Very true.

This is the most inexplicable thing about the Big 3; how the hell they kept winning into their 30s having already expended more energy in their 20s than everyone else.

 

Yeah agree.

Before the big 3. Most players were retiring about 32 -34 or virtually retired


Big 3 come along, and bang, they're almost winning at 38-40

Freak of nature? Start of a trend? Medicine? Coincidence?

 

I think there is a logical explanation for why it happened.

If the year was 2000, and Pete Sampras was on eleven majors, and Andre Agassi was on nine, Sampras would not have lost motivation so drastically. Agassi would have been much more motivated. It is likely both go onto break Emerson's record. Both play until their mid 30s. Throughout the 1990s Sampras repeatedly said he intends to play until he's 35.

The threat of Agassi catching Sampras would have made him play much longer. Would have worked on his injuries to keep playing. Motivation being the key. To be fair, when he played his last match age 31 years and one month, there was not a lot wrong with him physically, other than a manageable bad back. Plus he would have changed his racquet and possibly string set up.

That's what kept the Big 3 going, the worry that if one bowed out, the other would run away with it.

Federer of course was at the biggest disadvantage due to age. He did trememdous and tried as hard as he could, got those three majors between 2017 and 2018.

In another world of no Djokovic and Nadal snapping at his heels, Federer would have retired around age 34 to 35 to protect his body.

Nadal has completely wrecked his body. As has Murray, even if Murray is not in the conversation about records, he is in the conversation of trying to keep up.

On another note, Warwinka's taste of the limelight was so brief for him, he seems to be suffering constant withdrawal symptons. He appears unable to accept his career is entirely over. His window was age 28 (almost 29) to 32. That's a pity for him but at least he did have a window of success. many guys never get that experience.

 

I guess in the case of murray he felt like he could have won much more, and he know if he had been able to keep up and the others decline first he would have won at least double of the slams he did.. in a time only Medvedev, Zverev, Thiem, Ruud, Tsitsipas, Fritz, Berretini and the likes reached multiple slam finals... In any other era he would have had at least 6 (and why not even 7 or why not say 8) Grand Slams on him.

 

I guess in the case of murray he felt like he could have won much more, and he know if he had been able to keep up and the others decline first he would have won at least double of the slams he did.. in a time only Medvedev, Zverev, Thiem, Ruud, Tsitsipas, Fritz, Berretini and the likes reached multiple slam finals... In any other era he would have had at least 6 (and why not even 7 or why not say 8) Grand Slams on him.

That's an interesting thought.

Let's take Berrettini as an example. I saw him play Wimbledon in 2021. I also saw Mark Phillippoussis play in Queens back in 2002 or 2003. Both men have a remarkably similar build and appearance. Same height, serve at the same pace. Similar movement (not the best), both barrell chested. Berrettinni with a two hander but actually slices the ball much more, Mark was more included to come over the ball. Both injury prone at that height and weight.

Phillippoussis only made two major finals in his era. With the similarities being so intense, I don't see where Berrettinni is getting to multiple finals and winning multiple titles.

To be fair that's a very easy like for like direct comparison. But it shows in any era still not easy to be a winning machine.

Murray, yes no doubt he would have won more. But he still needed to sort out that second serve because in previous eras top level opponents went after your second serve even more; attackers, baseliners, all court players, the lot. That's where you got your joy.

 

Monfils is still doing fine at 39

 

It is all about mindset and will and hard work

Some players are happy with top 20, top 30, and that's enough

Other players win slam after slam and still want more

That's what separates the good from the great

 

Zverev, Medvedev and Tsitsipas are just rubbish and have been surpassed by Alcaraz and Sinner.

Science and conditioning have improved tenfold, and Sinner and Alcaraz will benefit from that too, will add years onto their prime, that those before the big 3 never had.

Peak performance and longevity becoming the standard across the board in all sports. Tsitsipas, Medvedev and Zverev being rubbish generally, doesn't disprove this. They were never good enough, in any era!

