'DANIIL MEDVEDEV'S GAME'S ONE-DIMENSIONAL' - STEFANOS TSITSIPAS 'SURPRISED' AT WHAT US OPEN CHAMPION ACHIEVED

Wurm

Semi-Pro
This guy seriously might have a social disorder of some sort, he literally says/does something stupid or has a massive on court faux pas every other week at this point.
I've always thought the whole "nearly drowned" story was a little overplayed but nowadays I'm starting to wonder if he did lose consciousness and got a spot of brain damage in the bargain. He certainly seems to be lacking in normal social skills whilst not seeming at all on the spectrum.

Tsitsipas seems to be the answer to the question: What if Rosol was a top 5 player?
 
This guy seriously might have a social disorder of some sort, he literally says/does something stupid or has a massive on court faux pas every other week at this point.
It's insane. I am actually a huge fan of his game and I do think he is on the upswing big-time, but I never realiy barrack for him when he plays now.

I cant think of any other superstar athlete using their online presence in a worse way.

He is a full-on edgelord/****poster at this point while also managing the responsibilities of being one of the best players on the planet. It's a weird combo.
 

Patogen

Rookie
Now, if I were Djokovic, I wouldn't take too kindly to being referred to as, "a player like him"
"Player like him" and "matches like these" were favorite backhand slaps of Fed's. I still can't decipher whether he was so genuinely arrogant, or it was a psychological self-defense, and whether he has really evolved into the current, self-aware funny old uncle, or it's just a PR. What I know is that about 75% of his current fans don't remember the peak Fed all too well.
 

Patogen

Rookie
I honestly thought half of these “arrogant-erer” quotes were made up for TTW bait, but it seems I was mistaken. That’s hilarious. I suppose you must believe you are better than everyone to be successful at Fed’s level in pro tennis, but to say all that publicly goes quite a bit further.
Haha, I partly miss his arrogant version. He used to be very anti Hawk-Eye, which makes sense, given his line-clearing, high-precision, sharp angle style of old. I think it was Wimbledon 07 where they had this poll computer collecting pro and against votes. Fed was recorded voting, and he said to have voted against, and... believe it or not, he suggested his vote should count for two :)

I have a friend who used to criticize Fed for being so unbearably smug. The other day, when I mentioned Fed has matured so much and is so respectful towards everyone, she said, "yeah, and it sucks. The arrogant one was funnier."
 

Wurm

Semi-Pro
"Player like him" and "matches like these" were favorite backhand slaps of Fed's. I still can't decipher whether he was so genuinely arrogant, or it was a psychological self-defense, and whether he has really evolved into the current, self-aware funny old uncle, or it's just a PR. What I know is that about 75% of his current fans don't remember the peak Fed all too well.
In Federer's case it was absolutely, 100% conceit and it was self-defense. Belief can be a very important attribute to any player at the top of their sport to allow them to avoid doubting themselves in crucial, stressful moments and Federer probably didn't want to allow the thought in that a match wasn't on his racquet and seed the doubt that could lead to future losses. I don't think he entirely succeeded over the years...

How that belief expresses itself varies. For some it's basically a belief in their god favouring them. For some it's derived from the belief that the hard work will pay off. There are cases where someone's so good (e.g. Lionel Messi) they have no scars of failure that lead to doubt that normal people have, it all comes so easy for them.

In Federer's case, for a time, his belief derived from being accutely self aware of his own brilliance - he was his god and Mirka was his prophet.
 

mr tonyz

Professional
Stefan should realize that these sort of comments are not good.
Even people who won grand slams don't pass comments on others's games, even guys like Rafa and Novak who are seasoned veterans dont pass comments on anyone because it can backfire.

Roger in his prime passed comments on Rafa and later a lot on Novak, see where it ended up 15 years later, he did not improve as much as he should have and took them lightly, today his solo goathood has been reduced "co-" status after 1.5 decades

Medvedev might not respond to Stefan with his mouth but he might respond with his racquet....
First of all Tpas isn't a 'seasoned' veteran. Second Djoker was far worse pre-slam winning days :p
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
Stefanos, Med's game may be 1 dimensional, but that dimension is precisely HC. He'll have a hard time winning on grass (standing too far back) or clay (no topspin).

But Nadal won 2 Wimbledons, so Medvedev might win one, especially if there's no grass Fed/Djok in the next gen.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
I was 9 when he said that lol. I don’t remember him being anything but respectful to Nadal in ‘08/09 — obviously I wasn’t following anything but the US TV coverage though.
He had a few gems in 2009 as well (after 2009 AO loss for example), younger Fedr could be arrogant at times.
 

