We will probably see players more dominant than Nadal/Federer/Djokovic IMMEDIATELY after they retire

[thomasferrett]

Remember when everyone said they'd never see a more dominant champion than Sampras in their lifetime? Then as soon as Sampras retired, Federer came along.

It's not hard to fathom that after Nadal, Federer and Djokovic retire, another trio could immediately come along and dominate the next 70 Slams exclusively.

Or another uber champion could come along and win 25 - 40 Slams himself.

These hypothetical new dominant champions obviously won't be any of the useless 'next-gen' players we know already; they'll be prodigious talents aged about 13 now who no-one's ever heard of because they're grinding away in the juniors at the moment.

People never can look beyond their own noses, yet the tendency of history to repeat itself suggests that as soon as Nadal, Federer and Djokovic retire, we'll see a new set of champion(s) who will leave their records in the dust.

 

[Standaa]

does Topspin 4 dominance count?

 

[JackGates]

I agree, because future champions might not have two rivals stopping their slam counts. So, ironically they might be worse players than big 3, but still break the records.

Remember 30 majors is a joke for Federer if he doesn't face Djokodal. So, I don't find it that crazy that a player who is even a bit worse than Federer makes 20 majors when he is alone.

Also, Fed was a late bloomer, he wasted a few early majors too. So, if someone starts winning from age 19 and has less competition nad longevity is now 15 years, 20 is not a problem.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

No, but that would be funny

 

[Quite Please]

I agree, because future champions might not have two rivals stopping their slam counts. So, ironically they might be worse players than big 3, but still break the records.

Remember 30 majors is a joke for Federer if he doesn't face Djokodal. So, I don't find it that crazy that a player who is even a bit worse than Federer makes 20 majors when he is alone.

Also, Fed was a late bloomer, he wasted a few early majors too. So, if someone starts winning from age 19 and has less competition nad longevity is now 15 years, 20 is not a problem.

Yeah, like Serena...

 

[ChrisRF]

Remember when everyone said they'd never see a more dominant champion than Sampras in their lifetime? Then as soon as Sampras retired, Federer came along.

It's not hard to fathom that after Nadal, Federer and Djokovic retire, another trio could immediately come along and dominate the next 70 Slams exclusively.

Or another uber champion could come along and win 25 - 40 Slams himself.

These hypothetical new dominant champions obviously won't be any of the useless 'next-gen' players we know already; they'll be prodigious talents aged about 13 now who no-one's ever heard of because they're grinding away in the juniors at the moment.

People never can look beyond their own noses, yet the tendency of history to repeat itself suggests that as soon as Nadal, Federer and Djokovic retire, we'll see a new set of champion(s) who will leave their records in the dust.

I agree with you except that Sampras seemed to be the most dominant champion forever. In fact, he was never really dominant, and his record of 14 Slams seemed to be very beatable and short-living for many reasons:

- He never won more than 2 Slams in one year
- He never won RG, so one Slam was not even in the discussion. Why should that have been the case for the next great Champion?
- After turning 25 (!) he only won Wimbledon despite the last hurrah at the 2002 US Open. Yes, you read it correctly, apart from that he didn’t win another hardcourt Slam after 25.
- He didn’t win a single ATP tournament (!) from 2000 Wimbledon (when he was not even 28) until the 2002 US Open, in 34 attempts.

Sampras dominated Wimbledon and was slightly the best player over an extremely inconsistent field for 6 years in a row. But that’s all. The worst one of the Big 3 in the rankings usually had more points than Sampras on top of the ranking.

Another hints his record wouldn’t last long, when we look into history:

- The Open Era was only some 30 years old, and only for 10 years all top players visited Australia. So Sampras’ record in Slam count was not the final one, but rather the opening one.
- Laver and Rosewall would both have more than 14 Open Slams if there always was an Open Era (most likely not more than Federer though).
- In the women’s game there were already 4 players with 18-24 Slams (or 3 with 18-22 if we discount Court’s Australian titles). Since dominance over the field is relative, there was no reason to suggest that the numbers in the men’s game wouldn't come close, and now this is indeed the case.

But apart from that everything you said is spot on, and I especially agree with @JackGates: If one big talent emerges alone, he could easily pass 20. I also wouldn’t be surprised if we’ll see a CYGS then. If this talent won’t come up in the next 10 years, we’ll have a meaningless field with meaningless winners like in current WTA. Meaningless only compared to history of course, I don’t want to disrepect anyone who gives his/her best.

