Slamless Medvedev #1 by Grass Season - Diamond Ages Takes Over

When Will Medvedev Become #1 after


  • Total voters
    34

Meles

Bionic Poster
giphy.gif

Are you dossers aware? When Medvedev wins Miami he will be 1100 points behind Djokovic. Djokovic defending titles at Madrid & Rome plus RG final. 3200 points so could easily drop 1600 points by grass season with current ranking rules. Medvedev is defending three first round losses at these tournaments.

53tf52.jpg
 

Street

Semi-Pro
I think medvedev will get number 1 at least after wimbledon. The number of points medvedev is defending is basically zero with djokovic defending almost everything. I also think medvedev will improve his results on clay and on grass even though he probably won't win any (big) titles.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
giphy.gif

Are you dossers aware? When Medvedev wins Miami he will be 1100 points behind Djokovic. Djokovic defending titles at Madrid & Rome plus RG final. 3200 points so could easily drop 1600 points by grass season with current ranking rules. Medvedev is defending three first round losses at these tournaments.

53tf52.jpg
Well, well, well...

Are you back for an hour, a day, or for awhile?

I wouldn't begin to guess when the young players will finally get to #2 or #1, or when they will win big events. I only say: "The sooner the better!"
 

UnforcedTerror

Hall of Fame
To be honest a #1 without Slam + COVID ranking is PRECISELY the thing that will solidify the joke that is the nextgen.

Slams are not everything.
WDvmEtW.jpg


He's made the AO final and only lost to Djokovic. He won WTF beating the best of the best and will be a 4-time Masters champion if he takes Miami.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
To be honest a #1 without Slam + COVID ranking is PRECISELY the thing that will solidify the joke that is the nextgen.
You are so right. Every month - much less year - that the young guys remain slamless will make their future accomplishments more debatable. You know how it goes - future fans will use the "eye test" to say that future winners are far inferior to the Big 2, or declare that they are just as good. Or maybe say that the Big 3 all played in one huge weak era.

Thiem's win at the USO last year would have been so much more impressive if he had gotten there beating one of the Big 3, or if his final opponent had done the same.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
You are so right. Every month - much less year - that the young guys remain slamless will make their future accomplishments more debatable. You know how it goes - future fans will use the "eye test" to say that future winners are far inferior to the Big 2, or declare that they are just as good. Or maybe say that the Big 3 all played in one huge weak era.

Thiem's win at the USO last year would have been so much more impressive if he had gotten there beating one of the Big 3, or if his final opponent had done the same.
This specific generation isn't even up for debate anymore to me. They're too old to have any deniability over their trash Slam results and their trash records vs the Big 3.

It took a global pandemic to get a new #2. It took a global pandemic to win a Slam when the Big 3 are 33, 34 and 39 years old. And they still remain unbeaten collectively by these guys.

Wawrinka is still the last one to take a Slam off the Big 3.
 

UnforcedTerror

Hall of Fame
He didn't just lose to Djokovic. He got destroyed when all momentum and other indicators were in his favor.
Yes because Djokovic played one of his best AO matches and when he usually plays at that level, even Bull, Fedr and Murray get destroyed. Already forgot about AO 2019 final?
 

UnforcedTerror

Hall of Fame
You might just be the only person in the world who would argue that loss wasn't embarrassing for Nadal and that he played a good match. Also, Djokovic wasn't 33 in 2011 to 2016.
I don't think either of Bull and Med played a great match but the point is when Djokovic plays at that level there isn't much you can do, the opponent gets destroyed whatever his name is. Claiming that Med is not worthy of #1 because he lost to Djokovic at AO final is silly. And who cares if Djokovic was 33 or 40, he still played one of his best matches at AO.
 
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
If he gets No.1 going into USO, pressure is going to be Huge on him. He should be a favorite to win there anyway.
 

Street

Semi-Pro
You might just be the only person in the world who would argue that loss wasn't embarrassing for Nadal and that he played a good match. Also, Djokovic wasn't 33 in 2011 to 2016.
Well, saying djokovic is 33 doesn't really mean much tbh. What part of his game looked like he was 33? His movement was great, his return was goating and other parts of his game certainly weren't lagging behind. Honestly, for the big 3, age really is just a number. I mean, federer won wimbledon without dropping a set at 35/36.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
This specific generation isn't even up for debate anymore to me. They're too old to have any deniability over their trash Slam results and their trash records vs the Big 3.

It took a global pandemic to get a new #2. It took a global pandemic to win a Slam when the Big 3 are 33, 34 and 39 years old. And they still remain unbeaten collectively by these guys.

Wawrinka is still the last one to take a Slam off the Big 3.
I sort of agree, but I'd like to see people be a bit easier on the young guys. So many talk about them like they are totally lazy, worthless people, and I think at least a lot of that is more than a bit unfair.
 

Tarkovsky

Semi-Pro
It's possible Djokovic loses #1 for a few months in springtime or summer if he doesn't do partuculary well in clay masters, but I hope he will keep #1 just about until the autumn when Medvedev will probably not be able to defend all points he got...but also depends how they will calculate virus points...anyhow I expect Djokovic to reach his 7th year as #1 this year.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
Well, saying djokovic is 33 doesn't really mean much tbh. What part of his game looked like he was 33? His movement was great, his return was goating and other parts of his game certainly weren't lagging behind. Honestly, for the big 3, age really is just a number. I mean, federer won wimbledon without dropping a set at 35/36.
He's still really good. But he's not the player he was in 2011 or 2015 anymore, and only his serve has improved really. I think 2011 Djokovic walks the Grand Slam.
 

beard

Legend
So... Reading this forum I can conclude:

If Med get no1 - its proof that he and his gen is bad
If Med don't get no1 - its proof that he and his gen is bad



Anyway, as Novak's fan, I hope Med doesn't get no1... But if he gets it, I won't be unhappy, Med would deserve... It would probably be a short term position...
 

