What would be best for tennis

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Has to be C. It’s an unprecedented situation where no major champions are under 30 - the men’s game desperately needs new champions to emerge.
That could wait another year. New champions come and go. Grand Slam's are rare beasts.

Someone going for the Grand Slam on the 50th anniversary of Laver's would become part of tennis folklore.
 
That could wait another year. New champions come and go. Grand Slam's are rare beasts.

Someone going for the Grand Slam on the 50th anniversary of Laver's would become part of tennis folklore.
It can’t really wait another year - in fact it’s about 5 years overdue.

The failure of an entire tennis generation supersedes any story regarding a specific individual, no matter how great.
 

Goret

Rookie
A. Would generate a lot for storytelling, and "market" tennis somewhat more.

We still have time for C, can happen in 2020-22 without damage. Besides, Next Gens rising, defying and, slowly, eventually winning against the legend that would rise from A, would also be some more storytelling.

B means business as usual... cool slams race, but not that much eventful. Won't generate more coverage, won't improve storytelling of a C scenario that would happen later.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
That could wait another year. New champions come and go. Grand Slam's are rare beasts.

Someone going for the Grand Slam on the 50th anniversary of Laver's would become part of tennis folklore.
Why are you asking for opinions if you have made up your mind that DJokovic vs Nadal is the best with DJokovic winning CYGS
 

Luka888

Hall of Fame
What's best for tennis? It depends how you look at it. 99.9% of people world wide, unless they are casual tennis fans, don't have any clue who Zverev, Thiem, Tsitsipas, Medvedev and co. are. Even if or when they start winning majors it will take some time for them to become 'household' names.

Winning a true Grand Slam, which hasn't been done forever, is the most difficult thing to do in tennis. It doesn't matter that Djokovic is the one who has a chance. That is still a very 'small' chance. Many things need to be aligned and Djokovic would need to play out of his mind 3 remaining majors. If that somehow does happen it will literally blow everyone's minds. It is so rare and so unique, especially that Laver won it only playing on grass and clay.

Option B has been seen so many times before. Basically that's what we've been watching for over 10 years now. It's probably the most boring option.

So, I'd like to see A because it's so unique before I see C which will happen soon or later. B is kinda expected in one form or another, meaning ... Rafa wins RG, Djokovic W and the USO or Fed somehow snatches W or USO although I doubt it.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
It can’t really wait another year - in fact it’s about 5 years overdue.

The failure of an entire tennis generation supersedes any story regarding a specific individual, no matter how great.
No. One of the big 3 going for the Grand Slam would be a fantastic finale to the Big 3 era. It needs a proper dramatic finish.
 

Goret

Rookie
He does. But Bore is interested in wanting more media coverage. Fed winning another major will generate more interest and viewership than Djokovic winning CYGS
Fed winning this year would generate LESS coverage than his 2017 victory at AO (and then at WC)...

A CYGS is quite unique, it may never happen in decades. Whoever achieves it would generate huge coverage... and it's been exactly 50 years since Laver did it.
 

Tiki-Taka

Hall of Fame
C > A > B

Not saying I would cheer for Djokovic against Nadal or Federer in all Slam meetings for the rest of the year, but a Calendar Year Grand Slam is such a rare feat, while we have seen all three of them sweeping everything for so many years now.

Having said that, a new tennis champion (or more of them) would be very welcome. And it would be better if the youngsters got there by beating the Big 3 now rather than after they completely faded away.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
Would a member of next gen be good? Zverev destroying dreams.
I wouldn't have thought so. I think a lot of casual sports fans would take an interest if the Grand Slam was at stake, and a big match deserves two huge stars.

Federer would be my second choice, but I would fear that turning into a Connors-Rosewall style debacle. Except between players much closer in age.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Fed winning this year would generate LESS coverage than his 2017 victory at AO (and then at WC)...

A CYGS is quite unique, it may never happen in decades. Whoever achieves it would generate huge coverage... and it's been exactly 50 years since Laver did it.
Fed winning another major at 38 would put more butts and more media coverage than CYGS.

