Murray says Next Gen a long way off Big 3

Gazelle

Legend
Ok we can all poke fun at Mury and be outright hostile when people compare him to Agassi and Becker or god forbid Pete and such, but hopefully we can all admit that any half decent version of Murray would be having a field day out there today.
Era is unprecedently weak though. Roddick or Hewitt would have a field day too. But we can't elevate them to ATG status.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Fed was 21, thx. Considered late bloomer. City buss already behind.
Bigger issue is Tsitsipas is no Federer talent wise.
If Federer comes back fit he is winning Wimbledon and Miami.
I said after FO 2020 that by same time 2021 nadal and federer will be on 21 Majors and Djokovic 18 heading into USO 2021.
 

Sephiroth

Hall of Fame
Murray's drop in 2017 is one of the biggest shocks, he gave everything to be #1 in 2016 and did then just...couldn't come back after, not even in 2018 if we also give Murray a pass for 2017 like Fed for 2013, Nadal for 2015 and Djok for 2017

At least on grass as a contender
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
The fact that it's likely some of these nextgen guys will win more Slams than Murray is legit horrifying.
Do you really think they will? None of them are good enough to experience any sort of domination, it's more likely Thiem will win 2 more, Sissypants a few, Denis/Felix one and Medvedev a couple. The only one I think who can actually become an ATG is Sinner, but it's early to be sure with him.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
Do you really think they will? None of them are good enough to experience any sort of domination, it's more likely Thiem will win 2 more, Sissypants a few, Denis/Felix one and Medvedev a couple. The only one I think who can actually become an ATG is Sinner, but it's early to be sure with him.
Alcaraz and Musetti look good as well. Probably that Sinner generation will be the next proper good era.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
No way. Agassi was more talented than Pete, he just was a mental midget against him. Nobody ever mentions Pete as having an enormous amount of natural talent, even Pete wrote in his book, "I never was the most talented player, but I approached the game with a hard work ethic and the desire to constantly improve. Both of those things served me well."

Pete worked hard, was a mental giant and had a monstrous serve. Andre was by far the more talented of the two. I watched them both as juniors and nobody thought Pete was going to do a damn thing when he was 13-15. Whereas everyone knew Andre was going to be an enormous star by the time he as 13.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
No way. Agassi was more talented than Pete, he just was a mental midget against him. Nobody ever mentions Pete as having an enormous amount of natural talent, even Pete wrote in his book, "I never was the most talented player, but I approached the game with a hard work ethic and the desire to constantly improve. Both of those things served me well."

Pete worked hard, was a mental giant and had a monstrous serve. Andre was by far the more talented of the two. I watched them both as juniors and nobody thought Pete was going to do a damn thing when he was 13-15. Whereas everyone knew Andre was going to be an enormous star by the time he as 13.
Interesting as for me Sampras had every shot in the book.
 

onyxrose81

Hall of Fame
No way. Agassi was more talented than Pete, he just was a mental midget against him. Nobody ever mentions Pete as having an enormous amount of natural talent, even Pete wrote in his book, "I never was the most talented player, but I approached the game with a hard work ethic and the desire to constantly improve. Both of those things served me well."

Pete worked hard, was a mental giant and had a monstrous serve. Andre was by far the more talented of the two. I watched them both as juniors and nobody thought Pete was going to do a damn thing when he was 13-15. Whereas everyone knew Andre was going to be an enormous star by the time he as 13.
Yep. I actually liked Pete more than Agassi at the time. I honestly never really liked the talented and flashy players (Safin is the exception) somehow. But people would never mistake that Sampras was more talented than Agassi. It’s not true.
 

Crazy Finn

Professional
Yep. I actually liked Pete more than Agassi at the time. I honestly never really liked the talented and flashy players (Safin is the exception) somehow. But people would never mistake that Sampras was more talented than Agassi. It’s not true.
Agassi was a more talented ball striker.

Sampras was more gifted athletically (as in movement, jumping, etc).
 

Robert C

New User
But when he was pitted against a legend, he didn't soil his pants.

Meanwhile, fully established Medvedev laid a big egg in a GS final against a legend of the game.

