Daniil Medvedev disagrees with Stefanos Tsitsipas on ATP Finals being 'bigger' than a Major

slam>WTF>=OG>masters>MM

for me:
YE#1: 100 GOAT points
50 weeks @ #1: 100 GOAT points
slam: 100 goat points
WTF: 40p
M: 20p
(slam final 15p)
MM: 5p

bonuses:
all 4 slams at once: 100p
each CGS: 100p
GS record: 100p
each GM: 100p
weeks @ #1 record: 100p
points record: 100p
Surface GOAT: 100p
ect...
 
[content deleted by user]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
medvedev-daniilmedvedev.gif
 
Djokodalerer31 said:
He probably means in life in general, outside of tennis specifically...but this is polemics anyway...LOL Cuz we are obviously talking about tennis on these boards and every topic of discussions surrounds it...
Click to expand...

Sure, I mean tennis is about hitting a fluffy yellow ball over a net into a specific dimension drawn out on the surface, nothing compared to world peace and saving endangered species.
 
Hitman said:
Historically the significance among the players and sport has always been the following

Slams > Weeks at number one > year ending number one > YEC > everything
Click to expand...
simply not true. all top players in all sports want to be the best in their sport. and only no1 means you are the best! no one thought cilic or tiem were the best in the world after they won their slams. no1 means you are the best of all in consideration of all surfaces and all conditions. slam champion means none of this. and everyone has the goal of being no1. it is also more difficult and significantly more have won slams than being no1. YE#1 also means that you are the best in a given season! fed himself has answered a direct question that he would rather take one more YE#1 than one more slam. sampras has sacrificed the next AO for his last YE#1. muzza has sacrificed his career for his only YE#1. no1 has always been the most prestigious in tennis. there was only one no1 who hasn't won a slam and i would always take his career over cilics, thiems, johanssons, gaudios or gomezs and rios was never YE#1. of those who were YE#1 all were multiple slam champions except rodick! sampras has also said that 6 YE#1s are his greatest achievement (and he has 14 slams!
 
Last edited:
[content deleted by user]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
threehandedbackhand said:
Certain things that numbers can't convey.
Tennis has changed a lot for last 5 years. Finally people are growing up, nobody cares about ordinary statistics.
Click to expand...

You're sounding like a parody of a Rolex commercial.

When did people finally grow up? When they knew that Federer didn't have the statistics anymore?

And who are the nobodies, seems me online and everywhere you look the statistics are being mentioned more than ever and slams and celebrating record breaking achievements.
 
GoatNo1 said:
simply not true. all top players in all sports want to be the best in their sport. and only no1 means you are the best! no one thought cilic or tiem were the best in the world after they won their slams. no1 means you are the best of all in consideration of all surfaces and all conditions. slam champion means none of this. and everyone has the goal of being no1. it is also more difficult and significantly more have won slams than being no1. YE#1 also means that you are the best in a given season! fed himself has answered a direct question that he would rather take one more YE#1 than one more slam. sampras has sacrificed the next AO for his last YE#1. muzza has sacrificed his career for his only YE#1. no1 has always been the most prestigious in tennis. there was only one no1 who hasn't won a slam and i would always take his career over cilics, thiems, johanssons, gaudios or gomezs and rios was never YE#1. of those who were YE#1 all were multiple slam champions except rodick! sampras has also said that 6 YE#1s are his greatest achievement (and he has 14 slams!
Click to expand...

Slams are the pinnacle of the sport, always have been.

The reason why Sampras did what he did to get that last world number one is because he was trying to break Connor's record of five in a row, by winning six in a row, there was going to be no second tries, he had to do it in 98 or it was never happening, and after working six years for it, it is completely justified what he did, but he didn't care about it after he broke the record, the focus went back to winning slams.

I know YE1 is a very valuable, I have always stated that, but players will always want to win a slam first. Remember when Federer was close to getting year ending number one in 2014 and it felt hollow because he didn't have a slam win?

Muzza was actually trying to become world number one, he knew that was the time to do it as he was going to have a lot of points to defend at start of 2017, starting off with AO final defense. It just so happened that number one ranking came very close to him winning the year ending number one. He became number one less than a month before the year end, and also fought Djokovic to win the YEC in his backyard of London. It just all fell into place for him.
 
threehandedbackhand said:
Accomplishments alone without context don’t give you greatness, because numbers (Djokodal thing) are about luck and longevity while the real greatness (Federer thing) transcends tennis. Anyone looking at the numbers shows extremely childish point of view.
Click to expand...

