Holy Trinity - Which Is The Best?

Golf had it's Big 3. Player/Nicklaus/Palmer. All 3 players at different stages of their careers. This got me thinking. Tennis has had 3 Holy Trinities. In the mid 70s to early 80s we had Borg/Connors/McEnroe then in the mid late 80s early 90s we had Becker/Lendl/Edberg and then in the mid 00s to the current we have Federer/Nadal/Djokovic. So my question is to you the posters what do you think is the best?

Borg/Connors/McEnroe. In total they played each other 71 times.

Becker/Lendl/Edberg. In total they played each other 84 times.

Federer/Nadal/Djokovic. In total they have played each other 111 times and still counting!

So please post some of your favourite moments from these rivalries.

So who for you clinches it?

Have to with the one I know

Great question. And a tough one to answer. All three trios were/are great.

All three also contain very distinctive and different characters.

I'd possibly place Lendl/Becker/Eberg third because the overall accomplishment of that group is lesser.

Borg/Connors/McEnroe are true legends of the game, and I like the fact there was a bit of 'needle' in that trio. I'm really tempted to vote for that group.

But I'm going to have to vote for Federer/Nadal/Djokovic. They've produced so many fantastic matches. The accomplishments of Federer and Nadal are astonishing and I think the emergence of Djokovic as a great in his right, just about tips the balance toward this group as the best trio.

Not much in it though.

https://youtu.be/RyS7k3VSrEc

Borg vs Connors US Open 1976

Connors vs McEnroe 1980 US Open

https://youtu.be/OcDF08fg21A

The age gaps

Connors was the oldest in his trinity. Borg was 4 years his junior and McEnroe was 7 years younger than Connors.

Lendl was the oldest in his trinity. Edberg was 6 years younger than Lendl with Becker a year younger than Edberg.

Federer is the oldest of his trinity. Nadal is 5 years younger with Djokovic a year younger.

Ages when they won their first Slam

Connors 21
Borg 18
McEnroe 20

Lendl 24
Becker 17
Edberg 19

Federer 21
Nadal 18
Djokovic 20

For me Becker/Edberg was the most compelling rivalry I had seen. Yet I agree with Murdoch about their trinity with Lendl is the weakest of the 3.

All stats really point to Federer/Nadal/Djokovic being the better. They have had some right battles too.

For sentimental reasons I shall go for Connors/Borg/McEnroe. I am romantic like that

Twos company threes a crowd. The rivalries that will be remembered are Borg/McEnroe and Federer/Nadal. Not just because of the tennis but because of their back stories.

Borg v McEnroe W 1980. (not going back to Laver v Rosewall though).

Borg (Nadal), Shades of McEnroe and now Connors (Federer and Djokovic . Djokovic more like Connors, but longevity is unknown).

Do not know how fit Murray in this three-way though.

But someone should consider Laver, Rosewall and Emerson at some point as a three-way as well.

hawkeye wrote:Twos company threes a crowd. The rivalries that will be remembered are Borg/McEnroe and Federer/Nadal. Not just because of the tennis but because of their back stories.

Please elaborate on these "back stories"

laverfan wrote:Borg v McEnroe W 1980. (not going back to Laver v Rosewall though).

Borg (Nadal), Shades of McEnroe and now Connors (Federer and Djokovic . Djokovic more like Connors, but longevity is unknown).

Do not know how fit Murray in this three-way though.

But someone should consider Laver, Rosewall and Emerson at some point as a three-way as well.

Glad you were able to throw another trinity into this

I think given Murray's lack of success against these 3 in the Slams. Twice against Djokovic, twice against Nadal and once against Federer. I felt he needed more Slams to his name to be in this elite group.

Sorry to ask the question but if we compared the media's famed "big four" for these respective era's would people still have the same stance?

Maybe add Vilas (4 slams) to the first trio, Wilander (7) to the 2nd group and Murray (2) to the final one.
Thoughts?

LuvSports! wrote:Sorry to ask the question but if we compared the media's famed "big four" for these respective era's would people still have the same stance?

Maybe add Vilas (4 slams) to the first trio, Wilander (7) to the 2nd group and Murray (2) to the final one.
Thoughts?

Borotra, Brugnon, Cochet, Lecoste

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Musketeers_(tennis))

The Special Juan wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:Sorry to ask the question but if we compared the media's famed "big four" for these respective era's would people still have the same stance?

Maybe add Vilas (4 slams) to the first trio, Wilander (7) to the 2nd group and Murray (2) to the final one.
Thoughts?

Borotra, Brugnon, Cochet, Lecoste

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Musketeers_(tennis))

And how the French orchestrated the beating of Big Bill Tilden at DC.

Spanish foursome of Nadal, Ferrer, Verdasco, Lopez.

The Australian Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Mal Anderson.

I go with Borg/Connors/McEnroe, probably because of my age - that is when I first started following tennis and that is where most of my fondest tennis memories lie.

Also, I think the differences between their games and personalities were bigger than between Federer, Rafa and Nole (although I can see why people may find that trio more compelling), making it more entertaining for me.

Lendl/Edberg/Becker comes in a distant third.

