Top 5 in 2029

[PhiEaglesfan712]

A follow-up to @El Dude's "Top 5 in 2025" thread, let's fast forward another 5 years to the end of the 2020s decade. Who do you think will be the Top 5 players on tour?

At the end of 2029, Djokovic will be 42 and Dmitrov will be 38. Both may even be retired. Top players in their 30s may include Medvedev, Rublev, Zverev, Tsitsipas, and Ruud. Sinner and Alcaraz will be in the back half of their 20s. Arthur Fils will be 25, Jakub Mensik, Juncheng Shang, and Learner Tien will be 24, while Joao Fonseco will be 23.

Bonus Questions: (1) Do we have a Saudi Masters by the end of the 2020s decade?
(2) If yes, when was it first played?
(3) Did Djokovic play in the tournament?

 

[El Dude]

It feels like we're at a point at which this is very hard to predict, because there's a nice cadre of really young guys (like those mentioned in your second paragraph) for whom it is too early to really say how good they'll become. Back in 2020 when we did the other one, there wasn't much - just Sinner, really, and Alcaraz starting to show up. I mean, I'm comfortable saying that Fils and Mensik will be top 10 guys, but top 5? Not so sure. Shang, Tien, and Fonseca...let's see them get into the top 50, then top 20, etc, first. My initial impressions, though, are that Fils, Mensik and Fonseca, at least, have top 5 potential. I'd also add Perricard as deserving of mention, though see him more in the top 10 range. Shelton and Draper probably belong in this category.

Obviously, barring something unforeseen, Alcaraz and Sinner will still be very much in their primes - and probably still dominant. I think the question is whether anyone will emerge to erode their co-hegemony. For that, the top candidate is still Holger Rune. Not sure what else to say about him, but of all the players outside of Sincaraz, he's the guy that's shown the most. I still believe he can be an elite player, but it is probably 50-50 whether he becomes a true elite or more of an erratic second tier guy.

As you said, the Next Genners will all be in their 30s. I don't think we can expect to see anything we haven't seen yet (though I still think Zverev can win a Slam, but if he's going to do it, probably before 2029), so the question rally becomes, who ages well? I have no idea on that. This touches upon a larger question about how well the "slow aging gains" of the Big Three will translate to others. I think it will, but not sure to what degree.

I suppose there's the possibility that one of the current under-25s will take a big leap forward - guys like Musetti, Korda, Auger-Aliassime, Draper, Shelton, etc. But these are darkhorses, at least in terms of the top 5.

Novak will retire before then, or maybe play a very light schedule in 2026-28 and retire after the Olympics. Even if he's still around in 2029, he won't be in the top 5.

Anyhow, maybe I'll revisit this later into next season.

 

[Moxie]

I don't feel like I have a lot of bold predictions for 5 (or 4) years from now. I have a hard time seeing Novak being still in. He has said he's willing and game to play past 40, but I'd like to see how he does this year. If this year is like last year, in terms of Majors, and in terms of besting Sincaraz, I don't think he'll stay in for the 2028 Olympics, only. And now he seems to have the late-career injury issues.

I do hope that Alcaraz and Sinner stay healthy and dominate. They have a great rivalry, and I like both. I would like to see a rival join them, and I'm still hoping for Rune, too. #wildcard. Fonseca? Fils?

Will have to revisit this, as well. I do wonder where some of those guys in their late 20's/early 30's now will be in 5 years.

Oh, and @PhiEaglesfan712: Alcaraz will barely be at the back-half of his 20s in 2029. He's still be 25 at the beginning of the year. Sinner 27. Barring injury, that's a lot of career in front of them, these days.

I hope there's no Saudi masters, but there probably will be. And the pay will be good. Maybe Novak stays for that? For the sake of the foundation, because, seriously, otherwise...why?

