Why should big 3 decline at 29

[nolefam_2024]

Whenever there is a good thing happening today, every time the members bring up the tour had no atg after 2009. And that's why big 3 won more than the guys in the past.

This seems to be very wrong when we see the best guy before big 3. Pete Sampras.

Pete Sampras couldn't beat almost anybody for a year and half between 1999 ATP finals and 2002 USOpen. He won a total of 3 titles post ATP finals. 1999. Who was beating him then? Hewitt Roddick and Safin are in no way atg. Agassi himself was 30+. Federer played 1 match vs him.

Andre Agassi was winning 5 slams till age 29. He was even less stopped by new atg. By the time he started playing Federer in USO 2004 and USO 2005, he was already the second oldest slam winner behind Rosewall in open era. So he didn't go away because of atg.

Bjorn Borg retired at age 26. He didn't go because of atg. The year he retired in 1981 he was in 2 slam finals in Wimby and USO and had won RG. That's a good year by even Borg standards. He had no fight left. So he retired.

John McEnroe stopped winning slams at age 26. He never even made to a final after 1985. He was just 26.

Boris Becker bad burnout around 1991 at age 23 and was intermittently active.

None of these players were stopped post age 30 by atg. They got old and they didn't have the discipline or medicines or aim to be the best post 25. Pete Sampras is the best player among this group who kept fighting for slam and number 1 records and after he achieved both, he let it go.

Now if players got gravely injured and ended careers early, we can see that they were unfortunate like Delpo. But most of these guys just stopped being the better athletes post 25. There was also a huge difference between money involved then and now.

Simply players today are fitter than in the past both mentally and physically. If new atg comes, the players can share their years with this new atg. But I see only one decade where new atg replaced old atg and it was probably between 1985 to 1992 where rackets kept changing very rapidly.

 

[nolefam_2024]

All the past legends except between the 1985 to 1992 declined on their own. It didn't have much to do with upcoming atg. The big 3 used resources at their disposal to not decline to the extent the older players did and at the same time these guys didn't have racket changes like mid 80s.

 

[Neptune]

Peaks the highest, dominates the longest.
Hurts feeling the deepest!

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Modern athletes can hang around longer for sure at a great level. Brady, Lebron, Crosby/Ovechkin, etc.

The issue is, the NFL still had Mahomes and other great younger players come along.

The NBA has had a number of really elite younger players come up since Lebron.

The NHL has similarly had a huge number of incredibly elite players come up over the last decade. Mcdavid, Mackinnon, Draisaitl, Makar, Kucherov, etc have all put up historic seasons and playoff runs in recent years and shine even brighter than the still great older players.

So the net result is that we see the old guys continue to play at a great (though not as high as their peak years) level and pick up achievements, but don’t outshine the next generation (or two, or three) while doing it.

In tennis, it took 16 years to produce another player that shows anything close to the level of the big 3, and there’s just one of him, and he’s still developing

 

[Mazz Retic]

Players peaks differ, Wawrinka is a great example of someone who peaked later. Nadal was an early bloomer, Federer was on par with what’s considered the standard age, Djokovic is a bit of both imo seeing how he won early but didn’t hit his peak for a couple more years.
Because all of them are ATGs they sustained a high level for a long time.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Modern athletes can hang around longer for sure at a great level. Brady, Lebron, Crosby/Ovechkin, etc.

The issue is, the NFL still had Mahomes and other great younger players come along.

The NBA has had a number of really elite younger players come up since Lebron.

The NHL has similarly had a huge number of incredibly elite players come up over the last decade. Mcdavid, Mackinnon, Draisaitl, Makar, Kucherov, etc have all put up historic seasons and playoff runs in recent years and shine even brighter than the still great older players.

So the net result is that we see the old guys continue to play at a great (though not as high as their peak years) level and pick up achievements, but don’t outshine the next generation (or two, or three) while doing it.

In tennis, it took 16 years to produce another player that shows anything close to the level of the big 3, and there’s just one of him, and he’s still developing

I don't follow NBA so you have to forgive me. But isn't it a team sport with different confederations and they only play rarely east vs west etc? How is the best NBA player going to stop the rise of second best player if they play rarely?