Nole slam did not get any coverage/hype it deserved. A CYGS will get better coverage but there would be stories of how Fedal are old, no new challengers , etc., all watering down the achievement.

I have no doubt that Fed winning another major will get more viewership and coverage.
 

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
I wouldn't have thought so. I think a lot of casual sports fans would take an interest if the Grand Slam was at stake, and a big match deserves two huge stars.

Federer would be my second choice, but I would fear that turning into a Connors-Rosewall style debacle. Except between players much closer in age.
Glad you picked Federer for your 2nd choice atleast. Not sure I want to see that though. Fed is done at UO imo. If he made it that far, it would be a miracle.
 

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
lol at nole fans acting like picking A is objective when I'm sure if it were not their fav, they most likely would say other wise.

I suppose option C, but i think in this scenario to generate the most interest, it would have to be names that are part of the next gen. I mean sure, if tsonga miraculously were to win a slam I would be very happy, but I don't think in the grand scheme of things it would be mean much.
 
Last edited:

icedevil0289

G.O.A.T.
Talk about living in the past! Do we bring back wooden racquets as well?
you would say something like this. asking for some, key word some, surfaces to be sped up again is not living in the past, this extreme reaction of oh we should go back to wooden rackets is far more annoying than anything else.
 

Sport

Legend
A is voted by biased Djokovic fans.
B is voted by biased Nadal fans.
C is voted by biased Federer fans.

No option is unbiased.
 

Sport

Legend
Fed winning another major at 38 would put more butts and more media coverage than CYGS.

Nole slam did not get any coverage/hype it deserved. A CYGS will get better coverage but there would be stories of how Fedal are old, no new challengers , etc., all watering down the achievement.

I have no doubt that Fed winning another major will get more viewership and coverage.
Debatable.
 

Sport

Legend
A. Would generate a lot for storytelling, and "market" tennis somewhat more.

We still have time for C, can happen in 2020-22 without damage. Besides, Next Gens rising, defying and, slowly, eventually winning against the legend that would rise from A, would also be some more storytelling.

B means business as usual... cool slams race, but not that much eventful. Won't generate more coverage, won't improve storytelling of a C scenario that would happen later.
Following that logic, Nadal should have won the AO for the "market" and "storytelling" of tennis, because he would have become the first man to achieve the Double Career Grand Slam in the Open Era since Laver. 50 years have passed since Laver achieved the Double Career Grand Slam.

In fact, I think Djokovic's Grand Slam would make tennis boring. Only Djokovic fans want to see a sport where only one man wins. Nadal winning at Roland Garros is better for the overall "market" of tennis, since at least Djokovic is contested somewhere.
 
Last edited:

Goret

Rookie
Fed winning another major at 38 would put more butts and more media coverage than CYGS.
It would not really generate more coverage than his 2018 AO, when he was already 36... there won't be much difference for the general audience.

The greatest story that could be had with late-career Fed was his 2017 comeback at AO, and his overall season (with WC following as a confirmation). He hadn't won a slam since ages, he was coming back from injury, considered "old" at 35... many thought he'd never win a slam again. Yet, he proved otherwise, defeating his nemesis Nadal after an epic 5-setter.

You can't beat that. And you won't.
In terms of storytelling, a 2019 Fed win (more likely to happen at WC) would feel déjà vu.

There's only one case where a Fed win would make big headlines: at RG after beating Nadal. I'd highly doubt it would happen...

Nole slam did not get any coverage/hype it deserved. A CYGS will get better coverage but there would be stories of how Fedal are old, no new challengers , etc., all watering down the achievement.
The 2016 NCYGS got eclipsed, in terms of storytelling, because it was Nole's own CGS as well. And, whilst hugely rare in the men's game, NCYGS isn't uncommon in the WTA...

A 2019 situation would be different, it's the 50th anniversary of Laver's CYGS. And nothing would "pollute" the storytelling this time. I'm even pretty sure that media will recall past CYGS, as well as past failed attempts (remember R. Vinci...).

