Your predictions for final Big 3 slam tally

[Nadalfan2013]

What are your predictions for the final slam tally for the Big 3?

I actually think that this USO will be a turning point and that things will stop at 22-21-20.

The younger generation Alcaraz, Sinner, Tiafoe, Kyrgios, Ruud, and many more, are finally coming into their own and Nadal/Djokovic next year will lose that extra something due to age...

Nadal is getting injured too much and has a baby on the way. Meanwhile Djokovic is just a shadow of his former self, I wasn't impressed by his level at WB and it took many chokes by his opponents once they led him, as well as the Russian ban (medvedev, rublev...), the Covid withdrawals (Berrettini, Cilic...), Nadal injured, in order to win that trophy.

Sure they will still reach QF, SF, etc. but they won't win. It will remain 22-21-20 and it's ironic that it's similar to the women's 24-23-22.

 

[Hailz]

I can see Rafa winning at the FO still maybe one other time and maybe Novak winning at Wimbledon one more time. Roger is not winning another Slam unfortunately. So if that happens it will end 23-22-20.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

I can see Rafa winning at the FO still maybe one other time and maybe Novak winning at Wimbledon one more time. Roger is not winning another Slam unfortunately. So if that happens it will end 23-22-20.

I’m currently watching Alcaraz vs Sinner and I watched Tiafoe earlier and 2023 will be too late for the big 3 to add more slams. The youngsters have improved a lot and the aging Nadal/Djokovic won’t be able to stop them at this point.

 

[Moxie]

I can see Rafa winning at the FO still maybe one other time and maybe Novak winning at Wimbledon one more time. Roger is not winning another Slam unfortunately. So if that happens it will end 23-22-20.

Reasonable prediction. With Alcaraz winning the USO, and Ruud, Tiafoe and even KK making good showings, it starts to look like the Big 3 are running out of airstrip. It does have to happen sometime. I do agree that Roger is done. Now we're just hoping he'll make whatever he can out of his goodbye tour. So far, no telling if Novak will get entry into Australia, but also given the enlivened competition, he doesn't look the shoe-in that he has been there. If Nadal protects for his RG, he might get one more. He's still the surest bet in sports there. Maybe Novak defends Wimbledon next year. But the longer we go into their geriatric ages, and the more the youngsters progress, the fewer options Nadal and Djokovic have. It's not far-fetched to say one more each.

 

[Fiero425]

I agree with those. The one that I have always thought will never be surpassed is the consecutive four and a half years at number one. That one is pretty amazing. Also, the win streak on grass. But surely El Dude will have some good ones.

Roger will have to be satisfied with those longevity & consistency records while Nadovic will hold their heads up a little higher with the more meaningful records of total weeks @ #1, Masters 1000 wins, 2 CGS, Nole-Slam, & 7 YE #1's! There are a bunch of other records, but they all belong to Novak!

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, things can get old fast, and that especially applies to sports people. One day they’re strutting, next day their search engines reveal extensive research into the costs and benefits of Zimmer frames.

Rafa is further along on this than Novak, and he’s been far more impeded by injuries than both of the other two, combined. Leaning aside occasions when he couldn’t actually finish a match in a slam, or withdrew injured before a match, he’s missed double figures number of slams, which obviously impacted his total, given that he’s winning them at a rate of one in every three played.

He can appear fit but his body is under serious stress all the time, his rigid nervous energy not helping, and he’s spending a lot of time in recovery. I’m not going to be surprised if Rafa is gone from the game before Christmas, but if he travels to Australia, I’d give him a great chance there.

Novak has had it relatively handy with regards to injuries, and should play at least another two years. Roger is unfortunately gone. But the youngsters we have now, like Carlos and Jannik, are capable at the top level. They’re tough, and they have complete games. They seem both ready and determined to succeed in slams. Others like Felix need to grow a pair fast, if they’re going to be a factor, but I wouldn’t write them off. I’d write off Tsitsipas and Zverev without hesitation. Medvedev will be a factor next year, more so than this. So even if Novak is fit, winning more slams isn’t easy. I think the big 3 will finish with 23, 21 or 22 (Novak) and 20 for Roger.

