Murray says Next Gen a long way off Big 3

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Whatever happened to Goffin I wonder. He seemed like a Top 10 fixture at one point.
He snuck up on some players and max'd out what he could, but he has no weapons! I saw him today and he's more an annoyance than a real contender and that "ain't" gonna change anytime soon or ever; SORRY! :sneaky:
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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:
By next generation do we mean Zverev and Tsitsipas ?

What about Cilic, Delpo, Dmitrov, Raonic, Nishikori, Thiem, Medvedev who are all 25+ ?
Delpo and Cilic were never Lost Gen. They are part of the Djokodal gen easily. Delpo peaked in the late 2000's and Cilic by mid 2010 also made his presence felt.
 

ND-13

Professional
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.?
Exactly. The word 'next gen' has lost its meaning.
 

zvelf

Professional
A lot in this forum really fall for recency bias as if the last match alone is by far the greatest predictor instead of just being a single data point. Yes, Djokovic easily beat Medvedev, but he also lost to him in November. Tsitsipas also just beat Nadal, but no Next Gen is probably going to beat Nadal at the French. In hindsight, expecting them to up-end Djokovic at his all-time best major isn’t the fairest evaluation of them.

Yes, none of the Next Gen are equal to or better than arguably the three best tennis players who have ever lived at the same ages, but that’s setting the bar ridiculously high, isn’t it? Anyway, in truth, they have already caught up with Federer and now beat him more than he beats them (https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/head-to-head-comparison-big-3-thiem-next-gen.691734/), granted Federer is ancient.

There are several things people may not be considering when trashing Next Gen against the Big Three though. Athletes in all sports now have greater longevity and able to maintain performance in their late careers. There are multiple reasons for this: advances in sports medicine, diet and nutrition, racquet technology, and technology in general (for example, https://www.workinsports.com/blog/4-ways-technology-is-changing-athletic-training/).

With tennis players being paid more than they ever (at least pre-pandemic) and with Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic being by far the most financially successful tennis players ever, they can afford all kinds of help that poorer players cannot. The Big Three have all made more than $120 million (Murray is 4th on the list with “just” $61.8 million). If you adjust Sampras’ career tennis earnings for inflation, they would still be less than half of what Djokovic has made in tennis alone. That doesn’t even count endorsements, which recently are 65% of Nadal’s earnings, 72% of Djokovic’s earnings, and 95% of Federer’s (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2020/08/28/the-highest-paid-tennis-players-2020-they-are-barely-playing-but-the-top-10-pros-still-earned-340-million/?sh=35e6f20c280b).

The Big Three can afford much larger teams to cater to every aspect of sustaining their performance on and off the court. For example, how many young players are paying for deep statistical analysis of their play, their opponents’ play, impacts on play by surface, etc. (https://www.braingametennis.com/moneyball-in-tennis/), not like a one-time consultant but all the time?

My point isn’t that Next Gen is really good, just that there are other reasons that can explain why the Big Three have maintained their dominance. Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Zverev, and Rublev probably aren’t ATGs, certainly some of them are not, but I think a couple of them will wind up AT LEAST Kafelnikov/Rafter level. I also think going forward, they will beat the Big Three about as often as they lose, not necessarily at majors, but in general. The YEC already showed that.
 

ND-13

Professional
A lot in this forum really fall for recency bias as if the last match alone is by far the greatest predictor instead of just being a single data point. Yes, Djokovic easily beat Medvedev, but he also lost to him in November. Tsitsipas also just beat Nadal, but no Next Gen is probably going to beat Nadal at the French. In hindsight, expecting them to up-end Djokovic at his all-time best major isn’t the fairest evaluation of them.

Yes, none of the Next Gen are equal to or better than arguably the three best tennis players who have ever lived at the same ages, but that’s setting the bar ridiculously high, isn’t it? Anyway, in truth, they have already caught up with Federer and now beat him more than he beats them (https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/head-to-head-comparison-big-3-thiem-next-gen.691734/), granted Federer is ancient.

There are several things people may not be considering when trashing Next Gen against the Big Three though. Athletes in all sports now have greater longevity and able to maintain performance in their late careers. There are multiple reasons for this: advances in sports medicine, diet and nutrition, racquet technology, and technology in general (for example, https://www.workinsports.com/blog/4-ways-technology-is-changing-athletic-training/).

