The other thing about Federer, tennis aside, is that he is apparently a genuinely phenomenal human being. It seems like everyone loves him, from his opponents down to random people who happened to meet him, and you never really hear anything negative about him.
There’s a good documentary out about Mardy Fish and his mental health struggles. In it, Andy Roddick plays a prominent role. There’s a segment where he defines Federer as the best offensive player, best defensive player, best server, best returner, and does it all without breaking a sweat with perfect hair and a smile (or something similar to that-I’m paraphrasing). That, to me, was Federer when he came on the scene.
Ok, thanks. I guess that tracks, but he still doesn't quite seem to have represented the quantum leap in the sport like the others did. Unitas and Fouts came before him and he had contemporaries like Montana, Elway, etc,. that arguably advanced the position to the same or greater extent than Marino. Marino was great, but I'm still not sure it was in the same unique/notable way as Fosbury, Gretzky, Biles, or Curry.
One thing that doesn't get talked about enough is that in 2003 (or maybe 2004) they changed the balls to slow them down to encourage more rallies. This is essentially the exact moment Fed's career took off and he went on his incredible run Joe talks about and Hewitt/Roddick faded. Maybe a coincidence and maybe not.
Rafa has talked about it before in interviews saying it's made for better tennis even if its lessened the differences between the 3 surfaces. It used to be the big bombers owned Wimbledon and Rafa would never ever have won there with the balls they used in the 90's (go watch some older matches in the 90s). Not sure Joker would have won much either on grass as Agassi only won 1 time and his game is most similar to Jokers.
So I wonder if they hadn't changed the balls if the big 3 would have lasted into their late 30s and won 20+ slams or whether they would have had their careers ended around 30-32 like Sampras/Agassi/Mac etc.
Good comment, though I personally think it’s the LACK of change in equipment that encouraged this sort of longevity. It’s commonly repeated that changes in the surface and balls were done to combat serve-botting, but service statistics are actually much higher than they were in the 90s: higher % of service games won tour-wide (on all surfaces), higher ace and unreturnable counts, etc.
It stands to reason that if the balls were changed to such a degree that it would encourage longer rallies, you’d see big upticks in longer-rally-conducive point outcomes (errors, both forced + unforced), or at least some kind of abrupt change in the tour-wide stats, whatever the category…instead the tour is more “offensive” than ever before.
And that, IMO, is because the racquet conditions are stabler than ever before, allowing for enough time to ensure mastery of the power baselining game enabled by graphite (which revolutionized tennis in the 80’s) + polyester strings (which took over tennis in the mid to late 90’s) . Enter The Big Three. I honestly think that, while they are likely 1-2-3 in tennis history, they arguably got a bit lucky from a longevity perspective.
Here’s why: if you scan tennis history, you’ll find that the most longevous players tend to come from times where the playing conditions were stable…e.g Fedal and Djokovic in the 2000’s (no huge changes since poly became prevalent in the late 90’s) the Laver-Gonzo-Rosewall triumvirate from the 50’s-70’s, etc.
Graphite was a massive game-changer in the 80’s and ushered in a new era which partially phased out players like McEnroe (and likely Borg if he kept playing, his backhand was not suited to the power-baselining game). Imagine playing your entire life with a certain type of racquet and then having to risk uprooting your swing mechanics on a dime to remain competitive, while eventually having to fend off younger players that grew up with those sticks. That’s a severe handicap.
Poly, though not quite as important historically, immediately made S+V and essentially anything other than strict offensive baselining less viable. So that dings Sampras, too.
I always find it kind of unfortunate when we just reflexively scoff at the notion of the Borg, Sampras and Mac types being mentioned in the same breath as Fedal or Djoker…sure, I also think the latter were better, but the margins aren’t as big as advertised.
There’s a reason there was so little turnover at the top from the 50’s-70’s, so much from the 70’s-90’s, and again so little from the 2000’s-present. Tennis didn’t suddenly become a young mans sport in the 70’s.
