Be mindful of this...

F

Forgive Me Father

Hall of Fame
People need to dial back their expectations of INDIVIDUAL "NextGen" or whatever talents.

The tour is too deep nowadays to expect a certain round and write everyone off as failed or bust or disappointment who didn't make it there. You can be as good as you are and inevitably run into an even better player earlier.

Paul and Kokkinakis have made amazing strides the last weeks, but they're drawn Djokovic and Nadal respectively in R2.

What gives?

Same for Tiafoe and Fritz, literally drawing each other in R2. Only one can make it...

People need to be mindful of that.

Respectful of this era.

I said it at the US Open last year:
In no previous era would a seeded player have to face someone the quality of Sebastian Korda, Carlos Alcaraz, Kei Nishikori, Jenson Brooksby, Mackenzie McDonald, Son Kwon, Taylor Fritz, Frances Tiafoe, Marton Fucsovics, Ilya Ivashka...

that's absolutely unheard of.

Look at these match-ups, which in no other era would happen so early:


Djokovic-Paul R2
Fritz-Tiafoe R2
Korda-Norrie R1
Fognini-Griekspoor R1
PCB-Fognini/Griekspoor R2
Alcaraz-Fucsovics R2
Berrettini-Nakashima R1
Berrettini/Nakashima-Fucsovics R3
Rune-Kwon R1
Shapovalov-Rune/Kwon R2
McDonald-Karatsev R2
Hurkacz-Karatsev/McDonald R3
Nadal-Kokkinakis R2
Nadal-Khachanov R3
Nadal-Hurkacz/Karatsev R4
Ruud-Molcan R1
Ruud-Ivashka R2
Basilashvili-Murray R1
Basilashvili/Murray-Sinner R3
Tiafoe-Fritz R2
Tiafoe/Fritz-RBA R3
Tsitsipas-M. Ymer R1
Rublev-Cilic R3
Evans-Goffin R1
Aliassime-Ruusuvuori R1
Aliassime-Fokina R2
Aliassime-Rublev R4
Schwartzman-Krajinovic R1
Humbert-Botic/Struff R2
Humbert-Medvedev R3

The amount of unseeded quality is far beyond anything it's ever been.
 
For fun I just pulled up some 1st& 2nd round matchups from 2004 AO (the weak era)

Andre Agassi - Tomas Berdych (beat Fed at '04 Olympics that year)
Radek Stepanek - Tim Henman
Mario Ancic-Alex Corretja
Gaston Gaudio (FO '04 winner)-Tommy Robredo
Robin Soderling - defending finalist Rainer Schuettler
Ivan Ljubicic-Guga Kuerten
James Blake- Nico Lapentti
Andy Roddick - Fernando Gonzalez
David Ferrer - Sjeng Schalken
Thomas Johansson ('02 winner) - Mark Phillippoussis
 
Kralingen said:
For fun I just pulled up some 1st& 2nd round matchups from 2004 AO (the weak era)

Andre Agassi - Tomas Berdych (beat Fed at '04 Olympics that year)
Radek Stepanek - Tim Henman
Mario Ancic-Alex Corretja
Gaston Gaudio (FO '04 winner)-Tommy Robredo
Robin Soderling - defending finalist Rainer Schuettler
Ivan Ljubicic-Guga Kuerten
James Blake- Nico Lapentti
Andy Roddick - Fernando Gonzalez
David Ferrer - Sjeng Schalken
Thomas Johansson ('02 winner) - Mark Phillippoussis
Click to expand...

Most of these guys were mugs at the time tbf (Ferrer, Scud, Lapentti, Söderling, Schüttler, Robredo, Stepanek, Kuerten).

But some nice names.
 
Some of your examples are kind of funny though. No point listing the R3 matches either since that's when seeds start playing, and we've always gotten some good matches around then. Like one of my favorite AO matches from years back was a round 3, 2009 Gonzo and Gasquet.

Fokina? lol
Ymer? lol
Current Goffin? Big lol
Molcan? lol (I already have this one targeted as a 3:0 or -1.5 set handicap bet for Ruud boy. Ruusuvuori absolutely obliterated him the other day)
 
Forgive Me Father said:
Most of these guys were mugs at the time tbf (Ferrer, Scud, Lapentti, Söderling, Schüttler, Robredo, Stepanek, Kuerten).