Tennis there is no hiding. No timeouts. No subs. It's one tour for 40+ weeks. You have to beat the best to be the best. So if the older generation best players (Roddick retired in 2012 and was a year younger than Federer), 3 of them actually, hang around, how difficult will it be for the up and coming players? Also if these guys go away, the rest of the tour would have succeeded. Thiem would have won 3 slams on clay, and a slam or two or hard courts, that's atg career. Tsitsipas would have won 2/3 slams by now and would be halfway to atg. Medvedev would have won at least 3 hc slams by now if not 4.

Sampras retired because he could not beat any body and he had no point playing having all records.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I would say if big 3 don't exist.

2017 AO - probably Wawrinka
2017 RG - Thiem (24 years old)
2017 Wimbledon - Berdych (31 years old)
2017 USOpen - Delpo ( 28 years old)
2018 AO - Cilic (28)
2018 RG - Thiem (25)
2018 Wimby - Anderson or Delpo ( both older)
2018 USO - Delpo 3rd slam
2019 AO - Tsitsipas (20/21 years old only) or Medvedev 22 years old
2019 RG - Thiem again 3rd time
2019 Wimby - RBA or someone worse
2019 USO - Medvedev another slam
2020 AO - Thiem 5th slam.
2020 RG - Thiem ( no covid)
2020 Wimby - Who knows
2020 USO - Thiem 6th slam or tsitsipas
2021 AO - Medvedev 3rd slam
2021 RG - Tsitsipas
2021 Wimby - Berrettini
2021 USO - Medvedev or Zverev
2022 AO - Medvedev 4th slam
2022 RG - Zverev second slam
2022 Wimby - Kyrgios
2022 USO - Alcaraz
2023 AO - Tsitsipas 3rd slam
2023 RG - Alcaraz
2023 Wimby - Alcaraz
2023 USO - Medvedev 5th slam

We would have Medvedev and Thiem almost to atg status, tsitsipas in with 2 slams at least, and Zverev one slam and Alcaraz 3 slams. Not too bad a field with multiple slam winners.

Only in 2017/2018 we would have gotten slam winners over age 28. And all the news winners would have been the younger guys.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

I don't follow NBA so you have to forgive me. But isn't it a team sport with different confederations and they only play rarely east vs west etc? How is the best NBA player going to stop the rise of second best player if they play rarely?

Tennis there is no hiding. No timeouts. No subs. It's one tour for 40+ weeks. You have to beat the best to be the best. So if the older generation best players (Roddick retired in 2012 and was a year younger than Federer), 3 of them actually, hang around, how difficult will it be for the up and coming players? Also if these guys go away, the rest of the tour would have succeeded. Thiem would have won 3 slams on clay, and a slam or two or hard courts, that's atg career. Tsitsipas would have won 2/3 slams by now and would be halfway to atg. Medvedev would have won at least 3 hc slams by now if not 4.

Sampras retired because he could not beat any body and he had no point playing having all records.

This is a good topic of discussion and I have more thoughts on the matter than I have time for at the moment. Will get back you to this evening

 

[RelentlessAttack]

@nachiket nolefam so there’s a lot of different topics we’re brushing on here, some of which I’ve written long essay length posts on in the past but I’ll try my best to touch on some of them as succinctly as possible. I’m on my phone so will make a few consecutive posts to avoid hitting the word limit

1) Reasons for early turnover at the top ranks in tennis: Laver/Rosewall/Pancho were all quite successful at what would have been considered older ages until recently, while we saw a lot of turnover at the top in the intervening years before the big 3. It’s easy to say “they declined” or “the competition was too strong” but it’s more complicated than that. Some of the reasons for the turnover:
- ongoing changes in racquet technology
- ongoing changes in string technology
- ongoing changes in surfaces (remember the USO changed surfaces multiple times during the Borg era, even recently the change from RA to Plexi for example was very fortuitous for Djokovic)
- changing organzational structure of the tour, obvious ones being things like pre/post open era, Laver missing slams for most of his prime time play on pro tour, but also changing calendar, changing prestige of different events, changing locations, tournament/draw/seeding formats etc. An underrated recent example is the loss of BO5 masters finals during the big 3 era so young players don’t get experience playing high stakes BO5 matches before the slams and also it’s been easier for top guys to rack up masters. Masters draw changes and slam seeding changes have also reduced upsets in recent years
- dramatically increased money in the game: makes it more worthwhile for older guys to stick around and simultaneously easier for younger guys to rest on their laurels since they’ll be comfortably rich at slightly lower rankings. Also causes a huge resource separation between the top guys and young players

Saying Sampras “couldn’t beat anybody” takes a lot away from a great champion. If he didn’t have to deal with the rise of polyester strings and larger racquet head sizes, he wouldn’t have suddenly started losing to the likes of Lleyton Hewitt.