DjokoLand

Hall of Fame
Tsitsipas game style is so enjoyable on the eye yet most people dislike him. That really tells you about him as a person, he is a twat
 

travlerajm

G.O.A.T.
Stefanos, Med's game may be 1 dimensional, but that dimension is precisely HC. He'll have a hard time winning on grass (standing too far back) or clay (no topspin).

But Nadal won 2 Wimbledons, so Medvedev might win one, especially if there's no grass Fed/Djok in the next gen.
I think Med is closer to winning W and FO than most people think.
 

Kralingen

Hall of Fame
I think Med is closer to winning W and FO than most people think.
You’re really high on him lol

I do agree that he’s going to take the next step on grass and clay, it’s only a matter of time. Do I think his clay level will ever be at a Slam winning one? Maybe maybe not. He was a lot better on Philippe Chatrier than I thought but his game just feels like such an ugly fit for clay let alone his obvious dislike of the surface.

grass though I think even with the flat strokes and weird forecourt game, his serve+movement is good enough to get him to a final. Don’t think he would beat a Djokovic or Nadal playing well, but maybe in a couple years those guys don’t exist and he just has to beat Berrettini Shapo or Hurkacz. That I could see, honestly.
 
For Medvedev to win Wimbledon he would have to retool his game as much as Lendl, even if serve and volley is dead.
You can't play 2 meters behind the baseline on grass, and being so tall, slice and low bounces will bother him a lot.
 

Jokervich

Hall of Fame
For Medvedev to win Wimbledon he would have to retool his game as much as Lendl, even if serve and volley is dead.
You can't play 2 meters behind the baseline on grass, and being so tall, slice and low bounces will bother him a lot.
His game needs retooling for clay too.

Social distancing between them for the first meal at the team Europe.

Amazing how they're all very similar ages but they look very different ages.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
I honestly thought half of these “arrogant-erer” quotes were made up for TTW bait, but it seems I was mistaken. That’s hilarious. I suppose you must believe you are better than everyone to be successful at Fed’s level in pro tennis, but to say all that publicly goes quite a bit further.
At the 2006 Wimbledon final presentation, he was like "we" never expected Nadal to play so well here (grass). The obvious inference being that Nadal had done well enough for a clay courter (but of course, he had to lose to the maestro). He was sort of a condescending big bro to him at that time. Good on Nadal for not holding it against him and even offering a shoulder to lean on and cry at AO 2009.
 
Last edited:

Fabresque

Hall of Fame
This guy is not likable in any sense of the word. What I will say though, is that the rivalry brewing three-ways between him, Medvedev, and Zverev will be something incredible. Besides Medvedev and Zverev, I fully believe that they all dislike one another off the court. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic never had any dislike off the court for each other the way these 3 do. I think tennis needs something like this, the top dogs hating each other and going after one another in press conferences.
 
At the 2006 Wimbledon final presentation, he was like "we" never expected Nadal to play so well here (grass). The obvious inference being that Nadal had done well enough for a clay (but of course, he had to lose to the maestro). He was sort of a condescending big bro to him at that time. Good on Nadal for not holding it against him and even offering a shoulder to lean on and cry at AO 2009.
Agreed that Federer used to be smug in those peak years. However I would not attribute too much "goodness" to Nadal. While Nadal had always managed to appear humble off court, on court he kept up his gamesmanship all throughout his career. Just revisit the iconic 5th set of the AO 2017 final to see how he slows down the game after every point (whether serving or receiving). Even after a service winner, he turns right back at a ball boy and asks for the towel. Also, notice how pissed off Nadal looks at the trophy presentation ceremony after that final. The only player who called him out consistently was Kyrgios.

The personalities of this era's champions are not much different from the heyday of 70s and the 80s. Today's champions are just coached to behave better in public.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Stafanos is absolutely correct...his game is stylish like Federer's whereas Medvedev is somewhat like Murray...quite robotic and his strokes are butt ugly
Lol....game style has little to do with ability to win tennis matches. You may prefer one style over another but, in the end, its results that count (unless you're genuinely uninterested whether your favourite players win or not). :cool:
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Agreed that Federer used to be smug in those peak years. However I would not attribute too much "goodness" to Nadal. While Nadal had always managed to appear humble off court, on court he kept up his gamesmanship all throughout his career. Just revisit the iconic 5th set of the AO 2017 final to see how he slows down the game after every point (whether serving or receiving). Even after a service winner, he turns right back at a ball boy and asks for the towel. Also, notice how pissed off Nadal looks at the trophy presentation ceremony after that final. The only player who called him out consistently was Kyrgios.