But some nice names.
Click to expand...
Scud was '03 Wimbledon finalist, Kuerten had a great 2004, Schuttler defending finalist, Stepanek coming off strong season...

I would argue that a lot of the guys you listed (Kwon, Goffin, Nakashima, Ymer, Ivashka, Greekpoor) are no better than mugs at this time, if we extend the definition of mug that allows you to call Ferrer, Soderling, Kuerten mugs.
 
Ironically the toughest era ever in top 11 – top 100 range, yet one of the weakest at the very top with servebotting Gilles Simon being the best of what 2 generations of players had to offer result-wise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NAS
Most of the players you mention are young. It's not a matter of depth in that case but more of a statement about their time on tour.

I could argue that the meteoric rise of Alcaraz proves that the competitive pool is shallower than ever before. (I don't agree, but it's a matter of spin.)
 
Kokkinakis at age 25 (turning 26 in a few months) should have no problems with Nadal at age 35 if Kokkinakis is any good and actually wants to be a threat at grand slams ever.

It is frankly ridiculous to argue that a 25 can be a considered a good player if he is losing to a 35 year old at a tournament that the 35 year old last won 13 years ago (at age 22).
 
Forgive Me Father said:
Djokovic-Paul R2
Fritz-Tiafoe R2
Korda-Norrie R1
Fognini-Griekspoor R1
PCB-Fognini/Griekspoor R2
Alcaraz-Fucsovics R2
Berrettini-Nakashima R1
Berrettini/Nakashima-Fucsovics R3
Rune-Kwon R1
Shapovalov-Rune/Kwon R2
McDonald-Karatsev R2
Hurkacz-Karatsev/McDonald R3
Nadal-Kokkinakis R2
Nadal-Khachanov R3
Nadal-Hurkacz/Karatsev R4
Ruud-Molcan R1
Ruud-Ivashka R2
Basilashvili-Murray R1
Basilashvili/Murray-Sinner R3
Tiafoe-Fritz R2
Tiafoe/Fritz-RBA R3
Tsitsipas-M. Ymer R1
Rublev-Cilic R3
Evans-Goffin R1
Aliassime-Ruusuvuori R1
Aliassime-Fokina R2
Aliassime-Rublev R4
Schwartzman-Krajinovic R1
Humbert-Botic/Struff R2
Humbert-Medvedev R3
Click to expand...
You're 100% correct.

These guys did not play in previous eras and will not play in distant future eras so it's only possible that these matchups can exist in this era.
 
Forgive Me Father said:
People need to dial back their expectations of INDIVIDUAL "NextGen" or whatever talents.

The tour is too deep nowadays to expect a certain round and write everyone off as failed or bust or disappointment who didn't make it there. You can be as good as you are and inevitably run into an even better player earlier.

Paul and Kokkinakis have made amazing strides the last weeks, but they're drawn Djokovic and Nadal respectively in R2.

What gives?

Same for Tiafoe and Fritz, literally drawing each other in R2. Only one can make it...

People need to be mindful of that.

Respectful of this era.

I said it at the US Open last year:
In no previous era would a seeded player have to face someone the quality of Sebastian Korda, Carlos Alcaraz, Kei Nishikori, Jenson Brooksby, Mackenzie McDonald, Son Kwon, Taylor Fritz, Frances Tiafoe, Marton Fucsovics, Ilya Ivashka...

that's absolutely unheard of.

Look at these match-ups, which in no other era would happen so early:


Djokovic-Paul R2
Fritz-Tiafoe R2
Korda-Norrie R1
Fognini-Griekspoor R1
PCB-Fognini/Griekspoor R2
Alcaraz-Fucsovics R2
Berrettini-Nakashima R1
Berrettini/Nakashima-Fucsovics R3
Rune-Kwon R1
Shapovalov-Rune/Kwon R2
McDonald-Karatsev R2
Hurkacz-Karatsev/McDonald R3
Nadal-Kokkinakis R2
Nadal-Khachanov R3
Nadal-Hurkacz/Karatsev R4
Ruud-Molcan R1
Ruud-Ivashka R2
Basilashvili-Murray R1
Basilashvili/Murray-Sinner R3
Tiafoe-Fritz R2
Tiafoe/Fritz-RBA R3
Tsitsipas-M. Ymer R1
Rublev-Cilic R3
Evans-Goffin R1
Aliassime-Ruusuvuori R1
Aliassime-Fokina R2
Aliassime-Rublev R4
Schwartzman-Krajinovic R1
Humbert-Botic/Struff R2
Humbert-Medvedev R3

The amount of unseeded quality is far beyond anything it's ever been.
Click to expand...
My takeaway from this post is that Nadal is toast!!!
 