By 2010 a lot of the surface, technology, and organizational change had finally stabilized, so there was no forced early obsolescence for the big 3 and their cohort

 

[nolefam_2024]

@nachiket nolefam so there’s a lot of different topics we’re brushing on here, some of which I’ve written long essay length posts on in the past but I’ll try my best to touch on some of them as succinctly as possible. I’m on my phone so will make a few consecutive posts to avoid hitting the word limit

1) Reasons for early turnover at the top ranks in tennis: Laver/Rosewall/Pancho were all quite successful at what would have been considered older ages until recently, while we saw a lot of turnover at the top in the intervening years before the big 3. It’s easy to say “they declined” or “the competition was too strong” but it’s more complicated than that. Some of the reasons for the turnover:
- ongoing changes in racquet technology
- ongoing changes in string technology
- ongoing changes in surfaces (remember the USO changed surfaces multiple times during the Borg era, even recently the change from RA to Plexi for example was very fortuitous for Djokovic)
- changing organzational structure of the tour, obvious ones being things like pre/post open era, Laver missing slams for most of his prime time play on pro tour, but also changing calendar, changing prestige of different events, changing locations, tournament/draw/seeding formats etc. An underrated recent example is the loss of BO5 masters finals during the big 3 era so young players don’t get experience playing high stakes BO5 matches before the slams and also it’s been easier for top guys to rack up masters. Masters draw changes and slam seeding changes have also reduced upsets in recent years
- dramatically increased money in the game: makes it more worthwhile for older guys to stick around and simultaneously easier for younger guys to rest on their laurels since they’ll be comfortably rich at slightly lower rankings. Also causes a huge resource separation between the top guys and young players

Saying Sampras “couldn’t beat anybody” takes a lot away from a great champion. If he didn’t have to deal with the rise of polyester strings and larger racquet head sizes, he wouldn’t have suddenly started losing to the likes of Lleyton Hewitt.

By 2010 a lot of the surface, technology, and organizational change had finally stabilized, so there was no forced early obsolescence for the big 3 and their cohort

I agree with all these reasonings. But I would add that the nature of the sport has become more straining. The injuries have increased. Sampras probably didn't want to go through this period when he had all the important records in open era.

 

[Federev]

.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

2) Tennis compared to other sports:

I often hear the argument that tennis is more difficult than team sports due to the one on one nature. Some thoughts I have on this:

- I think that psychologically, tactically and motivation-wise that can be true. However I am strongly of the belief that tennis gets second and third tier athletes for a variety of reasons: cost, popularity, demographics, low return on investment unless you make it to the very top, and lack of massive structured development programs like see in sports like soccer, football, basketball, hockey, etc.

- in the late 00s I spent several summers at IMG academy doing offseason training for a non-tennis sport. Since I love tennis and am friends with a number of the American and Canadian pros and their families, I would often take breaks to go watch the tennis players train. I had the opportunity to ask Nick Bollettieri why he thought the US wasn’t producing champs anymore. His take was basically that the talent pool wasn’t as strong in the US and the best athletes picked other sports. At the time Boston Celtics were doing well and he said to me something like “if you gave me Kevin Garnett or Rajón Rondo I would have them easily dominating the tour”. As you probably know, IMG grew to serve several other sports besides tennis, so he would see a lot of top athletes from other sports. One of the summers I was there Zdeno Chara (NHL) was training there, a couple of first round picks from the MLB, some football guys, etc

- it’s true that it team sports you don’t measure individual seasons or the greatness of individual players by their trophy cases alike because it takes a team and a strong organization to win a trophy. But you can measure individual performance statistics across seasons and generations, individual contributions to team success, and all of these larger sports have significantly more developed analytics that we can use to evaluate and compare player performance.

- regarding your thought on needing to beat the best to be the best in tennis: this is true to an extent but I’m of the option that elite talent can’t be denied. There’s a reason why Federer toppled Sampras even before he put it all together, why Nadal troubled Federer even at 17, why Djokovic hammered his way through to the top ranks at 19-20, why Del Potro took down Fedal for his first slam, etc. similarly, alcaraz went 1-2 in important matches against Nole but 5/7 sets in the losses were an all out war and the match he won was an all time classic in a huge moment.

