If back in 2018…

[El Dude]

Your statistical/historical analysis is, as always, very sound. I did not realize how good Sinner's season is. And, yes, Alcaraz has already won an impressive number of majors. I agree that those are two compelling reasons to suppose that they will dominate.

But there are also good reasons to suppose they won't (which is the point here).

First, they are only two -- the big three were three, and for a long while there was a fourth very consistent player getting to the semis and finals as well. So for them to repeat the kind of dominance that we got used too is way harder. An occasional loss from one of the big three (or big 3.25) a lot of times still lead to a all big 3.25 final. Now, one occasional loss from Alcaraz or Sinner means another face on the final. And, still, if they are not the #1 and #2 seeds, they might face off in the semis.

So, even if they are as good as the big 3 were, they will still not dominate as much.

Second factor is psychological. The aura of invincibility of the big three, plus (and way more importantly), the relative tranquility in which they played big matches against lower level players is a key factor of their dominance. I do not think that Alcaraz/Sinner reached that level, and maybe they never will. Players enter the court to play them believing they can't win. Players entered the court to play the big 3 to get an autograph and smile in the photo.

Third factor is completely subjective, but I simply do not think they are that good. Yes, they are extremely good, but they do not seem superhuman as the big 3 seemed.

Just to be clear, I am making the point that they won't dominate the way the big three did, not that they won't dominate at all. They did share all the majors this year, but I think this will not be the rule going forward.

Good stuff, mrzz, and I agree with you that they aren't quite as good as the Big Three were and even if they are (or become so), unlikely to be as dominant - especially for as long a time. One characteristic that the Big Three share and pretty much no other great players of the Open Era do, is a late career surge. All three had a dip in their early 30s, and then surged and won more - not just Slams, but big titles. Before then, among ATGs, Andre Agassi had the latest Slam title at age 32 and the latest Slam final at age 35. No other ATG (6+ Slams) even reached a Slam final after their 32nd birthday, unless you go back to Ken Rosewall who reached his last Slam final at age 39.

I've said before that peak Borg and McEnroe--and maybe Lendl, whose peak was about as dominant as anyone's but gets criminally underrated--were about as good as peak Roger, Rafa, and Novak - just different contexts. But what makes the Big Three greater is the total breadth of their careers - namely, their peak greatness coupled with extreme longevity, which was at least partially inspired by each other. To find somewhat comparable players--in terms of similar peaks and career longevity--you have to go back to Laver and Rosewall, and before them, Pancho and Tilden. Those are the only other players in all of tennis history that are in a similar ballpark (or court, ahem).

When it comes to projecting young players, I pretty much have no idea what to expect on the north side of 30. Again, the Big Three were so unusual in that regard, and we don't really know why: Is it because of advanced training techniques that will allow current and future to extend their primes in a similar fashion? Is it because of their shared competition? Or are they just freaks of talent? Or is it some combination of the three? (There's another possible, if hopefully very unlikely, reason that I won't mention). We won't know the answer to these questions for another decade or so - that is, until we see Sinner and Alcaraz in their 30s.

I think all we can reasonably do is look at how great they are now, how we might expect them to improve (if at all) and then estimate how good that might be to previous greats "normal" career primes (say, up until age 28-31ish). Right now I'd suggest that we've seen enough from Alcaraz and Sinner to estimate that they'll be better than the Edberg/Becker/Wilander/Murray class, but how much better remains to be seen. Agassi is in a similar class, but with greater longevity and thus is first in that "tier." Or as I've said, Sinner's 2024 is already better than any season any of those guys had, with the possible exception of Wilander in 1988 and Murray in 2016. Alcaraz is about as good as young Becker was in the late 80s, and there's no reason to think he shouldn't have gotten better, but Boris never really did.

The next tier would be Connors/Lendl/McEnroe/Borg/Sampras in some order. Whether they'll be as good as those guys remains to be seen, but they're likely to be better than the lower tier of ATGs. In terms of likelihood of reaching those tiers, I'd suggest something like:

Edberg/Becker/Wilander/Murray Tier: 90%
Connors/Lendl/McEnroe/Borg/Sampras Tier: 50%+
Big Three Tier: <10%

I say 90% for the lowest tier because something catastrophic would have to occur for them not to earn their place with those guys. If Alcaraz retired today, he'd basically be another Courier. But barring that, he'd have to totally collapse as a player - Sinner too - not to be there. In other words, even if Alcaraz does a Becker and doesn't get any better, he'll win more Slams and easily equal the careers of those four. Sinner's 2024 is so good that he really only needs to eek out another couple Slams and handful of big titles to reach that group, which is highly probable.

