Would this era be stronger without Big3?

[Lew II]

If it's a weak era because there are no young Slam winners, would it be stronger without Big3?

Probable Slam winners without Big3:

2019 AO - Tsitsipas 20 or Pouille 24
2019 RG - Thiem 25
2019 WI - Bautista Agut 31
2019 UO - Medvedev 23
2020 AO - Thiem 26
2020 RG - Tsitsipas 22 or Schwartzmann 28
2020 UO - Thiem 27
2021 AO - Medvedev 24

Average age of the last 8 Slam winners --> 24.7 - 26.0

That's young. So the era would be stronger without the three GOATs still playing? Doesn't it sound a little absurd?

 

[Deleted member 748597]

It would be much weaker. Those guys would win Slams, but not because they were good enough.

 

[Jonesy]

In reality, no. In here, yes.

 

[Lew II]

It would be much weaker. Those guys would win Slams, but not because they were good enough.

So McEnroe/Connors were not good enough in 1982 when Borg retired?

 

[ND-13]

In reality, yes . But here, no.

 

[Deleted member 779124]

Agendas.....

 

[MeatTornado]

If it's a weak era because there are no young Slam winners, would it be stronger without Big3?

Probable Slam winners without Big3:

2019 UO - Medvedev 23 yo
2020 AO - Thiem 26 yo
2020 RG - Tsitsipas 22 yo or Schwartzmann 28 yo
2020 UO - Thiem 27 yo
2021 AO - Medvedev 24 yo

Average age of the last 5 Slam winners --> 24.4 or 25.8

That's young. So the era would be stronger without the three GOATs still playing? Doesn't it sound a little absurd?

Those are not the probable slam winners without the Big 3. Those are the probable winners in each individual tournament where the Big 3 are still ranked in the top 3 but lose early each time.

In an actual world without the Big 3 the seedings and match-ups would be very different, as well as player mentality. Some of those guys on the list would have to start dealing with being the favorite at events, and we've seen how poorly some of them respond to pressure. It's possible we'd have a bunch of totally random winners, not 2-3 guys simply taking over.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

So McEnroe/Connors were not good enough in 1982 when Borg retired?

 

[Lew II]

Those are not the probable slam winners without the Big 3. Those are the probable winners in each individual tournament where the Big 3 are still ranked in the top 3 but lose early each time.

In an actual world without the Big 3 the seedings and match-ups would be very different, as well as player mentality. Some of those guys on the list would have to start dealing with being the favorite at events, and we've seen how poorly some of them respond to pressure. It's possible we'd have a bunch of totally random winners, not 2-3 guys simply taking over.

I said ''probable'', not ''certain''.

Who would be the favourite without Big3 if not those who lost in the finals/semis?

 

[MeatTornado]

I said ''probable'', not ''certain''.

Who would be the favourite without Big3 if not those who lost in the finals/semis?

I don't know, because we don't live in that world.

I thought you hate hypotheticals.

 

[Lew II]

I don't know, because we don't live in that world.

I thought you hate hypotheticals.

Looks like you're trying to avoid to address the thread question.

 

[Towny]

So McEnroe/Connors were not good enough in 1982 when Borg retired?

McEnroe and Connors won slams against Borg. Lendl won slams against Wilander. Becker didn't beat Wilander at a slam but he did beat Edberg and Lendl. Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev and Tsitsipas have won zero slams against the Big 3

 

[MeatTornado]

Looks like you're trying to avoid to address the thread question.

I don't have enough information to feel comfortable answering.

 

[Lew II]

McEnroe and Connors won slams against Borg. Lendl won slams against Wilander. Becker didn't beat Wilander at a slam but he did beat Edberg and Lendl. Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev and Tsitsipas have won zero slams against the Big 3

Borg was still a force when he retired: RG champion and WI/UO finalist.

Anyway should Big3 just lose some matches for the era to be strong again? Doesn't change much the point of thread.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Borg was still a force when he retired: RG champion and WI/UO finalist.

Anyway should Big3 just lose some matches for the era to be strong again? Doesn't change much the point of thread.

If the young guys beat an in-form Big 3 member.

 

[gjm127]

Of course. High ranking leaders (top-5) always determine the type of era.

Since we're cling on our Big-3 so much, we've been in a weak era since 2003...

 

[Towny]

Borg was still a force when he retired: RG champion and WI/UO finalist.

Anyway should Big3 just lose some matches for the era to be strong again? Doesn't change much the point of thread.

We have no evidence that the younger generations are capable of winning slams to beat the Big 3. That wasn't the case with the previous legends you mentioned. That's the difference

 

[Born_to_slice]

It would be perceived as stronger, yes. Also, young or middle aged players who would be winning slams would get an extra boost to their confidence, which would in turn make them into different players.

 

[Sunny014]

Thiem is 27 and will turn 28 this year and Dimitrov is freaking 29 and will turn 30.

