The Tsitsipas-Murray match suggests that...

[NedStark]

An inform 2008-2010 Murray would have smacked down Tsitsipas in straight.

It says a lot about post-2016 tennis quality.

 

[Aabye5]

An inform 2008-2010 Murray would have smacked down Tsitsipas in straight.

It says a lot about post-2016 tennis quality.

Let's be honest, 2016 Murray would have taken Tsitsipas in straights probably, like he took down Zverev in straights at the AO that year.

 

[Nostradamus]

An inform 2008-2010 Murray would have smacked down Tsitsipas in straight.

It says a lot about post-2016 tennis quality.

We all know that but this isn't 2016,, is it ?? if it was 2016, Federer may win 10 more majors, and RAFA would have destroyed novak at the french open again..... so on and so on

 

[Deleted member 748597]

This Murray's level was impressive. That's why it went to 5.

 

[SinneGOAT]

So happy Murray is gone

 

[WildRevolver]

We all know that but this isn't 2016,, is it ?? if it was 2016, Federer may win 10 more majors, and RAFA would have destroyed novak at the french open again..... so on and so on

Actually, if it was 2016, Rafa is probably going to lose. Bad, bad times for the VB. Thank goodness for the Bull’s resurgence.

 

[ibbi]

While I don't entirely disagree with you, it was just one match. It's not like this is the first time that something like this has happened - Hewitt (who had BOTH his hips done) did Del Potro (coming off a stone cold classic in the Wimbledon semi final as opposed to a first round exit, and semi final in Cincinnati) in similar fashion here in 2013. Delpo part of that golden generation, and Hewitt part of the so called weak era. Nobody drew conclusions based on the one match then either.

 

[jga111]

It show's how far away Murray is from Djokovic or any of the Big 3

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

Peak Tsitsipas (from what we saw from him
so far) vs peak Murray would only be a close and interesting match on clay.
Tsitsipas got destroyed in straights by a really good Medvedev at the AO this year, so of course on HC he would have 0 chances vs peak Andy.

 

[skip1969]

I will never understand these 'peak 2010 Player A' would have crushed 'peak 2021 Player B' threads. Who cares?

Even f^ckin' Murray himself isn't thinking about 2008-10 Murray. He's a different person/player now.

 

[NatF]

While I don't entirely disagree with you, it was just one match. It's not like this is the first time that something like this has happened - Hewitt (who had BOTH his hips done) did Del Potro (coming off a stone cold classic in the Wimbledon semi final as opposed to a first round exit, and semi final in Cincinnati) in similar fashion here in 2013. Delpo part of that golden generation, and Hewitt part of the so called weak era. Nobody drew conclusions based on the one match then either.

I did. Hewitt >> Del Potro

 

[Kralingen]

It actually suggested to me that older ATGs have an ADVANTAGE mentally and tactically over young ATGs and that Federer should be ashamed for not beating the inexperienced Djokodal more than he did.

 

[Lleytonstation]

We all know that but this isn't 2016,, is it ?? if it was 2016, Federer may win 10 more majors, and RAFA would have destroyed novak at the french open again..... so on and so on

I will never understand these 'peak 2010 Player A' would have crushed 'peak 2021 Player B' threads. Who cares?

Even f^ckin' Murray himself isn't thinking about 2008-10 Murray. He's a different person/player now.

But it is a good direct comparison that shows there is a massive difference in level from these top players to those a decade ago.

 

[Lleytonstation]

It actually suggested to me that older ATGs have an ADVANTAGE mentally and tactically over young ATGs and that Federer should be ashamed for not beating the inexperienced Djokodal more than he did.

Murray lost due to mental weakness...

 

[mike danny]

It actually suggested to me that older ATGs have an ADVANTAGE mentally and tactically over young ATGs and that Federer should be ashamed for not beating the inexperienced Djokodal more than he did.

Hope this is sarcasm.

 

[Kralingen]

Murray lost due to mental weakness...

I was talking about ATGs specifically. Don't see why you brought up Murray.

 

[Lleytonstation]

I was talking about ATGs specifically. Don't see why you brought up Murray.

True, the ATG status is still out for debate. Must check out the ATG Murray thread to see where we are at on that front. @Nole Slam

 

[Tennisfan339]

Tsitsipas is in poor form since RG to be honest. The guy lost to Krajinovic, Opelka, Tiafoe and Humbert. Last week he dropped sets to Korda, Sonego, Auger-Aliassime... This isn't like Murray almost beat the peak Tstisipas. Now I am doubting Tsitsipas will even be in semi. Sure, there is a good chance peak Murray from 2008-2016 would win this match, but this Tsitsipas's current level is hardly worthy of a top10. His Australian Open or WTaf level was much better.

 

[Kralingen]

Hope this is sarcasm.

In truth it’s sh-tposting lol mainly because Stefanos is not an ATG.

My true feelings on the matter: it's hard not to feel a little sympathy for 22-24 year olds who go up against aged but not finished veterans, because they know exactly how to exploit weaknesses and come with such an edge in experience. The young player should always win but the older guy has advantages that go a little under-discussed. It's not as simple as just saying 'if old x almost beat young y, imagine peak x vs young y'. a lot of times the peak versions of players would have approached the match differently.