Federer got lucky that Sampras and Agassi were too old, he fitted into a vacuum. The context can be used on him also, he didn't contend with ATG players to become the top guy. You are right, we do need to look at it.

Federer accomplished his biggest wins after Sampras was gone. Federer got exposed when Djokodal arrived, you are spot on, context is needed on his numbers also, instead of fanboying his numbers to mean more than they are. (y)
 
GoatNo1 said:
simply not true. all top players in all sports want to be the best in their sport. and only no1 means you are the best! no one thought cilic or tiem were the best in the world after they won their slams. no1 means you are the best of all in consideration of all surfaces and all conditions. slam champion means none of this. and everyone has the goal of being no1. it is also more difficult and significantly more have won slams than being no1. YE#1 also means that you are the best in a given season! fed himself has answered a direct question that he would rather take one more YE#1 than one more slam. sampras has sacrificed the next AO for his last YE#1. muzza has sacrificed his career for his only YE#1. no1 has always been the most prestigious in tennis. there was only one no1 who hasn't won a slam and i would always take his career over cilics, thiems, johanssons, gaudios or gomezs and rios was never YE#1. of those who were YE#1 all were multiple slam champions except rodick! sampras has also said that 6 YE#1s are his greatest achievement (and he has 14 slams!
Click to expand...
I admit that there is something to it, because sometimes you can win a grand slam!!

But to be number 1, you really have to be a tennis player at the highest level, and you don't know yet whether you will succeed, sometimes you can be number 2 for a very long time, and sometimes you can never wait to be number 1...!!!
 
Hitman said:
Slams are the pinnacle of the sport, always have been.

The reason why Sampras did what he did to get that last world number one is because he was trying to break Connor's record of five in a row, by winning six in a row, there was going to be no second tries, he had to do it in 98 or it was never happening, and after working six years for it, it is completely justified what he did, but he didn't care about it after he broke the record, the focus went back to winning slams.

I know YE1 is a very valuable, I have always stated that, but players will always want to win a slam first. Remember when Federer was close to getting year ending number one in 2014 and it felt hollow because he didn't have a slam win?

Muzza was actually trying to become world number one, he knew that was the time to do it as he was going to have a lot of points to defend at start of 2017, starting off with AO final defense. It just so happened that number one ranking came very close to him winning the year ending number one. He became number one less than a month before the year end, and also fought Djokovic to win the YEC in his backyard of London. It just all fell into place for him.
Click to expand...
you are wrong on all 3 points.

1. sampras has higher priced his 6 YE#1s than his 14 slams. he said 6 YE#1s is his greatest achievement!

2. fed himself has answered that he would rather have another YE#1 than another slam!

3. muzza played non-stop at the end of 2016 (beiging, shanghai, vienna, paris, WTF) and overworked his body. he won everything. yet he insured YE#1 in seasons last match, WTF F and he saved a MP vs raonic in SF. so it was closest possible. if he just wanted to get to no1 he could wait until 2017 and not play broken himself at the end of 2016. in first half of 2017 nole had to defend: doha, AO, IW, miami, madrid and RG. so there was a big chance to get over him if he was around at the end of 2016 and then he could skip the smaller tournaments like wiena for exempel.
 
1. Slams
2. No 1 ranking
3. EoY Championship
4. Masters/WTA1000

I put winning a slam above No 1 ranking because lots of players have been number 1 that weren't the best player in the world. I bet Del Potro, Theim and other who only won 1 slam would not give up their slam title for a few weeks at No 1 ranking. I would much prefer to win a slam event vs being No 1 for a short period of time.
 
Smecz said:

Daniil Medvedev disagrees with Stefanos Tsitsipas on ATP Finals being 'bigger' than a Major​



www.sportskeeda.com

Daniil Medvedev disagrees with Stefanos Tsitsipas on ATP Finals being 'bigger' than a Major

Daniil Medvedev has expressed disagreement with Stefanos Tsitsipas, who recently called the ATP Finals 'bigger than a Grand Slam.
www.sportskeeda.com www.sportskeeda.com

What do you think about this opinion?!Agree or disagree?!
Click to expand...
Medvedev had a wrong idea on what stepanoe said. stepanoe was saying YEF is harder to win cause it is only best players in the world and you can't win YEF by accident. whereas grand slams can be won by getting bit lucky on the draw sheets and on depends on who you play. Guys that aren't top 10 players have won grand slams by this route, albeit they were all one slam wonders.
 