 

Peak performance is still around 25 years old. This includes the big 3. These guys play an individual sport where there is no hiding or resting. Modern practices can get you near that peak till 30, but even the best start breaking down after that if isolated the same way.

It will always be harder for a tennis player to have the same type of success at say 30-35 due to that individual sport aspect.

 

Yet another poster who believes that the big 3 are 'freaks of nature'. Nay, they aren't. They have only benefited from advances in medicine and nutrition. Look at Serena, look at Messi, Ronaldo, Usyk and Kipchuge.

Wait for another decade - unless Sincaraz succumb to career threatening injuries, you will see them winning slams in their mid-30s.

And then some new revisionist stories will pop up.

 

Yet another poster who believes that the big 3 are 'freaks of nature'. Nay, they aren't. They have only benefited from advances in medicine and nutrition. Look at Serena, look at Messi, Ronaldo, Usyk and Kipchuge.

Wait for another decade - unless Sincaraz succumb to career threatening injuries, you will see them winning slams in their mid-30s.

And then some new revisionist stories will pop up.

Messi is in MLS. Ronaldo in Saudi. They are past their prime. Usyk is obviously still no.1. Never heard of Kip huge.

I really don’t see mid 30’s guys winning slams becoming the norm in tennis. With the big 3 it required a perfect storm of being GOAT level tennis players, no major injuries and a very poor standard of emerging player.

 

OP is wrong. Sports people winning into their mid to late 30’s is the new norm, across many sports.

Guys like Medvedev and Zverev are not diminishing physically, they have other issues that’s hurting them.

 

Why people on MTF comparing team sports to individual sport?no sub or rest in the middle of the match,let alone teammates saving your choking ass.
Its not complicated

 

I hear people talking about Sinner and Alcaraz needing to win 20 slams.
Lol, tennis is a sport where a player has a very short lifespan! By 27, many are already old(Medvedev Zverev Tsitsipas Roddick even Sampras Nalbandian Safin: all fallen after turning 27), and over 30, the only players in the top 30 are Dimitrov and Djokovic, and both are no longer competitive for a slam.

Not sure those are the best examples - Sampras had health issues, Nalby and Safin never tried hard enough, plus they had ton of injuries too. Tsitsipas is just stupid, Zverev mentally weak (plus diabetes?) and Medvedev's struggles too likely more mental than physical.

 

I dont like when people says X player tries not hard enough, as it depended of them voluntarily to change it and push a button and immediately become a much better version of themselves. At least the tone in how it is often discussed: Lets take for example Kyrgios: oh he just doesnt try hard enough, what "If" he even "cared"?…. Again a lot of those players appear as If they dont care not Because they "do not want" to not care about his profession and biggest souce of income (which is Tennis), but because they find it very hard and nearly impossible to Care, to really try hard, to wake up and be dialed up 100% from the start, be disciplined, focused about keep learning, executing and as consequence improving... It shouldn't treated differently as players who find hard to serve well or have problems at the net or backhand, it should be seen as what it is, a learned skill, a talent and a trained capacity to frustration, pain and discomfort, and its tolerance to go through something isnt naturally for you to pick up or engage to, it is actually VERY hard to be able to focus,be concentrated and disciplined 100% towards specific short ,middle and long term objectives in order to constantly improve, in anything not just Tennis.

 

It depends on the gap between them and others...all of the Big3 declined in their 30´s (Djokovic probably the least), but it was still enough to dominate as no younger prime ATGs showed up until 2024. Barring injury, I expect Sincaraz to be at a pretty good level in their early 30´s at least. But the peak level is now and the next few years.

 

it would be a miracle if Alcaraz and Sinner remained competitive for slams until they're 30.

 

I agree with OP and others.

Yes science, medicine technology etc has created sports men and women playing much longer. But I don’t think it’s good for sport. And it skews expectations and demeans the achievements of players of yore who had only their natural abilities to rely on.