 

[El Dude]

I don't know about a Saudi masters, but I do think we're going to see more high value exhibitions, like the 6 Kings Slam. That one had such a high price tag and it was clear players were really trying to win, that it is hard to ignore it in terms of tallying up season accomplishments. It really was kind of similar to the Grand Slam Cup of the 90s, which was almost like a second Tour Finals. I mean, Jannik beat Medvedev, Djokovic and Alcaraz....a lot of the Grand Slam Cups were just three rounds as well (or the old WCT), and those were generally seen as at least Masters equivalent.

 

[mrzz]

In no particular order:

Sinner
Fils
Mensik
Rublev
Rune

 

[El Dude]

In no particular order:

Sinner
Fils
Mensik
Rublev
Rune

"Why you no like me?"

 

[Moxie]

In no particular order:

Sinner
Fils
Mensik
Rublev
Rune

Bold, or random, prediction, but I agree with @El Dude above...what is the thinking to leave off Alcaraz, since he's actually the most talented of all of them? And personally, Rublev looks like a wildcard there. He's got no Plan B, and a wild head. If I were picking a crazy Russian, I'd still go Medvedev. Just curious.

 

[mrzz]

Alcaraz is a fine player, but his game is built around his phisycal capabilities. He does have loads of talent, so he could reinvent himself on case of need, but still he strikes me as a player who will shine brightly, but for a short period of time.

Rublev is slowly evolving as a player. Technically his game is getting better and better. He is currently limited by his mental issues, which he acknowledges and is trying to change. In other words, he is a hard worker. I am simply predicting the hard work will pay off.

 

[El Dude]

Alcaraz is a fine player, but his game is built around his phisycal capabilities. He does have loads of talent, so he could reinvent himself on case of need, but still he strikes me as a player who will shine brightly, but for a short period of time.

Rublev is slowly evolving as a player. Technically his game is getting better and better. He is currently limited by his mental issues, which he acknowledges and is trying to change. In other words, he is a hard worker. I am simply predicting the hard work will pay off.

I hear what you're saying about Alcaraz, but I maintain that the worst outcome is Boris Becker (or thereabouts). Meaning, I can see a possibility that he has a career like Boris, who basically didn't improve from his early peak. Boris won 4 of his 6 Slams before his 22nd birthday in late 1989, which was his best year. And more to the point, the Becker of the early to mid 90s--when he was in his mid-20s--wasn't really a better player than the teenager who won Wimbledon in 1985 and '86.

The other possibility is that his career is more like Rafa's. What we've seen so far from Alcaraz is close to the Rafa of 2005-07, in terms of overall level (if a bit below). Rafa jumped a level in 2008 and had his best seasons in 2010 and 2013. His clay greatness spread, more or less, to all surfaces, and while he was always a very physical player, he wasn't only that.

As for Rublev, I hope you're right. I suspect that one of Next Gen is going to have a late peak, and he's one of a few candidates (I'll add Berrettini and Zverev, with my darkhorse being Tsitsipas...yes, Sissy-pants). That said, while I like Rublev and he's fun to watch, he just doesn't have the overall game of Tsitsipas or Zverev, and I'm not sure he ever will. He's the type of player that could have a crazy run at a Slam, and win one in a similar fashion that Cilic or Ivanisevic did.

 

[Moxie]

I hear what you're saying about Alcaraz, but I maintain that the worst outcome is Boris Becker (or thereabouts). Meaning, I can see a possibility that he has a career like Boris, who basically didn't improve from his early peak. Boris won 4 of his 6 Slams before his 22nd birthday in late 1989, which was his best year. And more to the point, the Becker of the early to mid 90s--when he was in his mid-20s--wasn't really a better player than the teenager who won Wimbledon in 1985 and '86.

The other possibility is that his career is more like Rafa's. What we've seen so far from Alcaraz is close to the Rafa of 2005-07, in terms of overall level (if a bit below). Rafa jumped a level in 2008 and had his best seasons in 2010 and 2013. His clay greatness spread, more or less, to all surfaces, and while he was always a very physical player, he wasn't only that.

