messiahrobins
Legend
Do you always get what you wished for ?Hopefully Novak is out by R3
The Sad Decline of the Little 3
- Thread starter travlerajm
- Start date
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Nope
Tennis Devolution
Professional
GOOD.
GuyForget
Semi-Pro
and why do they all have much longer wiki pages than Monica Seles (9 time slam winner)?
abmk
Bionic Poster
wrong. 2003 was good. 2004, 05, 07 strong. only 06 was relatively weak.
federer had it the toughest, then nadal, djokovic had it the easiest.
with djokovic and nadal vulturing many slams each.
ChrisJR3264
Hall of Fame
Medvedev needs a new coach. Period.
He still covers the court well and can break into serves but on shots where he has the opportunity to attack, he doesn’t. And opponents in the top 20 plus upcoming talented players are being more patient against him for when he hangs a ball at the service line.
You can say “serve wide and volley” but we all know that’s easier said and done and normally executed to perfection by top tier players. Bc that ball is coming in fast, flat and low: so the volley is not going to be easy based on how low and flat med hits the return.
Thing is opponents know meds not attacking their shots so they have more margin to get into neutral rallies and one angle to take him off the court - med is on skates.
On serve: this used to be a strength of his. Jim courier said it best. Med doesn’t seem to drive with his lower half compared to other big servers that happen to be 2-6 inches shorter. Med should dominate more off his serve yet doesn’t. He misses more first serves than a 6’6-7 tall player should.
He still covers the court well and can break into serves but on shots where he has the opportunity to attack, he doesn’t. And opponents in the top 20 plus upcoming talented players are being more patient against him for when he hangs a ball at the service line.
You can say “serve wide and volley” but we all know that’s easier said and done and normally executed to perfection by top tier players. Bc that ball is coming in fast, flat and low: so the volley is not going to be easy based on how low and flat med hits the return.
Thing is opponents know meds not attacking their shots so they have more margin to get into neutral rallies and one angle to take him off the court - med is on skates.
On serve: this used to be a strength of his. Jim courier said it best. Med doesn’t seem to drive with his lower half compared to other big servers that happen to be 2-6 inches shorter. Med should dominate more off his serve yet doesn’t. He misses more first serves than a 6’6-7 tall player should.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I'd say it was better than 2002 because at least the right players were winning the slams.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Wimbledon 2001 was certainly better than Wim 03, no question. But why not have a look at say AO 03 vs AO 01?
AO 03 was certainly better with alltimer b/w roddick-el ayanoui, 5-setter b/w fed-nalby, hewitt-el ayanoui tight 4-setter etc.
03 had all winners playing at a high level unlike 02 (AO/FO winners weren't particularly high level, especially AO)
also 03 had a 3-way for 4-way contest for number with good tennis from all - Roddick, Fed, Ferrero, Agassi.
with Nalbandian, Coria, runs from Verkerk, Scud etc.
yeah, you can call 2003 as little better than decent rather than good. But it was certainly clearly better than 2002.
Dane_is_Finnish_OJ
Hall of Fame
I seldom agree with you, but this is spot on. Berdych is often extremely overrated on this board.
Tennis Devolution
Professional
Wrong again, roger federer is the only one out of the big 3 who had a good chunk of his career without the existence of his true all-time great rivals of both rafael nadal and novak djokovic on the professional tennis tour so thus novak djokovic had it the toughest with rafael nadal having it the next toughest and roger federer having it the easiest by far obviously as completely expected which is a mathematical objective fact that you and anyone else cannot ever do a single thing about ever.
Last edited:
Good chunk of his career? You mean 2004-FO2005?
Tennis Devolution
Professional
Wrong, I mean from 1998 when roger federer first turned professional to all the way to 2005.
Ok sorry, he got the three years from 1998 to 2001 then, when Rafa turned pro. Just didnt know 1998-2001 was the deciding part of Rogers career...
Tennis Devolution
Professional
Wrong again, novak djokovic did not turn professional until 2003 and it is simply only roger federer's problem that roger federer completely failed to take advantage of all the time that roger federer had when his greatest rivals of novak djokovic and rafael nadal were not even on the professional tour.