There's also the match against Agassi at the USO in 2004 when Fed was 23.
It was one match. Federer was rubbished for many other matches before he first broke through in mid-2003.

Medvedev played well but Djokovic was fantastic, unlike Sampras in that game. Medvedev was excellent in coming back in the US Open final, now suddenly he gets rubbished. You seem incapable of analysis beyond single games.

Referring to Federer beating Agassi when he was 23 isn’t really relevant, no one has claimed Medvedev was better than Federer!
 

Robert C

New User
What like
21 22 my point stands. Tstisipas has time. Medvedev running out of time.
Like Wawrinka ran out of time at 25? This is arbitrary nonsense about how much time he has.

Medvedev is doing just fine, he is the second best player in the world right now.
 

Beckerserve

Legend
What like


Like Wawrinka ran out of time at 25? This is arbitrary nonsense about how much time he has.

Medvedev is doing just fine, he is the second best player in the world right now.
Hey? Did i miss him winning a Major? Think you will find he is 3rd bud.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It was one match. Federer was rubbished for many other matches before he first broke through in mid-2003.

Medvedev played well but Djokovic was fantastic, unlike Sampras in that game. Medvedev was excellent in coming back in the US Open final, now suddenly he gets rubbished. You seem incapable of analysis beyond single games.

Referring to Federer beating Agassi when he was 23 isn’t really relevant, no one has claimed Medvedev was better than Federer!
That's the thing, he didn't.
 

Robert C

New User
That's the thing, he didn't.
Second best player in the world. He fought strongly for quite some time but no one could have kept up with Djokovic playing like that. Novak at his best in an Aussie Open final, it’s very hard to maintain your level against him.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Second best player in the world. He fought strongly for quite some time but no one could have kept up with Djokovic playing like that. Novak at his best in an Aussie Open final, it’s very hard to maintain your level against him.
This is Novak in his mid 30's and Meddy is 9 years younger.

Murray in the past made it close and he was up against a better Djokovic. Stan actually beat him and pushed him hard on a couple of other occasions.

This Djokovic is nowhere near unbeatable enough to not even make it at least close.
 

Crazy Finn

Professional
Second best player in the world. He fought strongly for quite some time but no one could have kept up with Djokovic playing like that. Novak at his best in an Aussie Open final, it’s very hard to maintain your level against him.
If Medvedev is the second best player, right now, the top 10 is mostly mugs.

This is less about Medvedev and more about the sorry state of competition and the field.

People rag on Baghdatis, but at least he took a set from prime Federer.
 

daphne

Professional
In an interview after yesterdays match Murray said the Next Gen are not really close to toppling the Big 3 and he expected yesterday to be closer.
Hard not to really feel for him and Del Potro. Fully fit they probably are 4 and 5 in world with Federer at 3.
Murray playing at challenger level deserves total respect. A multi millionaire who has been Knighted he could easily have retired. Guy is all class. As is Delpo.
Truth be told, if not for COVID19 Fedr would be off the charts and currently cannot possibly be considered a member of the Big 3, rather I'd perhaps see him as the third wheeler who is being accepted by the tennis establishment and some fans in 2021 as a tennis player again, based on his past performances, shoe sales and the COVID19 ranking measures.

If we take it as such including his advanced senior age with a wonky knee, with any luck and pensioner privilege (wild card), Fedr, when he does come back, would have to fight for points from ZIP. Without exceptional results (which would shock even his most hard core fans who are no expecting him to win anything but perhaps Basel as he will be the only one who does not need to pass the quarantine and not care for the total prize money of $1,000), even during his first few months upon his return Fedr will be hugely demoralised and will resort to organising a Rolex farewell tour for the rest of the season, or he will, in that case, continue hoping that the COVID19 ranking measures remain intact for a few more years so he would still be hanging out with active tennis players, at least on the ATP website.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
No way. Agassi was more talented than Pete, he just was a mental midget against him. Nobody ever mentions Pete as having an enormous amount of natural talent, even Pete wrote in his book, "I never was the most talented player, but I approached the game with a hard work ethic and the desire to constantly improve. Both of those things served me well."