- elite athletes have elite characteristics: eg peak Federer’s mobility, precision, timing, fast twitch, power. His serve and FH were ATG weapons. Peak Nadal, all time elite mobility, FH, physics bending top spin, stamina. Peak Djokovic, all time elite flexibility, mobility, timing (taking the ball on the rise), ATG BH and return, stamina. Peak Sampras, ATG serve, running FH, volleys, forward and vertical mobility. Even a guy who got derailed by injury in Del Potro came with an elite, conversation ending FH.

Which of the younger players have elite characteristics or weapons?

The best overall athletes among the younger guys have been Thiem, Zverev, Alcaraz. Alcaraz is the only one with the completeness and IQ of the 3 to rival the big 3. The rest of the contenders have not been superlative athletes (Tsitsipas et al). One of the only ATG weapons among players younger than the big 3 is the Kyrgios serve, and he obviously doesn’t have the rest of the game

 

[Rosstour]

@nachiket nolefam so there’s a lot of different topics we’re brushing on here, some of which I’ve written long essay length posts on in the past but I’ll try my best to touch on some of them as succinctly as possible. I’m on my phone so will make a few consecutive posts to avoid hitting the word limit

1) Reasons for early turnover at the top ranks in tennis: Laver/Rosewall/Pancho were all quite successful at what would have been considered older ages until recently, while we saw a lot of turnover at the top in the intervening years before the big 3. It’s easy to say “they declined” or “the competition was too strong” but it’s more complicated than that. Some of the reasons for the turnover:
- ongoing changes in racquet technology
- ongoing changes in string technology
- ongoing changes in surfaces (remember the USO changed surfaces multiple times during the Borg era, even recently the change from RA to Plexi for example was very fortuitous for Djokovic)
- changing organzational structure of the tour, obvious ones being things like pre/post open era, Laver missing slams for most of his prime time play on pro tour, but also changing calendar, changing prestige of different events, changing locations, tournament/draw/seeding formats etc. An underrated recent example is the loss of BO5 masters finals during the big 3 era so young players don’t get experience playing high stakes BO5 matches before the slams and also it’s been easier for top guys to rack up masters. Masters draw changes and slam seeding changes have also reduced upsets in recent years
- dramatically increased money in the game: makes it more worthwhile for older guys to stick around and simultaneously easier for younger guys to rest on their laurels since they’ll be comfortably rich at slightly lower rankings. Also causes a huge resource separation between the top guys and young players

Saying Sampras “couldn’t beat anybody” takes a lot away from a great champion. If he didn’t have to deal with the rise of polyester strings and larger racquet head sizes, he wouldn’t have suddenly started losing to the likes of Lleyton Hewitt.

By 2010 a lot of the surface, technology, and organizational change had finally stabilized, so there was no forced early obsolescence for the big 3 and their cohort

"The likes of Lleyton Hewitt"

This place is amazing. Hewitt was I think the youngest #1 in history up to that point or something like that?

His body didn't hold up, but let's not act like he's some mug now because of it. Sampras was getting smoked left and right by Hewitt, Safin and George freaking Bastl. He was washed and got lucky to get an even older Agassi in the 02 US final.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

3) Old versus young players in tennis versus other sports

I am going to use the NHL as my analogy because hockey is my sport and the one I know best. I’ll leave basketball to @Kralingen and others to avoid being imprecise, and football to whomever wants to speak on it.

People often think when I complain about the CEI that I think the big 3 are no good in their older age and should be losing everywhere to younger players, or that they don’t deserve to win or whatever. To the contrary, I have immense respect for all of them and recognize that they’ve all played at a great level as they’ve aged.

My personal view though is that elite athletes at 36 play elite athletes at say 23, it’s hard for the older player to compete over time due to declining explosiveness, recovery, stamina, IF the younger player is in the same tier of athlete which of course is often not the case.

Let’s take the modern NHL. In 05-06, Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin burst in as young rookies (19-20 yrs old IIRC), took advantage of rule changes that opened up the game to be faster, blew the doors off the league and established themselves as the best offensive players.

They dominated for several years, and then the NHL had a period of several years of lesser talent and slowing down of the game so they weren’t displaced and point totals for younger skilled players weren’t as gaudy, let’s say 2011-16. I would characterize that period as something like the recent tennis inflation era.

