Is Medvedev a bigger threat than Thiem was in any of of the Rg finals vs Rafa.

Reason

  • Yes because Meddy better on Hc

    Votes: 9 23.7%
  • No because Thiem better on clay

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Yes because Nadal at Rg is too good

    Votes: 25 65.8%
  • No because Novak at Ao is too good

    Votes: 3 7.9%

  • Total voters
    38

Nadal_King

Hall of Fame
Thiem was always seen as the clay court specialist early on and had beaten rafa in 3 set matches but now it seems meddy is bigger favourite against djokovic on hardcourt that thiem ever was why is that
 

Crazy Finn

Hall of Fame
Well yeah, because he's mentally tougher than Timmy and because Novak is not as good at AO as Nadal is at the FO (though he arguably comes to closest)
The first is hard to quantify - but might be true. The second is true.

Novak has been very good at AO, winning 8 titles and has a 90% winning percentage. That's quite excellent, fairly amazing.
Rafa's lost at RG twice, ever, going back to 2005 - and neither time was to Timmy. That's just on a different level.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Well yeah, because he's mentally tougher than Timmy and because Novak is not as good at AO as Nadal is at the FO (though he arguably comes to closest)
Well, the only difference between Novak and Fed at their pet slams is that Novak gets to inflate his count later against weaker competition, so I don't believe he is the closest to Nadal on Chatrier.
 
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
Thiem was zero threat in any of his RG finals, and Meddy will equal that zero threat here.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Well, the only difference between Novak and Fed at their pet slams is that Novak gets to inflate his count later against weaker competition, so I don't believe he is the closest to Nadal on Chatrier.
That's why I said arguably. That said Fed at Wimbledon did lose to Nadal in 2008 Wimbledon in his prime, as well as Rafa played Fed still allowed his mental block to affect him. Novak never gave that luxury to anyone at AO. Fed does get a pass from me for his losses in his mid 30s but losing both 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO final is on him, he handed those matches to Nadal with poor mental performances overall.

Undefeated in AO semis and finals is a very impressive feat, doesn't matter how much we nitpick.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
That's why I said arguably. That said Fed at Wimbledon did lose to Nadal in 2008 Wimbledon in his prime, as well as Rafa played Fed still allowed his mental block to affect him. Novak never gave that luxury to anyone at AO. Fed does get a pass from me for his losses in his mid 30s but losing both 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO final is on him, he handed those matches to Nadal with poor mental performances overall.

Undefeated in AO semis and finals is a very impressive feat, doesn't matter how much we nitpick.
Djokovic lost to Wawrinka in 2014. Do you really think that loss turns into a win if it's a semi instead? I don't think things quite work like that.

Fed's loss to Nadal is compensated by Djokovic's loss to Wawrinka.

We're talking their pet slams here, so not sure what AO 2009 has to do with it.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
That's why I said arguably. That said Fed at Wimbledon did lose to Nadal in 2008 Wimbledon in his prime, as well as Rafa played Fed still allowed his mental block to affect him. Novak never gave that luxury to anyone at AO. Fed does get a pass from me for his losses in his mid 30s but losing both 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO final is on him, he handed those matches to Nadal with poor mental performances overall.

Undefeated in AO semis and finals is a very impressive feat, doesn't matter how much we nitpick.
It's not even that really. Yes the last few years he hasn't exactly ran the gauntlet, and Karatsev and Medvedev doesn't up the quality at all tbh, but he's beaten Nadal, Federer, Wawrinka, and Murray a ton of times so you have to give it to him. Fed would likely do the same in Novak's position, but it didn't work out that way. That's all we can do about that.

As for the poll question I'd say the more prominent question is whether Med is more dangerous on HC than Thiem was last year, not whether he's more dangerous on HC than Thiem was to Rafa on clay. So the question as posed is very secondary to the more important question.

And answering my own question I would say I'm not convinced, but I would love to be. I think Med's been a little overhyped in the lead up here, but we will see. He's certainly fresher than Thiem was last year, and he might be playing better, but he doesn't have Thiem's power and I don't believe he will outgrind Djokovic, even the 33 year old version. I also think he isn't as mentally tough as some other people think. He might look that way, but the USO SF with Thiem is still fresh in my mind where he let a bad call affect his play for way too long.
 
