- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,273
- Reactions
- 6,014
- Points
- 113
Imagine that Rafa decided to become a fisherman, Roger a chocolatier, and Novak a political activist to reform Yugoslavia (and then became a Balkan spiritual guru). Everything else is exactly the same - same players, same ability level, same injuries (sorry, Robin and Delpo), same mental issues (Safin, Nalbandian, Coria) etc.
Aside from the appearance that the ATP Tour would have extended the weakness of the late 90s to early 00s for another 15+ years, how do you think things would have played out? Would Andy Murray have won 10 Slams? Roddick 5 or more?
The reason I call this ridiculous is because of the "ripple effect": Imagine, for instance, that Alexander Zverev wins Roland Garros in 2019. Everything after that changes - he doesn't have the bug on his shoulder, nor does he have the "Fear of the Three." He could've won five or more Slams since then, in a Big Three-less field. There are countless similar issues. It is just too complex and we just can't know how things would have played out.
But...
It is a fun premise (to me, at least), so let's establish some ground rules.
Now I did do a bit of research. I was interested in finding out who was most negatively impacted by the Big Three at Slams, on the level of pure probabilities. What I did was make a list of every player who lost to one of the Big Three at a Slam QF or later - and from 2003 Wimbledon on, for obvious reasons. I assigned 0.5 for Finals, 0.25 for SF, and 0.125 for QF as shares of Slam title probabilities. Meaning, if you reach the final, your base probability of winning the title is 50% (0.5); if you reach the QF, it is one in eight or 12.5% (0.125). Obviously those aren't hard numbers because of match-ups, psychology, health, etc. But it provides a baseline and tells us who was most impacted.
What I found was both surprising and not - that is, some players were more or less impacted than I would have thought. I found 84 players who lost a match to the Big Three in the QF or later of Slams. The ones with the most "shares" are (rounded to the nearest tenth). I've also included their total losses in QFs or better in parentheses.
6.4 Andy Murray
3.0 Milos Raonic
2.9 Andy Roddick
2.1 Dominic Thiem
2.0 Stan Wawrinka, Daniil Medvedev
1.6 Tomas Berdych, Marin Cilic, Juan Martin Del Potro
1.5 Robin Soderling, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
1.4 Matteo Berrettini
1.3 Stefanos Tsitsipas
1.1 Lleyton Hewitt
1.0 Nikolay Davydenko, Kevin Anderson, Gael Monfils, Casper Ruud
0.9 Fernando Gonzalez, Marcos Baghdatis, Richard Gasquet, Diego Schwartzman
0.8 Andre Agassi, Marin Safin, David Nalbandian, Alexander Zverev
Everyone else is 0.5 or below.
Some players that were less impacted than I thought: Safin, Nalbandian, Coria, and Zverev (more on him in a moment). Coria wasn't impacted at all - he didn't lose any matches at QF+ Slams to Roger or Rafa, so his Slam issues were entirely "pre-Rafa" (losing to Gaudio? Really?).
Now we cannot simply take those numbers and add it to their current totals. But it does give us a probabilistic baseline - and a sense of just how much the Big Three impacted some players. Part of the problem is that they aren't evenly dispersed, chronologically speaking. Adding 3 Slams to Roddick's total seems reasonable, but if you look at the actual draws of the USO and Wimbledon, he could have won twice that.
I was a bit surprised at how low Zverev was. What that points out is that his inability to win a Slam is less about losing to the Big Three, and more about him losing, period. Of course if he had won a Slam earlier on, he could have built the confidence and have won half a dozen by now. Same goes for Tsitsipas - and actually, going back a bit, Nalbandian and Coria.
I also looked at the specific Slams and imagined alternate courses. That yielded some surprises. For instance, there's a solid chance that Marcos Baghdatis would have won not one but TWO Grand Slams in 2006. At the AO, Roger beat Nicolas Kiefer in the SF, so Baghdatis would have probably won it. At Wimbledon where Marcos lost to Rafa in the SF, Rafa beat Jarkko Niemenin in the QF. Jarkko was a big server so probably had the edge over Baghdatis, but Marcos could have won it - then faced Jonas Bjorkman in the final, whom I'd give the edge over.
Some years were particularly tricky to hypothesize about, especially the "white hot core" of the Big Three era around 2011-12. In some of those Slams, the Big Four were the semifinalists at Slams. A hard wall to get through.
My main takeaway, though, is that we'd have seen a lot of different Slam winners, with a handful of guys winning several. In using the probability as a base, then looking at the field, I came up with a rough estimate:
10-12: Murray
5-7: Roddick
4-5: Safin, Hewitt, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Thiem, Medvedev
2-3: Davydenko, Ferrer, Soderling, Tsonga, Berdych, Cilic, Nishikori, Raonic, Zverev, Tsitsipas
At least 1: Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Anderson, Gasquet, Monfils, Dimitrov, Berrettini, Ruud
Meaning, it would've (almost) been the Two Andys Era!
The above looks like a ton of Slams, but consider that the Big Four won 66 Slams; taking the lower number of the above ranges gives us 67 Slams.
It is weird to think of some of those guys winning Slams, let alone multiple Slams. But again, portions of the last 20+ years would be rather weak, so many Slam titles would be wide open.
But more importantly: the greatness of the Big Three has impacted the career accomplishments of more players in an unprecedented way. And really, this is where numerous X factors come into play - like the psychological component. One could imagine an alternate history in which a young Grigor Dimitrov, without the wall of the Big Three, becomes the top player for half a decade.Meaning, it is hard to get a big picture sense of how good the above players could have been, if playing at a different time. I would argue that ALL of the players above were at least as talented as some of the worst Slam winners.