They are supposed to win slams as they are the best from the next generation, or at least they needed to regularly make the semis, so definitely the era is weak.

 

[The Blond Blur]

So McEnroe/Connors were not good enough in 1982 when Borg retired?

Terrible example since they actually beat Borg in schlems while he was still at the peak of his powers. The Big 3 have massively declined and are still dominating #nextgen.

 

[Sunny014]

2018 onwards the era is weak.

Cilic making the final of the AO was weak
French was Ok, thiem did make the final.
The fact that Nadal who struggled on Grass for 6 years makes the semis in back to back years (2018-2019) and Kevin Anderson making the final? that tells us the Grass court scene is very weak.
USO as well, NIshikori+Martin Del Potro making the semis and Potro surrendering in the final suggests that it was a weak scenario.

2019 again weak since Rafa of all people reached the final and was stomped.
French was good
Wimbledon .... oldies....
US open ... Danii put up a good fight but then what IS GRIGOR doing ? He should have beaten Danni since he has been longer on the tour and more experienced obv

So the lost gen are responsible for the weak era, and to some extent NIck Kyrgios as well, he should have started challenging by 2017, despite all the talent he is late....

 

[zagor]

In the light of 2020 USO final (one of the worst slam finals I've ever seen) I don't think any amount of mental gymnastics or "what if big 3 drop dead" arguments are gonna convince me those guys are anywhere near as great as portrayed.

I don't think Thiem, Zverev, Tsits, Med (or Raonic, Dimitrov and Glassikori before them) would be world beaters in any era. But that's just me.

 

[Lew II]

In the light of 2020 USO final (one of the worst slam finals I've ever seen) I don't think any amount of mental gymnastics or "what if big 3 drop dead" arguments are gonna convince me those guys are anywhere near as great as portrayed.

I don't think Thiem, Zverev, Tsits, Med (or Raonic, Dimitrov and Glassikori before them) would be world beaters in any era. But that's just me.

So the problem is the good old eye test, not the age.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

So the problem is good old eye test, not the age.

The eye-test does matter.

 

[Lew II]

The eye-test does matter.

Not when coming from unobjective fans.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Not when coming from unobjective fans.

@zagor is really objective though. (I mean for TTW standards)

 

[Lew II]

Terrible example since they actually beat Borg in schlems while he was still at the peak of his powers. The Big 3 have massively declined and are still dominating #nextgen.

Borg won 10 matches in a row against Connors before retiring. Connors won 2 Slams in the year Borg retired (1982). I don't see those wins diminished.

 

[zagor]

So the problem is the good old eye test, not the age.

You mean watching tennis? Yes, I use my eyes for that.

 

[Lew II]

You mean watching tennis? Yes, I use my eyes for that.

This thread is about the age of Slam winners.

 

[Lew II]

So Djokodal just need to go in a slump like 2015-16 and 2017-18 and lose some matches to youngsters... and it's strong era again

 

[Gary Duane]

So McEnroe/Connors were not good enough in 1982 when Borg retired?

Bjorn Borg VS John McEnroe | Head 2 Head | H2H | ATP Tour | Tennis

Head to head records for players in men's professional tennis. View rivalry results and stats for matches on the ATP Tour.

www.atptour.com

Mac was already 7/7 with Borg in 1981. Look when he first beat Borg. So your point makes no sense.

 

[zagor]

@zagor is really objective though. (I mean for TTW standards)

Thanks man, but I'm not.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Borg won 10 matches in a row against Connors before retiring. Connors won 2 Slams in the year Borg retired.

Connors is 4 years older, he was at an age disadvantage. I know you don’t believe in that, but it’s a real thing. And I love how you lumped JMac and Jimbo together, and when it gets pointed out that they both beat him in schlems you then remove JMac. JMac is younger than Borg so he had the age advantage and was starting to take over. He beat Borg in 3 straight schlem finals (USO 80, Wimby 81, and USO 81).

 

[zagor]

This thread is about the age of Slam winners.

And? I gave you my answer. None of the players listed above impress me in terms of their talent/ability and mental toughness that I'd consider it a great era if those guys split slams in the absense of big 3 (or big 2).

 

[Gary Duane]

Borg won 10 matches in a row against Connors before retiring. Connors won 2 Slams in the year Borg retired (1982). I don't see those wins diminished.

I see 9 in a row. What are you adding?

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Thanks man, but I'm not.

Kad ćemo da proslavimo ovaj AO? lol

 

[Lew II]

Bjorn Borg VS John McEnroe | Head 2 Head | H2H | ATP Tour | Tennis

Head to head records for players in men's professional tennis. View rivalry results and stats for matches on the ATP Tour.

www.atptour.com

Mac was already 7/7 with Borg in 1981. Look when he first beat Borg. So your point makes no sense.