I have no doubt that Fed winning another major will get more viewership and coverage.
If it really were the case, I'd say something would be hugely wrong in the kingdom of tennis.
A CYGS should be a much bigger event than yet another slam from someone who already has 20 and won his last one a year ago...
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
It would not really generate more coverage than his 2018 AO, when he was already 36... there won't be much difference for the general audience.
.......

If it really were the case, I'd say something would be hugely wrong in the kingdom of tennis.
A CYGS should be a much bigger event than yet another slam from someone who already has 20 and won his last one a year ago...

The "should be" part is right but media does not work that way. It revolves around the stars.

Not saying Djokovic winning CYGS will not get the coverage but it would be in the same ball park as Fed winning a 9th Wimbledon.
 

Sport

Legend
The "should be" part is right but media does not work that way. It revolves around the stars.

Not saying Djokovic winning CYGS will not get the coverage but it would be in the same ball park as Fed winning a 9th Wimbledon.
Not even in your wildest dreams a Grand Slam would receive the same coverage than a simple Wimbledon.

With that being said, most Fedal fans would stop watching tennis if Djokovic achieves the Grand Slam, since it would make the sport so boring if only one man wins. And Fedal have the biggest fanbase in tennis.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Not even in your wildest dreams a Grand Slam would receive the same coverage than a simple Wimbledon.

With that being said, most Fedal fans would stop watching tennis if Djokovic achieves the Grand Slam, since it would make the sport so boring if only one man wins. And Fedal have the biggest fanbase in tennis.
You don't seem to recollect 2015 .Lot depends on who achieves the milestones.
 

Goret

Rookie
Following that logic, Nadal should have won the AO for the "market" and "storytelling" of tennis, because he would have become the first man to achieve the Double Career Grand Slam in the Open Era since Laver. 50 years have passed since Laver achieved the Double Career Grand Slam.
In terms of storytelling at this single event, I'd agree. But in terms of storytelling over a whole season, a double NCYGS beats a double CGS, and a CYGS (with NCYGS already done) completely beats a double NCYGS.

But that's not the main point. Stuff that has happened recently, or that is a "repeat", has less storytelling potential. A double CGS or even a double NCYGS won't be viewed as such an extraordinary thing.
On the other hand, no one has won a CYGS in the men's game since 50 years, and even if we'd include ladies it's been 31 years...

In fact, I think Djokovic's Grand Slam would made tennis boring. Only Djokovic fans want to see a sport where only one man wins. Nadal winning at Roland Garros is better for the overall "market" of tennis, since at least Djokovic is contested somewhere.
Nadal winning RG would be business as usual. The last RG finals with Nadal have had abysmal viewership, you don't feel a need to watch when you already know the winner.

By the way, a player may have to go through contested fights (like 5 setters) yet still win at the end. Might as well fail elsewhere (M1000s) yet still win narrowly at slams.
 

Goret

Rookie
The "should be" part is right but media does not work that way. It revolves around the stars.

Not saying Djokovic winning CYGS will not get the coverage but it would be in the same ball park as Fed winning a 9th Wimbledon.
You might dislike the thought, but Djokovic is already a star (and would be an even greater one by winning a CYGS). Sports stardom is also won through achievements, let's not forget it.

Of course, Djokovic is merely cast in the role of the antihero or villain (depending on your taste). But don't pretend Darth Vader ain't a "star"...
 
Depends.

Short term, A would be the best with the increased media attention and a short-term burst of interest in the professional game. Long term it would only matter to those who like to indulge GOAT debates. I leave it up to the reader to decide the value of that.

Longer term, C would be the best, particularly if two or three NextGen guys are consistently making semis and finals. The sport really needs to determine the faces of the post Big3 rivalries and competing for and winning/losing the biggest titles is how it is done. Short term it probably hurts the game as the more casual fans of the Big3 leave the game, but that is going to happen someday anyways. And they will be eventually be replaced by fans of the new champions.

B is basically the status quo. Doesn't hurt the game's popularity, but isn't helping to grow the sport either. Stagnation is rarely good.
 