The personalities of this era's champions are not much different from the heyday of 70s and the 80s. Today's champions are just coached to behave better in public.
I did not say Nadal does not indulge in gamesmanship. But gamesmanship is neither arrogance nor humility, just ruthlessness. So more is the pity that Fed underestimated Nadal at that time and failed to see what a fierce competitor he was, until of course, Nadal prevailed in the two famous five setters - W 08 and AO 09.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
I like Tsitsipas as a player but I can see he is quite narcissistic and has too much of an ego. He's just jealous.
 

samuelw

New User
The most stupid thing about this is that it's not even true. I can't think of a shot that Medvedev can't play. His entire game is unorthodox from a technical standpoint, but he can attack with both wings, he can hit the ball unbelievably hard; he defends better than any player on tour except perhaps for Djokovic, he serves like a machine, he has a decent net game despite his strange technique, and above all else, he's incredibly intelligent with what he chooses to do in almost any given moment during a point. He has his weaknesses and occasional inconsistencies (esp on the serve and forehand), but playing consistently when your opponent is making a heap of UEs isn't "one-dimensional". It's smart.
 

Siewi

New User
I don't think Tsitsipas is a particularly likeable person, but you guys are being a bit too sensititive and making a big fuss out of nothing. He was interviewed, gave his opinion, which is in no way too outrageous, and that is it.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
I don't think Tsitsipas is a particularly likeable person, but you guys are being a bit too sensititive and making a big fuss out of nothing. He was interviewed, gave his opinion, which is in no way too outrageous, and that is it.
Nobody is being sensitive. We are all just having a hearty laugh because Sissy opened his big mouth again. And no, it's pretty outrageous to call Meddy one dimensional. It may be OK for swashbuckling 3.5s to think that but for Sissy to say that speaks volumes about him
 

GummiiBear

Rookie
The most stupid thing about this is that it's not even true. I can't think of a shot that Medvedev can't play. His entire game is unorthodox from a technical standpoint, but he can attack with both wings, he can hit the ball unbelievably hard; he defends better than any player on tour except perhaps for Djokovic, he serves like a machine, he has a decent net game despite his strange technique, and above all else, he's incredibly intelligent with what he chooses to do in almost any given moment during a point. He has his weaknesses and occasional inconsistencies (esp on the serve and forehand), but playing consistently when your opponent is making a heap of UEs isn't "one-dimensional". It's smart.
I only watched his last match against Djokovic but what impressed me most of all was his mental game. I mean, sure he fumbled two match points (understandably so), yet kept calm and got the job done. He went in with a game plan and executed it tremendously well.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
I did not say Nadal does not indulge in gamesmanship. But gamesmanship is neither arrogance nor humility, just ruthlessness. So more is the pity that Fed underestimated Nadal at that time and failed to see what a fierce competitor he was, until of course, Nadal prevailed in the two famous five setters - W 08 and AO 09.
You're forcing the opponent to play at your desired pace by breaking the rules (yes breaking, not bending as Nadal apologists present it) and often icing their momentum, hardly a stretch to characterize it as a form of arrogance.

I don't associate gamesmanship (and constant gamesmanship in this case) with nice guys and fair players. It's credit to Nadal's charisma and his media team that he almost never got called on it but that doesn't change what it is.

Every top pro in any sport is a ruthless, driven competitor. It doesn't mean they'll resort to gamesmaship tactics.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
You're forcing the opponent to play at your desired pace by breaking the rules (yes breaking, not bending as Nadal apologists present it) and often icing their momentum, hardly a stretch to characterize it as a form of arrogance.

I don't associate gamesmanship (and constant gamesmanship in this case) with nice guys and fair players. It's credit to Nadal's charisma and his media team that he almost never got called on it but that doesn't change what it is.

Every top pro in any sport is a ruthless, driven competitor. It doesn't mean they'll resort to gamesmaship tactics.
As a cricket fan, I am not going to make that distinction. Have seen a number of 'nice guys' in cricket who would also break the rules when it suited them. If anything, I would say competitive spirit usually pushes sportspersons to test the limits of the rules and see what they can get away with. So the fault of that lies more with the authorities for not simply handing out time violations as they used to back in the day. I have seen Graf get a time violation at Lipton 93 and Sampras in the Wimbledon 99 final. Both used to play fast. But that's how strict umpires were. It must be the sponsors who forced umpires to bend and crawl for Nadal's sake. I don't blame him for getting away with murder since he was allowed to. But that does not make him arrogant imo, just ruthless and cunning. In other words, you can be 'not nice' and still not be arrogant. Arrogance in sport would have to involve some measure of underestimation of the opponent and I have never seen that from Nadal except during his Wimbledon slump when he was quite pathetic at acknowledging (or not acknowledging) his victorious opponents.
 

stingstang

Professional
I have never liked Tsits for all the usual reasons but he’s now crossed that line to become almost a pantomime villain. Everyone hates him and that deserves respect.
 

TennisBatman

Semi-Pro
In the early years of their rivalry, Federer called Nadal "one-dimensional", but later he revised his comment to say "not multi-colored".

Later on he credited Nadal for making him the player that he is.
 
Top