Murray says Next Gen a long way off Big 3

[Beckerserve]

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.

 

[TomTennis495]

Murray was never really close either tbh. And I like Murray more than any of the big 3.

 

[Beckerserve]

Murray was never really close either tbh. And I like Murray more than any of the big 3.

Interesting comment. Murray beat a better Djokovic in USO 2012 when he was 24. Medvedev was 25 yesterday.
Obviously he was not as good as big 3 but we have to conclude he was a few levels ahead of the Next Gen.

 

[MeatTornado]

Murray was never really close either tbh. And I like Murray more than any of the big 3.

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

 

[Graf1stClass]

Murray was never really close either tbh. And I like Murray more than any of the big 3.

You should count making finals as really close. He was at least in the mix for a good long while, enough that they had to come up with a new term (Big 4) just for him.

 

[BGod]

Murray was never really close either tbh. And I like Murray more than any of the big 3.

Legacy wise never, but in given years very much so. 2012-2013, 2015-2016. Might only be those 4 seasons but they are at least entire years of consistent competition.

The road ahead is going to go one of 4 ways:

1. Djokovic owns the decade despite retiring sometime well before it ends. He basically becomes a gate keeper of sorts and that means there won't really be a core group of winners, more scattered or 1 guy in particular becomes an heir apparent.

2. WTA style pick em with again Djokovic like Serena being the only big name bettors can get behind but far from consistent and you get Kerbers, Azarenkas, Haleps, etc.

3. A poor man's version of the current Big 2 or Novak/Murray circa 2015-2016 with a Wawrinka like also ran.

4. Short imposter reigns like one guy winning 3 or 4 of 8 majors when nobody can win more than 1.

 

[Beckerserve]

Legacy wise never, but in given years very much so. 2012-2013, 2015-2016. Might only be those 4 seasons but they are at least entire years of consistent competition.

The road ahead is going to go one of 4 ways:

1. Djokovic owns the decade despite retiring sometime well before it ends. He basically becomes a gate keeper of sorts and that means there won't really be a core group of winners, more scattered or 1 guy in particular becomes an heir apparent.

2. WTA style pick em with again Djokovic like Serena being the only big name bettors can get behind but far from consistent and you get Kerbers, Azarenkas, Haleps, etc.

3. A poor man's version of the current Big 2 or Novak/Murray circa 2015-2016 with a Wawrinka like also ran.

4. Short imposter reigns like one guy winning 3 or 4 of 8 majors when nobody can win more than 1.

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.

 

[jussumman]

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.

 

[SonnyT]

Not even credit is being given to Tsisipas' tenacity and mental toughness. At '20 RG, came back from 0-2 to Djokovic, and lost in 5. In the next slam, '21 AO, came back from 0-2 down to Nadal, and won in 5.

He got some of Federer's game flair, and a good deal of Djokovic's fight and mental toughness! With that combination, he will go a long way!

To show how big a deal it is to come back from 0-2 down to a B3 member, and make it into a 5 setter! Among the intramural B3 slam matches, there were many matches that went 2-0 in sets, and none had gone 5! And Tsisipas did it twice, in consecutive slams!

 

[ND-13]

Not even credit is being given to Tsisipas' tenacity and mental toughness. At '20 RG, came back from 0-2 to Djokovic, and lost in 5. In the next slam, '21 AO, came back from 0-2 down to Nadal, and won in 5.

He got some of Federer's game flair, and a good deal of Djokovic's fight and mental toughness! With that combination, he will go a long way!

To show how big a deal it is to come back from 0-2 down to a B3 member, and make it into a 5 setter! Among the intramural B3 slam matches, there were many matches that went 2-0 in sets, and none had gone 5! And Tsisipas did it twice, in consecutive slams!

Tsitsipas deserves Lots of respect .

Zverev is the worst and by now Thiem should have at least one title beating big 3

 

[BeatlesFan]

Federer was 23 when he broke through winning a major.

Um...no. Federer was 21 when he won Wimbledon in 2003 for his first slam.

 

[Robert F]

I always wonder why Murray keeps playing. But I think he believes even as a bionic Murray, that he is competitive with the Next Gen and heck if he has a good run he could get a slam or masters title.

 

[beltsman]

Um...no. Federer was 21 when he won Wimbledon in 2003 for his first slam.

Don't let facts get in the way of a narrative

 

[Rosstour]

Um...no. Federer was 21 when he won Wimbledon in 2003 for his first slam.

Think of the guys Fedalovic were able to beat for their first Slams. Tsongapuertapoussis.

Now think of the guys that today's early-20s players need to beat. Fedalovic.

Slight difference there.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Think of the guys Fedalovic were able to beat for their first Slams. Tsongapuertapoussis.

Now think of the guys that today's early-20s players need to beat. Fedalovic.

Slight difference there.