I would still consider them all to be equally great…

 

[El Dude]

@Kieran , the problem with hypothesizing about a "healthy Rafa" Slam count is that his wins are the result of his style of play, which involves him going all-out and making him injury prone. Meaning, a healthier Rafa would have been a lesser Rafa - one that didn't play as hard as he did, because you probably can't play that way and not get injured.

The point being, I think we have to accept his total oeuvre of work as who he is - which is amazing. I mean, sure, if we imagine a healthier Rafa could still play all-out year after year without major injury, we can hypothesize 25+ Slams. But then we could also imagine a Roger with a bit more mental stiffness in key moments and without the nagging injuries of his 30s, or a Novak without the downturn in 2016 and Novaxgate, and they're both there with him.

As for the question of the thread, I think the question for Rafa will be answered at AO and RG next year. If he hasn't won one of those, I think he's done. If he wins AO, he could also win RG, and then I think he'd probably be done and ready to focus on life after tennis (dirty diapers and all, though I'm assuming he has a nanny for such lowly endeavors). So 0-2, with the over/under being 1 more.

For Novak, as Kieran said, he can probably play at a high level for another couple years, so I expect anywhere from 1-4 more. Over/under of 2 or 2.5. But he might not be satisfied with a tie with Rafa, so I could see him sticking around until he gets to +1, or at least does his best to get there. So how about this: Novak 24, Rafa 23, Roger 20. Or maybe 23, 22, 20. The Olympians surpass the Titan, but the Titan is singular in that he brought fire to humanity.

 

[El Dude]

2023 will be interesting, because I could see one of two narratives develop.

Narrative One: Revenge of the Big Two. With Roger gone, Rafa and Novak feel the weight of time's passing and go all in. Novak reclaims AO, Rafa wins RG. Novak storms back and takes Wimbledon, but it is grueling. Rafa gives it another go at USO, but is vanquished by a young pup, same with Novak. Year ends with both tied at 23, and winning 3 of 4 together. In 2024, Rafa loses at RG and decides to call it quits. Novak pulls out one more, and then loses the fire after Rafa is out and he's got his +1. 24, 23.

Narrative Two: Rise of the Younglings. Rafa and Novak find that the tour is more hostile to their presence, and end up being vanquished again and again. Novak manages to win one, but it isn't easy. But Rafa decides to move on to greener pastures and hangs up his racket. The year ends with them tied at 22. After spending the offseason in a Hyper-dimensional Nirvana Chamber orbiting the earth, Novak returns in 2024, wins the AO and retires at the ceremony finishing with 23. The younglings take over fully and the Era of Alcaraz begins in earnest (Or Alcarzinner?).

Possible Third Narrative: The Old Guys Refuse to Budge. Take Narrative Two, but after Novak retires at 2024 AO, Nadal makes a surprise comeback and plays--and amazingly wins--RG, tying Novak's "final" tally at 24. Novak says, "WTF?" And makes a comeback, trying to get that +1...With the help of advanced nano-technology, psilocybin micro-dosing, and blood boys aplenty, they play leap-frog for the next decade, winning a Slam a year each, until the asteroid strikes in 2033, during the RG final when they're tied at 32 Slams each, and tied in the 5th set...And then we all argue in the afterlife for eternity about who was going to win...

 

[Kieran]

@Kieran , the problem with hypothesizing about a "healthy Rafa" Slam count is that his wins are the result of his style of play, which involves him going all-out and making him injury prone. Meaning, a healthier Rafa would have been a lesser Rafa - one that didn't play as hard as he did, because you probably can't play that way and not get injured.

The point being, I think we have to accept his total oeuvre of work as who he is - which is amazing. I mean, sure, if we imagine a healthier Rafa could still play all-out year after year without major injury, we can hypothesize 25+ Slams. But then we could also imagine a Roger with a bit more mental stiffness in key moments and without the nagging injuries of his 30s, or a Novak without the downturn in 2016 and Novaxgate, and they're both there with him.

