Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
509 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Is it mental? I feel like it has to do alot with mental, other players simply crack under the pressure of facing a big 3 in a final.

They can sometimes have quite long matches sometimes in the SF or QF or so, but in the finals more likely than not they destroy everyone in a 3 set win.

Just look at the stats:


2017 FO: Nadal - Wawrinka 3:0
2017 USO: Nadal - Anderson 3:0
2018 FO: Nadal - Thiem 3:0
2017 WIM: Federer - Cilic 3:0
2018 AO: Federer - Cilic 3:2
2018 WIM: Djokovic - Anderson 3:0
2018 USO: Djokovic - JMDP 3:0

The only anomaly is 2018 AO, but Federer played at quite a low level in that tournament.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,407 Posts
They are better and more experienced than their opponents. They have a significant mental edge in all of these matchups because of their dominant H2H (which they only dominate in the first place because they know how to read these opponents' games and to dismantle them).

Also, if age is a factor, it would actually be beneficial towards Djokovic and Nadal in some of these cases. Anderson and Wawrinka are older than both of them. Cilic and del Potro are only a year younger than Djokovic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,362 Posts
Nadal destroys everyone at RG, Anderson isn’t a great big match player and Cilic was injured at Wimbledon, that can account for 5 of the 6 matches. Today was hardly “destroying”, it took over 3 hours and Djokovic’s base level on slow HC is too good. Of course, the big 3 always manage to conserve energy in early rounds while other players give their all just to reach the final, that’s also a big factor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,173 Posts
The Big 3 are very selfish and want to leave nothing for others. These 3 want it more and more than other players on the tour and have more fire and determination in their bellies than the rest of the players.

On edit: There's nothing wrong in being "very selfish" if that is way to go about it to be the greatest and to leave a legacy in the tennis history.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,531 Posts
The Big 3 are very selfish and want to leave nothing for others. These 3 want it more and more than other players on the tour and have more fire and determination in their bellies than the rest of the players.

On edit: There's nothing wrong in being "very selfish" if that is way to be the greatest and to leave a legacy in the tennis history.
I agree, it's a combination of this along with the fact they're just better players. I think the gulf between them and the players below them was so big that even as they've aged and become less consistent they can still generally beat most of the field.

Plus, if you're a player seeded lower down, the odds are that you have to go through two of them to win anything. You may get past one but two is a Herculean task.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
747 Posts
Why do the big3 keep destroying players in the finals of grand slams at their age?
Why did Tiger Woods win so many tournaments, often decimating the field, and why has he been able to come back to world-class level when everyone thought he was completely shot?

Same reason. Because they're the best at what they do, and they love doing it. It's just an unusual quirk that there are three of them in this generation, and they're so exceptional. It probably won't happen again in our lifetimes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,076 Posts
2017 FO: Nadal - Wawrinka 3:0
2017 USO: Nadal - Anderson 3:0
2018 FO: Nadal - Thiem 3:0
2017 WIM: Federer - Cilic 3:0
2018 AO: Federer - Cilic 3:2
2018 WIM: Djokovic - Anderson 3:0
2018 USO: Djokovic - JMDP 3:0
Because those other players are also their age? Wawrinka and Anderson are actually older than Nadal and Djokovic, while Cilic and DelPo are just one year younger than Djokovic. Thiem is the only one there who is few years younger, and he will still need a bit more time to put it all together.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,229 Posts
Because they find a way to win even when they're playing badly and they are all after the slam record so they can't afford losing any slam as their window of opportunity to equal or cross 20 slams closes which keeps them motivated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,612 Posts
You may like a stress-free Slam Final as a player fan, but it is not a good look for tennis.
Consistently one-sided slam finals are a sign of a true 'weak era' imo. The last 7 slam finals were pretty meh (including AO 18 which went five sets, but two of them were crapjobs by Cilic).
The previous periods with generally boring Slam finals were 2001-03 (excluding Wim 01 and USO 02) and 1996-98 (minus Wim 98), both of which are frequently cited as weak periods without a dominating figure or duo.
The difference is that those featured a vast array of winners, wth only two players winning more than one title: in 96-98, that would be Sampras with 4 and Rafter with 2; in 2001-03, Hewitt and Agassi with 2; whereas, already at 7 slams long, the current period has been again gobbled up by Fedalovic, 3, 2 & 2, and no end looms in sight.
A funny guy on TTW aptly called it the 'Career Inflation Era', and damn isn't that right. Shame this is making fans less willing to appreciate past greats for what they could achieve in the environment of their time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,118 Posts
They are the greatest, simple as that. One day time will defeat them, but who can really tell when that will be? Federer is close to the end im sure, but nothing is certain.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top