Which big 3 member has benefitted the most from the next gen being unable to take over?

[clout]

Since fun civil threads don't get as much attention on here, let's start a war of a thread. Which big 3 member benefited the most from the youngsters being unable to take over?

Regardless of who you think it is, everyone can admit they all benefitted to some extent from this unprecedented era of no active ATGs under 30

 

[Standaa]

nice of you to add that nonsensical poll option for Fed haters out of courtesy

 

[BGod]

Controversially I'm going with Nadal. Yes his French Open prowess is unmatched at any Slam BUT, it does get to a point where him winning a bonkersville 13 titles despite clearly lesser form than his heyday becomes a point of discussion. As bad as the Next Gen has been judged to be on grass, it's even worse on clay. To the point that Murray made a final and lost in a tight 5 set semifinal to champion the year prior. And that's not necessarily a knock on Murray but, just look at 90s tape for reference.

It's not that Nadal gets beaten in earlier rounds, it's that he gets TESTED in earlier rounds. Guy has the following obscene stats at the French:

Nadal sets dropped in French Open Title Runs
0 on 4 occasions
1 on 3 occasions
2 on 2 occasions
3 on 3 occasions
4 in 2013

To give an example of how ludicrous that is, Borg had multiple Wimbledon runs where he dropped 4+ sets. Now I'd contend that 8 of Nadal's title runs are no brainers in that he wins them anyway. Of the remaining 5, anything could happen with him probably losing 2-3 if he has two more competitive opponents in his draw. Unfortunately the record books, Nadal has had essentially nobody outside of 3 challengers that could make him sweat and expecting him to draw more than 1 of those in a single run was always unlikely. Now that's the French.

We move onto the USO and yes I have to talk about the 17/19 draws. Because they are just THAT pathetic without a new crop of players contending seriously.

Now by comparison with Novak, he has choked more in hie earlier days that had pretty well nothing to do with the absence of better next gen players. Yes there are definitely some draws he'd have a harder time with but is it more than a collective 3? Like Nadal you have to ask the question of it mattering.

Roger even being in the poll is a joke.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

Too early to tell I think. Let's wait for a few years and see. Nadal has been winning RG for 15 years and still there is no next gen player in sight capable of stopping him. If he keeps winning RG for 4-5 years then it's him.

 

[TheAssassin]

Them being the worst on grass points to Novak benefiting the most, but then again it's still easily the most competitive on hard courts, and it's difficult to say how much of the beneficial situation is also down to the fact that Novak bloomed late compared to many greats...

With him generally these days I don't feel like players are freezing or throwing in the towel against him as often as it gets portrayed at all. Unfortunately Medvedev's AO final showing being the freshest now doesn't help me.

 

[Third Serve]

The one who reaped the most out of this era, of course.

 

[TripleATeam]

I don't know how anyone could say anything but Novak. If you go with the idea that ATGs come around roughly once every 5 or so years, Djokovic was born in a very disadvantageous time for his chances at the beginning of his career. Nadal was a top-tier ATG born just a year before him, and there was still a fantastic ATG 6 years older. However, there hasn't been an ATG born after that in roughly 10 years. This is an unprecedented time before the next ATG.

I would say another ATG rising up (conservatively) reduces his slam haul by half, once he comes into the picture. Let's say the next ATG should have been born roughly 15 years after Federer and started peaking at 23. That means that someone born in '96 would have begun peaking sometime in 2019. Anyone that wins slams in 2019 or beyond needs to reduce them by half, then.

Effects:
Djokovic: -2 slams
Nadal: -1.5 slams
Federer: -0 slams.

Really, Djokovic would also be the person the slams would have been taken from between him and Nadal because Nadal was much stronger in his RG wins than Djokovic was in any of his. Realistically speaking, a new ATG would have won 3/5 of Wimbledon 2019, USO 2019, AO 2020, USO 20, and AO 21. So probably Djokovic benefitted most and will continue to benefit most.

 

[TennisFan3]

I don't know how anyone could say anything but Novak. If you go with the idea that ATGs come around roughly once every 5 or so years, Djokovic was born in a very disadvantageous time for his chances at the beginning of his career. Nadal was a top-tier ATG born just a year before him, and there was still a fantastic ATG 6 years older. However, there hasn't been an ATG born after that in roughly 10 years. This is an unprecedented time before the next ATG.

