Are Medvedev Tsitsipas and Zverev the unluckiest generation ever ? First the Big 3 era and now the Alcaraz/Sinner dynasty ? No time to breathe

[MasterSlice74]

I'd argue that the med/zed/tsitsipas era is lucky - they are in their prime right when the era is about to change. The dominance of both gens are as weak as they're going to get since big 3 is old and the alcaraz/sinner gen is still quite young. Considering they are in their prime in this period of transition, they are lucky imo. If they still vant capitalize then they need to get better.

 

[messiahrobins]

When you say big 3, you nowadays have to check if it is really big 3 or just Djokovic.
In nadal's case, he has robbed Medvedev from 2 slam chances. He counts vs Medvedev and Zverev.

Tsitsipas stole a living at tennis. In any other era would have never made the top 10. The 2016-2022 era was the weakest period in tennis ever, 2023 at least we saw the emergence of some proper talent for the first time since Nadal, Djokovic, Murray Del Potro and Wawrinka and Ferrer.
Peak Ferrer would have been no.1 and won around 3 slams between 2020-2023.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Tsitsipas stole a living at tennis. In any other era would have never made the top 10. The 2016-2022 era was the weakest period in tennis ever, 2023 at least we saw the emergence of some proper talent for the first time since Nadal, Djokovic, Murray Del Potro and Wawrinka and Ferrer.
Peak Ferrer would have been no.1 and won around 3 slams between 2020-2023.

Now if I call you a stupid, I would get banned by admin. So I won't.

 

[messiahrobins]

I'd argue that the med/zed/tsitsipas era is lucky - they are in their prime right when the era is about to change. The dominance of both gens are as weak as they're going to get since big 3 is old and the alcaraz/sinner gen is still quite young. Considering they are in their prime in this period of transition, they are lucky imo. If they still vant capitalize then they need to get better.

Medvedev cannot play off hard court and has no forecourt game
Tsistsipas cannot return, has no backhand and a very limited forecourt game
Zverev has a questionable 2nd serve under pressure and a very erratic forehand and is mentally very suspect.

That era is unquestionably the weakest era of all time in tennis. They will not capitalise.

 

[messiahrobins]

Now if I call you a stupid, I would get banned by admin. So I won't.

Just telling you how it is. Alcaraz and Sinner are exposing the last few years. They are not even anywhere close to their peaks either.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I'd say it went through 2019 at least since they won every slam in 2017-2019 and were top 3 in the world at the end of 2019. If 2004 is Big 3 era then I'd say it went through 2022.

2007-2019 I'd say is the Big 3 era. The first year they ended up as TOP 3 and the last. They also finished as top 3 the following year (2008) and the previous one (2018), so it's not like one of them was a "fluke" year, as in finishing top 3 randomly that year. 2004 didn't have Nadal or Djokovic, and 2022 didn't have Federer.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Ferrer is a gatekeeper

A gatekeeper that's all.

 

[nolefam_2024]

2007-2019 I'd say is the Big 3 era. The first year they ended up as TOP 3 and the last. They also finished as top 3 the following year (2008) and the previous one (2018), so it's not like one of them was a "fluke" year, as in finishing top 3 randomly that year. 2004 didn't have Nadal or Djokovic, and 2022 didn't have Federer.

And in 2019 Medvedev caught on fire post Wimbledon. A late bloomer.

 

[RS]

2007-2019 I'd say is the Big 3 era. The first year they ended up as TOP 3 and the last. They also finished as top 3 the following year (2008) and the previous one (2018), so it's not like one of them was a "fluke" year, as in finishing top 3 randomly that year. 2004 didn't have Nadal or Djokovic, and 2022 didn't have Federer.

Yeah agreed.

 

[messiahrobins]

2007-2019 I'd say is the Big 3 era. The first year they ended up as TOP 3 and the last. They also finished as top 3 the following year (2008) and the previous one (2018), so it's not like one of them was a "fluke" year, as in finishing top 3 randomly that year. 2004 didn't have Nadal or Djokovic, and 2022 didn't have Federer.

In that period i think the Slam count was:
Djokovic 17
Federer 11
Nadal 19
Total: 47 majors in 12 years. That is absolutely unreal. Thats literally 3 players on average winning every slam for 12 years.
Iwould venture that players outside those 3 who won slams in that period deserve extra accolades, so well done Murray, Wawrinka Del Potro and Cilic.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

The fact that he has to spend so much time on court suggests that his game is dull and inefficient.