Well, much as I sympathise with Novak for missing the USO, but have no sympathy for him missing the Australian Open, it’s not the same as missing slams through injury. Roger hasn't really been too mentally stiff, but I think his style of play isn’t suited to the resilient back wall method of Rafa or Novak, when it comes to grinding out results. Players like Rafa and Novak can fall back on superior retrieval skills but lads like Roger, and Pete and others with a more attack minded game tend to suffer more when that game is off. Their defence isn’t such that they can grit their teeth and stay in the match, even when their A-game is off. Not in the same way Great back court hustlers and hasslers can. By the way, this is what’s so exciting about Carlos - his retrieval skills are exceptional but so are his aggressive instincts in attacking the forecourt.

Roger is unfortunate in that he’s already being written off and mocked by some tennis fans - not here on this forum, but in social media a lot - as being someone third rate because he’s been surpassed by Rafa and Novak in Slam numbers. Some so-called fans really have a “what have you done for me recently” attitude, don’t they?

As for the question of the thread, I think the question for Rafa will be answered at AO and RG next year. If he hasn't won one of those, I think he's done. If he wins AO, he could also win RG, and then I think he'd probably be done and ready to focus on life after tennis (dirty diapers and all, though I'm assuming he has a nanny for such lowly endeavors). So 0-2, with the over/under being 1 more.

I think so too. Rafa had a great chance at Wimbledon this year, but the predictable happened. He’s unlikely to do as well next year, but youngsters pushing even further into the territory. And the US Open next test seems so far away for a man his age, it’s far fetched to think of him winning it.

For Novak, as Kieran said, he can probably play at a high level for another couple years, so I expect anywhere from 1-4 more. Over/under of 2 or 2.5. But he might not be satisfied with a tie with Rafa, so I could see him sticking around until he gets to +1, or at least does his best to get there. So how about this: Novak 24, Rafa 23, Roger 20. Or maybe 23, 22, 20. The Olympians surpass the Titan, but the Titan is singular in that he brought fire to humanity.

But Pete brought fire to the fire-bringer..

 

[Kieran]

2023 will be interesting, because I could see one of two narratives develop.

Narrative One: Revenge of the Big Two. With Roger gone, Rafa and Novak feel the weight of time's passing and go all in. Novak reclaims AO, Rafa wins RG. Novak storms back and takes Wimbledon, but it is grueling. Rafa gives it another go at USO, but is vanquished by a young pup, same with Novak. Year ends with both tied at 23, and winning 3 of 4 together. In 2024, Rafa loses at RG and decides to call it quits. Novak pulls out one more, and then loses the fire after Rafa is out and he's got his +1. 24, 23.

Narrative Two: Rise of the Younglings. Rafa and Novak find that the tour is more hostile to their presence, and end up being vanquished again and again. Novak manages to win one, but it isn't easy. But Rafa decides to move on to greener pastures and hangs up his racket. The year ends with them tied at 22. After spending the offseason in a Hyper-dimensional Nirvana Chamber orbiting the earth, Novak returns in 2024, wins the AO and retires at the ceremony finishing with 23. The younglings take over fully and the Era of Alcaraz begins in earnest (Or Alcarzinner?).

Narrative 2A - Carlos really gets going and takes Australia, Paris and New York, somebody else takes Wimbledon, and the old guys struggle everywhere.

Possible Third Narrative: The Old Guys Refuse to Budge. Take Narrative Two, but after Novak retires at 2024 AO, Nadal makes a surprise comeback and plays--and amazingly wins--RG, tying Novak's "final" tally at 24. Novak says, "WTF?" And makes a comeback, trying to get that +1...With the help of advanced nano-technology, psilocybin micro-dosing, and blood boys aplenty, they play leap-frog for the next decade, winning a Slam a year each, until the asteroid strikes in 2033, during the RG final when they're tied at 32 Slams each, and tied in the 5th set...And then we all argue in the afterlife for eternity about who was going to win...

 

[TheSicilian]

Narrative 2A - Carlos really gets going and takes Australia, Paris and New York, somebody else takes Wimbledon, and the old guys struggle everywhere.

Carlos will do the calendar slam probably within 5 years I think. Apart from Sinner once Rafa & Novak retire he doesn't really have any stiff opposition?

 

[El Dude]

@Kieran, yeah, narrative 2A is possible - or 2B, with Sinner meeting him and them dominating together, with other characters joining the fray at times, and the Big Three retreating into the Halls of Legend.

