Why the big 3 Slam tally might never be matched

They won't be matched. Simply outrageous numbers and I will add the caveat that they've not only survived, but thrived in favourable conditions (not just about court conds, equip etc) but tournament format and structure has meant they've benefitted massively from byes in tournaments when if you add up over the season might save them an additional 8-10 matches per season and the Slam seedings have certainly helped ease them into the tournament. Also more 3 set tournaments than previous years. So they've made hay whilst the sun shines. However, they've had the quality that has matched this period beautifully.

Hard to see how their feat will ever be surpassed. I think once they leave the stage, we'll see a prolonged period of transition after transition.

The other factor to consider is the sheer amount of scarring many generations have taken from these 3. I would imagine many of them came in thinking they could be the one to break the dynasty, but instead ended up on a victim list longer than time and space itself. For anyone else to prosper you'll have to come through in about 10 years time when they're done.

I reckon that there's a lot in what both of you say.  Like BB I am too lazy (or have other things to do) to research it, but we will be able to see if the latter half of BB's theory plays out in the way he suggests in the forthcoming years. 

LK is right to raise slam seedings, which have been highly significant in my view.  The top players have been kept away from anyone in the top 32 for the first two rounds which has enabled them to play themselves into the tournament - this is a huge privilege that was denied to earlier generations.  It has achieved precisely what it was intended to do, namely protect higher ranked players from being beaten on surfaces they did not like by lesser-ranked specialists.  I'm sure that has helped the slam tallies of each Djok/Fed/Nadal.  I welcome the return of 16 seeds.

However, I do not underestimate the ability of sports administrators to engineer similar beneficial circumstances.  Subsequent officials will be dogged with the idea that they are not presenting an audience that possesses an ever-shorting attention span with yet more 'sporting history' being made.  A period of guys who can expect to win up to half-a-dozen slams will be very difficult to sell outside the tennis world who have feasted on the endless superlatives and statistics of Fed/Nadal/Djoko.

Therefore, I say watch future rule changes for a hidden agenda.

3 giants of the sport


we had so many years to enjoy, yet many here spent those years hating...

32 seeds and homogenisation. All three have benefited from the former and Nadal and Djokovic much more so than Federer have benefitted from the latter. They're simply the best at playing the one brand of tennis that is pretty much successful at all the slams.

barrystar wrote:I reckon that there's a lot in what both of you say.  Like BB I am too lazy (or have other things to do) to research it, but we will be able to see if the latter half of BB's theory plays out in the way he suggests in the forthcoming years. 

LK is right to raise slam seedings, which have been highly significant in my view.  The top players have been kept away from anyone in the top 32 for the first two rounds which has enabled them to play themselves into the tournament - this is a huge privilege that was denied to earlier generations.  It has achieved precisely what it was intended to do, namely protect higher ranked players from being beaten on surfaces they did not like by lesser-ranked specialists.  I'm sure that has helped the slam tallies of each Djok/Fed/Nadal.  I welcome the return of 16 seeds.

However, I do not underestimate the ability of sports administrators to engineer similar beneficial circumstances.  Subsequent officials will be dogged with the idea that they are not presenting an audience that possesses an ever-shorting attention span with yet more 'sporting history' being made.  A period of guys who can expect to win up to half-a-dozen slams will be very difficult to sell outside the tennis world who have feasted on the endless superlatives and statistics of Fed/Nadal/Djoko.

Therefore, I say watch future rule changes for a hidden agenda.

Just out of curiosity what rule changes would you anticipate for the future? As like you I welcome the change back to 16 seeds at Slams, but I do feel that does point towards creating that transition type of period. For younger fans they've grown up and dined on Federer, Nadal and Djokovic and not seen a transition as such. I'll be intrigued to see how their interest maintains once the Big 3 depart.

I can only see tournament format or seeding change. Hard to see anything on tech side. Would love to see court speed limits imposed on courts. Would encourage a more multi-surface game for sure.

16 seeds
20 sec auto-buzz shotclock, auto-point deducted
Masters Bo5, so back to back Masters tire the same guy to win both.
Faster courts to make players attack and go to the net a bit more.

@lk - I have no changes in mind, merely the expectation that there may be lobbying for changes designed to 'create interest' in the sport, which often passes for making life easier for more marketable players, which in turn makes life easier for tennis executives.  It is likely to prove more difficult for the ATP to market tournaments to non-committed tennis followers when they involve guys who look like relative pygmies compared to the relative ease selling tournaments in which one or more of the big three is likely to break yet another record.

barrystar wrote:I reckon that there's a lot in what both of you say.  Like BB I am too lazy (or have other things to do) to research it, but we will be able to see if the latter half of BB's theory plays out in the way he suggests in the forthcoming years. 

