The Sad Decline of the Little 3

Tennis Devolution said:
No player including both jannik sinner, carlos alcaraz, and the rest of the next-gen of completely false prophets has successfully surpassed the level of all of the big 3 for the last twenty years.

Mark my words, when the TRUE tennis great finally actually arrives, he will bring balance to the evolution of tennis and he will truly elevate the level of tennis to a level far beyond the big 3.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
M4tchP0int said:
Utter nonsense. Thiem peak level on clay and hardcourt is higher than Hewitt and Roddick. Hewitt is the pusher prince just behind King Murray. On grass yes Hewitt and Roddick are better than medvedev,tsitsipas,zverev and Thiem. On clay roddick and hewitt are mugs compared to tsitsipas, zverev and Thiem. Alcaraz is a tier 3 ATG even if irregular and Sinner is also a low tier ATG. Hewitt and Roddick are clearly not ATG. Hewitt is consistent but benefited from a declining sampras in USO 01 final and couldn't beat old Agassi at USO 2002 SF when he was normally leading the H2H by 4-2 at that point. Peak 2001-2002 hewitt and defending USO champion should have won that electric match in USO SF. No excuse. nadal managed to win again Agassi in that thrilling Indian wells 2005. Yes agassi was 3 years older than in 2002 but Nadal was just 19 yo and not 21yo like hewitt and with no experience against agassi.
Concerning Roddick he was only a factor on grass. His achievement is a USO title against clay court specialist Ferrero. In terms of movement and backhand he is the taylor fritz and jack draper of his era with disappointing results in USO final vs Federer just like Fritz is disappointing vs Sinner in USO and YEC Finals
Hewitt is also a tier behind Safin in peak level when he received a hard reality check in AO 2005 F despite winning the first set with the homefield advantage
Click to expand...

utter and complete rubbish to the power of nonsense.
congrats on making it to my ignore list so quickly , "new user"
 
Winner Sinner said:
Someone who currently boasts an open streak of 20 consecutive sets won against top ten players, who has won 99 of the last 107 matches played, who on hard since the beginning of 2024 has left only crumbs to his opponents, is certainly a type of profile that in past eras would have struggled to win a slam, a slightly better Berdych. LOL

I imagine that the current circuit put in check by Sinner, in other eras all those present in the current top 10 would have struggled to enter the top 50, and those currently outside the top 10 in other eras would have struggled to enter the top 100.

When they talk about mythologizing the past excessively, you are the perfect example.
Click to expand...

umm, no. Current era (2020-current) is the worst era in male tennis by far. (surpassing 16-19)
that is one absolutely pathetic sad bunch of top 10 with the exception of Sinner and Alcaraz.

and I've watched plenty of tennis (full matches recorded) since the 70s

berdych had a better fh, better serve,more explosive
sinner has little better bh, movement, return, more consistent

so yeah Sinner is at best a slightly better Berdych.

women's tennis currently is certainly better than in say 2020 when Kenin was winning AO. so its not about mythologizing the past.
 
Last edited:
Tennis Devolution said:
No player including both jannik sinner, carlos alcaraz, and the rest of the next-gen of completely false prophets has successfully surpassed the level of all of the big 3 for the last twenty years.

Mark my words, when the TRUE tennis great finally actually arrives, he will bring balance to the evolution of tennis and he will truly elevate the level of tennis to a level far beyond the big 3.
Click to expand...
What you talking about Willis.
 
abmk said:
umm, no. Current era (2020-current) is the worst era in male tennis by far. (surpassing 16-19)
that is one absolutely pathetic sad bunch of top 10 with the exception of Sinner and Alcaraz.

and I've watched plenty of tennis (full matches recorded) since the 70s

berdych had a better fh, better serve,more explosive
sinner has little better bh, movement, return, more consistent

so yeah Sinner is at best a slightly better Berdych.

women's tennis currently is certainly better than in say 2020 when Kenin was winning AO. so its not about mythologizing the past.
Click to expand...
But which one is slightly better.
Sinner compared to Berdych has a better backhand, a significantly better return, a significantly better movement that also allows him to have a significantly better defense, and above all he has a significantly better 360-degree head.

The serve is the only thing in which the Czech player was superior, even if Sinner's serve does not have the same power as others, and still lacks in terms of precision as a percentage of first balls in the court, but he can be deadly thanks to the angles and depth he manages to find, plus over the years he has also built a second serve that is difficult to attack.
It is no coincidence that also thanks to the serve he has managed to maintain the highest percentage of games won on serve since the beginning of 2024, over 91%, of which he wins almost 80% of the points when the first one comes in, percentages worthy of a Federer.
 
