Has Timmy become the next gatekeeper?

StANDAA

Legend
IMO, I don't see Ferrer beating even these older versions of the big 3. Berdych maybe, but not as often as Thiem.
wtf? Thiem didn’t even score a win against this old and gray version of Big 3 in Slams except for Djokovic at RG, something even Capuchino could do. And Bo3 wins don’t mean much these days, Big 3 are glad they can even bring their best (best what they can play today, they can dream about their best from 7-8 years ago) at Slams, most of the time these days they are shadows even of their current selfs in Bo3 matches.

Berdych did better against much better versions of the Big 3 in Thiem’s age, scored wins against Fed at Wimbledon and USO, against Novak at Wimbledon, and Nadal at AO, not counting the countless times he got close to beating them in Bo5 but couldn’t get over the finish line. His 25 year old self could have a legit shot at multiple Slams in 2018-19.

Fed of 10-12 probably beats his current self in straights, same goes for Nadal, same goes for Djokovic. what you’ve said is a huge disrespect to Berd and even Ferrer and shows you don’t take the severe decline of the Big 3 into consideration. they call this the career inflation era for a reason.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
wtf? Thiem didn’t even score a win against this old and gray version of Big 3 in Slams except for Djokovic at RG, something even Capuchino could do. And Bo3 wins don’t mean much these days, Big 3 are glad they can even bring their best (best what they can play today, they can dream about their best from 7-8 years ago) at Slams, most of the time these days they are shadows even of their current selfs in Bo3 matches.

Berdych did better against much better versions of the Big 3 in Thiem’s age, scored wins against Fed at Wimbledon and USO, against Novak at Wimbledon, and Nadal at AO, not counting the countless times he got close to beating them in Bo5 but couldn’t get over the finish line. His 25 year old self could have a legit shot at multiple Slams in 2018-19.

Fed of 10-12 probably beats his current self in straights, same goes for Nadal, same goes for Djokovic. what you’ve said is a huge disrespect to Berd and even Ferrer and shows you don’t take the severe decline of the Big 3 into consideration.
I do take their decline into consideration. Maybe I'm looking at things the wrong way, which is possible.

Having said that, Berdych did beat pretty bad versions of Fed and Novak at Wimb though. In 2010, both Fedovic sucked. And the Nadal he defeated at AO was also bad. I don't believe Berdych would have troubled Nadal at 2018 USO as much as Thiem did. I don't see Ferrer doing that either.
 

StANDAA

Legend
I do take their decline into consideration. Maybe I'm looking at things the wrong way, which is possible.

Having said that, Berdych did beat pretty bad versions of Fed and Novak at Wimb though. In 2010, both Fedovic sucked. And the Nadal he defeated at AO was also bad. I don't believe Berdych would have troubled Nadal at 2018 USO as much as Thiem did. I don't see Ferrer doing that either.
forgot about the USO 12 where he beat a well playing Fed in 4, who’s a better USO player than Nadal (assuming you still believe that)

he has also pushed 09 AO fed to 5, which is again far more impressive than pushing Olddal to 5 at USO and got really close to being 2 sets up against Nadal on blue clay otherwise known as AO 12 , so I can’t figure out how exactly did you come to this conclusion that peak Berdych would do worse against Olddal at USO 18 but anyway, agree to disagree.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
forgot about the USO 12 where he beat a well playing Fed in 4, who’s a better USO player than Nadal (assuming you still believe that)

he has also pushed 09 AO fed to 5, which is again far more impressive than pushing Olddal to 5 at USO and got really close to being 2 sets up against Nadal on blue clay otherwise known as AO 12 , so I can’t figure out how exactly did you come to this conclusion that peak Berdych would do worse against Olddal at USO 18 but anyway, agree to disagree.
You make some very compelling points.

Ok, I'll give Berdych the benefit of the doubt, but not Ferrer.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
I would hope so! They're in their mid to late 30's now :oops: The problem is that after beating them he has such a mental letdown. Idk if he's exhausted or what, but he can't replicate that same level in big finals.
He has been very unlucky this year w virus in AO and USO. I think maybe USO will be the slam he first wins. Good court for him. Typical him being unlucky. Some beautiful day that will change!
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
1. At RG Muster has 32 wins in 14 editions, Thiem 24 in SIX. Muster has reached SF two times, Thiem FOUR. How many RG's would Muster have if he had to beat Nadal and DJokovic back to back?!
2. Thiem doesn't win big matches? He is 15-19 against the Big 4.
3. "Thiem is winning small events in Austria" while quoting Muster career and his 44 titles, 30 of which were the same as "Thiem small tournaments in Austria". Not to mention that the Calendar back in the 90's allowed Muster to play clay tournaments during the whole calendar, avoiding rivals and collecting points.
4. "He takes too much time and crafty players exploit that" - which are those?! I suppose DJokovic, Nadal and Federer dont count because they cant exploit it at all.

He should/would/could ... he won those he deserved to win. He has a great career even if he retired tomorow
Boy, talk about being triggered. He doesn’t win the big matches, period. The IW final I mentioned in was an anomaly. He was eviscerated in both his slam finals, lost an epic USO match to Nadal after bageling him the first set and just lost a match he should have won in the YEC finals against Tsitsipas. Those are examples of big matches.