GoatNo1 said:
you are wrong on all 3 points.

1. sampras has higher priced his 6 YE#1s than his 14 slams. he said 6 YE#1s is his greatest achievement!

2. fed himself has answered that he would rather have another YE#1 than another slam!

3. muzza played non-stop at the end of 2016 (beiging, shanghai, vienna, paris, WTF) and overworked his body. he won everything. yet he insured YE#1 in seasons last match, WTF F and he saved a MP vs raonic in SF. so it was closest possible. if he just wanted to get to no1 he could wait until 2017 and not play broken himself at the end of 2016. in first half of 2017 nole had to defend: doha, AO, IW, miami, madrid and RG. so there was a big chance to get over him if he was around at the end of 2016 and then he could skip the smaller tournaments like wiena for exempel.
Click to expand...

Sorry dude, but we will need to disagree here.

When players are asked what they dreamed about growing up, they would mostly saying winning Wimbledon and becoming world number one.

Sampras placed a higher value on his six year ending number ones because it is HARDER to get six in a row of that, than win a single slam. Do you understand the fact that his aim was to never fail to get the year ending number one for six years to beat Connors? With slams, if you lose, you can always try for the next one, so the task was greater, but you are comparing SIX year ending number ones in a row here.

And Federer saying it doesn't change anything, we know what he has been saying his whole career - He would take Wimbledon each year over anything, saying that statement you made once doesn't change what his career long outlook was.

And with Muzza, he did it to become world number one first of all, why is that so hard to understand? He knew that was his chance to do it, with Djokovic losing form and defending virtually every title, as Djokovic was defending USO, Beijing, Shanghai, Paris and YEC....that was his chance to strike.

And again I will say this, OF COURSE Year ending number one is massive, but no one would want that without winning slams.
 
Interesting takes across the board. I've never put stock in the year end finals in the least. I've always considered it to be little more than a way to wind down the tennis season, where the whos who in tennis get a chance to mingle with each other, basically a glorified celebrity party. It's not even a typical tournament where once you lose, you're out. Well, last I knew anyway it was that lame round robin type of structure.
 
Hitman said:
Sorry dude, but we will need to disagree here.

When players are asked what they dreamed about growing up, they would mostly saying winning Wimbledon and becoming world number one.

Sampras placed a higher value on his six year ending number ones because it is HARDER to get six in a row of that, than win a single slam. Do you understand the fact that his aim was to never fail to get the year ending number one for six years to beat Connors? With slams, if you lose, you can always try for the next one, so the task was greater, but you are comparing SIX year ending number ones in a row here.

And Federer saying it doesn't change anything, we know what he has been saying his whole career - He would take Wimbledon each year over anything, saying that statement you made once doesn't change what his career long outlook was.

And with Muzza, he did it to become world number one first of all, why is that so hard to understand? He knew that was his chance to do it, with Djokovic losing form and defending virtually every title, as Djokovic was defending USO, Beijing, Shanghai, Paris and YEC....that was his chance to strike.

And again I will say this, OF COURSE Year ending number one is massive, but no one would want that without winning slams.
Click to expand...
You know that YE#1 means usually a bigger price money and a trophy than a slam. No1 gives no prises if not at the end of the season. YE#1 means extra no1 weeks automatically.
 
I mean, Tsitsipas won it, so of course he says that :-D Medvedev has won both. I'd say his opinion means more.
 
GoatNo1 said:
You know that YE#1 means usually a bigger price money and a trophy than a slam. No1 gives no prises if not at the end of the season. YE#1 means extra no1 weeks automatically.
Click to expand...

I am NOT devaluing the year ending number one, I value it VERY much, it is massive, but history remembers slam winners above all, that is it.

Federer was considered GOAT over Sampras back after Wimbledon 09 despite only having four YE1 at the time, he still never even equalled him, but no one was putting Sampras over Federer anymore.
 
GoatNo1 said:
you are wrong on all 3 points.

1. sampras has higher priced his 6 YE#1s than his 14 slams. he said 6 YE#1s is his greatest achievement!

2. fed himself has answered that he would rather have another YE#1 than another slam!