M4tchP0int said:
Hewitt is consistent but benefited from a declining sampras in USO 01 final
Click to expand...
Much better win than Thiem's slam at the very least.
M4tchP0int said:
Peak 2001-2002 hewitt and defending USO champion should have won that electric match in USO SF. No excuse. nadal managed to win again Agassi in that thrilling Indian wells 2005. Yes agassi was 3 years older than in 2002 but Nadal was just 19 yo and not 21yo like hewitt and with no experience against agassi.
Click to expand...
Thiem lost to the old dudes too, you know, when he was in his mid to late 20's, not 21.
M4tchP0int said:
Concerning Roddick he was only a factor on grass. His achievement is a USO title against clay court specialist Ferrero.
Click to expand...
This tired old argument. Ferrero was improving outside clay too. He reached that USO F by taking out Hewitt and Agassi.
M4tchP0int said:
In terms of movement and backhand he is the taylor fritz and jack draper of his era with disappointing results in USO final vs Federer just like Fritz is disappointing vs Sinner in USO and YEC Finals
Click to expand...
How? Roddick put up a much better fight vs Federer in the 2006 matches than Fritz did vs Sinner in the 2024 matches. Much better fight at 2007 USO too.
 
Winner Sinner said:
But which one is slightly better.
Sinner compared to Berdych has a better backhand, a significantly better return, a significantly better movement that also allows him to have a significantly better defense, and above all he has a significantly better 360-degree head.

The serve is the only thing in which the Czech player was superior, even if Sinner's serve does not have the same power as others, and still lacks in terms of precision as a percentage of first balls in the court, but he can be deadly thanks to the angles and depth he manages to find, plus over the years he has also built a second serve that is difficult to attack.
It is no coincidence that also thanks to the serve he has managed to maintain the highest percentage of games won on serve since the beginning of 2024, over 91%, of which he wins almost 80% of the points when the first one comes in, percentages worthy of a Federer.
Click to expand...

no, Berdych also has the clearly better forehand, more aggressive off both wings also. not just a clearly better serve.

those stats are just inflated due to the worst era. When Sinner faced actual decent+ level of play aka Alcaraz in 24, he got broken many times and lost all 3 times.

broken 3 times, 6 times (ok on clay), 3 times (faced 15 BPs!)
 
abmk said:
no, Berdych also has the clearly better forehand, more aggressive off both wings also. not just a clearly better serve.

those stats are just inflated due to the worst era. When Sinner faced actual decent+ level of play aka Alcaraz in 24, he got broken many times and lost all 3 times.

broken 3 times, 6 times (ok on clay), 3 times (faced 15 BPs!)
Click to expand...
Do you want me to list all of Berdych's losses in any random year of his prime to refute the opposite thesis?

Sinner has not conceded break points to Djokovic for 6 consecutive sets, a streak that is still open, and has not conceded break points to Zverev in the last final in Melbourne.

As for the forehand, Berdych could only hit flat, which was a limitation against opponents who relied on those shots, Sinner manages to generate a much greater weight of the ball thanks to more elaborate trajectories.

Comparing Berdych to Sinner is blasphemy.
It would be like someone actually comparing Dimitrov to Federer in terms of absolute value.
If you are convinced, good for you, but then don't ask yourself why people will think you're crazy.
 
travlerajm said:
I just checked, and Zed, Med, and Citibus are #6, 15, and 21 in the current UTR ratings.

These guys were supposed to grab the torch from the Big3, but they have been completely bypassed. No longer relevant.
Click to expand...

they’re the reason Djoker is the slam record holder if we are being honest. If they worth two hoots Djoker is probably still on 17-18 slams most likely
 
Winner Sinner said:
Do you want me to list all of Berdych's losses in any random year of his prime to refute the opposite thesis?
Click to expand...
Sinner is more consistent, and that is also helped by worst era. my focus is more on prime level in slams.
Winner Sinner said:
Sinner has not conceded break points to Djokovic for 6 consecutive sets, a streak that is still open, and has not conceded break points to Zverev in the last final in Melbourne.
Click to expand...
another example of pathetic state of top 10. djokovic played one of his worst matches ever at AO 24 vs Sinner. when med got off to a strong start, Sinner was struggling big time and barely escaped in the final.

zverev was also mediocre in AO 25 final

also ask yourself why Alcaraz managed to get so many BPs and actually broke in all 3 matches many times in all 3 in 2024.
Winner Sinner said:
As for the forehand, Berdych could only hit flat, which was a limitation against opponents who relied on those shots, Sinner manages to generate a much greater weight of the ball thanks to more elaborate trajectories.
Click to expand...

sinner fh isn't tested 1/3rd as much as it should thanks to the worst era of all time. when someone is playing well, sinner's FH can break down into UFEs.
berdych was a flat hitter in general, but doesn't mean he couldn't play topspin with fh. he's not medvedev or murray.

