Murray says Next Gen a long way off Big 3

[clout]

Take prime Murray, drop him into the NextGen's shoes now and you'd better believe he'd be close to toppling them.

Facts. If Murray was born in 1997 instead of 1987, he’d be cleaning the floor with the next gen for the following decade. He surely would’ve taken some slams from the big 3 by now too if he was 10+ years younger than them.

 

[Gazelle]

Tsitsipas is very close to a multi major winning career. Only 22 seems like he has been around ages. Federer was 23 when he broke through winning a major. 2 years earlier he had a breakout win v Sampras at Wimbledon. Tsitispas just done similar over Nadal.

Fed was 21, thx. Considered late bloomer. City buss already behind.

 

[Gazelle]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Bigger issue is Tsitsipas is no Federer talent wise.

That's an awfully high bar. Nobody in tennis history approaches Fed's talent except for McEnroe, who might actually even be more talented.

 

[Beckerserve]

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.

 

[Beckerserve]

That's an awfully high bar. Nobody in tennis history approaches Fed's talent except for McEnroe, who might actually even be more talented.

Sampras?

 

[Red Rick]

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.

Well it depends on how decent/useless the generations AFTER them are.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Sampras?

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.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Just in case it's not queued up 2:40

 

[Beckerserve]

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]

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.

 

[Slowtwitcher]

... let me tell you who's a long way off...

 

[Crazy Finn]

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).