Medvedev doesn't win 4-5 HC Slams in any era, there are only 6 ATGs in the history of Tennis who have scored 5 or more HC Slams, even the likes of Mcenroe don't have 5 HC Slams

This Medvedev is a better version of Davydenko, thats it, he is very lucky to even win 1 slam.... damn loser at his absolute peak surrendered 2 sets to 0 lead against a 10 years older geratric Nadal... yuck... really average player this Med is, just because your Nole sh1t in his pants due to CYGS Pressure and Olympics baggage this Med even has 1 slam......

McEnroe had only one hardcourt slam in his prime

 

[fedfan24]

Medvedev cannot play off hard court and has no forecourt game
Tsistsipas cannot return, has no backhand and a very limited forecourt game
Zverev has a questionable 2nd serve under pressure and a very erratic forehand and is mentally very suspect.

That era is unquestionably the weakest era of all time in tennis. They will not capitalise.

We had 2 very poor generations in a row following Djokovic. First the thiem/dimitrov/raonic bunch then the Zverev/medvedev/tsitipas crew. Technically and mentally very weak. Thiem the best of the lot but his body failed him.

I hesitate to include nadal there because 1. He peaked a lot earlier and crossed over more with Federer, 2. His level at rg post 2016 was still super high and would beat many peak opponents from better eras and 3. He was injured too much to benefit quite as much as Djokovic did

 

[big ted]

not everyone can win grand slams.

 

[duaneeo]

Yes, they're unlucky. They were born in the 90s and inherited the mug gene.

 

[RS]

What's the reason for the 8 latter votes?

I am guessing Sinner has a lot to with those votes

 

[bhpower]

Wawrinka won 3 slams during the big 3 era. It's not that the guys were unlucky, they just weren't good enough.

For example Del Potro was really unlucky with his injuries and Murray could have won a lot of more if he had peaked in Zverev, Med, Tsitsipas time.
Btw Wawrinka got lucky in Australia with Nadal injury in the final (Maybe he could have won anyway even though he was 0-10 in h2h also didnt have to play Rafa in FO, in Australia didnt play his nemesis Federer in non clay tournaments and played a bad Djokovic in USO.
not denying Wawrinka had no merit in his wins but he skipped Rafa on clay and Fed on non clay, worse matchups for him than Djokovic.

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

Medvedev, as much as he choked two slam finals, doesn't deserve to be lumped in with those two mugs. I can still see him winning one or two two slams while I am 99% positive it's completely over in that department for Z and Stef, there games are flawed, but even more importantly they just don't seem to have the mental fortitude to win a slam, at this point they had too many heartbreaking losses that left too many scars. Z may still win some M1000 and choke other slams SFs, Tsitsipas... I can't imagine him reaching another slam SF at that point, unless he manages to... I dont know... fire his father once and for all ?

Anyway, Tsonga, Berdych and Ferrer were way more unlucky, obviously. Even though with Jo I think that other than having to face the Big 3 over and over again, his relative inconsistency also prevented him from having a greater legacy.

 

[Kralingen]

Medvedev, as much as he choked two slam finals, doesn't deserve to be lumped in with those two mugs.

He is a bum, he is arguably the worst of the 3

 

[messiahrobins]

We had 2 very poor generations in a row following Djokovic. First the thiem/dimitrov/raonic bunch then the Zverev/medvedev/tsitipas crew. Technically and mentally very weak. Thiem the best of the lot but his body failed him.

I hesitate to include nadal there because 1. He peaked a lot earlier and crossed over more with Federer, 2. His level at rg post 2016 was still super high and would beat many peak opponents from better eras and 3. He was injured too much to benefit quite as much as Djokovic did

Yes have to agree. Nadal has barely played since 2017 in terms of a normal full schedule, but even Nadal i think got 2 slams extra due to an awful era, namely AO and FO2022 as i dont think Nadal 2022 would have beaten peak Ferrer, Del Potro Verdasco even. Arguably FO 2020 could be tossed in there as well as Rafa did struggle in the first two sets against embryo Sinner, which of course peak Nadal would never have done.

 

[Jonas78]

Hilarious thread. Djokovic could be Sinner/Alcaraz dad, like it was no chance to win slams in between Big3/Sincaraz

 

[KantenKlaar]

You actually need to keep quiet. Your favorite player is nautical miles away from a slam and is highly overrated and doesn’t have the talent level or desire to become a number one player

You seriously need to rethink your stance on talent. Rune is synonymous with talent. He may lack in other areas, but not talent.

 

[Linelicker]

Tsitsipas Medvedev Zverev Ruud Rublev Fritz lost zero matches vs Federer in grand slam.

