TTWers, what would be enough for you to say a slam performance is comparable to prime or peak Big 3 level?

[jl809]

As we know, we’ve just seen a guy put in a slam performance which - at least on paper - is one for the ages, featuring the following

• Complete domination of the world number 1, the reigning AO, USO, ATP finals and Wimbledon champion
  • Limited Sinner to 69% 1st serve points won, 44% overall points won, 1 break point
  • Hit 41 winners to 24 UEs (against an elite defender), generating 11 BPs, plus 10 aces and 0 double faults. Comfy at the back and at net (20/27)
• Complete domination of the tournament as a whole
  • Dominance ratio of 1.79, the 3rd highest of any slam in the last 35 years
  • 10 BPs faced in 7 matches, lower than any slam run since recording in 1991. Spaced out as follows - 3 (R1), 0, 3, 2, 0, 1 (SF), 1 (F), so if anything he got less vulnerable in week 2
  • 58.1% of total points won, higher than runs such as 2010dals or 2006erer’s (great thread about this here)

So… was this a peak big 3 level slam win - Should we discuss this alongside mid 00s Federer or 2010s Djokodal’s best US Open runs?

And more generally, for a sub used to saying “this guy would get destroyed by prime <Big 3 player>”, what would be enough (now or
in future) to make you admit that actually, there’s a genuine debate to be had?

 

[jl809]

Few things that seem to be a theme on the forum:

• Slam performance vs the field: consensus is that the field has declined overall since the late 00s - mid 2010s, and even since 2019. Until this changes, this means 2 things
  • “Weak draw” winners like Sinner USO ‘24 (def. Draper, Fritz) ain’t gonna cut it in isolation - they need more evidence
  • Any struggle whatsoever against Fritz, Ruud, etc is instant grounds for exclusion
  • If you struggle against Dimitrov then you would have struggled against Fed
  • But if almost everyone except Sinneraz is a mug, how can Sinneraz prove themselves except by beating each other? Well…

• Djokovic
  • This is double edged again. Djokovic is still on tour. If you struggle against the Djokovic when he’s in corpse mode, then you leave open the suggestion that 2011-2016 Djokovic would have destroyed you. So basically, you have to beat him emphatically

• Results in the rest of the year / “pedigree”
  • it certainly helps the case of a player if that player is on a run of winning tournaments, is the defending champion, or has a good H2H against the “ATG”s

• Eye test
  • This still matters. Draws, opponents and stats can be given a healthy glow to an extent if you look like you’re f*cking GOATing. I’m thinking Federer at AO 07, Nadal at RG 17, Djoker at AO 16 in those famous sets, etc

 

[RaulRamirez]

In general, I am with you.

Every time I watch Carlos and Jannik face off, I know that I'm watching the best two players in the world, Even if the score wasn't very tight on Sunday, the ball striking and movement is elite, and a joy to watch. s is their mutual respect and desire to improve enough to defeat their nearest rival.

So without putting a number on what they might achieve, I would say that Alcaraz's play in the final -- and all tourney -- was Big 3-ish.

 

[jl809]

Based on the above

• Alcaraz USO 22 - no. Struggles vs Old Cilic, Tiafoe, Ruud etc
• Alcaraz Wimb 23 - has been debated. If he struggled with 2023 Djokovic, winning a tight match, he would have lost to prime Fed / Ned / Djoker etc. But Djoker fans said 2023 Djoker was the best ever version of him, so surely Raz would put up a fight vs 2012, 2013 Djoker?
• Sinner AO 24 - no. 5 setter vs Meddy B, even though he crushed corpseovic
• Raz RG 24 - no. SF and F are not considered good matches and were a struggle
• Raz Wim 24 - debated. He demolished a weak Djoker after muddling through his draw a bit, but I’ve seen people say 2017 Fed would have beaten this Raz, so this means no, right
• Sinner USO 24 - too weak a slam draw for people to take seriously even if it looks good on paper
• Sinner AO 25 - likewise

Is this fair?

This is where things get interesting. Since then we’ve had 3 slams with Sinneraz beating each other. The winner’s level in the final has been praised in each, however
- Sinner struggled really badly with Dimitrov at Wim 25 and could/should have lost
- Raz struggled with Djoker a bit at USO 25, even though he limited him to 1 BP

So are any of the last 3 slams won with Big 3 level?

 

[jl809]

In general, I am with you.

Every time I watch Carlos and Jannik face off, I know that I'm watching the best two players in the world, Even if the score wasn't very tight on Sunday, the ball striking and movement is elite, and a joy to watch. s is their mutual respect and desire to improve enough to defeat their nearest rival.

So without putting a number on what they might achieve, I would say that Alcaraz's play in the final -- and all tourney -- was Big 3-ish.