Winner Sinner said:
Comparing Berdych to Sinner is blasphemy.
It would be like someone actually comparing Dimitrov to Federer in terms of absolute value.
If you are convinced, good for you, but then don't ask yourself why people will think you're crazy.
Click to expand...

what is blasphemy is the joke of an era that 20-current is. even worse than 16-19.
blasphemy is a max 1-time slam winner in any other era in Sinner has 3 slams in this worst era.
still less of a blasphemy than freakin Ruud making 3 slam finals though.

sinner vs berdych is more like haas vs dimitrov, not dimitrov vs fed.
 
travlerajm said:
I just checked, and Zed, Med, and Citibus are #6, 15, and 21 in the current UTR ratings.

These guys were supposed to grab the torch from the Big3, but they have been completely bypassed. No longer relevant.
Click to expand...
Zverev came on the scene in 2013 at age 16, proclaimed as the future #1. He'll be 28 in just over a week and he's made 3 slam finals and yet to win one.

I remember how tennis commentators downplayed Rafa's threat to Federer because they were happy as Federer was already established as box office and they didn't want anyone to challenge him. Fast-forward twenty years, when they are left with a gaping hole with the retirement of Federer and Nadal and they are manufacturing a Big 3 with players who are yet to prove themselves.
 
With the exception of Medvedev on hard and only on hard, I truly think the next gen have even less of an excuse than the lost gen - they face an older version of the big three and still failed to capitalize, are probably even less consistent slam to slam because of their greater weaknesses and started to lose to their newer gen successors right off the bat when they were the ones with the greater experience.

Call me coloured by nostalgia but there didn't seem to be someone who can play lights-out, aggressive tennis and just downright overpower the top players anymore before Sincaraz arrived. Sure Fedalovic's contemporaries like Nalbandian, Safin, Soderling, Berdych and later Wawrinka have their own weaknesses and might be less consistent than the next gen top players day-to-day, but they all have that extra gear where they are capable of being aggressive, are much more balanced off both wings and can just blow the opponent off the court. This is something Zverev, Tsits and Med can't really attain - they might serve faster or move better but they just don't have that overpowering ground game once the ball gets in play, limited by technical weaknesses off one wing or their own passivity.
 
Last edited:
Clay lover said:
With the exception of Medvedev on hard and only on hard, I truly think the next gen have even less of an excuse than the lost gen - they face an older version of the big three and still failed to capitalize, are probably even less consistent slam to slam because of their greater weaknesses and started to lose to their newer gen successors right off the bat when they were the ones with the greater experience.

Call me coloured by nostalgia but there didn't seem to be someone who can play lights-out, aggressive tennis and just downright overpower the top players anymore before Sincaraz arrived. Sure Fedalovic's contemporaries like Nalbandian, Safin, Soderling, Berdych and later Wawrinka have their own weaknesses and might be less consistent than the next gen top players day-to-day, but they all have that extra gear where they are capable of being aggressive, are much more balanced off both wings and can just blow the opponent off the court. This is something Zverev, Tsits and Med can't really attain - they might serve faster or move better but they just don't have that overpowering ground game once the ball gets in play, limited by technical weaknesses off one wing or their own passivity.
Click to expand...
No, both jannik sinner and carlos alcaraz simply are not and will never ever be the ones.
 
Tennis Devolution said:
No, both jannik sinner and carlos alcaraz simply are not and will never ever be the ones.
Click to expand...
Never said they were the ones. Just said they are the first ones to at least be able to overpower the previous gens with their shot making to win slams. Doesn't mean I'm implying they're ever at the big three's level.
 
abmk said:
Sinner is more consistent, and that is also helped by worst era. my focus is more on prime level in slams.

another example of pathetic state of top 10. djokovic played one of his worst matches ever at AO 24 vs Sinner. when med got off to a strong start, Sinner was struggling big time and barely escaped in the final.

zverev was also mediocre in AO 25 final

also ask yourself why Alcaraz managed to get so many BPs and actually broke in all 3 matches many times in all 3 in 2024.


