Medvedev on the 90s gen : "We have strong players, but we’re not as good as them and not as good yet as Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz."

Frenchy-Player

Frenchy-Player

Hall of Fame
At a Tecnifibre event, Daniil Medvedev spoke about his generation in comparison to the previous and the next. For context, the '80s generation won 80 titles, the '90s generation won 2 titles, and the 2000s generation has already won 8 titles.
However, Medvedev believes his generation still includes players capable of winning more Grand Slams: "I think our generation has some very strong players.
When I played the Next Gen ATP Finals, six of us reached the Top 10 at some point in our careers. There was Andrey Rublev, me. Chung was unlucky with injuries.
If you take out Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray, and Novak Djokovic, the others also won around 3 Grand Slams—Marin Cilic and Stan Wawrinka.
We have strong players, but we’re not as good as them and not as good yet as Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz.That’s the reality, and it’s fine—that’s life, that’s sports. But I’m quite certain that someone from our generation will still win at least one, two, or three more Grand Slams, though it won’t be easy with the others being so strong.
The original interview is in french

https://twitter.com/x/status/1932385401278185955

en.tennistemple.com

I am quite certain that someone from our generation will win more Grand Slams," says Medvedev

At a Tecnifibre event, Daniil Medvedev spoke about his generation in comparison to the previous and the next. For context, the '80s generation won 80 ...
en.tennistemple.com en.tennistemple.com
 
RaulRamirez said:
Honestly, what do you want or expect him.to say? Like them or not, they're tremendously successful at what they do -- just not nearly as good as the Big3/4, and not as good as Alc and Sin.
Click to expand...
He can't use the future to say what he says. it's not a sure thing. He should say "we might still be able to..". Because if it fails he will look arrogant and delusional. The real question is why his own first serve has disappeared suddenly and what he intents to do to fix it if he can. He doesn't give explanation as why the balls he hit are suddenly slow , dead and heavy and were "normal" when he won his slam during the covid era where the balls where the same.
 
M4tchP0int said:
He can't use the future to say what he says. it's not a sure thing. He should say "we might still be able to..". Because if it fails he will look arrogant and delusional. The real question is why his own first serve has disappeared suddenly and what he intents to do to fix it if he can. He doesn't give explanation as why the balls he hit are suddenly slow , dead and heavy and were "normal" when he won his slam during the covid era where the balls where the same.
Click to expand...
Has Med ever been arrogant, and at times cranky and even bullying? Yes.

I find nothing the slightest bit arrogant, let alone delusional, disrespectful or even unrealistic here. One has to be going out of their way to look for it, to find anything to criticize.
 
RaulRamirez said:
Has Med ever been arrogant, and at times cranky and even bullying? Yes.

I find nothing the slightest bit arrogant, let alone delusional, disrespectful or even unrealistic here. One has to be going out of their way to look for it, to find anything to criticize.
Click to expand...

It's not the end of the world but by saying "If you take out Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray, and Novak Djokovic..." he's excluding the very people to which the top players of his generation are supposed be compared.

Of course when you do that, and you only compare his generation to players after those 4 it seems relatively normal that his generation has won what it won.

But that's the whole point. 4 people (or even 5 if we include Stan who managed 3 slams against the supposedly unbeatable players), achieved so, so much more than the players in his generation that it draws attention. Yes, it was a unique group of players in the big 4 but that's not the whole explanation.

Medevedev is relatively astute at times when it comes to tennis so while it's understandable he might want to rationalize this, it's still noteworthy that he doesn't see it or won't admit to it and a bit disappointing.
 
intrepidish said:
It's not the end of the world but by saying "If you take out Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray, and Novak Djokovic..." he's excluding the very people to which the top players of his generation are supposed be compared.

Of course when you do that, and you only compare his generation to players after those 4 it seems relatively normal that his generation has won what it won.

But that's the whole point. 4 people (or even 5 if we include Stan who managed 3 slams against the supposedly unbeatable players), achieved so, so much more than the players in his generation that it draws attention. Yes, it was a unique group of players in the big 4 but that's not the whole explanation.

