Medvedev may end up the greatest non-Big 3 HC'er since Agassi?

Will Medvedev become the fourth greatest hardcourter of the XXI century?


  • Total voters
    36
  • This poll will close: .

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
I certainly think this is possible. If he reaches two, he's definitely better than Wawrinka on the surface (I think the only other guy with 2 HC slams in recent times, but didn't do much outside those two great runs).
 
I certainly think this is possible. If he reaches two, he's definitely better than Wawrinka on the surface (I think the only other guy with 2 HC slams in recent times, but didn't do much outside those two great runs).
There is Safin with two slams and 5 masters though 3 were on carpet and 3 of titles can be seen outside of this century
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Agassi won 3 hard court slams and 6 hard court masters in the 2000s. It's by no means a slam dunk that Medvedev will surpass that but given what the tour is shaping up to be in the twilight years of the Big 3, it's possible. I like Medvedev, so I would be happy with this outcome. But I don't see him winning enough to not be surpassed by a younger ATG later this decade
 
Agassi won 3 hard court slams and 6 hard court masters in the 2000s. It's by no means a slam dunk that Medvedev will surpass that but given what the tour is shaping up to be in the twilight years of the Big 3, it's possible. I like Medvedev, so I would be happy with this outcome. But I don't see him winning enough to not be surpassed by a younger ATG later this decade
XXI century doesn't include the year 2000 ;)

The question is if a younger ATG will even exist. It's possible no player amasses 6 majors in 2020s.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
XXI century doesn't include the year 2000 ;)
I know this is a TTW running joke but the 2000s is near universally regarded to have begun on 1st January 2000. In fact, the only people I have ever encountered saying otherwise have been on this board. How can the year 2000 be considered part of the 1990s? How can the year 2000 not be in the 2000s? I'm assuming you're being tongue-in-cheek. If so, forgive the over-reaction :giggle:. If not... let's not go there.

The question is if a younger ATG will even exist. It's possible no player amasses 6 majors in 2020s.
Yeah this is certainly possible. But we've also got both Thiem and Zverev already around, both with the possibility of winning more hard court slams than Medvedev. Add to that we have another 9 years (or 10, right ;)) for there to be just one player who wins more hard court slams than Medvedev and I consider it highly unlikely that Med closes out the decade as the 4th greatest player on hard courts this century. Unless of course the Big 3 continue dominating into their 40s. A scary thought indeed.
 
I know this is a TTW running joke but the 2000s is near universally regarded to have begun on 1st January 2000. In fact, the only people I have ever encountered saying otherwise have been on this board. How can the year 2000 be considered part of the 1990s? How can the year 2000 not be in the 2000s? I'm assuming you're being tongue-in-cheek. If so, forgive the over-reaction :giggle:. If not... let's not go there.


Yeah this is certainly possible. But we've also got both Thiem and Zverev already around, both with the possibility of winning more hard court slams than Medvedev. Add to that we have another 9 years (or 10, right ;)) for there to be just one player who wins more hard court slams than Medvedev and I consider it highly unlikely that Med closes out the decade as the 4th greatest player on hard courts this century. Unless of course the Big 3 continue dominating into their 40s. A scary thought indeed.
The 2000s obviously began with the year 2000 but the XXI century started in 2001, facts. Yes, when we say the ten decades (00s, 10s... 90s) make up the century it sounds like the century started with the year xx00 and ended with the year xx99, but actually it starts in the year xx01 and ends in the year (xx+1)00.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
The 2000s obviously began with the year 2000 but the XXI century started in 2001, facts. Yes, when we say the ten decades (00s, 10s... 90s) make up the century it sounds like the century started with the year xx00 and ended with the year xx99, but actually it starts in the year xx01 and ends in the year (xx+1)00.
Fair enough, I stand corrected! I'm so used to the whole decade thing on here but yeah, you're right on the century/millennium thing. In any case, the point still stands that I don't see Medvedev closing out this decade with more hard court slams than anyone outside of the Big 3. It's possible but I think unlikely. There are just too many factors. And the guy hasn't even won one slam yet, although I think it's highly likely he will
 
Fair enough, I stand corrected! I'm so used to the whole decade thing on here but yeah, you're right on the century/millennium thing. In any case, the point still stands that I don't see Medvedev closing out this decade with more hard court slams than anyone outside of the Big 3. It's possible but I think unlikely. There are just too many factors. And the guy hasn't even won one slam yet, although I think it's highly likely he will
Well none of Med's peers won slams yet either except Thiem's first, but he's older and will be surpassed by the mid-late-90s bunch in a few years I'm sure. With Zverev's mental struggles and problematic private life, this seems like a contest between Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and Rublev, unless a youngster like Sinner grows into a true ATG and starts beating them all up consistently.
 
