrrriiiiiiiiing Nadal French open final.
Not Nadal’s fault he is that high above everyone on clay, but I love watching him dole out master class play. Not boring at all. And the. With Thiem in the final, I loved watching him try to figure out ways to win points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

mxmx

Professional
#87
Not Nadal’s fault he is that high above everyone on clay, but I love watching him dole out master class play. Not boring at all. And the. With Thiem in the final, I loved watching him try to figure out ways to win points.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm talking in general though...

Look, he's a great player. But too much sugar and no veggies aint good. And tennis speaking, we are not getting a balanced diet. Not even close. Something big needs to change. To me surfaces is one thing to look at. Perhaps doubles needs to get more high profile attention. But there is a good chance that tennis will only become weaker and weaker. Players hitting the ball hard does not mean tennis is not in trouble.

There are subtle elements severly missing in the game. I'm not sure that it is fixable.
 
#88
I'm talking in general though...

Look, he's a great player. But too much sugar and no veggies aint good. And tennis speaking, we are not getting a balanced diet. Not even close. Something big needs to change. To me surfaces is one thing to look at. Perhaps doubles needs to get more high profile attention. But there is a good chance that tennis will only become weaker and weaker. Players hitting the ball hard does not mean tennis is not in trouble.

There are subtle elements severly missing in the game. I'm not sure that it is fixable.

I am missing the point here.

Hitting the ball hard and big serving is grass tennis.

Clay promotes a much greater variety of shots and play BECAUSE big serves and big hitting are more manageable. Point construction takes much more thought, more angles, and a lot more use of depth to create space and win points. It take a much greater physical effort to do that so points often take more time to develop. Watching Nadal is a master class in that, and more than watching players shots, I watch footwork. To me, clay is exactly what tennis ought to be. I also like and appreciate that hard court is faster, but still not like slick grass. Even grass is said to have been slowed, but most pros still say it is still the fastest of all surfaces. But talk about BORRRRRIIIINGGGG. Back in the day of Sampras and early Fed even, a rally over 6 shots was considered epic, where most points where serve and volley and that's it...if it even got to a volley.

So it is hard to confront tradition, and tht's grass. But tennis is played across three very different surfaces, and each is unique, making tennis unique as a sport. Having some common characteristics is good, but also keeping that variety is good. So having slower clay, mid point hard courts, and faster grass, even if not the desparity it once was, fits that.

And will continue to be, to each their own.

Cheers.
 

sredna42

Hall of Fame
#89
why not speed up the courts. After french open the grass and hard courts should be sped up to 90s levels. and use lighter tennis balls. get serious about doping for a change. don't give these idiotic TUEs which is legalized doping. reveal the names of operation puerta.
Boom. Thank you.
 

Fintft

Hall of Fame
#91
What do you mean fix this? Force players to retire? This whole question and thread are based on ridiculous premises,
How about ATP stops fixing matches in favor of Fed and Nadal?

Also how about USTA (and CAN) start develop well rounded players (read clay), as opposed to the serve bots so that might end up again with superstars of their own?
Who was the last US great player? Sampras no?
Who has been the tennis star in North America in the last decade? Serena no?

You can see why ATP wants to keep Roger and Rafa at the top, for the popularity of tennis.
 
#92
The top isn’t always the same, that’s for sure. Not every 10 years have a GOAT candidate. But the field behind the top 5 or top 10 should always be quite comparable. At least it is highly unlikely statistically that a "full field" ist just that much weaker in another era. I think Sampras being pushed out of the game really was due to him being not exactly as good as the Big 3, at least not consistantly.

And the arrival of new racquet technology also played a part, because Sampras was too stubborn to change (and the others who started with it would have had an advantage anyway).

But by the way, even if Sampras really had a disadvantage, then that would have been an argument more that Federer would overtake him, and not the opposite.

No matter how we look at it, 14 was never that much. In the women’s game 4 players already had much more and the Open Era only existed some 30 years then with many players only played all 4 Slams for 10-15 years. That weren’t the right circumstances to already set a record for eternity with 14.
Sampras was bored. He could easily have gone on to win 16-18 if the motivation was there. It wasn't. He'd 'won'.
 

mxmx

Professional
#93
I am missing the point here.

Hitting the ball hard and big serving is grass tennis.