I would say another ATG rising up (conservatively) reduces his slam haul by half, once he comes into the picture. Let's say the next ATG should have been born roughly 15 years after Federer and started peaking at 23. That means that someone born in '96 would have begun peaking sometime in 2019. Anyone that wins slams in 2019 or beyond needs to reduce them by half, then.

Effects:
Djokovic: -2 slams
Nadal: -1.5 slams
Federer: -0 slams.

Really, Djokovic would also be the person the slams would have been taken from between him and Nadal because Nadal was much stronger in his RG wins than Djokovic was in any of his. Realistically speaking, a new ATG would have won 3/5 of Wimbledon 2019, USO 2019, AO 2020, USO 20, and AO 21. So probably Djokovic benefitted most and will continue to benefit most.

Excellent post. Well researched. Thanks.

 

[clout]

nice of you to add that nonsensical poll option for Fed haters out of courtesy

Well Fed did win 3 more slams and became the oldest number one ever thanks to no newcomers.

I think the answer is Novak too but Fed benefited from no new ATGs as well just not to the same extent

 

[Third Serve]

Well Fed did win 3 more slams and became the oldest number one ever thanks to no newcomers.

I think the answer is Novak for sure but Fed benefited from no new ATGs as well

All three have benefitted for sure. But not equally so.

 

[Standaa]

Well Fed did win 3 more slams and became the oldest number one ever thanks to no newcomers.

I think the answer is Novak too but Fed benefited from no new ATGs as well just not to the same extent

that's why the option makes no sense, this should be obvious to everyone but Fed haters

 

[metsman]

boy talk about a real head scratcher.

 

[PeoplesChamp]

Easily Djokovic.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I don't know how anyone could say anything but Novak. If you go with the idea that ATGs come around roughly once every 5 or so years, Djokovic was born in a very disadvantageous time for his chances at the beginning of his career. Nadal was a top-tier ATG born just a year before him, and there was still a fantastic ATG 6 years older. However, there hasn't been an ATG born after that in roughly 10 years. This is an unprecedented time before the next ATG.

I would say another ATG rising up (conservatively) reduces his slam haul by half, once he comes into the picture. Let's say the next ATG should have been born roughly 15 years after Federer and started peaking at 23. That means that someone born in '96 would have begun peaking sometime in 2019. Anyone that wins slams in 2019 or beyond needs to reduce them by half, then.

Effects:
Djokovic: -2 slams
Nadal: -1.5 slams
Federer: -0 slams.

Really, Djokovic would also be the person the slams would have been taken from between him and Nadal because Nadal was much stronger in his RG wins than Djokovic was in any of his. Realistically speaking, a new ATG would have won 3/5 of Wimbledon 2019, USO 2019, AO 2020, USO 20, and AO 21. So probably Djokovic benefitted most and will continue to benefit most.

Bolded: could you tell me how you arrived at that figure, and why did you say that the player should have started to peak, to be a worthy opposition?

When did Nadal started peaking, according to you?

 

[BGod]

I don't know how anyone could say anything but Novak. If you go with the idea that ATGs come around roughly once every 5 or so years, Djokovic was born in a very disadvantageous time for his chances at the beginning of his career. Nadal was a top-tier ATG born just a year before him, and there was still a fantastic ATG 6 years older. However, there hasn't been an ATG born after that in roughly 10 years. This is an unprecedented time before the next ATG.

I would say another ATG rising up (conservatively) reduces his slam haul by half, once he comes into the picture. Let's say the next ATG should have been born roughly 15 years after Federer and started peaking at 23. That means that someone born in '96 would have begun peaking sometime in 2019. Anyone that wins slams in 2019 or beyond needs to reduce them by half, then.