Mind boggling it's been 16 years since I woke up at some ungodly hour to watch that SF, I was so so excited for that match. Feels like yesterday still. Guess I've also rewatched it so many times since then.
It's certainly remembered fondly in the Russian tennis watching community. One of those great times when a potential epic delivered as promised entirely. Tennis matches by their nature don't have much rewatch value though, it's like a movie - why would I rewatch a movie (by myself that is, sure different if there's socialising involved) I remember well as it is? You must be really in love with that tennis to keep going back to it. Admirable.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
It's certainly remembered fondly in the Russian tennis watching community. One of those great times when a potential epic delivered as promised entirely. Tennis matches by their nature don't have much rewatch value though, it's like a movie - why would I rewatch a movie (by myself that is, sure different if there's socialising involved) I remember well as it is? You must be really in love with that tennis to keep going back to it. Admirable.
I do rewatch plenty of matches just because my evaluation criteria can change throughout time and because it's nice to compare what the intensity of play is like between matches. And also the current tennis sucks so I gotta watch something.

I think most at the time did think Federer would win, the aura around him was the highest it's ever been (and ever was), not even close (as after that, Nadal was a permanent thorn in his side). He was considered truly unbeatable at the time. He lost two sets in 22 matches dating back to the USO QF, one to ScricaGOAT on home soil and one where he was in IDGAF mode against Moya. People were frequently calling him the best player to ever play at 4 slams (this is a true indicator of Federer's greatness, he was already getting called the most skilled/greatest talent ever at USO 2004). That's not true of anyone else, but with Federer people had seen enough already by that point.

While everyone knew Safin was one of the few guys who had a shot of unsettling him, no one expected Safin to be consistent enough to maintain that high a level over 5 sets (even though he made mistakes in the sets he lost, they still took significant effort from Federer) and actually beat him. In general this match is one of the few perfect storms you will ever see in tennis which is why I never get tired of it. Two of the 5 or 10 best overall talents to ever play at their absolute peaks and both actually are up to the task with no major dips over 5 sets. Easily 2 of the 3 most potent ballstrikers to ever play. Plus it's on a neutral surface. Given that, probably the greatest display of all court skill and talent ever seen. Every single aspect of the game (serve, return, groundstrokes, movement, net play, variety) was at a great to GOAT level from both guys. I don't how many other matches can even tick 3 or 4 of those boxes much less all of them.
 

Crazy Finn

Semi-Pro
Hmmm...

There's more than just slams, but it's the easiest to look at.

So, you've got Federer, Djoker, and Rafa with 11,11, 5. Agassi had 6. Murray and Delpo have 1, they're not really HC specialists - per say.

Medvedev has zero slams, so far - but sure, he's got a chance. He's younger - but I think he's shown a higher level and more consistency, relatively than the Zverev/Theim/Tsitsipas crowd. Theim might have a slam, but still, I think I'll bet on him being better on HC in the long run. I don't know if getting more than 6 or 7 is super likely at his age - but maybe he'll have a Novak-like career and peak in his late 20's and continue on into his early 30's.
 
Last edited:

The Guru

Hall of Fame
Medvedev might need them to speed up the HCs a bit to put up serious numbers. Right now I think of him as likely a 2-4 slam guy with a possibility of him snagging a W or two. Grass will be in a dire state soon with Fed likely done and Nadal a question mark still with only one good and one ok W since 2011. Djokovic is the only safe bet on grass and he'll last for only a couple more years most likely. Most of the youngsters have shown nothing on the surface and Med seems to have the best game for it so he could capitalize on the quickly declining grass field.
 
Hmmm...

There's more than just slams, but it's the easiest to look at.

So, you've got Federer, Djoker, and Rafa with 11,11, 7. Agassi had 6. Murray and Delpo have 1, they're not really HC specialists - per say.

