RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
This might cause some controversy here, but I rate Tsitsipas, Zverev, Medvedev and Thiem as better players than Hewitt and Roddick. My honest opinion. They simply have more well rounded games, and are bigger and stronger.
Why is the weak era generally associated with Federer's opponents?
- Thread starter Oceans II
- Start date
This might cause some controversy here, but I rate Tsitsipas, Zverev, Medvedev and Thiem as better players than Hewitt and Roddick. My honest opinion. They simply have more well rounded games, and are bigger and stronger.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
No - time will just make the big 3 older. It doesn't necessarily mean the others will get better.
Aabye5
G.O.A.T.
Thiem isn't NextGen.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Based on nothing substantial
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Nothing controversial at all - if you look at wins over big 3 at slams, they’re all similar level so far. Difference is, the nextgen guys have years left to add slams and more titles to their resume. Their games have less glaring weakness too.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Based on nothing substantial
Plenty substantial. Their ceilings are higher, and even now their games are top level and won big things to show for it aswell. They have a strong core to build around, and barely any weaknesses. They are bigger and stronger aswell.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
D
Deleted member 779124
Guest
"Federer fan eye test"
NatF
Bionic Poster
Roddick was two sets from being number one at Wimbledon in 2004.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Don't see these guys as stronger than Roddick lol. They have plenty of weaknesses as well...
D
Deleted member 779124
Guest
Clear agenda behind the post.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Clear agenda behind the account you mean lol.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Thiem, Zverev, Tsitsipas, and Medvedev have barely any weaknesses?
Bro, they’ve got more holes in their games than Swiss cheese... especially Tsitsipas.
Bro, they’ve got more holes in their games than Swiss cheese... especially Tsitsipas.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Barely any weaknesses?
Yeah, Hewitt and Roddick won jack sh*t, what was I saying?
Yes, barely. There are still things to improve, like return, but their base is well rounded and strong. They move very well (despite their height for Zverev and Med especially) they are strong from the baseline, no glaring weakness in their strokes. They can hold their own from the baseline, while also having nuclear serves and powerful strokes. Yea Hewitt was a terrific mover and great from the ground, but these guys are much bigger while also being very solid movers. Roddick had a great FH, but BH very exploitable and his overall movement and ground game wasn't that great. His serve was the saving grace. His ceiling wasn't as high. These guys have so much they can make of their games cause their core abilities are already very well rounded.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
These guys are all flawed, dude. Med lacks weapons, Zverev is mentally weak and a DF machine and Tsitsipas lacks a slice and return.
If they were as strong as you're making them out to be, they would've won slams by now. They're in their mid 20's, not like they haven't had the time.
Watch USO 2020 and rell me again how great these guys are
The Fedfather
Legend
Federer and 'weak era' are associated in the minds of some pressed folks, no big secret behind this. Most of the search results are tennis fans debunking the weak era spin on Federer's domination.
There's also more than the possibility that, as soon as Djokovic retires, those guys collect all of the Slams. The difference is that we already know how many Slams Hewitt, Roddick, Phillipousis had!
In their last 11 Slam matches against Djokovic, Federer and Nadal were 1-10. Federer was 0-6, with the 1st defeat being '14 Wim F; Nadal 1-4, with the only win being '20 RG F. Why do you expect the youngsters to shut out Djokovic in the Slams, when two ATG's couldn't?
Last edited:
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Their games aren't as exploitable cause their base is already very strong, while having the physical aspect aswell. They are incredible movers for their heights.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
Don't worry, my work isn't done yet. The current inflation era will be spoken of for 1000 years
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
Medvedev has Murray syndrome, he can't penetrate the best players in the biggest moments with his Gilles Simon-esque flat groundies
Tsitsipas and Shapovalov can't return serve. Stef is vulnerable on the BH and Shapo plays a very low margin game
Zverev has all sorts of mental problems and lacks a second serve, also mediocre at the net
Thiem has poor tennis IQ and lack of variety
All of these guys are obviously good players but to say they lack weaknesses is pretty funny
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
Winning slams because greater players retired and not because you beat them is pretty meaningless
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Which great players did Philippousis/Bagdhatis/Gonzalez defeat for their slams? Or Roddick/Hewitt outside of USO01
Ridiculous, plain and simple. If Djokovic didn't beat Federer in their last 6 Slam meetings, Federer would've 5 more slam titles, including 3 at Wimbledon. You're the only one who thinks Djokovic's 3 Wimbledon titles vs Federer are meaningless. For long stretches in '15-16, Djokovic was the only one who could beat Federer; Nadal couldn't!
Same with Nadal, who was definitely not retired when Djokovic beat him. In fact, Nadal was the heavy favorite to win the match and the tournament, entering the '21 RG SF.
Last edited:
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
Med/Zverev/Tstsi will start winning slams next year for sure. Theres no way Djokovic wins all 4. Fed and Nadal are most likely done
LOL, what does the mugs winning majors in future have to do with what they did in the times before when they were exposed ?
Spencer Gore
Legend
So Sampras lost to a mug when Federer beat him in 2001?
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Their bases aren't all that strong. Competent, yes, but not strong. At least not strong enough to cover up the holes in their games.
With Medvedev, his whole game is the problem: he doesn't have a consistent weapon so he gets pushed to the defensive (which he does handle well) way more often than not. Without a truly elite weapon, Med falls into the Murray category of not having a game that's remotely threatening for any top-tier ATG (and I'm not even talking just the Big 3 here), except Med just does most things even worse. He works with what he's got because he's easily the best tactician from the next gen and his shots aren't outright bad, but it's clear that he's working with some limitations. You can see this in his forehand.
