Let's Face It: Someone Besides Nadal Already Betterer Than Djokovic and Federer at Roland Garros

[Meles]

LOL. You're saying Thiem will never win RG now?

Thiem: 58.7% this year before Nadal, 55.47% after Nadal. 60.5% before playing Djokovic.

2017 was his best year. It is likely Thiem should not have faced Nadal that year if RG has a sane seeding system. Thiem was seeded #6, obviously stupid since he was in finals at Barcy and Madrid. No way he was the #6 clay player in the world. But they had Nadal at #4. This kind of nonsense is why RG is the King of Getting It Wrong on Clay.

Thiem was the second best player on clay in 2017. Without Nadal he had the right profile to win RG, so in that year he fit the mold for past RG winners. What I believe you are missing is that we have zero evidence that returning continues to go up in the late 20s and later. Aging players in general take up the slack by winning more service games, and that's pretty much a fact. I believe it is likely that Thiem's return game has already peaked, or at the most he has very little time left to equal returning or better what he did in 2017. That means he has to get tactically stronger, more aggressive, and learn how to shorten points.[/QUOTE]
Visually Thiem was hitting his speed peak at Indian Wells this year and Barcelona as well. This means he's a late bloomer on speed to me.

Played Karlovic, Raonic, Monfils, and ****** at Indian Wells and won 37.1% or return points and 54.6% of points for event which is solid for a Masters 1000 against servebots.

At Barcelona Thiem won 49.5% of return points. Again not sure what you're nattering on about with his return game. Roland Garros was quite low at 38.9% on clay, but this included Djokovic serving exceptionally well plus of course Nadal. Khach, Monfils, Bublik, and Cuevas all have big serve games on clay. Thiem also extremely rusty starting event due to lack of play (this is undeniable unless you think Bublik and Paul some kind of huge clay threat.)

There is nothing wrong with Thiem and in fact everything is very much right. Taking a set from Nadal in the final on Thiem's fourth day in a row of play shows that. Give it up.

 

[BlueB]

2017 was his best year. It is likely Thiem should not have faced Nadal that year if RG has a sane seeding system.

Isn't RG seeding based purely on the rankings?

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk

 

[Meles]

Isn't RG seeding based purely on the rankings?

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk

Yes and often enough Nadal is 1 or 2 which is fine. This was the first year Thiem was a 4th seed. With Wimbledon like reseeding for clay, Thiem would have been top 4 the last three years.

 

[Meles]

Felix is yet another overrated mug. He's worse than Hewitt/Chang at the same age too. "Scariest besides Nadal". You're an idiot.

LOL. Pre poly era. Midgets got no serve Saby.

FAA far, far and away the most talented player overall for his age. He may not win his first major at age 19, but overall on track to to be the most talented youngster of the Fed apocalypse. Clay is his weakerer surface and already two finals.

 

[scotus]

Novak would have probably prevailed against Thiem at RG if it weren't for the winds. Novak typically plays terribly in windy conditions. We shall see next year if the Frenchies would somehow complete the roofing project.

 

[Towny]

2016 was preprime Thiem, but as to Murray:
17/2017 SF Barcelona Clay Dominic Thiem Andy Murray 6-2 3-6 6-4 2.00 - 1.80
13/2015 QF Miami Masters Hard Andy Murray Dominic Thiem 3-6 6-4 6-1 1.08 - 12.00
7/2014 R16 Rotterdam Hard Andy Murray Dominic Thiem 6-4 3-6 6-3 1.08 - 9.50

Plenty of evidence above of what a 2016 encounter might of entailed though I think Nole still beats Thiem in 2016 it just would have been a real match in normal conditions.

Dear lord we might say Nadal was prime in 2005, but nowhere near peak. The stats alone for 2017-2019 vs 2005-2007 tell the story. 56% points won in the earlier period is reputable. Near 60% in the latter period is devastating.

Let's be clear that Federe had easier draws than Thiem as #1 seed. Thiem has been hitting the big boys often in QFs, not just finals.

Again on Masters 1000 one can point at Thiem's draws and other circumstances. As a clay courter, Thiem's win at 2019 IW shows his merit. 2019 RG was the strongest clay field of all time and Thiem despite horrid weather conditions causing him to play 4 days in a row, put up a respectable final.

Murray winning both of their matches prior to 2016 and Thiem finally beating Murray in 2017, a terrible year for Murray, isn't great evidence he would beat 2016 Murray, one of Murray's 2 best clay years. Murray won a masters and made another final. 2016 Thiem did neither. Murray also put up more of a fight against Djokovic, actually winning a set. If they had met in 2016, Murray wins almost certainly.

In terms of Rafa 2005-2007 vs 2017-2019, I don't think we'll agree on which was better at RG. But even if we say, for sake of argument, that 2017-19 Rafa was better, it's not enough to explain the disparity between Thiem and Federer's success against Nadal, unless you're saying 2017-19 Nadal was a lot better. And I really don't think the evidence is there to support that notion. And we're talking about RG here. Outside RG, 2005-07 Nadal was clearly superior.

The only player of particular note that Thiem has faced at RG before meeting Rafa is Djokovic. And 2017 Djokovic wasn't exactly a force to be reckoned with. Djokovic this year was a decent opponent. A good win for Thiem. And the scheduling and conditions were awful at RG this year, so Thiem did well to win a set against Rafa, even if he collapsed almost immediately following.

In terms of the masters, here are Thiem's losses 2017-19:
2017: Goffin, Nadal, Djokovic
2018: Nadal, Zverev, Fognini
2019: Lajovic, Djokovic, Verdasco

Some tough opponents in here admittedly, although terrible losses against Nadal MC 2018 and Djokovic 2017 Rome, winning 3 games combined. 4 of 9 losses to the eventual champion.