sinner fh isn't tested 1/3rd as much as it should thanks to the worst era of all time. when someone is playing well, sinner's FH can break down into UFEs.
berdych was a flat hitter in general, but doesn't mean he couldn't play topspin with fh. he's not medvedev or murray.



what is blasphemy is the joke of an era that 20-current is. even worse than 16-19.
blasphemy is a max 1-time slam winner in any other era in Sinner has 3 slams in this worst era.
still less of a blasphemy than freakin Ruud making 3 slam finals though.

sinner vs berdych is more like haas vs dimitrov, not dimitrov vs fed.
Click to expand...
Wrong, the era of 2003-2007 where roger federer won most of his grand slams is evolutionarily the weakest era out of all the eras that both rafael nadal and novak djokovic competed in which thus means roger federer is the weakest out of all of the big 3.
 
Last edited:
Clay lover said:
Never said they were the ones. Just said they are the first ones to at least be able to overpower the previous gens with their shot making to win slams. Doesn't mean I'm implying they're ever at the big three's level.
Click to expand...
No, both jannik sinner and carlos alcaraz look better than they truly are because both jannik sinner and carlos alcaraz have completely broken the mathematical line of succession with their completely eternal losing head-to-heads against rafael nadal.

The "next-gen" like daniil medvedev, stefanos tsitsipas, dominic thiem, and alexander zverev all had to compete against all of the big 3 when they were closer to their prime whereas both jannik sinner and carlos alcaraz never ever had to compete with all of the big 3 closer to their prime so thus jannik sinner and carlos alcaraz appear to be better than they truly are.
 
Last edited:
Tennis Devolution said:
No, both jannik sinner and carlos alcaraz look better than they truly are because both jannik sinner and carlos alcaraz have completely broken the mathematical line of succession with their completely eternal losing head-to-heads with rafael nadal.

The "next-gen" like daniil medvedev, stefanos tsitsipas, dominic thiem, and alexander zverev all had to compete against all of the big 3 when they were closer to their prime whereas both jannik sinner and carlos alcaraz never ever had to compete with all of the big 3 closer to their prime so thus jannik sinner and carlos alcaraz appear to be better than they truly are.
Click to expand...
Yes. And there’s the fact that neither Carlos nor Sinner has a winning H2H versus Zverev. And beating Zverev in a slam final (which narrowed their H2Hs) gets asterisked, otherwise we would consider Thiem a full-fledged slam winner.
 
clayqueen said:
Zverev came on the scene in 2013 at age 16, proclaimed as the future #1. He'll be 28 in just over a week and he's made 3 slam finals and yet to win one.

I remember how tennis commentators downplayed Rafa's threat to Federer because they were happy as Federer was already established as box office and they didn't want anyone to challenge him. Fast-forward twenty years, when they are left with a gaping hole with the retirement of Federer and Nadal and they are manufacturing a Big 3 with players who are yet to prove themselves.
Click to expand...
Only the TRUE tennis great can ever stop the devolution of tennis.
 
travlerajm said:
Yes. And there’s the fact that neither Carlos nor Sinner has a winning H2H versus Zverev. And beating Zverev in a slam final (which narrowed their H2Hs) gets asterisked, otherwise we would consider Thiem a full-fledged slam winner.
Click to expand...
Yup, the completely undeniable truth is that both jannik sinner and carlos alcaraz truly are at the level of a prime dominic thiem and essentially represent what dominic thiem who is not a true all-time great at all would do in the absence of the big 3 in their prime.
 
Last edited:
Genuine question, when did these guys actually hit their peak?

Like, what was their "dominant period" where they were playing at their highest level?
 
The guys couldn’t deal with the aura of Djokovic and Nadal in many of the Slam finals they played when they were young. Now they are themselves older and they are dealing with young stars like Alcaraz and Sinner who are better than these guys ever were.

Medvedev and Zverev play too passively and this kind of player is rarely able to play well in Bestof5 Slam finals as they don’t take the initiative when they are close to winning. Tsitsipas has a big liability with his BH and in general he has less compact strokes that are not good for playing defense on most surfaces except slow clay.