But yeah in this case we don't need Murray to tell us Stef sucks on even slightly faster courts. Frances Tiafoe proved that point eloquently at Wimbledon.

 

[mike danny]

In truth it’s sh-tposting lol mainly because Stefanos is not an ATG.

My true feelings on the matter: it's hard not to feel a little sympathy for 22-24 year olds who go up against aged but not finished veterans, because they know exactly how to exploit weaknesses and come with such an edge in experience. The young player should always win but the older guy has advantages that go a little under-discussed. It's not as simple as just saying 'if old x almost beat young y, imagine peak x vs young y'. a lot of times the peak versions of players would have approached the match differently.

But yeah in this case we don't need Murray to tell us Stef sucks on even slightly faster courts. Frances Tiafoe proved that point eloquently at Wimbledon.

The experience helps the Big 3 because the young guys suck. Fed's experience mattered very little against younger Djokodal.

Don't feel any sympathy for them since they were lucky enough to dodge the prime versions of the Big 3.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

True, the ATG status is still out for debate. Must check out the ATG Murray thread to see where we are at on that front. @Nole Slam

No need for that. Murray failed to become an ATG yesterday.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

In truth it’s sh-tposting lol mainly because Stefanos is not an ATG.

My true feelings on the matter: it's hard not to feel a little sympathy for 22-24 year olds who go up against aged but not finished veterans, because they know exactly how to exploit weaknesses and come with such an edge in experience. The young player should always win but the older guy has advantages that go a little under-discussed. It's not as simple as just saying 'if old x almost beat young y, imagine peak x vs young y'. a lot of times the peak versions of players would have approached the match differently.

But yeah in this case we don't need Murray to tell us Stef sucks on even slightly faster courts. Frances Tiafoe proved that point eloquently at Wimbledon.

This is what TTW doesn't understand.

 

[Lleytonstation]

No need for that. Murray failed to become an ATG yesterday.

Have to agree here. If you cant beat Tistsisapassy then you are not ATG material.

 

[NatF]

In truth it’s sh-tposting lol mainly because Stefanos is not an ATG.

My true feelings on the matter: it's hard not to feel a little sympathy for 22-24 year olds who go up against aged but not finished veterans, because they know exactly how to exploit weaknesses and come with such an edge in experience. The young player should always win but the older guy has advantages that go a little under-discussed. It's not as simple as just saying 'if old x almost beat young y, imagine peak x vs young y'. a lot of times the peak versions of players would have approached the match differently.

But yeah in this case we don't need Murray to tell us Stef sucks on even slightly faster courts. Frances Tiafoe proved that point eloquently at Wimbledon.

Indeed, peak versions wouldn't need to dig into their bag of tricks to be competitive they'd just just win on pure tennis ability

 

[Kralingen]

The experience helps the Big 3 because the young guys suck. Fed's experience mattered very little against younger Djokodal.

Don't feel any sympathy for them since they were lucky enough to dodge the prime versions of the Big 3.

yeah the Fed thing was bait. Let's be clear about it: not only was Federer playing 2 genuine GOAT-level players, which is enough of a challenge, he was playing two of the most physically dominant primes ever as well. Nadal probably the most physically imposing player in recent memory, Djokovic's insane stamina/flexibility/speed giving him such absurd shot tolerance. These guys leaned on their physical advantage to incredible effect which amplified the age difference. The NextGen -- not so much.

What's the point of Medvedev's incredible court coverage and defensive play if he still has less rally tolerance than 34-year-old oblique tear-ovic? Or Tsitsipas' big serve and athleticism if he returns like Karlovic? It's not really comparable. Zverev at least leans on his power but has of course the mental limitations.

Indeed, peak versions wouldn't need to dig into their bag of tricks to be competitive they'd just just win on pure tennis ability

lol in some cases yes. the example I thought of is 2012/13 Djokovic's serve on clay was not what I'd call pinpoint, in fact I'd argue Tsitsipas would get more returns in play vs. a '12-13 Djokovic than the '21 version. However once the ball got back in play, there would be only one winner. Let's not even go into what peak Nadal or even Federer would do to the guy as they are even worse matchups.

 

[NatF]

yeah the Fed thing was bait. Let's be clear about it: not only was Federer playing 2 genuine GOAT-level players, which is enough of a challenge, he was playing two of the most physically dominant primes ever as well. Nadal probably the most physically imposing player in recent memory, Djokovic's insane stamina/flexibility/speed giving him such absurd shot tolerance. These guys leaned on their physical advantage to incredible effect which amplified the age difference. The NextGen -- not so much.

What's the point of Medvedev's incredible court coverage and defensive play if he still has less rally tolerance than 34-year-old oblique tear-ovic? Or Tsitsipas' big serve and athleticism if he returns like Karlovic? It's not really comparable. Zverev at least leans on his power but has of course the mental limitations.


lol in some cases yes. the example I thought of is 2012/13 Djokovic's serve on clay was not what I'd call pinpoint, in fact I'd argue Tsitsipas would get more returns in play vs. a '12-13 Djokovic than the '21 version. However once the ball got back in play, there would be only one winner. Let's not even go into what peak Nadal or even Federer would do to the guy as they are even worse matchups.

