When do players peak? (The Definitive Answer - with Charts!)

[El Dude]

You know I think it has an "averaging" quality that can be misleading. However, I do think your point about using it to predict youngsters seems useful. I'm still not sure about an ELO in 1985 means the same as one in 2023, but we can discuss that.

Well, I think it follows the logic that greatness is measured against your peers...the same Elo in 1985 vs. 2023 represents the same degree of success. I don't think it means that you could transport, say, Pat Cash and he'd win Wimbledon this year.

But yeah, the averaging quality needs to be kept in mind. Ultimate Tennis Statistics has a variant called "Recent Elo" which tends to go higher, and doesn't average as much. I don't know the exactly formula, but I think it is just what it says: weighted towards recent performance.

That said, there is some weird oscillation that occurs. I've previously noted that the top Elos were generally depressed in the 90s into early 2000s. The easy answer would hold that it was weak talent, but it might also be that there was more "pretty good talent." The guys born in the mid to late 70s didn't have any true greats (between Sampras and Federer), but there was a higher than usual number of good to very good players, so it may be that equalized everyone a bit. I don't know, honestly.

 

[Kieran]

It is the name of the guy who created the system - Argad Elo, a Hungarian American physicist. No kidding!

Why didn’t I know it might be something so simple?!

It was first used for chess, right? And now they’re applying it to other sports and games? I know computers in chess have huge ratings, relative to humans, but also that Magnus Carlsen is looking to reach 3000 Elo points, something he’d prefer even to being World champion, it seems..

 

[El Dude]

Why didn’t I know it might be something so simple?!

It was first used for chess, right? And now they’re applying it to other sports and games? I know computers in chess have huge ratings, relative to humans, but also that Magnus Carlsen is looking to reach 3000 Elo points, something he’d prefer even to being World champion, it seems..

Yeah, first with chess - not sure about other sports or games, but I'd imagine that would be the case, especially when betting is involved (one aspect of Elo I didn't mention is that supposedly a 400 point different equates with a 90% chance of winning...meaning, according to Elo, Roger at his peak--2550 Elo--had a 90% chance of beating peak Janko Tipsarevic, at 2158).

Baseball doesn't use Elo (unless for betting) and is "the" statistical sport...it has always been a major part of sport fandom and analysis, but a whole breed of stat-nerds first emerged with Bill James in the late 70s or early 80s, and then further waves or generations with just about any advanced statistic you could imagine. Over the last decade or so, it has consolidated around WAR, or Wins Above Replacement, as a singular number that represents how good a player is, taking everything they do into account (hitting, defense, base-running, pitching). It has even gone mainstream, and now pretty much everyone uses it. But it has its controversies...for one, there are different versions that yield somewhat different results. Secondly, it doesn't take into account clutch, so in that regard it is somewhat similar to Elo.

But to some degree, I see that element of Elo as a feature, not a flaw. In a way, it is useful to differentiate Elo -- as peak performance level -- and actual titles and such, because it tells us how accomplished a player was relative to their peak playing level, and how the two don't always equate. Someone like Jan Kodes, for example, won 3 Slams but had a relatively pedestrian peak Elo of 2197, which is 89th all-time - about the same as guys like Eliot Teltschner and Richard Gasquet. On the other hand, Slamless players like David Ferrer, Brian Gottfrield, Tom Okker, and Gene Mayer (and Zverev so far) all peaked over 2300 and are in the top 30 all-time.

On the other hand, Elo doesn't really tell us how good a player was capable of playing at their very best, thus it tends to underrate guys like Wawrinka, Safin, and Nalbandian, because they were so inconsistent. All three could play as well as anyone in a given match or tournament, but none strung together the consistency needed to boost Elo to stratospheric levels. So Elo likes guys like Ferrer better - players who consistently play good to very good, rather than oscillate between great and mediocre (like the three I mentioned).

 

[Moxie]

Well, I think it follows the logic that greatness is measured against your peers...the same Elo in 1985 vs. 2023 represents the same degree of success. I don't think it means that you could transport, say, Pat Cash and he'd win Wimbledon this year.

But yeah, the averaging quality needs to be kept in mind. Ultimate Tennis Statistics has a variant called "Recent Elo" which tends to go higher, and doesn't average as much. I don't know the exactly formula, but I think it is just what it says: weighted towards recent performance.