Pete worked hard, was a mental giant and had a monstrous serve. Andre was by far the more talented of the two. I watched them both as juniors and nobody thought Pete was going to do a damn thing when he was 13-15. Whereas everyone knew Andre was going to be an enormous star by the time he as 13.
Yes, while being 1.85 m tall and being one of fastest (if not the fastest) movers in the game. That is an incredible talent in itself. Add to that his amazing half-volleys and one of the best FHs in the game.

Can't see how Sampras wasn't incredibly talented overall.
 

Robert C

New User
This is Novak in his mid 30's and Meddy is 9 years younger.

Murray in the past made it close and he was up against a better Djokovic. Stan actually beat him and pushed him hard on a couple of other occasions.

This Djokovic is nowhere near unbeatable enough to not even make it at least close.
Get over age and look at how well someone actually plays in a match! ‍♂

Murray was continually criticised for NOT making it close and it usually was not, only much later did he get close. Because Djokovic was so good.

And Stan only beat him or even got close to him when he was quite old, you were all saying how useless he was for years!

Medvedev is the second best player in the world who has had 12 top ten wins in an incredible win streak (as well as past performances like an incredible comeback versus Rafa of all people in the US Open final) and it comes to an end against a Novak on his “home” ground playing better than anyone expected, give him a break, it was close for quite a while!
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Get over age and look at how well someone actually plays in a match! ‍♂

Murray was continually criticised for NOT making it close and it usually was not, only much later did he get close. Because Djokovic was so good.

And Stan only beat him or even got close to him when he was quite old, you were all saying how useless he was for years!

Medvedev is the second best player in the world who has had 12 top ten wins in an incredible win streak (as well as past performances like an incredible comeback versus Rafa of all people in the US Open final) and it comes to an end against a Novak on his “home” ground playing better than anyone expected, give him a break, it was close for quite a while!
Nah, dude, no reason to give him a break. Making it close for 1 set doesn't count. I am looking at how Novak played. He was great, but I don't think he was better than in 2011, 2012 or 2016. Medvedev collapsed really early and Novak didn't have to do much afterwards.

Him being the supposed 2nd best player in the world makes it even worse it case you don't realize.

Murray at the same age as Medvedev played 5 sets with peak Novak. And played 4 sets with him the following year.

Stan was quite old, sure, but that's when he peaked. Medvedev is there now, IMO.

Fed was at his very best in 2005 and Safin at Meddy's current age was able to beat him to win a slam. Current Novak sure as heck wasn't better than 2005 Fed.
 

Robert C

New User
Nah, dude, no reason to give him a break. Making it close for 1 set doesn't count. I am looking at how Novak played. He was great, but I don't think he was better than in 2011, 2012 or 2016. Medvedev collapsed really early and Novak didn't have to do much afterwards.

Him being the supposed 2nd best player in the world makes it even worse it case you don't realize.

Murray at the same age as Medvedev played 5 sets with peak Novak. And played 4 sets with him the following year.

Stan was quite old, sure, but that's when he peaked. Medvedev is there now, IMO.

Fed was at his very best in 2005 and Safin at Meddy's current age was able to beat him to win a slam. Current Novak sure as heck wasn't better than 2005 Fed.
Murray is one of the greatest players ever and he was straight-setted in two Australian Open finals (which I’m sure you would similarly have attacked as pathetic) before 2012 happened and his amazing performance against Novak in the semi. There’s a lot of dissonance in your claims. Murray needed to get comfortable in those finals situations.

Safin was also able to be rubbish a lot of the time. Stop ascribing everything to one match, it doesn’t make any sense.

Stan gets let off when he peaks later but Medvedev doesn’t because in your opinion “he is there”. I mean that’s just farcical reasoning.

Nadal got slaughtered by Novak in an Aussie Open final, you can take ridiculous conclusions from that too if you want.