Well thats kinda paradoxal, as Djokovic was the latest bloomer of them all. Youre blaming Roger for not winning more before he turned 22, when Djokovic only won one slam before he was something like 23.5? Besides, Djoker had more than a fair share of slams without Fedal on top sinse 2012.
Tennis Devolution
Professional
Wrong again, I am simply stating the irrefutable and indisputable fact that roger federer had the easiest competition ever out of all of the big 3 because roger federer spent at the very least a half a decade on the professional tour without the existence of both of his greatest rivals of rafael nadal and novak djokovic.
Ok, so by that logic every tennis player in history who played before Djokodal entered the scene, had it easy?
And we are counting pro years were players were far from slam winning form, even outside top100?
Tennis Devolution
Professional
On an absolute level, novak djokovic and rafael nadal are the greatest players in tennis ever so every tennis player before novak djokovic and rafael nadal arrived technically had "easier" competition but that is simply due to the progressive evolution of tennis.
Shame on every tennis player who ever played before 2011 then, for not winning more than they did...
Tennis Devolution
Professional
Wrong, the greatness of a player can be measured on an absolute and relative level. On an absolute level, novak djokovic would triple bagel bjorn borg at the australian open and on an absolute level, rafael nadal would most definitely triple bagel john mcenroe at roland garros but that is simply due to the progressive evolution of tennis which means that the competitive level of tennis continually grows stronger under the right conditions with novak djokovic and rafael nadal being the manifestation of the highest level of tennis ever.
Now, on a relative level, even though both john mcenroe and bjorn borg would get absolutely demolished by both novak djokovic and rafael nadal on an absolute level that still does not change the fact that both john mcenroe and bjorn borg are one of the greatest players ever on a relative level because both john mcenroe and bjorn borg achieved a lot relative to the the competition that they had faced in their respective eras.
Maybe youre just trolling, but its at least a bit unusal to count years from when players turn pro. Players peak at different times, Nadal & Carlo were early bloomers, Federer & even more Djokovic, were later bloomers. Ofc Federer would probably have profited on being an early bloomer, but it is what it is. Rogers tragedy was running into the impossible Nadal all those FOs (goes for Djoker too], and running into peak-Djokovic from 2014, when he would still rack up slams vs almost any other player. Rogers career was great from 2003-2012, he wasnt rewarded for playing at a very high level in his thirties because of Djokovic. Except from maybe Nadal on clay, Djokovic timing was perfect.
Last edited:
Tennis Devolution
Professional
Wrong yet again, my point which you are completely incapable of countering with your completely argumentless trolling responses completely filled with completely argumentless nonstop excuses is that roger federer alone out of all of the big 3 had at the very least a half a decade of roger federer's career spent without both of roger federer's greatest true all-time great rivals of novak djokovic and rafael nadal which roger federer completely lacked the talent to take advantage of.
Last edited:
NYTennisfan
Hall of Fame
I wish I could thumbs down a post.
Well i dont see how you dont get this...
It doesnt help that you play without Djokodal, if its at a point in your career where you arent in slam-winning form anyway. Which players are in slam winning form the minute they turn pro? Its ridiculous to say 17y Roger was lucky that Djokodal wasnt around in 1998, he didnt get past R1 before year 2000. The usual definition of "prime" on this forum is when you win your first slam. Roger did it late 2003, Rafa FO 2005. So Roger got a little under 2 years in slam winning form, before Rafa entered the scene. Its safe to say Djokovic got his fair share of slams without prime Fedal post 2012 also.
But Roger was a late bloomer unfortunately, i agree with you on that. If he could have hit his prime at around 20 instead, he sure could have profited on that from 2000-2003
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Which part do you disagree with?
Tennis Devolution
Professional
Wrong yet again, you do not understand at all what I am trying to tell you because what I am trying to tell you is that the fact that roger federer was a "late bloomer" who completely lacked the talent to take advantage of the weakest era lasting at the very least a half a decade without the existence of his greatest true all-time great rivals of both rafael nadal and novak djokovic on the professional tour mathematically and objectively means that roger federer was and is truly a completely inferior player to both rafael nadal and novak djokovic which is an irrefutable and indisputable fact that no matter how much you and anyone else completely argumentlessly cry, moan, and whine, you and anyone else cannot ever do a single thing about.
Similar threads