The field is extremely weak, because Nadal is 35, supposed to have a tough draw, and still won't be dropping a set until the QF.
These guys like Kokkinakis and Khachanov are good/great at best-of-3-sets, but failures at the slams.
 
deliberate79stranger said:
The field is extremely weak, because Nadal is 35, supposed to have a tough draw, and still won't be dropping a set until the QF.
These guys like Kokkinakis and Khachanov are good/great at best-of-3-sets, but failures at the slams.
Click to expand...
Djokovic is getting easier quarter since 5 GS. His wimbledon draw was a joke till finals.
 
Kralingen said:
Scud was '03 Wimbledon finalist, Kuerten had a great 2004, Schuttler defending finalist, Stepanek coming off strong season...

I would argue that a lot of the guys you listed (Kwon, Goffin, Nakashima, Ymer, Ivashka, Greekpoor) are no better than mugs at this time, if we extend the definition of mug that allows you to call Ferrer, Soderling, Kuerten mugs.
Click to expand...

Do you recall the physical condition Scud or Kuerten were in? Ferrer and Söd were lightyears removed from what they would eventually become.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NAS
fundrazer said:
Some of your examples are kind of funny though. No point listing the R3 matches either since that's when seeds start playing, and we've always gotten some good matches around then. Like one of my favorite AO matches from years back was a round 3, 2009 Gonzo and Gasquet.

Fokina? lol
Ymer? lol
Current Goffin? Big lol
Molcan? lol (I already have this one targeted as a 3:0 or -1.5 set handicap bet for Ruud boy. Ruusuvuori absolutely obliterated him the other day)
Click to expand...

Well obviously by R3 the quality would be noticeable and be backed by the prestige of seed involvement.

The point was to make a point about the ongoing and continued quality much beyond the top 32, a depth that absolutely overshadows and trounces any state the tour was previously in.

You can go back to 2017, 2015, 2012, 2005, 2000, etc. and will always find this to be the case.

We live in a Golden Age of Tennis.

I like the gamble shotout though. As for "current Goffin", he just made pretty quick work of Kudla and Bagnis before retiring against Murray. Surely he is better than your average R1 loser.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NAS
AnOctorokForDinner said:
OP would save everyone's time by simply announcing he's s deluded mug.
Click to expand...

You also replied very defensively the last time I said:

"In no previous era would a seeded player have to face someone the quality of Sebastian Korda, Carlos Alcaraz, Kei Nishikori, Jenson Brooksby, Mackenzie McDonald, Son Kwon, Taylor Fritz, Frances Tiafoe, Marton Fucsovics, Ilya Ivashka..."

however when I asked you to name a collection of unseeded players at any time throughout history matching that one, no further reply was offered.



I think we all know you have an emotional connection here that would never allow you to admit the quality of today's tour.

And it's sad because in no other sport its this way.

In basketball its celebrated.

In tennis, they're all downplayed and downgraded and laughed at or called mugs as fingers are pointed towards personal records and achievements which can't do justice as the essence of the issue is that obviously there aren't more wins to come around no matter how many more brilliant players arrive. It's still the same players per stage as always.
 
Forgive Me Father said:
You also replied very defensively the last time I said:

"In no previous era would a seeded player have to face someone the quality of Sebastian Korda, Carlos Alcaraz, Kei Nishikori, Jenson Brooksby, Mackenzie McDonald, Son Kwon, Taylor Fritz, Frances Tiafoe, Marton Fucsovics, Ilya Ivashka..."

however when I asked you to name a collection of unseeded players at any time throughout history matching that one, no further reply was offered.