I do think that 2023 will be Rafa's last hurrah, meaning the last year that he goes in planning to play a "full" season (that is, full for Rafa). Maybe he sticks around and tries to win 2024 RG, while I can see Novak sticking around as Elder Statesman for awhile longer, especially if he's behind Rafa in the Slam count.

Anyhow, what you describe about re: fans writing Roger off is a variation on "Slam Absolutism," which is a symptom of shallow understanding of the history and nature of the game. The context of the game shifts, and especially once you get to where those three are at, having the lead is more bragging rights than anything else.

I think in the end, the best way to look at the Big Three is as a trinity of players who took the game to a new level - each alone in their own unique way, but also together, as three guys who surpassed everyone who came before (with the possible exception of Rod Laver...I'm still not ready to let go of the notion that he deserves to be part of the GOAT Quartet).

As far as career records are concerned, they all have different flavors that set them apart, but Novak remains the guy who can put together the shiniest career, especially if he can meet or surpass Rafa's Slam count and finished first (or tied) in Slams and his 373 weeks at #1, plus all the other stuff.

But even then, we can't simply look at raw totals and ignore everything else - the changing nature of the game, the context the titles were won within, the dominance, the brilliance on court, and the stories. In the end, even if Novak's career record ends up being shiniest, he will be at most "first among equals." His light will never outshine Rafa's dominance on clay and unequaled competitiveness, nor will it outshine Roger's brilliance and peak dominance.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Carlos will do the calendar slam probably within 5 years I think. Apart from Sinner once Rafa & Novak retire he doesn't really have any stiff opposition?

I still think Carlos has to improve on grass, at present his game suits HC, as we all thought earlier in the year, his first GS title would be on the HC, in saying that he has time on his side to improve on grass, he does have the game to be good on grass

 

[Kieran]

Carlos will do the calendar slam probably within 5 years I think. Apart from Sinner once Rafa & Novak retire he doesn't really have any stiff opposition?

This isn’t impossible. And if he retires on only 8 or 10 slams, but with the CYS, he’s on a par with any of the greats…

 

[El Dude]

Carlos will do the calendar slam probably within 5 years I think. Apart from Sinner once Rafa & Novak retire he doesn't really have any stiff opposition?

There are too many unknown factors to get too far ahead of ourselves. I mean on one hand we can look at what Alcaraz has done and dream of someone who could eventually surpass even the Big Three, but that's assuming that literally nothing changes from the current context of the game and Alcaraz has the steadiness and champion's mentality--and health--to not only get better, but maintain a high level of dominance for the next 10-15 years.

We don't know who might step up, either among the current young players, or a 15-year old kid currently on the Juniors tour, who emerges in a few years and curtails Alcaraz's dominance. We don't know how Carlos will handle being on top, or if he has the physical and mental fortitude to put together the sustained dominance required to be one of the inner circle greats (and that's really the key difference between the inner circle greats and mere mortal ATGs and everyone else: sustained dominance, year after year, and over a decade and more. It is what separates Sampras from McEnroe, and the Big Three from everyone else).

I'd like to think he can, and I for one see someone who will at least end up with a better career than "second tier greats" like Edberg and Becker. But then we can look to history - at Becker, for instance - and remind ourselves that things never unfold in the way that you expect them to. If you look at Becker at the end of 1986, he's a guy who won two Slams before his 19th birthday and looked to be set to dominate for years to come. But he didn't win another Slam for three years, and while he had a great career and is a true ATG, he's in a lower tier than what could have been dreamt of in 1985-86. But the time 1989 Slam season finished, he was 21 years old yet had already won two-thirds of his total career Slam count.

On the other hand, we can look at the Big Three and see something even more unexpected. By the end of 2016, who actually thought Roger Federer would win #18 (let alone 19 and 20)? Many people thought Rafa was done in 2015, and again in 2020. Before 2011, Novak looked destined for being the perennial third wheel, and then looked like he was winding down in 2017, but then came back and won 9 Slams in his 30s - more total Slams than all but just a few guys won in their entire careers.

Madness, I tell you!

 

[Kieran]

@Kieran, yeah, narrative 2A is possible - or 2B, with Sinner meeting him and them dominating together, with other characters joining the fray at times, and the Big Three retreating into the Halls of Legend.

