Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 63 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Hello everyone,,
Could someone explain to me why the top 3 are so dominant in grand slam tennis? The big 3 have won 51 grand slams out of 62 since 2003. Why can't the young pups topple the big 3 in grand slams? It seems to me the https://19216801.onl/ https://routerlogin.uno/https://192168ll.link/ only enemy of the big 3 is father time.
Can't think of any other sport it's like this..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,696 Posts
56 out of 67 since W03

Feds first 10 slams (titles) opponents in the final:
Mark Philippoussis
Marat Safin
Andy Roddick x 3
Lleyton Hewitt
Andre Agassi
Marcos Baghdatis
Rafael Nadal
Fernando González

Rafas first 10 slams (titles) opponents in the final:
Mariano Puerta
Roger Federer x 6
Robin Söderling
Tomáš Berdych
Novak Djoković

Noles first 10 slams (titles) opponents in the final:
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
Andy Murray x 3
Rafael Nadal x 3
Roger Federer x 3
Such a lack of variety in Djokovic's era.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,274 Posts
Such a lack of variety in Djokovic's era.
I'm pretty sure almost everyone (everyone but you, that is) would consider beating Federer, Nadal and Murray (which Novak did in 16 out of his 17 slams) to be far more impressive than beating names like Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Philipoussis, Cilic, Soderling, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,696 Posts
I'm pretty sure almost everyone (everyone but you, that is) would consider beating Federer, Nadal and Murray (which Novak did in 16 out of his 17 slams) to be far more impressive than beating names like Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Philipoussis, Cilic, Soderling, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, etc.
No, it's pretty well recognised that Djokovic has never faced a challenge from up-and-coming players and has reaped the rewards of playing in a dead era after the primes of Federer and Nadal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,283 Posts
Work ethic.
Physical fitness.
Mental toughness.

Unprecedented, over a long duration and in the context long matches, that young lads were not able to match.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,274 Posts
No, it's pretty well recognised that Djokovic has never faced a challenge from up-and-coming players and has reaped the rewards of playing in a dead era after the primes of Federer and Nadal.
Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are nearly the same age. Also, Federer was 26 when he got dethroned by Nadal as the best player in tennis (and then became the third wheel at 29 in 2011).

To give you an idea how much harder it was for Federer to beat tough competition, here's an example for you:

Federer is 16-1 in slam finals against non-Big 3 members
Federer is 4-10 in slam finals against the Big 3 (and 10-21 in slams overall)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,859 Posts
The big three are driven by each others careers, they are competitive beasts and have an aura about them that makes it hard for the youngsters to break through, eventually it will happen but ultimately time will be the true vanquisher of the kings of tennis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: prezidont

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,271 Posts
Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are nearly the same age. Also, Federer was 26 when he got dethroned by Nadal as the best player in tennis (and then became the third wheel at 29 in 2011).

To give you an idea how much harder it was for Federer to beat tough competition, here's an example for you:

Federer is 16-1 in slam finals against non-Big 3 members
Federer is 4-10 in slam finals against the Big 3 (and 10-21 in slams overall)
That makes no sense whatsoever.

Federer was the same age more or less as the people he beat in those finals, he was just much higher quality. Those other 3 are from the next generation, half a lifetime different in tennis terms. No one expected Connors to beat McEnroe and yet the age difference between Djokovic and Federer is almost the same.

It's just Federer's GOATness which fools people into thinking he's of the same era as the others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,696 Posts
Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are nearly the same age. Also, Federer was 26 when he got dethroned by Nadal as the best player in tennis (and then became the third wheel at 29 in 2011).

To give you an idea how much harder it was for Federer to beat tough competition, here's an example for you:

Federer is 16-1 in slam finals against non-Big 3 members
Federer is 4-10 in slam finals against the Big 3 (and 10-21 in slams overall)
Djokovic has dominated the dead era. The only era in tennis history where players in their 20s can't win slams. Lack of variety, lack of challenge.
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
50,893 Posts
Only thing we can agree on is that Nadal played in the hardest era. Had to play vs peak Fed and then peak Djoker
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,734 Posts
First and foremost because they are exceptionally good as @Jolyon already mentioned.

As a long-time fan of tennis, I just can't deny the court homogenisation favouring the existing top players who are used to playing BO5 matches. Unlike the women, men have more time to get back into slam matches meaning the new generations of male players are already behind before the start of the match considering their lower level on average.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,305 Posts
Only thing we can agree on is that Nadal played in the hardest era. Had to play vs peak Fed and then peak Djoker
Not exactly, because Nadal is just eleven months older than Djokovic, and till 2012 Djokovic has played eight HC slam matches against Federer (4:4) and also many RG rubbers vs Nadal since 2006, whereas Nadal has played just one HC rubber against Federer before 2012, so, young Nadal basicaly only played Federer on the natural surfaces at RG-Wimb combo and tired Djokovic in USO'10&'11 finals after his SF 5-setters vs Federer.

IMO, young Djokovic had it more difficult because he was almost always in Nadal's half at RG and always in Federer's half at HC slams (AO/USO except in USO'07) and Fedal were already considered to be Goats (or co-goats) on the clay and hard courts respectively, so, unlike young Nadal who was 2008-2011 always in the opposite half from Federer & Djokovic at AO & USO for eight consecutive HC slams, young Djokovic was always projected to play peak Federer at HC half and peak Nadal at RG half, just to make the finals therein.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,274 Posts
All anyone has to do is look at Yolita's table to see who faced and beat the hardest competition, and it wasn't Nadal. 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,734 Posts
Not exactly, because Nadal is just eleven months older than Djokovic, and till 2012 Djokovic has played eight HC slam matches against Federer and many at RG vs Nadal, whereas Nadal has played just one HC rubber against Federer before 2012, so, Nadal only played Federer on the natural surfaces ar RG-Wimb combo.
Now I'm even more surprised they never met at the USO...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,035 Posts
Discussing which era is stronger, etc, is completely pointless, as there are myriad factors that you can't ever possibly take into consideration. Furthermore, it's impossible to say when one era ends, and another begins.

In addition, there is this weird and obviously self-serving revisionism on here that great players from the past couldn't play! For example, Hewitt is often spoken about as if he wasn't any good, but he beat Nadal in four of the first five matches they played, he beat Federer consistently in their early encounters, he had a winning record against Sampras, and a 4-4 record against Agassi. Djokovic only faced Hewitt after he was outside the top 20 in the world, but he was still spanked the first time they played, and Hewitt pushed him very close at Wimbledon in the second meeting.

The way you hear people talk on this site, you would think the likes of Hewitt and Safin were useless. Hewitt was a brilliant player for several years, and Safin was intermittently awesome. He played one of the best matches ever when beating Sampras to win the US Open. The difference is that they had a much smaller window of peak performance, and struggled with persistent injuries. On their day, at their peak, they would beat Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic quite regularly. Arguably, it's tougher to face them at their peak than a 38 year-old Federer, for example.

What the top three today have delivered is persistence, consistency, and longevity, while they have also been fortunate with injuries and have benefited from increased understanding in training, diet, etc. The way certain people go on about them on here, you would think they could never possibly lose a match to anyone except each other. If Djokovic can be beaten by Cecchinato, he can lose to many, many clay courters from 10-20 years ago. If Nadal can be beaten by Dustin Brown, he can lose to basically anyone on grass! If Federer can lose to Millman, he can be beaten by many players from the past on a hard court. Rest assured.
 
1 - 20 of 63 Posts
Top