That said, there is some weird oscillation that occurs. I've previously noted that the top Elos were generally depressed in the 90s into early 2000s. The easy answer would hold that it was weak talent, but it might also be that there was more "pretty good talent." The guys born in the mid to late 70s didn't have any true greats (between Sampras and Federer), but there was a higher than usual number of good to very good players, so it may be that equalized everyone a bit. I don't know, honestly.

I don't know what you mean about "weird oscillation." But we do know what was going on in men's tennis in the 90s and early 2000s. If you won a Major, you got to #1. As you said, there weren't any true greats, but lots of very good players. But, if the Elo is compared to the players you play against, wouldn't that depress the Elo, overall? If you don't have any especially high players in terms of Elo, then the gains and losses would be smaller overall, would they not?

 

[El Dude]

I don't know what you mean about "weird oscillation." But we do know what was going on in men's tennis in the 90s and early 2000s. If you won a Major, you got to #1. As you said, there weren't any true greats, but lots of very good players. But, if the Elo is compared to the players you play against, wouldn't that depress the Elo, overall? If you don't have any especially high players in terms of Elo, then the gains and losses would be smaller overall, would they not?

Partially, but if you beat those players consistently enough, your Elo would go up. The problem with that era is that no one really dominated, at least after Pete started to slip. Meaning, if you put Ivan Lendl into the 90s and early 2000s, he'd still probably have reached 2500 Elo because he would have dominated the field.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Partially, but if you beat those players consistently enough, your Elo would go up. The problem with that era is that no one really dominated, at least after Pete started to slip. Meaning, if you put Ivan Lendl into the 90s and early 2000s, he'd still probably have reached 2500 Elo because he would have dominated the field.

Pete's record at the US open at night time was pretty awesome.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Pete Sampras - Peak Elo
Overall: 2407 (12th all-time)
Hards: 2524 (3rd best)
Grass: 2501 (7th best)
Carpet: 2407 (9th best)
Clay: 2226 (73rd best)

Pete's peak ELO seems off for hards and carpet. Don't get me wrong, Pete was a great player on hard court and grass, but he was pretty much untouchable on carpet. (I'd believe the ELO rankings for Pete more if the numbers for the hards and carpet were switched.) It's pretty interesting how Pete's dominance just slipped throughout the late 90s, as the number of carpet tournaments dwindled. Even at the end of his career, when he started struggling on grass, Pete was still going deep at the US Open (the carpet surface was pretty much extinct in the early 2000s, but the US Open was the closest thing that played to a carpet at that point). Makes me wonder how much more dominant Pete's numbers would have been if they didn't take away carpet during his career. The US Open should have been played on carpet when it changed surface in 1978.

 

[El Dude]

Pete Sampras - Peak Elo
Overall: 2407 (12th all-time)
Hards: 2524 (3rd best)
Grass: 2501 (7th best)
Carpet: 2407 (9th best)
Clay: 2226 (73rd best)

Pete's peak ELO seems off for hards and carpet. Don't get me wrong, Pete was a great player on hard court and grass, but he was pretty much untouchable on carpet. (I'd believe the ELO rankings for Pete more if the numbers for the hards and carpet were switched.) It's pretty interesting how Pete's dominance just slipped throughout the late 90s, as the number of carpet tournaments dwindled. Even at the end of his career, when he started struggling on grass, Pete was still going deep at the US Open (the carpet surface was pretty much extinct in the early 2000s, but the US Open was the closest thing that played to a carpet at that point). Makes me wonder how much more dominant Pete's numbers would have been if they didn't take away carpet during his career. The US Open should have been played on carpet when it changed surface in 1978.

I think the reduction in carpet had minimal impact on Pete's career. Check out the percentage of carpet here:

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - Surface Timeline

Tennis surfaces usage through time

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

As you can see, it didn't really diminish too much during his prime, and only started dropping in the very late 90s when his overall performance was down. I mean, maybe that

Anyhow, it is worth noting that Pete's career @Win% on carpet was 76.3%, lower than hards (80.5%) and grass (83.5%).