Federer 2005-07:
2005: Gasquet, Win
2006: Nadal, Nadal
2007: Nadal, Volandri, Win

2 losses to not-so-great players, especially Volandri. 3 losses to Nadal. 3 of 5 losses to eventual champion. 2 wins

Djokovic 2011-13:
2011: Win, Win
2012: Nadal, Tipsarevic, Nadal
2013: Win, Dimitrov, Berdych

3 wins, all against Nadal. 2 of 5 losses to eventual champion.

Bear in mind that both Djokovic and Federer had won masters with other masters finals prior to 2005 and 2011 respectively. Thiem had a single QF at a clay masters prior to 2017. The draws are not sufficient reason for Thiem's lack of success at the masters. Federer and Djokovic both clearly better in this area. General poorer results against Nadal at RG as well, relative to Federer and Djokovic. 32% of games won compared to 42% and 43% is a big difference. 1 set won compared to 3 (including taking Nadal to 5) is a big difference. I imagine Thiem will end up with more RG titles than Federer and Djokovic in his career. But he's at best equal to Fedovic at RG and worse at the clay masters at an equivalent age

 

[Meles]

Murray winning both of their matches prior to 2016 and Thiem finally beating Murray in 2017, a terrible year for Murray, isn't great evidence he would beat 2016 Murray, one of Murray's 2 best clay years. Murray won a masters and made another final. 2016 Thiem did neither. Murray also put up more of a fight against Djokovic, actually winning a set. If they had met in 2016, Murray wins almost certainly.

In terms of Rafa 2005-2007 vs 2017-2019, I don't think we'll agree on which was better at RG. But even if we say, for sake of argument, that 2017-19 Rafa was better, it's not enough to explain the disparity between Thiem and Federer's success against Nadal, unless you're saying 2017-19 Nadal was a lot better. And I really don't think the evidence is there to support that notion. And we're talking about RG here. Outside RG, 2005-07 Nadal was clearly superior.

The only player of particular note that Thiem has faced at RG before meeting Rafa is Djokovic. And 2017 Djokovic wasn't exactly a force to be reckoned with. Djokovic this year was a decent opponent. A good win for Thiem. And the scheduling and conditions were awful at RG this year, so Thiem did well to win a set against Rafa, even if he collapsed almost immediately following.

In terms of the masters, here are Thiem's losses 2017-19:
2017: Goffin, Nadal, Djokovic
2018: Nadal, Zverev, Fognini
2019: Lajovic, Djokovic, Verdasco

Some tough opponents in here admittedly, although terrible losses against Nadal MC 2018 and Djokovic 2017 Rome, winning 3 games combined. 4 of 9 losses to the eventual champion.

Federer 2005-07:
2005: Gasquet, Win
2006: Nadal, Nadal
2007: Nadal, Volandri, Win

2 losses to not-so-great players, especially Volandri. 3 losses to Nadal. 3 of 5 losses to eventual champion. 2 wins

Djokovic 2011-13:
2011: Win, Win
2012: Nadal, Tipsarevic, Nadal
2013: Win, Dimitrov, Berdych

3 wins, all against Nadal. 2 of 5 losses to eventual champion.

Bear in mind that both Djokovic and Federer had won masters with other masters finals prior to 2005 and 2011 respectively. Thiem had a single QF at a clay masters prior to 2017. The draws are not sufficient reason for Thiem's lack of success at the masters. Federer and Djokovic both clearly better in this area. General poorer results against Nadal at RG as well, relative to Federer and Djokovic. 32% of games won compared to 42% and 43% is a big difference. 1 set won compared to 3 (including taking Nadal to 5) is a big difference. I imagine Thiem will end up with more RG titles than Federer and Djokovic in his career. But he's at best equal to Fedovic at RG and worse at the clay masters at an equivalent age

Murray beating Thiem on clay is very, very far from a sure thing even in 2016. Murray had a bunch of five setters at RG that year so seriously doubt it with the form Thiem had in the QF.

Thiem has beaten Nadal on clay 4 times in his career and the last three rather decisively when Nadal had good years. Pretty sure that is betterer and over a much shorter period.

Your credibility is kind of shot trotting out 2017 Djokovic at Rome.

You must be out of your mind saying Djokovic after winning Madrid and very credible Rome final was a "decent" opponent. The man was going for 4 slams in a row and probably would have had it if Thiem had perhaps been in the other half of the draw or not played.

I'm not crazy enough to maintain that Thiem was better in Masters events than Djokovic of 2011-2013, but this thread is about RG and his superior results remain unassailable especially at nearly 4 months youngerer. All I'm saying is Thiem's Masters record is deceptive. Oh and arguably this year Barcelona had a tougher field than Monte Carlo. Nadal has won that as much as any event and Thiem took him down hard, very hard.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

LOL. Pre poly era. Midgets got no serve Saby.

FAA far, far and away the most talented player overall for his age. He may not win his first major at age 19, but overall on track to to be the most talented youngster of the Fed apocalypse. Clay is his weakerer surface and already two finals.

Poly makes it easier so how's he better lmfao? He's worse than all 3 on an age for age basis.

 

[Meles]

Novak would have probably prevailed against Thiem at RG if it weren't for the winds. Novak typically plays terribly in windy conditions. We shall see next year if the Frenchies would somehow complete the roofing project.

If wet and not windy I'd tend to agree. I'm not sure what happens in the typical warm and dry conditions at RG, but I think that would have tipped balance back to Thiem.

Would Djokovic less fatigued by an SF been able to take down Nadal in damp conditions? That no doubt helped Thiem get his one set. Weather was an issue at all of Nadal's events this year save Madrid tbh. It hurt Thiem having to play four days in a row, but the wet probably finally helped him with Nadal.