Medvedev has zero slams, so far - but sure, he's got a chance. He's younger - but I think he's shown a higher level and more consistency, relatively than the Zverev/Theim/Tsitsipas crowd. Theim might have a slam, but still, I think I'll bet on him being better on HC in the long run. I don't know if getting more than 6 or 7 is super likely at his age - but maybe he'll have a Novak-like career and peak in his late 20's and continue on into his early 30's.
Since Agassi means not including him...
 

Crazy Finn

Semi-Pro
Since Agassi means not including him...
I know. However, one of the poll choices was "Better than Rafa." I don't think that Rafa is a better hard court player than Agassi (though I am a Agassi fan, so....) but he does have 5 HC slams compared to Andre's 6. So, it's close numerically at least. I figured I'd mention him.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Depends what you mean by the word "Great".

If you mean "successfull" they for sure Medvedev is in the hunt.

But if you mean "talented" / "incredible skills" then no one comes close to Kyrgios. When he is in form, he is the most talented HC player ever seen. Unfortunately, he is not in form that much.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
I know. However, one of the poll choices was "Better than Rafa." I don't think that Rafa is a better hard court player than Agassi (though I am a Agassi fan, so....) but he does have 5 HC slams compared to Andre's 6. So, it's close numerically at least. I figured I'd mention him.
Nadal’s HC resume is low key loaded asf especially when you consider the era he played in had the two greatest HC players ever. If he can grab another HC major then there would really be no denying he’s had one of the greatest careers on HCs anyone has had and this is coming from a Fed supporter.
 
Last edited:

clout

Hall of Fame
To answer OP, yes I don’t think it would be very difficult to do that.

I mean since Agassi (so post 2003 I’m guessing), the only player who’s won multiple slams on HCs outside the big 3 is Wawrinka with 2. And if you looked away from slams, Med at his age right now already has more achievements on hard than Stan.

Murray had a great HC career too but only won one major on it and majors are the best way to rate someone’s abilities.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
I do rewatch plenty of matches just because my evaluation criteria can change throughout time and because it's nice to compare what the intensity of play is like between matches. And also the current tennis sucks so I gotta watch something.

I think most at the time did think Federer would win, the aura around him was the highest it's ever been (and ever was), not even close (as after that, Nadal was a permanent thorn in his side). He was considered truly unbeatable at the time. He lost two sets in 22 matches dating back to the USO QF, one to ScricaGOAT on home soil and one where he was in IDGAF mode against Moya. People were frequently calling him the best player to ever play at 4 slams (this is a true indicator of Federer's greatness, he was already getting called the most skilled/greatest talent ever at USO 2004). That's not true of anyone else, but with Federer people had seen enough already by that point.

While everyone knew Safin was one of the few guys who had a shot of unsettling him, no one expected Safin to be consistent enough to maintain that high a level over 5 sets (even though he made mistakes in the sets he lost, they still took significant effort from Federer) and actually beat him. In general this match is one of the few perfect storms you will ever see in tennis which is why I never get tired of it. Two of the 5 or 10 best overall talents to ever play at their absolute peaks and both actually are up to the task with no major dips over 5 sets. Easily 2 of the 3 most potent ballstrikers to ever play. Plus it's on a neutral surface. Given that, probably the greatest display of all court skill and talent ever seen. Every single aspect of the game (serve, return, groundstrokes, movement, net play, variety) was at a great to GOAT level from both guys. I don't how many other matches can even tick 3 or 4 of those boxes much less all of them.
You've pretty much nailed it! That's why it sh^ts me when those like RedRick and others say that it's the most over-rated match.
 

Fabresque

Hall of Fame
He’s scary good on hard court. Needs to work on his clay and grass court game though. He should theoretically be good on both since he gets a lot of balls back and has a massive serve.

Definitely needs to add volleys to his game. A backhand slice wouldn’t hurt, either.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
I do rewatch plenty of matches just because my evaluation criteria can change throughout time and because it's nice to compare what the intensity of play is like between matches. And also the current tennis sucks so I gotta watch something.