LK is right to raise slam seedings, which have been highly significant in my view.  The top players have been kept away from anyone in the top 32 for the first two rounds which has enabled them to play themselves into the tournament - this is a huge privilege that was denied to earlier generations.  It has achieved precisely what it was intended to do, namely protect higher ranked players from being beaten on surfaces they did not like by lesser-ranked specialists.  I'm sure that has helped the slam tallies of each Djok/Fed/Nadal.  I welcome the return of 16 seeds.

However, I do not underestimate the ability of sports administrators to engineer similar beneficial circumstances.  Subsequent officials will be dogged with the idea that they are not presenting an audience that possesses an ever-shorting attention span with yet more 'sporting history' being made.  A period of guys who can expect to win up to half-a-dozen slams will be very difficult to sell outside the tennis world who have feasted on the endless superlatives and statistics of Fed/Nadal/Djoko.

Therefore, I say watch future rule changes for a hidden agenda.

I’m not convinced the seedlings change has been all that significant. My immediate thought is that the top guys used to lose to lower ranked players they just didn’t know all that well (or were surface specialists) in the 90s, rather than the guys they knew well in the 17-32 group. Might be just an impression though - haven’t checked the data!

All the surfaces are virtually the same and if we had truly fast, truly grass surfaces then Nadal and Djok would be on 0 Wimb for a start off.

bogbrush wrote:
In the past player became knackered at much earlier ages; they got injuries that couldn't be overcome, or they got worn down and didn't have the medical treatment to delay it. That process applied until fairly recently. This meant that there was a void into which younger players stepped and began winning Slams early. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic enjoyed this opportunity. So, in the past you won Slams from 17 - 29.

I get depressed when I read this! So many years of posting wasted. Tennis players get better older cause they always have! Had we not have the slams messed up in the pre-open era we would also have a bunch of older players with 15 if not 20 slams plus. the fact pros were not playing slams made it look different than it should have been.
The real odd period is the beginning of the open era. The reason is simple, we have young professionals taking the game to different levels thanks to more competition (many more youngsters taking on the game) and then many changes in technology giving them an edge over older players.
Before, in the pre-open era,  a handful of professional were ruling the sport and as mentioned before the average slam winner was 30 or so. Nowadays we have a similar situation. 2 very professional players with years of experience and fitness know-how/guru and a one in a century talent (also professional). Nadal and Djoko made the most of the lack of new technology, helping youngsters pushing the older players out. In fact nadal and Djoko almost pushed and terminated Fed's career earlier had he not had that much talent. Fed luckily managed to adapt new technology and that gave him an extra lease.

Again what we have nowadays a handful of very porfessional players (Murray was one of them to some extend) with the rest of the field still relying too much on tennis skills and talent instead of focusing mainly on fitness.

Whoever will learn this professional route will get as successful as Nadal and Djoko.

Then careers became longer because treatments existed for almost every condition. Nadals' knees get patched up, Federers back is treated, Djokovic's elbow gets fixed. So they carry on their hegemony accumulating enormous numbers. Their window for winning Slams is 17 - 37. 

This would be true if the sport was as physical as in the past but it is 3 times more physical than in the 80s and 90s....so there is more to it than simply recovering better. It is also the fact that the new generation are not pushing them out cause they simply have less experience and less stamina.
We are now in a period without tech change and evolution and this is why success comes later, exactlly like in teh pre-open era. Djoko and Nadal to have learnt the game with luxilon and lighter racquets and that helped them win earlier. No way they could have won slams with smaller and heavier racquets, nat guts and win with on carpets or very fast grass. They were very lucky to be able to time their success with the arrival of new string technology. They were the best of their generation in that department....but that's all. The opp  was there to be taken and would have even won more had Federer not been so skilled.

]size=13]Now young players don't have a void to step into. It looks like they in future will have to wait until their late 20's for their experienced colleagues to pack up. They may have Slam winning careers between 27 - 37.[/size]

That is true! But more likely 27-32...unless of course some new technology comes along and then the will be pushed by younger players who learnt the game with that new technology.

Daniel wrote:All the surfaces are virtually the same and if we had truly fast, truly grass surfaces then Nadal and Djok would be on 0 Wimb for a start off.

Yes though it is not so much the surface the issue, it's the balls. Put smaller balls and you will see the courts play very differently. New strings also helped put much more spin, hence contributed to slowing all the surface and increased consistency.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
In the past player became knackered at much earlier ages; they got injuries that couldn't be overcome, or they got worn down and didn't have the medical treatment to delay it. That process applied until fairly recently. This meant that there was a void into which younger players stepped and began winning Slams early. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic enjoyed this opportunity. So, in the past you won Slams from 17 - 29.

