Every tennis fan loves the Big Three. I think we all underestimate them anyway. So I decided to have some fun with it and test a hypothesis: Federer, Nadal and Djokovic weren't just the best trio tennis has produced, they were the best trio any sport has produced.
That meant a list. Jordan, Bird and Magic in the NBA. Ali, Frazier and Foreman in heavyweight boxing. Gretzky, Lemieux and Messier in hockey. Prost, Senna and Piquet in Formula 1. Mantle, Mays and Aaron in baseball. Warne, Muralitharan and Kumble in cricket. Palmer, Nicklaus and Player, the golfers the phrase "Big Three" was invented for. Most of this piece is those comparisons. Towards the end I get a bit looser and ask whether there are directors, bands, film stars or even world leaders (Churchill, Roosevelt and Hitler, I think) who belong in the same conversation.
How I do the scoring
Two conditions to get on the list. All three have to be in or near their prime for essentially the whole window, and at least one of them has to be a genuine greatest-of-all-time candidate in the sport.
The first condition matters more than it sounds, because most of the trios people reach for are relays, not trios. Navratilova, Evert and Graf are three of the ten best tennis players ever, and their primes barely touch: Evert in the seventies, Navratilova in the early eighties, Graf from 1987. Three great careers in the same decade isn't what I mean. The definition I'm using is that the three players had to beat each other to win.
Once a trio is in, I score it on three things.
How long. The number of seasons all three were at or near their peak together. The overlap, not the span of their careers.
How much. The trio's share of the sport's top individual prize inside that window. Grand slams in tennis. The undisputed title in boxing. The drivers' championship in F1. Majors in golf. League MVP in the team sports, because a title measures a team and this measures three men.
How great. Where each of the three ranks all-time in the sport. Top one or two, top five, top ten, top twenty-five. This is the test that separates a trio from two legends carrying a really good third guy, and it's the one where tennis gets silly, because the Big Three are three of the three or four best players who ever lived.
There's a fourth thing that can't be scored, and I'll call it cultural weight. Jordan, Bird and Magic changed what the NBA was. Duncan, Kobe and LeBron put up comparable numbers a generation later and don't get grouped together in the same way. Weight breaks ties. It doesn't move anyone up a tier.
The Big Three by the numbers
From 2004, Federer's first full year as world No. 1, to 2023, the last year one of the three finished at the top, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic won 65 of the 79 majors played. That's 82 percent over twenty years. The graphic is the clearest way to see it.
Eight seasons they won all four. Ten seasons they won all but one. Two seasons, 2014 and 2016, they won only two. There was never a year they won fewer.
The ranking says the same thing. Federer became No. 1 on 2 February 2004 and Djokovic was still No. 1 at the end of 2023. In the 1,039 weeks between, one of the three held the top spot for all but about a hundred: roughly 90 percent. Murray, Medvedev and Alcaraz had the rest. Year-end No. 1 over those twenty seasons: eighteen of twenty.
The two misses were barely misses. In 2016 the year-end No. 1 came down to the last match of the season, the ATP Finals final in London, winner takes it: Murray beat Djokovic 6-3 6-4, and that was the margin. In 2022 Alcaraz finished 800 points ahead of Nadal, and Djokovic finished fifth having been barred from the Australian and US Opens over his vaccination status and having won Wimbledon in the one year it carried no ranking points. Give him the Wimbledon points and he ties Alcaraz for No. 1. So eighteen of twenty, and the other two by one match and one policy.
I'll admit I'm being a bit loose with "twenty years." I said I wouldn't play the relay game, and 2004 to 2023 is stretching it: Djokovic wasn't a threat until 2007 and Federer wasn't one after 2019. The strict Big Three is 2007 to 2019, thirteen seasons in which they won 44 of 52 slams and 12 of 13 year-end No. 1s. On either side of that it's a Big Two, Federer and Nadal in 2005 and 2006, Nadal and Djokovic in 2020 to 2022. Both windows are on the chart below, and the argument holds on either.