I think we all know you have an emotional connection here that would never allow you to admit the quality of today's tour.

And it's sad because in no other sport its this way.

In basketball its celebrated.

In tennis, they're all downplayed and downgraded and laughed at or called mugs as fingers are pointed towards personal records and achievements which can't do justice as the essence of the issue is that obviously there aren't more wins to come around no matter how many more brilliant players arrive. It's still the same players per stage as always.
Click to expand...
Just let him live in illusion where Paradorn Srichaphan and Sebastien Grosjean are considered stronk
 
Kralingen said:
For fun I just pulled up some 1st& 2nd round matchups from 2004 AO (the weak era)

Andre Agassi - Tomas Berdych (beat Fed at '04 Olympics that year)
Radek Stepanek - Tim Henman
Mario Ancic-Alex Corretja
Gaston Gaudio (FO '04 winner)-Tommy Robredo
Robin Soderling - defending finalist Rainer Schuettler
Ivan Ljubicic-Guga Kuerten
James Blake- Nico Lapentti
Andy Roddick - Fernando Gonzalez
David Ferrer - Sjeng Schalken
Thomas Johansson ('02 winner) - Mark Phillippoussis
Click to expand...
OP is prob one of those guys who thinks tennis evolves like chess, where later generations are by definition more evolved and stronger than previous ones. It's the Greek Era meme but unironic.
 
King No1e said:
OP is prob one of those guys who thinks tennis evolves like chess, where later generations are by definition more evolved and stronger than previous ones. It's the Greek Era meme but unironic.
Click to expand...

Not by definition at all, no.

I was watching tennis in 2017 and it was a fantastic year for my guy, but the competition was quite appaling.

It's night and day to that year, and it's been shaping up this way since 2019 now.

It's just the way it is.
 
Forgive Me Father said:
You also replied very defensively the last time I said:

"In no previous era would a seeded player have to face someone the quality of Sebastian Korda, Carlos Alcaraz, Kei Nishikori, Jenson Brooksby, Mackenzie McDonald, Son Kwon, Taylor Fritz, Frances Tiafoe, Marton Fucsovics, Ilya Ivashka..."

however when I asked you to name a collection of unseeded players at any time throughout history matching that one, no further reply was offered.



I think we all know you have an emotional connection here that would never allow you to admit the quality of today's tour.

And it's sad because in no other sport its this way.

In basketball its celebrated.

In tennis, they're all downplayed and downgraded and laughed at or called mugs as fingers are pointed towards personal records and achievements which can't do justice as the essence of the issue is that obviously there aren't more wins to come around no matter how many more brilliant players arrive. It's still the same players per stage as always.
Click to expand...

But you're unfailingly objective indeed, evident once and for all.
The field is so great Medvedev (ha) cut through it like butter at the last HC slam, and did the same at the previous HC slam until flopping in the final (barring the hiccup against Krajinovic, which was Medvedev's own doing most of all), and the same at the previous USO before choking to Thiem (ok, Medvedev-Rublev 2020 USO was decent but still straight sets)
 
Forgive Me Father said:
Not by definition at all, no.

I was watching tennis in 2017 and it was a fantastic year for my guy, but the competition was quite appaling.

It's night and day to that year, and it's been shaping up this way since 2019 now.

It's just the way it is.
Click to expand...
True that were way better than '17, but I'm yet to be convinced that we're in anything of a strong era.
 
Monteiro and Nishioka would unqestionably be top 40-50 mainstays in most era's



The quality isn't lost on the average viewer:


4e3b80e771adaa639569e4a62850b88e.png




Both are complete afterthoughts at these AO, of course.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
But you're unfailingly objective indeed, evident once and for all.
The field is so great Medvedev (ha) cut through it like butter at the last HC slam, and did the same at the previous HC slam until flopping in the final (barring the hiccup against Krajinovic, which was Medvedev's own doing most of all), and the same at the previous USO before choking to Thiem (ok, Medvedev-Rublev 2020 USO was decent but still straight sets)
Click to expand...

This is supposed to demonstrate what, exactly?

He also just cut through Djokovic like butter, remember?