A>C>>>B

The Grand Slam is the holy grail of tennis and no one has been able to complete it in the 3 surfaces era. Seeing it completed would be monumental from a historical standpoint and something that will be remembered for 100+ years. This also seems like the last chance for it to happen in the Big 3 Era ,with all 3 still active, and hence it would be big to have that as the lasting finish to the Era many consider the greatest ever. A lot of people who otherwise do not watch Tennis would probably tune in for the USO Final in this case and given what it would mean for the GOAT debate (20-18 Fed vs Djok) might even draw in some fans to stay for future slams to see how that now super tight race will pan out over the next couple of years as GOAT debates is a huge draw point for especially the American audience.

A changing of the guard would of course be good for tennis as it would see the injection of new blood winning slams, which many have been wanting for years. Long term, this would probably be the best option as it brings about a disruption to the status quo and people like to see something change. Short term though it wouldn't have the profound impact for the sport that a CYGS would and having these new faces arrive a year later to accommodate history would be better.

The Big 3 just splitting the slams does nothing really but tread water. It keeps the current GOAT race the same, doesn't bring anything historical to the table, and just delays new blood for 1 more year and so its easily the worst option.

The best option for tennis would be sort of a combination of A+C. Djokovic wins the CYGS, but via defeating new names in the remaining finals. This would allow for the creation of history + the arrival of the new names to the grandest stage (but with still the final boss to overcome yet). Then next year Djokovic wins AO, but then the new names topple him in the remaining slams and announce their arrival, dethroning what would be the most dominant champion in history at the time. Then from 2021+ you would have the era of the new generation on top fighting to see who will control this era, with Djokovic sitting on 19 slams hoping to snag 1-2 for the record.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Just imagine Zverev winning the next 3 and going for his own Zverev slam next AO 20.

Then folks would be talking about the arrival of the next Federer.
 

Atennisone

Hall of Fame
C. If the Big 3 doesn't in their peak lose to a next gen, tennis records will seemingly have to wait decades to be broken again.
 

GabeT

Legend
combination of fast and slow surfaces with tennis balls that are lighter and faster than the ones used today, and the same racquet technology as today
you would say something like this. asking for some, key word some, surfaces to be sped up again is not living in the past, this extreme reaction of oh we should go back to wooden rackets is far more annoying than anything else.
Has anybody ever checked what faster balls and surfaces coupled with modern racquet and string technology mean for the overall speed and playability of tennis?
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
It can’t really wait another year - in fact it’s about 5 years overdue.

The failure of an entire tennis generation supersedes any story regarding a specific individual, no matter how great.
Only if its specific individual you personally don't like...now if it was Federer on another hand...right my dude? LOL right??!...
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
D) All majors from now on are won by new names.
In that case the sport won't have that one particular star to look up to (that kind of Roger Federer like figure, an icon everyone could learn from...) and instead will be filled with all these one slam wonders, everyone will forget about the next tournament they tank, which will eventually get oversaturated! (Like its been going on and on forever in women's game! Minus one particular "proud Mommy drama queen") If anything its the opposite - BAD thing for tennis! A sport without leader, that you can look up to and take an example of is a bad sport! End of story!
 

Nadal_Django

Hall of Fame
The version in which Federer is officially demoted as the third wheel of this era.;) His natural habitat for the past 10 years of tennis anyway.;)
 

arvind13

Professional
Has anybody ever checked what faster balls and surfaces coupled with modern racquet and string technology mean for the overall speed and playability of tennis?
sure, it would mean wimbledon would play like halle or maybe slightly faster. all of the hardcourts after the grass court season would either play like dubai or cincinatti or slightly faster. OMG playability of tennis ruined!!!!!
 

uscwang

Hall of Fame
Forgetting any personal player likes or dislikes, what would be best for tennis over the rest of the season? And why?

A) Djokovic wins the Grand Slam

B) The big 3 split the remaining majors

C) The next 3 majors are won by new names?
Another CYGS on the half-century anniversary of the first and only in the open era? Plus SIX GS in a row?
It has to be (A), which will get even bowling people talk about tennis and win Novak and tennis all sports awards worth winning.

(B) would be nice too, with new records set depending on who wins what. But it would be like bravo 2018, let's replay it in 2019.
 
Top