From 2017 on, the NHL made some subtle rule enforcement changes that allowed high speed and skill tactics to work more effectively again, and some strong draft classes graduated, and a new class of elite young players blazed in. 35-36 year old Crosby and Ovechkin had all of the benefits of the big 3 in terms of money, resources, and training and remained elite. Even last year, Crosby was dominant for the brief time his team was in the playoffs, and Ovechkin had continued to be a prolific goal scorer until recently (but hasn’t been same explosive, fast, physically dominant player of his youth for many years). However, despite putting up great (but reduced) numbers, many younger players have been out performing them statistically (in terms of simple measures like goals and points as well as advanced analytics like wins above replacement, game score value added, expected goals %, etc) for about 7-8 years. We’ve had multiple young players put up historic seasons on par with historically great seasons that we saw in the 00s, 90s, and 80s.

We just haven’t seen these kinds of elite young players emerge in tennis for 16 years, except for probably Alcaraz.

On the note of being held down by past greats due to one on one play, until recently it’s not even like the top young guys we’re being blocked exclusively by the big 3. We saw 3rd tier players of the golden generation like Fognini, Feliciano, RBA, etc defeating the top young hopes time and time again.

Thiem was definitely blocked from winning multiple slams by Nadal and Djokovic but you could say the same thing about Roddick and Hewitt. We saw when Thiem played a USO final without them again Zverev, it took an AZ choke for him to close the deal, not unlike Roddick needing another player to take out Federer and then have a fatigued opponent in the final to win. Thiem is not tier 1-3 ATG in any generation. His peak is not as high Murray, Stan, Delpo, or Safin, guys who could topple tier 1 ATGs on occasion when redlining.

What I expected and wanted for tennis was not for the big 3 to just decline, pack up, and go away; I hoped for a steady pipeline of great players coming up to make the tour a war for the big titles and achievements, and we just haven’t had that between 2008-22 (Delpo’s arrival year and true breakthrough of Djokovic/Murray until Alcaraz).

 

[nolefam_2024]

2) Tennis compared to other sports:

I often hear the argument that tennis is more difficult than team sports due to the one on one nature. Some thoughts I have on this:

- I think that psychologically, tactically and motivation-wise that can be true. However I am strongly of the belief that tennis gets second and third tier athletes for a variety of reasons: cost, popularity, demographics, low return on investment unless you make it to the very top, and lack of massive structured development programs like see in sports like soccer, football, basketball, hockey, etc.

- in the late 00s I spent several summers at IMG academy doing offseason training for a non-tennis sport. Since I love tennis and am friends with a number of the American and Canadian pros and their families, I would often take breaks to go watch the tennis players train. I had the opportunity to ask Nick Bollettieri why he thought the US wasn’t producing champs anymore. His take was basically that the talent pool wasn’t as strong in the US and the best athletes picked other sports. At the time Boston Celtics were doing well and be said to me something like “if you have me Kevin Garnett or Rajón Rondo I would have them easily dominating the tour”. As you probably know, IMG grew to serve several other sports besides tennis, so he would see a lot of top athletes from other sports. One of the summers I was there Zdeno Chara (NHL) was training there, a couple of first round picks from the MLB, some football guys, etc

- it’s true that it team sports you don’t measure individual seasons or the greatness of individual players by their trophy cases alike because it takes a team and a strong organization to win a trophy. But you can measure individual performance statistics across seasons and generations, individual contributions to team success, and all of these larger sports have significantly more developed analytics that we can use to evaluate and compare player performance.

- regarding your thought on needing to beat the best to be the best in tennis: this is true to an extent but I’m of the option that elite talent can’t be denied. There’s a reason why Federer toppled Sampras even before he put it all together, why Nadal troubled Federer even at 17, why Djokovic hammered his way through to the top ranks at 19-20, why Del Potro took down Fedal for his first slam, etc. similarly, alcaraz went 1-2 in important matches against Nole but 5/7 sets in the losses were an all out war and the match he won was an all time classic in a huge moment.

- elite athletes have elite characteristics: eg peak Federer’s mobility, precision, timing, fast twitch, power. His serve and FH were ATG weapons. Peak Nadal, all time elite mobility, FH, physics bending top spin, stamina. Peak Djokovic, all time elite flexibility, mobility, timing (taking the ball on the rise), ATG BH and return, stamina. Peak Sampras, ATG serve, running FH, volleys, forward and vertical mobility. Even a guy who got derailed by injury in Del Potro came with an elite, conversation ending FH.