Zverev's forehand is also a completely fine shot, but it's still too passive. There have been countless instances when he could have used it to shift the point in his favor but he instead uses it as a lame rally shot most of the time. It's the same problem Murray's forehand has, though I do think Murray's might have been even worse in that regard; that shot was a genuine weakness in his game rather than a "not-a-strength" as it is for Zverev. Zed's got a backhand and (first) serve though. It's a little bit puzzling how he hasn't done better with the strengths he has which suggests that I might need to place more blame on his mental strength.
Tsitsipas's forehand is actually a good shot, I like it. His problem is the backhand which is a bit loose and prone to shanking. Subjectively, it's kind of ugly for a one-hander imo. It doesn't do anything at all for him, an issue that could be resolved if he decided to slice it more: I rarely see him employ the slice. But the real weakness in his game is the return: it's an awful, awful shot for a top-tier player. Clay hides that weakness a bit (which is a big part of why that's his best surface) but it's a liability on hard courts and an instant KO on grass. I do think his fitness is also decidedly mediocre (and it showed in the RG 2021 final).
Thiem has the best "basics" of all of the next gen (but he's not one himself). Great forehand (and I mean an actual ATG forehand), pretty good backhand, and a decent serve. He's a technically sound player, which can't really be said for his younger peers. One hole in his game is the return which isn't that great, but with Thiem the problem is mental: most of the time, he goes completely AWOL in the big finals, and not just against the Big 3 either. We all know how the US Open 2020 final against Zverev went down, and I wouldn't call his ATP Finals 2019/2020 losses much better in that department. It's frustrating as someone who actually really enjoys watching Thiem because he has a great game but his mental strength is so lacking that all of those advantages disappear in Slam finals (or even Masters finals lmao).
Whether it's physical or mental, all of these players have noticeable weaknesses in their games, and their strengths aren't good enough to counteract them (due either to them not having such effective strengths like Medvedev or having such massive weaknesses that they'd need really good strengths to make up for them like Thiem). Now let's look at Roddick, the person everyone loves to poke fun at for having holes in his game.
Roddick has a pretty laughable backhand, I'll be honest. And his return wasn't great either (barring a few select matches like the Wimbledon 2004 final which featured pretty stellar returning from him). But he actually had elite strengths. His serve was top 5 or top 10 all time (lean the former) and his forehand (specifically the 2003-2004 shot) was an ATG groundstroke. Because both his serve and forehand were that good, his 1-2 punch was devastating. The criticisms levied at post-2004 Roddick are mostly justified because he decided to nerf his forehand into a rally shot rather than a weapon (even if his serve was still an incredible shot), but I won't hear any of that crap about 2003-2004 Roddick. I'd say he covered his weaknesses pretty nicely.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
What is funny is comparing Meds strokes to Simon. Light years difference in quality between them. Medvedev has plenty of power in his strokes. Can't penetrate best players in biggest moments? How did he win 4 masters and now going for 5th, won YECs beating Djokovic, Nadal and Thiem.
And I never said they don't have any weaknessess at all, I said barely. Never said they are complete either, they have plenty to improve still in the attacking phase of the game but it speaks volumes that they already have solid careers with many big titles and huge performances against great players. The sky is the limit for them. Roddick nor Hewitt had any of this potential. Important aspects of their games were already doomed from the start.
RelentlessAttack
Hall of Fame
Medvedev is Simon on steroids. He’s got those flatter, unorthodox strokes and applies similar tactics. With his size comes a bigger serve and some more power, but otherwise similar approach to the game
Sunny014
Legend
What is important is that medvedev/tsitsipas/zverev are bad players today, whether they become greats after 3 years is not in relevance.
If someone beat Federer in 2000 then it is not a great win for that person because Federer was horrible in 2000, this doesn't matter if Fed becomes ATG in 2004, the year 2000 Federer would remain a bad player.
Thats the point you miss buddy @NoleIsBoat
NatF
Bionic Poster
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
PETE, RAFA and Djoko fans teamed up out of saltiness
Thriller
Hall of Fame
zvelf
Hall of Fame
You know someone has an agenda when they say Wawrinka vultured his slams.
Wawrinka won the 2014 Australian beating Djokovic, Berdych, and Nadal.
Wawrinka won the 2015 French beating Federer, Tsonga, Djokovic.
Wawrinka won the 2016 USO beating del Potro, Nishikori, Djokovic.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Roddick and Hewitt both achieved way more than these guys at this age
Doesn't matter here. I wouldn't call Johansson and Gaudio better players or had better games than for example Ferrer, Tsonga and other guys just cause they failed to win slams.
NatF
Bionic Poster
D
Deleted member 780630
Guest
The effectiveness of propaganda and misinformation is primarily through the sheer frequency in which it is disseminated. The **** tactic of the Big Lie is relevant here: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth." The whole Federer weak era thing was just a Big Lie.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Federer does get unwarranted dirt thrown at him and this past year I have never seen so many people gang up on him. It seems like it's getting worse and worse.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Completely different caliber of players
It was just a random comparison.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
Do you mean on here?
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
Most of the Federer fans with solid reasoning capacity have been eradicated from the boards.
So they're vastly outnumbered.
You mean Soderling and Tsonga? That was the two first players stopping him in slams after AO2010.
Let me check to see if they won a bunch of Slams, and get back to you!
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
2004-2007 slam semi finalists:
Kiefer
Grosjean
Henman
Bjorkman
Nadal already stopped peak Fed in 2008, when he defeated him at Wimbledon!
Yeah you should also know someone has an agenda to create this thread with all those dirts in mind.
I am also helping a bit to throw in.
Tsonga,Berdych,Nishikori are journey mans with 1 slam appearance
Nalbandian,Davydenko,Roddick,Safin were much better than the current next Gen mugs...provided the fact that they player Big 3 in peaks and beat them.
Similar threads