 

If i recall Sampras did say in an interview/book that he was bored around 30 and had lost his passion
Maybe he could have played until 40 if he wanted to

Fed did say after playing against him in an exhibition (maybe Sampras was early 40s) that he could still play at the top level

 

The Big 3 are an "anomaly" and very hard to replicate. However, we are now seeing in sports that longevity is increasing. Tom Brady was winning Super Bowls in his 40s, Messi and C. Ronaldo will become the only players in history to play 6 World Cups next year. And we saw other players aside from the Big 3 play well into their 30s like Isner, Monfils, Gasquet, etc.

 

Again stop with team sports s****.Tom Brady only plays on offence with wall in front of him,and then seets on sidelines when his defence on the field.
Messi ans Ronaldo walking 80% of time doing nothing.

 

With regards to Medvedev and Tsitsipas, this seems like a motivation thing. I don't think they are training as hard as they used to when they were younger. They have been broken down over and over and over again. It stands to reason to think about how Sinner and Alcaraz would have fared if their 2024 selves were transported into 2011. They wouldn't have had the success they had and the question is would it have stopped their momentum? I imagine they would have won a slam here and there and been ready to capitalize in some of the later periods, but those losses would have hurt.

 

Tennis is clearly closer to athletics than to boxing, MMA or weight lifting - in those sports it´s common to peak in your 30´s, but it´s very rare in athletics. Usain Bolt was considered a veteran when he won his last 100m Olympic gold at the age of 29. And he retired the year after. His peak was the age of 22-23 years old. And he´s from the same generation as Nadal or Djokovic, so you can´t say he didn´t have access to "advanced medicine".

 

And even Bolt had a cheat code with all those long legs/strides of his. Alcaraz/Sinner don't have cheat code. Fedal had a cheat code. Their Forehands. Djokovic (no real cheat code just more fortunate than anything due to the rotten 2018-2013 field. I doubt the future gen coming up is a bad as the Med/Zverev/Tstsipas one)

 

People thinking Sinner/Alcaraz will match Big 3 longevity are INSANE. They are the very rare exception to the rule. I bet Sinner/Alcaraz are done in 4 years and we will have a completely new top 2-5 guys. . they're already breaking down physically and they're only 22/24. Not to mention sinner is 6'4 and weighs 98 pounds. Alcaraz's limbs are already starting to take the brunt of his playing styles

for anyone to match Big 3 status requires dominance into your 30's. Not happening with anyone. Not like they did it. If it does happen it definitely won't be 6 feet 12 inch, 64 pound Sinner and Carlos "I have to run 200 miles a day and slide all over to win a tennis match sprained ankles " Alcaraz

 

The Big Three were extraordinary in terms of managing to stay at the top for so long. But it seems fairly clear that many other players of their generation have been able to have extended careers, compared to previous generations.

If you look at the list of Y/E top 20 players from 2014, it was made up mostly of '80s-born players. Even taking the Big Three out of the equation, there are quite a number of players in that list with 20+ year careers (Wawrinka, Cilic, Feli Lopez, RBA, Robredo, Monfils, Fognini). And even the players who had the shortest careers in that list still played for 16 or 17 years (Berdych, Kevin Anderson, Isner). I'm not saying that they didn't decline with age, because it's obvious that they all did, but they still carried on, or are carrying on, with life on the tour.

There are examples of players from earlier eras who also had very long and successful careers (e.g. Rosewall and Connors), but it definitely seems to be have become more common for players to extend their careers in recent times, both 'great' players and 'good' players. It seems likely, at least in part, to be due to advances in sports medicine, although there may be other factors as well (e.g. more financial rewards, easier to travel and have multiple homes and fly families out to tournaments, and group mentality).

Going back to that list of top 20 players from 2014, the three youngest on the list are Nishikori, Raonic and Dimitrov. And I know there's a pitfall in drawing conclusions from too small a data set, but it is interesting that all three have been laid low by injuries. Possibly going forwards, we might see the average length of player careers get shorter again if modern baseline-dominated power tennis is too wearing on the body.

 

Big 3 vultured everything due to the lost 90s gen. All of them are vultures.

 

Sincaraz will prove you wrong