One more thing. I think something similar is occuring in tennis as has been occuring in baseball. In baseball, there's been a huge influence from analytics and deep statistical analysis, which has basically shown that over the course of a season, it is better to try to get on base, hit for power and take walks, even if it means more strikeouts and lower batting averages, and don't steal bases as it does more harm than good. A lot of people, including myself, feel that this has led to a less interesting and diverse game, or "station to station" baseball: get on base, wait to be driven in, but don't be aggressive on the base paths. They call this "three true outcomes": home runs, strikeouts, walks.
I think something similar has happened in tennis, which has led to the loss of diversity and certain subtle skills. They briefly talked about Roger's serve placement, how it stands out as rare and unique in today's game, or the point I mentioned that Becker made about point construction. I think all types of play are still there, but it has simmered down to power, baselining, and attrition, with less finesse, serve and volley, etc.
I'm not sure what the solution is, except that to be a truly elite player you have to be able to do everything. The Big Three can draw upon finesse and less utilized aspects of the game; they can construct points; the younger guys, and second tier types of the past decade, didn't have that full bag of tricks.
But it is interesting to note that in both games, certain developments that have led to some of the best players ever have also diminished the artistry of the sport. Its like the gun over the sword, or the famous scene from Indiana Jones: no matter how impressively beautiful that man's swordsmanship was, all Indie had to do was pull his gun out and shoot him (evidently that scene was improvised by Harrison Ford; he was supposed to grab a sword and fight him hand to hand).