Yeah but we just don't have the power of hindsight yet. And the past several years have seen numerous age related figures from the past largely obliterated pushing the thread farther down. The surface homogenization among other things is a factor why that is. But if going by the bolded and considering late bloomers like Wawrinka, Dominic Thiem, born 6 years after Novak won his first Slam (albeit controversially) at an earlier age than Wawrinka. Then you're looking at Slam ratios for given years which the Big 3 have inflated greatly. Like winning 2 Slams use to be special. All time great Stefan Edberg never won more than a single Slam in a given year, Becker only once won two. So halving Novak's Slams is a bit much especially considering he's not winning 3-4 but 2 in 2016, 2018, 2019 and 1 (albeit out of 3) in 2020 and 1 so far this year while having 0 in 2017 and 1 in each 2012-2013. Also keep in mind Federer was born 10 years after Sampras for all-time greats unless you're considering Kuerten who was born 5 years inbetween the two. Zverev and Tsitsipas are 10 and 11 years after Djokovic.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I would say Djokovic might have benefitted slightly more than Nadal. After all, before 2015 Nadal had a solid advantage in terms of slams over Djokovic, and if new blood had started appearing, Djokovic wouldn't have been able to shorten that difference as much as he did. But also Nadal was able to catch Fed as well.

Djokovic was the one affected negatively the most by Wawrinka's 2.0 rise definitely. He wasn't a new ATG but even if he was around for a while it was like a new player appearing. Also, Murray's peak coincided much more with Djokovic's than Federer or Nadal's. Both Murray peaks, 2012-2013 and 2015-2016. This is no small matter given they're the only two multiple slam winners around outside the Big 3 since Hewitt and Safin.

 

[TripleATeam]

Bolded: could you tell me how you arrived at that figure, and why did you say that the player should have started to peak, to be a worthy opposition?

When did Nadal started peaking, according to you?

It's a simplification to make the math work, Hands. First we use the assumption that there's roughly 4-5 years per ATG in the Open Era. Let's say 5. Since there's been 2 ATGs since Federer, we are looking for the 3rd. Without any prior knowledge, we'd expect that the 3rd ATG after Federer would be born 12-15 years after him. Naturally, Nadal came right on time, but Djokovic was 4ish years early. That leaves an estimated 9 year gap before the next one.

As for peaking, I just took the time both Djokovic and Federer started to peak - 23. Nadal is a genius on clay and started playing well on it at 19, grass at 20, and hardcourts at 22.

All of that is conservative estimation, I recognize that. But when you do these sorts of things, you give every benefit of the doubt and use figures as beneficial as possible. Even when you do that, Djokovic still comes out behind, benefiting most. No need to be a stickler about my exact figures.

 

[TripleATeam]

Yeah but we just don't have the power of hindsight yet. And the past several years have seen numerous age related figures from the past largely obliterated pushing the thread farther down. The surface homogenization among other things is a factor why that is. But if going by the bolded and considering late bloomers like Wawrinka, Dominic Thiem, born 6 years after Novak won his first Slam (albeit controversially) at an earlier age than Wawrinka. Then you're looking at Slam ratios for given years which the Big 3 have inflated greatly. Like winning 2 Slams use to be special. All time great Stefan Edberg never won more than a single Slam in a given year, Becker only once won two. So halving Novak's Slams is a bit much especially considering he's not winning 3-4 but 2 in 2016, 2018, 2019 and 1 (albeit out of 3) in 2020 and 1 so far this year while having 0 in 2017 and 1 in each 2012-2013. Also keep in mind Federer was born 10 years after Sampras for all-time greats unless you're considering Kuerten who was born 5 years inbetween the two. Zverev and Tsitsipas are 10 and 11 years after Djokovic.

I used 5 years as that's actually giving the benefit of the doubt to Novak - there's been 12 ATGs in the last 51 years of the Open Era. That doesn't account for the ATGs from the transition era or for deflated totals from the AO, it's just 12 players with 6+ slams in 51 years. That's still 4.25, so 5 years is very generous to Djokovic.

As for the bolded, yes, we're not sure of that yet - but I'm using the assumption that an ATG will not start playing their best tennis at 26 years old and still be able to win more than 6 slams. If so, I'll take back my words, but as it stands Thiem and Medvedev are the players looking to prove me wrong and they're still iffy.

