What is better to tennis. Transitional or Dominance era

lud

Hall of Fame
I'm kinda miss 2000-2003 era.
So many different winners,so many journaymens in finals. Surprising Masters winners
Basically, era when anybody could beat anyone on any surface. F-cking Verkerk beat Coria in SF of RG..
OTOH, matches between Big 3 are timeless classics and we are glad to live in this era,BUT..



What do you prefer guys..
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I'm kinda miss 2000-2003 era.
So many different winners,so many journaymens in finals. Surprising Masters winners
Basically, era when anybody could beat anyone on any surface. F-cking Verkerk beat Coria in SF of RG..
OTOH, matches between Big 3 are timeless classics and we are glad to live in this era,BUT..



What do you prefer guys..
Yet Agassi was still routinely winning the Australian Open at this time, Sampras was still quite good in 2000 (returning to #1) and the young players actually challenged the old guard.

Take young Safin, Hewitt and Federer. Put them into today's game. They'd be winning everything in sight without the Big 3.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
2003-2012 as a whole with select matches from 2013-2018.

I started watching tennis properly back in 2006 but have watched a lot of matches and highlights from the 03-05 period. Lots of quality matches.
 

Standaa

G.O.A.T.
Depends on who’s dominating. As long as it was one of the Big 3, I prefered it. But if it’s Zverev dominating?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
Variety is good for tennis.

There's a need for recognizable names and great champions, but also for uncertainty and competition.

Right now, all the excitement is completely artificial because there's the same 3 names we have had fro 15 years, them winning is never in doubt, and all we care about is who gets which record.
 

CYGS

Legend
Variety is good for tennis.

There's a need for recognizable names and great champions, but also for uncertainty and competition.

Right now, all the excitement is completely artificial because there's the same 3 names we have had fro 15 years, them winning is never in doubt, and all we care about is who gets which record.
Slam race is the most exciting thing that is happening. No other era has it, so I don't mind watching the dominance of big 3 until one clear winner emerges.
 

Standaa

G.O.A.T.
This isn't about what you like, this is about the longevity of the game.

As much as I hate Zverev, it would be better for tennis if he and 2 other players under 25 won all 4 Slams next year

I’m sorry, but tennis is all about what people like.

And the OP asked what do we prefer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
Slam race is the most exciting thing that is happening. No other era has it, so I don't mind watching the dominance of big 3 until one clear winner emerges.

It would be exciting if their relative positions changed from time to time.
If they end up exactly in the same position with 3+ Slams between each other, it's far from exciting.
 
O

OhYes

Guest
Oh lord, if only could Nadal and Đoković retire at same time as Federer. I mean tomorrow. They are so overstaying. :rolleyes:
 

papertank

Hall of Fame
The best eras are when there is domination, but it is by multiple players and not just one. It allows people to have recongizable faces in the business end of all the big tournaments, but the results are still up in the air. When one person is dominating it gets old fast, and when nobody is the results feel cheapened.
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
Big 3 are overstaying . They need to exit for the long term health of the sport.
I went on a page-long rant about this when Federer played Chung at AO. You, sir, just articulated my view on tennis in two sentences better than I did in an essay.
*Tips fedora*
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The Big 3 era has been awesome, but to be quite fair they have overstayed their presence. The last few years have been quite boring. The Big 3 are winning, but they are mostly winning because there is no one out there. They navigate through relatively weak draws most of the time and there is no excitement in seeing them win nowadays with the total lack of competition. It's been there done that for over a decade now.

There hasn't really been a Big 3 era since around 2014. Just the Big 3 taking turns in dominating because the rest of the guys are mugs.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
So for the good of the game the guys that dominate should leave so the mugs can take over? Are you people serious?

You know tennis used to be popular in the United States and it stayed popular through the Agassi years. When he started to age and Sampras took over the #1 US spot, interest ebbed but it was still there. Once Sampras retired, it has been on a steady downhill trend ever since.

If you honestly think Zverev or Tsitsipas (whom I like a lot) or Thiem or any of the other so-called #NextGens are going to bring a new excitement to the game or get the people flocking to tournaments with cash in hand you're living on the Isle of Delusion.

The only way the transition from the big 3 to the #nextgens is going to happen is if one of them actually steps up and starts playing like a world beater NOW... not if the big 3 all retire and then "others" start winning. Tennis is a personality driven sport. If the big 3 stepped aside tomorrow, all but the most diehard fans would find a new side-show.
 

lud

Hall of Fame
The Big 3 era has been awesome, but to be quite fair they have overstayed their presence. The last few years have been quite boring. The Big 3 are winning, but they are mostly winning because there is no one out there. They navigate through relatively weak draws most of the time and there is no excitement in seeing them win nowadays with the total lack of competition. It's been there done that for over a decade now.