I say 50%+ for the next group because it really is unclear, mainly because we don't know if either has peaked (Sinner seems more likely to be as good as he'll ever be, but Alcaraz has a bit of growing room) - and how long they can maintain it. So it might take a few more years to be more certain of how they compare to this group.

Big Three tier is only at <10%, because it is just so unlikely that any player is ever that good again. But, well, new domains of greatness tend to be equalled and even surpassed. Assuming society collapses, some day we'll eventually see someone surpass them, whether now or in 50 years.

 

[the AntiPusher]

In a way I'm reminded a bit of McEnroe vs. Lendl. Mac had the magic, but Lendl was just incredibly effective - especially once he stole the crown from Mac in '85 - and I think, in the end, they were similarly great, if in different ways.

Jannik never wows me with magic like Alcaraz does, so in my analogy he's more Lendl, with Alcaraz being more McEnroe. He's a great player, but it just doesn't have the same fairy dust. I suppose the question is whether or not Alcaraz can be more consistent in summoning the magic. If he is, we might see an inner circle great emerge. But as things stand, both are already on the path to greatness.

But back to the original topic, Tsitsipas looks like he's teetering on the edge of collapse. If he doesn't change course, he'll be done in a few years. But he's got the game to win a Slam; if you look at what he can do on court, I think it is more than Zverev or Medvedev. But his mental game is worse, and I think Zverev has a significantly better chance of winning a Slam. So I'd order them:

Zverev: Maybe 50-50? No way to quantify it, but "50-50" means that he's got the game (and especially serve) to do it. I mean, he's a significantly better player than Cilic, who won a Slam during the height of the Big Four era.

Tsitsipas: Unlikely, unless he has a come to Jesus/ayahuasca moment and really works hard. It isn't impossible, though. Again, I like his overall skillset and game better than Zverev or Medvedev, but he just doesn't seem to want it enough - or perhaps has a particularly bad case of "Millenial entitlement."

FAA: Similar to Tsitsipas, but with more time. But FAA's problem isn't as much a bad attitude as almost...too good of an attitude? He's just so laid back. Actually, he kind of reminds me of Grigor a bit...and maybe will end up with a similar career. Grigor had that one really good year in 2017, when he was 25-26, winning a Masters and the Tour Finals. He's also resurged over the last couple years, but in the end he's sort of like Gasquet with one really good year.

At 24 there's hope FAA and for the other players especially Zverev.. I think Stan was in his late 20s when he won his first slam.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

At 24 there's hope FAA and for the other players especially Zverev.. I think Stan was in his late 20s when he won his first slam.

Zverev? please did you hear what he said to the umpire in his match at Shanghai he blamed the umpires for not letting him win the 2 GS finals he was in? LOL!
, apart from his mental collapses in both the GS finals he was in, his Entitlement Issues still haunt him, there are holes in his game which he refuses to acknowledge, .Also I dont want to hear about his 'wing span' okay

 

[El Dude]

At 24 there's hope FAA and for the other players especially Zverev.. I think Stan was in his late 20s when he won his first slam.

Stan was 28, 30, and 31 when he won his three Slams. But he's a historic anomaly. There have been first-time late Slam winners (Ivanisevic at 29, Gomez and Korda at 30, Gimeno at 34), but no multi-Slam winners like that. Other than Stan, the oldest multi-Slam winner to win his first was Andy Murray at 25.

But yes, there's hope for both - in terms of one Slam (maybe 2, maaaaybe 3). That said, the vast majority of players reach their peak form by about age 24. Actually, ages 24-25 are the most common "absolute peak" - or best years. There are older outliers, but even among those they reached a high level before turning 25. Someone like FAA could have a spike in a couple years, but it probably won't be that much better than he is now.