Something else happened too over that timeline (91-now) at the link you provided. Tennis players in general got taller by probably a couple of inches on average. In the 90's and in previous decades it was possible to be under 6 feet and win a slam or be a T10 player. I think the last man under 6 ft to win a slam was Hewitt at 5'11 more than 20 years ago now. Short tennis players are all but extinct (minus the occasional Diego Swartzman). That's why I always chuckle when Mac drones on about Laver when Laver was 5'9. Neither he nor Laver could win on tour now because physically they are too small.
That height increase has meant better service angles and more holds (hence the +4% increase over the years). So even if returners do get the ball back, the server is on offense for most of the point unless they get a great return on a 2nd serve.
Obviously fitness levels are light years ahead of where they were in the 80's and 90's. That includes diet, quality of shoes, trainers etc. That's contributed to longevity for not just the big 3 but plenty of other guys are active into their mid 30s now too when that just did not happen in the 80's and 90's. So don't underestimate how much diet, shoes etc matter.
Fair point. Tennis did indeed get taller, but that was gradual…and yet, ace increases were most decidedly not gradual. They leapt by 30% from ‘91 to ‘98, 25% from ‘91-‘95…even ace rates from the guys that were considered ‘big’ servers in ‘91 (Sampras, Krajicek, Ivanisevic et al). Quite literally every big server I’ve found that was competitive in the early 90s and stuck around to the late 90s and beyond saw an improvement in their ace %’s, and often a huge one, even if their ranking declined precipitously. Sampras, Becker, Rosset, Stich, Krajicek, you name it. This sort of improvement was unprecedented, and coincided almost perfectly with the wood era players becoming extinct, players becoming accustomed to graphite and poly becoming predominant. If anything, I would argue that these drastic equipment changes, which allowed for unprecedented serving dominance, contributed to the great height shift more so than the other way around, as tennis is far more forgiving to one-dimensional serve-bottery than ever before.
The points about improved diet, shoes and regimens are true and well-taken, but that doesn’t fully explain why longevity at the top level was basically ubiquitous before the late 70’s, only for tennis to morph into a ‘young mans sport’ (with a couple of exceptions at the top) and then revert to being favourable to older players. I mean, the difference couldn’t be more stark from ‘91, where 11 players over 28 were in the Top 100 (meaning, those that were old enough to play with wood racquets late into their teens before having to completely change on a dime) to 2019, where there were 53.
Also, not to nit-pick, but the last time a guy under 6’ won a major was…last week :P it’s known in tennis circles that Alcaraz’ height listing is as farcical as it comes. He’s 5’11 flat, same as Mac (with J-Mac incidentally looked about a half-inch taller in the trophy ceremony pic featuring him and the two finalists), who would very likely be a juggernaut if he grew up today and received modern training.
And finally, to circle back to an earlier point you made: it was chronic injury and loss of speed that did Hewitt in, not changes to the balls. Rusty was, believe it or not, about as good in ‘04-‘05 as he was from ‘01-‘02. He bulked up around that time and added some more power to his serve and groundies to offset the marginal loss of speed and his match stats were actually close to identical (53.3% of points won/1.20 DR/81.5 holding % and 33.3 break% in 01-02 compared to 53.3/1.22/83.5/30.6 in 04-05)…he just so happened to lose to the eventual winner in all of the non-clay majors from 04-05, 5 of those 6 losses coming to Fed.
Federer is the greatest to me because he almost made it look easy. You could tell Nadal and Djokovic were pushing every fiber of their body to the limit when playing. Roger never seemed to be trying that hard, yet he made incredible shot after incredible shot.
The most aesthetically pleasing tennis player I've ever seen. His form and the 1 handed backhand looks like something you'd see in a perfect tennis form instructional video.
When you talk about the 3 of them together, the dominance they had really sticks out. It seemed strange when the recent US open final didn't have one of them in it. Why? because it hasn't happened very much. With Federer retired, and the other two starting a bit of a slide, we will have to get used to this.
Since 2003, when Federer won his first Wimbledon, it has been 20 years. 79 major finals (Wimbledon skipped 2020) One of the three has been involved in 70 of those. A lot of the 9 were in the early years when the other 2 were not established yet (Nadal made his first final in 2005, Joker in 2007) From 2006-2013 EVERY major final had one of them in it.