And yes, halving Novak's slams might be a lot or a little (there's no way to tell), but no matter what ratio I use it doesn't really matter. Djokovic won 4 slams in 2019-present, whereas Nadal won 3. Furthermore, even if you take away the USO from Nadal, it's far more likely that Novak loses any or multiple of his 4 recent slams than Nadal to lose either of those RG wins. Even if an ATG suddenly started playing fantastic tennis, it's by no means assured he'd be able to win against Nadal at RG. That's literally the hardest thing to do in tennis.

Again, I could be wrong and am willing to admit if I turn out to be, but as it stands Novak is clearly the biggest beneficiary of the nextgen being unable to break through. Even if you say Federer won all his 3 post-2012 slams because of that, you can't say with a straight face that Djokovic would still be able to win all 6 of his recent slams through a new ATG. And Nadal could only really be impacted as badly if this hypothetical new ATG was a clay specialist.

 

[abmk]

Djokovic > Nadal > Fed in terms of benefitting obviously

12-14: 12 slams, Djokovic won only 3 of them
mid-18 to AO 21: 10 slams, Djokovic won 6 of them

And Djokovic was at his prime and clearly better in 12-14 period than in mid-18 to AO 21

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It's a simplification to make the math work, Hands. First we use the assumption that there's roughly 4-5 years per ATG in the Open Era. Let's say 5. Since there's been 2 ATGs since Federer, we are looking for the 3rd. Without any prior knowledge, we'd expect that the 3rd ATG after Federer would be born 12-15 years after him. Naturally, Nadal came right on time, but Djokovic was 4ish years early. That leaves an estimated 9 year gap before the next one.

As for peaking, I just took the time both Djokovic and Federer started to peak - 23. Nadal is a genius on clay and started playing well on it at 19, grass at 20, and hardcourts at 22.

All of that is conservative estimation, I recognize that. But when you do these sorts of things, you give every benefit of the doubt and use figures as beneficial as possible. Even when you do that, Djokovic still comes out behind, benefiting most. No need to be a stickler about my exact figures.

I am asking, because I get you premise (about roughly a 5 year gap between ATG generations), but your calculation is wrong. Nadal and Djokovic are from the same generation (86/87) so, following that logic, then next generation ATGs should be 91/92, not 96 as you say. You are incorrectly distributing the number of ATGs after Federer to the number of generation between Nadal/Djokovic and when another ATG emerges. I am not sure why.

Also, I asked about Nadal, because Nadal effectively moved his impact even earlier than his generation suggests, which means that Federer himself had an ATG competition from a younger generation ATG basically in his own generation. I don't know why people just ignore that fact, but by the time July 2008 rolled around Nadal already had an ATG career, which was achieved in the Federer era. One can not keep repeating the mantra about Nadal being a "baby", when he won basically everywhere (especially if we go 6 months further and include also AO 2009).

There is nothing wrong with your conservative estimation, your calculations are incorrect.

 

[Red Rick]

It really depends on what sort of level you expect out of a next generation. I'd mostly blame them for not even being as good as the Del Potros, Wawrinkas or even Berdmans in Slams. Big 3 even in their advanced age wouldn't have lost many to these guys either.

 

[CYGS]

Djokodal never had the luxury of 2003-2007 to sweep 12 easy slams. Adding three more from 2017-2018, OP basically said Federer only has 5 legit slams. Backfired.

 

[Gary Duane]

2017 did not take place that long ago, so you can't tell me that Fed did not also benefit from younger players being so weak. It's possible that Joker got the biggest free ride over the last few years, although Nadal being only one year older doesn't exactly say he's had no benefit from younger, weak players.

So maybe Joker has had it easiest lately, but 2012-2014 was tough, so I think it balances out. I know the intent of this thread is to dump all over Joker - these threads now happen several times a day - but in my view all the Big 3 have had relatively easy and hard years, so it balances out.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Djokodal never had the luxury of 2003-2007 to sweep 12 easy slams. Adding three more from 2017-2018, OP basically said Federer only has 5 legit slams. Backfired.

Nadal won 3 of his slams during 2003-2007 .

You’re just butt hurt because everyone has rightfully voted that your idol has inflated his stats by racking up slams against the weakest young generation the sport has known.

 

[InsideOut900]

3 players part of the same field, 2 of them roughly the same age and still relevant on all 4 surfaces, but somehow only one of them took advantage

 

[CYGS]

Nadal won 3 of his slams during 2003-2007 .