As for Rublev, I hope you're right. I suspect that one of Next Gen is going to have a late peak, and he's one of a few candidates (I'll add Berrettini and Zverev, with my darkhorse being Tsitsipas...yes, Sissy-pants). That said, while I like Rublev and he's fun to watch, he just doesn't have the overall game of Tsitsipas or Zverev, and I'm not sure he ever will. He's the type of player that could have a crazy run at a Slam, and win one in a similar fashion that Cilic or Ivanisevic did.

While I don't want to slag @mrzz's predictions, because no one knows the future, it seems early to write-off Alcaraz at what will then be 25-26, even if only from top 5. Firstly, I don't see his game as SO much more based on physicality than most players these days. Secondly, if we're talking about comparing him to a Becker-like career, he has much better guidance than the party-boy that was Becker. And yes, people wrote off Nadal for a long career due to playing style, and he won his last Major at, what 36-37? Alcaraz already has a HOF career, and I will try not to be disappointed if he doesn't hang in and play well for the long slog, but that doesn't mean that I expect him to beat all records. I do think that he has more than a few slams left in him, and a potentially long career.

Rublev is an interesting player, but an odd one to pick as rising to the cream, IMO. Not only is his style limited, he's got a lot of head issues to overcome. I appreciate that he's trying, and I do hope the best for that. But I wouldn't pick him over Alcaraz.

That's just my 2 cents on those specific picks.

I'd like to see Berrettini rise back to his best, and not just because he's pretty. He's another one who has had awful luck with injury and illness.

 

[Moxie]

We distracted this conversation over to the "If in 2019..." thread, so I'm bringing it back here.

@mrzz posted:

"Let's see. One thing I would add is that, as time passes by, the games get more and more physical. With new technologies, the attention to details -- and it's direct impact on what people train -- gets bigger. So the continuous physical and mental stress only gets larger. It won't surprise if top level athletes start quiting at younger ages, specially if they find alternative forms of generating income (publicity contracts, tv/streaming jobs, social media revenue)."
_________________

I find this thinking rather pessimistic about the mindset and motivation of younger players. Certainly, the impetus to train hard, eat well, etc., in order to compete at the highest level is huge, but it has been for a while. I think you're talking about someone like Kyrgios, who never liked tennis much, anyway. Otherwise, you're making them all out to be a bunch of slackers. Surely, some will be. The money is good, and talent finds its own level, and level of motivation. But I have to think that some of them start, and finish, with the love of the game and the competition. For athletes, less than doing what they are best at is a comedown.

Another thing that is hard about tennis is the travel. This is another thing that disincentivized Nick. Roger always loved it, and traveled with his entire family for years, seemingly happily. Some players will drop off for various reasons, I get that. But others will have the model of the Big 3 to keep competing well into their 30s. Only time will tell who sticks it out, given injury and motivation. The top ones DO have records to chase.

 

[mrzz]

We distracted this conversation over to the "If in 2019..." thread, so I'm bringing it back here.

@mrzz posted:

"Let's see. One thing I would add is that, as time passes by, the games get more and more physical. With new technologies, the attention to details -- and it's direct impact on what people train -- gets bigger. So the continuous physical and mental stress only gets larger. It won't surprise if top level athletes start quiting at younger ages, specially if they find alternative forms of generating income (publicity contracts, tv/streaming jobs, social media revenue)."
_________________

I find this thinking rather pessimistic about the mindset and motivation of younger players. Certainly, the impetus to train hard, eat well, etc., in order to compete at the highest level is huge, but it has been for a while. I think you're talking about someone like Kyrgios, who never liked tennis much, anyway. Otherwise, you're making them all out to be a bunch of slackers. Surely, some will be. The money is good, and talent finds its own level, and level of motivation. But I have to think that some of them start, and finish, with the love of the game and the competition. For athletes, less than doing what they are best at is a comedown.

Another thing that is hard about tennis is the travel. This is another thing that disincentivized Nick. Roger always loved it, and traveled with his entire family for years, seemingly happily. Some players will drop off for various reasons, I get that. But others will have the model of the Big 3 to keep competing well into their 30s. Only time will tell who sticks it out, given injury and motivation. The top ones DO have records to chase.

