El Dude
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,110
- Reactions
- 7,184
- Points
- 113
I like the gist of what you say here, but think you ignore a primary factor that made the Big Three so great: their dedication and focus. I think court homogenization--and other factors--helped, but more than anything, they were just so damn tenacious and wouldn't let go (and didn't lose interest).I have to agree that overall the men's tour has always been top-heavy; the top 4 or 5, then all the rest! What made them vulnerable in the past was court surface specialists & the difference each event made it's own! Homogenizing the courts just made it easier for the past Big 3 of Fedalovic to dominate like no other trio in tennis history! We have some very good talent below you listed above in Draper, Rune, & Fonseca, adding Menšík, Shelton, then a few others, but they'll probably never dominate; m/b just convert an upset here and there! Alcaraz is still vulnerable to upset, probably b/c he's over-talented & shows out to his detriment, exercising his need to make a highlight reel! How he loses to someone like Cam Norrie I'll never understand, but it still happens to this day! Sinner will have issues w/ his own health; so spindly, you just need to keep him on the court for a while! Conditioning can't make up for him being so wispily thin!![]()
But my point is that the number at the top fluctuates. What people are remarking on, and even lamenting a bit, is that after Sincaraz (and Novak), it is a huge drop-off. There's no Andy, not even a Wawrinka or Del Potro. Zverev and Medvedev were sort of those guys, as was Thiem for a hot moment. But no real disruptors. And even guys like Ferrer, Tsonga, and Berdych would occasionally take out one of the Big Three in a Slam...can we really imagine Ruud, Fritz, or Musetti doing the same of Sincaraz?