The difference being Fed is 39, Nadal 34 and Djokovic is 33. The next gen trying to win their first slams are 10-20 years younger than that.... when Fed, Nadal or Novak won their initial slams, their opponents were a similar age.

 

[Rosstour]

The difference being Fed is 39, Nadal 34 and Djokovic is 33. The next gen trying to win their first slams are 10-20 years younger than that.... when Fed, Nadal or Novak won their initial slams, their opponents were a similar age.

I think old GOATs are better than young also-rans but that is just me.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Lol there’s no redeeming these guys at this point even if they start to win. They couldn’t dent the old guard well past their prime

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Think of the guys Fedalovic were able to beat for their first Slams. Tsongapuertapoussis.

Now think of the guys that today's early-20s players need to beat. Fedalovic.

Slight difference there.

Other than AO20 they haven’t even made it close. Nadal came in as a teenager and challenged peak Federer. Djokovic came in as a 19-20 year old and challenged peak Fedal. Lesser players like Murray, Del Potro, Wawrinka did much more damage to much better versions of these guys. Roddick did much better against peak Federer than Medvedev managed against 34yo Djokovic.

There are no ATG caliber players amongst this group, stop fooling yourself

 

[Arak]

To be fair, if you look at the entire history of tennis, we have never had such quality and talent as with the big 3. These 3 come from an exceptional generation that also includes Wawrinka, Murray and Del Potro. No Borg, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi or Lendl have ever achieved the mastery of the racket that our guys have reached, regardless of results and slam counts. So it is really bad luck for the so-called nex gen to be born at the wrong time and having to beat the legends of tennis.

 

[Beckerserve]

Um...no. Federer was 21 when he won Wimbledon in 2003 for his first slam.

My point is Tsitsipas has time to get a slam and go on a roll. Medvedev must get one this season really.

 

[thrust]

Interesting comment. Murray beat a better Djokovic in USO 2012 when he was 24. Medvedev was 25 yesterday.
Obviously he was not as good as big 3 but we have to conclude he was a few levels ahead of the Next Gen.

True, Murray was a close #4 to the Big Three. The Next Gen is a level, or half level, below Murray.

 

[accidental]

I always wonder why Murray keeps playing. But I think he believes even as a bionic Murray, that he is competitive with the Next Gen and heck if he has a good run he could get a slam or masters title.

He beat Zverev just before the US Open last year, and then saw him double fault up a storm in the US Open final. Murray had to be thinking with a bit of luck that could have been him instead

 

[D.Nalby12]

Murray was never really close either tbh. And I like Murray more than any of the big 3.

I think 24-25 year old young Murray would stand better chance against current Big 3 than Medvedev, Theim etc.

 

[mike danny]

Um...no. Federer was 21 when he won Wimbledon in 2003 for his first slam.

Closer to 22, but yeah, a tier above Timmy and the Next Gen.

By Medvedev's age he was the dominant force in tennis. Meanwhile, Medvedev....yikes.

 

[mike danny]

I always wonder why Murray keeps playing. But I think he believes even as a bionic Murray, that he is competitive with the Next Gen and heck if he has a good run he could get a slam or masters title.

He was able to beat Zverev 6 months ago. Even in his declined state, he is a match for them.

 

[mike danny]

Think of the guys Fedalovic were able to beat for their first Slams. Tsongapuertapoussis.

Now think of the guys that today's early-20s players need to beat. Fedalovic.

Slight difference there.

Yeah, I'm sure 22 year old Fed would be shaking in his boots playing current Djokovic in a Wimb final, whom his 38 year old self was a point away from beating.

 

[mike danny]

I think old GOATs are better than young also-rans but that is just me.

If they are also rans, why compare them to Big 3 in their early 20's?

 

[Robert C]

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.

Federer was 21 and he beat Sampras when he was 18 so your comparison is quite misplaced.

 

[mike danny]

To be fair, if you look at the entire history of tennis, we have never had such quality and talent as with the big 3. These 3 come from an exceptional generation that also includes Wawrinka, Murray and Del Potro. No Borg, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi or Lendl have ever achieved the mastery of the racket that our guys have reached, regardless of results and slam counts. So it is really bad luck for the so-called nex gen to be born at the wrong time and having to beat the legends of tennis.

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.

 

[mike danny]

Federer was 21 and he beat Sampras when he was 18 so your comparison is quite misplaced.

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.

 

[StrongRule]

Just like Murray was never close to them. And I'm sure Murray would be losing to today's Djokovic in AO just like he was losing to prime Djokovic.

 

[Arak]

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.

The fact remains the big3 have dominated several generations. They might not be too good in your opinion, they are human after all, but they are the best three of all times in my opinion. Maybe we will be lucky enough in the future to get someone even better.

 

[Robert C]

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.