You are missing the point. This is not about motivation of young players. I said it explicitly that the current load of stress, both physical and mental, over players is higher than it was in the past. I could elaborate.

As about Kyrgios, I don't want to get started. I simply don't buy an ounce of that "I don't like tennis" crap. It is simply bull shit. Exactly like when some kid loses a match and say "I did not want to win anyway". Kyrgios is very smart, but sometimes he does have a child's emotional maturity, and this is one of the very obvious cases.

 

[Moxie]

You are missing the point. This is not about motivation of young players. I said it explicitly that the current load of stress, both physical and mental, over players is higher than it was in the past. I could elaborate.

I don't think I've missed your point, I'm simply disagreeing with the extent of it, and the extent to which it will impact a significant number of players. The Big 3 played with new technology equipment and have/had long careers. Yes, technologies continue to develop, etc., and there is always the question of how long can athletes keep getting bigger, stronger, faster, etc., but I don't buy some sort of wholesale collapse across the board. Yes, there will be temptations to drop the rigors of tennis for lucrative side-endeavors, but I still think most would rather play tennis until they can't, and THEN take the side-hustle. Many athletes, including relatively mediocre ones, (by which I mean not just top 10, but top, say 30, will never be as good at anything else as they are at their sport. That, alone, should compel them to keep doing it.

Yes, the new technologies contribute to the injuries, which can derail careers, as we know. And injuries can bring on stress and depression, which we have seen (Del Potro, Thiem, even Nadal.) And then there is the stress of the tour, and training, etc. Not everyone can take it. But more than making them quit, I think it prevents them from being top players. Big 3 handled everything about tennis well, besides being otherworldly-great players. Not everyone can do that, by far. But I just don't see significant drop out due to these factors, if that's what you're proposing.

As about Kyrgios, I don't want to get started. I simply don't buy an ounce of that "I don't like tennis" crap. It is simply bull shit. Exactly like when some kid loses a match and say "I did not want to win anyway". Kyrgios is very smart, but sometimes he does have a child's emotional maturity, and this is one of the very obvious cases.

Again, I disagree with you about Kyrgios. He wanted to play basketball, and his family pushed him into tennis. I think he liked athletics well-enough to enjoy it and enjoy winning, but he definitely is a team sport man. And he hates the traveling, taking him away from family and friends so much of the year, which is particularly hard on folks like the Aussies, who spend a lot of the year really far from home. Call him immature, or just not cut out for it, whatever, but he seems happy to live off of his reputation, the side-hustle, and skip the slog of a tennis professional.

You say he's an obvious case, though, which implies that you think this is what's going to happen more and more?

 

[mrzz]

I don't think I've missed your point, I'm simply disagreeing with the extent of it, and the extent to which it will impact a significant number of players. The Big 3 played with new technology equipment and have/had long careers. Yes, technologies continue to develop, etc., and there is always the question of how long can athletes keep getting bigger, stronger, faster, etc., but I don't buy some sort of wholesale collapse across the board. Yes, there will be temptations to drop the rigors of tennis for lucrative side-endeavors, but I still think most would rather play tennis until they can't, and THEN take the side-hustle. Many athletes, including relatively mediocre ones, (by which I mean not just top 10, but top, say 30, will never be as good at anything else as they are at their sport. That, alone, should compel them to keep doing it.

Yes, the new technologies contribute to the injuries, which can derail careers, as we know. And injuries can bring on stress and depression, which we have seen (Del Potro, Thiem, even Nadal.) And then there is the stress of the tour, and training, etc. Not everyone can take it. But more than making them quit, I think it prevents them from being top players. Big 3 handled everything about tennis well, besides being otherworldly-great players. Not everyone can do that, by far. But I just don't see significant drop out due to these factors, if that's what you're proposing.

