Why I hate the Big 3…

[Jelenafan]

Of course I don’t really hate the big 3 but some things about them in tandem that I consider unfortunate consequences.

1. Way too high expectations going forward. Before them a player winning 3-6 Slams was a great champion, someone with 7+ could be conspired ATG. There were valid reasons (at the time) Pistol Pete was in the conversation for GOAT status, now he’s dismissed as a fake pretender. T’aint true! If Alcaraz ends up with “only” 4-8 slams that achievement could be minimized by some.
2. The “inequalities” magnified by the Big 3
   dominance for such an extended period: by their late 20’s they could afford an entourage with nutritionist/trainer/conditioner/health therapist and even medical staff on call. What other players could afford the overhead of at least 500k a year to give them even more extended professional shelf life?

Anymore?

 

[Nadalfan2013]

I don't hate the "Big 3". I just hate Djokovic and Federer.

 

[Fiero425]

Of course I don’t really hate the Big 3, but some things about them in tandem that I consider unfortunate consequences:

1. Way too high expectations going forward. Before them a player winning 3-6 Slams was a great champion, someone with 7+ could be conspired ATG. There were valid reasons (at the time) Pistol Pete was in the conversation for GOAT status, now he’s dismissed as a fake pretender. T’aint true! If Alcaraz ends up with “only” 4-8 slams that achievement could be minimized by some.
2. The “inequalities” magnified by the Big 3
   dominance for such an extended period: by their late 20’s they could afford an entourage with nutritionist/trainer/conditioner/health therapist and even medical staff on call. What other players could afford the overhead of at least 500k a year to give them even more extended professional shelf life?

Anymore?

I've been saying for years that our expectations have been raised and altered for all time due to the excellence & consistency of the Big 3! After pushing them over a cliff, we think Carlos will fill the void! I think things will go back to normal where no player will even approach 10 major wins! The NG'rs haven't proved that they can even stay on the court more than a month or so w/o breaking down! It's almost automatic to take off the following event if they even make a final! That's so sad after what Fedalovic have done to elevate the game to standrds that can't be met IMO!

 

[Moxie]

Of course I don’t really hate the big 3 but some things about them in tandem that I consider unfortunate consequences.

1. Way too high expectations going forward. Before them a player winning 3-6 Slams was a great champion, someone with 7+ could be conspired ATG. There were valid reasons (at the time) Pistol Pete was in the conversation for GOAT status, now he’s dismissed as a fake pretender. T’aint true! If Alcaraz ends up with “only” 4-8 slams that achievement could be minimized by some.

I know you don't really hate them, but interesting thread.

As to your #1, I don't agree that Pete is being dismissed as a "fake pretender," but I do see that he gets slagged for never having the clay results, even with 14 Majors. As to the other side of it, i.e., going forward, I think you ARE right that there's a danger of seeing anything less that...what? 17 Majors as small potatoes? I have notice in our conversations as to how Alcaraz and some of the promising youngsters might do, to say that you think they might have ATG potential, people automatically think you mean 20+ Majors. The Big 3 definitely inflated expectations way beyond what is reasonable going forward.

2. The “inequalities” magnified by the Big 3
dominance for such an extended period: by their late 20’s they could afford an entourage with nutritionist/trainer/conditioner/health therapist and even medical staff on call. What other players could afford the overhead of at least 500k a year to give them even more extended professional shelf life?

There is definitely a benefit to being a top player. It starts with getting better draws, (which is perfectly fair, and one reason the point system exists.) However, once you've made multi-millions of dollars, you can pay for a huge team and the best medical attention available. This creates an inequity that can't be compensated for. I don't know what you do about that, and I don't think it started with the Big 3.

As to others?

3. Although Fiero claims it was Fedal who demanded this, (not true,) they did end up bringing down the Best of 5 final at the MS 1000s. That's a shame. Who knows if it would have been streamlined eventually, but it was this era that saw an end to it, because of the marquee players dropping out of a subsequent tournament after a long 5-set final on the previous Sunday.

4. The worst of the bitterness and trolling amongst the various factions on the internet. Honestly, I have enjoyed the Fedal Wars and the Fedalovic Wars, for the most part. Certainly on Tennis Frontier, where civil discourse is the norm. But the fan bases have created some trolls, some ugly theories and insinuations, and some rather idiotic cheerleading. But mostly it's good fun.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

There is definitely a benefit to being a top player. It starts with getting better draws, (which is perfectly fair, and one reason the point system exists.) However, once you've made multi-millions of dollars, you can pay for a huge team and the best medical attention available. This creates an inequity that can't be compensated for. I don't know what you do about that, and I don't think it started with the Big 3.

Actually, the nutritionist/trainer/conditioner didn't start until at least the mid-2000s, if not late 2000s. The Big 3 and Serena really benefitted from this. For this reason, I cannot consider Serena the GOAT over Navratilova.