 

[britbox]

Baseball doesn't use Elo (unless for betting) and is "the" statistical sport...it has always been a major part of sport fandom and analysis, but a whole breed of stat-nerds first emerged with Bill James in the late 70s or early 80s, and then further waves or generations with just about any advanced statistic you could imagine. Over the last decade or so, it has consolidated around WAR, or Wins Above Replacement, as a singular number that represents how good a player is, taking everything they do into account (hitting, defense, base-running, pitching). It has even gone mainstream, and now pretty much everyone uses it. But it has its controversies...for one, there are different versions that yield somewhat different results. Secondly, it doesn't take into account clutch, so in that regard it is somewhat similar to Elo.

Do you know what system the Moneyball guy was using at the Oakland A's? Was that ELO-based or a forerunner?

 

[El Dude]

Do you know what system the Moneyball guy was using at the Oakland A's? Was that ELO-based or a forerunner?

I don't think he was using a specific system, but just advanced statistics in general, and reading deeper than traditional stats. For instance, he might look at two players: One hits .300 but only walks 30 times a year and thus has a .330 (or whatever) on-base percentage, while another hits .270 but walks 80 times a year and has a .350 OBP. The traditional mindset would think "Ooh, a .300 hitter!" While Billy Beane and his team would realize that the latter guy was actually more valuable, but would likely be more affordable.

I think the closest thing to an equivalent in tennis is "high percentage play."

 

[El Dude]

You know, as much as we all rag poor Dimitrov around here he's actually carved out a bonafide top tier tennis career, hasn't he? That's why players like him, Monfils, Gasquet, Isner and perhaps now someone like Shapavalov were not/won't be world beaters but it sure trumps working for a living.

That's true. Dimitrov is basically Gasquet with a higher peak year or two; he actually put it together for a few months and won a Masters and the Tour Finals, while Gasquet never won more than a 250. Monfils' best was a 500.

Or to nerd it up a bit, I have a scoring system that gives points for "premier" results:

Slams: QF 1, SF 3, F 5, W 10​

Tour Finals: 1 point per match won, +1 for title (so max 6)​

Masters: SF 1, F 2, W 4​

Olympics: Bronze 1, Silver 2, Gold 3​

ATP 500: F 1, W 2​

ATP 250: W 1​

(It is similar to the tournaments points of the GOAT system, but I give a bit more for Slam wins--10 vs 8--and I separate out everything like rankings, Elo, etc, so it singles out pure results). But the point being, in this system, Gasquet, Monfils, and Dimitrov are all very close. Gasquet's at 41, Monfils at 42, and Dimitrov at 38. I suspect Grigor might have another few points in him to surpass the other two. But Grigor's best year, 2017, is 15 points, and his second best (2014) is 10, while Gasquet never surpassed a 7, Monfils a 9. Meaning, Grigor's peak was better.

By comparison, a "true" 2nd tier guy like Berdych has 83, with four seasons in the 10-13 range. Tsonga has 72 with two seasons in the 11-13 range; Cilic has 69 with a peak of 15. David Ferrer has 121, with five seasons 11 or higher and a peak of 24, which is elite. Among Lost Genners, Raonic is at 51 with a peak of 16, Nishikori at 66 with a peak of 17. So those three above are a clear step below these guys - they're really "third tier" types, and I think Shapo ends up in similar territory (he's at 13 now, but young enough to have some good seasons).

For context, a 10+ is a peak season for a typical "second tier" player. 20+ is a true elite player season, 30+ seasons are usually only accomplished by greats (there have been 93 such seasons in the Open Era). 40+ seasons are truly special, with only 43 in the Open Era - less than one per year, on average. There have been 14 seasons of 50+, accomplished once each by Laver, Borg, and McEnroe, with Nadal having 3 and Federer and Djokovic 4 each. Only 3 seasons of 60+: Laver in '69, Federer in '06, and Novak in '15, which is also the only season to surpass the 70 threshold (he was at 71).

All three have very similar peak Elos, too: Monfils 2189, Gasquet 2196, Dimitrov 2203. 2225 is the average for year-end #5, so that means they all peak at around #6 caliber (as far as Elo is concerned).

 

[Moxie]

You know, as much as we all rag poor Dimitrov around here he's actually carved out a bonafide top tier tennis career, hasn't he? That's why players like him, Monfils, Gasquet, Isner and perhaps now someone like Shapavalov were not/won't be world beaters but it sure trumps working for a living.