One more thing, because I like the old-timers. Rod Laver is the only name from before this era with a real claim to the GOAT conversation, and Alcaraz and Sinner may rewrite it over the next decade. For now, though, the three best players who ever lived, or three of the best four, played each other in the same years. Hold that ratio in your head. It's what every other trio on this list has to be measured against.
The chart, and what it says
Two things jump out. The first is that the tennis points are alone in the top right on either window. Every other trio is either short and total (the boxers, the sprinters, Jordan's NBA) or long and shared (the cricketers, the baseball three).
The second is the one I didn't expect: the closest challengers are cricketers. Not one trio but two, the best spin bowlers and the best batsmen of the same thirteen years, 1995 to 2007, and the reason is simple: they lasted as long as the tennis trio and they were as good. Most of you probably don't follow cricket. Stay with it, because it's where the comparison gets interesting.
The ten, ranked
The rankings below lean heavily on the stats, but I made the calls. Where two trios are close on duration and share, all-time standing separates them, then cultural weight.
1. Ali, Frazier and Foreman (boxing, 1970 to 1977). From the day Frazier unified the title in 1970 until Leon Spinks beat Ali in 1978, the undisputed heavyweight championship belonged to exactly three men, in sequence: Frazier, then Foreman, then Ali. Eight years, 100 percent. Many of you reading this weren't born when any of it happened and I'd bet nearly all of you know the three names, which tells you what cultural weight means. Ali is one of the four defining sports figures of the last hundred years, with Ruth, Pelé and Jordan. Frazier and Foreman are both top-ten heavyweights. Eight years is the shortest window of my top four and it's first anyway: total ownership of the most valuable prize in sport, by three men who each beat the others, with the sport's biggest figure among them.
2. Warne, Muralitharan and Kumble (cricket, spin bowling, 1995 to 2007). Thirteen years, which matches the strict tennis window, and nothing else on this list comes close. They finished first, second and fourth on the all-time Test wicket list: Muralitharan 800, Warne 708, Kumble 619. Warne and Muralitharan are the two names in any greatest-bowler-ever argument; Kumble is top ten. What holds them at two is that cricket has no prize a bowler wins, and that the best proxy, how often one of the three was the world's top-ranked bowler, is only about half the window. And there's the niche question. Cricket is batting and bowling, and this is one kind of bowling. The best three spin bowlers ever is a bit like the best three slice backhands or the best three knuckleball pitchers: a real achievement, in a narrower category than "best tennis player."
3. Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting (cricket, batting, 1995 to 2007). The same thirteen years and the same problem, no prize to own. At retirement they were first, second and third on the all-time Test runs list. Tendulkar is on every shortlist for the greatest batsman ever; Lara is top five to eight and holds the two highest scores in Test history; Ponting is top fifteen. That's where it falls short of tennis. Bradman is the clear No. 1 batsman of all time even a hundred years on, and nobody argues Ponting into the top three. The spin bowlers are close to the tennis ratio. The batsmen aren't quite.
4. Prost, Senna and Piquet (Formula 1, 1983 to 1991). Nine seasons, eight drivers' titles: Piquet in 1983 and 1987, Prost in 1985, 1986 and 1989, Senna in 1988, 1990 and 1991. The one miss is Lauda in 1984, by half a point from Prost. Nine years at 89 percent is the best combination of duration and share by any rival trio. Senna and Prost are both top five all-time; Piquet is top fifteen. They sit behind the cricketers on duration alone. Thirteen years is a different order of endurance from nine.
5. Gretzky, Lemieux and Messier (hockey, 1984 to 1992). Nine seasons. One of the three won the Hart Trophy in eight of them, the scoring title in all nine, and their teams won seven of nine Stanley Cups. I'm not a hockey expert, but I know enough, and the record is clear enough. Gretzky is the most obvious No. 1 in any sport. Lemieux is a top-fiver. The problem is Messier, who is a great player and a six-time champion and probably a top-twenty-fiver. Two of three is very good. It isn't three of three.
