mike danny
Bionic Poster
People will ecplain this by saying the Big 3 are too good. But maybe the Big 3 are too good because of the current situation. The 3 greates players ever playing at the same time? Yeah, not just a coincidence if you ask me.
Which big 3 member has benefitted the most from the next gen being unable to take over?
- Thread starter clout
- Start date
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Just the usual Fed hating trolls.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Voting that option is a surefire way to lose whatever credibility you still have.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
I was thinking about this last night while running. There have been times of almost total domination in the past. Pretty much all of the 50s and 60s were about Kramer, Pancho, Hoad, Laver and Rosewall. Hoad was thought to be as tough as any of them, but he was not on top long because of injuries. But in those days, even with some of them having long careers, dominance could not last as long because of the inevitable injuries and lack of science re training and preserving longevity. So I just don't know.
But the dominance of only 3 men for so long does seem to me more than a coincidence. And the "current situation" has been going on for a LONG time if you don't just consider the ages of the Big 3 now.
welcome2petrkordaland
Professional
Fascinating hypotheticals presented here... after perusing the thread a bit, it begs then a similar, parallel question. Which of the BIG 3 has benefited the most due to the inability of the LOST GEN to take over? After all, their failure with the exception of Thiem (a latecomer to Lost Gen) is absolute and seems poised to continue. The NEXT GEN is still young, and it’s been evidenced that players are peaking later as well as lasting longer for myriad reasons.
Another “elephant in the room” aspect to this subject has been been mentioned.... and that is 2003-2007. During that time the talent may have been lacking, Fed was just that good, or the likely scenario: a combo of the two.
So overall which of the BIG 3 has benefitted the most from inferior talent levels/minimal ATG’s (however you wanna term it) across all of their respective careers?
I’d say Federer, then Djokovic, then Nadal.
Another “elephant in the room” aspect to this subject has been been mentioned.... and that is 2003-2007. During that time the talent may have been lacking, Fed was just that good, or the likely scenario: a combo of the two.
So overall which of the BIG 3 has benefitted the most from inferior talent levels/minimal ATG’s (however you wanna term it) across all of their respective careers?
I’d say Federer, then Djokovic, then Nadal.
welcome2petrkordaland
Professional
oh wow, I seem to have missed reading half of this thread... everything I said has been said lol... just trying to contribute.
abmk
Bionic Poster
new gen -> biggest reason IMO is mental strength.
I mean guys like Kuerten, Safin, Hewitt etc. didn't give a sh*t in their first slam finals who they were facing.
Kuerten peaked vs Bruguera and beat him in straight sets.
Safin obviously masterclassed vs Pete in USO 00 final
Hewitt played damn well vs Pete in 01 USo final (granted Pete was spent after set1, but hewitt made it ridiculously tough for him afterwards)
Here, we have Thiem in his 4th slam final vs 1st time finalist Zverev choking so badly, even cramping - not even played a 5-setter before at that USO.
Then you have Med in his 2nd slam final being so ****ty vs Djoko in AO 21 final. Had beaten djoko 3 out of 4 times in Bo3 before this. can't even put up a decent fight in a slam final? Djoko played well in the final, but was hardly unplayable by any stretch of imagination.
fail gen (Raonic, Nishi, Dimi etc.) -> clear failures both physically and mentally. least talented and least achieving gen over.
then you have the other reasons like homogenization, social media, big 3 themselves later down the rung.