Interestingly enough, it is often the second tier, non Slam winners who reach their peak a bit later. I think of guys like Ferrer and Berdych. Berdych won his only big title at age 20 in 2005, but it was a bit of an anomaly as his overall best years were 2010-2016 or so (age 24-30). Ferrer seemed like he was entering his peak in 2007 at age 25, but then he slumped for a couple years before rising in 2010 (age 28) and having his best year in 2012 (age 30).

This changes over time, though. In the late 70s to early 2000s, players peaked a lot younger. An extreme--but illustrative--example of this is Andrei Medvedev, who won four Masters titles in 1994-97 at age 19-22, with his last title in 1997 at age 24 and retiring in 2001 at age 27.

 

[Jelenafan]

I think it’s very telling that in a recent court outburst Zverev blamed officials for losing him Slam finals. Who says that aloud in a regular tournament?

It’s an issue clearly in his head and the mental hurdle is fairly daunting. Forget Alcaraz/Sinner, the toughest opponent if he gets to another final will be the guy in the mirror.

 

[Moxie]

I think it’s very telling that in a recent court outburst Zverev blamed officials for losing him Slam finals. Who says that aloud in a regular tournament?

It’s an issue clearly in his head and the mental hurdle is fairly daunting. Forget Alcaraz/Sinner, the toughest opponent if he gets to another final will be the guy in the mirror.

Shocking, right? And, yes, telling. And completely in keep with his (lack of) character, if you ask me.

To go back to your original post, you never mentioned Sinner or Alcaraz. You were just talking about some players we'd have been surprised to find have not won a Major in the past 7 years, and that you think they mostly won't. Sinner and Alcaraz are basically a distraction from that point, IMO, since they are younger, and at least in Alcaraz's case, more talented, and, in the case of both, more disciplined. But that's only the most recent excuse.

I also don't think it matters how many Majors they go on to win, or how long their careers last. The point, I think, is the utter failure of will (and talent, to some extent) by those 2017 up-and-comers you mentioned.

How do we get sort of another "lost generation?" Personally, I'm with you. I don't think Zverev has a Major in him. His sense of entitlement is oversized by his fine by not generational talent. Of all of them, I'm the most surprised he hasn't won a Major. His best shot was v. Thiem at the USO. He had 3 sets to close that deal, and he couldn't. If he's finding retrospective reasons to blame the umpires, or anyone one but himself for his shortcomings in the biggest moments, then he'll never find a solution. Tsitsipas is a variation on that theme. Maybe FAA still has a shot? Shapo proved himself to be too one-note and undisciplined years ago.

 

[Moxie]

Your statistical/historical analysis is, as always, very sound. I did not realize how good Sinner's season is. And, yes, Alcaraz has already won an impressive number of majors. I agree that those are two compelling reasons to suppose that they will dominate.

But there are also good reasons to suppose they won't (which is the point here).

First, they are only two -- the big three were three, and for a long while there was a fourth very consistent player getting to the semis and finals as well. So for them to repeat the kind of dominance that we got used too is way harder. An occasional loss from one of the big three (or big 3.25) a lot of times still led to a all big 3.25 final. Now, one occasional loss from Alcaraz or Sinner means another face on the final. And, still, if they are not the #1 and #2 seeds, they might face off in the semis.

I get your point that with, 3-4 players at the top, and everyone a long way down from there, that offered few options for others to even get to QFs of Majors. However, I would counter that that was rather a long time ago, now, in sports years. Roger is retired, so is Murray, Rafa hasn't won a Major in 2.5 years, and he's retiring, and Novak didn't win one this year.

There has been an opening for the top 10+ players, at least in theory, for several years now. Pretty much only Medvedev has walked through it, until we got Alcaraz and now Sinner. I don't know that anyone is saying that the whole reason these guys are unlikely to win a Major is that there is now an Alcaraz and a Sinner. Their problems reside in the head and the trouser.

So, even if they are as good as the big 3 were, they will still not dominate as much.

I don't think that matters, even if I disagree.

Second factor is psychological. The aura of invincibility of the big three, plus (and way more importantly), the relative tranquility in which they played big matches against lower level players is a key factor of their dominance. I do not think that Alcaraz/Sinner reached that level, and maybe they never will. Players enter the court to play them believing they can win. Players entered the court to play the big 3 to get an autograph and smile in the photo.

Aura is not built in a day or a year. That's a retrospective opinion. I absolutely think that Alcaraz has "aura" potential. @El Dude says he's got stardust. He has.

