How far down does Berdych now rank amongst the players of this era

[deacsyoga]

It annoys me to hear how overrated he is by some commentators. Funniest of all was Jimmy ****ing Arias who called him the best player outside the big 4 and that he dominates everyone but the big 4. At this point how far down would you rank him in terms of best players of his era. I would rank him behind:

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Murray
Hewitt
Wawrinka
Roddick
Del Potro
Nalbanian
Cilic- slam title, 2 slam finals, 1 recent Masters title
Davyenko
Tsonga- both have 1 slam final, Tsonga has 2 Masters though, and Tsonga's best is just better
Soderling- 2 slam finals, an both in epic fashion.
Ferrer- this is the only one I have some doubts about but was more consistent, similar peak achievements

Berdych is 15th best of his era IMO

 

[Deleted member 716271]

It annoys me to hear how overrated he is by some commentators. Funniest of all was Jimmy ****ing Arias who called him the best player outside the big 4 and that he dominates everyone but the big 4. At this point how far down would you rank him in terms of best players of his era. I would rank him behind:

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Murray
Wawrinka
Del Potro
Cilic- slam title, 2 slam finals, 1 recent Masters title vs 0 slam titles, 1 slam final, 1 Masters title way back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
Tsonga- both have 1 slam final, Tsonga has 2 Masters though, and Tsonga's best is just better and more entertaining.
Hewitt- if he counts as part of Berdych's era which I guess he semi does, so I will add him
Roddick- Same as above
Davydenko- 3 Masters titles, YEC title.
Soderling- 2 slam finals, an both in epic fashion.
Ferrer- this is the only one I have some doubts about but like Berdych he has 1 slam final and 1 Masters title. He has a YEC final too, and was generally a bit more consistent, and their peaks levels are about equally unexceptional IMO.

So that would put Berdych at 14th best of his era.

Ferrer was the only one I had doubts about too, but he does seem more consistent. Nice list

 

[Red Rick]

It annoys me to hear how overrated he is by some commentators. Funniest of all was Jimmy ****ing Arias who called him the best player outside the big 4 and that he dominates everyone but the big 4. At this point how far down would you rank him in terms of best players of his era. I would rank him behind:

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Murray
Wawrinka
Del Potro
Cilic- slam title, 2 slam finals, 1 recent Masters title vs 0 slam titles, 1 slam final, 1 Masters title way back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
Tsonga- both have 1 slam final, Tsonga has 2 Masters though, and Tsonga's best is just better and more entertaining.
Hewitt- if he counts as part of Berdych's era which I guess he semi does, so I will add him
Roddick- Same as above
Davydenko- 3 Masters titles, YEC title.
Soderling- 2 slam finals, an both in epic fashion.
Ferrer- this is the only one I have some doubts about but like Berdych he has 1 slam final and 1 Masters title. He has a YEC final too, and was generally a bit more consistent, and their peaks levels are about equally unexceptional IMO.

So that would put Berdych at 14th best of his era.

I'm guessing this is in a random order from Delpo onwards?

 

[Mainad]

It annoys me to hear how overrated he is by some commentators. Funniest of all was Jimmy ****ing Arias who called him the best player outside the big 4 and that he dominates everyone but the big 4. At this point how far down would you rank him in terms of best players of his era. I would rank him behind:

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Murray
Wawrinka
Del Potro
Cilic- slam title, 2 slam finals, 1 recent Masters title vs 0 slam titles, 1 slam final, 1 Masters title way back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
Tsonga- both have 1 slam final, Tsonga has 2 Masters though, and Tsonga's best is just better and more entertaining.
Hewitt- if he counts as part of Berdych's era which I guess he semi does, so I will add him
Roddick- Same as above
Davydenko- 3 Masters titles, YEC title.
Soderling- 2 slam finals, an both in epic fashion.
Ferrer- this is the only one I have some doubts about but like Berdych he has 1 slam final and 1 Masters title. He has a YEC final too, and was generally a bit more consistent, and their peaks levels are about equally unexceptional IMO.

If you're including Hewitt and Roddick you would have to place them behind Murray and possibly Wawrinka and ahead of everyone else in your list order.

So that would put Berdych at 14th best of his era.

I think we should take into account that Berdych is one of the few players to beat each of the Big 4 at the Slams, multiple times in the case of Federer. On that basis alone, I would probably put him above the likes of Ferrer and Söderling.

 

[mistik]

I think at his best he is even better than Soderling and Cilic but mentally JOKE player.

 

[ChaelAZ]

How far down does Berdych now rank amongst the players of this era

Who?