Medevedev is relatively astute at times when it comes to tennis so while it's understandable he might want to rationalize this, it's still noteworthy that he doesn't see it or won't admit to it and a bit disappointing.
Click to expand...
I think you're being overly critical. He's still an active player, not a pundit. For him to admit (although obvious) that they're not as good as the Big3 ...even Murray and Stan...is fine and he's holding out some hope that one or more of them can still win versus the new top dogs.
 
This is exactly what we have been saying about the 2018-23 generation.

I am glad the players themselves are saying (Zverev, Medvedev).

Now there is nowhere to hide for those who claimed that the Ruud, Medvedev, Zverev , Tsitsipas were credible opposition . They have been exposed
 
RaulRamirez said:
I think you're being overly critical. He's still an active player, not a pundit. For him to admit (although obvious) that they're not as good as the Big3 ...even Murray and Stan...is fine and he's holding out some hope that one or more of them can still win versus the new top dogs.
Click to expand...

If the whole point was to compare players at the top of the generations and you directly remove those same players and say 'see, we're not far off the others' it misses the point entirely, even just for Stan and Andy much less the other 3.

Yes, he's still active and he's probably the one who should be asked this the least of all of them in many ways, but the point still stands. Medvevev when he first came out, had a much more positive mental attitude and eventually got beaten down enough to tame his ambition in many regards.
 
The Blond Blur said:

"We have strong players, but we’re not as good as them and not as good yet as Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz."​

So, you don’t have strong players then :X3:
Click to expand...
Okay, so what's he supposed to say?
"Me, Tsitsipas, Zverev, Rublev and others from our decade are, obviously, not strong tennis players. And now, we have no chance of ever beating Carlos or Jannik in slams."
 
RaulRamirez said:
Okay, so what's he supposed to say?
"Me, Tsitsipas, Zverev, Rublev and others from our decade are, obviously, not strong tennis players. And now, we have no chance of ever beating Carlos or Jannik in slams."
Click to expand...

He can say our generation while having decent players like my previous gen (Dmitrov , Raonic, Nishikori, Thiem) , did not have strong ATG players
 
Respect to Med and Zed for accepting they are weaker than the prev gen and the next gen.

Only Zverev can win maybe 1 slam which is unlikely, otherwise it is curtains down for them. Med knows it but he is being optimistic, good.
 
ND-13 said:
He can say our generation while having decent players like my previous gen (Dmitrov , Raonic, Nishikori, Thiem) , did not have strong ATG players
Click to expand...
Seriously?
He's an active player who is still competing, and still competing against others of his and the previous generation(s). So...just insult all of them? Got it.
 
RaulRamirez said:
Seriously?
He's an active player who is still competing, and still competing against others of his and the previous generation(s). So...just insult all of them? Got it.
Click to expand...

If he is not comfortable to talk about his whole generation he can say ‘ I cannot speak for my whole generation, but while I /we have been decent , we were not strong like Sinneraz ‘
 
Nothing really wrong with what he says, especially because when he says it in French he kinda has a playful, facetious smile. Maybe he tries to advocate for his gen of players somewhat but really it's not some super serious statement. He is slightly provocative at worst
 
Last edited:
Shows their worth when they are talking about this way about 22-24 year olds and they themselves are No 1’s or major winners
 
intrepidish said:
"If you take out Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray, and Novak Djokovic..."

That's basically the whole point though isn't it?

His generation hasn't produced a single player like that and he wants to remove all 4 from the comparison.
Click to expand...
I mean they’re the 3 goats and Murray was dominant over everyone else to form the big 4.

Not every generation is pumping out that level of talent.

Med’s success should really not be overlooked. 6 GS finals. 20 titles. YE title and grand slam champion. Respect when he wasn’t even talked about as a next gen talent.
 
ChrisJR3264 said:
I mean they’re the 3 goats and Murray was dominant over everyone else to form the big 4.

Not every generation is pumping out that level of talent.

