In fairness, it's somewhat difficult for us now to evaluate players from before the Open Era, such as Rod Laver and Roy Emerson. Also, Bjorn Borg shockingly retired at age 25. In any case, though, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are indisputably on any top list.
When Pete Sampras won his 14th grand slam, who knew that he was about to be surpassed, not just once but thrice! (Young Federer defeated Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001, though he didn't win the title that year.)
Sport is competition. Rivalries ? I don't think so.
What do you mean?
I meant that Federer-Nadal, Federer-Djokovic, and Nadal-Djokovic were each classic, all-time great rivalries, matching any of the great rivalries in tennis history. I would say that only Evert-Navratilova is in the same category.
It certainly wasn't a free-for-all era of equality. The "Big 3" have won 80% of the grand slams since 2004. There was a period in 2001-2003 where 11 straight different men won a grand slam, but that's unusual.
It feels like it's worth mentioning that almost all pro tennis players declare residency in places like Monte Carlo to avoid taxes. This makes sense since they are on the road 90% of the year anyway so why pay super high taxes back home? Federer, however, retained his residency in Switzerland, paying very high taxes on his $130mm (!!) in winnings (not to mention all the other income from sponsorships, etc). In a world where wealthy people hyper-optimize to avoid paying their fair share, playing the "it's all perfectly legal!" card, it is comforting to occasionally see someone who says, hey, I have plenty, maybe I'll pay it forward a bit so the next generation can have the same opportunities I had.