 

[deacsyoga]

If you're including Hewitt and Roddick you would have to place them behind Murray and possibly Wawrinka and ahead of everyone else in your list order.

I should specify since it looks like my list was in order, it wasnt meant to be an exact order, I just listed them as they came up in my mind. I can see how you would think that since it mostly looks like an exact order but I didnt have in mind to do that. I had Hewitt and Roddick lower not since that is where I rank them, but since there is some uncertainty if I should count them as Berdych's era or not (athough probably so), although if they count as his era they are clearly superior. While the ones I listed before are both clearly over Berdych IMO and clearly part of his era.

I think we should take into account that Berdych is one of the few players to beat each of the Big 4 at the Slams, multiple times in the case of Federer. On that basis alone, I would probably put him above the likes of Ferrer and Söderling.

Far enough, especialy on Ferrer.

Soderling had a shortened prime, and shortened career. I think with more opportunities he defnitely nets a win over Djokovic and Murray at some point. I find his peak play in 2010 and 2011 more impressive than anything I ever saw from Berdych. Imagine Berdych beating prime Nadal at Roland Garros without killing yourself laughing at the sheer idea.

I'm guessing this is in a random order from Delpo onwards?

Yes

 

[NastyWinners]

I'd put Tsonga/Berdych/Ferrer in the same rank.

 

[deacsyoga]

I'd put Tsonga/Berdych/Ferrer in the same rank.

I agree there, but I still think Tsonga is clearly the best of the trio, even while putting them as virtual equals. Ferrer vs Berdcyh is more debateable.

 

[Krish872007]

@Meles - should we write a combined post on the Berd and his place in this era?

 

[Terenigma]

I rank Berdych higher than Tsonga but i rank Ferrer higher than both of them and those are 3 names that are the curious ones in this list. People give Tsonga WAY too much respect. His results are about as reliable as a broken condom and Berdych was always more consistent and a bigger threat to the Big 4 when in form in my eyes.

As for other names like Delpo and Cilic. Delpo in form is much better than any of the other (non Big 4) names in the list but i still rank Ferrer higher for consistency. Both of them are better than Berdych tho and way better than Tsonga.

My list would be Big 4 > Wawrinka > Ferrer > Delpo/Cilic > Berdych > Tsonga.

 

[deacsyoga]

I rank Berdych higher than Tsonga but i rank Ferrer higher than both of them and those are 3 names that are the curious ones in this list. People give Tsonga WAY too much respect. His results are about as reliable as a broken condom and Berdych was always more consistent and a bigger threat to the Big 4 when in form in my eyes. As for other names like Delpo and Cilic. Delpo in form is much better than any of the other names in the list but i still rank Ferrer higher for consistency. Both of them are better than Berdych tho and way better than Tsonga.

My list would be Big 4 > Wawrinka > Ferrer > Delpo/Cilic > Berdych > Tsonga.

Was Berdych really that much more consistent than Tsonga? Maybe I should research the exact stats more but I seem to recall them both being top 10 a long time with a similar ranking, and both making a large number of slam semis and quarters. If Berdych was more consistent, I dont think he was that much more consistent.

The part I strongly disagree with is Berdych being a bigger threat to the big 4 than Tsonga when in form. No I think Tsonga when in form is a much bigger threat to the big 4, and has beaten them times when they were themseves playing well which Berdych almost never did (almost all his big wins were over them playing poorly). And Berdych for Djokovic and Nadal is an absolute joke opponent, he is about as scary to either one as a used banana peel; he was only dangerous for Federer and Murray for a period, and even vs those he has been a super easy opponent for a good 5 years now. And Tsonga's best tennis > Berdych's best.

I see your logic on Ferrer, if you are someone who values consistency really highly.

 

[ibbi]

Yeah, well it all basically just depends on who you are comparing him too. I'm not sure I'd put Hewitt, Roddick, or Davydenko in there with him considering their years of real significance at slam level pretty much ended by 2010 which was his first major one.

I would have him on a similar sort of level with Ferrer, Tsonga, and Davydenko. I don't think there's that much between them. I tend to rank Ferrer over him because he did a lot with a little, while Berdych was sort of the other way around. Put Ferrer's heart and soul into Berdych's body, and this wouldn't be a question.

I'd probably put him below Tsonga slightly, because Jo's top level IS higher, but that almost makes Tsonga the infinitely bigger disappointment to me. It's close.

I would probably take him over Davydenko to be honest. I think you overrate him massively. He had two great weeks at the end of 2009, and a favourable match up versus Nadal. Not sure he has much more going for him in this debate.