With tennis players being paid more than they ever (at least pre-pandemic) and with Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic being by far the most financially successful tennis players ever, they can afford all kinds of help that poorer players cannot. The Big Three have all made more than $120 million (Murray is 4th on the list with “just” $61.8 million). If you adjust Sampras’ career tennis earnings for inflation, they would still be less than half of what Djokovic has made in tennis alone. That doesn’t even count endorsements, which recently are 65% of Nadal’s earnings, 72% of Djokovic’s earnings, and 95% of Federer’s (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2020/08/28/the-highest-paid-tennis-players-2020-they-are-barely-playing-but-the-top-10-pros-still-earned-340-million/?sh=35e6f20c280b).

The Big Three can afford much larger teams to cater to every aspect of sustaining their performance on and off the court. For example, how many young players are paying for deep statistical analysis of their play, their opponents’ play, impacts on play by surface, etc. (https://www.braingametennis.com/moneyball-in-tennis/), not like a one-time consultant but all the time?

My point isn’t that Next Gen is really good, just that there are other reasons that can explain why the Big Three have maintained their dominance. Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Zverev, and Rublev probably aren’t ATGs, certainly some of them are not, but I think a couple of them will wind up AT LEAST Kafelnikov/Rafter level. I also think going forward, they will beat the Big Three about as often as they lose, not necessarily at majors, but in general. The YEC already showed that.
So if they cannot beat big 3 at majors and may be go on par at tour events, it is status quo as to what it does today ??

And Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev and Tsitsipas cannot afford a team that helps them improve further ?

You say next gen is "really" good.. Is that Sasha Zverev who has 0 major wins against top 10 ? Or Medvedev who has barely won a round in RG ? Or Thiem who loses to a out of form Dmitrov in straight sets ?
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
So if they cannot beat big 3 at majors and may be go on par at tour events, it is status quo as to what it does today ??

And Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev and Tsitsipas cannot afford a team that helps them improve further ?

You say next gen is "really" good.. Is that Sasha Zverev who has 0 major wins against top 10 ? Or Medvedev who has barely won a round in RG ? Or Thiem who loses to a out of form Dmitrov in straight sets ?
I haven't looked, but Sascha doesns't get credit for a win over Nole at the USO after the DQ? This guy can't win for losing? :-D
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
A lot in this forum really fall for recency bias as if the last match alone is by far the greatest predictor instead of just being a single data point. Yes, Djokovic easily beat Medvedev, but he also lost to him in November. Tsitsipas also just beat Nadal, but no Next Gen is probably going to beat Nadal at the French. In hindsight, expecting them to up-end Djokovic at his all-time best major isn’t the fairest evaluation of them.

Yes, none of the Next Gen are equal to or better than arguably the three best tennis players who have ever lived at the same ages, but that’s setting the bar ridiculously high, isn’t it? Anyway, in truth, they have already caught up with Federer and now beat him more than he beats them (https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/head-to-head-comparison-big-3-thiem-next-gen.691734/), granted Federer is ancient.

There are several things people may not be considering when trashing Next Gen against the Big Three though. Athletes in all sports now have greater longevity and able to maintain performance in their late careers. There are multiple reasons for this: advances in sports medicine, diet and nutrition, racquet technology, and technology in general (for example, https://www.workinsports.com/blog/4-ways-technology-is-changing-athletic-training/).

With tennis players being paid more than they ever (at least pre-pandemic) and with Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic being by far the most financially successful tennis players ever, they can afford all kinds of help that poorer players cannot. The Big Three have all made more than $120 million (Murray is 4th on the list with “just” $61.8 million). If you adjust Sampras’ career tennis earnings for inflation, they would still be less than half of what Djokovic has made in tennis alone. That doesn’t even count endorsements, which recently are 65% of Nadal’s earnings, 72% of Djokovic’s earnings, and 95% of Federer’s (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2020/08/28/the-highest-paid-tennis-players-2020-they-are-barely-playing-but-the-top-10-pros-still-earned-340-million/?sh=35e6f20c280b).

The Big Three can afford much larger teams to cater to every aspect of sustaining their performance on and off the court. For example, how many young players are paying for deep statistical analysis of their play, their opponents’ play, impacts on play by surface, etc. (https://www.braingametennis.com/moneyball-in-tennis/), not like a one-time consultant but all the time?