There hasn't really been a Big 3 era since around 2014. Just the Big 3 taking turns in dominating because the rest of the guys are mugs.
Stan the man?
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
Overstaying or not, there is NO transition path right now except a free-for-all of average players. So the sport is holding on to the old 3 for as long as they can until one of these young guys man's up to take the spotlight. Fed is either retiring next year, or announcing his retirement next year. Nadal might have a few years left. Djo will end up getting soft-banned again, or having some personal issues and leave in the next few years too. Maybe then someone will make moves.
 

thrust

Legend
So for the good of the game the guys that dominate should leave so the mugs can take over? Are you people serious?

You know tennis used to be popular in the United States and it stayed popular through the Agassi years. When he started to age and Sampras took over the #1 US spot, interest ebbed but it was still there. Once Sampras retired, it has been on a steady downhill trend ever since.

If you honestly think Zverev or Tsitsipas (whom I like a lot) or Thiem or any of the other so-called #NextGens are going to bring a new excitement to the game or get the people flocking to tournaments with cash in hand you're living on the Isle of Delusion.

The only way the transition from the big 3 to the #nextgens is going to happen is if one of them actually steps up and starts playing like a world beater NOW... not if the big 3 all retire and then "others" start winning. Tennis is a personality driven sport. If the big 3 stepped aside tomorrow, all but the most diehard fans would find a new side-show.
Tennis in the US was probably at it's peak popularity 1968-03 with players: Ashe, Smith, Connors, McEnroe, Courier, Chang along with Borg, Lendl, Edberg, Lendl, Becker, Laver, Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall and Nastase. Once Americans, especially Roddick, failed to win slams, popularity of tennis has slightly declined. Still, the Masters and USO draw big crowds, so tennis is still very popular in the US despite the lack of American slam winners. The Williams sisters successes probably helped keep tennis popular here and the Bryan Brothers, to a lesser extent
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
Tennis in the US was probably at it's peak popularity 1968-03 with players: Ashe, Smith, Connors, McEnroe, Courier, Chang along with Borg, Lendl, Edberg, Lendl, Becker, Laver, Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall and Nastase. Once Americans, especially Roddick, failed to win slams, popularity of tennis has slightly declined. Still, the Masters and USO draw big crowds, so tennis is still very popular in the US despite the lack of American slam winners. The Williams sisters successes probably helped keep tennis popular here and the Bryan Brothers, to a lesser extent
It really isn't popular here? Why would you think it was? The US Open draws crowds because it's an "event" not because it's tennis. TV ratings are garbage and probably 80% of the population couldn't name 10 active tennis players.
 
Last edited:

thrust

Legend
It really isn't popular here? Why would you think it was? The US Open draws crowds because it's an "event" not because it's tennis. TV ratings are garbage and probably 70% of the population couldn't name 10 active tennis players.
Tennis was never nearly as popular in the US as Baseball, Foot
It really isn't popular here? Why would you think it was? The US Open draws crowds because it's an "event" not because it's tennis. TV ratings are garbage and probably 70% of the population couldn't name 10 active tennis players.
Tennis was never nearly as popular here as: Baseball, Football, Basketball, Hockey or even Boxing. If we had top 5 slam winners, they would be well known.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
Tennis was never nearly as popular in the US as Baseball, Foot

Tennis was never nearly as popular here as: Baseball, Football, Basketball, Hockey or even Boxing. If we had top 5 slam winners, they would be well known.
I know it was never AS popular, not what I said. I said it used to be much more popular.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Tennis in the US was probably at it's peak popularity 1968-03 with players: Ashe, Smith, Connors, McEnroe, Courier, Chang along with Borg, Lendl, Edberg, Lendl, Becker, Laver, Newcombe, Roche, Rosewall and Nastase. Once Americans, especially Roddick, failed to win slams, popularity of tennis has slightly declined. Still, the Masters and USO draw big crowds, so tennis is still very popular in the US despite the lack of American slam winners. The Williams sisters successes probably helped keep tennis popular here and the Bryan Brothers, to a lesser extent
Roddick won a slam.
 

Milehigh5280

Professional
I enjoy both, but just like in about any other sport, dominate players and teams attract the most viewers and interest. The Big 3 have been good for the sport
 
Top