Float, big bazaar or new world order: what to expect after the departures of Djokovic, Nadal and Federer?

The 26th world player king of the Californian desert, this is a small event, certainly. In fact, this is the fourth time that this has happened in Indian Wells: after Jim Courier (1991), Alex Corretja (2000) and Ivan Ljubicic (2010), Cameron Norrie won the cup on Sunday with this unusual number. On the other hand, since the creation of the Masters 1000 (ex-Masters Series) in 1990, there had always been at least one member of the Top 25 in the semi-finals. However, last weekend, the last square was deprived of it with the Briton therefore, Grigor Dimitrov, Taylor Fritz and Nikoloz Basilashvili. Chance or start of a trend? One thing is certain, it happened when the Big 3 was not at the start line.

The disappearance of the Big 3 and its psychological hold opens up new perspectives

Same story for Dimitrov, Basilashvili and Fritz who respectively eliminated Daniil Medvedev in eighth, Stefanos Tsitsipas and Alexander Zverev in quarters, the first three seeds. Would they have believed as much in their chances until the end if they had faced the members of the Big 3? We can doubt it, as the hold of the three-headed hydra on the rest of the circuit was important and still is to a certain extent when Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are able to play, which for the Swiss in particular is becoming increasingly rare.

“The phenomenon of psychological control is indeed less present with the coming generation. But it is something that is also being built. Let’s wait three to four years to get to the bottom of it. If the Medvedev, Tsitsipas and Zverev establish a fairly clear domination, they will also benefit, as the Sampras and Agassi had enjoyed in their time.“, agrees Arnaud Di Pasquale. Moreover, if the Russian, the Greek and the German failed in Indian Wells, there were cyclical causes.

Indian Wells must not hide the emergence of Medvedev, Tsitsipas and Zverev

Exceptionally this year, the tournament has been moved to the end of the season because of the coronavirus. However, the desert climatic conditions (extreme heat) and the game (slowed down by the abrasive surface and heavy balls) considerably complicated the players’ task on the physical level by lengthening the exchanges. After a trying season for young leaders who already show great consistency at the top level by often going to the end of tournaments, a certain point of no return has been reached in California.

Without removing merit from Dimitrov who was able to reverse the trend, Medvedev had things well in hand (6-4, 4-1 double break) before coming up against this invisible wall for lack of physical and mental freshness. The same goes for Zverev who broke down at the end of the match against Fritz. The thesis of the gasoline failure seems all the more relevant that during the two previous Masters 1000, already without Big 3 in Toronto and Cincinnati, the Russian and the German had easily assumed their status of favorites by winning there. respectively. And in Ohio, Tsitsipas was not left out, since he had lost a Homeric fight against the great Sascha in the semifinals.

“There is a domination of Medvedev, and more and more of Zverev. We feel that he no longer has that famous elastic in his back when the sensations are less good, this tendency to passivity. He went to another dimension. Medvedev won his Grand Slam by incidentally beating Djokovic in the final, which remains monumental. He unlocked an important thing. Even when he had doubted a little last year, he got back in the saddle by making the double Bercy-Masters. It is still very constant and superior to others. Ditto for Tsitsipas who has the most wins this season (54, Editor’s note). There is clearly a trio above the others“, agrees our consultant.

Unlike the WTA circuit too often lately, the post-Big 3 hierarchy does not promise to be unreadable. Indian Wells Masters 1000 may have looked like a big and happy mess, taking it as a benchmark for years to come would be risky at best. With hindsight, it is rather a new world order that seems to be taking shape. Except that it would be very surprising if the three new strongmen shared the cake in the same proportions as the three-headed hydra Federer-Nadal-Djokovic did.

The prolonged resistance of the Big 3 at the top has so far prevented the Medvedev, Zverev and Tsitsipas from building a comparable aura. “They will be stronger than their rivals, but less domineering. The future disappearance of the Big 3 will create unlocks. It can allow Félix Auger-Aliassime, Denis Shapovalov, or Jannik Sinner to assert themselves more. Will Medvedev, Tsitsipas and Zverev go like their predecessors each time to the end with this hallucinating three-way division as in the last fifteen years in Grand Slam? No it’s unlikely“, judges Arnaud Di Pasquale.

More and more seasoned with the requirements of the very high level by the extraordinary champions whom they replace little by little, the current world numbers 2, 3 and 4 could make Grand Slam tournaments a preserve also in the future. Medvedev already has three finals (Australian Open 2020, US Open 2019 and 2021) including a title at this level, while Tsitsipas (Roland-Garros 2021) and Zverev (US Open 2020) were also finalists. And the three loustics squat more and more often the last squares, with the exception of that of Wimbledon. A breach to be exploited certainly for the competition.

More human cadors, but more pungent rivalries

“The grass is much slower than at one time, the Zverevs, Medvedevs and Tsitsipas will eventually adapt to it. The major difficulty on grass is the domination of Federer and Djokovic in recent years. But it is true that it is a surface that requires a special capacity for concentration and mental strength. They may have more loopholes on that side“, nuance Arnaud Di Pasquale. In Masters 1000 nevertheless, the more random and less demanding side of the two winning sets could further open the field of possibilities as the victory of Hubert Hurkacz in Miami had shown for example last March.

Still, there is something fascinating about the transition phase which concerns us. Between a generation of legends who refuses to abdicate – Federer and Nadal hope to return and how not to get carried away for the courage and determination of an Andy Murray despite his metal hip? – and new faces with certain tennis talents, men’s tennis is entering an uncertain period, but no less captivating.

“Will young people be in perpetual quest for progress like the Big 3? We are bound to compare, and there are strong characters. The Medvedevs, Tsitsipas and Zverev give themselves up sometimes with a bit of hindsight and irony. They are able to remove the mask, which was not always the case with the previous ones“, finally remarks our consultant. In the absence of superhuman champions, the rivalries could be as spicy on that off the court, like the last and exciting US Open. And it is not necessarily worse.