Med’s success should really not be overlooked. 6 GS finals. 20 titles. YE title and grand slam champion. Respect when he wasn’t even talked about as a next gen talent.
Click to expand...
A decade should pump out Murray’s and Wawrinka’s though. The Big 3 are rare talents, but not these other 2
 
Jonas78 said:
"Not as good yet as Alcaraz and Sinner"

He is aware Jannik and Carlo are actually younger than him? Playing catch up with players 5-7y younger than you, thats a new one. They should have thought about playing catch up when Big3 were getting old...
Click to expand...
Maybe he's been lurking here too much and was seeing all those Great Age Shift threads few years ago, so he will be peaking in a few years.
 
ChrisJR3264 said:
I mean they’re the 3 goats and Murray was dominant over everyone else to form the big 4.

Not every generation is pumping out that level of talent.

Med’s success should really not be overlooked. 6 GS finals. 20 titles. YE title and grand slam champion. Respect when he wasn’t even talked about as a next gen talent.
Click to expand...
Ive always respected Medvedev. Limited player who probably overachieved so fair play to him.
 
Sinner and Alcaraz barely had to face the big 3 or played the 35+ versions. Little 3 weren't as lucky, if they were born in the 2000s the story would've been different.
 
fafa said:
Sinner and Alcaraz barely had to face the big 3 or played the 35+ versions. Little 3 weren't as lucky, if they were born in the 2000s the story would've been different.
Click to expand...
If Little 3 are younger than Sinner and Alcaraz they would be lucky to win a single match vs either when they are owned by both even with their age advantage of being older. Yes Sinner and Alcaraz are lucky to be facing even older/retired Big 3 but does not change that the little 3 still suck giant balls period and is main reason they win next to nothing.
 
insideoutforehanders said:
If Little 3 are younger than Sinner and Alcaraz they would be lucky to win a single match vs either when they are owned by both even with their age advantage of being older. Yes Sinner and Alcaraz are lucky to be facing even older/retired Big 3 but does not change that the little 3 still suck giant balls period and is main reason they win next to nothing.
Click to expand...
Zverev isn't owned by either of them, their H2Hs were negative up until last year. They won plenty but were stopped at slams almost always by either Nadal or Djokovic, same thing would've happened to these guys.
 
fafa said:
Zverev isn't owned by either of them, their H2Hs were negative up until last year. They won plenty but were stopped at slams almost always by either Nadal or Djokovic, same thing would've happened to these guys.
Click to expand...
He still has a losing record despite a big age advantage. If he were instead born AFTER them he loses every single match most likely.

Zverev is a loser who if not born into peaking in crummy CIE, aka if he were born either 10 years earlier or 10 years later would be lucky to win 1 fluke Masters and make just 1 slam final. Sinner and Alcaraz are also benefiting from crappy field, and so is old Djokovic who benefited by far the most of the Big 3 from it, but Sinncaraz atleast make hay with it. Loser Zverev can't even do that with the same huge luck of when he was born and peaking in a terrible field since he sucks so bad. Medvedev too but atleast unlike loser Zverev he has a slam and got to #1, both which Zverev will never do.
 
And a huge LMFAO at the mere suggestion clowns like Zverev or Medvedev or Toots-sass-pas were "unlucky" with when they were born. That is true comedy at its finest. Those guys born 10 years earlier or literally any other time in history would struggle to make Top 10 at any point in their career. Sinner and Alcaraz are also lucky but nobody has ever said otherwise and they atleast capitilize and win a ton against the crummy field, not still do nothing against super crummy field like so called Little 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Medvedev : Our generation was not good enough .
2 3
Replies
124
Views
3K
ND-13
N
edberg volleys
Alexander Zverev picks Jannik Sinner as the ‘Best Player in the World’ ahead of Carlos Alcaraz
Replies
15
Views
1K
SeeItHitIt
SeeItHitIt
D
Will Sinner and Alcaraz split the pot?
Replies
43
Views
3K
kangaroo1973
K
Sunny014
WEAK ERA Conundrum SOLVED and explained
2 3 4
Replies
193
Views
12K
PETEhammer
P
Turning Pro
Carlos Alcaraz: 6 grands slams at 22 (Are we witnessing destiny and greatest rivalry with Sinner)
Replies
17
Views
2K
gamelovergold
G
Back
Top