It's getting pretty sad

[Sport]

To me, Medvedev seems like one of those guys who will force players to beat him and play a consistently high level, but he lacks a high gear, and so will have no response should his opponent break through his wall of consistency. His forehand does not spread the court well and is one-dimensional. His backhand is very good with serious versatility but backhands in general are not a dominant stroke.

No. Medveved won't force anyone. Djokovic was playing awful against him.

 

[upchuck]

The only reason why Medvedev won one set against Djokovic, is because the Serbian was playing at 50% of his level to save his energy. Djokovic's shots were extremelly weak and typically didn't pass the service line. A lot of his shots were in the centre of the court and weak. He was really playing like a pusher. Medvedev was not running to keep the rallies, nor was he doing anything special aparte from pushing the ball.

Djokovic significantly raised his level in the semifinal and final. Against Pouille and Nadal, Djokovic shots were more powerful and deep, he was crushing the lines and changing the direction with powerful shots.

Reading your comment, you make it look like Medvedev (not even top 15 like Tsitsipas) would have defeated Nadal just because he won 1 set against a conservative and subpar version of Djokovic. There is something called level of play. It is utterly simplistic to assume that Djokovic is a robot who plays at the same level every match.

In copying and posting this from another thread, you forgot to cut out the parts that clearly do not apply to anything NoleFam said in his post. And you're still wrong.

Yeah, but players don't peak in their 30's. Other than Anderson, Isner and Stan, nobody else has achieved their best results in their 30's.

But it's not unreasonable to think that Tsitsipas/Shapavalov/even Zverev won't truly hit their stride until they are about 23/24.

 

[mike danny]

In copying and posting this from another thread, you forgot to cut out the parts that clearly do not apply to anything NoleFam said in his post. And you're still wrong.
But it's not unreasonable to think that Tsitsipas/Shapavalov/even Zverev won't truly hit their stride until they are about 23/24.

23-24, not 30.

 

[Sport]

In copying and posting this from another thread, you forgot to cut out the parts that clearly do not apply to anything NoleFam said in his post. And you're still wrong.
But it's not unreasonable to think that Tsitsipas/Shapavalov/even Zverev won't truly hit their stride until they are about 23/24.

I am still right. You are completely wrong.

 

[-NN-]

No. Medveved won't force anyone. Djokovic was playing awful against him.

I know Djokovic is a nice player and all that and you're hot on the topic right now of one match but I'm talking about Med generally based on what I've seen over many matches. I'm not discussing Medvedev vs Djokovic.

 

[upchuck]

23-24, not 30.

I mentioned 30 as a point that proves how the time-lines of reaching prime have changed...

 

[SecondServeAce]

I don't know how people continue to watch outside of slam time. Im only tuning to see how many more slams Nadal/Djokovic win. I don't watch a lick outside of slams anymore. Why bother? We all know their MUGS just showing up for a appearance checks then back to the clubs/bars

 

[mike danny]

I mentioned 30 as a point that proves how the time-lines of reaching prime have changed...

30 is not prime for a tennis player. That's still 22-28 or 23-28.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

30 is not prime for a tennis player. That's still 22-28 or 23-28.

LOL

At 30 Nadal was in the gutter. Same for Djokovic, but both managed to get back on track not least because there are no younger challengers, but, yeah, 30 is the new 23.

Jeebus, even their own favourites disprove their theories.

 

[clout]

Yea the next gen stinks at the moment, but I remember when many ppl said tennis was stuck in a dark era in the early 2000’s in between the Sampras/Agassi and the big 3 eras, but since the mid 2000s it’s been a golden gen for the sport. Every sport experiences a slight “dark age” but it’ll always move on and new talent will naturally take over sooner or later

 

[abmk]

It didn't take long before the era before Federer's rise was considered "transitional." There was even commentary about how women's tennis at the time was better/more interesting than men's tennis.

transitional in 01/02 ...meaning shifting from previous gen(s) to new gen. i.e the new gen was doing well and making waves back then.

(nothing of that sort with the fail gen of nishi-dimi-raonic ....the gen after that hasn't done much in slams either ...though they have done some stuff in Bo3).

