For non-tennis fans, the Big Three are widely considered to be the greatest tennis players of all time. They are Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, and Novak Djokovic. I am not trying to make a case for one being the greatest, but rather share some thoughts that perhaps haven’t been articulated as widely.

Underrated aspects of their games

Each of them have their obvious strengths, but I’d like to discuss some less obvious strengths.

Federer’s fitness is often overlooked as a major factor in his success. People like to describe his game as “effortless” or “graceful”. But to play five-set matches in your late thirties, you need to be in incredible shape. He obviously did not move as well as he did in his prime, but nonetheless, he was able to play some long matches against his rivals while not being visibly tired (e.g. Australian Open 2017, Wimbledon 2019).

Djokovic may be the best defensive player ever, but what is not discussed as much is how his intuition of the court’s geometry is so good. It is not necessarily speed, but rather picking the right place to be (and to hit), that makes his defense great. Not only that, but he still has options while playing defense, which allows him gradually gain control of rallies or hit incredible angles out of position.

Nadal’s tennis IQ does get some recognition, but “creativity” is often only used with Federer. Nadal deserves the same recognition for his. Nadal, like Federer, is a delight to watch when he uses his creativity to surprise his opponents (and hence the spectators), whether it’s a banana shot, a lob tweener, or a slap backhand.

Weaknesses

It’s actually not straightforward to comprehensively list the weaknesses of each player. As they got older, they had to adjust their games to deal with lesser mobility. Nonetheless, I think there are some that have persisted throughout their careers.

Nadal has struggled against a certain type of opponent, which is the one who serves hard and hits hard. Of course, it is hard to do this throughout an entire match, but when a player like Nick Kyrgios or Dustin Brown is having a good day, it is hard for Nadal to beat them. On clay, this weakness is mitigated.

Djokovic has never been very comfortable at net. He has decent volleys, but often loses the point unless his approach shot is very good (which it often is). Nonetheless, with seven Wimbledon titles, he has proved volleys to be an outdated stroke in the modern singles game, even on grass.

Federer’s backhand was a weakness in his prime, but late in his career, he improved it to the point where even Nadal could not overcome it. So if I were to pick one central weakness of his, it would be his mental strength. Not when he’s facing match point, but when he has match point in his favor. This is something that manifested more when he got older. I think that in his prime, his level was so far above his competition’s that he didn’t need to develop the mental strength to close.

Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka

These two men are the only ones to win more than one Grand Slam title during the Big Three era.

Murray seems like Djokovic with worse movement, but he has better touch and feel (lobs and drop shots). He may also have better anticipation. This definitely helped on faster surfaces.

Stan Wawrinka is interesting. Most people would say that agility is a requirement for the modern game, but Wawrinka has won three Grand Slams (beating Djokovic in each one) through just incredible shotmaking. He seems to struggle most against Federer, with only three wins against him, all on clay (and 23 losses). He had arguably just three chances to win a major, and he won all three.

Uncontroversial facts

• Djokovic has had the most successful career of the three
• Nadal’s 14 French Open titles will probably never be broken
• Federer’s run from 2003-2009 will likely never be seen again