Medo 6 finals are insanely OVERRATED

zipplock

Rookie
It's not all about the Slams.
For me it's about the slam count, UNTIL you're comparing players with the same slam count.
Example: I'm a Fed fan. As long as Fed has more slams than anyone I'll consider him the best. If Rafa ties the slam count then I'd have to consider other achievements. If Rafa ends up with more slams than Fed I will consider Rafa the best, regardless of the other achievements.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
For me it's about the slam count, UNTIL you're comparing players with the same slam count.
Example: I'm a Fed fan. As long as Fed has more slams than anyone I'll consider him the best. If Rafa ties the slam count then I'd have to consider other achievements. If Rafa ends up with more slams than Fed I will consider Rafa the best, regardless of the other achievements.
I take a different view. The Tour consists of more than just the Slams (or else it couldn't possibly survive). When 2 players are tied in the Slam count the rest of their career has to be taken into account.
 
So if you are a perfect husband or a father for a long period of time but " fail " in some particular situation does everything you done before just vanish in the grand slam of things?
A better example would be you dating a girlfriend for 6 months and everything has been great, until you find out she cheated.
 

mistik

Hall of Fame
I think this is a damn big achievement and he was really amazing in US Open as well. He already showed champion quality more than the likes Thiem Zverev and so on.
 

pedro94

Rookie
For me it's about the slam count, UNTIL you're comparing players with the same slam count.
Example: I'm a Fed fan. As long as Fed has more slams than anyone I'll consider him the best. If Rafa ties the slam count then I'd have to consider other achievements. If Rafa ends up with more slams than Fed I will consider Rafa the best, regardless of the other achievements.
I take a different view. The Tour consists of more than just the Slams (or else it couldn't possibly survive). When 2 players are tied in the Slam count the rest of their career has to be taken into account.
It's literally the same view :-D
 

zipplock

Rookie
I take a different view. The Tour consists of more than just the Slams (or else it couldn't possibly survive). When 2 players are tied in the Slam count the rest of their career has to be taken into account.
Agreed. That's what I wrote.
 

weakera

Hall of Fame
It's funny that if any of the big three beat Stefanos/Sascha SF/F all we would hear about is it being a weak draw.
 

Wurm

Rookie
If it was all about slams then why do people think Murray was so good??????????
Because slam title counts are a zero sum game. For Roger, Rafa and Novak to have 20, 19 and 16 slams respectively it means there's been 55 slams where other guys have missed out. For them to have those monstrous achievements guys such as Murray and Roddick, and to a lesser extent Cilic, del-Potro, Thiem (still time...), Anderson, Raonic, Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer, etc... have had to accept second best, at best, despite being at least as talented as some 1-4 slam winners of the past.

I don't consider there was a BIG 4, just a Big 3.
Yeah! Because when Federer had 16 slams to Novak's one they clearly had no business calling it the big three around early 2008. FFS.

There was a big four whether people like it or not, or can get it through their thick skulls or not - personal opinions and feelings don't come into it. It has, however, been superseded by the big three and should be retired unless discussing a historical period of tennis.
 

zipplock

Rookie
Because slam title counts are a zero sum game. For Roger, Rafa and Novak to have 20, 19 and 16 slams respectively it means there's been 55 slams where other guys have missed out. For them to have those monstrous achievements guys such as Murray and Roddick, and to a lesser extent Cilic, del-Potro, Thiem (still time...), Anderson, Raonic, Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer, etc... have had to accept second best, at best, despite being at least as talented as some 1-4 slam winners of the past.



Yeah! Because when Federer had 16 slams to Novak's one they clearly had no business calling it the big three around early 2008. FFS.

There was a big four whether people like it or not, or can get it through their thick skulls or not - personal opinions and feelings don't come into it. It has, however, been superseded by the big three and should be retired unless discussing a historical period of tennis.
I agree there was no Big anything in 2008 (Djoker didn't fully manifest until 2011).

Why is Murray (a guy with only 3 slams) so polarizing? People don't seem to get so worked up over Courier or Kuerten.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Ok. 6 finals in a row is crazy achievment. He could won 5 if luck was just a little bit on his side.

But,common it's all about Slams.
As long as Medo never win any GS, all M1000 and crazy form is IF,IF,IF...

I would still prefered Gaudio 2004 season over Medvedev 2019 ANY DAY.
Gaudio's 2004 season...

Yes, that season was owned by Gaston. He defined an era.

Medvedev's 2019 is 10 times more impressive than Gaston's 2004, who never before or after reached another slam QF much less finale. Nor a M1000 finale. He profited from RF's early exit and from Coria's crazy implosion.

(Speaking of which, "lud" means crazy/insane in Serbian.

Did you pick it for that reason? I'm not joking, wanna know if it's a coincidence or not.)
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I agree there was no Big anything in 2008 (Djoker didn't fully manifest until 2011).

