I think I disagree with you on this one Mike. I think Tennis is thriving because the parity is stronger than it's ever been / while at the same time being "the same shit all the time". In order for a sport to succeed ... it needs superstars who are admired, revered and hated by the fans and their competitors. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic has been the face of tennis now for the better part of a decade and it would be hard to argue for anyone that the quality of play has ever been better. And even those these three players have dominated the sport, every once in a while, you see someone sneak through and grab a championship (Safin '05 Australian / Murray '12 Open / Del Potro '09 Open).
Their time of dominance though is just about over. Djokovic will likely have a few more in him but I'm not sure anyone else does beyond 2013. You'll likely get your wish as there are no dominating up and comers ... so those 50-1 shots at the start of majors just might hit.
To comment on GOAT - There was no greater, is no greater than Roger Federer. The way he composes himself on the court, the way he speaks off the court and his humanitarian work are unparalleled. Yes, his record will likely be the best ever, but there's more to him than just the Wins. (Although I can recall the one time I saw him lose his composure on court. I was STUNNED)
that was no surprise because it was bound to happen. every tennis fan knows this that Murray has it in him, 2012 was huge for him. He kept on knocking on the door and finally broke through which made this a top 4 game. The problem now is that the next few guys in line, tsonga/ferrer still have a ton of work to do. Yes they have their favourite surfaces but they certainly do not like playing against the big boys.
I don't know how Tennis is thriving if all you have is 4-5 players who show up to each tournament, dominate it and then well the rest really have little chance. Why do you think bookies always provide that option then? Top 4 vs Field or Federer vs Field, Nadal vs Field, Djokovic vs Field, Murray vs field, but no one else? Why can't you have superstars like the 80s? Or even the 90s where there was Sampras and Agassi but you also had other the likes of Muster, Courier, Ivanisevic, Kafelnikov, Chang, Bugera, Rios, Krajicek....just to name a few, those guys all made each grand slam interesting. yes there were favourites to win a Slam but man oh man there were some good tennis in the early rounds because of these guys. It wasn't always 1 or 2 to battle it out, heck Sampras had to deal with Ivanisevic and Kraijceck on Grass, Agassi had to deal with Muster and Rios, Courier was someone no one wanted to play on hard. But today come on, French Open..it's Nadal's like automatically his. Hard courts is now more interesting, so is grass but still similar suspects.
But the other 2 men you listed, Safin....what happened to him? Dropped. Del Potro? I'd like for him to make a run again this tourney. The point is, there is a lack of longevity. Yes it's good to have the top 4 set the bar but then what? The rest of mens tennis is useless?
It's unfortunate to say but that's how women's tennis is like right now. Ever since Venus, Clijsters, Henin, Momo, Pierce, Davenport, it's been such a merry go around. Holy crap these guys can't serve for shit! You remember Dementieva? She the nastiest forehand but her serve....I swear I thought she was out of a rec league with that shit.
End of the day yes wonderful good to have those big boys around, but it would be nice to see that they are human. How often will you get a tourney that has the top 4 guys in it but none of them win it?