You’re just butt hurt because everyone has rightfully voted that your idol has inflated his stats by racking up slams against the weakest young generation the sport has known.

12 vs 3 vs 0 - no contest really

 

[Deleted member 758560]

3 players part of the same field, 2 of them roughly the same age and still relevant on all 4 surfaces, but somehow only one of them took advantage

coz he's winning it, and no matter that nadal is of pretty the same age and that nobody disqualified him from doing the same

 

[daphne]

Utter BS!

Had it been the case that an ATG has developed during the last 5-6 years (WEAK ERA) then in 2017 and 2018 this person would have cleaned up while Djok was away injured. BUT post prime old papa Fedr cleaned up 3 GS, and Nadl cleaned up RGs.

Plus there were 2 potential ATGs (Stan and Murray) who took away some slams from Djok anyway.

If it were not the case Djok would have been sitting on well over 20 GSs while Fedr would be sitting on 17 with Nadal on 17 or 18.

So, it is Fedr who benefited the most. Period. Following by Nadl. Period.

If we also take COVID 19 into consideration (W 20) and the faker line judge at USO Djok would have been sitting on minimum 24 GS and would be worshipped, celebrated, loved as an undisputed god of tennis and the GOAT for next 20 generations to come.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Nadal won 3 of his slams during 2003-2007 .

You’re just butt hurt because everyone has rightfully voted that your idol has inflated his stats by racking up slams against the weakest young generation the sport has known.

Federer didn't even start firing on all cylinders in 2003. He won Wimbledon and TMC, but posted a number of losses vs Ljubicic, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Roddick etc. It is similar to Djokovic's 2008 season. 2004 is Fed's equivalent of Djokovic's 2011 season. I don't know anyone counting that towards Nole's peak, so we are left with 2004-2007 period, and if you extend it slightly over to the middle of 2008, when Nadal overtook him at the #1 position, which officially ended Fed's period of unquestioned dominance, that is 5/20 Majors that Nadal won (never mind the ones he already contested). Djokovic was there for another two (a win and a final). That is another 4 finals/SF with one of the two as an opponent 9/20 Majors only with Nadal and Djokovic as opponents. Jeebus, that is some mighty "weak competition" right there.

 

[skaj]

Djokovic, unlike the other two, he was lucky to be able to be close to his physical best in this period.

 

[Beckerserve]

Easily Djokovic.

Is it me or have Djokovic fans become really salty recently. I mean all these baiting threads? Yes have Nadal and Djokovic in the poll but how on earth is Federer on it? Do some of these so called fan actually think Federer is same age as Nadal and Djokovic?

 

[mike danny]

Federer should not be in the poll at all.

 

[mike danny]

Since fun civil threads don't get as much attention on here, let's start a war of a thread. Which big 3 member benefited the most from the youngsters being unable to take over?

Regardless of who you think it is, everyone can admit they all benefitted to some extent from this unprecedented era of no active ATGs under 30

 

[mike danny]

Well Fed did win 3 more slams and became the oldest number one ever thanks to no newcomers.

I think the answer is Novak too but Fed benefited from no new ATGs as well just not to the same extent

Fed's AO 2017 was a difficult win and had to beat a generation younger ATG in Nadal still. His last 2 slams were easy, true.

But then he had Wimb 2019, so he definitely has been screwed the most.

 

[mike danny]

Yeah but we just don't have the power of hindsight yet. And the past several years have seen numerous age related figures from the past largely obliterated pushing the thread farther down. The surface homogenization among other things is a factor why that is. But if going by the bolded and considering late bloomers like Wawrinka, Dominic Thiem, born 6 years after Novak won his first Slam (albeit controversially) at an earlier age than Wawrinka. Then you're looking at Slam ratios for given years which the Big 3 have inflated greatly. Like winning 2 Slams use to be special. All time great Stefan Edberg never won more than a single Slam in a given year, Becker only once won two. So halving Novak's Slams is a bit much especially considering he's not winning 3-4 but 2 in 2016, 2018, 2019 and 1 (albeit out of 3) in 2020 and 1 so far this year while having 0 in 2017 and 1 in each 2012-2013. Also keep in mind Federer was born 10 years after Sampras for all-time greats unless you're considering Kuerten who was born 5 years inbetween the two. Zverev and Tsitsipas are 10 and 11 years after Djokovic.