Clay promotes a much greater variety of shots and play BECAUSE big serves and big hitting are more manageable. Point construction takes much more thought, more angles, and a lot more use of depth to create space and win points. It take a much greater physical effort to do that so points often take more time to develop. Watching Nadal is a master class in that, and more than watching players shots, I watch footwork. To me, clay is exactly what tennis ought to be. I also like and appreciate that hard court is faster, but still not like slick grass. Even grass is said to have been slowed, but most pros still say it is still the fastest of all surfaces. But talk about BORRRRRIIIINGGGG. Back in the day of Sampras and early Fed even, a rally over 6 shots was considered epic, where most points where serve and volley and that's it...if it even got to a volley.

So it is hard to confront tradition, and tht's grass. But tennis is played across three very different surfaces, and each is unique, making tennis unique as a sport. Having some common characteristics is good, but also keeping that variety is good. So having slower clay, mid point hard courts, and faster grass, even if not the desparity it once was, fits that.

And will continue to be, to each their own.

Cheers.
If they homogenize courts, they may as well get rid of grass and clay. What's the point if the differences is only minor. I think the differences should at least be as much as the past. Yes, it will cause servebots to rise. But so too will clay specialists and volley specialists. These days you only generally need a plan A for a gameplan. With greater surface variation you will need smarter and more variable players.

Secondly, on hardcourts, someone that's doing great on clay will then come against someone who is great on grass etc. So the dynamics and matchups change. WBO vs WBA so to speak. Players that cannot make a living on one surface has a shot on another.

But no. The Atp wants clones for players.
 

mxmx

Professional
#94
How about ATP stops fixing matches in favor of Fed and Nadal?

Also how about USTA (and CAN) start develop well rounded players (read clay), as opposed to the serve bots so that might end up again with superstars of their own?
Who was the last US great player? Sampras no?
Who has been the tennis star in North America in the last decade? Serena no?

You can see why ATP wants to keep Roger and Rafa at the top, for the popularity of tennis.
Did they ask ALL players aside from 3, as well as fans what they thought of blue clay?
 
#95
Salty threads continue - was it over-inflation between 2003 - 2007? Or just now when there are other players winning more?
I mean to be fair, Fed was young then. The big 3 are old and still dominating. That should not happen. But in the case of people like you and me, I don't mind it. Until the big 3 are no longer great (that still are), I don't want new winners just to have new winners. I want great tennis.
 

Azure

Hall of Fame
#96
I am missing the point here.

Hitting the ball hard and big serving is grass tennis.

Clay promotes a much greater variety of shots and play BECAUSE big serves and big hitting are more manageable. Point construction takes much more thought, more angles, and a lot more use of depth to create space and win points. It take a much greater physical effort to do that so points often take more time to develop. Watching Nadal is a master class in that, and more than watching players shots, I watch footwork. To me, clay is exactly what tennis ought to be. I also like and appreciate that hard court is faster, but still not like slick grass. Even grass is said to have been slowed, but most pros still say it is still the fastest of all surfaces. But talk about BORRRRRIIIINGGGG. Back in the day of Sampras and early Fed even, a rally over 6 shots was considered epic, where most points where serve and volley and that's it...if it even got to a volley.

So it is hard to confront tradition, and tht's grass. But tennis is played across three very different surfaces, and each is unique, making tennis unique as a sport. Having some common characteristics is good, but also keeping that variety is good. So having slower clay, mid point hard courts, and faster grass, even if not the desparity it once was, fits that.

And will continue to be, to each their own.

Cheers.
This is a very nice post and the last paragraph really sums it all up (y)
 
#97
Based on the history of the sport in the OE, it is very unlikely that there was a lack of talent to such an extent. Usually even less talented players would nick a Major and build a solid career around preferred conditions. With the exception of Del Potro, who was completely ruined by injuries, and Cilic, who is only two years younger than Djokovic there is no such a player. That is a HUGE amount of time. We are talking about 1! time Major winners here.

Also, let's not forget that even if the above mentioned young players start winning Majors immediately (and currently only Thiem at RG and USO looks ready for that) the transition will take another couple of years, so we are talking about up to fifteen years of almost no other competition. That is indeed unprecedented anyway you slice it.

:cool:
The three horse race for the GS tally has pretty much closed down the competition.

Sampras for example wasn’t fighting with nearly the same intensity as the Big 3 are.

Also you’ve got to hand it to the Big 3, in that they are probably the 3 greatest players to play the game.
 

mxmx

Professional
#99
The three horse race for the GS tally has pretty much closed down the competition.

Sampras for example wasn’t fighting with nearly the same intensity as the Big 3 are.

Also you’ve got to hand it to the Big 3, in that they are probably the 3 greatest players to play the game.
Or they only have a slight bigger hunger than some greats of the 90s. But one things for sure, aside from the Big 3, everyone else in the field has less hunger than the field of the 90s.
 
Top