Totally agreed

 

[ForehandCross]

See, Alcaraz 's USO 2025 is definitely big 3 level. Even RG from Sinner despite the loss was as good if not better than many Federer and Djokovic runs at their best.


But let's leave the idea aside. An all timer tournament should never be limited to stats and DRs etc.

Djokovic took out an incredible Federer and Nadal in USO 2011 and then did it to Murray and Nadal in AO 2012. To me those two are better than many "dominant" runs.

It's not his fault that his opponents were at such a level that forced him to play epics.

Score and stats are relative to opponents.

Similarly on the opposite front, Federer AO 2007 was magical in both the Semis and finals. There are like handful of players throughout history that would take the shine off of that run. But not his fault he didn't have them to face.

 

[NatF]

As we know, we’ve just seen a guy put in a slam performance which - at least on paper - is one for the ages, featuring the following

• Complete domination of the world number 1, the reigning AO, USO, ATP finals and Wimbledon champion
  • Limited Sinner to 69% 1st serve points won, 44% overall points won, 1 break point
  • Hit 41 winners to 24 UEs (against an elite defender), generating 11 BPs, plus 10 aces and 0 double faults. Comfy at the back and at net (20/27)
• Complete domination of the tournament as a whole
  • Dominance ratio of 1.79, the 3rd highest of any slam in the last 35 years
  • 10 BPs faced in 7 matches, lower than any slam run since recording in 1991. Spaced out as follows - 3 (R1), 0, 3, 2, 0, 1 (SF), 1 (F), so if anything he got less vulnerable in week 2
  • 58.1% of total points won, higher than runs such as 2010dals or 2006erer’s (great thread about this here)

So… was this a peak big 3 level slam win - Should we discuss this alongside mid 00s Federer or 2010s Djokodal’s best US Open runs?

And more generally, for a sub used to saying “this guy would get destroyed by prime <Big 3 player>”, what would be enough (now or
in future) to make you admit that actually, there’s a genuine debate to be had?

The latter mayybe, the former - no

 

[Holmes]

Let's just keep this thread short, sweet and honest:

NOTHING

 

[The Blond Blur]

Dominating the early rounds and then carrying that level into the SF-F beating elite competition that was playing well on the day.

Carl satisfied the first criterion with flying colors. He wasn’t really challenged in the SF-F by Joker and The Sinner. Not his fault they didn’t step up. He did his part and that’s all that matters. I still would have liked to see him be pushed more to determine whether or not he could have kept up that level. We know The Big 3 could have actually gotten their crap together after a slow start unlike The Sinner.

 

[Third Serve]

I don’t think it’s up there with the absolute best (that is, Fed and Pete’s top runs) as I wasn’t entirely impressed by some of the SF but he did close out the match well. The final was a tremendous performance, not much to complain about there. He played very well. This was easily his best Slam win by level (honorable mention to Wimbledon 2024—despite the rocky road to the final, the actual championship match was of a comparable level to this one imo, maybe slightly weaker).

 

[jl809]

The latter mayybe, the former - no

I don’t think Raz’s run is better than something like 2006erer’s but I’m interested in knowing what you think compared about it to 2004, 2005, and 2007-9. Does Raz beat those opponents in the same way? Or any of those Federers?

 

[mtommer]

...to make you admit that actually, there’s a genuine debate to be had?

There is no debate to be had. There are people who like to argue over silly bs and feel themselves somehow smart and meaningful for doing so.

 

[Breakpointerer]

There really isn't much more he could have done this tournament, besides play cleaner in some stretches of the SF. But I'd say the final makes up for that.

 

[Racquet_smash]

In the current tour anything less than obliterating everyone without even dropping a set isn't worth a discussion.

B3 at their prime level would rarely drop more than a couple of sets and they faced much stronger players. Heck 23 Djokovic dropped 1 set at AO and only 2 at USO, tells you all you need to know.

 

[messiahrobins]

In general, I am with you.

Every time I watch Carlos and Jannik face off, I know that I'm watching the best two players in the world, Even if the score wasn't very tight on Sunday, the ball striking and movement is elite, and a joy to watch. s is their mutual respect and desire to improve enough to defeat their nearest rival.

So without putting a number on what they might achieve, I would say that Alcaraz's play in the final -- and all tourney -- was Big 3-ish.

Alcaraz at 19 and raw pushed Nadal (undefeated at the time holding the Slam record) all the way in IW, a stronghold of Nadals historically when he was in later rounds.

He then beat Nadal and Djokovic back to back in Madrid. Any doubts as to Alcaraz being big 3 level are eliminated with that look back. Alcaraz is twice the player now he was back then as his serve is now elite.

Sinner in 2020 gave Nadal at RG his hardest match by far in the QF and should have won the first 2 sets but for inexperience. That's the event Nadal humiliated Djokovic in the final. Any doubts about Sinners Big 3 level is eliminated by that match (and when he went 2 sets up v Djokovic at W.)

