Will the Dominance of the Big Three in Tennis Ever End?
Rafael Nadal’s victory at the French Open on Sunday marked the 12th time that the Spaniard has won the prestigious Grand Slam tournament.
Throughout the course of the event, Nadal never seemed in danger of losing, dropping only two out of the twenty-one sets he contested.
But the bigger story, perhaps, is the pattern of total domination set by Nadal and the other two kings of tennis’ mighty triumvirate: men’s slam leader Roger Federer and the world’s number one ranked male player Novak Djokovic.
All three players reached the semis of the French in emphatic fashion.
Federer lost only one set in five matches before losing to Nadal (a stellar achievement for a man who will turn 38 in August and who has missed the last three editions of the event).
Not to be outdone, Djokovic won all of his matches in straight sets, including a 7–5, 6–2, 6–2 trouncing of the much heralded and somewhat overhyped 22 year-old Alexander Zverev.
The fact that Djokovic lost a tight match to last year’s finalist Dominic Thiem does not really change the narrative all that much.
Thiem certainly deserves credit for an outstanding performance at Roland Garros. But the match against Djokovic could have gone either way. And, while taking down one of the three at a Grand Slam event is no easy task, beating two of them in succession is a different story.
Sadly for his fans, Thiem was not especially close in the final against Nadal, losing the last two sets 6–1, 6–1 in an otherwise commendable four set performance.
In summary, the story of Big Three’s dominance hasn’t markedly changed. In fact, and this is the crazy part, they have become even more dominant at the Slams than before. Their advanced age and the numerous injuries all three have faced over the years does not seem to have impacted their incredible knack for winning when it matters.
If you don’t believe me, look at some of the stats: The Big Three have won 100% of all the Grand Slams played since January 2017. That’s 10 Grand Slams (four for Rafa, three for Fed, and three for Novak).
Perhaps one can argue that during these last three and a half years, the injuries sustained by Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka may have made it a little easier for the Big Three to net such a big haul. Regardless, the fact that they can still beat almost everybody else so regularly is striking, especially after the passage of so many years since the Three burst on the scene.
Consider that Federer and Nadal achieved their first collective conquest of all four slams in a calendar year a full 13 years ago in 2006! From 2007, when Djokovic became a serious Grand Slam contender, until the end of last year, the Big Three collectively won an average of three slams per year (3.1 to be precise). That’s 12 years of dominance (see figures below).
Total number of Slams won by members of the big three per year since 2003:
2003: 1/4: 25%
2004: 3/4: 75%
2005: 2/4: 50%
2006: 4/4: 100%
2007: 4/4: 100%
2008: 4/4: 100%
2009: 3/4: 75%
2010: 4/4: 100%
2011: 4/4: 100%
2012:3/4: 75%
2013: 3/4:75%
2014: 2/4: 50%
2015: 3/4:75%
2016: 2/4:50%
2017: 4/4:100%
2018: 4/4:100%
2019: 4/4: 100%
No era has been so utterly dominated by so few players and for so long a time as this one. In fact, the word “era” is misleading because all three have now played in more than one “era”: their peers from the 2000–2005 period are long gone as are some of their fiercest competitors from the late 2000s.
There are two major factors that explain their dominance.
The first is that the three can reach a different level than most of their competitors when it matters.
Nadal is a case in point. He entered the French this year having lost in the semis of 3 of the 4 clay court tournaments he played, prompting many to question if he can win a 12th French Open. He left the French having won 19 out of 21 sets, meaning that when it counted, he summoned a higher level than the rest of the field and won the tournament pretty easily. Federer can achieve similar heights at Wimbledon and Djokovic is like that at almost every event.
The second explanation for the resounding success of the Big Three may be that many of the other players have simply not stepped up to the challenge. Murray, Wawrinka and Juan Martin Del Potro did well while they were healthy, and Marin Cilic had a great run at the US Open in 2014.
But the rest of the players, especially those who are now in their late 20s and early 30s, have been a disappointment: Grigor Dimitrov, Gale Monfils, Richard Gasquet, Tomas Berdych, Kei Nishikori and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga have all gone deep at the Slams, but have always gone home without a trophy.
Maybe the money was too good and made them complacent. Maybe the others were just too strong. But why couldn’t they do what Pat Cash did to Ivan Lendl at Wimbledon in 1987? Or what Pat Rafter accomplished against Pete Sampras at the US Open? Why have they not been able to break the monopoly that the Big Three possess at the Slams?
Perhaps the new generation can do it: Thiem, Stefanos Tsitsipas, Zeverev and a number of others may be able to, but when? Do Djokovic, Nadal and Federer need to be in their 50s before the younger players step up?