My point isn’t that Next Gen is really good, just that there are other reasons that can explain why the Big Three have maintained their dominance. Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Zverev, and Rublev probably aren’t ATGs, certainly some of them are not, but I think a couple of them will wind up AT LEAST Kafelnikov/Rafter level. I also think going forward, they will beat the Big Three about as often as they lose, not necessarily at majors, but in general. The YEC already showed that.
It's not recency bias because of one match though. The younger guys being useless has been an ongoing theme for many years now and this latest AO final only confirmed that things haven't changed and that they aren't close to the Big 3 at all.

This final was further confirmation that unless the Big 3 are crippled or retired, Timmy and the Next Gen aren't winning majors against them.

Only one active slam winner under the age of 32. Let that sink in. And it was probably the luckiest slam win ever.
 
Last edited:

CHillTennis

Rookie
I can't really say that I'm surprised to hear him say that.

Or that he's wrong by saying so.

Other than Thiem, there are no players under the age of 32 with a grand slam title to their name.

And Thiem didn't defeat a member of the Big 3 en-route to winning the US Open, last year.

I expect to see more years of Nadal and Djokovic lapping the field.
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
2012-2013 Murray could certainly beat this Novak at the AO.

Since clay was never his strongest suit and he doesn't have enough firepower, he wouldn't do better than Thiem against Nadal on clay.
Certainly? Maybe but not certainly.
Novak’s serve better than ever. His net game also better than ever. Basically Nole has adapted late career the way Feddid, compensating for a drop off in explosive movement and return game with a retooled serve.
Novak was playing awesome tennis in the final even though he looked very vulnerable earlier in tournament.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Certainly? Maybe but not certainly.
Novak’s serve better than ever. His net game also better than ever. Basically Nole has adapted late career the way Feddid, compensating for a drop off in explosive movement and return game with a retooled serve.
Novak was playing awesome tennis in the final even though he looked very vulnerable earlier in tournament.
Well, Murray would rally more with Djokovic, is a better returner than Medvedev anyway, has better variety, better defense and, most importantly, has actual firepower than Medvedev lacks.

2012-2013 Murray would definitely be a handful for this Djokovic, no doubt. And if peak Djokovic barely beat him, current Djokovic would be in a world of pain....literally since he has that tear too.
 

zvelf

Professional
It's not recency bias because of one match though. The younger guys being useless has been an ongoing theme for many years now and this latest AO final only confirmed that things haven't changed and that they aren't close to the Big 3 at all.
How can they not be close AT ALL when Nadal just lost to Tsitsipas in a major and lost to Thiem and Medvedev at the YEC? How can they not be close AT ALL when Thiem and Zverev have winning head-to-heads against Federer and Tsitsipas is dead even with Fed? No, what you're saying looks very much like the recency bias of one match because if you looked at a lot of matches, these players do look like they are approaching parity.
 

zvelf

Professional
So if they cannot beat big 3 at majors and may be go on par at tour events, it is status quo as to what it does today ??
I don't understand this sentence.

And Medvedev, Thiem, Zverev and Tsitsipas cannot afford a team that helps them improve further ?
Sure they can afford a team. They just can't afford as big a team or as high quality a team as the Big 3.

You say next gen is "really" good.. Is that Sasha Zverev who has 0 major wins against top 10 ? Or Medvedev who has barely won a round in RG ? Or Thiem who loses to a out of form Dmitrov in straight sets ?
You misinterpreted what I wrote. My exact words are "My point isn’t that Next Gen is really good". However, your cherry-picked examples does not capture the bigger picture.
 

GhostOfNKDM

Professional
How can they not be close AT ALL when Nadal just lost to Tsitsipas in a major and lost to Thiem and Medvedev at the YEC? How can they not be close AT ALL when Thiem and Zverev have winning head-to-heads against Federer and Tsitsipas is dead even with Fed? No, what you're saying looks very much like the recency bias of one match because if you looked at a lot of matches, these players do look like they are approaching parity.
If parity is losing one game to lose a set 7-5 and giving up 2 more without putting up a fight, then count me in the 'they aint all they made out to be' camp
 

zvelf

Professional
If parity is losing one game to lose a set 7-5 and giving up 2 more without putting up a fight, then count me in the 'they aint all they made out to be' camp
You can either cherry pick a game or a set here or there as if that represented the whole story when it doesn't or you can look at the whole story of who has actually been winning and losing matches recently.
 