 

[Meles]

Poly makes it easier so how's he better lmfao? He's worse than all 3 on an age for age basis.

The year is far, far from done Saby. For you we'll pull out the old age graph with ranking:
Saby Graph of Greatness

Felix if he makes final of Queens will be 8th in ATP race, 7th if he wins. Grass and US Open series should be very kind to him as well. With win in Queens he'd be 17th ranked currently.

Currently the graph shows Felix ranked 21 at 18.839. Nadal 17 at 18.836 and Hewitt at 21 at 18.872. The graphs also show FAA gaining rapidly on his worst surface clay. So FAA will be around 19.1 years old at the end of the US Open. Nadal was 3 after winning RG at that age. Hewitt was 11th ranked. Its very close Saby, stay tuned. Oh and by the way Felix pumped in 30 aces in recent grass court match. That's going to work very, very well through the US Open.

Chang got huge bump from his RG win at 17, but then ranking dropped. He's not really much of a target and definite weak era on clay.

 

[tudwell]

Federer played a much weaker Nadal in the years under comparison.

The Nadal who didn't lose a match on clay for over two years and 81 matches is much weaker than a 30+ Nadal? I'd be surprised if his points/games won stats backed that up in any way, let alone the obvious eye test.

 

[Meles]

The Nadal who didn't lose a match on clay for over two years and 81 matches is much weaker than a 30+ Nadal? I'd be surprised if his points/games won stats backed that up in any way, let alone the obvious eye test.

60% points won to 56%. 2017-2019 Nadal by a landslide

 

[tudwell]

60% points won to 56%. 2017-2019 Nadal by a landslide

Hmmm. That's a pretty big gap. Is that everywhere or just Roland Garros? If just RG, I guess that's not too surprising since he dropped a lot more sets in 2005 and 2006. Still, though, I fail to see how a guy who lost 1 pro tennis match in three full European clay court seasons is weaker than one who lost 5 in that same span. Maybe he peaked better for Roland Garros in recent years compared to his younger self, but also he doesn't have anyone to consistently push him the way peak Fed and Djoko did (Thiem's close, but hasn't managed to bother Nadal as much as they did on Philippe Chatrier).

 

[Meles]

Poly makes it easier so how's he better lmfao? He's worse than all 3 on an age for age basis.

So you think comparing Kuerten in 1997 winning as only player with Poly at RG is the same as FAA playing against a whole tour full of veterans bred on the stuff?

Simplifying, Hewitt was screwed when the tour switched to Poly (many others succumbed to injury during that time, a rarity these days). Not only was his serve not quite big enough to hang with the best and efficiently get through slams, but his ground advantage was neutralized as most of the incoming players due to Poly had very strong baseline games, negating a unique aspect of Hewitt's game on grass and hard.

Nadal was one of first players bred on Poly (Gasquet another who faded some after the shock of all that spin). Nadal is great, but all of the Big 4 save Fed had a tech advantage. Fed adapted so well to Poly that it definitely helped him as well, but his was a much harder task. Three of the Big 4 had huge tech advantage when they were young. Even Djokoray seemed like a breath of fresh air back in 2006. If they had to come in as there young selfs against the tour the last 6 or so years, things would not have gone nearly as well for them.

Kuerten in 1997 had a massive tech advantage.

FAA paddling upstream and just unheard of to have a player this young and good on tour since Nadal, especially on grass.

 

[Meles]

Hmmm. That's a pretty big gap. Is that everywhere or just Roland Garros? If just RG, I guess that's not too surprising since he dropped a lot more sets in 2005 and 2006. Still, though, I fail to see how a guy who lost 1 pro tennis match in three full European clay court seasons is weaker than one who lost 5 in that same span. Maybe he peaked better for Roland Garros in recent years compared to his younger self, but also he doesn't have anyone to consistently push him the way peak Fed and Djoko did (Thiem's close, but hasn't managed to bother Nadal as much as they did on Philippe Chatrier).

Yes. Just RG and its all serve efficiency. Logically the Moya 2nd serve improvements of 2017 and now first serve in 2019 do make quite a difference. Young players never serve as well as they do later in their career. Nadal's 2015-2016 period was the exception to this rule and we finally found out he was having injury issues related to the serve and so we had a false decline.

I'll add as a Thiem fan that he's never quite had a fair shake at Nadal at RG. 2018 was the closest, but recall Thiem was in poor form the whole clay season due to a fractured ankle taking him completely off the court for three weeks. Thiem was even horrible in Lyon that year just waking up enough on the weekend to get some momentum for RG.

Thiem has thrashed Nadal at least once a year in the 2017-2019 period and its hard to make excused for Nadal for those losses; very hard.

I'm not going to make a thread on it, but the Thiem of the last three years would have done very well against a young Nadal who he'd still be able to hit through and had a truly weak serve (well not as bad as 2015-2016). Until I see higher level from Thiem in the coming years. Nadal 2008, 2012, and probably 2017 are above his pay grade of course. Thiem's movement is outclassed by Nadal age to age, but Thiem is a power clay courter who will continue to up his game in that department for years to come. As good as Tsitsipas and Zverev have been on clay, it amazes me that Thiem was able to come up in level this year so much at age 25 in the movement department and now seems set for a few more years at RG. We'll see how Thiem does on the balance of the year, but I suspect he could dethrone Nadal as the best player on clay at least before RG (more points on clay than Nadal and they likely play the exact same schedule again) where Nadal's top spin to the Thiem backhand is rough. Thiem is getting close.