I was thinking about something Kyrgios said recently: that he'd like to have a career like Monfils. Nothing wrong with that. A guy who enjoys his tennis, entertains the crowd, and makes boatloads of money. That IS a perfect career model for Nick. Let's face it: sports is entertainment. They won't all be Major winners, or even big title winners, but the most talented will still make a lot of money from the tour, and from endorsements.

Yes, tennis is an expensive sport to play. These independent contractors have to get themselves to tournaments all over the world, put themselves up, and pay for their teams, if they can afford one. And the better team you can afford, as @El Dude says, the better your chances, etc., so it IS self-propagating. The more elite you are, ironically, the more that gets paid for you, including in bonus money.

I don't so much begrudge players who find their water-level and make a good career of it. As fans, though, when we think we might have a good champion, and they turn out to be happy just to make a decent career of it, we feel a bit put out. This is why we rag on Dimitrov, for example. He was touted as the next Federer. Maybe he never wanted to be, though I suspect he did. That said, I think that some really good players can decide they're happy where they are. They can bitch and complain, like Shapo, or Zverev, and act like they care, but, if they really did, they'd make more of their talents. I DO think the money makes many of them a bit soft. The mink-lined rut.

 

[El Dude]

I was thinking about something Kyrgios said recently: that he'd like to have a career like Monfils. Nothing wrong with that. A guy who enjoys his tennis, entertains the crowd, and makes boatloads of money. That IS a perfect career model for Nick. Let's face it: sports is entertainment. They won't all be Major winners, or even big title winners, but the most talented will still make a lot of money from the tour, and from endorsements.

Yes, tennis is an expensive sport to play. These independent contractors have to get themselves to tournaments all over the world, put themselves up, and pay for their teams, if they can afford one. And the better team you can afford, as @El Dude says, the better your chances, etc., so it IS self-propagating. The more elite you are, ironically, the more that gets paid for you, including in bonus money.

I don't so much begrudge players who find their water-level and make a good career of it. As fans, though, when we think we might have a good champion, and they turn out to be happy just to make a decent career of it, we feel a bit put out. This is why we rag on Dimitrov, for example. He was touted as the next Federer. Maybe he never wanted to be, though I suspect he did. That said, I think that some really good players can decide they're happy where they are. They can bitch and complain, like Shapo, or Zverev, and act like they care, but, if they really did, they'd make more of their talents. I DO think the money makes many of them a bit soft. The mink-lined rut.

Good stuff. I imagine that every young tennis player dreams of being Novak*, Roger or Rafa, and then the reality of the tour hits, and the "great leveling" occurs....they find their true level or tier against better and better competition (high school, college/futures, challengers, the ATP tour, and then the various tournament levels). The vast majority, of course, never become Novak*, Roger or Rafa, or even Andy Murray or Courier or Stich, etc...most settle into "journeyman" status, and at most win an ATP 250 or two. I imagine that there's a point in the career of 95% of tennis players in which they ask, "Is this worth it? I'm been in the 50-150 range for most of my career and just turned 26...what are my actual chances of ever making it big?"

Some, I imagine, gradually just fade out. Some remain on tour and collect paychecks and enjoy small victories and pleasures, on and off the court. Only a few re-double their efforts and find an extra gear...but even among those, very very few actually go from perennial journeymen to legit Slam-seeded guys after their 25th birthday or so.

As of this writing, there are exactly two thousand players with ATP points...I don't know how to convert that to the Open Era, but we're likely talking tens of thousands of players (my guess is somewhere in the 15-30K range....remembering that most or many of those 2K players are ranked for multiple years).

In Open Era history, less than six hundred have won a title, 134 have won big titles, and 57 have won Slams. In terms of rankings, exactly 100 players have reached the ATP top 5 ("elite") and just 28 have reached #1. So if there have been, say, 30K players from 1968 to the present who have earned ATP points in some form or fashion (or would have, in the few years before ATP rankings), only about 1-in-50 (or so) will win an ATP title (250 or higher), only 1-in-250 will win a big title, 1-in-500 a Slam, and 1-in-1000 reach #1.

(Those numbers are wild estimates, but even if off by a significant degree, they still give the general idea of how hard it is to make it to the top).

