What is it about these special individuals that allows them to be the best in history AND the maintain these levels for the longest periods of time? Tennis has historically been a sport in which the loftiest of careers begin their downturn when a player reaches their mid- to late-20’s. These players are all well into their 30’s. Besides coincidence, the possibilities that come to my mind are:
Fitness, nutrition and medical science - the advances in these areas allow them to be more efficient with their bodies, cause less internal wear and tear, and facilitate faster recovery from injuries. This would make sense, but I would also consider that all the other players have access to these as well.
Watered down competition- perhaps tennis isn’t played as much by top athletes.
And unfortunately,
Performance enhancing drugs- could these athletes have access to PED’s that are undetectable and unavailable to other players? Could the ATP and WTP be allowing these players to bypass testing? There’s certainly no evidence for either of these types of conspiracies, but the history of professional sports is filled with athletes trying to gain a chemical advantage.
Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are probably three of the top five players of the modern era, but at least some part of their longevity comes down to watered down competetion- none of the younger players now are star material- once these three retire, someone will have to win every slam played, but I see no other current player that is going to finish with five or more slams- the mens game is going to soon be like the womens is now- any one of twenty or so players can win any slam, or just as easily lose in the first round. What player under 25 has done the best against the big 3? I think Kyrgios, who probably will be banned from the sport within two years. Mens ratings are going to plummet when they all retire, but since the current competition is so weak, that may be five or more years for each at least.
Doesn’t that push it back a step? If you say that none of the younger players are star material, then say why none of the younger players are star material. The OP is, in effect, already asking why these three outclass the competition; you are, in effect, restating that by replying that the competition is outclassed by them.
(Especially since, as you apparently grant that Nadal and Federer and Djokovic are probably Top Five if not Top Three, the whole thing gets even weirder. Consider, for example, Andy Murray, who built a Hall Of Fame career in the shadow of N/F/D: in between winning Olympic gold medals, he won multiple Grand Slam titles; you’d maybe expect him to get ranked #1 in the world, and, uh, he did. So — what? He’s not N/F/D tier, but the players you’re on about are a step down from his tier?)
(Wawrinka isn’t in the N/F/D tier either; but the guys you’re on about are a step down from his tier, since he wins Grand Slam title after Grand Slam title after Grand Slam title in an N/F/D context and they don’t? Why? Why aren’t they at least on that guy’s tier? Why aren’t they even second-stringers?)
The Op is an excellent question- what is going on now is unprecedented in the history of mens tennis- every previous decade saw between 12 and 20 different men win slams, in the 2010’s its SIX.
My wag as to the reason- a combination of the three best ever possibly all in their peak simultaneously, coupled with no one else stepping up. A decade or so ago you at least had Roddick and Murray and a couple of others always getting close before losing to the big 3, now you dont even have that.
Theim #4, clay specialist with two clay finals appearances only. Zverev #5, never gotten to a semi in a slam. Tsitsipas 6, only 20 but just lost in the first round at Wimbledon. 7 and 8 are age 30 journeymen with three finals appearances combined. Kyrgios, probably the best raw talent of any of the rest, is a flake. So IMO a bleak future for the mens game.
I think part of the explanation, at least for the lack of American competition, is that the best male American athletes are generally funneled into basketball, football, and a few other sports. Imagine if LeBron James had grown up playing tennis – with his height and athleticism, he could be utterly dominant. Drew Brees beat Andy Roddick as a kid – if he had stuck with tennis instead of football, he might also be an all time great. And many more.
Right… but LeBron James is almost superhumanly athletically talented. He could have John Isner’s serve but move around like Nadal (or close). At least, that’s my hypothesis.
That could well be part of it. Tennis’s heyday as a spectator sport (and, its peak from a participation standpoint) in the U.S. was the 1970s, and into the 1980s. If young athletes aren’t being exposed to tennis the way they used to be, and aren’t seeing tennis as an attractive sport to compete in, fewer will pursue it.
Edit: it’s a little less dire for the U.S. onthe women’s side, where six Americans are in the top 50, and three in the top 20…but two of the six are the Williams sisters, whose days are limited.
If they ban Kyrgios I will never watch tennis again. He’s awesome! Well…when he decides to show up and try. And/or not get ejected from matches…besides those two small things though…
Agree, he is must watch :), and the sport seems to not too much mind his antics because right now its always mainly in a early round match or small tourney where he really acts the ass.
the banning is going to come when he gets to a Wimbledon final, millions watching, and blatantly quits trying.
But yes, when he’s on, probably the best player on the tour besides the big three,and does really well against two of them head to head.
A lot of elite performance is in the mind, and there’s a part of F/N/D/W’s success that is self-sustaining. When you, a supremely talented 20-something at peak physical fitness walk on court to face, say, Djokovic, you’re not just playing Djokovic, you’re playing Djokovic. The guy who’s been winning Grand Slams since you were crying over losing an under-8s match. The player you dreamed of being. The legend. Sure, you’ve got a plan for beating him, you’ve got some notes about when to hit drop shots but as you walk on court you know it’s a long shot. You’re half-expecting to lose.
I recently saw an old interview with Andy Murray, right back when he was a teenager at his first Wimbledon and hadn’t had media training. It went something like:
Interviewer: “So, Andy, welcome to your first Wimbledon. How far are you hoping you’ll get through the tournament?”
Andy Murray: “All the way.”
Itnerviewer, slightly incredulously: “You’re hoping to *win *Wimbledon on your first ever visit?”
Andy Murray, future world No. 1:“Didn’t come here for any other reason.”
That’s the mentality. And yes, at that point there weren’t quite a Big Three, and certainly not like there are now. But if Zverev, Tsipras etc. aren’t coming to the the Majors thinking, “This is my tournament, this is my time, get out of my way you old men” then they’re playing on one leg.
Coco Gauff, the 15-year-old who knocked Venus Williams out of Wimbledon this year and made it through to the fourth round, said much the same thing. If you’re not playing to win, why turn up at all?
Yes, and that attitude brings with it a focus on you and your game, not the opponent and how amazing they are: thisis very interesting from Simona Halep, on the back of her crushing of Serena Williams:
(Italics mine)
Basically, what I’m saying is that beating tennis’s GOATs is easy, and I am wiser and better than all those physically more gifted athletes who don’t have my entirely undemonstrated psychological fortitude.
I wonder, as someone who doesn’t really follow tennis much, Is part of it that not only are there randomly three of the best ever all active at the same time (and have mostly avoided injury), but also one of those three happens to be the absolute best-ever clay-court player, so there’s no chance for a clay-court specialist to sneak in a few wins in France and elsewhere?
Possibly, and I’m not a tennis expert either, but you could probably make the argument that Djokovic and Federer are the second and third best clay court players ever, so absent Nadal they would have picked up most of his French Open wins between them.
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?
*Murray/Raonic in Wimbledon 2016, Cilic/Nishikori in US Open 2014, pub quiz fans.