 

[JackGates]

Yeah, like Serena...

Yeah, sort of true. That's the reason why people are reluctant of giving her the goat status, nothing to do with her being a woman or not being able to beat men.

But how is that different with Graff when Monica was stabbed and Henin retired? Same thing, so why is then Graff considered better?

 

[Quite Please]

Yeah, sort of true. That's the reason why people are reluctant of giving her the goat status, nothing to do with her being a woman or not being able to beat men.

But how is that different with Graff when Monica was stabbed and Henin retired? Same thing, so why is then Graff considered better?

Yeah, you are right. Probably just because people like her fluent playing style and one handed back hand better. And of course the personalities.

 

[Towny]

I agree with you except that Sampras seemed to be the most dominant champion forever. In fact, he was never really dominant, and his record of 14 Slams seemed to be very beatable and short-living for many reasons:

- He never won more than 2 Slams in one year
- He never won RG, so one Slam was not even in the discussion. Why should that have been the case for the next great Champion?
- He only won Wimbledon after turning 25 (!) despite the last hurrah at the 2002 US Open. Yes, you read it correctly, apart from that the didn’t won another hardcourt Slam after 25.
- He didn’t win a single ATP tournament (!) from 2000 Wimbledon (when he was not even 28) until the 2002 US Open, in 34 attempts.

Sampras dominated Wimbledon and was slightly the best player over an extremely inconsistent field for 6 years in a row. But that’s all. The worst one of the Big 3 in the rankings usually had more points than Sampras on top of the ranking.

Another hints his record wouldn’t last long, when we look into history:

- The Open Era was only some 30 years old, and only for 10 years all top players visited Australia. So Sampras’ record in Slam count was not the final one, but rather the opening one.
- Laver and Rosewall would both have more than 14 Open Slams if there always was an Open Era (most likely not more than Federer though).
- In the women’s game there were already 4 players with 18-24 Slams (or 3 with 18-22 if we discount Court’s Australian titles). Since dominance over the field is relative, there was no reason to suggest that the numbers in the men’s game would come close, and now this is indeed the case.

But apart from that everything you said is spot on, and I especially agree with @JackGates: If one big talent emerges alone, he could easily pass 20. I also wouldn’t surprised if we’ll see a CYGS then. If this talent won’t come up in the next 10 years, we’ll have a meaningless field with meaningless winners like in current WTA. Meaningless only compared to history of course, I don’t want to disrepect anyone who gives his/her best.

It's also worth noting that Borg would have very likely passed 14 slams had he had Sampras' conditions (mandatory AO, no reason to skip RG for a year, no prime ATGs at the USO to compete against). So in that respect, there was every possibility that Sampras could be passed. that being said, his career was phenomenal and it has taken 3 phenomenal players to pass him. Plus, they've been assisted by a terrible NextGen as well

 

[ChrisRF]

It's also worth noting that Borg would have very likely passed 14 slams had he had Sampras' conditions (mandatory AO, no reason to skip RG for a year, no prime ATGs at the USO to compete against). So in that respect, there was every possibility that Sampras could be passed. that being said, his career was phenomenal and it has taken 3 phenomenal players to pass him. Plus, they've been assisted by a terrible NextGen as well

Yes, of course Borg is one of those who (in a modern view) suffered from not playing in Australia. I think there was nothing like a Slam race back then because the time before the Open Era was only a few years ago, and everybody knew there couldn’t be any serious record to beat.

When Sampras played "against history" he somewhat didn’t understand history, because Emerson’s 12 Amateur Slams never was a real all-time-achievement. If it was, then Borg surely wouldn’t have stopped at exactly 11 Slams with 26.

I also agree that Borg had huge competition at the US Open with especially McEnroe and Connors. On top of that, they both were Americans themselves, so it maybe was the tournament of the year for them.

On the other hand though, I think Borg’s competition on clay was quite weak apart from Vilas. I wouldn’t be surprised if Federer and Djokovic would have as many or even more RG titles if they played in that era (or in any era without Nadal and without each other).

 

[tennisaddict]

All set and done getting 21 or 22 majors is no easy task

It is winning 2 majors a year for 11 years . That is a LOT