I get depressed when I read this! So many years of posting wasted. Tennis players get better older cause they always have! Had we not have the slams messed up in the pre-open era we would also have a bunch of older players with 15 if not 20 slams plus. the fact pros were not playing slams made it look different than it should have been.
The real odd period is the beginning of the open era. The reason is simple, we have young professionals taking the game to different levels thanks to more competition (many more youngsters taking on the game) and then many changes in technology giving them an edge over older players.
Before, in the pre-open era,  a handful of professional were ruling the sport and as mentioned before the average slam winner was 30 or so. Nowadays we have a similar situation. 2 very professional players with years of experience and fitness know-how/guru and a one in a century talent (also professional). Nadal and Djoko made the most of the lack of new technology, helping youngsters pushing the older players out. In fact nadal and Djoko almost pushed and terminated Fed's career earlier had he not had that much talent. Fed luckily managed to adapt new technology and that gave him an extra lease.

Again what we have nowadays a handful of very porfessional players (Murray was one of them to some extend) with the rest of the field still relying too much on tennis skills and talent instead of focusing mainly on fitness.

Whoever will learn this professional route will get as successful as Nadal and Djoko.

Then careers became longer because treatments existed for almost every condition. Nadals' knees get patched up, Federers back is treated, Djokovic's elbow gets fixed. So they carry on their hegemony accumulating enormous numbers. Their window for winning Slams is 17 - 37. 

This would be true if the sport was as physical as in the past but it is 3 times more physical than in the 80s and 90s....so there is more to it than simply recovering better. It is also the fact that the new generation are not pushing them out cause they simply have less experience and less stamina.
We are now in a period without tech change and evolution and this is why success comes later, exactlly like in teh pre-open era. Djoko and Nadal to have learnt the game with luxilon and lighter racquets and that helped them win earlier. No way they could have won slams with smaller and heavier racquets, nat guts and win with on carpets or very fast grass. They were very lucky to be able to time their success with the arrival of new string technology. They were the best of their generation in that department....but that's all. The opp  was there to be taken and would have even won more had Federer not been so skilled.

]size=13]Now young players don't have a void to step into. It looks like they in future will have to wait until their late 20's for their experienced colleagues to pack up. They may have Slam winning careers between 27 - 37.[/size]

That is true! But more likely 27-32...unless of course some new technology comes along and then the will be pushed by younger players who learnt the game with that new technology.

Ah bless, don't be depressed. The rest of us normally soldier on through loads of your own special brand of nonsense so don't be such a snowflake.

Thanks, though, for endorsing the central tenet of my suggestion - that these guys benefit from having a uniquely long stretch at the top, rising early in careers but overlapping into a period where youth doesn't trump experience.

Shame your ego prevents you from learning.

Players should not be compared across eras. Its too unfair for the past generations.  A lot of non-tennis factors play a huge role in outcome of matches. 

1. Hawk-eye. HE in tennis has been used since 2006. And they impact results in a BIG way in a sport like Tennis where the margins of victory are so so small. I still remember the HW challenge of Nadal calling a ball 'in' by 1 mm when it was clearly out by ball mark. History could be totally different.

2. All TMS moving from bo5 in finals to bo3 even in finals. This allows top players to perform strongly even playing back to back tournaments.

3. Surface alterations to slow. Allowed a lot of returning game and hence youngsters just couldn't topple the older more experienced top players.  

4. Slower bigger fluffy balls. 

5 . The roof of the stadium. It plays a very imp factor. See Wimbledon. Since it came into force, the top seeds who get to play on CC will have their matches finished in time despite rain, wind, darkness. The lower seeds or unseeded player will have their scheduling screwed up if the weather is not favouring.  

Fed was shocked as how the tournament officials allowed play in such darkness in 2008 F. Fed's game was always going to be more affected by low light and so it did.

The roof added in USopen has made it terrible.

So if tennis is not played the way it was back then, then we can't compare the records made in past with whats now.

Tenez wrote:Shame your ego prevents you from learning.

I’d take an excess of ego over a deficit of brains any day.

Apparently it’s going to remain 32 seeds at the slams in 2019.

I don;t think seeding is a big deal anyway....the real problem is "Djokovic". Nadal can be beaten nowadays....but a fit Djoko is the measuring stick, especially since Federer is cooling down.

Djoko will crash now, W and USO too much to swallow, now today he posts some long Believe in your self guru crap blla blla,