I think most at the time did think Federer would win, the aura around him was the highest it's ever been (and ever was), not even close (as after that, Nadal was a permanent thorn in his side). He was considered truly unbeatable at the time. He lost two sets in 22 matches dating back to the USO QF, one to ScricaGOAT on home soil and one where he was in IDGAF mode against Moya. People were frequently calling him the best player to ever play at 4 slams (this is a true indicator of Federer's greatness, he was already getting called the most skilled/greatest talent ever at USO 2004). That's not true of anyone else, but with Federer people had seen enough already by that point.

While everyone knew Safin was one of the few guys who had a shot of unsettling him, no one expected Safin to be consistent enough to maintain that high a level over 5 sets (even though he made mistakes in the sets he lost, they still took significant effort from Federer) and actually beat him. In general this match is one of the few perfect storms you will ever see in tennis which is why I never get tired of it. Two of the 5 or 10 best overall talents to ever play at their absolute peaks and both actually are up to the task with no major dips over 5 sets. Easily 2 of the 3 most potent ballstrikers to ever play. Plus it's on a neutral surface. Given that, probably the greatest display of all court skill and talent ever seen. Every single aspect of the game (serve, return, groundstrokes, movement, net play, variety) was at a great to GOAT level from both guys. I don't how many other matches can even tick 3 or 4 of those boxes much less all of them.
To expand on this:

Serve - great from both guys
Groundies - Fed great BH (his BH actually was pretty damn good here, a relative weakness against Safin but he was hitting it very well, much better than at 05 USO) and GOAT FH, Safin vice versa.
Ball striking - Both guys GOAT level at early and clean striking off both sides along with AA.
Return - Fed GOAT level first, good to great 2nd, vice versa from Safin.
Movement - Fed GOAT level, Safin great, GOAT for his height. Both guys GOAT level at offensive footwork.
Net play - flat out great from both guys, both used it has a significant strategy, Fed employed quite a bit of true S&V, Safin used S&V more on sure things, both guys were very solid on routine volleys and dug out plenty of tough ones.
Variety - GOAT level from Federer (judiciously mixed up power baselining with rope a dope, serve and volley, chip charge, angles off both wings, even droppers, much of this on the biggest points to boot, truly one of the great displays of variety ever honestly) great from Safin at least by modern standards(did plenty of damage with BH angles, approached the net plenty himself).
Shotmaking - nuff said. The humongous frozen rope BHs, Fed with the 103 mph FH, the droppas, drop volleys, the flick half volley BH lob, cold cocked returns

I really can't say this to be true for any other match really. Either the players themselves were lacking in a skill, the skill isn't as featured on the surface, or wasn't that good at it on the particular day. The other best matches I can think of would fall short of this two way level in at least 2 areas, and many of them 3 or 4. And I always say that the first 4 sets if Fed had won would have on themselves had a strong case with the other all time 4 setters (you can easily put it above 11 RG, 04 Wimby, and it's right there with 01 USO). On top of that you add maybe the highest quality fifth set ever with intense drama.
 
Last edited:

Benben245

Professional
Reversion to the mean is most likely given his size. He is defying all odds, consistency in movement at that height is hard enough, nevermind being perhaps one of the top 2 or 3 athletes on tour. I say injuries and center gravity win out, that said, I love his weird backhand and his window washer of a forehand with immense power at his disposable when desired. Is his frame 95 or 98 square inches, measured by Wilson's standards, not Head.
 

socallefty

Hall of Fame
It’s hard for me to imagine that a player who ranks in the bottom ten of the top ATP 100 for average topspin RPM on ground strokes will end up as one of the most successful players in terms of winning hard-court Slams for his generation. That would indeed be a paradigm shift from the Big 3 since they were all in the top 10 for topspin RPM. Has tennis really changed that much?
 

Crazy Finn

Semi-Pro
It’s hard for me to imagine that a player who ranks in the bottom ten of the top ATP 100 for average topspin RPM on ground strokes will end up as one of the most successful players in terms of winning hard-court Slams for his generation. That would indeed be a paradigm shift from the Big 3 since they were all in the top 10 for topspin RPM. Has tennis really changed that much?
No - he's definitely an outlier in today's game.
 

aldeayeah

Legend
It’s hard for me to imagine that a player who ranks in the bottom ten of the top ATP 100 for average topspin RPM on ground strokes will end up as one of the most successful players in terms of winning hard-court Slams for his generation. That would indeed be a paradigm shift from the Big 3 since they were all in the top 10 for topspin RPM. Has tennis really changed that much?
He can hit topspin (and looks super goofy when he does), it's just that his normal rally ball is very flat for the current standards.