GhostOfNKDM

Professional
You can either cherry pick a game or a set here or there as if that represented the whole story when it doesn't or you can look at the whole story of who has actually been winning and losing matches recently.

And what is the whole story?

Big 3 still tule the slams and Masters.

If you just want to count any random match win (an incredibly low bar) against these guys to be a sign of parity, then Kyrgios should be one of our best hopes.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
How can they not be close AT ALL when Nadal just lost to Tsitsipas in a major and lost to Thiem and Medvedev at the YEC? How can they not be close AT ALL when Thiem and Zverev have winning head-to-heads against Federer and Tsitsipas is dead even with Fed? No, what you're saying looks very much like the recency bias of one match because if you looked at a lot of matches, these players do look like they are approaching parity.
All I know is that Djokodal have won 10 of the last 11 majors since Fed won his last. And Thiem's major came as a perfect storm of events where he didn't have to beat any of the Big 3 to win and was even lucky to win it in the end because his final opponent mugged up more than him in the end. Including Fed, all of the Big 3 have won 15 of the last 16 majors.

So yeah, no change. Only 1 active slam winner under the age of 32 still and he was incredibly lucky to even win it in a depleted field.

Wins over a 37.5+ year old Fed are irrelevant in my book since they are 2-3 generations younger than him. They are even with him because of that otherwise they'd be owned just like they've been by Djokodal.
 

zvelf

Professional
And what is the whole story?

Big 3 still tule the slams and Masters.

If you just want to count any random match win (an incredibly low bar) against these guys to be a sign of parity, then Kyrgios should be one of our best hopes.
So YEC are just "random" matches? Okay. As for Kyrgios, his combined record against the Big 3 is 6-11 meaning he wins only 35% of the time. Medvedev, Rublev, Thiem, Tsitsipas, and Zverev's combined head-to-head against the Big 3 is 35-57 or 38%. So they actually have a combined better head-to-head than Kyrgios does.
 

GhostOfNKDM

Professional
So YEC are just "random" matches? Okay. As for Kyrgios, his combined record against the Big 3 is 6-11 meaning he wins only 35% of the time. Medvedev, Rublev, Thiem, Tsitsipas, and Zverev's combined head-to-head against the Big 3 is 35-57 or 38%. So they actually have a combined better head-to-head than Kyrgios does.
What exactly have these YEC wins predicted or translated into?
 

zvelf

Professional
All I know is that Djokodal have won 10 of the last 11 majors since Fed won his last. And Thiem's major came as a perfect storm of events where he didn't have to beat any of the Big 3 to win and was even lucky to win it in the end because his final opponent mugged up more than him in the end. Including Fed, all of the Big 3 have won 15 of the last 16 majors.

So yeah, no change. Only 1 active slam winner under the age of 32 still and he was incredibly lucky to even win it in a depleted field.

Wins over a 37.5+ year old Fed are irrelevant in my book since they are 2-3 generations younger than him. They are even with him because of that otherwise they'd be owned just like they've been by Djokodal.
This line about Federer directly contradicts what you wrote earlier, which was that "things haven't changed and that they aren't close to the Big 3 at all." Obviously if you go into denial and say Federer losses don't count, then you really should have written they aren't close to the Big 2. But of course they are actually getting closer to the Big 2 as well, it's just that you've decided your criteria is that only matches in majors count. Course even there, Tsitsipas just beat Nadal.
 

Sephiroth

Hall of Fame
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:
Huh? Nadal's been playing more aggressive on a general level after 2017 than prolly at any other time in his career, he actually loses matches because he's more aggressive now

Murray's aggressiveness isn't anywhere near Nadal's anyway, doesn't have the forehand to dictate.
 

zvelf

Professional
What exactly have these YEC wins predicted or translated into?
That these younger players are getting closer and closer to beating Nadal and Djokovic more often in general and one of them just did beat Nadal at the AO. It's inevitable that as Nadal and Djokovic advance in age, they will lose more and they will lose more to Thiem, Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas. You only have to look at their beating Federer to see this is true. Yes it took Federer turning 36 and 37 for that to happen, but Nadal isn't that far away.
 