Again, I disagree with you about Kyrgios. He wanted to play basketball, and his family pushed him into tennis. I think he liked athletics well-enough to enjoy it and enjoy winning, but he definitely is a team sport man. And he hates the traveling, taking him away from family and friends so much of the year, which is particularly hard on folks like the Aussies, who spend a lot of the year really far from home. Call him immature, or just not cut out for it, whatever, but he seems happy to live off of his reputation, the side-hustle, and skip the slog of a tennis professional.

You say he's an obvious case, though, which implies that you think this is what's going to happen more and more?

When replying to an earlier post you wrote:

"I find this thinking rather pessimistic about the mindset and motivation of younger players"

That's why I said you missed my point. Now you you are saying that the stress brought by new technologies/techniques are not enough to make players start to retire earlier than what they do know. That's a valid argument/hypothesis. Time will tell.

But, again, I was raising possible scenarios where the current top players might, in the medium term, stop being top players. I cannot understand how one cannot admit that this is a *possible* scenario.

I think this scenario is particularly, I would not say likely, but at least reasonable, to Alcaraz. He had his "burnouts" , be it on certain parts of some seasons, be it during particular matches. Again, my original point that was a not a given that Sinner/Alcaraz would not keep dominating.

As for Kyrgios, we will agree to disagree. I am not saying it will happen more. I am saying that *he* is an obvious case of immature intelligence. But he will mature at some point (hopefully).

 

[Moxie]

When replying to an earlier post you wrote:

"I find this thinking rather pessimistic about the mindset and motivation of younger players"

That's why I said you missed my point. Now you you are saying that the stress brought by new technologies/techniques are not enough to make players start to retire earlier than what they do know. That's a valid argument/hypothesis. Time will tell.

But, again, I was raising possible scenarios where the current top players might, in the medium term, stop being top players. I cannot understand how one cannot admit that this is a *possible* scenario.

I think this scenario is particularly, I would not say likely, but at least reasonable, to Alcaraz. He had his "burnouts" , be it on certain parts of some seasons, be it during particular matches. Again, my original point that was a not a given that Sinner/Alcaraz would not keep dominating.

As for Kyrgios, we will agree to disagree. I am not saying it will happen more. I am saying that *he* is an obvious case of immature intelligence. But he will mature at some point (hopefully).

In either case, I don't see how we seem to be missing each other's points. I think I'm not clear on what you might think could happen to top players, mid-career. Burnout? Injury? Still, do you think it will become a feature, in a meaningful way, even when the Big 3 have lasted so long? That's my confusion, with your argument.

As to Kyrgios, I think he's basically done. We can disagree about why, but his "maturing" isn't going to change his career, IMO. So maybe you're saying he's a one-off. Personally, I think he mostly is.

 

[mrzz]

In either case, I don't see how we seem to be missing each other's points. I think I'm not clear on what you might think could happen to top players, mid-career. Burnout? Injury? Still, do you think it will become a feature, in a meaningful way, even when the Big 3 have lasted so long? That's my confusion, with your argument.

I think mental burnout is a possibility for players that will spend most of their careers inside the top 30. From training techniques focusing speed and strength, biomechanical analysis to optimize every single shot, even statistical analysis of opponents, the flow of information and the quantity of tasks that a modern top players faces is immense. Of course, this is a long, continuously evolving process that has not started yesterday.

But, insert the big three in this equation. Compare the world pre-big three with world now. There is a huge gap in the aspects I mentioned above. But during the big three era, their dominance was so prominent that most likely they took most of the competing fire away from the opposition. I mean, why train that hard if that glass ceiling is there anyway.

The big three, each on his own way, was able to masterly cope with this evolving environment. I really do not think they can be emulated any time soon.

Hey, @El Dude , I think I am onto something interesting here!

As to Kyrgios, I think he's basically done. We can disagree about why, but his "maturing" isn't going to change his career, IMO. So maybe you're saying he's a one-off. Personally, I think he mostly is.