 

[Terenigma]

@deacsyoga

Berdych = 1 slam final, 6 slam SF, 9 slam QF
Tsonga = 1 slam final, 5 slam SF, 9 Slam QF

Berdych pips slam performances but it is indeed close. Where it really matters is masters, Tsonga has made SF or better 9 times (with 2 wins) and Berdych has made SF or better 19 times (with 1 win) now that is a stat that suggests to me he was better. Also i guess how they've both played against the Big 4 is open to debate and Tsonga does have a slightly better record but i don't think he is anymore likely to beat them than Berdych is.

 

[Krish872007]

@deacsyoga

Berdych = 1 slam final, 6 slam SF, 9 slam QF
Tsonga = 1 slam final, 5 slam SF, 9 Slam QF

Berdych pips slam performances but it is indeed close. Where it really matters is masters, Tsonga has made SF or better 9 times (with 2 wins) and Berdych has made SF or better 19 times (with 1 win) now that is a stat that suggests to me he was better. Also i guess how they've both played against the Big 4 is open to debate and Tsonga does have a slightly better record but i don't think he is anymore likely to beat them than Berdych is.

Just out of curiosity, where would you factor in Tsonga's 2 Masters Titles to Berdych's 1 (including one where he beat Djokovic, Murray and Federer in succession) and his Wtf Final appearance in 2011?

 

[Thundergod]

It's funny that commentators overrate him while it's the opposite around here. I don't want to fry my brain thinking an exact spot, but I lump him in with the big group of players everyone already mentioned. Despite not having peaks like Delpo, Tsonga, etc., he has beaten all the Big 4 in a slam and he's made the SF in every slam, which no one ever gives him credit for.

Either way, that whole 3 and half year gap from about Stan to Cilic is stacked compared to these younger gens when you think about it.

 

[Terenigma]

Just out of curiosity, where would you factor in Tsonga's 2 Masters Titles to Berdych's 1 (including one where he beat Djokovic, Murray and Federer in succession) and his Wtf Final appearance in 2011?

I remember that tournament and being super impressed with Tsonga's form then but i also remember that he was garbage for the rest of that year leading up to it. I still think overall Berdych is a better player. I am no fan of his by any means but i think people are being a bit too harsh on him whilst Tsonga is getting let off the hook somewhat when he's in a similar position.

 

[papertank]

Cilic definitely outranks Del Potro. 1 slam title, 1 slam final, 1 masters vs. 1 slam title, 0 slam finals, 0 masters.

 

[deacsyoga]

@deacsyoga

Berdych = 1 slam final, 6 slam SF, 9 slam QF
Tsonga = 1 slam final, 5 slam SF, 9 Slam QF

Berdych pips slam performances but it is indeed close. Where it really matters is masters, Tsonga has made SF or better 9 times (with 2 wins) and Berdych has made SF or better 19 times (with 1 win) now that is a stat that suggests to me he was better. Also i guess how they've both played against the Big 4 is open to debate and Tsonga does have a slightly better record but i don't think he is anymore likely to beat them than Berdych is.

OK thanks for their Masters stat. I did not know there was such a big difference, I strongly suspected their slam stat was almost equal. So I see your point on him being more consistent on that, but honestly I think most tennis fans are more aware Tsonga won a couple Masters and Berdych won 1 a very long time ago (which many might have forgotten) than Berdych being a lot more consistent in Masters. And in slams, people are more likely to remember their results, but as you pointed out those are about on par. I will look up their year end rankings to see if Berdych has been significantly more consistent/better than Tsonga in that or not.

On the Big 4 matter we will have to agree to disagree. I think Tsonga is a far tougher opponent for Nadal and Djokovic (which isnt saying much since Berdych is nothing more than an asswipe for both). Federer is debateable, but I have seen Tsonga beat an in form Federer more than Berdych who tends to beat him on really off days. Only Murray is Berdych perhaps a tougher opponent for, but not of late. I dont even believe in the big 4 concept, for me it is a big 3 (Fed, Nadal, Djokovic) and a big 5 (those 3 plus Murray and Wawrinka). Tsonga is also a tougher opponent for Wawrinka, who Berdych has never beaten since mid 2013 when Wawrinka came into his prime and lost 7 or 8 times in a row to now. So on that is overall a much tougher opponent for the big 3 and big 5.

 

[r2473]

My list would be Big 4 > Wawrinka > Ferrer > Delpo/Cilic > Berdych > Tsonga.

This is probably right.

I'd consider raising Berdych above Delpo/Cilic on the basis of consistency as well.