They won 63 of the 79 titles between the 3 of them, which means all of them have at least 4 more titles than every other tennis player (besides the big three) over the last 20 years. They have finished 2nd a combined 30 times, meaning they have taken 92 of 158 finals spots over a 20 year period. 24 of those 2nd place finishes they fell to one of the other 3, meaning over 30% of the titles the last 20 years have featured 2 of them. They have a 39-7 record against everyone else in the finals.
More amazing that in this sport, people were long considered washed up after 30, but in the years when all 3 were in their 30s (2017-2021 - Fed was 40 this year) they STILL won 17 of 19 titles and had 22 appearances compared to 16 for everyone else. 4 of their 5 losses came against each other, which means they went 13-1 in finals against everyone else.
Soon there will be a year that other players win all the majors, followed by a year in which the other two have either retired or fail to make a final, and their time will be completely over. But what an era it was, unique in any sport.
I’d be interested instead of head-to-head records in who made it further in each tournament both players played. Or something similar, but if I lose in the semis, and you beat that same guy in the final, that should count (in this sense) as a win over me.
I'll always rooted the hardest for Federer. I think the only time I maybe the only time I wasn't fully committed to rooting for him was the 2011(?) Wimbledon against Roddick. I think once it got to 9-9 in the fifth, my thought process shifted to, "Roddick is never going to play this well again. Can't we just give him the one?" But that's what made Roger the most important. Everyone had to raise to level to new heights to get within touching distance, or in a couple cases catch up to him.
He was also the most joyful. His aww shucks routine after winning may have grated on some people as an act, but if you've ever Rowan RIcardo Phillips excellent book The Circuit, you might be familiar with this photo of him photobombing a shot for Instagram by the younger generation:
Underneath the hands and the talent, maybe he is just a big goof. The thought makes me happy. I loved late career dad energy Roger just as much as early career invincible Roger.
Replaying to myself to give a separate thought on Djokovic:
I think it's great whenever sports has a chance to present itself as theater of the absurd. So I should root for Djokovic, what with frequently showing up in T-shirts emblazoned with giant pictures of wolves or eagles or his own face. Sometimes two or three of them at the same time. I'm very pro crazy tennis family as long as they are supportive or at worst benign. But I've just never warmed to him.
He has some off court issues. Early in his career he was kind of a goof himself. Who didn't enjoy his ability to mimic other players? (Except for maybe the other players, who should really lighten up...) But it seemed he felt the need to put that away that side of himself and channel more aggressive, angry energy to win slams. Sometimes his on court outbursts have been uncomfortable to watch.
I've watched Djokovic be the conductor of a train of 20-30 young children to a play area and hit around with them during a Cincinnati Masters and admired him. I watched him attempt to apologize to Stan Wawrinka for taking a medical timeout as Stan was beating him in a US Open final, seemingly more to save face for doing something every tennis fan complains about, which only seemed to annoy Stan, and been turned off. Djokovic is just... complicated.
The one time I've sided with Novak over Roger is when he smoked the go-for-broke return of serve for a winner at the US Open to save match point and then go on to win. Roger was pretty sour after that match. I think Novak proved over the next decade that shot wasn't a fluke.
This is pretty much how I feel too. Whoever you think is the best, as if we could ever definitively answer this, Federer set the bar.
There's also something about tennis that makes it harder for me to root against players. Don't get me wrong, I do, if one of my favorite players is playing someone I don't have much interest in. But take a match like Tiafoe-Alcaraz. Because of Frances's story, and his flair, I really wanted him to win. But I can't root against Carlos -- he's the future, he could be the next person to get to that bar that Federer set. Whoever won that match, history would be made. And I could say that about so many matches and players nowadays.
The other thing about Federer, tennis aside, is that he is apparently a genuinely phenomenal human being. It seems like everyone loves him, from his opponents down to random people who happened to meet him, and you never really hear anything negative about him.
There’s a good documentary out about Mardy Fish and his mental health struggles. In it, Andy Roddick plays a prominent role. There’s a segment where he defines Federer as the best offensive player, best defensive player, best server, best returner, and does it all without breaking a sweat with perfect hair and a smile (or something similar to that-I’m paraphrasing). That, to me, was Federer when he came on the scene.
Finally I see someone agrees with me that the devil was the better fiddler.