*EDITED due to the silliness of @Nadalfan2013

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Good stuff. I imagine that every young tennis player dreams of being Roger or Rafa, and then the reality of the tour hits, and the "great leveling" occurs....they find their true level or tier against better and better competition (high school, college/futures, challengers, the ATP tour, and then the various tournament levels). The vast majority, of course, never become Roger or Rafa, or even Andy Murray or Courier or Stich, etc...most settle into "journeyman" status, and at most win an ATP 250 or two. I imagine that there's a point in the career of 95% of tennis players in which they ask, "Is this worth it? I'm been in the 50-150 range for most of my career and just turned 26...what are my actual chances of ever making it big?"

Some, I imagine, gradually just fade out. Some remain on tour and collect paychecks and enjoy small victories. Only a few re-double their efforts and find an extra gear...but even among those, very very few actually go from perennial journeymen to legit top 20-30 guys after their 25th birthday or so.

As of this writing, there are exactly two thousand players with ATP points...I don't know how to convert that to the Open Era, but we're likely talking tens of thousands of players (my guess is somewhere in the 15-30K range....remembering that most or many of those 2K players are ranked for multiple years).

In Open Era history, less than six hundred have won a title, 134 have won big titles, and 57 have won Slams. In terms of rankings, exactly 100 players have reached the ATP top 5 ("elite") and just 28 have reached #1. So if there have been, say, 30K players from 1968 to the present who have earned ATP points in some form or fashion (or would have, in the few years before ATP rankings), only about 1-in-50 (or so) will win an ATP title (250 or higher), only 1-in-250 will win a big title, 1-in-500 a Slam, and 1-in-1000 reach #1.

(Those numbers are wild estimates, but even if off by a significant degree, they still give the general idea of how hard it is to make it to the top).

And that's why Djokovic will never be seen as the Goat... All 3 have great stats and "elo" stuff but only 2 made a true impact on our sport.

 

[Jelenafan]

Good stuff. I imagine that every young tennis player dreams of being Novak*, Roger or Rafa, and then the reality of the tour hits, and the "great leveling" occurs....they find their true level or tier against better and better competition (high school, college/futures, challengers, the ATP tour, and then the various tournament levels). The vast majority, of course, never become Novak*, Roger or Rafa, or even Andy Murray or Courier or Stich, etc...most settle into "journeyman" status, and at most win an ATP 250 or two. I imagine that there's a point in the career of 95% of tennis players in which they ask, "Is this worth it? I'm been in the 50-150 range for most of my career and just turned 26...what are my actual chances of ever making it big?"

Some, I imagine, gradually just fade out. Some remain on tour and collect paychecks and enjoy small victories and pleasures, on and off the court. Only a few re-double their efforts and find an extra gear...but even among those, very very few actually go from perennial journeymen to legit Slam-seeded guys after their 25th birthday or so.

As of this writing, there are exactly two thousand players with ATP points...I don't know how to convert that to the Open Era, but we're likely talking tens of thousands of players (my guess is somewhere in the 15-30K range....remembering that most or many of those 2K players are ranked for multiple years).

In Open Era history, less than six hundred have won a title, 134 have won big titles, and 57 have won Slams. In terms of rankings, exactly 100 players have reached the ATP top 5 ("elite") and just 28 have reached #1. So if there have been, say, 30K players from 1968 to the present who have earned ATP points in some form or fashion (or would have, in the few years before ATP rankings), only about 1-in-50 (or so) will win an ATP title (250 or higher), only 1-in-250 will win a big title, 1-in-500 a Slam, and 1-in-1000 reach #1.

(Those numbers are wild estimates, but even if off by a significant degree, they still give the general idea of how hard it is to make it to the top).

*EDITED due to the silliness of @Nadalfan2013

I imagine its like the thousands of actors out there who toil away for years (side jobs, bit parts, etc) hoping for their “big break”

You have journeyman players who catch a top elite player in an off-form day, play close to their best and get a huge upset. They carry that momentum through a big tournament or two and that can give them tour breathing room (and ranking points) to sustain them for 1 or 2 more years.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

I imagine its like the thousands of actors out there who toil away for years (side jobs, bit parts, etc) hoping for their “big break”

You have journeyman players who catch a top elite player in an off-form day, play close to their best and get a huge upset. They carry that momentum through a big tournament or two and that can give them tour breathing room (and ranking points) to sustain them for 1 or 2 more years.

There’s a reason why @El Dude didn’t list Pushovic, it’s because way less people dream to be him except maybe a few kids in Serbia. Everyone wants to be Nadal or Federer though, their impact and popularity is worldwide.