Yeah the #NextGen have really big holes in their game (and their heads) and their strengths aren't pronounced enough to cover these weaknesses. They basically need to redline to beat heavily declined versions of Djokodal.

Peak Nadal agaisnt Tsitsipas would be ugly af with his OHB and sheet return lol.

" I serve to his backhand no?"

 

[Visionary]

An inform 2008-2010 Murray would have smacked down Tsitsipas in straight.

It says a lot about post-2016 tennis quality.

How many balls did Andy just need to win in straight sets against Tsitsi yesterday? Let's face it! He was very close but old and hurt. He's got a right to be. He has earned it.

 

[Deleted member 771911]

tennis might have 2 very unpopular top players once the big 3 are gone. The days of cute and cuddly are long gone.

 

[ChaelAZ]

The Tsitsipas-Murray match suggests that...

in 2021, Andy lost and will never compete for a title again.

 

[Sudacafan]

An inform 2008-2010 Murray would have smacked down Tsitsipas in straight.

It says a lot about post-2016 tennis quality.

And without any bathroom breaks?

 

[topher]

While I don't entirely disagree with you, it was just one match. It's not like this is the first time that something like this has happened - Hewitt (who had BOTH his hips done) did Del Potro (coming off a stone cold classic in the Wimbledon semi final as opposed to a first round exit, and semi final in Cincinnati) in similar fashion here in 2013. Delpo part of that golden generation, and Hewitt part of the so called weak era. Nobody drew conclusions based on the one match then either.

The difference being Del Potro was more of a lovable dark horse in the “golden generation”. Tsitsipas is supposed to be one of the standard bearers of tennis after the Big 3 era is over, not a dark horse.

Hewitt himself was a bit of a standard bearer in that short early 2000s era, he was a former #1 to DelPo’s topping out at #4 in the “golden era”. People might call early 2000s a bit weak because Hewitt made it to #1, when they don’t think he would’ve if born 5 years later. Upsetting DelPo says nothing about that.

 

[OhYes]

An inform 2008-2010 Murray would have smacked down Tsitsipas in straight.

It says a lot about post-2016 tennis quality.

It says only that you are jelly

 

[GabeT]

In the 2016 AO, in the middle of the possibly the most dominating 12 months of tennis ever, Novak was taken to 5 sets by Gilles Simon. In the end it meant absolutely squat.

All these hypothetical analyses (player X had trouble with player Y, who used to be much better, so that means I can reach conclusions on Player X’s level) is a waste of time.

and Tsitsipas has never been good at the USO so there was not much reason to think he could have won easily.

 

[BGod]

Dirt generation incoming.

Shapovalov alone is the only hope.

 

[Milanez82]

Del Potro went from getting a double bagel by Federer at AO to beating him in a USO slam final in the same year

So no, one match isn't indicative of anything except that Murray played well and Stefanos below his level overall.

 

[Lleytonstation]

In the 2016 AO, in the middle of the possibly the most dominating 12 months of tennis ever, Novak was taken to 5 sets by Gilles Simon. In the end it meant absolutely squat.

All these hypothetical analyses (player X had trouble with player Y, who used to be much better, so that means I can reach conclusions on Player X’s level) is a waste of time.

and Tsitsipas has never been good at the USO so there was not much reason to think he could have won easily.

Not good on grass, not good on hard... he is a clay court specialist?

 

[T007]

This Murray's level was impressive. That's why it went to 5.

Not only impressive but he could have won it in 3... had he didn't waste his chances in the 2nd set tie breaker.

 

[mike danny]

The difference being Del Potro was more of a lovable dark horse in the “golden generation”. Tsitsipas is supposed to be one of the standard bearers of tennis after the Big 3 era is over, not a dark horse.

Hewitt himself was a bit of a standard bearer in that short early 2000s era, he was a former #1 to DelPo’s topping out at #4 in the “golden era”. People might call early 2000s a bit weak because Hewitt made it to #1, when they don’t think he would’ve if born 5 years later. Upsetting DelPo says nothing about that.

Well I certainly don't see Delpo reaching no.1 in any era, including early 2000's.

Hewitt is the youngest no.1 in history. He deserves credit for that as not many guys would be as mentally tough as him at 20.

 

[big ted]

we all know these new players are all mugs
except medvedev who is half mug/half real player

 

[tex123]

An inform 2008-2010 Murray would have smacked down Tsitsipas in straight.

It says a lot about post-2016 tennis quality.

Excuse me? May be you should go back and watch again. Even a peak Murray wasn't that aggressive as he was in the first 3 sets. Murray plays passive. That's his style.

That's the best I've seen him play in a long long time esp. the first 3 sets. He was bombing serves matching Tsitsipas and going for winners. He clearly came with an intent and nearly pulled it off. That's not just my opinion. The commentators on Prime were saying something similar.

 

[PilotPete]

Weeeeeeak, oh so very weak.