Sinner is twice the player he was back then. Big 3 fans are going to have to come to terms with the fact that Sinner and Alcaraz are going to elevate the game to a new level, if they haven't already done so which i think at times they have already.

 

[jackson vile]

Needs time, it’s not about a one time performance it’s about a sustained performance

 

[NatF]

I don’t think Raz’s run is better than something like 2006erer’s but I’m interested in knowing what you think compared about it to 2004, 2005, and 2007-9. Does Raz beat those opponents in the same way? Or any of those Federers?

Probably more efficient in some of the early rounds, if we're looking at the latter rounds I think he'd beat all the guys Fed beat but probably with more hassle on average. I don't know if I'd pick him in a direct h2h over five sets.

 

[1650]

People act like the big 3 didn't ever struggle in slams on the way to winning against "lesser" players, even in their best seasons. Federer went to 5 against Haas at the 06 Australian, Djokovic went to 5 against Anderson at 15 Wimbledon, for example. But these are some of their best seasons, right?

What if top 100 players are actually really good at tennis, regardless of the era? What if a player, instead of having the consistency to make the top 5, is able to put the pieces together occasionally and have a really good day at "top 5 level?" I don't think that happening devalues say, Sinner's Wimbledon win this year.

Tennis fans are like Star Wars fans - as the saying goes, nobody hates Star Wars more than Star Wars fans.

 

[ChaelAZ]

You will continue to see Big3 bias and outright denial, again holding up 20 yadda, yadda, yadda, and all kinds of stats, with the smattering or 'weak era' talk, but RG and now specifically this USO were on par with the best performances. That makes them even more open for talking down.

Now, I personally don't think either of those finals are quite the 2008 Wimby level, but certainly up there.

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

Maybe an unfair thing to say but I get the feeling that SOME Big 3 fans would have a very hard time to admit a new player played at Big 3 peak level even if it happened. In the end it's fine, we all have biases and will think more fondly and more highly about our favorite eras.

 

[Racquet_smash]

The obvious criticism against the current guys being big 3 level is 2023, when both were around and Alcaraz especially was a slam winner, they did nothing to stop a 36 years old Djokovic from winning almost everything. They only started to get the better of him at his current state as a rotten corpse.

And it's not like Djokovic 2023 played at a lower than they have currently. In fact honestly Djoko in that season clearly outclasses any of the slams they've won bar maybe US Open 2025 (it's not like Djokovic had any massive struggle in 23 anyway, against a better opponent in the final).

So the argument of them being prime big 3 level is honestly absurd. As i said, put even a 2019 Nadal or 2023 Djokovic in place of Alcaraz and they'd have no issue winning the tournament while dropping a couple of sets at most.

 

[Jav]

I don't really care about them anymore. Numbers, and specially the eye test don't lie. You gotta be unbiased to recognize those though.

Yes, he's definitely up there, and only time will tell if it translates to longevity as well.

The obvious criticism against the current guys being big 3 level is 2023, when both were around and Alcaraz especially was a slam winner, they did nothing to stop a 36 years old Djokovic from winning almost everything. They only started to get the better of him at his current state as a rotten corpse.

And it's not like Djokovic 2023 played at a lower than they have currently. In fact honestly Djoko in that season clearly outclasses any of the slams they've won bar maybe US Open 2025 (it's not like Djokovic had any massive struggle in 23 anyway, against a better opponent in the final).

So the argument of them being prime big 3 level is honestly absurd. As i said, put even a 2019 Nadal or 2023 Djokovic in place of Alcaraz and they'd have no issue winning the tournament while dropping a couple of sets at most.

This guy for example omits Carlitos is 22yo. As big of a twice-GS winner as he was after Wimbly 23', he was just 20. Neither 20yo Fed nor Nole would probably have been able to push through 23' Nole, which, for many, was still a force to reckon. Not more than he did, at least (let's not forget the cramps during 23' RG where he was starting to come back after 2nd set). Some people extend Nole's prime back to even 08', when in reality he made considerably better numbers in 23'.

Yes guys, the prime limits apply for longevity as much as for precocity. Can't ask a 20yo boy to perform as his 25-27 prime at all. He lacks experience, mentality, technique, probably even some physical development yet. Look at Sinner breakthrough. Novak himself, the GOAT, is the perfect late bloomer example, yet here we are criticizing a x6GS 22yo champion for not breaking through the tour earlier against him nor Rafa in his last 22' dance (Carlitos did actually defeat both, btw).

 

[The Blond Blur]

You will continue to see Big3 bias and outright denial, again holding up 20 yadda, yadda, yadda, and all kinds of stats, with the smattering or 'weak era' talk, but RG and now specifically this USO were on par with the best performances. That makes them even more open for talking down.

Now, I personally don't think either of those finals are quite the 2008 Wimby level, but certainly up there.