You quote his record against the big 3 which is favorable. Aside from beating Djokovic at the FO and winning IW against Fed, what other matches were BIG matches? Beating Fed in some QF on clay isn’t a decisive match. Thiem predictably loses most of those and nobody can refute it.

Get back to me when Thiem’s career achievements surpass Muster’s, whom I’m sure you never watched so you have no basis of comparison.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It is a hard comparision. You are sort of right, but Berdych was facing fully prime Federer, fully prime Nadal and Djokovic (who are almost his exact age). Thiem is facing old versions of each, and still failing, either to Nadal on clay, or to the younger generation players now such as his failure in the WTF final.
Berdych didn't have to deal with fully prime Federer, IMO. Agree with the rest.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Well he sure did in the mid 2000s where he lost to him numerous times in slams, but if they weren't events he was ever winning anyway (they weren't I am pretty sure) I guess it does not matter much.

The prime cutline for all of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic is increasingly confusing to me. The longer those guys keep playing well, it seems increasingly silly to say Federer's prime ended in 2007, his absolute peak maybe. Or Nadal in 2011 as some say it did, or Djokovic in, well don't even know what year most say for him.

I do think Thiem deseres credit but he also is getting a better situation dealt with him to play with, and I want to see him do more with than he has thus far. i like Thiem a lot btw. I was gutted for him after the WTF final, especialy when he was crying, you can tell he is so sick of falling just short, I hope it lights a fire in his butt for next year.
For me Federer's prime period was WTF 2003-AO 2010, Nadal's was Wimb 2007-FO 2014 and Novak's was AO 2011-FO 2016.
 

Sabrina

Semi-Pro
For me Federer's prime period was WTF 2003-AO 2010, Nadal's was Wimb 2007-FO 2014 and Novak's was AO 2011-FO 2016.
I would say Nadal prime started from Miami 2005, for Nole was somewhere in the sunshine double in 2007. Fed's prime could be extended to the end of Cincinnati 2012 though.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Berdych lost to Federer at RG 06, Wimbledon 06, AO 08, AO 09.. true Bird was still yet to enter his prime then, but these are all Fed prime years
Yeah, I was referring to the period Bird reached his prime, like Thiem is now.
 
Last edited:

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
Thiem can have a better career than Muster. If he wins 2 FOs and gets to no.1, I think he will pretty much have fulfilled his potential.
 

Bertie B

Professional
Injury will never ruin a career, some players are simply mentally weak. Del Potro and Haas come to mind.

Nadal is an injury prone player, yet the body holds up during the clay season (except for 2004 & 2016). Why so, because the mind wants to be there to prove itself. All stems from the mind.
 

JasonZ

Semi-Pro
Boy, talk about being triggered. He doesn’t win the big matches, period. The IW final I mentioned in was an anomaly. He was eviscerated in both his slam finals, lost an epic USO match to Nadal after bageling him the first set and just lost a match he should have won in the YEC finals against Tsitsipas. Those are examples of big matches.

You quote his record against the big 3 which is favorable. Aside from beating Djokovic at the FO and winning IW against Fed, what other matches were BIG matches? Beating Fed in some QF on clay isn’t a decisive match. Thiem predictably loses most of those and nobody can refute it.

Get back to me when Thiem’s career achievements surpass Muster’s, whom I’m sure you never watched so you have no basis of comparison.
I watched Muster and he is inferior to Thiem in everything except consistency, which of course is important. But Musters best level would never ever be enough to win the french open in zhis era, or a important hard court tournament.

And why is the wtf a match that Thiem should have won?? It was either 50/50 or Tsitsipas was the better player, there was never a period of Thiem dominating.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Injury will never ruin a career, some players are simply mentally weak. Del Potro and Haas come to mind.

Nadal is an injury prone player, yet the body holds up during the clay season (except for 2004 & 2016). Why so, because the mind wants to be there to prove itself. All stems from the mind.
Well clay is his fav surface so he saves himself up for clay. Not overplaying beforehand. Does what he can to stay injury free for clay. What’s wrong w that?
 

Bertie B

Professional
Evidently he's not injured badly enough.
As stated, injury did stop him from participating one time, and withdrawing mid-event another time. So he's been injured badly before. Nonetheless, he still managed to have a spectacular record at RG. Point is, his injuries didn't define his career, but his mental will to succeed. Del Potro, however you slice it is mentally weak, but he gets to hid behind "injuries"
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
As stated, injury did stop him from participating one time, and withdrawing mid-event another time. So he's been injured badly before. Nonetheless, he still managed to have a spectacular record at RG. Point is, his injuries didn't define his career, but his mental will to succeed. Del Potro, however you slice it is mentally weak, but he gets to hid behind "injuries"
Nadal has not had Delpo and Haas's injuries.
 

Bertie B

Professional
I'll never agree with you, because I believe everything stems from the mind.

Agassi, Davenport, Clijsters have all had potentially career ending right wrist injuries. Sharapova had a "shoulda ended her career" shoulder injury. These champions didn't allow those things to define their legacies. With the power of their mind they healed their bodies and focused on what they wanted to do, play tennis at the highest level.

Mind is the master power, it molds and makes
Man is mind
The mind thinks in secret
Those things come to pass

Reality is, minds looking glass.
 
Top