He's a unique guy. Good serve + unconventional game can be a potent combo.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
The 2000s obviously began with the year 2000 but the XXI century started in 2001, facts. Yes, when we say the ten decades (00s, 10s... 90s) make up the century it sounds like the century started with the year xx00 and ended with the year xx99, but actually it starts in the year xx01 and ends in the year (xx+1)00.
As I said, this is true from a mathematical perspective but not a cultural one. In common parlance, as you know, the 80s are considered to be 1980 - 1989, the 90s to be 1990 - 1999 and so on. The 20th century is therefore considered to be 1900 - 1999, hence the fact why virtually everyone celebrated the new millennium on 1st January 2000.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
Mind boggling it's been 16 years since I woke up at some ungodly hour to watch that SF, I was so so excited for that match. Feels like yesterday still. Guess I've also rewatched it so many times since then.
That match was a very long time ago indeed.

- Someone born that day is going to eligible to get a drivers license this year
- Nadal and Djokovic had zero majors and were still high school aged teenagers
- iPhones did not exist
- Social media was virtually non-existent (FB was 1 years old; Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat & YouTube did not exist); instead we used MSN lol
- W Bush just got re-elected (we’ve now had 3 presidents since)
- Katrina did not happen yet
- It was smack in the middle of the post-911 and pre-recession era
- Every young player you see nowadays (Zverev, Stefanos, Shapo, Med) were all elementary kids
- Messi and Ronaldo had zero ballon d’ors
- Usain Bolt had ran in zero professional races
- Uber, Airbnb And Spotify did not exist either

It was a totally different world really. The world when Fed and to a lesser extent, Djokodal debuted is a totally different one to the one they’re playing in now
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
That match was a very long time ago indeed.

- Someone born that day is going to eligible to get a drivers license this year
- Nadal and Djokovic had zero majors and were still high school aged teenagers
- iPhones did not exist
- Social media was virtually non-existent (FB was 1 years old; Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat & YouTube did not exist); instead we used MSN lol
- W Bush just got re-elected (we’ve now had 3 presidents since)
- Katrina did not happen yet
- It was smack in the middle of the post-911 and pre-recession era
- Every young player you see nowadays (Zverev, Stefanos, Shapo, Med) were all elementary kids
- Messi and Ronaldo had zero ballon d’ors
- Usain Bolt had ran in zero professional races
- Uber, Airbnb And Spotify did not exist either

It was a totally different world really. The world when Fed and to a lesser extent, Djokodal debuted is a totally different one to the one they’re playing in now
Bolded: I still believe the world was a better place because of that.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
Bolded: I still believe the world was a better place because of that.
Agreed. Social media has brought out the worst in a lot of people since most of things people say online behind a screen is something they would never to in real life.

Also, no one gets any privacy anymore. The folks who work at these companies know more about your life than you, everything you put out there could be held against you in the future without context, and everyone knows your personal business which is weird asf if you really think about it.

Now there are some pros, I’ve been able to stay in touch with ppl I haven’t seen in a long time and it’s easier than ever to connect wit other people who might share similar interests as you, but for the most part, it’s done more bad than good imo as well
 

Zetty

Hall of Fame
Depends, if the big three fades rapidly from this point I agree, if they stay competitive for a while, I don't think so. btw, at Medvedev's current age Murray had been in 3 slam finals and had 6 masters in the era of the big three. If not for those guys, ey.
 

nam416

New User
Two of the 5 or 10 best overall talents to ever play at their absolute peaks and both actually are up to the task with no major dips over 5 sets.
<<< >>>
Every single aspect of the game (serve, return, groundstrokes, movement, net play, variety) was at a great to GOAT level from both guys. I don't how many other matches can even tick 3 or 4 of those boxes much less all of them.
I may be mis-remembering this, but I thought, right after the match, there was some talk that Fed had a niggle with his foot, or his ankle, or something? Or was it just the Fed apologists? For sure he was injured while playing Nalby at the Masters Cup later that year...
 
Top