6. Jordan, Bird and Magic (NBA, 1984 to 1990). Seven seasons, seven MVPs: Bird in 1984, 1985 and 1986, Magic in 1987, 1989 and 1990, Jordan in 1988. Bird's Celtics or Magic's Lakers played in every Finals of the decade, and Jordan was the best player in the league from 1988, three years before his first title. Jordan is No. 1 or 2 all-time; Magic and Bird are both top ten. In the United States this may be the trio with the most cultural weight of any here. Seven years is what keeps them out of the top five.
7. Mantle, Mays and Aaron (baseball, 1954 to 1964). Eleven seasons, and two of the three, Mays and Aaron, are top-five position players ever; Mantle is top fifteen. The share is what drags them down: five MVPs between them out of 22 awarded across both leagues in the window. Part of that is baseball, which spreads individual credit thinner than any sport here. Part of it is that they weren't alone: Ted Williams was still hitting .388 at 38, and Frank Robinson and Koufax were arriving. Three all-time greats can share a decade in baseball and the award still goes to Dick Groat.
8. Palmer, Nicklaus and Player (golf, 1960 to 1967). The original Big Three; the golf press coined the phrase. Sixteen of 32 majors in eight years: Nicklaus seven, Palmer six, Player three, and in 1962 the four majors went Palmer, Nicklaus, Palmer, Player. Half the majors is remarkable in golf, where a field of 150 and four rounds make every event a lottery even for the best player alive. The problem is the other two tests. Nicklaus is clearly No. 1 or 2 all-time, but Palmer and Player are top ten to fifteen, legitimate greats and not GOAT candidates. Eight years, one man in the GOAT conversation.
9. Bolt, Blake and Gay (sprinting, 2008 to 2012). Five years, and every global 100m and 200m title in that span, two Olympics and two Worlds, went to one of the three. Bolt won seven of the eight; Blake won the 2011 100m after Bolt false-started. Gay never won one and is here for a 9.69 that only Bolt has beaten. Bolt is the undisputed greatest sprinter. Blake and Gay are top five by time and nowhere near it by titles. Five years, in a sport with two races a summer, and Gay served a doping ban in 2013.
10. Duncan, Kobe and LeBron (NBA, 2007 to 2013). Seven years, five of seven MVPs, five of seven titles for their teams. The numbers are better than golf's and sprinting's. LeBron is the Nicklaus of this group, No. 1 or 2 all-time. Kobe is top ten to fifteen; Duncan is top ten to fifteen as well, though I'd argue for the lower end. They are last because they don't get grouped together the way the others do. The three met in a Finals three times and Kobe was in none of them, and the centre of gravity moved from San Antonio to Los Angeles to Miami. Slightly less great than Jordan, Magic and Bird, and much less cultural impact.
Who's not on the list
Names a reader might expect, and why they don't fit:
- Tiger Woods and anyone. Tiger's era was Tiger plus a rotating cast. No second or third golfer stayed at his level long enough to make a trio.
- Phelps and anyone. Same problem in the pool.
- Brady, Manning and Brees. Brady and Manning were a duo. Adding Brees is like adding Messier: a great player, a tier down. And the NFL's prize belongs to a team of 53.
- Messi, Ronaldo and Iniesta. Messi and Ronaldo are a duo; there's no consistent third.
- Navratilova, Evert and Graf. A relay, as above.
- Ledecky, Titmus and McIntosh. The best candidate in swimming, and really two eras overlapping for a couple of seasons.
- O'Sullivan, Higgins and Williams. Snooker's "Class of 92" deserves a mention, and most of you won't know it. From 1998 to 2013 the three won 11 of 16 world championships, and O'Sullivan is the sport's clear GOAT. Sixteen years is remarkable; 69 percent isn't dominant enough for the ten, and Higgins and Williams are top ten rather than top five.
Still to come: the duos and the Nadal point, the fun stretch, and the verdict.