Also, great story. I wasn't quite as magnanimous as you, though, I was always a bit anti-Nadal AND anti-Djokovic because of Fed.
Great read, but....Dan Marino? I'm not sure I get that one; the rest I do.
He passed for 5000 yds in 84, Brees was the next guy to do it in 2011. Ahead of his time, although you can argue Fouts was there first.
Ok, thanks. I guess that tracks, but he still doesn't quite seem to have represented the quantum leap in the sport like the others did. Unitas and Fouts came before him and he had contemporaries like Montana, Elway, etc,. that arguably advanced the position to the same or greater extent than Marino. Marino was great, but I'm still not sure it was in the same unique/notable way as Fosbury, Gretzky, Biles, or Curry.
One thing that doesn't get talked about enough is that in 2003 (or maybe 2004) they changed the balls to slow them down to encourage more rallies. This is essentially the exact moment Fed's career took off and he went on his incredible run Joe talks about and Hewitt/Roddick faded. Maybe a coincidence and maybe not.
Rafa has talked about it before in interviews saying it's made for better tennis even if its lessened the differences between the 3 surfaces. It used to be the big bombers owned Wimbledon and Rafa would never ever have won there with the balls they used in the 90's (go watch some older matches in the 90s). Not sure Joker would have won much either on grass as Agassi only won 1 time and his game is most similar to Jokers.
So I wonder if they hadn't changed the balls if the big 3 would have lasted into their late 30s and won 20+ slams or whether they would have had their careers ended around 30-32 like Sampras/Agassi/Mac etc.
Good comment, though I personally think it’s the LACK of change in equipment that encouraged this sort of longevity. It’s commonly repeated that changes in the surface and balls were done to combat serve-botting, but service statistics are actually much higher than they were in the 90s: higher % of service games won tour-wide (on all surfaces), higher ace and unreturnable counts, etc.
See here:
https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/statsTimeline
It stands to reason that if the balls were changed to such a degree that it would encourage longer rallies, you’d see big upticks in longer-rally-conducive point outcomes (errors, both forced + unforced), or at least some kind of abrupt change in the tour-wide stats, whatever the category…instead the tour is more “offensive” than ever before.
And that, IMO, is because the racquet conditions are stabler than ever before, allowing for enough time to ensure mastery of the power baselining game enabled by graphite (which revolutionized tennis in the 80’s) + polyester strings (which took over tennis in the mid to late 90’s) . Enter The Big Three. I honestly think that, while they are likely 1-2-3 in tennis history, they arguably got a bit lucky from a longevity perspective.
Here’s why: if you scan tennis history, you’ll find that the most longevous players tend to come from times where the playing conditions were stable…e.g Fedal and Djokovic in the 2000’s (no huge changes since poly became prevalent in the late 90’s) the Laver-Gonzo-Rosewall triumvirate from the 50’s-70’s, etc.
Graphite was a massive game-changer in the 80’s and ushered in a new era which partially phased out players like McEnroe (and likely Borg if he kept playing, his backhand was not suited to the power-baselining game). Imagine playing your entire life with a certain type of racquet and then having to risk uprooting your swing mechanics on a dime to remain competitive, while eventually having to fend off younger players that grew up with those sticks. That’s a severe handicap.
Poly, though not quite as important historically, immediately made S+V and essentially anything other than strict offensive baselining less viable. So that dings Sampras, too.
I always find it kind of unfortunate when we just reflexively scoff at the notion of the Borg, Sampras and Mac types being mentioned in the same breath as Fedal or Djoker…sure, I also think the latter were better, but the margins aren’t as big as advertised.
There’s a reason there was so little turnover at the top from the 50’s-70’s, so much from the 70’s-90’s, and again so little from the 2000’s-present. Tennis didn’t suddenly become a young mans sport in the 70’s.
Something else happened too over that timeline (91-now) at the link you provided. Tennis players in general got taller by probably a couple of inches on average. In the 90's and in previous decades it was possible to be under 6 feet and win a slam or be a T10 player. I think the last man under 6 ft to win a slam was Hewitt at 5'11 more than 20 years ago now. Short tennis players are all but extinct (minus the occasional Diego Swartzman). That's why I always chuckle when Mac drones on about Laver when Laver was 5'9. Neither he nor Laver could win on tour now because physically they are too small.
