Edit: an earlier version of this piece had a typo stating that Federer won his first Slam in 2001. Now corrected to 2003. As a word of advice to readers, always tap/click the title of the post in the email, it will load the web version which is the most recent version (ie fewest typos!).
I'm finally catching up on the articles I missed in the last few months. This is an incredible article. As a Federer Fan, I have been very lucky to witness his rise, as it inspired me to start tennis, and with a one-handed backhand. I have been very lucky to witness his rise but also Nadal's and Djokovic's rises in the tennis world, I was a kid but it already seemed legendary to me back then. I am now still a huge tennis fan, trying to be as unbiased as possible, and I already know so much about the sport. I'm now very eager to enter the more chaotic era of tennis as it will probably see more diverse rivalries and more champions, but this has made me feel a little nostalgic about how insane it's been to witness the Big3 grow more godlike each time they met, and I'm glad about that. I know I've been lucky to witness that golden era of tennis, but it's nice to be reminded of it sometimes, and this gave me chills, so thank you Matt.
Matt, have you considered post-2008 points inflation as a possible factor in insulating the Big 3/4? Similar to the seeds change, it's a system that over-rewards slam winners and starves SFists, making it really hard for players with good showings to acquire safer seedings.
Came across this piece while catching up on this years posts! Great timing since I was considering a related question: how many Slams do you think any one of the Big 3 (4) might have won if the other(s) hadn't existed? Any one of them would've been a tier above the rest of the tour, but without the motivating factor of a rival. Any two could've pushed each other and divided up many of the vacant titles won by the third. So many moving parts to consider--does Federer sprint out to 20 slams by ~2009, get bored, and retire young? Could a body (or mind) continue to sustain finals runs? A fascinating hypothetical
One thing that has always interested me is the lack of great forehands that have come through with the younger guys, and the fact that barely any have copied the Fed-Novak-Rafa-Delpo-Tsonga-Gonzo style forehand with the racquet tip up. I feel like Delpo back in 09 showcased the prototype that could overcome the big 3 - 6'6'', could hit huge everywhere, and could move. Tsitsi and Zverev have the same—if not better—physical characteristics of Delpo, but their forehands are defensive (and Zverev's is a liability under pressure). Thiem is the closest we have had to a modern-forehand and he was starting to pull-even/dominate at times, against the big 3 before he got injured. I wrote about this extensively here:
Edit: an earlier version of this piece had a typo stating that Federer won his first Slam in 2001. Now corrected to 2003. As a word of advice to readers, always tap/click the title of the post in the email, it will load the web version which is the most recent version (ie fewest typos!).
I'm finally catching up on the articles I missed in the last few months. This is an incredible article. As a Federer Fan, I have been very lucky to witness his rise, as it inspired me to start tennis, and with a one-handed backhand. I have been very lucky to witness his rise but also Nadal's and Djokovic's rises in the tennis world, I was a kid but it already seemed legendary to me back then. I am now still a huge tennis fan, trying to be as unbiased as possible, and I already know so much about the sport. I'm now very eager to enter the more chaotic era of tennis as it will probably see more diverse rivalries and more champions, but this has made me feel a little nostalgic about how insane it's been to witness the Big3 grow more godlike each time they met, and I'm glad about that. I know I've been lucky to witness that golden era of tennis, but it's nice to be reminded of it sometimes, and this gave me chills, so thank you Matt.
Matt, have you considered post-2008 points inflation as a possible factor in insulating the Big 3/4? Similar to the seeds change, it's a system that over-rewards slam winners and starves SFists, making it really hard for players with good showings to acquire safer seedings.
Yeah could have added it to the 'landscape' section for sure.
Fascinating piece. Do you think Nadal and Djokovic improved at a quicker rate to federer?
Yes.
Came across this piece while catching up on this years posts! Great timing since I was considering a related question: how many Slams do you think any one of the Big 3 (4) might have won if the other(s) hadn't existed? Any one of them would've been a tier above the rest of the tour, but without the motivating factor of a rival. Any two could've pushed each other and divided up many of the vacant titles won by the third. So many moving parts to consider--does Federer sprint out to 20 slams by ~2009, get bored, and retire young? Could a body (or mind) continue to sustain finals runs? A fascinating hypothetical
One thing that has always interested me is the lack of great forehands that have come through with the younger guys, and the fact that barely any have copied the Fed-Novak-Rafa-Delpo-Tsonga-Gonzo style forehand with the racquet tip up. I feel like Delpo back in 09 showcased the prototype that could overcome the big 3 - 6'6'', could hit huge everywhere, and could move. Tsitsi and Zverev have the same—if not better—physical characteristics of Delpo, but their forehands are defensive (and Zverev's is a liability under pressure). Thiem is the closest we have had to a modern-forehand and he was starting to pull-even/dominate at times, against the big 3 before he got injured. I wrote about this extensively here:
https://hughclarke.substack.com/p/part-1-forehand-technique-and-swingweight?s=w
Would love to hear your thoughts if you had the time. Great piece as always.