You are giving FEDERER, a retired pro athlete, unnecessary credit.

Tsitsipas beat Nadal in slam once and Nadal beat him in a slam once. Tsitsipas didn't have huge issue because of Nadal.
Ruud Fritz Rublev don't belong in the conversation.

Only Meddy and Zverev left.

Ruud has lost to all three at Roland Garros.

 

[mehdimike]

Sinner isn't part of a dynasty, considering he needed a 6hr advantage just to overcome a 2-sets-to-love deficit vs. Medvedev in the AO Final.
There's a good chance Sinner won't be winning anymore slams this year, based on that.

At least he didn't cramp in the SFs of a slam if you get what I mean. He just wanted to give Med some hope before crushing him.
And don't forget that Alcaraz needed 3 5 setters in his only Hard slam title AND Caper Ruud of all people waiting for him in the finals. Oh and he had to save a match point against Sinner as well and also gave Zverev his first win against a top10 player? That doesn't sound appealing to me!

 

[jl809]

I think we can appreciate how completely outrageous it would have been if Tsitsipas had somehow managed to win a slam. That he got so close is testament to how lucky he was, not the other way round. Likewise Ruud but even more so

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

He is a bum, he is arguably the worst of the 3

Lol

 

[dking68]

You seriously need to rethink your stance on talent. Rune is synonymous with talent. He may lack in other areas, but not talent.

I don’t have to rethink it because he hasn’t won a title in almost 12 months

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

I think we can appreciate how completely outrageous it would have been if Tsitsipas had somehow managed to win a slam. That he got so close is testament to how lucky he was, not the other way round. Likewise Ruud but even more so

Gaudio have one.

 

[TsitsiBH]

Hilarious thread. Djokovic could be Sinner/Alcaraz dad, like it was no chance to win slams in between Big3/Sincaraz

Stop cooking me guys

 

[dking68]

He is a bum, he is arguably the worst of the 3

As much as you and I both hate med. You gotta hand it to Z. That USO final in 2020 was terrible

 

[Jonas78]

Stop cooking me guys

Actually i kind of like it. These guys are usually called mugs. Calling them unlucky is certainly a new angle (Meddy isnt quite in the same boat though)

 

[MeatTornado]

You make your own luck

 

[jackson vile]

It’s about work ethic and dedication

 

[nolefam_2024]

You make your own luck

100%

 

[RS]

He is a bum, he is arguably the worst of the 3

What lead you to this wave of Med dislike?

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

People always say that Murray Delpo Tsonga Berdych and players like that peaked in the strongest era ever with Djokovic Federer and Nadal winning everything...

But now imagine for a second being Tsitsipas Medvedev Zverev Ruud Rublev or Fritz ! Just as the Big 3 is finally about to leave the tour you have 2 new freaks who come out of nowhere and start dominating !

It is hard to believe that Tsitsipas was up 2 sets against Djoker in Paris and lost. You have to put those away. The Greek then said something philosophical like, " It takes three sets to win".

Likewise Med was up 2 sets against Rafa (twice?) and collapsed. And then Med was up 2 sets against Sinner. It is all so ugly to watch.

They are not unlucky. These guys just do not have the champions mentality of closing it out.

Rarely did Big Three go up 2 sets and then end up embarrassing themselves with a collapse.

 

[Kralingen]

What lead you to this wave of Med dislike?

Watching literally any Medvedev match

 

[dking68]

Watching literally any Medvedev match

He’s just an annoying pusher. Just a weak version of Murray. Perhaps better court coverage though.

 

[RS]

Watching literally any Medvedev match

You didn't seem that much against him a couple years ago

 

[Frenchy-Player]

I don’t think it’s a matter of luck but level or talent, Djoko, Nadal and Federer are human beings not invincible gods.

 

[mike danny]

You didn't seem that much against him a couple years ago

He's probably annoyed by Med's behavior.

 

[Rosstour]

Hana Mandlikova spent much of the first half of the 1980s as the #3 behind Evert and Navratilova, who are to my mind the two greatest women players of the last 50 years. By the time they started fading, Graf emerged as a new dominant player, and before Mandlikova was 30, Seles was around, too. Mind you, Mandlikova actually started fading much earlier than Navratilova did and around the same time as Evert but much more quickly - it's tough being a perpetual #3.

Mandlikova is almost five and a half years younger than Navratilova and just over seven years younger than Evert.

And her daughter is now simply named "Mandlik". Poor girl

 

[Kralingen]

You didn't seem that much against him a couple years ago

I finally saw who he was as a person.

