Originally Posted by Caesar1844
Anyone who knows anything about tennis, and has been watching longer than the last decade, can see its true. Djokovic, Nadal, Federer - their dominant periods have all resulted in more big trophies than any other period in history. Why? Because surfaces, balls, etc. ensure that the best player at any particular time will win 90% of the trophies on offer.
In previous eras you would only be a contender on a limited number of surfaces, and upsets were far more likely. Therefore you would have to be a top player for longer in order to accumulate large numbers of Slams.
Because of the stranglehold that top players have, winning a single slam is now tougher than it has ever been. But winning a whole stack of slams is a whole lot easier.
Therefore slam counts have been, and will continue to be, degraded as a way to be able to compare players across generations. The longer this goes on (and the more apparent it becomes) the more people will realise.
There is one thing I don't understand about you nostalgiceratards... you only come here to whine and whine and whine endlessly about the state of the game, the horror of surface homogenization, the degradation of the sport, bla bla bla... but then do you follow tennis? If you dislike it so much, why waste your time on this forum? And waste our time? It's simple, if you don't like it don't watch it. There are many fans –the majority– who enjoy it just how it is. If you disapprove of the sport and don't take joy in it, go watch some snooker then.