After Thiem, are Tsitsipas and Rublev next in line to challenge Big 3?

As we search for candidates to replace the Big 3 in the men’s game, the unfolding drama at a chilly Roland Garros, warmed as much as the exploits of the players as a weakening sun, has produced a couple of performances that have offered pointers as to which burgeoning stars possess that extra something.

Obviously Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal are still jealously guarding their positions at the top and Roger Federer may return but firstly, who is to fill their shoes and secondly, can anyone do so with the consistency shown by this remarkable trio? After winning the US Open, Dominic Thiem has established his credentials and seems likely to go on winning, but who else?

The two performances that stood out for me were the first round wins by Andrey Rublev and Stefanos Tsitsipas over Sam Querrey and Jaume Munar, respectively. Not just because they won but because they both did so fighting back from two sets down just two days after playing each other in a three-set Hamburg final on an even slower clay. Winning from two sets down is evidence enough of a fighting quality not everyone possesses and to do so after a day’s rest spent traveling suggests something special.

It speaks of the attitude, stamina and ingrained determination that enabled the Big 3 to dominate for more than a decade, and earlier in the game’s history for Bjorn Borg to win six French Opens and five consecutive Wimbledons and for Pete Sampras to win seven times at the All England Club in eight years.

Getty Images

It speaks of the factors that David Ferrer talked about when asked why, as a top-class player constantly knocking at the door from No. 5 or No. 6 in the world in the era of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic—and Andy Murray for many years—he was not able to break through.

“Because those guys never let down; never had a bad day,” said Ferrer. “Somehow they maintained their incredible level and never gave you a look.”

That is what we are searching for among the most talented group of young male players we have seen in the Open Era. But it is a big ask. If consistency is the shorthand for what we are talking about, who really has it? After Daniil Medvedev reached the final of last year’s US Open, he seemed a likely candidate but his form has dropped off and he lost in the first round at Roland Garros this week to Hungary’s Marton Fucsovics. None of the rest of the NextGen—Borna Coric, Denis Shapovalov, Karen Khachanov, Felix Augier-Aliassime, Jannik Sinner, Matteo Berrettini, Taylor Fritz, Reilly Opelka, Frances Tiafoe—have even reached a Grand Slam final yet, so all can be described as a work in progress.

So, too, can Sascha Zverev—who overcame his Grand Slam hoodoo by reaching the final of the US Open and pushing Thiem to the brink. But with a serve that can slip out of sync so easily, can Zverev maintain the consistency? The same question could be asked of Tsitsipas, whose inquiring mind covers so many interests and may cause him to lose focus. Rublev, too, has wavered but his problems have been caused mostly by injury and now, both he and Tsitsipas are beginning to show that extra quality required, not just to reach, but stay at the top of the game.

Jon Wertheim on Thiem's US Open victory:

Of all the players listed above, the next one showing the biggest potential would appear to be Canada’s Denis Shapovalov. Having beaten the obdurate French veteran Gilles Simon in the first round, the left hander might have progressed further had he not suffered from an incorrect call that should have given him two match points towards the end of a five-hour struggle against Spain’s Roberto Carballeros Baena. With Hawk-Eye not being used at Roland Garros, it was left to Tennis Channel’s cameras to verify the mistake. The ball, called good, was three inches long.

Shapovalov had delighted purists with successful serve and volley tactics—a rarity on clay—at various stages of the match but Caballeros Baena, at the age of 27, suddenly discovered how to win. Better late than never.

Like his younger compatriot Augier-Aliassime, Shapovalov is hugely talented and seems to be heading for an exceptional career. How exceptional? We are setting a high bar here, talking comparisons with the Big 3 but at 21, he has time.

Getty Images

All these evaluations are based on the need to win best of five-set matches at Grand Slams. That is always an onerous task, made even more so in Paris this year because of the cold weather and heavier balls—much criticized by Nadal—which are producing a higher ratio of five-setters than normal.

But what if they were not all best of five sets? The suggestion came from an unlikely source—Alex Corretja, a former French Open finalist, who won the biggest title of his career when he defeated compatriot Carlos Moya in a five-set duel that lasted over five hours, indoors, in the championship match of the ATP Finals at Hannover in 1998.

Corretja, talking to the former Austrian player Barbara Schett, who now presents Eurosport’s Grand Slam coverage, was making the point that, by playing best of three until, perhaps, the fourth round, there would be more opportunity for lesser players to create upsets. That would be true—but the question is, do we want that? Corretja, a Spanish Davis Cup captain who thinks deeply about the game, feels it would be good to deny the likes of Nadal and Djokovic the cushion of knowing that they can get off to slow starts and have time to recover.

Schett did not seem so sure and neither am I. Not least because the argument I am making here about the need for stamina, resilience and a bloody minded refusal to get beaten—all the qualities we want in a champion—would have been washed away with those two Rublev and Tsitsipas results. Both would have lost in straight sets!