GhostOfNKDM

Professional
That these younger players are getting closer and closer to beating Nadal and Djokovic more often in general and one of them just did beat Nadal at the AO. It's inevitable that as Nadal and Djokovic advance in age, they will lose more and they will lose more to Thiem, Medvedev, Zverev, and Tsitsipas. You only have to look at their beating Federer to see this is true. Yes it took Federer turning 36 and 37 for that to happen, but Nadal isn't that far away.

If your position whittles down to 'eventually it is inevitably bound to happen', that's quite an obvious and facile stand to take whilst arguing there is already a parity most can't seem to recognize.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
This line about Federer directly contradicts what you wrote earlier, which was that "things haven't changed and that they aren't close to the Big 3 at all." Obviously if you go into denial and say Federer losses don't count, then you really should have written they aren't close to the Big 2. But of course they are actually getting closer to the Big 2 as well, it's just that you've decided your criteria is that only matches in majors count. Course even there, Tsitsipas just beat Nadal.
Yeah, one match which Nadal choked away against Tsitsipas means there is parity LOL.

The majors are the most important tournaments even if they're not the only tournaments and you can't speak of a modicum of parity when they've never taken a single slam from the Big 3 when guys in the past took several.

And speaking of Big 2, guess who came the closest to taking a slam from Djokodal recently: 38 year old Fed, not Timmy and the Next Gen.

Federer was beaten because of his age not because those guys are of any high quality. Otherwise Millman and Anderson are of high quality too.
 

zvelf

Professional
If your position whittles down to 'eventually it is inevitably bound to happen', that's quite an obvious and facile stand to take whilst arguing there is already a parity most can't seem to recognize.
It's a matter of degree so both of those are not mutually exclusive. Parity is starting to happen now and 2 years from now, it will have already happened. Let's make it more concrete. I predict at least 1 major this year will go to someone outside of the Big 3. At least 2 majors next year will go to someone outside of the Big 3, and in 2023, at least 2 majors will go to someone outside of the Big 3.
 

GhostOfNKDM

Professional
It's a matter of degree so both of those are not mutually exclusive. Parity is starting to happen now and 2 years from now, it will have already happened. Let's make it more concrete. I predict at least 1 major this year will go to someone outside of the Big 3. At least 2 majors next year will go to someone outside of the Big 3, and in 2023, at least 2 majors will go to someone outside of the Big 3.
That's all well and good. Where is your prediction from before this AO?

Every argument you make for the nextgen making the next move already happened before the beginning of this year.

How did that turn out?
 

Sudacafan

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
Murray must be a genius. How did he come up with that?
 

GhostOfNKDM

Professional
It's a matter of degree so both of those are not mutually exclusive. Parity is starting to happen now and 2 years from now, it will have already happened. Let's make it more concrete. I predict at least 1 major this year will go to someone outside of the Big 3. At least 2 majors next year will go to someone outside of the Big 3, and in 2023, at least 2 majors will go to someone outside of the Big 3.

Just out of curiosity, I did a little snooping around given my last reply and these are your posts from late last year -

I think it's safe to say Thiem is now equal to if not better than the Big 3 in their (in tennis terms) ancient ages.

Some people believe that Djokovic and Nadal can dominate for a few more years. Some people deride the young guns. Some people call this a weak era. I’d say these are all now questionable. 2017-2019 were relatively weak years, but 2020 finally saw a player in his 20s win a major and the current top 8 players in the world who are not the Big 3 have mostly come into their own: #3 Dominic Thiem, #4 Daniil Medvedev, #6 Stefanos Tsitsipas, #7 Alexander Zverev, and #8 Andrey Rublev. (Granted Thiem benefited from Djokovic defaulting.) Djokovic and Nadal at ages 33 and 34 would have been considered ancient in tennis 10 years ago and even though they and Federer have aged gracefully, they can’t fight time forever. Federer at 39 will struggle to win tournaments going forward and his chances at another major are extreme longshots at best. Federer probably won’t win 6 more to tie Connors’ 109 tournament-wins record unless he starts playing a lot of 250s.

This younger group of players have already surpassed Federer and are approaching parity with Djokovic and Nadal even if they are not quite there yet. This is most apparent in the year-end championship won by Tsitsipas last year when neither Djokovic nor Nadal made it out of the round robin round and this year’s version is currently being led by Medvedev and Thiem, who beat Djokovic and Nadal, respectively. Djokovic and Nadal may come back and win the championship, but clearly this field is presenting a difficult challenge for them.