Federer was 19 when he beat Sampras and you can’t read too much into one game. Everyone called Federer a head case for years after that win because he couldn’t step up mentally. He had one good day and a lot of other underperforming.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Just like Murray was never close to them. And I'm sure Murray would be losing to today's Djokovic in AO just like he was losing to prime Djokovic.

So would Rafa lol

 

[aldeayeah]

Murray says Next Gen a long way off Big 3

no sh*t, Sherlock

 

[mike danny]

Federer was 19 when he beat Sampras and you can’t read too much into one game. Everyone called Federer a head case for years after that win because he couldn’t step up mentally. He had one good day and a lot of other underperforming.

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.

 

[mike danny]

The fact remains the big3 have dominated several generations. They might not be too good in your opinion, they are human after all, but they are the best three of all times in my opinion. Maybe we will be lucky enough in the future to get someone even better.

I think their dominance is just being helped by successive generations of poor talent. The Big 3 in their primes could be beaten so it's a bit embarrassing that the gap between them and the field is larger than ever in their 30's.

 

[BeatlesFan]

There's also the match against Agassi at the USO in 2004 when Fed was 23.

Fed also beat Andre twice at the 2003 YEC, once in the RR and once in the final when Roger was 22. He then beat him in the 2004 IW final at age 22.

 

[HazBeen18]

Murray is talking about match toughness / tenacity that is required to beat elite-level players in BO5 finals. He found it... it took him a while, but he found it. As did Stan. But these young guys. I just don't see it. In my opinion, the only young player who seems to possess the talent and the toughness to compete at the highest level is Sinner. But, even he has already shown an inability to hang in long 5-set matches. I agree with Murray, there has been a significant drop-off from the Big 3 to the top players playing now.

 

[Beckerserve]

Federer was 21 and he beat Sampras when he was 18 so your comparison is quite misplaced.

21 22 my point stands. Tstisipas has time. Medvedev running out of time.

 

[Krish872007]

Murray spot on of course as far as the Slams are concerned

 

[Nole_King]

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.

Strange that when Federer continued to compete even till his 40s picking up a losing record against Novak at Wimbledon finals, it is held up against him but on the other hand respect to Murray Delpo because they could have easily retired

 

[Fabresque]

Murray couldn't do it, and he's much much better than any of the next-gen.

 

[Red Rick]

I think 24-25 year old young Murray would stand better chance against current Big 3 than Medvedev, Theim etc.

25 year old Murray would win 3/4 Slams in this current day I reckon.

 

[DSH]

25 year old Murray would win 3/4 Slams in this current day I reckon.

In spite of having won the US Open, I think Murray was more difficult to be beaten in Australia, do you agree?

 

[Mainad]

Murray was never really close either tbh. And I like Murray more than any of the big 3.

He still achieved a lot more against them than the current crop can manage!

 

[Mainad]

Interesting comment. Murray beat a better Djokovic in USO 2012 when he was 24. Medvedev was 25 yesterday.
Obviously he was not as good as big 3 but we have to conclude he was a few levels ahead of the Next Gen.

Actually he was 25 when he won 2012 USO but your point still stands of course.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

Frankly the fact that Medvedev and Thiem are the best of the bunch is in itself an indictment of the generation. Thiem while pretty good physically is one dimensional and doesn’t think the game that well, while Medvedev thinks the game well, moves well and serves big but his unorthodox strokes leave him somewhat physically limited. Of course relative to the pack they’re great but it’s not just the big 3 - I don’t think they’d have been beating past greats either. Neither even has the ability to bring what inconsistent guys like Safin/Stan/Delpo brought on peaking days.

Tsitsipas has a pretty good game but seems like a bizarre person with his twitter philosophy and blogging, and not ruthlessly focused on winning like past greats. He also has no return, which you can’t really win without.

Zverev actually has the closest thing to the game needed to be a champion, but has had all kinds of mental and personal struggles. He has the big serve, movement, strong off both wins, and unlike the rest of NextGen has a good return. Net game needs work but he has the tools for success in modern conditions.

But one of the things with the big 3, Sampras, and past greats is they’re all in the conversation for ATG level weapons, whether serve or return or a particular groundstroke. Which young players even have 1 ATG level weapon? The Kyrgios serve comes to mind, but he doesn’t have the rest. People talk about Rublev’s forehand but it’s not versatile.

Young players in other sports don’t seem to struggle as much to develop the mental aspect of the game. Maybe because the development system in big team driven sports is much more structured and less independent.

If we look at the timing of the huge drop off, basically Delpo being the last of a strong generation, it’s the generation that grew up with poly, lower swing weights, homogenized courts that had failed. The other confounding variables are that they’re the generation that grew up with social media, and they make quite a bit more money for their mediocre results than past players - both could affect drive and focus.

 

[Red Rick]

The fact that it's likely some of these nextgen guys will win more Slams than Murray is legit horrifying.

 

[metsman]

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.