Why is Murray (a guy with only 3 slams) so polarizing? People don't seem to get so worked up over Courier or Kuerten.
Because he is way below Big 3 yet much better than rest (yes, even Stan who excelled way too rarely). Hence he is in no man's land and people get angry arguing where he belongs.

In the Big 4. Which is a notch lower than Big 3.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Because he is way below Big 3 yet much better than rest (yes, even Stan who excelled way too rarely). Hence he is in no man's land and people get angry arguing where he belongs.

In the Big 4. Which is a notch lower than Big 3.
In other words, he is unique. :cool:
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I agree he had an impressive career. I don't consider there was a BIG 4, just a Big 3. I think he's closer to Wawa than the Big 3. The main differentiation is slam count.
In the case of Andy and Stan the main differentiation is their non-Slam resumées. Murray has 15 other big titles, 1 WTF and 14 Masters, or 17 if you include his 2 Olympic titles and, alone of non Big 3 players, has been ranked #1. Stan has just 1 other big title, a solitary Masters and his highest ranking is #3.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
It's all the same to a faraway Serb...

They're both into black pudding and both hate Thatcher?

Case closed.
Doubt he would remember anything about Thatcher. He would have been only 3 years old when she left office. He may know of her by repute of course but he's never been very vocal about his political views (like a lot of players).
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Doubt he would remember anything about Thatcher. He would have been only 3 years old when she left office. He may know of her by repute of course but he's never been very vocal about his political views (like a lot of players).
Hasn't he?

He is very obviously a Labour devotee. Like 90% of Scotland...
 

zipplock

Rookie
In the case of Andy and Stan the main differentiation is their non-Slam resumées. Murray has 15 other big titles, 1 WTF and 14 Masters, or 17 if you include his 2 Olympic titles and, alone of non Big 3 players, has been ranked #1. Stan has just 1 other big title, a solitary Masters and his highest ranking is #3.
Tottaly agree. A great examples of where the non-slam achievements should be taken into consideration.
 

AM75

Hall of Fame
In the case of Andy and Stan the main differentiation is their non-Slam resumées. Murray has 15 other big titles, 1 WTF and 14 Masters, or 17 if you include his 2 Olympic titles and, alone of non Big 3 players, has been ranked #1. Stan has just 1 other big title, a solitary Masters and his highest ranking is #3.
This possibility is unreal: but how would be consider Stan if he'll win Wimbledon and complete non-calendar slam?
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
This possibility is unreal: but how would be consider Stan if he'll win Wimbledon and complete non-calendar slam?
Actually, the reverse should be our approach. Stan was lucky to win 3 slam finales out of 4.

He got an injured not 100% Rafa in his AO finale. Rafa who had a 12-0 H2H or st. Then he gets Novak at FO15 who is so nervous about completing his Career Slam. Stan plays great but definitely profited from the occasion. Then at USO he gets a 0.5 version of Novak, just during his crappy post-FO16 phase which eventually lead to a total drop in rankings and surgery. And then finally Stan gets to play a PROPER slam finale, with a Big 3 that is neither injured nor nervous nor in any way incapacitated and he gets blown off the court.

To expect him to get so lucky to in Wimby which is by far his weakest slam, that would be like a Faustian deal or something...

Realistically Delpo should have 3 slams and Stan should have one. But Delpo never signed any contracts in blood seemingly...
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
Because slam title counts are a zero sum game. For Roger, Rafa and Novak to have 20, 19 and 16 slams respectively it means there's been 55 slams where other guys have missed out. For them to have those monstrous achievements guys such as Murray and Roddick, and to a lesser extent Cilic, del-Potro, Thiem (still time...), Anderson, Raonic, Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer, etc... have had to accept second best, at best, despite being at least as talented as some 1-4 slam winners of the past.



Yeah! Because when Federer had 16 slams to Novak's one they clearly had no business calling it the big three around early 2008. FFS.

There was a big four whether people like it or not, or can get it through their thick skulls or not - personal opinions and feelings don't come into it. It has, however, been superseded by the big three and should be retired unless discussing a historical period of tennis.
For sure Murray and Roddick have made enough runner-up appearance for the bolded part to be true. For the other though, they are certainly lesser players than any other multiple slam winners (such as Kafelnikov, Safin, Hewitt, etc.) and may be be better than some of the lesser players who did bag a slam (Gaudio, Johansson, etc.).
 

Pmasterfunk

Semi-Pro
And how many Masters 1000 does Murray have compared to Wawrinka ? GS finals ? How consistent was Murray compared to him ? Titles ? Olympics Gold ? Has Wawrinka even reach world's number 1, heck has even reach 2 ?

You evaluate again your post, Mishter !!!!
You're actually agreeing with him.
 
Top