Here are some head-to-head stats to provide context. Note that this is before the Nadal-Tsitsipas match later today. Nadal is still doing very well against these younger players but Djokovic is handling that field slightly less well than Thiem himself is. Federer is handling that field about as well as Tsitsipas is, both with losing records against the field. As the Big 3 continue to age, these younger players will beat them more and more regularly and at least 2 or 3 of them will become regular major winners. That's even before someone like Sinner matures into another big threat.


I think they speak for themselves.
 

Crazy Finn

Professional
It's a matter of degree so both of those are not mutually exclusive. Parity is starting to happen now and 2 years from now, it will have already happened. Let's make it more concrete. I predict at least 1 major this year will go to someone outside of the Big 3. At least 2 majors next year will go to someone outside of the Big 3, and in 2023, at least 2 majors will go to someone outside of the Big 3.
In 2 years, Nadal and Djokovic will be 36 and 35. I wonder if people will be saying the same thing then....
 

zvelf

Professional
Just out of curiosity, I did a little snooping around given my last reply and these are your posts from late last year -







I think they speak for themselves.
I stand behind exactly what I said, especially the gist, "This younger group of players have already surpassed Federer and are approaching parity with Djokovic and Nadal even if they are not quite there yet." What is your point?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I stand behind exactly what I said, especially the gist, "This younger group of players have already surpassed Federer and are approaching parity with Djokovic and Nadal even if they are not quite there yet." What is your point?
They aren't approaching parity until they win at least a slam against one of Djokovic or Nadal.
 

GhostOfNKDM

Professional
I stand behind exactly what I said, especially the gist, "This younger group of players have already surpassed Federer and are approaching parity with Djokovic and Nadal even if they are not quite there yet." What is your point?
How have they surpassed Federer and how exactly are they approaching parity?

Already made clear my objections to those points. Slams are the pinnacle of the sport. Until these guys are consistently beating the Big 3 in BO5 and winning slams, speaking of surpassing and parity is wishful thinking.
 
Last edited:

zvelf

Professional
How have they surpassed Federer and how exactly are they approaching parity?

Already made clear my objections to those points. Slams are the pinnacle of the sport. Until these guys are consistently beating the Big 3 in BO5 and winning slams, speaking of surpassing and parity is wishful thinking.
Federer has only ever played any of these younger players in a slam once and in that instance, he lost to Tsitsipas at the 2019 Australian Open. Federer's record against Thiem and Next Gen in 2019 was 3 wins to 7 losses. I know it hurts you to hear it, but they have surpassed Federer. Even Rublev, the weakest of them, straight setted Federer on hard court Cincinnati.
 

GhostOfNKDM

Professional
Federer has only ever played any of these younger players in a slam once and in that instance, he lost to Tsitsipas at the 2019 Australian Open. Federer's record against Thiem and Next Gen in 2019 was 3 wins to 7 losses. I know it hurts you to hear it, but they have surpassed Federer. Even Rublev, the weakest of them, straight setted Federer on hard court Cincinnati.
My feelings aside, did the same Fed not comprehensively beat Tsits a month later in Dubai? If you’re going to count everything as the same, at least be consistent.

The same 2019 Fed was in a slam final. If these guys had surpassed him there is no way a grandpa should make a slam final over them.

One off performances are just that. Dimitrov beat Fed in a slam too. Next you’ll be telling us Dimi passed Fed.

Anyways it seems you have made your mind up so there is no point me belaboring this further.

I hope the nextgen achieve parity. I’ll call it when I see it though.
 

zvelf

Professional
My feelings aside, did the same Fed not comprehensively beat Tsits a month later in Dubai? If you’re going to count everything as the same, at least be consistent.

The same 2019 Fed was in a slam final. If these guys had surpassed him there is no way a grandpa should make a slam final over them.

One off performances are just that. Dimitrov beat Fed in a slam too. Next you’ll be telling us Dimi passed Fed.

Anyways it seems you have made your mind up so there is no point me belaboring this further.