I do think that 2023 will be Rafa's last hurrah, meaning the last year that he goes in planning to play a "full" season (that is, full for Rafa). Maybe he sticks around and tries to win 2024 RG, while I can see Novak sticking around as Elder Statesman for awhile longer, especially if he's behind Rafa in the Slam count.

I’m actually thinking Rafa’s going this year. Certainly, had he won Wimbledon or the USO, I think he’d retire. He’s said in the past he didn’t want to start a family while he’s still touring as a pro, and soon as he got home from Australia, he hopped on the missus, basically.

Anyhow, what you describe about re: fans writing Roger off is a variation on "Slam Absolutism," which is a symptom of shallow understanding of the history and nature of the game. The context of the game shifts, and especially once you get to where those three are at, having the lead is more bragging rights than anything else.


I think in the end, the best way to look at the Big Three is as a trinity of players who took the game to a new level - each alone in their own unique way, but also together, as three guys who surpassed everyone who came before (with the possible exception of Rod Laver...I'm still not ready to let go of the notion that he deserves to be part of the GOAT Quartet).

As far as career records are concerned, they all have different flavors that set them apart, but Novak remains the guy who can put together the shiniest career, especially if he can meet or surpass Rafa's Slam count and finished first (or tied) in Slams and his 373 weeks at #1, plus all the other stuff.

But even then, we can't simply look at raw totals and ignore everything else - the changing nature of the game, the context the titles were won within, the dominance, the brilliance on court, and the stories. In the end, even if Novak's career record ends up being shiniest, he will be at most "first among equals." His light will never outshine Rafa's dominance on clay and unequaled competitiveness, nor will it outshine Roger's brilliance and peak dominance.

I don’t separate the Big 3 - they’re one modern entity, or phenomenon, to me. And I think of Borg and Sampras as being as great as anyone, just they played at a different time. But looking at players from the past - and particularly the distant past, where the player also won as an amateur, it gets too messy to agree a criteria on greatness. For Sampras, winning MS titles wasn’t a big deal, but nowadays fans count up every little thing, which is proper for todays game maybe, but can’t be used as a criteria for all time greatness…

 

[El Dude]

This isn’t impossible. And if he retires on only 8 or 10 slams, but with the CYS, he’s on a par with any of the greats…

Or at least the "mortal greats." As I said in my post above to the TheSicilian, I think what sets the Big Three apart from everyone else is sustained dominance - and not merely the dominance of a Sampras over a decade, or of Borg and Mac over the better part of a decade, but an ever-returning to dominance over 15+ years.

All signs point to Alcaraz becoming a truly great player - if he doesn't end up with the requisite 5-6 Slams to earn the appellation "ATG," then something unexpected occurred. But to get to that next tier, of 9+ Slams, is another matter. And even then, there's the huge hurdle of what the Big Three have done and no one else has, at least during the Open Era.

 

[El Dude]

I’m actually thinking Rafa’s going this year. Certainly, had he won Wimbledon or the USO, I think he’d retire. He’s said in the past he didn’t want to start a family while he’s still touring as a pro, and soon as he got home from Australia, he hopped on the missus, basically.

I think he's going to at least give it a shot at AO and RG, then reconsider then. It would be nice to see a storybook ending and him win RG, then announce his retirement while holding that trophy (and perhaps showing it to his baby, who will be screaming in terror).

I don’t separate the Big 3 - they’re one modern entity, or phenomenon, to me. And I think of Borg and Sampras as being as great as anyone, just they played at a different time. But looking at players from the past - and particularly the distant past, where the player also won as an amateur, it gets too messy to agree a criteria on greatness. For Sampras, winning MS titles wasn’t a big deal, but nowadays fans count up every little thing, which is proper for todays game maybe, but can’t be used as a criteria for all time greatness…

Yeah, I hear you. Certainly Borg and Sampras - not to mention Laver - were as great as they come. But again, the Big Three one-upped them by saying, "OK, we're going to match your greatness, but then we're going to sustain it, or come back to it at ages when you were long gone or in your tennis dotage."

But we also can't ignore their perhaps dirty little secret, that they had access to medical technologies and methods that helped them, that weren't available to even Sampras 20 years ago. This is why context is so important. I mean, maybe in 15 years tennis will legalize nano-bots that repair tissue, and players will maintain peak form into their 40s and beyond (or at least the wealthier ones!).