Well, Fed pretty much proved his worth way before Tsitsipas, Zverev and Medvedev, so the latter 2 at least are out.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

There hasn't been a #2 younger than Novak...

 

[ChrisRF]

I don't fully understand the question to be honest. They all took profit from being better than them, so the Next Gen wasn't able to "take over". If anything, this a compliment for them, but to some degree I have a feeling that the question implicits some kind of criticism towards the Big 3 themselves.

 

[canta_Brian]

There hasn't been a #2 younger than Novak...

That should pretty much put this debate to bed.

 

[PETEhammer]

Obviously Fed. It took Rafa and Nole both until 2010/11 to be consistent threats. So he essentially got 7 years of Skittles to get to #16

 

[Gary Duane]

At this point more than 70% voted for Joker as having benefited the most from the supposedly weak generation. I votes even for all of them, so I'm out of step with the poll, but I'm going by what I think is the spirit of intention, which is to prove that that guys winning slams now are easily benefiting the most from weak competition.

Perhaps it's the wording of the poll. The way I see it everything from 2004 to now is part of the same uneven domination by three players. Yes, there are some breakthroughs by Wawrinka and Murray, the most important pushback against the Big 3, but come on!. This domination has been going on a LONG time. I got totally bored with tennis many years ago because such total domination is unprecedented. That's why you have three guys with so many slams.

That to me is the elephant in the room. The kind of breakthroughs we say from Delpo and Cilic should have been happening a lot more all along. If you are a loyal fan of the Big 3, it was great to see Fed win almost everything from late 2003 to the end of 2007. And it was great to see Nadal turn RG into the Nadal Invitational. And great to see Joker cleaning up now, with no one stopping him except Nadal.

For those of us who like variety, it's been a continuous nightmare, but in some ways it's worse now because no one young wins.

I don't blame the Big 3. They are just doing what they are supposed to do, beating everyone they can for as long as they can. But I think their almost total dominance ultimately has been very bad for tennis.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Slams won since 2014 -

Djokovic - 12
Nadal - 7
Federer - 3.

It's not even close.

 

[mike danny]

At this point more than 70% voted for Joker as having benefited the most from the supposedly weak generation. I votes even for all of them, so I'm out of step with the poll, but I'm going by what I think of the spirit of intention, which is to prove that that guys winning slams now are easily benefiting the most from weak competition.

Perhaps it's the wording of the poll. The way I see it everything from 2004 to now is part of the same uneven domination by three players. Yes, there are some breakthroughs by Wawrinka and Murray, the most important pushback against the Big 3, but come on!. This domination has been going on a LONG time. I got totally bored with tennis many years ago because such total domination is unprecedented. That's why you have three guys with so many slams.

That to me is the elephant in the room. The kind of breakthroughs we say from Delpo and Cilic should have been happening a lot more all along. If you are a loyal fan of the Big 3, it was great to see Fed win almost everything from late 2003 to the end of 2007. And it was great to see Nadal turn RG into the Nadal Invitational. And great to see Joker cleaning up now, with no one stopping him except Nadal.

For those of us who like variety, it's been a continuous nightmare, but in some ways it's worse now because no one young wins.

I don't blame the Big 3. They are just doing what they are supposed to do, beating everyone they can for as long as they can. But I think their almost total dominance ultimately has been very bad for tennis.

Federer should not even be in the poll. The man has been cockblocked by younger ATGs for a decade and even at 38 he had to beat 2 of them in consecutive matches while Djokodal get away with much less than that.

 

[abmk]

3 players part of the same field, 2 of them roughly the same age and still relevant on all 4 surfaces, but somehow only one of them took advantage

it says most:
clearly -> Djokovic took most advantage followed by Nadal

fed had 2 easier slam wins in Wim 17&AO 18, but had to beat Nadal&Djoko b2b in Wim 19. so he really shouldn't be in the poll if focus is on slam wins.

 

[Gary Duane]

Federer should not even be in the poll. The man has been cockblocked by younger ATGs for a decade and even at 38 he had to beat 2 of them in consecutive matches while Djokodal get away with much less than that.