Third factor is completely subjective, but I simply do not think they are that good. Yes, they are extremely good, but they do not seem superhuman as the big 3 seemed.

Talent is very hard to judge, and combine with other important factors. But I do think that Alcaraz, at least, is a generational talent. He has 4 Majors on 3 surfaces, he's 21, he has room to improve, seems willing to, and has an excellent coach, team and family behind him. And he has the personality of a star. He's the super-nova we didn't expect to see so soon.

Does that mean he'll win 20 Majors? That's a completely different question. Does he seem "super-human?" Not yet. But think what it took even the Big 3 to get to "super-human." Roger didn't even win his first Major until he was almost 22. Up until then he was promising, but also a bit disappointing. Then he began to look unbeatable until Rafa came along. And then Rafa began to look "super-human" only on clay, for a while. Novak won a Major at 20, but not another until 23. Looking "super-human" and creating a "aura" against the field takes time.

But this leads us back to the OP: what about these guys who can't seem to do the hard lift at the Majors? IMO, it's not just the waning years of Fedalovic, or the rise of Sincaraz. The problem lies within themselves.

 

[shawnbm]

^ Very true Moxie and yes--that "locker room advantage" is earned over time and and it took time for FEDALOVIC to earn that--and earn it each one of them did. It is not all talent, although that is a big part, obviously. They worked hard, trained hard, got to be feared by virtue of gutting out matches in addition to destroying top foes. They won majors--and a lot of them. They excelled across all surfaces and came to be seen as the best and at the top of the mountain so everybody came in expecting to see greatness, and they often got it. But even when not playing that great, FEDALOVIC won many matches because of the aura each had rightly earned. I see it Carlitos, and I see it in Sinner. They are both on the cusp and if they have another year like this year, they will have it in all likelihood for a few years to come.

 

[mrzz]

I get your point that with, 3-4 players at the top, and everyone a long way down from there, that offered few options for others to even get to QFs of Majors. However, I would counter that that was rather a long time ago, now, in sports years. Roger is retired, so is Murray, Rafa hasn't won a Major in 2.5 years, and he's retiring, and Novak didn't win one this year.

There has been an opening for the top 10+ players, at least in theory, for several years now. Pretty much only Medvedev has walked through it, until we got Alcaraz and now Sinner. I don't know that anyone is saying that the whole reason these guys are unlikely to win a Major is that there is now an Alcaraz and a Sinner. Their problems reside in the head and the trouser.


I don't think that matters, even if I disagree.

Aura is not built in a day or a year. That's a retrospective opinion. I absolutely think that Alcaraz has "aura" potential. @El Dude says he's got stardust. He has.

Talent is very hard to judge, and combine with other important factors. But I do think that Alcaraz, at least, is a generational talent. He has 4 Majors on 3 surfaces, he's 21, he has room to improve, seems willing to, and has an excellent coach, team and family behind him. And he has the personality of a star. He's the super-nova we didn't expect to see so soon.

Does that mean he'll win 20 Majors? That's a completely different question. Does he seem "super-human?" Not yet. But think what it took even the Big 3 to get to "super-human." Roger didn't even win his first Major until he was almost 22. Up until then he was promising, but also a bit disappointing. Then he began to look unbeatable until Rafa came along. And then Rafa began to look "super-human" only on clay, for a while. Novak won a Major at 20, but not another until 23. Looking "super-human" and creating a "aura" against the field takes time.

But this leads us back to the OP: what about these guys who can't seem to do the hard lift at the Majors? IMO, it's not just the waning years of Fedalovic, or the rise of Sincaraz. The problem lies within themselves.

I am not sure you got my points. Reading the posts before mine, it seemed to me a few posters were implying that Sinner and Alcaraz would be the main reason others would not win majors. That is what I was replying to. I agree that guy's like Tsitsipas will have a hard time winning because of themselves.

You cannot discuss sheer results. Alcaraz has them already. And, I agree, he is smart, dedicated, and has a great coach. Also, he has a long career in front of him. I won't try to dimish his accomplishments.

But there is a difference between great results and greatness -- to begin with the latter is absolutely subjective. I simply do not see that on either Alcaraz nor Sinner.