Looking back now, it seems crazy that Sampras retired at age 31. That was Roger in 2012, Rafa in 2017, Novak in 2018. Now I'm not saying he shouldn't have retired - he was a shadow of his former self, and getting to the level required to win a Slam must have been excruciating, and it is a wonderful story that he was able to eek out that last trophy. But we can also imagine an alternate universe where he took a year off and revived himself, say in 2001, then came back strong for a few years and won a few more Slams, then took half a year off, and won another Slam or two. And of course one of the greatest What Ifs we've all considered: If Borg hadn't retired, or had a mystical experience in Lappland in late 1981 and came back in 1982 reborn, and wielding a metal racquet, no less!

 

[TheSicilian]

I still think Carlos has to improve on grass, at present his game suits HC, as we all thought earlier in the year, his first GS title would be on the HC, in saying that he has time on his side to improve on grass, he does have the game to be good on grass

I think his grass game will be good, he lost to Sinner and Medvedev at Wimbledon the last 2 years. So it's not like he is losing to random low ranked players, he likes to come into the net too which will be a big advantage. Also with the new practice on show courts before the tournament begins rule at Wimbledon the courts are going to play in a way that could really suit him?

 

[Kieran]

I think he's going to at least give it a shot at AO and RG, then reconsider then. It would be nice to see a storybook ending and him win RG, then announce his retirement while holding that trophy (and perhaps showing it to his baby, who will be screaming in terror).


Yeah, I hear you. Certainly Borg and Sampras - not to mention Laver - were as great as they come. But again, the Big Three one-upped them by saying, "OK, we're going to match your greatness, but then we're going to sustain it, or come back to it at ages when you were long gone or in your tennis dotage."

But we also can't ignore their perhaps dirty little secret, that they had access to medical technologies and methods that helped them, that weren't available to even Sampras 20 years ago. This is why context is so important. I mean, maybe in 15 years tennis will legalize nano-bots that repair tissue, and players will maintain peak form into their 40s and beyond (or at least the wealthier ones!).

Looking back now, it seems crazy that Sampras retired at age 31. That was Roger in 2012, Rafa in 2017, Novak in 2018. Now I'm not saying he shouldn't have retired - he was a shadow of his former self, and getting to the level required to win a Slam must have been excruciating, and it is a wonderful story that he was able to eek out that last trophy. But we can also imagine an alternate universe where he took a year off and revived himself, say in 2001, then came back strong for a few years and won a few more Slams, then took half a year off, and won another Slam or two. And of course one of the greatest What Ifs we've all considered: If Borg hadn't retired, or had a mystical experience in Lappland in late 1981 and came back in 1982 reborn, and wielding a metal racquet, no less!

There’s an interesting discussion to be had about chronologies here, in the sense that Borg is a first generation professional, one of those like Connors and Nastase who never experienced the amateur game, but who played under far greater scrutiny and pressure than the sepia-toned champs. It was an unexplored world. They’re were rock stars. They even began to use two-handed backhands, which were so rare in the old days, but suddenly became common. Why? Maybe because players became more aware of the stakes, and developed their defensive games differently? It’s hard to know, because really it was the coaches who developed the players this way, independently of influence from each other. The first generation professionals were rogues, stylistically and in their behaviour. Even Borg, the epitome of the old school gentleman player, was an astounding advance into the future, the ultimate tennis icon visually, who was an iconoclast in terms of technique.

The next generation that came after then brought in power tennis, and a return to serve-volley too, but with important adaptations, and maybe Sampras was the ultimate end point of that culture?

I think you’re right about Pete, had he taken a break it might have helped him, but I also think he suffered from not having a co-great pushing him, a la Big 3. Pete didn’t like sharing space at the top and had he a Rafa chasing him, he might have found the resolve to continue. He certainly perked up in 1999 after Agassi won the French. Pete was so tired after 1998 he skipped the Australian.

The Big 3 are really playing on Pete’s terms, to an extent, if they’re chasing slams in order to prove their greatness. Pete was the first one to prioritise breaking the GS total record held by Emerson. This record meant nothing to Borg, who could easily have surpassed it, had he thought it important…