 

[Fiero425]

We may never see the likes of the Big 3 again! Get ready for mediocrity, stunted talent, injuries, with no consistency to players abilities!

 

[El Dude]

I imagine its like the thousands of actors out there who toil away for years (side jobs, bit parts, etc) hoping for their “big break”

You have journeyman players who catch a top elite player in an off-form day, play close to their best and get a huge upset. They carry that momentum through a big tournament or two and that can give them tour breathing room (and ranking points) to sustain them for 1 or 2 more years.

Yep, exactly. For every Tom Cruise there are literally thousands of really good-looking men waiting tables, running community theaters, maybe a few dozen of whom get lucky and get gigs on stage or screen, but only one of them becomes Tom Cruise.

 

[Moxie]

I imagine its like the thousands of actors out there who toil away for years (side jobs, bit parts, etc) hoping for their “big break”

You have journeyman players who catch a top elite player in an off-form day, play close to their best and get a huge upset. They carry that momentum through a big tournament or two and that can give them tour breathing room (and ranking points) to sustain them for 1 or 2 more years.

Actors are an interesting analogy. Same with tennis players, some just have more ambition than others, so it's not even always about talent. Shakespeare referred to actors as "players," and all players like to play...it's what they do. Some, and I mean tennis players, too, are content to play well, sometimes very well, and play secondary roles to those with more talent/ambition/money to run a big team around them. Luckily for tennis players, if they make any impact at all on the tour, they can make real money. (See above as to D. Young and R. Harrison.) Like you said before, it beats working for living. At least they don't have to wait tables, too.

 

[El Dude]

We may never see the likes of the Big 3 again! Get ready for mediocrity, stunted talent, injuries, with no consistency to players abilities!

LOL, oh you. Think of it this way, Fiero - there's a pro and con of the Big 3.

Pro: Unequalled talent in tennis history, except perhaps in Borg and McEnroe (but for much shorter periods) and Laver (50+ years ago).
Con: They "bogarted" all the big titles, and the tour was just a passing the "big title baton" for the last 20 years, with shifts in power but pretty much just those three guys since 2004, with a handful of interlopers now and again.

I mean, imaging if Connors, Borg and McEnroe had aged like Roger, Rafa, and Novak, respectively It would be as if those earlier three kept dominating the tour throughout the 80s and into the mid-90s, with no Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker...maybe even no Agassi or Sampras. In other words, if Mac aged like Novak, he would have won a Slam at least as late as 1994, Borg (as Rafa) at least as late as 1992, and Jimmy (as Roger) in 1989. So while the late 70s-early 80s were great, this hypothesis would have seen it extending and steamrolling other eras and great players.

I think we're in a somewhat similar era as the late 90s-early 00s. Actually, 2003 was a very interesting year. I was only very casual at that point, but looking back there was incredible parity. Agassi won his last Slam, and the other three were split between Ferrero, Roddick, and Federer. At that point it seemed like there was a new young generation of great talent - those three, plus the up-and-down Safin, the reigning #1 Hewitt, and some other talented guys like Nalbandian and Coria. Three of the top 8 players were 21 years old, two more 22-23.

Meaning, in 2003 there was no predicting what would start in 2004, when the Swiss "long hair" became The One, and a year later the Bull of Manacor joined him. In hindsight, at least, it looked like it was the blossoming of an era that had started in 2000 when Safin won his first Slam, continued in 2001-02 when Hewitt reigned as #1, and then came to fruition in 2003 as this new young generation finally took the reins, winning three of the four Slams, with five different Slam winners by the end of 2003 (Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Federer, Roddick). Certainly no one thought that three of those five were done winning Slams, or that Safin would only win one more, or that talented young guys like Coria and Nalbandian would never win Slams.

Right now it looks like Alcaraz is the next guy, but the Danish Brat might be right there with him, and we have Sinner and a host of other guys who are and should claim big titles, even Slams. So in a way, we are back in 2003, but likely without the eventuality of the tour becoming utterly dominated by just three players for the next two decades.

To be honest, I hope we don't see another Big 3 - at least not yet, or at least not as big. I want to see more competition. I want to see guys who win 2-3 Slams, or 5-8. Sure, I'd like to see a GOAT caliber player again...but let's enjoy something a bit different, first.