Aside from the appearance that the ATP Tour would have extended the weakness of the late 90s to early 00s for another 15+ years, how do you think things would have played out? Would Andy Murray have won 10 Slams? Roddick 5 or more?
The reason I call this ridiculous is because of the "ripple effect": Imagine, for instance, that Alexander Zverev wins Roland Garros in 2019. Everything after that changes - he doesn't have the bug on his shoulder, nor does he have the "Fear of the Three." He could've won five or more Slams since then, in a Big Three-less field. There are countless similar issues. It is just too complex and we just can't know how things would have played out.
But...
It is a fun premise (to me, at least), so let's establish some ground rules.
- Every other player is the same - same injuries, same talent level, same everything.
- The draws at Slams are also the same - just without the Big Three present.
Now I did do a bit of research. I was interested in finding out who was most negatively impacted by the Big Three at Slams, on the level of pure probabilities. What I did was make a list of every player who lost to one of the Big Three at a Slam QF or later - and from 2003 Wimbledon on, for obvious reasons. I assigned 0.5 for Finals, 0.25 for SF, and 0.125 for QF as shares of Slam title probabilities. Meaning, if you reach the final, your base probability of winning the title is 50% (0.5); if you reach the QF, it is one in eight or 12.5% (0.125). Obviously those aren't hard numbers because of match-ups, psychology, health, etc. But it provides a baseline and tells us who was most impacted.
What I found was both surprising and not - that is, some players were more or less impacted than I would have thought. I found 84 players who lost a match to the Big Three in the QF or later of Slams. The ones with the most "shares" are (rounded to the nearest tenth). I've also included their total losses in QFs or better in parentheses.
6.4 Andy Murray
3.0 Milos Raonic
2.9 Andy Roddick
2.1 Dominic Thiem
2.0 Stan Wawrinka, Daniil Medvedev
1.6 Tomas Berdych, Marin Cilic, Juan Martin Del Potro
1.5 Robin Soderling, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
1.4 Matteo Berrettini
1.3 Stefanos Tsitsipas
1.1 Lleyton Hewitt
1.0 Nikolay Davydenko, Kevin Anderson, Gael Monfils, Casper Ruud
0.9 Fernando Gonzalez, Marcos Baghdatis, Richard Gasquet, Diego Schwartzman
0.8 Andre Agassi, Marin Safin, David Nalbandian, Alexander Zverev
Everyone else is 0.5 or below.
Some players that were less impacted than I thought: Safin, Nalbandian, Coria, and Zverev (more on him in a moment). Coria wasn't impacted at all - he didn't lose any matches at QF+ Slams to Roger or Rafa, so his Slam issues were entirely "pre-Rafa" (losing to Gaudio? Really?).
Now we cannot simply take those numbers and add it to their current totals. But it does give us a probabilistic baseline - and a sense of just how much the Big Three impacted some players. Part of the problem is that they aren't evenly dispersed, chronologically speaking. Adding 3 Slams to Roddick's total seems reasonable, but if you look at the actual draws of the USO and Wimbledon, he could have won twice that.
I was a bit surprised at how low Zverev was. What that points out is that his inability to win a Slam is less about losing to the Big Three, and more about him losing, period. Of course if he had won a Slam earlier on, he could have built the confidence and have won half a dozen by now. Same goes for Tsitsipas - and actually, going back a bit, Nalbandian and Coria.
I also looked at the specific Slams and imagined alternate courses. That yielded some surprises. For instance, there's a solid chance that Marcos Baghdatis would have won not one but TWO Grand Slams in 2006. At the AO, Roger beat Nicolas Kiefer in the SF, so Baghdatis would have probably won it. At Wimbledon where Marcos lost to Rafa in the SF, Rafa beat Jarkko Niemenin in the QF. Jarkko was a big server so probably had the edge over Baghdatis, but Marcos could have won it - then faced Jonas Bjorkman in the final, whom I'd give the edge over.
Some years were particularly tricky to hypothesize about, especially the "white hot core" of the Big Three era around 2011-12. In some of those Slams, the Big Four were the semifinalists at Slams. A hard wall to get through.
My main takeaway, though, is that we'd have seen a lot of different Slam winners, with a handful of guys winning several. In using the probability as a base, then looking at the field, I came up with a rough estimate:
10-12: Murray
5-7: Roddick
4-5: Safin, Hewitt, Wawrinka, Del Potro, Thiem, Medvedev
2-3: Davydenko, Ferrer, Soderling, Tsonga, Berdych, Cilic, Nishikori, Raonic, Zverev, Tsitsipas
At least 1: Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Anderson, Gasquet, Monfils, Dimitrov, Berrettini, Ruud
Meaning, it would've (almost) been the Two Andys Era!
The above looks like a ton of Slams, but consider that the Big Four won 66 Slams; taking the lower number of the above ranges gives us 67 Slams.
It is weird to think of some of those guys winning Slams, let alone multiple Slams. But again, portions of the last 20+ years would be rather weak, so many Slam titles would be wide open.
But more importantly: the greatness of the Big Three has impacted the career accomplishments of more players in an unprecedented way. And really, this is where numerous X factors come into play - like the psychological component. One could imagine an alternate history in which a young Grigor Dimitrov, without the wall of the Big Three, becomes the top player for half a decade.Meaning, it is hard to get a big picture sense of how good the above players could have been, if playing at a different time. I would argue that ALL of the players above were at least as talented as some of the worst Slam winners.