I go with Borg/Connors/Mac because the players involved had big personalties and star power and also there was some real bad blood mainly between Connors and the other two. It was when I first started watching tennis so there is that emotional attachment. Plus the game wasn't as anesthetized and corporatized. We had more emotion partly due to a lack of technology for replay. Fighting with the umpire was commonplace for Mac and Connors and in their defense the line calls really did scuk back then as the officiating was often done by volunteer linesmen and lacked any proffessionalism or training.

My guess is if you ask members of the general public to name top tennis rivalries they will say Federer/Nadal, Borg/McEnroe and then maybe Navratalova/Evert in that order. In tennis a rivalry has to be between 2 players because tennis is played between two players. Nadal/Djokovic and Federer/Djokovic have played some great matches and Djokovic is a great player but there isn't room for three.

hawkeye wrote:My guess is if you ask members of the general public to name top tennis rivalries they will say Federer/Nadal, Borg/McEnroe and then maybe Navratalova/Evert in that order. In tennis a rivalry has to be between 2 players because tennis is played between two players. Nadal/Djokovic and Federer/Djokovic have played some great matches and Djokovic is a great player but there isn't room for three.

Connors was arguably a bigger rival of both Mac's and Borg's. They disliked him more. And he is more accomplished than Mcenroe spent more time as #1, won more tournaments, more weeks at #1 by a long stretch. And in terms of consistency and overall career he probably is equal to or better than the other two. I can see you excluding Djoko from Fedal, although I find that argument a bit weak as well since Djokovic has played both Federer and Nadal more than those two have played each other. And he has run both of them very close although Fed's age the last few years has helped him close down his numbers with Federer. There is nothing excluding great players from a rivalry because there can only be two in your estimation. Then Lendl and Mac can't be rivals, or Becker and Lendl, there can be more than one great rivalry in a tennis period HE.

hawkeye wrote:My guess is if you ask members of the general public to name top tennis rivalries they will say Federer/Nadal, Borg/McEnroe and then maybe Navratalova/Evert in that order. In tennis a rivalry has to be between 2 players because tennis is played between two players. Nadal/Djokovic and Federer/Djokovic have played some great matches and Djokovic is a great player but there isn't room for three.

I don't buy that at all. As many have said, the Fedal hasn't been much of a rivalry for the last few years! Nadals greatest rival without a doubt has been Djokovic and for me he has earned that right to be remembered with Nadal and Federer. Same with Borg and McEnroe and I totally agree with socal on Connors and that he brought an extra dynamic to the threesome. Gave it an edge.

Fedal doesn't work without Djokovic like Borgenroe doesn't work without Connors.

Becker/Edberg/Lendl is a little below the others which are on par.

However...I was born in 1980 so I didn't see any of the first lot and the second lot I was still quite young so just half watching the occassional Wimbledon final which I don't remember, 1992 is the first year I actually have memories of matches. Mcenroe lost to Agassi in 1992 Wimbledon semi final, that is the only match I can remember him playing in singles.

Laver and Rosewall might have been the greatest duo ever if you look at their achievements. However I am not sure Rosewall is anywhere near so I am not sure it was much of a trinity.

I am trying to find clips of Borg/Connors/McEnroe as YouTube is very limited and Daily Motion isn't one for tennis.

Hopefully LF could shed some light on the Aussie Brigade

https://youtu.be/2YjomkT5E4A

Connors vs McEnroe Wimbledon 1982

https://youtu.be/cZKxKWfzUic

Borg vs McEnroe US Open 1980. Could've been the turning point for McEnroe to triumph at Wimbledon the following year.

legendkillarV2 wrote:https://youtu.be/2YjomkT5E4A

Connors vs McEnroe Wimbledon 1982

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/wimbledon/8106183.stm

Mac's BH at 2:48 is possibly the best shot I've ever seen

JuliusHMarx wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:https://youtu.be/2YjomkT5E4A

Connors vs McEnroe Wimbledon 1982

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/wimbledon/8106183.stm

Mac's BH at 2:48 is possibly the best shot I've ever seen

Strangely someone said the same thing comment section on the YouTube link was that you?

No

JuliusHMarx wrote:Mac's BH at 2:48 is possibly the best shot I've ever seen

Stunning shot.

https://youtu.be/koE_e_LX4c0

This guy needs an award named after him

The thing about Connors, Mac, and Borg was that you have to consider how many more slams those guys would have won if they competed regularly in Australia as back then the AO simply was not that valuable a prize. Mac and Borg in particular would have had to win a couple each on the grass courts of that Era. Today's guys are very close in terms of appeal the problem is that they don't have the same flair and personality of the earlier guys. The rivalries aren't as bitter, the battles no as emotional. Anyone who wants to see tennis warfare should watch the connors v. mac USO final of 1983, still the first match that I have a really clear memory of although I did watch some of the borg v. Mac 1980 final when I was very young

Borg v Mac was as chalk and cheese as they come. Chuck Connors into the pot and you really did have an unholy trinity. Some great matches.
The Becker-Edberg duels were good but there was something rather cold and robotic about Lendl that meant the public didn't take to him as much as some of the other great players.
I have to go with the present big three as they have served up some classics at a time when the tour is as competitive, as grinding and as tiring as ever. The other two big three didn't, I think, have quite such a job on their hands dealing with the other players as this lot does at a time when just the slightest off day will see you dumped out of the tournament.