That height increase has meant better service angles and more holds (hence the +4% increase over the years). So even if returners do get the ball back, the server is on offense for most of the point unless they get a great return on a 2nd serve.
Obviously fitness levels are light years ahead of where they were in the 80's and 90's. That includes diet, quality of shoes, trainers etc. That's contributed to longevity for not just the big 3 but plenty of other guys are active into their mid 30s now too when that just did not happen in the 80's and 90's. So don't underestimate how much diet, shoes etc matter.
Fair point. Tennis did indeed get taller, but that was gradual…and yet, ace increases were most decidedly not gradual. They leapt by 30% from ‘91 to ‘98, 25% from ‘91-‘95…even ace rates from the guys that were considered ‘big’ servers in ‘91 (Sampras, Krajicek, Ivanisevic et al). Quite literally every big server I’ve found that was competitive in the early 90s and stuck around to the late 90s and beyond saw an improvement in their ace %’s, and often a huge one, even if their ranking declined precipitously. Sampras, Becker, Rosset, Stich, Krajicek, you name it. This sort of improvement was unprecedented, and coincided almost perfectly with the wood era players becoming extinct, players becoming accustomed to graphite and poly becoming predominant. If anything, I would argue that these drastic equipment changes, which allowed for unprecedented serving dominance, contributed to the great height shift more so than the other way around, as tennis is far more forgiving to one-dimensional serve-bottery than ever before.
The points about improved diet, shoes and regimens are true and well-taken, but that doesn’t fully explain why longevity at the top level was basically ubiquitous before the late 70’s, only for tennis to morph into a ‘young mans sport’ (with a couple of exceptions at the top) and then revert to being favourable to older players. I mean, the difference couldn’t be more stark from ‘91, where 11 players over 28 were in the Top 100 (meaning, those that were old enough to play with wood racquets late into their teens before having to completely change on a dime) to 2019, where there were 53.
Also, not to nit-pick, but the last time a guy under 6’ won a major was…last week :P it’s known in tennis circles that Alcaraz’ height listing is as farcical as it comes. He’s 5’11 flat, same as Mac (with J-Mac incidentally looked about a half-inch taller in the trophy ceremony pic featuring him and the two finalists), who would very likely be a juggernaut if he grew up today and received modern training.
And finally, to circle back to an earlier point you made: it was chronic injury and loss of speed that did Hewitt in, not changes to the balls. Rusty was, believe it or not, about as good in ‘04-‘05 as he was from ‘01-‘02. He bulked up around that time and added some more power to his serve and groundies to offset the marginal loss of speed and his match stats were actually close to identical (53.3% of points won/1.20 DR/81.5 holding % and 33.3 break% in 01-02 compared to 53.3/1.22/83.5/30.6 in 04-05)…he just so happened to lose to the eventual winner in all of the non-clay majors from 04-05, 5 of those 6 losses coming to Fed.
Federer is the greatest to me because he almost made it look easy. You could tell Nadal and Djokovic were pushing every fiber of their body to the limit when playing. Roger never seemed to be trying that hard, yet he made incredible shot after incredible shot.
The most aesthetically pleasing tennis player I've ever seen. His form and the 1 handed backhand looks like something you'd see in a perfect tennis form instructional video.
Wow! GREAT post! Lots to consider, and to make us love Fed even more.
When you talk about the 3 of them together, the dominance they had really sticks out. It seemed strange when the recent US open final didn't have one of them in it. Why? because it hasn't happened very much. With Federer retired, and the other two starting a bit of a slide, we will have to get used to this.
Since 2003, when Federer won his first Wimbledon, it has been 20 years. 79 major finals (Wimbledon skipped 2020) One of the three has been involved in 70 of those. A lot of the 9 were in the early years when the other 2 were not established yet (Nadal made his first final in 2005, Joker in 2007) From 2006-2013 EVERY major final had one of them in it.