MadariKatu

Hall of Fame
We'll have to wait and see what happens. What it Medvedev wins Roland Garros? What if Zverev wins Wimbledon? What if Kyrgios wins the remaining slams this year? What if Djokovic, Nadal and Federer start losing to low ranked players and never make it to the 2nd week of a slam again?

Now, being serious, I think this is Sock's year. Bar injury nobody will stop him. Mark my words!
 

GhostOfNKDM

Hall of Fame
You are so right. Every month - much less year - that the young guys remain slamless will make their future accomplishments more debatable. You know how it goes - future fans will use the "eye test" to say that future winners are far inferior to the Big 2, or declare that they are just as good. Or maybe say that the Big 3 all played in one huge weak era.

Thiem's win at the USO last year would have been so much more impressive if he had gotten there beating one of the Big 3, or if his final opponent had done the same.

And you say that based on an 'eye test' or will it take some future Lewsian gymnastics to reflect that in the stats?

A slam in a spreadsheet cell should be the same regardless of who won it no?
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
If he wins a slam eventually, it will be forgiven though. If he doesn't yeah, just the Next Gen's Rios.
Like Thiem is forgiven?

It depends on the way it happens for me, but I think they're already past the due date for where it could feel nearly as legit as say Cilic winning the 2014 USO.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Well, saying djokovic is 33 doesn't really mean much tbh. What part of his game looked like he was 33? His movement was great, his return was goating and other parts of his game certainly weren't lagging behind. Honestly, for the big 3, age really is just a number. I mean, federer won wimbledon without dropping a set at 35/36.
Yeah, let's discount the times he actually DID lose to Djokovic when he was 33+ and was going through 4.5 years without winning a slam.

#AgeIsJustANumber
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I don't think either of Bull and Med played a great match but the point is when Djokovic plays at that level there isn't much you can do, the opponent gets destroyed whatever his name is. Claiming that Med is not worthy of #1 because he lost to Djokovic at AO final is silly. And who cares if Djokovic was 33 or 40, he still played one of his best matches at AO.
That doesn't change the fact that Medvedev flat out gave up after 1 set in that final.
 

Arak

Legend
In F1 it’s mathematically possible to win the championship without winning any individual race. I don’t mind if world no.1 doesn’t win any slams.
 

Street

Semi-Pro
Yeah, let's discount the times he actually DID lose to Djokovic when he was 33+ and was going through 4.5 years without winning a slam.

#AgeIsJustANumber
Not really sure what your point is. I was trying to say that the big 3 in their 30s are better than the majority of top tennis players in their 20s from any era. Federer was also a point away from winning a wimbledon at 37/38 and i also didn't mention it because i thought it wasn't needed to illustrate my point. Of course people are going to decline with age, but the big 3 were so good that their decline doesn't mean they should automatically be losing to any 25 year old like many people here think.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Not really sure what your point is. I was trying to say that the big 3 in their 30s are better than the majority of top tennis players in their 20s from any era. Federer was also a point away from winning a wimbledon at 37/38 and i also didn't mention it because i thought it wasn't needed to illustrate my point. Of course people are going to decline with age, but the big 3 were so good that their decline doesn't mean they should automatically be losing to any 25 year old like many people here think.
If that 25 year old is any good, they should be losing.

Like I said, in the past several players have taken slams away from the Big 3, who weren;t close to their level. How come they weren't unbeatable then, but are suddenly unbeatable now? :unsure:
 

Street

Semi-Pro
If that 25 year old is any good, they should be losing.

Like I said, in the past several players have taken slams away from the Big 3, who weren;t close to their level. How come they weren't unbeatable then, but are suddenly unbeatable now? :unsure:
I heavily disagree with that point of view that a 25 year old who is any good should be beating the top 3 right now. Which 25 year old would you pick against nadal at 2020 Rg? Which 25 year old would you pick against 2019 Ao djokovic? There are certainly some who could pose problems or even win but not many. As far as being "unbeatable now", it's not as if they were losing left and right before, they haven't won a slam like only 10 times in the past 70 slams or something like that. And they actually are losing now more often than before, especially in non-slam events.
In the end though, i respect your opinion.
 

MeatTornado

Talk Tennis Guru
I sort of agree, but I'd like to see people be a bit easier on the young guys. So many talk about them like they are totally lazy, worthless people, and I think at least a lot of that is more than a bit unfair.
I agree that the laziness take is a bit much sometimes. Seems to stem mostly from Lendl complaining years ago that Zverev was on his phone too much, which then got applied to everyone on tour. But we have know idea how much these guys are really working behind the scenes, nor do we know how much previous greats were. It's all private, as it should be.

I think it's far more likely that they're just not talented enough.
 

Gary Duane

Talk Tennis Guru
I agree that the laziness take is a bit much sometimes. Seems to stem mostly from Lendl complaining years ago that Zverev was on his phone too much, which then got applied to everyone on tour. But we have know idea how much these guys are really working behind the scenes, nor do we know how much previous greats were. It's all private, as it should be.

I think it's far more likely that they're just not talented enough.
I recently watched a video about Rublev and my takeaway is that he has actually almost given up his life for tennis. I don't think he's unique. So I think it's mostly about not having that amazing core of talent that a few ATGs have.
 

MeatTornado

Talk Tennis Guru
I recently watched a video about Rublev and my takeaway is that he has actually almost given up his life for tennis. I don't think he's unique. So I think it's mostly about not having that amazing core of talent that a few ATGs have.
Yeah I ended up watching that long interview you posted too.
 
Top