 

[tudwell]

Yes. Just RG and its all serve efficiency. Logically the Moya 2nd serve improvements of 2017 and now first serve in 2019 do make quite a difference. Young players never serve as well as they do later in their career. Nadal's 2015-2016 period was the exception to this rule and we finally found out he was having injury issues related to the serve and so we had a false decline.

That makes sense and that would have been my guess. Some similarities with Fed in 2014-15, which some people like to paint as Fed's peak. Both better servers than their "prime" years and overall smarter players who know how to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses better than their younger selves. Still and all, as great as Nadal's been these past three years on clay and especially Roland Garros, my brain just won't accept that this is the best we've seen from him.

 

[BlueB]

Nadal's 2015-2016 period was the exception to this rule and we finally found out he was having injury issues related to the serve

When did he not have injury related issues?

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk

 

[Towny]

Murray beating Thiem on clay is very, very far from a sure thing even in 2016. Murray had a bunch of five setters at RG that year so seriously doubt it with the form Thiem had in the QF.

Thiem has beaten Nadal on clay 4 times in his career and the last three rather decisively when Nadal had good years. Pretty sure that is betterer and over a much shorter period.

Your credibility is kind of shot trotting out 2017 Djokovic at Rome.

You must be out of your mind saying Djokovic after winning Madrid and very credible Rome final was a "decent" opponent. The man was going for 4 slams in a row and probably would have had it if Thiem had perhaps been in the other half of the draw or not played.

I'm not crazy enough to maintain that Thiem was better in Masters events than Djokovic of 2011-2013, but this thread is about RG and his superior results remain unassailable especially at nearly 4 months youngerer. All I'm saying is Thiem's Masters record is deceptive. Oh and arguably this year Barcelona had a tougher field than Monte Carlo. Nadal has won that as much as any event and Thiem took him down hard, very hard.

Murray had a couple of poor matches in the first two rounds but was in good form for the rest. He even beat defending champion Wawrinka in the SF. Plus he got the first set against Novak. Thiem won 7 games in the whole match against Novak. Add to that his superiority on clay up to that point plus his positive H2H with Thiem and we're looking at a very likely Murray win. Anyway, it's all hypothetical.

Not sure what you're referring to with Novak in Rome 2017. That was a very poor loss from Thiem, only winning 1 game. When did that sort of thing happen to Federer or Djokovic in 2005-07 and 2011-13 on clay? Plus, Novak actually lost the final so it's not as though he was GOATing that tournament.

In any case, I know you aren't arguing that Thiem has the better masters performance of the 3. But in general, masters performance correlates to slam performance, at least to some extent. That he's won none compared to Fedovic, who had 4 each at the same age, is worth considering.

As for Djokovic this year, he was a good opponent. I'm not disputing that. But this wasn't peak Djokovic. Yes, he's won the last 3 slams but he's also lost in IW, Miami, Monte Carlo and Rome. Madrid was his only win on clay. This wasn't like playing 2015 Djokovic. And Thiem only just beat him. An excellent win, given the conditions. I'm fairly certain Nadal would have got the win too though, especially after what we saw in Rome.

Anyway, at the equivalent age (or Thiem slightly younger anyway), Thiem arguably has slightly better results at RG than Fedovic, depending how you value them, but at best only slightly:

Thiem: F, F, SF, SF, 2R, 2R
Federer: F, F, SF, QF, 4R, 3R, 1R, 1R, 1R
Djokovic: F, SF, SF, SF, SF, QF, QF, 3R 2R

Plus, Djokovic and Federer showed stronger performances against Nadal. I know we aren't going to agree so I'm happy to disagree on this. Thiem is an excellent clay courter who almost certainly will win RG and will likely win multiple titles. I actually expected him to pick up a clay masters this year and was disappointed when he didn't. Perhaps next year will be his year.

 

[thrust]

Thieminator is a clay beast and there's no denying it.
Suck it, Fedovic fans.

Dominic, who I do like, has yet to win the FO and has NO clay masters titles. Novak has one FO, 4 Italian, 3 Madrid

 

[Meles]

That makes sense and that would have been my guess. Some similarities with Fed in 2014-15, which some people like to paint as Fed's peak. Both better servers than their "prime" years and overall smarter players who know how to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses better than their younger selves. Still and all, as great as Nadal's been these past three years on clay and especially Roland Garros, my brain just won't accept that this is the best we've seen from him.

Of course not. 2017 in the running with 2008 and 2012. I think 2019 was a weather related stats anomaly. 2018 and 2019 just prime years really.

Nadal with these two new serves is about to enter another very nice phase of his career. Remember he did make the Auz Open final and I think there is more to come off clay maybe even on grass again.

Nadal has had so many injury issues it really clouds things. He really did not hit his full prime for slams until 2010 on hard courts. Djoko really did not have prime stats until 2011 on hard. Clay can be a bit earlier, but even djoko did not have good clay slam results with quality stats until 2011. 2007 Masters level he was excellent on clay, but just not the slam stamina on clay and the serve efficiency.

Eye test the rallies and all of these young players can look great, but its not til later that they peak on serve and stamina. Stats show this. The uninformed eye will not see it so easily.

Nadal was amazing against Federe early in his career, but the big serving Federer at the point was not a grueling opponent, nor was Nole.

Thiem is now entering his peak period on hard courts (started US Open last year). It may not be utterly amazing but he's got more than a shot to exceed a clay specialist like Kuerten off clay. All the parts that make Thiem better on hard courts will help his clay game as well even if 2019 was his speed speak on clay (this has to be peak as 23-24 more the range). See Muster 1995 for and idea of the incoming Thiem power ground game and then of course Thiem a far superior server already.

 

[Meles]

When did he not have injury related issues?