They won 63 of the 79 titles between the 3 of them, which means all of them have at least 4 more titles than every other tennis player (besides the big three) over the last 20 years. They have finished 2nd a combined 30 times, meaning they have taken 92 of 158 finals spots over a 20 year period. 24 of those 2nd place finishes they fell to one of the other 3, meaning over 30% of the titles the last 20 years have featured 2 of them. They have a 39-7 record against everyone else in the finals.
More amazing that in this sport, people were long considered washed up after 30, but in the years when all 3 were in their 30s (2017-2021 - Fed was 40 this year) they STILL won 17 of 19 titles and had 22 appearances compared to 16 for everyone else. 4 of their 5 losses came against each other, which means they went 13-1 in finals against everyone else.
Soon there will be a year that other players win all the majors, followed by a year in which the other two have either retired or fail to make a final, and their time will be completely over. But what an era it was, unique in any sport.
Yeah, Johnny should be in Hell right now for the sin of pride, for cheating by having a chorus show up somehow, and because the devil was just better.
You can be pro Tiger without being anti Mickelson. Nobody was ever close to as good as Tiger (during Tiger's prime).
This post is why you are the greatest sportswriter alive, on a sad day for me as a Fedfan, thanks Joe for framing it the way you did
Well done, Joe. This era of tennis has been so memorable. Appreciate your efforts as always. Cheers.
I’d be interested instead of head-to-head records in who made it further in each tournament both players played. Or something similar, but if I lose in the semis, and you beat that same guy in the final, that should count (in this sense) as a win over me.
I'll always rooted the hardest for Federer. I think the only time I maybe the only time I wasn't fully committed to rooting for him was the 2011(?) Wimbledon against Roddick. I think once it got to 9-9 in the fifth, my thought process shifted to, "Roddick is never going to play this well again. Can't we just give him the one?" But that's what made Roger the most important. Everyone had to raise to level to new heights to get within touching distance, or in a couple cases catch up to him.
He was also the most joyful. His aww shucks routine after winning may have grated on some people as an act, but if you've ever Rowan RIcardo Phillips excellent book The Circuit, you might be familiar with this photo of him photobombing a shot for Instagram by the younger generation:
https://wearetennis.bnpparibas/uploads/article/content/Federer%201(13).jpg
Underneath the hands and the talent, maybe he is just a big goof. The thought makes me happy. I loved late career dad energy Roger just as much as early career invincible Roger.
Replaying to myself to give a separate thought on Djokovic:
I think it's great whenever sports has a chance to present itself as theater of the absurd. So I should root for Djokovic, what with frequently showing up in T-shirts emblazoned with giant pictures of wolves or eagles or his own face. Sometimes two or three of them at the same time. I'm very pro crazy tennis family as long as they are supportive or at worst benign. But I've just never warmed to him.
He has some off court issues. Early in his career he was kind of a goof himself. Who didn't enjoy his ability to mimic other players? (Except for maybe the other players, who should really lighten up...) But it seemed he felt the need to put that away that side of himself and channel more aggressive, angry energy to win slams. Sometimes his on court outbursts have been uncomfortable to watch.
I've watched Djokovic be the conductor of a train of 20-30 young children to a play area and hit around with them during a Cincinnati Masters and admired him. I watched him attempt to apologize to Stan Wawrinka for taking a medical timeout as Stan was beating him in a US Open final, seemingly more to save face for doing something every tennis fan complains about, which only seemed to annoy Stan, and been turned off. Djokovic is just... complicated.
The one time I've sided with Novak over Roger is when he smoked the go-for-broke return of serve for a winner at the US Open to save match point and then go on to win. Roger was pretty sour after that match. I think Novak proved over the next decade that shot wasn't a fluke.
"Fire on the mountain" run boys, run
Federer is in the House of the Rising Sun!
This is pretty much how I feel too. Whoever you think is the best, as if we could ever definitively answer this, Federer set the bar.
There's also something about tennis that makes it harder for me to root against players. Don't get me wrong, I do, if one of my favorite players is playing someone I don't have much interest in. But take a match like Tiafoe-Alcaraz. Because of Frances's story, and his flair, I really wanted him to win. But I can't root against Carlos -- he's the future, he could be the next person to get to that bar that Federer set. Whoever won that match, history would be made. And I could say that about so many matches and players nowadays.