It annoys me to hear how overrated he is by some commentators. Funniest of all was Jimmy ****ing Arias who called him the best player outside the big 4 and that he dominates everyone but the big 4.

I think Arias is basically right.

Without researching, Berdych is something like Roddick without the Slam or Masters titles. But like Roddick, Berdych remained consistent in rank inside the top 10 for about 10 years I think, beating the players he "should" most of the time and getting beaten by the big boys. Roddick (like Hewitt) won most of his important titles before Fed/Nadal came of age. Berdych didn't have that luxury. Still, no excuse. You play who's in front of you (so Roddick is clearly better than Berdych).

 

[deacsyoga]

This is probably right.

I'd consider raising Berdych above Delpo/Cilic on the basis of consistency as well.

Cilic I could see, but not Del Potro given all the bad luck Del Potro had in his career and still achieving more on the big scale of things than Berdych- U.S Open title, 2 Olympic singles medals. Absolutely no way in hell could I accept Berdych being over Del Potro with that. Berdych has been 100% healthy his whole career and still hasnt achieved the things almost always injured DP could. Of course he is going to be more consistent who spends 70% of his career in a hospital bed, and a lot of the remaining trying to come back from a new injury. That isnt an achievement in that case.

Personally I have Cilic over Berdych not only on his bigger achievements, but remembering the way he took Berdych to the woodshed badly at the 2014 Wimbledon and 2014 U.S Open back to back when he really hit his peak playing level.

Edit- I edited my list to reflect my exact order to stop confusing people and added in Nalbandian who is also above Berdych, dropping him to 15th.

 

[r2473]

Cilic I could see, but not Del Potro given all the bad luck Del Potro had in his career and still achieving more on the big scale of things than Berdych- U.S Open title, 2 Olympic singles medals. Absolutely no way in hell could I accept Berdych being over Del Potro with that. Berdych has been 100% healthy his whole career and still hasnt achieved the things almost always injured DP could. Of course he is going to be more consistent who spends 70% of his career in a hospital bed, and a lot of the remaining trying to come back from a new injury. That isnt an achievement in that case.

Personally I have Cilic over Berdych not only on his bigger achievements, but remembering the way he took Berdych to the woodshed badly at the 2014 Wimbledon and 2014 U.S Open back to back when he really hit his peak playing level.

I'm not basing this on anything but results. Injuries happen to everyone. If we start basing it on hypotheticals, any ranking is possible.

 

[deacsyoga]

I think Arias is basically right.

Without researching, Berdych is something like Roddick without the Slam or Masters titles. But like Roddick, Berdych remained consistent in rank inside the top 10 for about 10 years I think, beating the players he "should" most of the time and getting beaten by the big boys.

Arias is not basically right. Arias is basically implying he is better than someone like Wawrinka, who has the same # of slams as the 4th member of the proverbial "big 4" (Murray), who has achieved way more than Berdych, and who was once 5-5 vs Berdych until hitting a new level starting mid 2013 where since he has beaten Berdych something like 7 times in a row. Not by a long shot is Berdych the best outside some "big 4" not even close, and saying so is drastically overrating him.

I'm not basing this on anything but results. Injuries happen to everyone.

I am basing it on results too. Even with a career always injured Del Potro achieved much bigger things than Berdych (U.S Open title, Olympic medals, YEC final), and was a much bigger threat to all the top players, and scored more wins and had many more memorable matches with everyone who mattered.

Both have numerous years inside the Year End top 10 anyway. Wasnt Del Potro there in 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013, last year. And when he is playing full time he isnt even any less consistent than Berdych, probably more. The only way Berdych is more consistent, is playing more regularly throughout his whole career. So no way could I go ever in a million years go along with the idea he should be lower, even for those who value consistency a lot more. Nobody would want Berdych's career over Del Potro's.

As for the injuries happening to everyone, not really everyone, Berdych being one of those who has been blessed to almost never have one.

I dont have to base on hypotheticals since Del Potro's career is way more impessive, particularly considering he did all that losing most of his career to injuries vs Berdych and his mere achievements in comparision always fully healthy. That is more than enough for me.

 

[r2473]

Arias is not basically right. Arias is basically implying he is better than someone like Wawrinka, who has the same # of slams as the 4th member of the proverbial "big 4" (Murray), who has achieved way more than Berdych, and who was once 5-5 vs Berdych until hitting a new level starting mid 2013 where since he has beaten Berdych something like 7 times in a row. Not by a long shot is Berdych the best outside some "big 4" not even close, and saying so is drastically overrating him.