3. muzza played non-stop at the end of 2016 (beiging, shanghai, vienna, paris, WTF) and overworked his body. he won everything. yet he insured YE#1 in seasons last match, WTF F and he saved a MP vs raonic in SF. so it was closest possible. if he just wanted to get to no1 he could wait until 2017 and not play broken himself at the end of 2016. in first half of 2017 nole had to defend: doha, AO, IW, miami, madrid and RG. so there was a big chance to get over him if he was around at the end of 2016 and then he could skip the smaller tournaments like wiena for exempel.
Click to expand...
No I heard him say those are 3 of the main records don’t recall him saying which was higher or lower but he listed them in the order Hitman said above. Where did you hear or read this, please share if you can.
 
Hitman said:
Federer got lucky that Sampras and Agassi were too old, he fitted into a vacuum. The context can be used on him also, he didn't contend with ATG players to become the top guy. You are right, we do need to look at it.

Federer accomplished his biggest wins after Sampras was gone. Federer got exposed when Djokodal arrived, you are spot on, context is needed on his numbers also, instead of fanboying his numbers to mean more than they are. (y)
Click to expand...
lol why are you and threehanded saying opposite things and then liking those posts…this is really funny
 
Hitman said:
I am NOT devaluing the year ending number one, I value it VERY much, it is massive, but history remembers slam winners above all, that is it.

Federer was considered GOAT over Sampras back after Wimbledon 09 despite only having four YE1 at the time, he still never even equalled him, but no one was putting Sampras over Federer anymore.
Click to expand...
As I said. I will always choose who evers career whith ye#1 than gauchos, Johansson, cilics or thiems.
 
GoatNo1 said:
As I said. I will always choose who evers career whith ye#1 than gauchos, Johansson, cilics or thiems.
Click to expand...

Sure, you are fully entitled to that, it doesn't however make it the general consensus that most others adhere to, as I have pointed out.

Btw, how many year ending number ones do you know that had never won a slam?
 
pirhaksar said:
No I heard him say those are 3 of the main records don’t recall him saying which was higher or lower but he listed them in the order Hitman said above. Where did you hear or read this, please share if you can.
Click to expand...
I find this. He talks about his ye#1s:
www.sportskeeda.com

"That's the only record I'll have left" - Pete Sampras on his six consecutive Year-End No.1 finishes

Novak Djokovic recently surpassed childhood idol Pete Sampras' record of six Year-End No. 1 finishes.
www.sportskeeda.com www.sportskeeda.com
 
Hitman said:
Sure, you are fully entitled to that, it doesn't however make it the general consensus that most others adhere to, as I have pointed out.

Btw, how many year ending number ones do you know that had never won a slam?
Click to expand...
Like I said. All YE#1 are multiple slam winners except Rodick. That is dozens of slam champions that never was a no1 let alone YE#1s.
 
GoatNo1 said:
Like I said. All YE#1 are multiple slam winners except Rodick. That is dozens of slam champions that never was a no1 let alone YE#1s.
Click to expand...

So you got to be winning slams to do it.

Anyways we'll leave it at that, you are entitled to value it how you want.
 
Hitman said:
Historically the significance among the players and sport has always been the following

Slams > Weeks at number one > year ending number one > YEC > everything else
Click to expand...
That's true, Hitman. But history is in constant evolution, as you well know. Before the advent of the bloody XIX century and the wars initiated by Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the Great was the pinnacle of great conquerors and France had no figure in its history comparable in terms of worldwide fame as a conqueror. But things changed.

Analogously, before the conquer of the Olympic Gold by all-time greats such as Agassi, Nadal and Murray (a near-ATG), the Olympics lacked relevance. But things rapidly change. In the XXI century, in the Olympics always participate the greatest players as long as they're healthy. Federer participated in many editions (2004. 2008, 2012), Nadal too (2008, 2016, 2024(?)) and so did Djokovic (2008, 2012, 2016, 2021, 2024 (?)). In other words, in the XXI century, most tennis analysts will equate an ATP final with an Olympic Gold in singles.
 
Hitman said:
So you got to be winning slams to do it.

Anyways we'll leave it at that, you are entitled to value it how you want.
Click to expand...
I think even rios is greater than a slam winners like gaudio or Johansson and cilic and he was never ye#1 just a regular no1. And he is the only one no1 who doesn't have a slam.
 
Sport said:
That's true, Hitman, But hisitory is in constant evolution, as you well know. Before the advent of the bloody XIX century and the wars initiated by Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the Great was the pinnacle of great conquerors and France had no figure in its history comparable in that aspect. But things changed.