2004 was supposed to be goddamn fight b/w Fed, Ferrero, Roddick, with Agassi still being a major factor and hopefully Hewitt getting back to top form (which happened) and Safin recovering from injuries in 2003 (which also happened).

Just that Federer raised his level and pulled away from the pack.

 

[Sport]

LOL

At 30 Nadal was in the gutter. Same for Djokovic, but both managed to get back on track not least because there are no younger challengers, but, yeah, 30 is the new 23.

Jeebus, even their own favourites disprove their theories.

Yep. We are in a Weak Next Gen Era. No Next Gen player is close to the level of the Big 5 (Roger, Ralph, Novak, Andy and Stan).

 

[upchuck]

30 is not prime for a tennis player. That's still 22-28 or 23-28.

I'll go through this again. The top 100 skews older than ever. Players are having more success in their early 30s than ever before. Doesn't mean most are reaching their primes in their early 30s, but it does mean their primes are coming later than before. Generally, the time-lines have shifted so we can't write off players who don't win a slam at 20/21/22.

 

[The Safinator]

I'm watching these "nextgen" matches and feeling sad. Medvedev is supposed to be a force? Is this a joke? They are all lanky retrievers who have good serves only as a result of their height. No one has special strokes. Tsitsipas and Shapovolav are the two exceptions, sort of. But they haven't done anything.

I was re-watching the AO19 final and watching Djokovic basically have a practice session against a clearly-rusty Bull. How could no one push that version of Bull? He hadn't played in months.

It's mind-boggling how pathetic even the "nextgen" is.

Oh, and ATP is even more pathetic. ATP making "next gen" finals and giving players labels is, I think, unprofessional and unethical. It's very wrong.

Tennis is going to fall off a cliff very soon. The sport might, for all intents and purposes, die. I don't see any recovery after the big drop in a few years. Rec players will dry up.

Soccer is still around, and absolutely no one cares about soccer in this country. Tennis won't die, it will have new stars and then players who are exceptional will come along, as they always do. This attitude of the Big 3 being the be all end all of tennis is a joke. Anyone who has followed tennis for more than the past 10 years, understands that,

 

[mike danny]

I'll go through this again. The top 100 skews older than ever. Players are having more success in their early 30s than ever before. Doesn't mean most are reaching their primes in their early 30s, but it does mean their primes are coming later than before. Generally, the time-lines have shifted so we can't write off players who don't win a slam at 20/21/22.

We'll see if that is indeed the case.

 

[tennisaddict]

The last 5 years is the worst period since open era and the irony is the next 5 years would be even worse than this

 

[NoleFam]

The only reason why Medvedev won one set against Djokovic, is because the Serbian was playing at 50% of his level to save his energy. Djokovic's shots were extremelly weak and typically didn't pass the service line. A lot of his shots were in the centre of the court and weak. He was really playing like a pusher. Medvedev was not running to keep the rallies, nor was he doing anything special aparte from pushing the ball.

Djokovic significantly raised his level in the semifinal and final. Against Pouille and Nadal, Djokovic shots were more powerful and deep, he was crushing the lines and changing the direction with powerful shots.

Reading your comment, you make it look like Medvedev (not even top 15 like Tsitsipas) would have defeated Nadal just because he won 1 set against a conservative and subpar version of Djokovic. There is something called level of play. It is utterly simplistic to assume that Djokovic is a robot who plays at the same level every match.

Nonsense that Djokovic played at 50% against Medvedev. There were moments in the match that I didn't think he was playing that well but it definitely wasn't 50%. Medvedev hit the ball extremely flat which made his balls hard to attack, and made Djokovic create all his on pace. He also hardly missed anything and was great at counter punching. The commentators also pointed out these facts and how hard he made Djokovic work.

As @upchuck pointed out, it looks like you copied and pasted this and the rest of it doesn't deserve a response because it has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[beltsman]

Federer by 23 years old

Roddick by 23 years old

Nadal by 23 years old

Djokovic by 23 years old

NextGen(tm) by 23 years old