 

[El Dude]

I am not sure you got my points. Reading the posts before mine, it seemed to me a few posters were implying that Sinner and Alcaraz would be the main reason others would not win majors. That is what I was replying to. I agree that guy's like Tsitsipas will have a hard time winning because of themselves.

You cannot discuss sheer results. Alcaraz has them already. And, I agree, he is smart, dedicated, and has a great coach. Also, he has a long career in front of him. I won't try to dimish his accomplishments.

But there is a difference between great results and greatness -- to begin with the latter is absolutely subjective. I simply do not see that on either Alcaraz nor Sinner.

I think I get your differentiation, but certainly the latter (greatness) is contingent on the former (great results), just with a subjective spin? Perhaps greatness comes from sustained great results? Or are you talking about something a bit more nebulous, like a kind of glamour?

I often notice how the subjective view of a player's greatness doesn't quite match up with their results. Borg is a good example: he is viewed in a mythical way, as if no player was ever better. That may be true, but a handful of players have had as good or better results; his best years weren't really better than, say, Lendl's. But he is viewed as greater by most.

 

[Jelenafan]

I am not sure you got my points. Reading the posts before mine, it seemed to me a few posters were implying that Sinner and Alcaraz would be the main reason others would not win majors. That is what I was replying to. I agree that guy's like Tsitsipas will have a hard time winning because of themselves.

You cannot discuss sheer results. Alcaraz has them already. And, I agree, he is smart, dedicated, and has a great coach. Also, he has a long career in front of him. I won't try to dimish his accomplishments.

But there is a difference between great results and greatness -- to begin with the latter is absolutely subjective. I simply do not see that on either Alcaraz nor Sinner.

Just curious, *if* Alcaraz wins the Austrailan Open in January he will be the youngest player ever at age 21 to have a career Grand Slam plus he already has a Channel double. Would that change your assessment as to his “greatness”?

chronologically he's already accomplished more at 21 than Federer, Nadal or Djokovic did at the same age.

So like El Dude, I’m intrigued as to what is your subjective criteria for “greatness”.

 

[Moxie]

I am not sure you got my points. Reading the posts before mine, it seemed to me a few posters were implying that Sinner and Alcaraz would be the main reason others would not win majors. That is what I was replying to. I agree that guy's like Tsitsipas will have a hard time winning because of themselves.

You cannot discuss sheer results. Alcaraz has them already. And, I agree, he is smart, dedicated, and has a great coach. Also, he has a long career in front of him. I won't try to dimish his accomplishments.

But there is a difference between great results and greatness -- to begin with the latter is absolutely subjective. I simply do not see that on either Alcaraz nor Sinner.

I think I do get your idea, but I have the same questions as @El Dude and @Jelenafan above. You acknowledge that "greatness" is subjective, and I suggest that it requires some time. But with Alcaraz, particularly, he certainly has earmarks of "potential greatness." And not just 4 Majors on 3 surfaces at 21. He also has star-power, a lot of variety in his shots, improv skills and a real "wow" factor. As I have said, I think that our measure of greatness has become skewed in the past 15 years. 4 Majors puts you in the Hall of Fame. We don't know the future, however. So, much of what Alcaraz can still do is hopefully yet to be seen. I don't think we can decide in 2-3 years how "great" a player is, no matter how amazing the results, to date.

I think I get your differentiation, but certainly the latter (greatness) is contingent on the former (great results), just with a subjective spin? Perhaps greatness comes from sustained great results? Or are you talking about something a bit more nebulous, like a kind of glamour?

I often notice how the subjective view of a player's greatness doesn't quite match up with their results. Borg is a good example: he is viewed in a mythical way, as if no player was ever better. That may be true, but a handful of players have had as good or better results; his best years weren't really better than, say, Lendl's. But he is viewed as greater by most.

As always, Borg is a good example, and an anomalous example of many things. Also, you mentioned Lendl, who we were just talking about, with his good results, but commensurate lack of appeal. Borg burned white hot, changed the game, in more than a few ways, not least of which was becoming its first, I would argue, superstar, and left us wanting more, with a lot of what-ifs, when he walked away at 26. 11 Majors is nothing to sneeze at, but his legacy can seem even outsized to his results, though I would not quibble with his greatness in stature. But he tends to illustrate how subjective "greatness" can be. Judging by posters here, he brought a lot of us oldsters to tennis. That is not a small thing.