I thought you sang a song of positivity and praise, yet in your comparisons of era's, I only see trashing of this, opposed to praise of another...

instead of coming up with a similarly impressive line-up of players, you prefer to tear down the current crop.

Its a much easier task, after all.

Nitpicking is always easier than giving a truly authentic and thoughtful reply.
 
Forgive Me Father said:
This is supposed to demonstrate what, exactly?

He also just cut through Djokovic like butter, remember?

I thought you sang a song of positivity and praise, yet in your comparisons of era's, I only see trashing of this, opposed to praise of another...

instead of coming up with a similarly impressive line-up of players, you prefer to tear down the current crop.

Its a much easier task, after all.

Nitpicking is always easier than giving a truly authentic and thoughtful reply.
Click to expand...

Congrats to Djokovic on playing so poorly even Medvedev cut through him, lol.

All I need to say is that Safin, Hewitt, Roddick have all demonstrated a higher peak level in big matches than Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas etc. So we know which gen represented stronger competition.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Congrats to Djokovic on playing so poorly even Medvedev cut through him, lol.

All I need to say is that Safin, Hewitt, Roddick have all demonstrated a higher peak level in big matches than Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas etc. So we know which gen represented stronger competition.
Click to expand...

I agree with Safin (Hewitt/Roddick is rubbish), seems like a pretty thinly veiled conclusion you're coming to there, though...

Besides, Safin was hardly available after the '05 AO. He didn't even represent competition to his era.

If you want to list a better crop of unseeded players, any time now.

:)
 
Forgive Me Father said:
I agree with Safin (Hewitt/Roddick is rubbish), seems like a pretty thinly veiled conclusion you're coming to there, though...

Besides, Safin was hardly available after the '05 AO. He didn't even represent competition to his era.

If you want to list a better crop of unseeded players, any time now.

:)
Click to expand...

If Hewitt/Roddick are rubbish, what does that make you?

Objective way of rating unseeded player strength when? There are too many of them to make a conclusion by watching through them all.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
If Hewitt/Roddick are rubbish, what does that make you?

Objective way of rating unseeded player strength when? There are too many of them to make a conclusion by watching through them all.
Click to expand...


It's not objective.

We have no measurements or statistics of play available to us that measure the player in a vacuum, excluding the opponent.

But which crop of unseeded players do you feel is stronger, since you consider the statement to be dumb and delusional?

Surely you must have some conviction in those big words, or is it just a quick defense mechanism to not further concern yourself with a reality you don't like?

P.S: No one said they are rubbish, "is" refers to the claim made.
 
Forgive Me Father said:
It's not objective.

We have no measurements or statistics of play available to us that measure the player in a vacuum, excluding the opponent.

But which crop of unseeded players do you feel is stronger, since you consider the statement to be dumb and delusional?

Surely you must have some conviction in those big words, or is it just a quick defense mechanism to not further concern yourself with a reality you don't like?

P.S: No one said they are rubbish, "is" refers to the claim made.
Click to expand...

The delusion is that these players - other than a talent like Alcaraz who is better than his ranking and will rise further and further (jury's still out on Sinner's ceiling, is he the new Berdych?) - have anything to do with Slam-level talents playing at Slam-winning level, and thus represent significant competition for the best players. Especially as you talk about unseeded competition... remarkable unseeded runs would be, say, Blake at 2005 USO (upset Nadal and nearly beat a good Agassi) or Tsonga at 2008 AO (famously upset Murray and Nadal to reach the final and was the only player to take a set off Djokovic). Of course, both quickly became top players.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
The delusion is that these players - other than a talent like Alcaraz who is better than his ranking and will rise further and further (jury's still out on Sinner's ceiling, is he the new Berdych?) - have anything to do with Slam-level talents playing at Slam-winning level, and thus represent significant competition for the best players. Especially as you talk about unseeded competition... remarkable unseeded runs would be, say, Blake at 2005 USO (upset Nadal and nearly beat a good Agassi) or Tsonga at 2008 AO (famously upset Murray and Nadal to reach the final and was the only player to take a set off Djokovic). Of course, both quickly became top players.
Click to expand...

So you simply deem that entire badge of players not noteworthy because they won't win the slam?

That is absolutely ridiculous mate.

Tennis isn't about 2-3 players. Because that's how many can win this tournament. 4 maybe.