Well yes, because the spirit of the poll is to "prove" just what you are saying. But my irritation comes from the fact that it's just another debate, where people are trying to win. It doesn't get to the point: WHY HAS THIS BEEN HAPPENING SINCE THE END OF 2003????

I don't see how it matters that all the other young players were getting destroyed by a couple other young players, even young players, and now the young players are getting destroyed by old ones. It's still non-stop dominance, and the only relief from said dominance was from Safin, Delpo, Cilic, Murray and Wawrinka. That's the elephant in the room. It doesn't matter who was challenging the Big 3. There was a brief period where five players looked like they could break through. Did I miss some one? Isn't that about five players who upset the apple cart in what will soon be 18 years? I don't even count Thiem, no offense, because no one was there to stop him.

Did I miss anyone?

Honestly, if you think about this it's really depressing.

 

[abmk]

Well yes, because the spirit of the poll is to "prove" just what you are saying. But my irritation comes from the fact that it's just another debate, where people are trying to win. It doesn't get to the point: WHY HAS THIS BEEN HAPPENING SINCE THE END OF 2003????

I don't see how it matters that all the other young players were getting destroyed by a couple other young players, even young players, and now the young players are getting destroyed by old ones. It's still non-stop dominance, and the only relief from said dominance was from Safin, Delpo, Cilic, Murray and Wawrinka. That's the elephant in the room. It doesn't matter who was challenging the Big 3. There was a brief period where five players looked like they could break through. Did I miss some one? Isn't that about five players who upset the apple cart in what will soon be 18 years? I don't even count Thiem, no offense, because no one was there to stop him.

Did I miss anyone?

Honestly, if you think about this it's really depressing.

Hewitt in 04-05, Agassi in 04-05, Roddick in 04-05 & 2nd half of 2006-09, Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling etc. apart from those you mentioned were clearly challenging the better versions of big 3 and beating them in slams on occasions unlike fail gen and new gen (only real good win of fail gen was Nishi vs Djoko in USO 14, Rao&Dimi over fed were with fed injuries)

The likes of Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling and even Ferrer were quite unlucky to peak when they did. if they were in fail gen or new gen time, they'd have won a slam easy.

 

[Biotic]

Well yes, because the spirit of the poll is to "prove" just what you are saying. But my irritation comes from the fact that it's just another debate, where people are trying to win. It doesn't get to the point: WHY HAS THIS BEEN HAPPENING SINCE THE END OF 2003????

I don't see how it matters that all the other young players were getting destroyed by a couple other young players, even young players, and now the young players are getting destroyed by old ones. It's still non-stop dominance, and the only relief from said dominance was from Safin, Delpo, Cilic, Murray and Wawrinka. That's the elephant in the room. It doesn't matter who was challenging the Big 3. There was a brief period where five players looked like they could break through. Did I miss some one? Isn't that about five players who upset the apple cart in what will soon be 18 years? I don't even count Thiem, no offense, because no one was there to stop him.

Did I miss anyone?

Honestly, if you think about this it's really depressing.

Surface homogenization is part of the problem for sure.

 

[Gary Duane]

Surface homogenization is part of the problem for sure.

I see that as an excuse. In the late 70s Borg was dominating the world on red clay, just as Nadal is now. The only difference is that he had a much shorter career. No one was saying that things were becoming "homogenized" when he also won Wimbledon 5 times in a row, and almost 6. And then there was no break at all between RG and grass.

If things are so much the same on all surfaces, Nadal should have way more hard and grass slams, and both Fed and Joker should have way more wins at RG. Stats on grass and clay are still very different, extreme. That has not changed. Hard is still in between. What has changed is that no one gets to the net with poly.

 

[Third Serve]

Big LOL at anyone voting Fed

 

[abmk]

oh and yes @Gary Duane , throw in Nalby and Davydenko as well among those players.

would have won a slam if they peaked in 16-current.

 

[Gary Duane]

oh and yes @Gary Duane , throw in Nalby and Davydenko as well among those players.

would have won a slam if they peaked in 16-current.

What do you think it the main reason (or reasons) for current players being so weak? Have we ever had this in tennis before for such a long time? I can't remember ever having seen anything like this before.