Which of the younger players have elite characteristics or weapons?

The best overall athletes among the younger guys have been Thiem, Zverev, Alcaraz. Alcaraz is the only one with the completeness and IQ of the 3 to rival the big 3. The rest of the contenders have not been superlative athletes (Tsitsipas et al). One of the only ATG weapons among players younger than the big 3 is the Kyrgios serve, and he obviously doesn’t have the rest of the game

Its true none of these athletes today apart from Alcaraz came to the front as Federer at 19. Federer though took on Sampras who was on his way down. Djokovic couldn't take down Fedal consistently for 4 years after winning in 2007.
I see Tsitsipas who first took down Djokovic in the first meeting and Federer in next. If these guys were not around, Tsitsipas would have at least won 2 slams. But Djokovic figured him out. Nadal took apart Thiem and destroyed his career.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

"The likes of Lleyton Hewitt"

This place is amazing. Hewitt was I think the youngest #1 in history up to that point or something like that?

His body didn't hold up, but let's not act like he's some mug now because of it. Sampras was getting smoked left and right by Hewitt, Safin and George freaking Bastl. He was washed and got lucky to get an even older Agassi in the 02 US final.

I like Hewitt. I respect Hewitt. I like and respect Sampras more. Sampras played at the end of an era with an outdated style and outdated gear. Lleyton was great but wouldn’t have had the same opportunity to become the youngest #1 without the surface and racquet transition. If W02 played like W01, Hewitt doesn’t win it. The big 3 didn’t face the same forced obsolescence.

 

[Rosstour]

I like Hewitt. I respect Hewitt. I like and respect Sampras more. Sampras played at the end of an era with an outdated style and outdated gear. Lleyton was great but wouldn’t have had the same opportunity to become the youngest #1 without the surface and racquet transition. If W02 played like W01, Hewitt doesn’t win it. The big 3 didn’t face the same forced obsolescence.

Sampras also didn't take his fitness very seriously and it showed. Agassi played another couple years, like 5?

I loved Pete as a kid but he was a flawed champ and underachieved massively compared to what he could have done. We try to say he's better (or somehow more "boss"/dominant) than the B3 but he never once won 3 Slams in a season despite his best competition being part-time meth-smoker Agassi.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Sampras also didn't take his fitness very seriously and it showed. Agassi played another couple years, like 5?

I loved Pete as a kid but he was a flawed champ and underachieved massively compared to what he could have done. We try to say he's better (or somehow more "boss"/dominant) than the B3 but he never once won 3 Slams in a season despite his best competition being part-time meth-smoker Agassi.

I agree that he underachieved for sure. Fitness played a role but Agassi also had a gamestyle and racquet choice more amenable to modern conditions

 

[Rosstour]

I agree that he underachieved for sure. Fitness played a role but Agassi also had a gamestyle and racquet choice more amenable to modern conditions

Agassi was the blueprint for the modern baseliner, was never a big fan of his or Rafa or Djoko.

I like the beautiful game, so I liked Pete and then became a Fedfan when I realized Roger was Sampras' reincarnation.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Agassi was the blueprint for the modern baseliner, was never a big fan of his or Rafa or Djoko.

I like the beautiful game, so I liked Pete and then became a Fedfan when I realized Roger was Sampras' reincarnation.

Yeah it shows the randomness of fandom because in general I greatly prefer aggressive tennis. My favorites as a kid were Rafter, Pete, then later Safin.

I always appreciated his game but never liked Federer for very teenager reasons, like his manbun, tendency to cry in public, interest in fashion, etc.

Became a fan of the ultimate defensive player instead in Rafa because I loved his athleticism and fearlessness on the court.

Other than Rafa, continue to prefer attacking players and variety though obviously those things are vanishingly rare now. One of my favorite singles matches was Llodra-Murray at USO08 with Llodra turning back the clock and serving and volleying

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Its true none of these athletes today apart from Alcaraz came to the front as Federer at 19. Federer though took on Sampras who was on his way down. Djokovic couldn't take down Fedal consistently for 4 years after winning in 2007.
I see Tsitsipas who first took down Djokovic in the first meeting and Federer in next. If these guys were not around, Tsitsipas would have at least won 2 slams. But Djokovic figured him out. Nadal took apart Thiem and destroyed his career.