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk

Well I studied the Nadal "decline" and was of course praying for it once on the Thiem bandwagon. Normally players get better on serve which Nadal has finally done from 2017-2019. Nadal had an injury that hurt his serve game tremendously around 2015-2016. He had to take off end of 2016 for it and finally came back healthy. Ditto Djokovic for the last few years. These guys are so great that they think they can win with a lesser serve, but they really couldn't.

Nadal might have had earlier issues with injuries that hurt serve (is the sky blue?), but later in your career you need and should have serve improvements to counteract the decline in speed. Djokodal failed to manage their injury issues the right way, perhaps Djokovic has the excuse of getting his Nole Slam.

 

[tudwell]

Of course not. 2017 in the running with 2008 and 2012. I think 2019 was a weather related stats anomaly. 2018 and 2019 just prime years really.

Nadal with these two new serves is about to enter another very nice phase of his career. Remember he did make the Auz Open final and I think there is more to come off clay maybe even on grass again.

Nadal has had so many injury issues it really clouds things. He really did not hit his full prime for slams until 2010 on hard courts. Djoko really did not have prime stats until 2011 on hard. Clay can be a bit earlier, but even djoko did not have good clay slam results with quality stats until 2011. 2007 Masters level he was excellent on clay, but just not the slam stamina on clay and the serve efficiency.

Eye test the rallies and all of these young players can look great, but its not til later that they peak on serve and stamina. Stats show this. The uninformed eye will not see it so easily.

Nadal was amazing against Federe early in his career, but the big serving Federer at the point was not a grueling opponent, nor was Nole.

Thiem is now entering his peak period on hard courts (started US Open last year). It may not be utterly amazing but he's got more than a shot to exceed a clay specialist like Kuerten off clay. All the parts that make Thiem better on hard courts will help his clay game as well even if 2019 was his speed speak on clay (this has to be peak as 23-24 more the range). See Muster 1995 for and idea of the incoming Thiem power ground game and then of course Thiem a far superior server already.

I don't think Nadal in 05 or 06 lacked for stamina. He also went toe-to-toe with the older, more experienced, and just as physically fit Coria in 05 and wore down plenty of opponents in grueling baseline battles (Mathieu, Hewitt, for example, if Fed isn't grueling enough). In fact, I think he had much better stamina then than he does now. It doesn't manifest on clay because he's not pushed on clay, but his five-set record has taken a huge dip in recent years and he can't seem to string together more than a couple physically intense matches without running out of steam or having his body completely break down. That may not be the trend for most players, but Nadal is different.

I think part of why I struggle to see Nadal as being at peak form lately is that while he obviously has that superior serve efficiency that helps him knife his way through the earlier rounds of the draw (only 2 sets dropped in the last 3 years vs. guys who aren't Thiem, vs. 4 sets dropped in 05-07 to guys who weren't Fed), I think he also just lacks a major rival on the level of Federer or Djokovic when they were at their best. Thiem just has yet to trouble Nadal in best of five the way they did – and did so consistently. It would be like 2014-15 Fed not having Djokovic stand in his way in slam finals. Nadal's game is certainly more efficient than it used to be, but I think his top level against the best players – even on clay – is not as good as it was. There's just no one good enough anymore to challenge him that way. At least that's how I see it.

 

[Meles]

I don't think Nadal in 05 or 06 lacked for stamina. He also went toe-to-toe with the older, more experienced, and just as physically fit Coria in 05 and wore down plenty of opponents in grueling baseline battles (Mathieu, Hewitt, for example, if Fed isn't grueling enough). In fact, I think he had much better stamina then than he does now. It doesn't manifest on clay because he's not pushed on clay, but his five-set record has taken a huge dip in recent years and he can't seem to string together more than a couple physically intense matches without running out of steam or having his body completely break down. That may not be the trend for most players, but Nadal is different.

I think part of why I struggle to see Nadal as being at peak form lately is that while he obviously has that superior serve efficiency that helps him knife his way through the earlier rounds of the draw (only 2 sets dropped in the last 3 years vs. guys who aren't Thiem, vs. 4 sets dropped in 05-07 to guys who weren't Fed), I think he also just lacks a major rival on the level of Federer or Djokovic when they were at their best. Thiem just has yet to trouble Nadal in best of five the way they did – and did so consistently. It would be like 2014-15 Fed not having Djokovic stand in his way in slam finals. Nadal's game is certainly more efficient than it used to be, but I think his top level against the best players – even on clay – is not as good as it was. There's just no one good enough anymore to challenge him that way. At least that's how I see it.

Djokovic was plenty good this year. Thiem is good enough now just hosed by playing 4 days in a row at end of RG. Thiem is beating him regularly on clay which can't be said about Federer.

 

[Meles]

Murray had a couple of poor matches in the first two rounds but was in good form for the rest. He even beat defending champion Wawrinka in the SF. Plus he got the first set against Novak. Thiem won 7 games in the whole match against Novak. Add to that his superiority on clay up to that point plus his positive H2H with Thiem and we're looking at a very likely Murray win. Anyway, it's all hypothetical.

Not sure what you're referring to with Novak in Rome 2017. That was a very poor loss from Thiem, only winning 1 game. When did that sort of thing happen to Federer or Djokovic in 2005-07 and 2011-13 on clay? Plus, Novak actually lost the final so it's not as though he was GOATing that tournament.

In any case, I know you aren't arguing that Thiem has the better masters performance of the 3. But in general, masters performance correlates to slam performance, at least to some extent. That he's won none compared to Fedovic, who had 4 each at the same age, is worth considering.

As for Djokovic this year, he was a good opponent. I'm not disputing that. But this wasn't peak Djokovic. Yes, he's won the last 3 slams but he's also lost in IW, Miami, Monte Carlo and Rome. Madrid was his only win on clay. This wasn't like playing 2015 Djokovic. And Thiem only just beat him. An excellent win, given the conditions. I'm fairly certain Nadal would have got the win too though, especially after what we saw in Rome.

