View Single Post
  #20  
Old 07-15-2019, 11:36 AM
Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,072
Yeah, the dominance of the Big Three isn't so much that one of them always wins, it's that two of them are in the final, and likely three of them in the semis.

From this, the first Big Three Grand Slam final was the 2006 French Open between Nadal and Federer. Since then there have been 54 Grand Slam finals, featuring 18 individual players.

25 featured Djokovic; 25 Nadal; 24 Federer. 22 featured two of the three. Only two have featured none of them*

Of the remaining 15 players in these finals, Murray has been in 11. This puts him in a tier of his own: Wawrinka has been in 4, Cilic in 3, five others in 2 and six others in only 1.

Of French Open finals not featuring Nadal, the results were Federer beat Soderling, Djokovic beat Murray and Wawrinka beat Djokovic.

Further to the psychological arguments made above, I suspect that there's only so long you can keep entering Grand Slams and finding you are just making up the numbers before you get worn down. I mean, imagine how unbelievably good at tennis Bedych or Tsonga are, for example. They are amazingly, incredibly good. They grew up leaving others in their wake, and dedicating their lives to achieving excellence. And the reward for that is regular quarter finals, semis if they're lucky, losing in a final if they're playing out their skins. How thoroughly must it grind your soul?

*
SPOILER:
Murray/Raonic in Wimbledon 2016, Cilic/Nishikori in US Open 2014, pub quiz fans.