But it seems like many of the most amazing tennis players we have seen get denigrated by armchair critics for not being up to their apparently very high standards, it’s honestly farcical.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Murray is one of the greatest players ever and he was straight-setted in two Australian Open finals (which I’m sure you would similarly have attacked as pathetic) before 2012 happened and his amazing performance against Novak in the semi. There’s a lot of dissonance in your claims. Murray needed to get comfortable in those finals situations.
Murray was also up against a stronger Big 3 than Medevdev, so that's why it took him longer to get comfortable. And yes, Murray is still rightfully criticized for his poor performances in slam finals against the Big 3, but at least he was up against the stronger Big 3 than Med, who is lucky to not be in Murray's position.

Medevdev pushed Rafa to 5 in his first slam final, but now he still needs to get comfortable in finals? What logic is that? Shouldn't he already be comfortable given he already made his first one competitive?

Safin was also able to be rubbish a lot of the time. Stop ascribing everything to one match, it doesn’t make any sense.
Safin still defeated 2 GOATS to win 2 slams. He was also unlucky with injuries, which explains his inconsistencies. But at Med's age he still took down by far the toughest opponent you can have who was also tougher than Meddy's slam final opponents.

Safin also won 5 masters 1000 and was world no.1, so it wasn't just about one match.

Stan gets let off when he peaks later but Medvedev doesn’t because in your opinion “he is there”. I mean that’s just farcical reasoning.
Stan before 2013 never even reached a slam semi or won a big title. Med has done both already, so he has fully blossomed by now. With Stan everything before 2013 is irrelevant because of that. Once he blossomed in 2013, then he started to be taken seriously.

Nadal got slaughtered by Novak in an Aussie Open final, you can take ridiculous conclusions from that too if you want.
Rafa hasn't been a problematic match-up for Novak on HCs for over 7 years now and was also approaching age 33 at that time. Meddy is in his mid 20's and was hyped up as a bigger threat to Novak than Nadal before the tournament even started. Big difference.

But it seems like many of the most amazing tennis players we have seen get denigrated by armchair critics for not being up to their apparently very high standards, it’s honestly farcical.
Yeah, you're right. How silly of us to expect a mid 20's youngster to make a match even remotely close against a mid 30's legend. If these are high expectations, then these guys truly do suck. Have we really reached a point where we shouldn't even be asking them to make it competitive against worse versions of the GOATS?

FYI, Meddy losing in straight to Thiem at the USO last year doesn't help his case either.
 
Last edited:

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Murray's drop in 2017 is one of the biggest shocks, he gave everything to be #1 in 2016 and did then just...couldn't come back after, not even in 2018 if we also give Murray a pass for 2017 like Fed for 2013, Nadal for 2015 and Djok for 2017

At least on grass as a contender
This is what I expected of Nadal and it seemed to be at hand in 2015 & 2016 with him not even able to salvage a FO those 2 seasons! That allowed Nole to get his lone title in '16! Djokovic defeated Nadal in straight sets the year before, but he was obviously in one of those funks that made him vulnerable to many players, dropping early round major matches to players he normally owned! I watched Murray the other day and some took great offense on another board when I thought his efforts sad and pathetic! He's still trying to play the same defensive game that broke him down in the 1st place! I find it amazing that Nadal & Murray continue to play so defensively when I know they have offensive weapons to draw upon! Nadal's supposedly coming into the net more, but what good has it done him? He dropped his 2nd match recently after being up 2 sets to love! Nole says "thanks" to all concerned; Nadal's inneptitude and Tsitsipas for completing the deal by knocking him off! :sneaky:
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
This is what I expected of Nadal and it seemed to be at hand in 2015 & 2016 with him not even able to salvage a FO those 2 seasons! That allowed Nole to get his lone title in '16! Djokovic defeated Nadal in straight sets the year before, but he was obviously in one of those funks that made him vulnerable to many players, dropping early round major matches to players he normally owned! I watched Murray the other day and some took great offense on another board when I thought his efforts sad and pathetic! He's still trying to play the same defensive game that broke him down in the 1st place! I find it amazing that Nadal & Murray continue to play so defensively when I know they offensive weapons to draw upon! Nadal's supposedly coming into the net more, but what good has it done him? He dropped his 2nd match recently after being up 2 sets to love! Nole says "thanks" to all concerned; Nadal's inneptitude and Tsitsipas for completing the deal by knocking him off! :sneaky:
Nadal has always had more offensive weapons than Murray. Murray lacking a great FH or a great serve is the reason is Finnish in the first place.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Nadal has always had more offensive weapons than Murray. Murray lacking a great FH or a great serve is the reason is Finnish in the first place.
All the more reason Murray should've pushed to close out matches he probably should've won against the Big 3 but for his defensive mindedness overtaking him! :sneaky:
 