Anyway, at the equivalent age (or Thiem slightly younger anyway), Thiem arguably has slightly better results at RG than Fedovic, depending how you value them, but at best only slightly:

Thiem: F, F, SF, SF, 2R, 2R
Federer: F, F, SF, QF, 4R, 3R, 1R, 1R, 1R
Djokovic: F, SF, SF, SF, SF, QF, QF, 3R 2R

Plus, Djokovic and Federer showed stronger performances against Nadal. I know we aren't going to agree so I'm happy to disagree on this. Thiem is an excellent clay courter who almost certainly will win RG and will likely win multiple titles. I actually expected him to pick up a clay masters this year and was disappointed when he didn't. Perhaps next year will be his year.

Again you can just throw out Thiem's match with Djoko like the Rome 2017 result; Thiem had just played 4 gruelling sets with Goffin and then the next day was thrown from the frying pan into the fire. Murray does not match up well with Thiem who can hit through him and is unphased by low balls.

You can roll back to earlier years, but all their stats were not great at RG. Thiem is clearly better on clay than Federer who just could not get results at RG until he had the top seed status. Mind you Thiem has done all of this without a top 4 seed until this year. That's betterer.

Let's face it Djokovic failed miserably in 2011 against Federer in the semi-final. Thiem faced a similar hurdle (actually a much tougher one) and made it to the final. Djokovic had three big wins against Nadal in the 2011-2013 period, same as Thiem. Thiem wins.

Yes I agree Djoko's masters performance on clay better than Thiem's but again he had advantage of a top seed and only Nadal possible in finals.

Federe winning Hamburg in 2004 was a solid Masters win over serveless Coria. 2007 German Open a fine one over Nadal. Fed picked up a couple more Madrid masters on clay after this, but that's it. Again all the credible triumphs were as #1 seed with Nadal only possible in the final. 2009 Madrid Nadal was of course hugely softened by Djoko in a great, treat match. I'm pretty sure when we look back in a few more years Thiem will have clearly separated himself from Federer on clay. Djoko is another kettle of fish.

 

[beltsman]

Thiem is a loser and this thread is an insult to Djokovic and Federer.

 

[beltsman]

Again you can just throw out Thiem's match with Djoko like the Rome 2017 result; Thiem had just played 4 gruelling sets with Goffin and then the next day was thrown from the frying pan into the fire. Murray does not match up well with Thiem who can hit through him and is unphased by low balls.

You can roll back to earlier years, but all their stats were not great at RG. Thiem is clearly better on clay than Federer who just could not get results at RG until he had the top seed status. Mind you Thiem has done all of this without a top 4 seed until this year. That's betterer.

Let's face it Djokovic failed miserably in 2011 against Federer in the semi-final. Thiem faced a similar hurdle (actually a much tougher one) and made it to the final. Djokovic had three big wins against Nadal in the 2011-2013 period, same as Thiem. Thiem wins.

Yes I agree Djoko's masters performance on clay better than Thiem's but again he had advantage of a top seed and only Nadal possible in finals.

Federe winning Hamburg in 2004 was a solid Masters win over serveless Coria. 2007 German Open a fine one over Nadal. Fed picked up a couple more Madrid masters on clay after this, but that's it. Again all the credible triumphs were as #1 seed with Nadal only possible in the final. 2009 Madrid Nadal was of course hugely softened by Djoko in a great, treat match. I'm pretty sure when we look back in a few more years Thiem will have clearly separated himself from Federer on clay. Djoko is another kettle of fish.

Federer beat Nadal on clay to win Masters, Thiem has won NOTHING.

 

[Meles]

Federer beat Nadal on on clay to win Masters, Thiem has won NOTHING.

Still better record at RG then Fed or Nole and at a youngerer age.

 

[beltsman]

Still better record at RG then Fed or Nole and at a youngerer age.

Doesn't matter

 

[Meles]

Doesn't matter

Big 3 rode their early success on the back of technology change.

 

[Towny]

Again you can just throw out Thiem's match with Djoko like the Rome 2017 result; Thiem had just played 4 gruelling sets with Goffin and then the next day was thrown from the frying pan into the fire. Murray does not match up well with Thiem who can hit through him and is unphased by low balls.

You can roll back to earlier years, but all their stats were not great at RG. Thiem is clearly better on clay than Federer who just could not get results at RG until he had the top seed status. Mind you Thiem has done all of this without a top 4 seed until this year. That's betterer.

Let's face it Djokovic failed miserably in 2011 against Federer in the semi-final. Thiem faced a similar hurdle (actually a much tougher one) and made it to the final. Djokovic had three big wins against Nadal in the 2011-2013 period, same as Thiem. Thiem wins.

Yes I agree Djoko's masters performance on clay better than Thiem's but again he had advantage of a top seed and only Nadal possible in finals.

Federe winning Hamburg in 2004 was a solid Masters win over serveless Coria. 2007 German Open a fine one over Nadal. Fed picked up a couple more Madrid masters on clay after this, but that's it. Again all the credible triumphs were as #1 seed with Nadal only possible in the final. 2009 Madrid Nadal was of course hugely softened by Djoko in a great, treat match. I'm pretty sure when we look back in a few more years Thiem will have clearly separated himself from Federer on clay. Djoko is another kettle of fish.