I am basing it on results too. Even with a career always injured Del Potro achieved much bigger things than Berdych (U.S Open title, Olympic medals, YEC final), and was a much bigger threat to all the top players, and scored more wins and had many more memorable matches with everyone who mattered. Both have numerous years inside the Year End top 10 anyway. No way in hell is he lower, even for those who value consistency a lot more. Nobody would want Berdych's career over Del Potro's. As for the injuries happening to everyone, not really everyone, Berdych being one of those who has been blessed to almost never have one. I dont have to base on hypotheticals since Del Potro's career is way more impessive, particularly considering he did all that losing most of his career to injuries vs Berdych and his mere achievements in comparision always fully healthy. That is more than enough for me.

It's all going to depend on how much you value consistency over the full career vs. signature results.

And of course, personality. People like Delp. People like Tsonga. People like Ferrer. People like Cilic. Almost nobody like Berdych (I'm talking about fans). So that's going to count for a lot in a ranking like this.

But either way, Wawrinka is definitely ahead of Berdych. Cilic or Delp (and even Ferrer) are debatable.

 

[Meles]

@Meles - should we write a combined post on the Berd and his place in this era?

Negative. If my chest were a cannon, I'd shoot my heart upon the mighty Berdbrain; simply the worst player ever near the top of the game. Federistas prop him up because he's beaten Fed, but the game has never seen such a reliable choker. Berdy's true colors have been on display for years now, so any achievements for Berdsheet boil down to basically pure luck and the weakest of eras.

 

[Bukmeikara]

If you told a 4 years old boy from Czech Republic that he would be a top 10 player for 8 years and earn 28mln$ just from prize money (9th all time list, likely could move a place or two above) I think he would be pretty happy.

 

[Meles]

It annoys me to hear how overrated he is by some commentators. Funniest of all was Jimmy ****ing Arias who called him the best player outside the big 4 and that he dominates everyone but the big 4. At this point how far down would you rank him in terms of best players of his era. I would rank him behind:

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Murray
Hewitt
Wawrinka
Roddick
Del Potro
Nalbanian
Cilic- slam title, 2 slam finals, 1 recent Masters title
Davyenko
Tsonga- both have 1 slam final, Tsonga has 2 Masters though, and Tsonga's best is just better
Soderling- 2 slam finals, an both in epic fashion.
Ferrer- this is the only one I have some doubts about but was more consistent, similar peak achievements

Berdych is 15th best of his era IMO

This gives him too much credit for lucky draws on grass. 17th on hard courts based on peak Elo rating. Just a giant turd of a player with an anemic serve for his size.

 

[Meles]

If you told a 4 years old boy from Czech Republic that he would be a top 10 player for 8 years and earn 28mln$ just from prize money (9th all time list, likely could move a place or two above) I think he would be pretty happy.

well now you're makin him sound like Tomic. Which is going too far.

The best way to enjoy Berdych is to sit back and love the choking.

 

[Gazelle]

Was Berdych really that much more consistent than Tsonga? Maybe I should research the exact stats more but I seem to recall them both being top 10 a long time with a similar ranking.

Yes Berdych was much more consistent, being top 10 for several consecutive years. He actually made the WTF 6 years in a row, consistently bending over to his masters, to the despair of many TTW posters.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Roddick (like Hewitt) won most of his important titles before Fed/Nadal came of age. Berdych didn't have that luxury. Still, no excuse. You play who's in front of you (so Roddick is clearly better than Berdych).

Roddick is one year younger than Federer.
Roddick became a pro two years after Fed 2000 (1998)
Fed won his first title before Roddick
Fed entered the top 10 before Roddick
Fed won his first Master title a year and half before Roddick
Fed won his first Grand Slam before Roddick
Fed had a chance to become number 1 before Roddick but the later stopped him in Canada

I know that Federer is better than Roddick in so many ways but give credit were its due, Roddick was the better player in 2003 and Federer was in Peak form already.

 

[deacsyoga]

It's funny that commentators overrate him while it's the opposite around here. I don't want to fry my brain thinking an exact spot, but I lump him in with the big group of players everyone already mentioned.

That is fine as long as Wawrinka is not one of those players. The thing that made me nearly barf was Arias implying Berdych is superior to Wawrinka which at this point is a joke. They are no longer even in the same league. 3 slams is 3 slams, the same number as one of the so called "big 4", and like I said since Wawrinka came into his own in mid 2013 or so he has won every match with Berdych, whereas before that they were 5-5.

Despite not having peaks like Delpo, Tsonga, etc., he has beaten all the Big 4 in a slam and he's made the SF in every slam, which no one ever gives him credit for.