I was once a brainwashed fan 'oh he's so funny, trollvedev, hehe' too. And then I realized he was the common denominator in all the situations he found himself in.

He's an angry, insecure bully who's never wrong and starts stuff with everyone. He may interview well but in his heart of hearts that is a lowlife with an ugly side. He is evil, deep down.

 

[dking68]

I finally saw who he was as a person.

I was once a brainwashed fan 'oh he's so funny, trollvedev, hehe' too. And then I realized he was the common denominator in all the situations he found himself in.

He's an angry, insecure bully who's never wrong and starts stuff with everyone. He may interview well but in his heart of hearts that is a lowlife with an ugly side. He is evil, deep down.

I truly don’t think he’ll win a second slam.

 

[duaneeo]

2007-2019 I'd say is the Big 3 era. The first year they ended up as TOP 3 and the last. They also finished as top 3 the following year (2008) and the previous one (2018), so it's not like one of them was a "fluke" year, as in finishing top 3 randomly that year.

No.

2005-2010 was the Fedal Era. Pure and simple. They won 21 slams (both winning the CGS) and ended every year top-2. Djokovic was more in Murray/Del Potro/Soderling/Berdych/Tsonga's league than Fedal.

2011-2016 Federer won a lone slam...two slams less than both Murray and Wawrinka. Surely that wasn't the "Big-3 Era".

The only time that can be called the "Big-3 Era" is 2017-2019...the only consecutive 3-year period when the Big-3 won every slam and each Big-3 won 3+ slams.

 

[Midaso240]

Nah, they were never going to win multiple slams and dominate whatever era they were in

 

[Krish0608]

They actually had a nice little window there from 2019-2022 where they could have really racked up titles and slams if they were world class. Instead they started to mug and never stopped. Not unlucky, just not that good.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

No.

2005-2010 was the Fedal Era. Pure and simple. They won 21 slams (both winning the CGS) and ended every year top-2.

2005 and 2006 yes, but starting in 2007 Djokovic was already finishing in the top 3 every year, even in 2009 and 2010.

Djokovic was more in Murray/Del Potro/Soderling/Berdych/Tsonga's league than Fedal.

Djokovic already had won a slam, made another final and won a YEC by the end of 2008, which is more than those achieved in their whole careers, aside from Murray. And in 2008 he was very close to taking #2 from Nadal in Hamburg. It pales to what he ended up being, but he was already separated from the rest by the end of 2007. In fact, in 2008 it looked like it was going to be a three-way for #1 already although Nadal ended up taking it somewhat comfortably.

The only time that can be called the "Big-3 Era" is 2017-2019...the only consecutive 3-year period when the Big-3 won every slam and each Big-3 won 3+ slams.

That was the most dominant moment, but you don't need to win every single slam for it to be an era. From Roland Garros 2005 to Wimbledon 2013 they won every slam bar two (USO 2009 and 2012).

The only time two non-Big 3 players won slams consecutively was Wimbledon and USO 2016, and that still stands to this day, unless Djokovic fails to win RG (or Nadal), in which case it will happen for the second time since AO and RG 2003.

 

[GimmeBackMyDog]

Dominic Thiem probably had the most success.

Either way, losing to the generation before and after you isn't really unlucky.

It just means your generation wasn't as good.

 

[urban]

No bad luck, simply not good enough. Its not only about the old Djoker. Worn out Nadal had no business to win two slams on just one leg, and retiring without being beaten in a Wim semi. Somehow, this generation of 26-28 is spent now. They all are not upcoming talents by now, but grown players at their peak time in their assumed zenith. Med is consistent, but loses a lot of finals from winning positions or winnable finals. Somehow he lacks a forecourt game, to get more offensive firepower. And on grass, his return standing position, miles behind the baseline, hampers his chances there. Zed is the most talented of the group with the most weapons, but he cannot pace himself well, and loses a lot of energy in early rounds. He also is a headcase, always depending on and arguing with his own people, instead of making own free decisions. Tsitsipas seems to be already over the hill. Ruud is a better journeyman, he mkes the best of it to his credit, and hangs in, but i never saw him winning decisevely on a technical level against inferior opposition. Thiem has lost his mojo after his injury, very sad sign. Shapo and Felix AA never fulfilled their potential. Tafoe has only sporadic moments, mainly in Laver Cup and USO. The next generation, Alcaraz and Sinner have one big advantage. They are not afraid of winning, if they see a chance, they go in and use it.

 

[TsitsiBH]

Dominic Thiem probably had the most success.

Either way, losing to the generation before and after you isn't really unlucky.

It just means your generation wasn't as good.

You are probably right