The continued domination of the Holy Triad continues to dominate the ATP discussion, though Generation Zverev (which started as Gen Kyrgios and may become Gen Tsitsipas) is starting to make inroads in surpassing the derisively titled Lost Boys in becoming the chief challengers to the legends.
For reasons noted a bit further down, I've been thinking about what, among the numerous elements of their elite games, puts them above the rest, and these topped the list:
1. Mentality
The Federer/Dimitrov comparisons obviously haven't aged well, but even though their games are different, the chasm in achievement is far more mental than physical. Put differently, if you gave Federer's brain and nervous system to Dimitrov, or Rafa's point-to-point intensity to Gael Monfils, they'd be champions too.
2. Variety
With that said, the big physical gap of the Big Four (less so for Andy Murray) is that they have so many ways to beat you. Federer and Nadal are famous for their forehands but they've also sliced Sascha Zverev straight out of a match, and Novak Djokovic's variety almost goes without saying given he's probably the most versatile male player in modern tennis.
I'd been kicking another big reason around in my head for a while, and it crystallized somewhat watching Stefanos Tsitsipas, but most of all when Amanda Anisimova pulled off this shot in her stunningly casual demolition of Aryna Sabalenka...
3. Spatial Awareness
One of the fun parts of my time coaching tennis at the high school level was seeing players at different levels of experience and the extremely wide range of skillsets.
The two players who had the highest pure skill level were not so coincidentally the two most experienced players.
Setting them aside, it was incredibly fascinating to see which skills the newcomers could pick up, whether it was footwork, a solid swing, or the mental aspect, yet by far the most impressive were the rare ones who instinctively understood what angles were feasible depending on their court position.
This intuitive skill, I believe, is part of why Nick Kyrgios will continue to tantalize regardless of how far he falls in the rankings. If you put NK's metrics into data form, they probably wouldn't look much different than Sam Querrey or Pierre-Hugues Herbert's, yet it's clear from watching him that he has a natural feel not just with the racquet, but how to adjust his unique brand of flair depending where he is on the court.
It's also, along with his forehand, a large part of why I prefer Tsitsipas over Zverev in the long-term. I was struck by his court sense especially in his match against Federer, who is a master at controlling the angles on the court.
While Stef overpowered Fed at times with his sturdier forehand (Fed has used a lot of the whippier motion recently), power didn't feel like the reason he won, unlike many players of his generation. Instead, Tsitsipas felt like he belonged when it came to the geometry of the court, and it's a skill that will continue to spur him to the head of his class.
A question I keep posing to myself is, "Would I put money on this player winning a Slam?" And for as long as I've pondered these macro-level questions, there hasn't been one, not even Zverev, as I have big questions about his game that go beyond "he can't handle Slam pressure" or things of that nature.
Tsitsipas, on the other hand, may still have concerns about his return, but he's the first ATP prospect who I confidently feel checks all the boxes: he's resilient, he has the physical tools, and most importantly, he knows how to use them.