Analogously, before the conquer of the Olympic Gold by all-time greats such as Agassi, Nadal and Murray (a near-ATG), the Olympics lacked relevance. But things rapidly change. In the XXI century, in the Olympics always participate the greatest players as long as they're healthy. Federer participated in many editions (2004. 2008, 2012), Nadal too (2008, 2016, 2024(?)) and so did Djokovic (2008, 2012, 2016, 2021, 2024 (?)). In other words, in the XXI century, most tennis analysts will equate an ATP final with an Olympic Gold in singles.
Click to expand...

Olympics for sure come after the YEC, as they are far more recent, but most certainly a big title and above masters. You cannot just throw away history my friend, and YEC has far more history, in fact 50 years of it to be placed anywhere else but below slams.
 
GoatNo1 said:
I think even rios is greater than a slam winners like gaudio or Johansson and cilic and he was never ye#1 just a regular no1. And he is the only one no1 who doesn't have a slam.
Click to expand...

A player being greater and accomplishing a single great feat are not really mutually inclusive.

Rios' entire body of work is greater, but no single achievement of his is.

Anyways, I think we are going around in circles here, I get that it is great for you, and that is fine, heck I immensely value both weeks at number one and year ending number ones myself, as I grew up watching Sampras, but the general consensus will always be that he who has the most slams is the greatest.
 
Hitman said:
Olympics for sure come after the YEC, as they are far more recent, but most certainly a big title and above masters. You cannot just throw away history my friend, and YEC has far more history, in fact 50 years of it to be placed anywhere else but below slams.
Click to expand...
Is that "50-year rule" exact or approximate? Is that a roughly estimate or a strict rule?

The Australian Open was deemed inferior to other Grand Slams till roughly the mid-1980s (correct me if I'm wrong on this one). Since the times of Sampras and Agassi, if I'm correct, the AO was already equal to other Slams. If that is too premature, I think we'll agree that since the arrival of prime Federer (circa 2004), the AO was already fully stablished as a Slam equal in worth to other Slams. Less than 50 years had passed, I believe, but the AO was already considered equally worthy than the other Grand Slam titles.

What do you think would need to happen for the Olympics to be fully stablished as an equally worth title by the late 2030s? If Alcaraz, Sinner and all of the great players of the 2030s repeatedly participate at the event, wouldn't that greatly satisfy the demand for historial relevance?
 
Sport said:
Is that "50-year criterion" exact or approximate? Is that a roughly estimate or a strict rule?

The Australian Open was deemed inferior to other Grand Slams till roughly the mid-1980s (correct me if I'm wrong on this one). Since the times of Sampras and Agassi, if I'm correct, the AO was already equal to other Slams. If that is too premature, I think we'll agree that since the arrival of prime Federer (circa 2004), the AO was already fully stablished as a Slam equal in worth to other Slams. Less than 50 years had passed, I believe, but the AO was already considered equally worthy than the other Grand Slam titles.

What do you think would need to happen for the Olympics to be fully stablished as an equally worth title by the late 2030s? If Alcaraz, Sinner and all of the great players of the 2030s repeatedly participate at the event, wouldn't that greatly satisfy the demand for historial relevance?
Click to expand...

It is over 50 years old, you can read about it here.

en.wikipedia.org

ATP Finals - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Australian Open will always be considered a slam, whether anyone chose to play in it or not, they say Djokovic equalled Court's slam record, despite her winning not only 11 AO titles, but many of them not even in the open era of tennis. History cannot be swept under the rug my friend. A slam will always be a slam.

Emerson was considered to have the mens record that Sampras was chasing back in the 90s, six of those twelve titles were AO.

I do think OIympics are a big title, and they will continue to stay that way. They have the least amount of history behind them, but they are rightfully up there in importance. As time passes, their value will only grow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
'DANIIL MEDVEDEV'S GAME'S ONE-DIMENSIONAL' - STEFANOS TSITSIPAS 'SURPRISED' AT WHAT US OPEN CHAMPION ACHIEVED
2 3 4
Replies
161
Views
8K
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
Aabye5
Daniil Medvedev: chief superbrat
2
Replies
62
Views
2K
Shaolin
Shaolin
V
Stefanos Tsitsipas blames new balls on ATP Tour for his injury
Replies
32
Views
2K
kayapit
kayapit
GoatNo1
Stefanos Tsitsipas: Nitto ATP Finals 'Bigger Than A Slam'
2
Replies
63
Views
2K
Djokodalerer31
Djokodalerer31
Aussie Darcy
For the first time in ATP Rankings history, no male in the top 10 has a one handed backhand
Replies
16
Views
813
roysid
roysid
Back
Top