Roger Federer has warned tennis’s big three may continue dominating the majors for some time yet as the ageless master readies himself for a 40th career showdown with Rafael Nadal.
Federer and Nadal, relative tennis pensioners with a combined age of 70, will be squaring off at Wimbledon for the first time in 11 years in Friday night’s blockbuster semi-final at the All England Club.
After clashing in the 2006, 2007 and 2008 finals, few could have imagined the two great rivals would have to wait more than a decade before colliding again on tennis’s greatest stage.
Even more startling is how Federer and Nadal have managed to rack up 21 grand slam titles between them since their so-called greatest match of all time, won 9-7 in the fifth set by Nadal in 2008.
Such has been the dearth of challengers to Federer, Nadal and Novak Djokovic that, apart from three-time major champions Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka, only Gaston Gaudio (2004 French Open) two generations ago, Juan Martin del Potro (2009 US Open) and Marin Cilic (2014 US Open) have also won a slam in the past 15 years.
The big three plus Murray and Wawrinka have not only won 57 of the past 60 majors, no active player under 28 has even contested a grand slam final.
It’s an even more galling statistic considering Federer had already become men’s tennis’s all-time grand slam title leader with 15 of his now 20 majors before his 28th birthday.
“It’s definitely not a – how do you say – regular time in tennis in the men’s game,” Federer said.
“I don’t think we would have thought that Novak, me, and Rafa, all of us, was going to be so solid, so dominant for so many years.
“I think that (collective domination), number one, stopped a lot of runs from the younger guys.
“Number two, I’m not sure, were they as talented as Rafa, Novak, and myself and others? Maybe also not.”
Federer also believes the way rankings points are awarded makes it difficult for the younger generation to break through.
With the battle-hardened, thirty-something veterans entrenched in the top eight, it’s tough for emerging talents to make their mark at slams and, thereby, rise the rankings.
“The only way to get in there (near the top) at the moment, it seems like, if you win a slam. Otherwise you need so many more points in the 1000s,” said Federer, who turns 38 next month.
“Rafa takes care of the clay there. Novak is in every Masters 1000 on hard court. I float around.
“You add Murray to it, Stan to it, guys that made their move later on, del Potro to it, you realise there’s not that much to get.
“It’s kind of tough to get to the top because Novak and Rafa are still so, so good. It just makes it more difficult like that.”
Fionn
Guest
That was a great tournament. In my opinion, the best Australian Open this century, perhaps eclipsed by the 2017 tournament, but jeez there were some fantastic matches in 05. Safin's victory over Federer (including saving a match point with a deft lob from memory) was the obvious highlight, but we also had Hewitt beat Rafa over 5 sets (only time I have seen a player beat Nadal physically over 5 except perhaps that 2012 AO final). Hewitt and Chela going at it was memorable also.
Fionn
Guest
Some people will disagree with you entirely, but I think that a few of your comments are close to home. It makes me roll my eyes when I hear analysts (including those paid the big bucks in the media) claim that Fed, Djok and Nadal are better now than they ever were. They obviously aren't. While Federer's backhand and volleys are better now than they perhaps ever were, he can't move nearly as quickly as he did in his early to mid-20s. Thus, he plays more a aggressively. His serve is also considerably weaker in my opinion (although still world class), and his forehand is not as devastating. Nadal is dropping the ball shorter, his forehand has lost speed and significantly lost spin. It just means he drops it short and is easier to attack. He's also considerably slower. Djok, while still great, is nowhere near the player he was from 2011-16 in my opinion. However, regarding the Next Gen, I think they are extremely talented overall, or at least some of them are. They've suffered from overhype by the media and analysts. Tennis is a sport in which most players (especially these days) peak in their late 20s. The Next Gen have been good enough to pressure those guys like Nishikori and RBA who are in their peak tennis age. However, the Next Gen, at their young ages, aren't capable of tackling the big 3. Felix, Tsitsipas, Medvedev, Khachanov will be seriously good one day. Shapovalov, too, if he sorts out his mental issues. Zverev I have my reservations about.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
They are clearly slowing down in terms of court speed. They have no competition and could keep winning for a while. Batista Agut didn't make a grand slam quarter final before this year and now he makes a Wimbledon semi final at 31. The younger generation is both mediocre and even worse they are unwilling to train hard enough for 5 set grand slam , because they can make an easy living off 3 set tennis then go clubbing. Is Kyrgios a bad influence to the others, because he is friends with the young male players and I think might lead them astray. the top three chances of winning grand slams into their late thirties and fourties is Kyrgios mentoring the next gen into becoming party boy lay abouts.
riddler
Roar Rookie
just saw the end of fed/rafa. absolute legends of the game both. fed though is a freak. once in a lifetime athlete.
Ben
Guest
You forgot Safin who won the 2005 Aus open