Yes, we agree that he is mostly done, and surely we disagree about why. But again we agree that he is a one off, he has a very peculiar combination of personality and skills (and shortcomings). On one hand, I like him (because I think he is smart), on the other I hate him because he is full of BS, even if in my view is part of his show.

 

[El Dude]

I think mental burnout is a possibility for players that will spend most of their careers inside the top 30. From training techniques focusing speed and strength, biomechanical analysis to optimize every single shot, even statistical analysis of opponents, the flow of information and the quantity of tasks that a modern top players faces is immense. Of course, this is a long, continuously evolving process that has not started yesterday.

But, insert the big three in this equation. Compare the world pre-big three with world now. There is a huge gap in the aspects I mentioned above. But during the big three era, their dominance was so prominent that most likely they took most of the competing fire away from the opposition. I mean, why train that hard if that glass ceiling is there anyway.

The big three, each on his own way, was able to masterly cope with this evolving environment. I really do not think they can be emulated any time soon.

Hey, @El Dude , I think I am onto something interesting here!

You may be! I suspect we won't know the long-term impact of the Big Three, and how they might have created a "post-Big 3" new environment, for a decade or more. Are they anomalies or harbingers of a new paradigm?

It is also worth noting that all three experienced a late career lull (or two). Roger re-worked his game a bit in 2013, his worst year in over a decade, and came back strong in 2014-15. He then struggled with injury in 2016 and then had his best season in 2017 since 2009, and probably his sixth best year overall.

Rafa got hurt in late 2014 then struggled through his worst two (healthy) seasons in 2015-16; pretty much everyone thought he was done. But then he came back and was close to his prime form for most of 2017-22.

Novak crashed a bit in late 2016, struggled in 2017, got injured, and was slow to return to form in 2018, then dominated again in the second half of 2018 through 2023.

Mere mortal greats tend not to make it back after such lulls, especially so late in their careers. I mean, imagine Sampras taking the rest of 2002 off after the US Open, then coming back in 2003 and being close to prime for another four or five years. With guys like Edberg, Becker, Wilander, etc, once they hit a wall in their late 20s or so, they pretty much petered out.

So at least part of the Big 3's "masterly cope with this evolving environment" had to to do with adjusting and re-adjusting as they got older. Not just maintaining a high level of fitness, but micro-adjustments to their game (e.g. SABR). The Rafa we saw in 2017-22 wasn't quite the same physical beast of 2005-13, but he was basically as effective - or very close to it. Rafa was always a smart player, and he seemed to know how to maximize his gifts and neutralize most players.

Anyhow, I think tennis is a sport that is dominated by a few greats playing at any one time. This might sound too obvious to say, but my point is that the sport as a whole is dictated by the active greats in their prime - how they play, and how it creates the environment - and it is usually just a few players at any one time. So maybe the game going forward is less about the impact of the Big 3, and more about how Sinner and Alcaraz are creating the new context. Everything will form around them, and whoever joins them at the very top.

 

[Moxie]

You may be! I suspect we won't know the long-term impact of the Big Three, and how they might have created a "post-Big 3" new environment, for a decade or more. Are they anomalies or harbingers of a new paradigm?

It is also worth noting that all three experienced a late career lull (or two). Roger re-worked his game a bit in 2013, his worst year in over a decade, and came back strong in 2014-15. He then struggled with injury in 2016 and then had his best season in 2017 since 2009, and probably his sixth best year overall.

Rafa got hurt in late 2014 then struggled through his worst two (healthy) seasons in 2015-16; pretty much everyone thought he was done. But then he came back and was close to his prime form for most of 2017-22.

Novak crashed a bit in late 2016, struggled in 2017, got injured, and was slow to return to form in 2018, then dominated again in the second half of 2018 through 2023.

Mere mortal greats tend not to make it back after such lulls, especially so late in their careers. I mean, imagine Sampras taking the rest of 2002 off after the US Open, then coming back in 2003 and being close to prime for another four or five years. With guys like Edberg, Becker, Wilander, etc, once they hit a wall in their late 20s or so, they pretty much petered out.