The Goffin match wasn't exactly a 5-setter and the last set was a breadstick. I'm not saying it didn't take it out of Thiem, but his performance was pretty limp against Novak nonetheless. Murray had a far better clay court season in 2016 than Thiem. Far better. Excluding RG, where Murray made it further and did better against Novak, they had the following results:

Murray: Monte Carlo SF (Nadal), Madrid final (Djokovic), Rome win (Djokovic)
Thiem: Monte Carlo 3R (Nadal), Madrid 1R (Del Potro), Rome QF (Nishikori)

For Thiem to beat Murray given the context, he would need an out of form Murray or a significant match-up advantage. Murray beat Wawrinka in 4 and took Djokovic to 4 so he wasn't out of form, even if the first 2 rounds were poor. And there isn't evidence of a significant match up advantage. Murray won the first 2 matches, in years in which he was better. Thiem won their 2017 match, a year which was better for him. All matches went to 3 sets. No good evidence that Murray would have struggled significantly with Thiem, so going from the form they both had in the 2016 clay season, Murray would have been the clear favourite.

The only difference between Federer and Thiem's results is that Thiem made a SF in 2016 whereas Federer lost in the 3R in 2004, and that Federer made a QF before all that whereas Thiem never made it past 2R before 2016. Not a massive difference. That Federer played Nadal much closer indicates the higher level. You make reference to the seeding, but I'm not sure who you expect would have beaten Federer at RG 2005-7 apart from Nadal. And bar Thiem playing Novak in 2016, there's no difference between them: SF, F, F losses to Nadal.

Federer clearly way ahead in the masters. You may dismiss Federer's masters wins but he had some good runs and had won 4, with multiple finals in the other 2. Thiem has 0 wins. Thiem beat Nadal twice at masters but won neither. In fact, in Rome, he was obliterated by Novak. Federer beat Nadal in Hamburg, snapping his 81 match win streak. And Thiem has lost to people like Lajovic and Verdasco so it's not as though he's always been losing to Nadal and Djokovic. We can't simply blame the seeding.

And there's just no comparison with Djokovic, who had won all 3 masters by Thiem's stage, beating Nadal for all 3. Plus, he's had a good share of defeats to Nadal and Federer as well, which hampered his total. At RG, yes Novak lost to Federer but Federer was playing damn good tennis. Thiem played Novak in a hurricane. A great win for Thiem of course but probably not more impressive than being up a break in the 5th set against prime Nadal, as Djokovic was in 2013.

Thiem has a lot to catch up on in the masters against both Fed and Djokovic. He's a better chance of catching Fed than Novak, of course. Very unlikely he's winning more than 9 masters on clay from this point. They've all had similar results at RG. We can debate back and forth about peak level but there's no concrete method of determining it. Let's see Thiem win RG first before we put him ahead of Federer and Djokovic

 

[NatF]

Big 3 rode their early success on the back of technology change.

Evidence for this claim? Not sure any notable players had yet to make the poly switch from 2004 onwards.

 

[duaneeo]

60% points won to 56%. 2017-2019 Nadal by a landslide

2005 - 2006 Nadal playing against 2017 - 2019 competition would have 90% points won.

 

[Meles]

The Goffin match wasn't exactly a 5-setter and the last set was a breadstick. I'm not saying it didn't take it out of Thiem, but his performance was pretty limp against Novak nonetheless. Murray had a far better clay court season in 2016 than Thiem. Far better. Excluding RG, where Murray made it further and did better against Novak, they had the following results:

Murray: Monte Carlo SF (Nadal), Madrid final (Djokovic), Rome win (Djokovic)
Thiem: Monte Carlo 3R (Nadal), Madrid 1R (Del Potro), Rome QF (Nishikori)

For Thiem to beat Murray given the context, he would need an out of form Murray or a significant match-up advantage. Murray beat Wawrinka in 4 and took Djokovic to 4 so he wasn't out of form, even if the first 2 rounds were poor. And there isn't evidence of a significant match up advantage. Murray won the first 2 matches, in years in which he was better. Thiem won their 2017 match, a year which was better for him. All matches went to 3 sets. No good evidence that Murray would have struggled significantly with Thiem, so going from the form they both had in the 2016 clay season, Murray would have been the clear favourite.

The only difference between Federer and Thiem's results is that Thiem made a SF in 2016 whereas Federer lost in the 3R in 2004, and that Federer made a QF before all that whereas Thiem never made it past 2R before 2016. Not a massive difference. That Federer played Nadal much closer indicates the higher level. You make reference to the seeding, but I'm not sure who you expect would have beaten Federer at RG 2005-7 apart from Nadal. And bar Thiem playing Novak in 2016, there's no difference between them: SF, F, F losses to Nadal.

Federer clearly way ahead in the masters. You may dismiss Federer's masters wins but he had some good runs and had won 4, with multiple finals in the other 2. Thiem has 0 wins. Thiem beat Nadal twice at masters but won neither. In fact, in Rome, he was obliterated by Novak. Federer beat Nadal in Hamburg, snapping his 81 match win streak. And Thiem has lost to people like Lajovic and Verdasco so it's not as though he's always been losing to Nadal and Djokovic. We can't simply blame the seeding.

And there's just no comparison with Djokovic, who had won all 3 masters by Thiem's stage, beating Nadal for all 3. Plus, he's had a good share of defeats to Nadal and Federer as well, which hampered his total. At RG, yes Novak lost to Federer but Federer was playing damn good tennis. Thiem played Novak in a hurricane. A great win for Thiem of course but probably not more impressive than being up a break in the 5th set against prime Nadal, as Djokovic was in 2013.

