In men’s tennis, the last few years have marked a slow farewell to the era of the Big Three — Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic. They’ve also heralded the arrival of a new set of superstars.
Every sport moves through eras that — for better or worse — come to define it for generations to come.
In men’s tennis, the last few years have marked a slow farewell to the era of the Big Three — Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic.
They’ve also heralded the arrival of a new set of superstars in Carlos Alcaraz of Spain and Jannik Sinner of Italy. After playing in a French Open final quickly lauded by many as one of the greatest finals of all time, the pair will square off again on the sport’s most iconic stage: Centre Court of Wimbledon.
Just as the void left by Federer, who retired in 2022, and Nadal, who retired last year, is starting to be felt, the two new mega-talents have joined the fray at the highest level of competition — both of whom trace elements of their games back to their predecessors. (Some, including world-renowned coach Patrick Mouratoglou, have argued that Alcaraz’s overall level is higher than that of the Big Three.)
Rivalries such as the one brewing between Alcaraz and Sinner could help shape the sport for years to come, says Evodio Kaltenecker, associate teaching professor in the D’Amore-McKim School of Business.
“On the supply side, you have these cults of personality, these larger-than-life personas, that have turned into global brands,” Kaltenecker says. “These two young stars, Alcaraz and Sinner, have all the ingredients to keep the consumer going back.”
“The governing bodies of tennis have done a great job of positioning the sport as rooted in a rich — and, it’s true, royal — tradition without creating barriers to entry,” Kaltenecker says. “There are stories everywhere.”
He continues: “You have everyday people who can excel in the sport and make a name for themselves. Look at Djokovic, who survived a war, and the Williams sisters, who came from poverty.”
Joel Drucker, a leading tennis writer and historian-at-large, says the story of tennis since the “boom” period more than a half-century ago is filled with notable rivalries.
Tennis in what’s referred to as the “Open Era” began in 1968, after tennis federations formally allowed amateurs and professionals to compete together in Grand Slam tournaments. Previously, the slams had only been open to amateurs.
No two eras look the same, Drucker says, but each leaves an indelible imprint on eras to come.
One of the first champions and role models from that early period was Arthur Ashe, who won the U.S. Open in 1968 — and typified the dominant serve-and-volley style, Drucker says.
The ’70s and ’80s featured a motley crew of tennis personalities: from the brash, high-energy styles of John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors, to the more businesslike demeanors of Björn Borg and Ivan Lendl. Borg and Lendl, in particular, brought with them strategic innovations on the court. The pair were better at defending the corners, a shift that required more lateral movement.
“Borg begins to change the game from a north-south emphasis, to a little more of an east-west emphasis,” Drucker says. “Lendl continues that in his way, and by the ’90s the playing boom has worn off. The game is getting more international. But it was a little more corporate and distant, and so there became this charisma drought.”
In 1994, Sports Illustrated printed its infamous “Is tennis dying?” issue. Drucker notes that “there was a lot of curiosity about what tennis needed” in the way of personalities. (It is worth noting that in the world of sports, 1994 saw NBA icon Michael Jordan retire for the first time to play minor league baseball, as well as a number of oddities sports fans like to recall.)
“There was a certain sense of: where is the charisma going to come from?” Drucker says. “This sense from many outside and inside tennis that the sport needed crossover appeal because, on its own, it wasn’t that interesting.”
By the time Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras ascended to the top of the men’s rankings in the mid-1990s, the infrastructure of sports marketing was even more sophisticated, with the explosion of endorsements and internet websites for teams and leagues.
Agassi, in particular, helped to elevate tennis’ popularity by breaking with the “country club” mold, inviting a sense of rebellion best captured in his 1990 ad campaign with Canon, “Image is Everything.” At the same time, Agassi further cemented a shift from traditional serve-and-volley to a modern baseline game now considered the default style.
Agassi and Sampras couldn’t have been more different on and off the court, which made for a highly compelling, if slightly tense dynamic.
“You get the sense that the Agassi-Sampras rivalry was almost something out of a conference room,” Drucker says. “But sure enough, they were No. 1 and 2, and in 1994 and 1995 their rivalry had a neat dimension to it.”
Then came the era of the Big Three, beginning with the rise of Federer in 2003 and 2004; Nadal in 2005 upon winning the French Open for the first time; and Djokovic, who ended Federer’s three-year streak of Grand Slam finals in the 2008 Australian Open semis. Many observers refer to the 20-something years of Grand Slam dominance by the Big Three — the trio collectively own 66 majors — as the golden age of tennis.
The Big Three faced each other a staggering 150 times in the later rounds of tournaments, each going on to become a sporting icon in his own right. The trifecta, Kaltenecker says, truly put a stamp on tennis as a global sport.