So at least part of the Big 3's "masterly cope with this evolving environment" had to to do with adjusting and re-adjusting as they got older. Not just maintaining a high level of fitness, but micro-adjustments to their game (e.g. SABR). The Rafa we saw in 2017-22 wasn't quite the same physical beast of 2005-13, but he was basically as effective - or very close to it. Rafa was always a smart player, and he seemed to know how to maximize his gifts and neutralize most players.

Anyhow, I think tennis is a sport that is dominated by a few greats playing at any one time. This might sound too obvious to say, but my point is that the sport as a whole is dictated by the active greats in their prime - how they play, and how it creates the environment - and it is usually just a few players at any one time. So maybe the game going forward is less about the impact of the Big 3, and more about how Sinner and Alcaraz are creating the new context. Everything will form around them, and whoever joins them at the very top.

Very interesting thoughts on Mr.Z's thesis. Players play in the context, and against the competition that they are given. Who knows if the Big 3 will inspire near- or distant-future players in terms of longevity and commitment, really. I think it's fair to invoke them, and wonder that. But I bolded your comment above: "Are they anomalies, or harbingers of a new paradigm?" Good question, and unknowable, for now. Maybe we will never again see 3 such talented and committed players playing basically at the same time, and pushing each other to the outer-edges of possibility, for so long. Maybe the next best ones, Alcaraz and Sinner, for now, can feed off of the rivalry they have, others to come, and also chase records. In the absence of great competition, is chasing records enough? TBD.

 

[mrzz]

You may be! I suspect we won't know the long-term impact of the Big Three, and how they might have created a "post-Big 3" new environment, for a decade or more. Are they anomalies or harbingers of a new paradigm?

It is also worth noting that all three experienced a late career lull (or two). Roger re-worked his game a bit in 2013, his worst year in over a decade, and came back strong in 2014-15. He then struggled with injury in 2016 and then had his best season in 2017 since 2009, and probably his sixth best year overall.

Rafa got hurt in late 2014 then struggled through his worst two (healthy) seasons in 2015-16; pretty much everyone thought he was done. But then he came back and was close to his prime form for most of 2017-22.

Novak crashed a bit in late 2016, struggled in 2017, got injured, and was slow to return to form in 2018, then dominated again in the second half of 2018 through 2023.

Mere mortal greats tend not to make it back after such lulls, especially so late in their careers. I mean, imagine Sampras taking the rest of 2002 off after the US Open, then coming back in 2003 and being close to prime for another four or five years. With guys like Edberg, Becker, Wilander, etc, once they hit a wall in their late 20s or so, they pretty much petered out.

So at least part of the Big 3's "masterly cope with this evolving environment" had to to do with adjusting and re-adjusting as they got older. Not just maintaining a high level of fitness, but micro-adjustments to their game (e.g. SABR). The Rafa we saw in 2017-22 wasn't quite the same physical beast of 2005-13, but he was basically as effective - or very close to it. Rafa was always a smart player, and he seemed to know how to maximize his gifts and neutralize most players.

Anyhow, I think tennis is a sport that is dominated by a few greats playing at any one time. This might sound too obvious to say, but my point is that the sport as a whole is dictated by the active greats in their prime - how they play, and how it creates the environment - and it is usually just a few players at any one time. So maybe the game going forward is less about the impact of the Big 3, and more about how Sinner and Alcaraz are creating the new context. Everything will form around them, and whoever joins them at the very top.

In your last paragraph you made an interesting hypothesis. It is more than that, it is a way to look at the sport as a whole.

I appreciate it, but I still think the big three are a different kind(s) of animal, for a whole bunch of reasons, even if the ultimate argument for me is the eye test. On top of that, again, they happened to exist in a very peculiar point in time (right after the dawn of the ultra professional age of sports).

It is a good thing that they are "substituted" by two early bloomers. Those two have a "head start" of sorts. If in five to ten years they don't come close to their numbers (and I think they won't), it will be hard to argue against the absolute uniqueness of the big three.