Thiem has a lot to catch up on in the masters against both Fed and Djokovic. He's a better chance of catching Fed than Novak, of course. Very unlikely he's winning more than 9 masters on clay from this point. They've all had similar results at RG. We can debate back and forth about peak level but there's no concrete method of determining it. Let's see Thiem win RG first before we put him ahead of Federer and Djokovic

Simply the head to head is more than evidence enough:
17/2017 SF Barcelona Clay Dominic Thiem Andy Murray 6-2 3-6 6-4 2.00 - 1.80
13/2015 QF Miami Masters Hard Andy Murray Dominic Thiem 3-6 6-4 6-1 1.08 - 12.00
7/2014 R16 Rotterdam Hard Andy Murray Dominic Thiem 6-4 3-6 6-3

Thiem was nothing in 2014 and 2015 and took sets from Murray on hard (granted Murray coming back as well). I love how you gloss over a 4 plus hour match with no day off (Thiem v Goffin 2016 RG QF). You obviously did not see the match. Thiem would power through Murray on clay. I will grant that 2016 is a lot of what ifs, but Murray was pretty darn gassed in the final and I doubt he survives a meat grinder with a moderately fresh Thiem more than capable of hitting through him. I don't think you can throw out Murray starting 2016 RG with three straight five setters.

Again in the 4 prime to near prime years Thiem wins the comparison at RG; its undeniable as much as you try to grasp at straws.

 

[Meles]

2005 - 2006 Nadal playing against 2017 - 2019 competition would have 90% points won.

Well 0.0 data to back up your utterly ridiculous contention. Been drinking the vacuum era Frauderista koolaid?

 

[Meles]

Evidence for this claim? Not sure any notable players had yet to make the poly switch from 2004 onwards.

Its called not having to make the switch, as in you came up through juniors and developed your game around the string. I'd make the same contention with graphite rackets. Fed is just about the only player who really successfully made the switch. I'd even contend that clay courters faced a whole new reality when the top hard courters started blowing through them on their favorite surface. A whole bunch of players also fell off with injury once the new baseline reality of the game was in full force on all surfaces. We just haven't seen decline like that in a long time and by the stats these were all quality players. Spaghetti strings were quickly outlawed, Poly was a watered down change like that and probably bigger impact on the game than even the switch to graphite where big serving and hitting was more favored (shorter matches). Poly has made the game much more physical and yet also appears to have upped serving levels a bit as well. I've not spent a lot of time sussing out the impact of graphite, but loosely I'd say the Americans, Agassi, et al had it rather easy in their youngerer years because they were the new wave born and bred with graphite rackets during their most critical years of development.

 

[NatF]

Its called not having to make the switch, as in you came up through juniors and developed your game around the string. I'd make the same contention with graphite rackets. Fed is just about the only player who really successfully made the switch. I'd even contend that clay courters faced a whole new reality when the top hard courters started blowing through them on their favorite surface. A whole bunch of players also fell off with injury once the new baseline reality of the game was in full force on all surfaces. We just haven't seen decline like that in a long time and by the stats these were all quality players. Spaghetti strings were quickly outlawed, Poly was a watered down change like that and probably bigger impact on the game than even the switch to graphite where big serving and hitting was more favored (shorter matches). Poly has made the game much more physical and yet also appears to have upped serving levels a bit as well. I've not spent a lot of time sussing out the impact of graphite, but loosely I'd say the Americans, Agassi, et al had it rather easy in their youngerer years because they were the new wave born and bred with graphite rackets during their most critical years of development.

This is just conjecture and bad conjecture at that.

 

[Ajosin]

His biggest advantage over Fed/Djoker for RG trophy outlook is that Nadal will retire while he is still playing strong.
That alone means he is likely to get more RGs that Fed/Djoker. He only needs to be better than the field once the tennis geniusesof our lifetime are gone.

 

[Micheal Federer]

What if Thiem goes on to win USO? How does that change things. Honestly, and I get ripped every time I say this, but I think Thiem will have a great shot at USO and might get his first slam there and not at RG.

GOAT level prediction

 

[Lleytonstation]

GOAT level prediction

@Meles will see the light eventually. Thiem= HCS.

 

[Meles]

@Meles will see the light eventually. Thiem= HCS.

RG not really clay this year. Gsm tim

 

[thrust]

Thieminator is a clay beast and there's no denying it.
Suck it, Fedovic fans.

No doubt Thiem is an outstanding clay court player, but how many clay masters or FO has he won? Novak has 10 clay masters and 1 FO. Nadal, too many masters to count and an obscene 12 FO.

 

[Breakpointerer]

RG not really clay this year. Gsm tim

How do you see a Thiem-Djokovic final going?

 

[King No1e]

What if Thiem goes on to win USO? How does that change things. Honestly, and I get ripped every time I say this, but I think Thiem will have a great shot at USO and might get his first slam there and not at RG.

You must be really ripped now

 

[Meles]

How do you see a Thiem-Djokovic final going?

Thiem needs to sweep SF

 

[TheNachoMan]

Thiem needs to sweep SF

Does Thiem have Zedzilla in his path?

 

[King No1e]

Does Thiem have Zedzilla in his path?

No, Nadal does. With any luck, Zverev will do his thing and give us our obligatory 5-set grindfest to wear Nadal out ahead of a Thiem SF.

 

[Meles]

Does Thiem have Zedzilla in his path?

Yes if Zeddy master takes out Nadall

 

[toth]

He faced Djokovic in his best year at RG (well maybe until this year) in 2016. Nadal definitely a peak year in 2017. Stats say 2019 a peak year, but the weather at the latter stages skewed things leaving Federe vulnerable in SF and Thiem not as his best in the final. He played statistically a much better Nadal in 2017-2019.

For the record Guga in 2000 and 2001 put up fine stats, but that is another era one where he was playing with early Poly while the hard court specialists were not on Poly strings yet. 1997 Kuerten had Poly strings all to himself.

I think Ferrero schould have poli strings too

 

[RF-18]

Wrong thread

 

[Meles]

I think Ferrero schould have poli strings too

He did in 2000 lists show, but not Safin.