 

[Moxie]

Actually, the nutritionist/trainer/conditioner didn't start until at least the mid-2000s, if not late 2000s. The Big 3 and Serena really benefitted from this. For this reason, I cannot consider Serena the GOAT over Navratilova.

But wasn't it Navratilova that really got the fitness thing started?

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

But wasn't it Navratilova that really got the fitness thing started?

BJK and Navratilova did the best they could with what they had available to them, but it was pretty clear that they didn't have access to the nutrition/conditioning available to Serena. While BJK and Navratilova had 20+ year careers, many of their contemporaries were lucky to play even 10 years. Plus, the fact that Jennifer Capriati was starting to decline in the 1993 season (at age 17) proves that the nutrition/conditioning was still not great as late as the mid-1990s. A person at that age, much less a professional athlete, doesn't start to decline if good nutrition/conditioning was available. In my opinion, Capriati was more talented than Serena, and I feel that Capriati would have been the most dominant player post-Navratilova if she had access to the nutrition/conditioning that Serena had. Heck, Capriati was winning slams (and beating Serena on a frequent basis) with more advanced nutrition/conditioning in the early 2000s. (Capriati in the early 2000s didn't suddenly become more talented, she just had better nutrition/conditioning than as a teenager in the early 1990s. The same could be said with Serena 2009-2015, compared to her earlier years.)

 

[shawnbm]

Anybody equate the rise of the (second) Big 3 (first one being Connors-Borg-McEnroe) with the increasing homogenization of the surfaces and string technology? The grass is definitely not the same and a player who comes to net as little as Novak historically did not win at SW19 (when Nadal one his two he likewise mostly did it from the backcourt). Borg actually served and volleyed far more than most any player today when he won it five straight times. It seems the move from Paris to London is not as jarring as it was in the Seventies through the Nineties, at least to me.

The alternative explanation--naturally, is that the Big 3 of the last twenty years were just flat out that much better than all the rest, particularly the court between the ears. Ockham's Razor would likely mandate this conclusion, but I am prone to muck things up anyway

 

[El Dude]

@Jelenafan , I would add another factor:

The resulting tribalism and endless squabbles between different tribes, and the overwhelming fanboyism/girlism that dominates conversation.

I'm not saying that started--or will end--with the Big Three. But it seems more extreme. I'm definitely looking forward to a shake-up and changing of the guard. Maybe we should go back to having some kind of "legacy forum" so that the main forum stays focused on tennis as it is occurring today, and ongoing Fedalkovic Wars can be ghetto-ized.

 

[tented]

@Jelenafan , I would add another factor:

The resulting tribalism and endless squabbles between different tribes, and the overwhelming fanboyism/girlism that dominates conversation.

I'm not saying that started--or will end--with the Big Three. But it seems more extreme. I'm definitely looking forward to a shake-up and changing of the guard. Maybe we should go back to having some kind of "legacy forum" so that the main forum stays focused on tennis as it is occurring today, and ongoing Fedalkovic Wars can be ghetto-ized.

The out-of-control tribalism began when Federer was sneaking up on Sampras’s records. The Sampras/Federer Wars got so intense on the old tennis.com discussion forum that the admin created a separate forum to discuss retired players, in an attempt to sequester that stuff. Things got worse when Rafa began beating Federer so many times. But yeah, the Big 3 have increased tribalism.

 

[Kieran]

However, once you've made multi-millions of dollars, you can pay for a huge team and the best medical attention available. This creates an inequity that can't be compensated for.

It can be. Players compete to win. It’s Darwinism. They can win multi-millions themselves to compete equally…

 

[Kieran]

Anybody equate the rise of the (second) Big 3 (first one being Connors-Borg-McEnroe) with the increasing homogenization of the surfaces and string technology? The grass is definitely not the same and a player who comes to net as little as Novak historically did not win at SW19 (when Nadal one his two he likewise mostly did it from the backcourt). Borg actually served and volleyed far more than most any player today when he won it five straight times. It seems the move from Paris to London is not as jarring as it was in the Seventies through the Nineties, at least to me.

The alternative explanation--naturally, is that the Big 3 of the last twenty years were just flat out that much better than all the rest, particularly the court between the ears. Ockham's Razor would likely mandate this conclusion, but I am prone to muck things up anyway

I’m often making the case that modern greatness is as much about opportunity as anything else. Sampras grew up with a two handed backhand but jettisoned it to succeed at Wimbledon. He felt that was the choice. And was proven correct because at that stage there were almost separate tours. There were dirtballers who skipped grass. Serve-volleyers who ducked out early on clay.

Now, I don’t think the surfaces are fully homogenised - Rafa has only 2 Wimbledons but 14 RG’s - but your point is right. Increasing homogenisation has given rise to backcourters winning both RG and Wimbledon. Even Federer stayed back a lot on grass. It means there’s less transition needed in style, when you make the switch from clay to grass…