Nadal at RG is on the highest level of tennis possible. At the same time, Thiem is overrated on clay. 0 masters 1000 let alone beating Rafa at RG

Meddy is a much more established HC player with 3 masters+WTF. Also Novak is exceptional at AO but not the same as Rafa at RG
 
Last edited:

MeatTornado

G.O.A.T.
I also think he isn't as mentally tough as some other people think. He might look that way, but the USO SF with Thiem is still fresh in my mind where he let a bad call affect his play for way too long.
I definitely agree with that part, but it's also because there's very different types of mental strength. Timmy wouldn't let a bad call in the first set derail him for the rest of the match. He can bounce back from adversity better than that. But Tim is more likely to get tight in crunch time of a big match. If we're talking about defending a break point in the 5th set of a final, I'd trust Medvedev much more than Thiem. Med might not win it, but I don't think he'll play scared either.

Last year's final was of many examples of Thiem playing a great match and then suddenly dropping his level once the going got tough. Shots he was hitting all day long suddenly turned into wild errors in the final set.

I realize they're not the Big 3, so there's not a huge sample size to draw conclusions from, but it's just the feeling I get from them in their decent number of important slam, masters and YEC matches.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It's not even that really. Yes the last few years he hasn't exactly ran the gauntlet, and Karatsev and Medvedev doesn't up the quality at all tbh, but he's beaten Nadal, Federer, Wawrinka, and Murray a ton of times so you have to give it to him. Fed would likely do the same in Novak's position, but it didn't work out that way. That's all we can do about that.

As for the poll question I'd say the more prominent question is whether Med is more dangerous on HC than Thiem was last year, not whether he's more dangerous on HC than Thiem was to Rafa on clay. So the question as posed is very secondary to the more important question.

And answering my own question I would say I'm not convinced, but I would love to be. I think Med's been a little overhyped in the lead up here, but we will see. He's certainly fresher than Thiem was last year, and he might be playing better, but he doesn't have Thiem's power and I don't believe he will outgrind Djokovic, even the 33 year old version. I also think he isn't as mentally tough as some other people think. He might look that way, but the USO SF with Thiem is still fresh in my mind where he let a bad call affect his play for way too long.
But you see, people for some reason just dismiss the Wawrinka loss in 2014 just because it was in a QF. Like it would have magically turned into a win had it been a SF.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
But you see, people for some reason just dismiss the Wawrinka loss in 2014 just because it was in a QF. Like it would have magically turned into a win had it been a SF.
Sure, but he has beaten Wawrinka in a SF so it's not necessarily dismissed. It's just the way it turned out. You might just say he's undefeated once he makes the SF's of the AO, and even if he had one loss it's not the end of the world. It's not even like he's beaten weak sauce competition his whole career. Some things you just have to credit a guy on.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Sure, but he has beaten Wawrinka in a SF so it's not necessarily dismissed. It's just the way it turned out. You might just say he's undefeated once he makes the SF's of the AO, and even if he had one loss it's not the end of the world. It's not even like he's beaten weak sauce competition his whole career. Some things you just have to credit a guy on.
Sure, but in 2015 both guys played a worse match, so not sure how much relevance it has that it was a SF.

I'm not saying he beat weak competition his whole career. Far from it. Just that he's being compared to Nadal on Chatrier just because he's inflated his AO count in his 30's while Fed didn't have the same fortune.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Sure, but in 2015 both guys played a worse match, so not sure how much relevance it has that it was a SF.

I'm not saying he beat weak competition his whole career. Far from it. Just that he's being compared to Nadal on Chatrier just because he's inflated his AO count in his 30's while Fed didn't have the same fortune.
If anybody is comparing him to Rafa at RG then they're wrong. Just wrong.

As far as Fed goes, he'd be doing the same in Novak's position IMO. Unfortunately he is not in that position.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
I definitely agree with that part, but it's also because there's very different types of mental strength. Timmy wouldn't let a bad call in the first set derail him for the rest of the match. He can bounce back from adversity better than that. But Tim is more likely to get tight in crunch time of a big match. If we're talking about defending a break point in the 5th set of a final, I'd trust Medvedev much more than Thiem. Med might not win it, but I don't think he'll play scared either.