I hope the nextgen achieve parity. I’ll call it when I see it though.
It's funny because you cherry-pick matches to try to deny they haven't surpassed Federer when I look at the WHOLE picture. Federer is directly 0-1 in majors against them. Federer is a combined 10-12 against them in his career and Federer was 3-7 against them in the last full year that he played. Federer did reach a slam final in 2019 on his best surface and the younger players' worst surface. Well, Thiem and Medvedev also reached slam finals in 2019, and both are them are ranked above Federer now. They have surpassed Federer.
 

RelentlessAttack

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.
That’s Pete pulling a humbledal though, you don’t play the way he did at the net without a tremendous amount of natural talent and athleticism
 

Robert C

New User
[QUOTE="mike danny, post: 15092199, member: 427497"
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?
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.

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.


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?
[/QUOTE]

You don’t make any sense at all. You let Rafa off for being thrashed because he “hasn’t been a problematic matchup for Novak” while Medvedev with far less experience gets no excuse! I mean that’s so unbelievably arbitrary its farcical.

Because you have decided Medvedev’s career arc meant he “had blossomed” which is a ridiculous binary claim that bears nothing to do with reality, then it meant he had to play amazing in this one game against someone playing unbelievably well or else he fails your arbitrary hurdle. So many stupid opinions about everything being binary and suddenly someone switches to the status of “blossomed” and they can’t have a day where they only play like the second best player in the world.
 

Lleytonstation

G.O.A.T.
[QUOTE="mike danny, post: 15092199, member: 427497"
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?
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.

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.


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?
You don’t make any sense at all. You let Rafa off for being thrashed because he “hasn’t been a problematic matchup for Novak” while Medvedev with far less experience gets no excuse! I mean that’s so unbelievably arbitrary its farcical.

Because you have decided Medvedev’s career arc meant he “had blossomed” which is a ridiculous binary claim that bears nothing to do with reality, then it meant he had to play amazing in this one game against someone playing unbelievably well or else he fails your arbitrary hurdle. So many stupid opinions about everything being binary and suddenly someone switches to the status of “blossomed” and they can’t have a day where they only play like the second best player in the world.
[/QUOTE]
Hard to follow most of what you said as I am jumping in the middle of this convo. But the last part did catch my eye. Med played no where like the level of the 2nd best player in the world in that final.
 

Robert C

New User
Hard to follow most of what you said as I am jumping in the middle of this convo. But the last part did catch my eye. Med played no where like the level of the 2nd best player in the world in that final.
Yes he did. No-one else in the world could have kept with Novak in that match. There's a reason Novak is undefeated in the AO from the semis onward and this was one of his better games.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Yes he did. No-one else in the world could have kept with Novak in that match. There's a reason Novak is undefeated in the AO from the semis onward and this was one of his better games.
No one else in today's field, sure, but not overall. This Novak wasn't invincible.
 

Clash Ah ah

Rookie
When he first made a big public statement that he's retiring, I mistook it that his career was done, but it was just the season. And here he is in 2021 still playing.
Imagine being that bitter, that you begrudge someone going through various ops, procedures and sweat. Making a come back with a metal hip and giving it his all. Personally, I have only respect for Sir Andy Murray.
 

Lleytonstation

G.O.A.T.
Yes he did. No-one else in the world could have kept with Novak in that match. There's a reason Novak is undefeated in the AO from the semis onward and this was one of his better games.
Med served crap and had mental errors and unforced errors all over the place. The guy looked lost and was not ready for the moment.

Yes, Djoker would have won either way, but Med never challenged him.
 

jussumman

Hall of Fame
Imagine being that bitter, that you begrudge someone going through various ops, procedures and sweat. Making a come back with a metal hip and giving it his all. Personally, I have only respect for Sir Andy Murray.
ha That wasn't even a knock against him. It was just that it honestly sounded like he retired forever when I heard the announcement. Imagine thinking others have a grudge against a player for having injuries.
 

Clash Ah ah

Rookie
ha That wasn't even a knock against him. It was just that it honestly sounded like he retired forever when I heard the announcement. Imagine thinking others have a grudge against a player for having injuries.
“If this was my last match it was an amazing way to end,” he added. “Thanks to everyone throughout my career. Maybe I’ll see you again. I’ll do everything possible, I’d have to have a big operation and there’s no guarantee (it will work), but I’ll give it my best shot.”