You and I know damn well, you definite this era much about the supposed shortcomings of the NextGen and any other talent there is...

and any players competing for QF's will absolutely be impacted by the list of players I named, because they all have the quality to make inroads to that stage or affect players who want to. Bar none.

But even besides that subjective, abstract statement, it's quite telling none the less that you called that statement rubbish, but actually, maybe, don't even disagree with it. Because clearly you're not putting any effort into finding a comparable group of talent that can match those players.

So they will continue having to be dealt with, will get crucial wins, but sooner or later exit, and you will continue to write them off all at once, as none of them represent "significant competition for the best players", best players being your top 3, roundabout...

Warped stuff.
 
Forgive Me Father said:
So you simply deem that entire badge of players not noteworthy because they won't win the slam?

That is absolutely ridiculous mate.

Tennis isn't about 2-3 players. Because that's how many can win this tournament. 4 maybe.

You and I know damn well, you definite this era much about the supposed shortcomings of the NextGen and any other talent there is...

and any players competing for QF's will absolutely be impacted by the list of players I named, because they all have the quality to make inroads to that stage or affect players who want to. Bar none.

But even besides that subjective, abstract statement, it's quite telling none the less that you called that statement rubbish, but actually, maybe, don't even disagree with it. Because clearly you're not putting any effort into finding a comparable group of talent that can match those players.

So they will continue having to be dealt with, will get crucial wins, but sooner or later exit, and you will continue to write them off all at once, as none of them represent "significant competition for the best players", best players being your top 3, roundabout...

Warped stuff.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's not just wins but quality losses too. Actually, quality is more important than win/loss when assessing, and competitive quality will necessarily manifest in a competitive match (if the player loses easily, what competition was he?), although the reverse isn't necessarily true: a close match doesn't always mean good competition, it could be a poor performance on the better player's part too (like Djokovic-Simon AO '16 for example, Simon fought against an off Djokovic but if Djokovic wasn't quite seriously off he wouldn't have struggled at all, Simon just doesn't have the required level).

For example, AO 2004 featured Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Agassi, Nalbandian all playing at a pretty top level (plus Ferrero looked solid en route to Federer, albeit didn't play Fed closely after all; one might even remember Babydal and his close straight-set loss to Hewitt), even if the final took the shine off a bit with tired Safin unable to keep up beyond a set and a half (still better than Medvedev last year lel). Six players performing at a worthy top level at a single slam hasn't happened in quite a while (not bothering to calculate when the last time was, just think about it).

Meanwhile, the most recent slam had three top level players combining for two matches between them, the first of which featured a pretty massive choke by the pretender (Zverev) and the second was a massive flop by the favourite (Djokovic), so overall it was okay but not great. Alcaraz upsetting Tittypus was great but didn't really add to the competitiveness since he also took out himself (with a delayed effect occurring in QF, producing an injury retirement; of course I levy no criticism on Carlos who's only 18 yet).

On the other hand, you could point out to competitive matches at USO '20, but man, was the quality рiss. Coric vs Tsitsipas, Zverev vs Coric, Zverev vs PCB, Thiem vs Zverev - I watched them all and they were goddamn feeble. So much choking and erratic wussery, urgh. The actual tennis was weak because guys kept getting tight and rarely played well at the same time if at all. The Thiem-Medvedev SF straight-setter as well, competitive match but leaves a sad taste with Lad managing to win 0 sets despite serving for 2nd and 3rd cosplaying Davydenko RG 07, only Kolya was at least facing peak Federer while Medvedev only had Thiem and still failed. Not great at all, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TripleATeam
AO 2023 Draw Top 4 Analysis
2 3
Replies
124
Views
4K
TripleATeam
TripleATeam
J
Wimbledon draw
Replies
38
Views
1K
weakera
weakera
RF-18
Djokovic and Nadals draw for RG
2
Replies
72
Views
2K
RF-18
RF-18
TripleATeam
USO 2023 Top 4 Draw and Discussion
2
Replies
69
Views
2K
TripleATeam
TripleATeam
TripleATeam
RG 2023 Top 4 Seed Draws
Replies
25
Views
1K
tennis_error
tennis_error
Back
Top