Fair enough.

Either way, that whole 3 and half year gap from about Stan to Cilic is stacked compared to these younger gens when you think about it.

Absolutely. It is quite possible there wont be a single player born from 1990-1996 who is ever more successful than even Berdych, Tsonga, Cilic, Del Potro, or Ferrer, which shows how pathetic that whole group is.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Absolutely. It is quite possible there wont be a single player born from 1990-1996 who is ever more successful than even Berdych, Tsonga, Cilic, Del Potro, or Ferrer, which shows how pathetic that whole group is.

You think that combined Raonic, Dimitrov, Thiem, Zverev, Nishikori and Kyrgios would win less than 2 Slams and 5 Masters ?! Or neither of them would rank as high as number 2?

 

[deacsyoga]

You think that combined Raonic, Dimitrov, Thiem, Zverev, Nishikori and Kyrgios would win less than 2 Slams and 5 Masters ?! Or neither of them would rank as high as number 2?

I didnt mean combined, I meant individually. Although even what you suggested is possible. Dimitrov, Thiem, Kygrios still have hope, but they had better get a move on, particularly Dimitrov.

Zverev is born in 97 or 98, so I was not counting him.

 

[TennisATP]

Berdych is arguably the 2nd most beautiful player after Nadal.

 

[Bukmeikara]

I didnt mean combined, I meant individually. Although even what you suggested is possible. Dimitrov, Thiem, Kygrios still have hope, but they had better get a move on, particularly Dimitrov.

Zverev is born in 97 or 98, so I was not counting him.

I think they would win a lot more but mainly because there wouldnt be a big 4 to stop them. In that scenario it would be hard to say if they are better or not. Just going by the eye test I think Thiem has more potential than Ferrer, Tsonga and Berdych + he has the will to improve and the mentality to seek more. I think he would have won a RG title even with peak Nadal around. As for the rest - it is really a coin flip. Del Po is a special case, he would be an ATG if not for injuries - I think we shouldnt include him in the group of Berdych's

 

[deacsyoga]

I think they would win a lot more but mainly because there wouldnt be a big 4 to stop them. In that scenario it would be hard to say if they are better or not. Just going by the eye test I think Thiem has more potential than Ferrer, Tsonga and Berdych + he has the will to improve and the mentality to seek more. I think he would have won a RG title even with peak Nadal around. As for the rest - it is really a coin flip. Del Po is a special case, he would be an ATG if not for injuries - I think we shouldnt include him in the group of Berdych's

I dont think that will happen since the big 4 are still hanging around and winning as we speak, and by the time they are finally done, players from 97-99 will have already surpassed them which is already happening, and probably generations after that. I dont think anyway in hell Raonic, Nishikori, Coric, Thiem, Dmitrov, and Kygrios are the ones who are going to take over when the big 4 finally collectively fade for good. Those couple of generations will probably be skipped over since they are basically collectively useless, and the very few with real potential (eg- Kygrios) will never get it all together for any extended period.

As for Theim what is he doing? Choking big leads vs Del Potro in a U.S Open round of 16, and letting himsef be drubbed badly by Nadal in the RG semis. He is already 24. I am not holding my breath.

 

[abmk]

Cilic definitely outranks Del Potro. 1 slam title, 1 slam final, 1 masters vs. 1 slam title, 0 slam finals, 0 masters.

Delpo has a YEC final in 09, Cilic does not.
Del potro reached ranking of #4 in early 2010, Cilic's highest is #6 in 2016.
Del potro has the Davis Cup , including beating Cilic in that. Cilic does not have a Davis Cup win
Del potro has an Olympics silver and bronze, Cilic does not have either of those.

Also,
Del potro has 3 Masters finals, Cilic only one -that he converted.
del potro's record vs big 4 and top 10 is also considerably better

vs top 10 :

delpo is 43-69 (38.39%)
cilic is 28-66 (29.79%)

vs big 4 :

delpo is 6-16 vs federer
5-8 vs nadal
4-14 vs djokovic
3-7 vs murray

overall : 18-45 (28.57%)

cilic is 1-7 vs federer
1-4 vs nadal
1-14 vs djokovic
3-12 vs murray

overall : 6-37 (13.95%)

Cilic's winning% over the big 4 is half of delpo's.
If you just restrict it to the big 3 , its even worse:

Delpo has 15 wins vs the big 3, Cilic just 3. that's a gigantic difference.

delpo is 15-38 (28.3%)
cilic is 3-25 (10.7%)

 

[r2473]

Roddick was the better player in 2003 and Federer was in Peak form already.