Is it valid for clay then? Are the 80s a weak era for clay because Borg retired early?

Anyway that's not the point of the thread. Djokodal might lose motivation a lose a couple of matches to Next Gen as well. Wouldn't make the era strong. It would make it weaker.

 

[zagor]

Kad ćemo da proslavimo ovaj AO? lol

Mogli bi sledece nedelje da se organizujemo?

 

[Gary Duane]

Are the 80s a weak era for clay because Borg retired early?

It's probably valid to compare RG without Borg to RG without Nadal. But not for the same length of time, because careers back then were mostly a lot shorter.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

Mogli bi sledece nedelje da se organizujemo?

Ae može. Ako nove mere zbog korone ne sjebu sve.

 

[RF-18]

I've said countless of times big 3 are that good and when their attention is mostly towards slams these days they are incredibly hard to beat. The only lackluster thing with this gen though is that they aren't that good on grass, so the competition there for big 3 is lacking. But grass is a very short season with only one big tournament.

But If you think that just because Nadal and Djokovic are older now, it is weak that they can't be beaten at RG and AO after seeing their level there, it's unfortunate people ignore the actual level and just focus on age. The level they still can be at when it matters is astronomically high.

 

[GabeT]

This is my whole issue with all the weak era arguments. Take out the Big 3 and we’d have several new ATGs, and one generation of ATGs following another.

90%, or more, of the debates here are a result of a fluke of three extraordinary players.

 

[PilotPete]

Watch USO20 final, tells you everything you need to know about how strong the tennis would be without Big3.

 

[mike danny]

McEnroe and Connors won slams against Borg. Lendl won slams against Wilander. Becker didn't beat Wilander at a slam but he did beat Edberg and Lendl. Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev and Tsitsipas have won zero slams against the Big 3

Lendl won his first slam before Meddy's age against peak McEnroe who was 82-3 in 1984.

I sincerely doubt current Djoker, who trashed Medvedev in the AO final, is as good as peak 1984 McEnroe.

And in his first slam final, Lendl also pushed peak Borg to 5 at RG. Timmy boy gets taken to the woodshed each time by old Nadal at RG.

 

[mike danny]

We have no evidence that the younger generations are capable of winning slams to beat the Big 3. That wasn't the case with the previous legends you mentioned. That's the difference

These youngsters wouldn't even win slams in the early 2000's, IMO or at best they collectively win just 1 major if they're lucky. Combined.

 

[Ray Mercer]

Nope, none of the current crop pass the eye test. When you watch them play you’re never thinking wow this is a ridiculous level of play. A guy like Nalbandian was a far more talented shotmaker than any of today’s young guys.

 

[Sunny014]

Lendl won his first slam before Meddy's age against peak McEnroe who was 82-3 in 1984.

I sincerely doubt current Djoker, who trashed Medvedev in the AO final, is as good as peak 1984 McEnroe.

And in his first slam final, Lendl also pushed peak Borg to 5 at RG. Timmy boy gets taken to the woodshed each time by old Nadal at RG.

I think Timmy is clearly inferior to Lendl and Nadal is clearly superior to Borg, so there is a big gap yet to be bridged (bad for tennis, ATP should have done something to speed up clay or do something to prevent Nadal winning everytime, they did nothing in 16 years and Nadal has won like 13 out of 16 times)

 

[Jason Swerve]

McEnroe and Connors won slams against Borg. Lendl won slams against Wilander. Becker didn't beat Wilander at a slam but he did beat Edberg and Lendl. Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev and Tsitsipas have won zero slams against the Big 3

A Big 3 (2) is not good enough for a solid era in my eyes. You need something like a Big 5, and with upsets occasionally possible even then.

 

[mike danny]

I've said countless of times big 3 are that good and when their attention is mostly towards slams these days they are incredibly hard to beat. The only lackluster thing with this gen though is that they aren't that good on grass, so the competition there for big 3 is lacking. But grass is a very short season with only one big tournament.

But If you think that just because Nadal and Djokovic are older now, it is weak that they can't be beaten at RG and AO after seeing their level there, it's unfortunate people ignore the actual level and just focus on age. The level they still can be at when it matters is astronomically high.

The Big 3 were beaten when they were younger by other players and also pushed harder, so not falling for the idea that they are better now than ever

As for the bolded, you're the last one to talk about this given that you said that Agassi still being a top 10 player in his mid 30's was because of a vacuum. But when Djokodal dominate everything, it isn't. Sure......

 

[Sport]

McEnroe and Connors won slams against Borg. Lendl won slams against Wilander. Becker didn't beat Wilander at a slam but he did beat Edberg and Lendl. Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev and Tsitsipas have won zero slams against the Big 3

Another plausible explanation for the aforementioned dichotomy is that the Big 3 are superior tennis players than Bjorn Borg. It would explain why the Next Gen can defeat Borg but not the Big 3.