beard

Hall of Fame
Murray was never really close either tbh. And I like Murray more than any of the big 3.
Not never... He was close as it's possible... He won some quite a lot matches against them, including slams, won slams against them... He was no4 for long time... Managed to get no1, against my favorite Novak... He deserved to become atg, and only circumstances to play against best 3 ever stopped him (although I consider him atg, looking at the bigger picture)...

Off course, he was not close to catch them, let's say he was closest possible...
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Not never... He was close as it's possible... He won some quite a lot matches against them, including slams, won slams against them... He was no4 for long time... Managed to get no1, against my favorite Novak... He deserved to become atg, and only circumstances to play against best 3 ever stopped him (although I consider him atg, looking at the bigger picture)...

Off course, he was not close to catch them, let's say he was closest possible...
The so called "Big 4" will be inextricably linked together even though Murray a sorry #4 in comparison by only the record! There have been other past "B4's," but they weren't half as prolific up and down the line! Usually the #4 was a hanger on who was just buds to those elites at the time like a Vitas Guralatis (bless his soul)! You could count his victories over his contemporaies on one hand with a couple fingers lopped off! I never cared for Murray, but he would have been #1 for at least a couple seasons if not for Fedalovic! Nole was the most vulnerable allowing Murray his 3 majors, but otherwise only "held his own;" not exactly breaking thru Fedal that often when it counted! :rolleyes:
 

beard

Hall of Fame
If Safin, Stan, Murray and Delpo could beat the Big 3 in slams and win them, Big 3 are not too good. And let's not pretend like these 4 guys are absolute legends of the game.

Younger guys just too bad. No bad luck.
Guys you mentioned have beaten big 3 and won slams on rare occasions, it was more exceptional than rule... They combined had so many opportunities to do that and succeeded only few times...
 

beard

Hall of Fame
Federer was just a 20 year old when he beat Sampras at Wimb. He wasn't in awe of his aura and wet his pants like these mid 20's dudes do.
He did beat Sampras and did wet his pants next match... He became forse two years later... You all are too harsh to next generation... They fight between them and those who prevail must play tennis legends, who are still better then some older atg's... It's not easy for them, they are constantly improving, don't you agree? They are not big 3 material off course, but who was before big 3...
 

ND-13

Professional
By next generation do we mean Zverev and Tsitsipas ?

What about Cilic, Delpo, Dmitrov, Raonic, Nishikori, Thiem, Medvedev who are all 25+ ?
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
By next generation do we mean Zverev and Tsitsipas ?

What about Cilic, Delpo, Dmitrov, Raonic, Nishikori, Thiem, Medvedev who are all 25+ ?
Some of those are considered part of the "lost generation" of players that never achieved what was believed to be their destinies! Cilic and Del Po eek'd out a major, making a couple finals while overcoming 1 or 2 of the Big 3! Raonic, Dmitrov, & Kei have been the biggest disappointments making only 1 major run each! The chapters are still being written when it comes to Thiem and Medvedev making major runs early and 1 victory between them! They have time while time has run out on the others except Sascha Z. & Stafanos T. who're right behind them! :rolleyes:
 

Omega_7000

Legend
Which next gen is he talking about?
The next gen i.e. Nishikori, Dimitrov, Pouille, Raonic etc.?
Or the next-next gen i.e. Kyrgios, Thiem, Shwartzman, Goffin etc.?
Or the next-next-next gen i.e. Tsittsipas, Shapovalov, Medvedev, Rublev etc.?
 

GhostOfNKDM

Professional
Murray should knock some sense into his buddy Kyrgios.

What a waste of talent especially given this lightweight era
 
Top