So you are claiming that Roddick played the best tennis of his career in 2003 and then fell off, not that other players (specifically Federer) started playing better (or maybe I'm not understanding the unique TT usage of the word "peak").

And that Federer never surpassed his 2003 level (again, not sure how else to read "peak")? He may not have fallen off, but he never got beyond "peak" (by definition).

 

[deacsyoga]

So you are claiming that Roddick played the best tennis of his career in 2003 and then fell off, not that other players (specifically Federer) started playing better (or maybe I'm not understanding the unique TT usage of the word "peak").

Roddick suffered from Federer and Hewitt getting better in 2004, Safin returning, and Nadal and Djokovic coming on the scene of course. He also fell off and was never the same player for anything more than blips after firing Gilbert after the 2004 season though, the worst decision he ever made. Particularly when it turns out Dean Goldfine was the worst coach for his game, and even the successful coaching arrangments he later had (particularly Connors and Stefanki) could never totally undo the damage.

 

[abmk]

People give Tsonga WAY too much respect. His results are about as reliable as a broken condom and Berdych was always more consistent and a bigger threat to the Big 4 when in form in my eyes.

completely the opposite. Tsonga was always the clearer , bigger threat to the big 4 overall.
by a big margin vs nadal, djokovic, by a slight margin vs federer. Berdych's only edge has been that he's handled Murray clearly better.

tsonga :
6-11 vs federer
4-8 vs nadal
6-16 vs djokovic
2-14 vs murray

18-49 (26.87%)

berdych :
6-19 vs federer
4-19 vs nadal
3-25 vs djokovic
6-11 vs murray

19-74 (20.4%)

Also for all his better consistency, Berdych has just 4 finals at Masters- converted 1 - a depleted Paris field in 2005.
Tsonga has same # of finals at Masters - 4 - converted 2 .
He beat Djokovic, Roddick and Nalbandian in Paris Masters 2008
He beat Murray, Djokovic and Federer in Canada Masters 2014.

Tsonga has 15 titles overall, Berdych 13.

Tsonga has a slam final, 5 more SFs
Berdych has a slam final, 6 more SFs

so if Tsonga's results are as reliable as a broken condom, what would you call Berdych's ?

 

[r2473]

Roddick suffered from Federer and Hewitt getting better in 2004, Safin returning, and Nadal and Djokovic coming on the scene of course. He also fell off and was never the same player for anything more than blips after firing Gilbert after the 2004 season though, the worst decision he ever made. Particularly when it turns out Dean Goldfine was the worst coach for his game, and even the successful coaching arrangments he later had (particularly Connors and Stefanki) could never totally undo the damage.

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/andy-roddick/r485/rankings-history

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/tomas-berdych/ba47/rankings-history

Berdych and Roddick look so much alike in the ranking history. Obviously Andy achieved the higher rank for a while, but for the meat of their career, they look so similar.

 

[Bukmeikara]

So you are claiming that Roddick played the best tennis of his career in 2003 and then fell off, not that other players (specifically Federer) started playing better (or maybe I'm not understanding the unique TT usage of the word "peak").

And that Federer never surpassed his 2003 level (again, not sure how else to read "peak")? He may not have fallen off, but he never got beyond "peak" (by definition).

In this case, peak form reflected on the fact that he was already good enough to be number 1. He won 7 titles and reached another two finals. Peak form Fed doesnt mean he is unbeatable, he couldnt beat Nalbandian while Roddick did. Roddick fell off after Wimbledon 04 and the reason for it was more mental than his quality as a player.

 

[abmk]

In this case, peak form reflected on the fact that he was already good enough to be number 1. He won 7 titles and reached another two finals. Peak form Fed doesnt mean he is unbeatable, he couldnt beat Nalbandian while Roddick did. Roddick fell off after Wimbledon 04 and the reason for it was more mental than his quality as a player.

2003 was in no way peak federer.
he lost in 1R of FO to freakin' Luis Horna. Did not win a Masters title.
forgot unbeatable, b/w wimbledon and YEC 2003, he lost in all tournaments except 1 title that he won.
And of course, before that, he didn't even make a slam semi.

FEderer's peak started in YEC 2003 when he crushed the field after the opening match vs Agassi.

the only 2 tournaments he played at peak level (significant ones) were Wimbledon 2003 and YEC 2003.

 

[r2473]

In this case, peak form reflected on the fact that he was already good enough to be number 1. He won 7 titles and reached another two finals. Peak form Fed doesnt mean he is unbeatable, he couldnt beat Nalbandian while Roddick did. Roddick fell off after Wimbledon 04 and the reason for it was more mental than his quality as a player.