Last year's final was of many examples of Thiem playing a great match and then suddenly dropping his level once the going got tough. Shots he was hitting all day long suddenly turned into wild errors in the final set.

I realize they're not the Big 3, so there's not a huge sample size to draw conclusions from, but it's just the feeling I get from them in their decent number of important slam, masters and YEC matches.
I'd trust Med more than Thiem as well, but I don't think that's saying much. I don't trust either of them. And I think Medvedev just shows tightness in different ways. He probably makes more UE's in the net than he does long when the going gets tough, which is the opposite of Thiem I think. My general impression is that Thiem overhits when nervous, whereas Medvedev hits more UEs into the net in the same situation. Sort of a function of their game styles. I don't have stats to support it though.

Mostly I'm not convinced by any broad statements about Medvedev's toughness until he proves it to me tomorrow. Because as you said I don't believe the sample size is big enough, and I'm a bit surprised how many people are high on him and so sure of his toughness on the account of only a few matches, and very few slam level ones at that. If he can get to a 5th set and save a crucial BP or two (or at least not give it to Novak playing scared) that will convince me, but for now I'm on the fence. I hope he does prove me wrong, but I'm not expecting it, and it looks like I'm in the minority here because I wouldn't be surprised at all if this match was a routine 3 setter for Djokovic, or a relatively non competitive 4 setter. That said, I don't have a problem with anyone holding an opinion opposite of my own so no disrespect is intended. We'll just have to wait and see who's closer to the truth.
 

MeatTornado

G.O.A.T.
My general impression is that Thiem overhits when nervous, whereas Medvedev hits more UEs into the net in the same situation.
I can definitely back you on the Thiem part. That's exactly what happened in last year's final when he got broken in the 4th & 5th sets. Just simple, neutral forehands that sailed on him.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Sure, but he has beaten Wawrinka in a SF so it's not necessarily dismissed. It's just the way it turned out. You might just say he's undefeated once he makes the SF's of the AO, and even if he had one loss it's not the end of the world. It's not even like he's beaten weak sauce competition his whole career. Some things you just have to credit a guy on.
The thing with this though is that it seems like a cherry picked stat. If Novak never lost a QF, we'd be saying how he in invincible once he reaches the QF. But because he did, well, better cherry pick it to semis instead.

This stat is just a coincidence and nothing more. You don't magically become unbeatable once you reach a semi.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
The thing with this though is that it seems like a cherry picked stat. If Novak never lost a QF, we'd be saying how he in invincible once he reaches the QF. But because he did, well, better cherry pick it to semis instead.

This stat is just a coincidence and nothing more. You don't magically become unbeatable once you reach a semi.
This is true, but cherry picked or not, the stat is impressive. I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here I just think the stat is impressive, and I think Federer fans would be flaunting it if it were the case for Federer at Wimbledon for instance. Say Federer retired post 2012 win and had beaten Nadal in 2008. He would be undefeated in SF and Finals too, and that would be an amazing stat. It's the same for Djokovic. That doesn't mean that I think 7-0 is better than 8-4 or that 8-0 is better than 8-4 though.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
This is true, but cherry picked or not, the stat is impressive. I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here I just think the stat is impressive, and I think Federer fans would be flaunting it if it were the case for Federer at Wimbledon for instance. Say Federer retired post 2012 win and had beaten Nadal in 2008. He would be undefeated in SF and Finals too, and that would be an amazing stat. It's the same for Djokovic. That doesn't mean that I think 7-0 is better than 8-4 or that 8-0 is better than 8-4 though.
True. I think they certainly would.

Personally, I don't think it matters that much. Federer's loss in 2008 just happened to be in the final, while Djokovic's just happened to be before the semis in 2014. Just pure luck for Djokovic that he gets to keep this stat thanks to how the draw worked out. Both lost in their primes to the eventual winner in the later stages at the end of the day. I don't think the final outcome would have changed had the 2014 match been a semi instead of a QF. Wawrinka was just meant to have his day that year after already knocking on the door previously, simple as that.

For example, Fed up until 2016 when he wasn't healthy, was unbeatable in Wimb semis. Does that mean the end result against Djokovic in 2014-2015 would have changed? I highly doubt that.

Same way I don't think the Djokodal FO match in 2013 would have been less close had it been a final instead of a semi.
 
Last edited:
Top