RG 25 was awesome. But how was this USO F up there with Wimby 08?

 

[Racquet_smash]

I don't really care about them anymore. Numbers, and specially the eye test don't lie. You gotta be unbiased to recognize those though.

Yes, he's definitely up there, and only time will tell if it translates to longevity as well.



This guy for example omits Carlitos is 22yo. As big of a twice-GS winner as he was after Wimbly 23', he was just 20. Neither 20yo Fed nor Nole would probably have been able to push through 23' Nole, which, for many, was still a force to reckon. Not more than he did, at least (let's not forget the cramps during 23' RG where he was starting to come back after 2nd set). Some people extend Nole's prime back to even 08', when in reality he made considerably better numbers in 23'.

Yes guys, the prime limits apply for longevity as much as for precocity. Can't ask a 20yo boy to perform as his 25-27 prime at all. He lacks experience, mentality, technique, probably even some physical development yet. Look at Sinner breakthrough. Novak himself, the GOAT, is the perfect late bloomer example, yet here we are criticizing a x6GS 22yo champion for not breaking through the tour earlier against him nor Rafa in his last 22' dance (Carlitos did actually defeat both, btw).

This would work if either Sinner or Alcaraz showed any really impressive performance troughout these years. Instead Sinner basically only has a set of WTF and Alcaraz one slam where they truly performed at an impressive level mixed in with a bunch of wins that never made me say "this is the best player in the world" but instead "this is better than the current trash at least".

I mean we never acted as if Medvedev played at some prime Big3 level when he won his US Open dropping only one set, didn't we?

 

[Racquet_smash]

RG 25 was awesome. But how was this USO F up there with Wimby 08?

RG25 is basically the poor version of the 2017AO final. Recently rewatched the match and my opinion hasn't changed a bit, good final setter after 4 really questionable ones.

 

[canta_Brian]

Are we finally ready to admit that stats don’t always tell the whole tale?

 

[objection_]

RG25 is basically the poor version of the 2017AO final. Recently rewatched the match and my opinion hasn't changed a bit, good final setter after 4 really questionable ones.

More like 13 USO F w sets 3 and 4 reversed.

 

[TripleATeam]

People forget that peak Big 3 didn't win every slam without struggle.
Djokovic 2016 AO vs Simon, 2015 Wimbledon vs Anderson.
Federer 2008 USO vs Andreev, 2006 AO vs Haas.
Nadal 2010 Wimbledon to Haase/Petzschner, 2009 AO vs Verdasco.

Objectively speaking, there's little else he could've done. He played great, faced insanely few break points, lost just one set.

Him doing this same sort of thing in the next 2-3 slams would make this look better retroactively. The reason we remember the Big 3 peak/prime so much is because they did this day in, day out. Losing to almost no one else, crushing everyone outside of each other (+ Murray), and putting on fantastic levels when they went up against each other. Alcaraz does this for the next year, even if he loses one or two of those finals to Sinner, I'll call it prime Big 3 level.

If he makes Sinner look like a chump for all the rest of them too, then he'll be playing peak Big 3 level to me.

 

[Jav]

This would work if either Sinner or Alcaraz showed any really impressive performance troughout these years. Instead Sinner basically only has a set of WTF and Alcaraz one slam where they truly performed at an impressive level mixed in with a bunch of wins that never made me say "this is the best player in the world" but instead "this is better than the current trash at least".

I mean we never acted as if Medvedev played at some prime Big3 level when he won his US Open dropping only one set, didn't we?

Can't talk about Sinner cause I don't follow him that closely (though stats like his 1.49DR in 2025 are there). Probably he's got a couple of these as well, including those he made it close with Carlitos down below, despite losing.

But Alcaraz level in particular in the following games: 23 Wimbledon F, 24 Wimbledon F v Nole, 24 Beijing F, 25 Rome F, RG F and recent USO F all v Sinner have never been matched recently by any other player not named Rafa, Roger or Novak. Especially given the context like opposition (still a competitive Nole trying to surpass Roger's record twice, and a fellow ATG in his breakthrough season with scary performances in all previous rounds while trying to prove a point against him, including at home soil). I invite you to revisit the extended, if possible, highlights. The variety and power of shots (FH in particular), angles, movement and ball speed. But also precision and even rally tolerance in some cases, though still working there.

And to a lesser extent, but pretty significantly too: 22 Madrid SF v Nole and F v Rafa, USO QFs v Sinner, 23 Cinci F v Nole, 24 RG SF v Jannik or even Olympics F (despite the loss). Heck even this or this other for moments have rarely been matched either. Not since TB3.

That's a fair amount of highlights for a youngster. Add to the eye test and numbers / trophies the rest of stats like elo, shot insights, etc and you definitely got a true TB3 heir. He's not in his absolute prime just yet which is scary.