Ok so he might have won two slams without older post prime ATG comp around, how does that make the case for this era? How does he compare to say, Roddick of Hewitt?

Both of those guys were stopped directly by Federer from winning what, 4-6 slams each arguably? Some they would have cannibalized each other to be fair.

How about Nalby for a guy who beat top guys occasionally in small tournaments but couldn’t do it in the slams. Stef has never produced the level of the 2007 indoor season where Nalby schooled all of the big 3. Djokovic mentioned learning how to play Fedal tactically from studying that run.

Or going back further, how about someone like two slam champ Kafelnikov?

Or another guy to choke an RG final up 2 sets and then mentally implode in Coria?

These are more reasonable comparisons than comparing him to past ATG tier competition, and frankly most of those players were more successful and the comparisons probably flatter him.

My views on Stef are similar to my views on Thiem in my 3rd post above, only significantly worse and less consistent.

 

[Rosstour]

Yeah it shows the randomness of fandom because in general I greatly prefer aggressive tennis. My favorites as a kid were Rafter, Pete, then later Safin.

I always appreciated his game but never liked Federer for very teenager reasons, like his manbun, tendency to cry in public, interest in fashion, etc.

Became a fan of the ultimate defensive player instead in Rafa because I loved his athleticism and fearlessness on the court.

Other than Rafa, continue to prefer attacking players and variety though obviously those things are vanishingly rare now. One of my favorite singles matches was Llodra-Murray at USO08 with Llodra turning back the clock and serving and volleying

You didn't like Fed bc of his interest in fashion...have you seen Rafa's Armani ads? C'mon, lol

Fed left me cold because he was just another European guy. Wasn't watching much tennis then and I thought it was dumb that there was a Federer and a Ferrer. I totally lost interest in the game until I saw him win US2005. Then it clicked

 

[Aestheticsaboveallelse]

In tennis, it took 16 years to produce another player that shows anything close to the level of the big 3, and there’s just one of him, and he’s still developing

I don't know whether you're talking about Alcaraz or Sinner

 

[Angrybirdstar]

without the surface and racquet transition. If W02 played like W01, Hewitt doesn’t win it.

from Wimbledon website: Courts are sown with 100 per cent Perennial Ryegrass (since 2001)

 

[Jonas78]

Whenever there is a good thing happening today, every time the members bring up the tour had no atg after 2009. And that's why big 3 won more than the guys in the past.

This seems to be very wrong when we see the best guy before big 3. Pete Sampras.

Pete Sampras couldn't beat almost anybody for a year and half between 1999 ATP finals and 2002 USOpen. He won a total of 3 titles post ATP finals. 1999. Who was beating him then? Hewitt Roddick and Safin are in no way atg. Agassi himself was 30+. Federer played 1 match vs him.

Andre Agassi was winning 5 slams till age 29. He was even less stopped by new atg. By the time he started playing Federer in USO 2004 and USO 2005, he was already the second oldest slam winner behind Rosewall in open era. So he didn't go away because of atg.

Bjorn Borg retired at age 26. He didn't go because of atg. The year he retired in 1981 he was in 2 slam finals in Wimby and USO and had won RG. That's a good year by even Borg standards. He had no fight left. So he retired.

John McEnroe stopped winning slams at age 26. He never even made to a final after 1985. He was just 26.

Boris Becker bad burnout around 1991 at age 23 and was intermittently active.

None of these players were stopped post age 30 by atg. They got old and they didn't have the discipline or medicines or aim to be the best post 25. Pete Sampras is the best player among this group who kept fighting for slam and number 1 records and after he achieved both, he let it go.

Now if players got gravely injured and ended careers early, we can see that they were unfortunate like Delpo. But most of these guys just stopped being the better athletes post 25. There was also a huge difference between money involved then and now.

Simply players today are fitter than in the past both mentally and physically. If new atg comes, the players can share their years with this new atg. But I see only one decade where new atg replaced old atg and it was probably between 1985 to 1992 where rackets kept changing very rapidly.

Whats the mean age in top10 if you take away Djokovic? He is the only player older than 27 in top 10, what does that tell us?

I was even more right than i thought when i said mean age would sink like a stone with Big4 several years ago, and people where telling med 30 was the new 25.