I'm saying peak means "as good as Federer ever was". That would be the definition of "peak" to me.

I don't agree with that. I think Federer got better after 2003.

 

[Bukmeikara]

2003 was in no way peak federer.
he lost in 1R of FO to freakin' Luis Horna. Did not win a Masters title.
forgot unbeatable, b/w wimbledon and YEC 2003, he lost in all tournaments except 1 title that he won.
And of course, before that, he didn't even make a slam semi.

FEderer's peak started in YEC 2003 when he crushed the field after the opening match vs Agassi.

the only 2 tournaments he played at peak level (significant ones) were Wimbledon 2003 and YEC 2003.

So basicaly peak Federer wins every tournament he enters ?! Do you understand how naive is that and how insulting to other players ? He didnt win a Master because he was stopped by the other top players - Roddick, Nalbandian, Ferrero and Kuerten.

 

[Bukmeikara]

I'm saying peak means "as good as Federer ever was". That would be the definition of "peak" to me.

I don't agree with that. I think Federer got better after 2003.

Offcource Federer got better after 2003 ... He also got better in 2006 does this mean that he wasnt in peak form in 2005 ?

 

[Thundergod]

That is fine as long as Wawrinka is not one of those players. The thing that made me nearly barf was Arias implying Berdych is superior to Wawrinka which at this point is a joke.

Lol I didn't know the commentators said that. I'm not sure what they're thinking there. I think everyone agrees that Stan is well ahead of that group, probably somewhere below Murray. Of course he has the 3 slams, but he has made more SF+ in his 4 years since breaking out than that big group did their whole careers.

 

[deacsyoga]

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/andy-roddick/r485/rankings-history

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/tomas-berdych/ba47/rankings-history

Berdych and Roddick look so much alike in the ranking history. Obviously Andy achieved the higher rank for a while, but for the meat of their career, they look so similar.

You are right. The big difference, like the big difference between Berdych and everyone mentioned in this thread apart from Ferrer, is Roddick could attain peaks that Berdych could not.

Lol I didn't know the commentators said that. I'm not sure what they're thinking there. I think everyone agrees that Stan is well ahead of that group, probably somewhere below Murray. Of course he has the 3 slams, but he has made more SF+ in his 4 years since breaking out than that big group did their whole careers.

Arias also calls Seles who has only 9 slams and no Wimbledons the best player ever. He is drugged. He is probably part of Wilander an Cash's smoking dope and getting high 24/7 boys club.

 

[buscemi]

@deacsyoga

Berdych = 1 slam final, 6 slam SF, 9 slam QF
Tsonga = 1 slam final, 5 slam SF, 9 Slam QF

Berdych pips slam performances but it is indeed close. Where it really matters is masters, Tsonga has made SF or better 9 times (with 2 wins) and Berdych has made SF or better 19 times (with 1 win) now that is a stat that suggests to me he was better. Also i guess how they've both played against the Big 4 is open to debate and Tsonga does have a slightly better record but i don't think he is anymore likely to beat them than Berdych is.

Tsonga has 2 Masters Series titles (with wins over Federer and Murray and two wins over Djokovic) and a WTF final (with a three set loss to Federer), compared to Berdych with 1 Masters Series title (best wins over Coria, Ferrero, and Gaudio, followed by wins over Stepanek and Ljubicic in the SF and F) and a WTF SF (straight set loss to Tsonga. I think that those numbers more than make up for the disparity in Masters Series SF appearances.

 

[abmk]

So basicaly peak Federer wins every tournament he enters ?! Do you understand how naive is that and how insulting to other players ? He didnt win a Master because he was stopped by the other top players - Roddick, Nalbandian, Ferrero and Kuerten.

no, he was losing to every one of those top players in Masters - he didn't even win a single one of them. He was also stopped by Mantilla in Rome 03.

Peak federer does not necessarily win every tournament vs them, but he does win a considerable % of them.

Do you how insulting it is to call a year 2003 :1 win, 2 R4s and 1 round 1 in slams, 1 YEC win ,no masters

as peak compared to :

2004 : 3 wins, 1 R3 in slams, 1 YEC, 3 masters
2005 : 2 wins, 2 semis in slams, YEC final, 4 masters
2006 : 3 wins, 1 final in slams, YEC win, 4 masters
2007 : 3 wins, 1 final in slams, YEC win, 2 masters

FYI, peak federer went 18-0 vs top 10 in 2004. ( undefeated)
He was 9-5 vs top 10 in 2003 (4-5 before the YEC).

Do you see the difference ?