In his post-match news conference, Murray said he’s deciding between resting for four months and then training to play a final match at Wimbledon or to immediately pursue having joint replacement surgery. The surgery could work well enough to allow him to play again, but at least it should make every-day activities such as walking his dogs more bearable.

He has spoken extensively with Bob Bryan, who had steel hip replacement in August and is scheduled to play here at the Australian Open with his brother, Mike.

“I could play another match, but if I want to try to play again, I want to improve my quality of life, because even if I take four months (off), I still can't walk,” Murray said. “I'm still in pain doing just basic day-to-day things.

“But having an operation like that, there's absolutely no guarantees I'd be able to play again. I'm fully aware of that. It's a really big operation. But there is the possibility, because guys have done it before. Bob Bryan is doing it just now. That's kind of the decision I have to make, that possibility of not having one more match by having the operation.”

When you assume....
 

Robert C

New User
Med served crap and had mental errors and unforced errors all over the place. The guy looked lost and was not ready for the moment.

Yes, Djoker would have won either way, but Med never challenged him.
I don't know why people have such a hard time with psychology, assuming that everything in a match is about psychology. If you had to play Djokovic would your failure be due to your choking? And because you weren't mentally ready for the moment?

Now it should be clearer what the main factor is. Current skill level. There's a lot of mental things occurring in a match and if you have to give all your focus to raising your game up a level from what you have had to do against anyone else then it's like a totally different experience. And it's hard to maintain that concentration all the time just to stay in the match (if your level even makes that possible - it might be impossible). As soon as your concentration ebbs you are against someone with a better level of skill. And then how do you deal with that? You need to play superhuman, which I'm sorry but that's not something you can conjure every day.

Or, you get lucky because the opponent's energy flags and it allows you to impose yourself again. But Novak left no opening. When someone is a clear level above you, the best you can do is keep up with them for a while, which Medvedev did, and hope Novak's level drops but it didn't. If Novak had played a level or so down then he probably would still have won but THEN we would have seen whether Medvedev could have fought properly.

The point is (current) ABILITY is the fundamental thing, mental strength comes after that and is mostly DERIVED from it. You can't have mental strength when your game is rubbish. Even at the very top level, look at Rafa (GOAT for mental strength) when he is always hitting the ball extremely short (e.g. last half of 2009), no sign of mental strength at all then and he couldn't beat any top 10 players.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
I don't know why people have such a hard time with psychology, assuming that everything in a match is about psychology. If you had to play Djokovic would your failure be due to your choking? And because you weren't mentally ready for the moment?

Now it should be clearer what the main factor is. Current skill level. There's a lot of mental things occurring in a match and if you have to give all your focus to raising your game up a level from what you have had to do against anyone else then it's like a totally different experience. And it's hard to maintain that concentration all the time just to stay in the match (if your level even makes that possible - it might be impossible). As soon as your concentration ebbs you are against someone with a better level of skill. And then how do you deal with that? You need to play superhuman, which I'm sorry but that's not something you can conjure every day.

Or, you get lucky because the opponent's energy flags and it allows you to impose yourself again. But Novak left no opening. When someone is a clear level above you, the best you can do is keep up with them for a while, which Medvedev did, and hope Novak's level drops but it didn't. If Novak had played a level or so down then he probably would still have won but THEN we would have seen whether Medvedev could have fought properly.

The point is (current) ABILITY is the fundamental thing, mental strength comes after that and is mostly DERIVED from it. You can't have mental strength when your game is rubbish. Even at the very top level, look at Rafa (GOAT for mental strength) when he is always hitting the ball extremely short (e.g. last half of 2009), no sign of mental strength at all then and he couldn't beat any top 10 players.
Mental strength is the most overrated part of the game. The only reason it's been so important for the Big 3 is that they've been so incredibly close so often.
 

Robert C

New User
Mental strength is the most overrated part of the game. The only reason it's been so important for the Big 3 is that they've been so incredibly close so often.
Exactly. It comes into play when two players are close in ability. A set might be 53 points to 51 points, it’s often very close but the winner isn’t always the one with 53 points. When all your mental strength isn’t going on trying to raise your level, then it can go on dealing with the pressure of the points that mean more than the other points.

Imagine a game between one of the many posters who attack players constantly for lack of mental strength and one of those players. Who will look like the one with the mental strength? Where will that mental strength come from?
 
Top