I can’t point to any of them and say they improved their technique a lot during their career which is different than other ATGs who win multiple Slams. Sooner or later, the locker room develops a good gameplan to beat your static game preying on your weaknesses. Everyone targets the Tsitsipas BH including when they serve. Now players are using variety and slice to prevent Zverev/Medvedev from using their opponent’s pace to counterpunch, bringing them to net or coming to net which is all proving to be highly effective. These are all classic tactics against ‘pushers’ at all levels and that tells you that these two players prefer to play that reactive style at the highest ATP level and it is not conducive to winning Slams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
nolefam_2024 said:
Medvedev 2019 to 2024 I would say. 6 years

6 finals
1 slam
1 atp finals
6 masters

This is better than most 1 time slam winners
Click to expand...
Medvedev from the 2019 Canada Open to Wimbledon 2024, or if we want to summarize better, from the 2019 US Open to the 2024 Australian Open.

Tsitsipas from the 2019 Australian Open to the 2023 Australian Open.

Zverev, on the other hand, has always maintained a constant pace since 2017 except for the first part of the 2023 season where he was still recovering.
However, Zverev's best period goes from 2021 which still represents his best season until Roland Garros 2022, a tournament when he had the injury and was perhaps expressing his best tennis within a slam.
And between the 2024 Australian Open and the 2025 Australian Open he had his second highest peak.
 
socallefty said:
The guys couldn’t deal with the aura of Djokovic and Nadal in many of the Slam finals they played when they were young. Now they are themselves older and they are dealing with young stars like Alcaraz and Sinner who are better than these guys ever were.

Medvedev and Zverev play too passively and this kind of player is rarely able to play well in Bestof5 Slam finals as they don’t take the initiative when they are close to winning. Tsitsipas has a big liability with his BH and in general he has less compact strokes that are not good for playing defense on most surfaces except slow clay.

I can’t point to any of them and say they improved their technique a lot during their career which is different than other ATGs who win multiple Slams. Sooner or later, the locker room develops a good gameplan to beat your static game preying on your weaknesses. Everyone targets the Tsitsipas BH including when they serve. Now players are using variety and slice to prevent Zverev/Medvedev from using their opponent’s pace to counterpunch, bringing them to net or coming to net which is all proving to be highly effective. These are all classic tactics against ‘pushers’ at all levels and that tells you that these two players prefer to play that reactive style at the highest ATP level and it is not conducive to winning Slams.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by just aura.


It's not like Djokovic and Nadal stopped performing at highest level when they beat these guys. They added more to the game by serving better, coming to the net more and getting their weaknesses worked upon. For example Nadal with his backhand and Djokovic with his variety.

It's simple. Everyone gets what they deserve. These guys didn't deserve to win slams just like Tsonga Berdych Ferrer even Cilic barely went through big 3 in slams. He has what 2 wins vs then in bo5? One of them being in retirement no less.
 
Clay lover said:
With the exception of Medvedev on hard and only on hard, I truly think the next gen have even less of an excuse than the lost gen - they face an older version of the big three and still failed to capitalize, are probably even less consistent slam to slam because of their greater weaknesses and started to lose to their newer gen successors right off the bat when they were the ones with the greater experience.

Call me coloured by nostalgia but there didn't seem to be someone who can play lights-out, aggressive tennis and just downright overpower the top players anymore before Sincaraz arrived. Sure Fedalovic's contemporaries like Nalbandian, Safin, Soderling, Berdych and later Wawrinka have their own weaknesses and might be less consistent than the next gen top players day-to-day, but they all have that extra gear where they are capable of being aggressive, are much more balanced off both wings and can just blow the opponent off the court. This is something Zverev, Tsits and Med can't really attain - they might serve faster or move better but they just don't have that overpowering ground game once the ball gets in play, limited by technical weaknesses off one wing or their own passivity.
Click to expand...
The guys you mentioned nalbandian soderling berdych have not provided extra gear or anything. They are as much a failure as zverev and tsitsipas.

Safin is not even available to play 99 % of the time. So he isn't a big factor in big 3 conversation. He was interrupted by his own lack of passion and injuries.

Yes next gen suffered but not as much as lost gen who were much worse.

What extra gear did these guys had? Nothin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Poll Poll
Who among the little/next 3 will land up with more Slams?
Replies
15
Views
484
DSH
DSH
travlerajm
The competition is fading away just as…
Replies
32
Views
557
SneederFeeder
SneederFeeder
Third Serve
So are we just going to skip over an entire decade of tennis players here?
Replies
22
Views
744
Razer
Razer
socallefty
Sad to see the end of Alcaraz the showman!
Replies
25
Views
657
ghostofMecir
ghostofMecir
abmk
2nd tier players of fed/nadal generations vs 1st tier player of the 89-99 born generations
Replies
26
Views
1K
abmk
abmk
Back
Top