Thiem now 15-18 against the Big Three

Krish872007

G.O.A.T.
Funny, he still lost the only match that matters.
That's his "room for improvement" - but that's not the main point I'm making.
The main point is the 2nd half - if he's able to play at such a high level, he should try to do it more often and set up the opportunities by not losing to other people.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I was thinking more of a wider prime like the 2nd one but I still rate 2008 as the best RG for Rafa. 2014 was not on CC but RG was a high level he really raised his game at that event.

07/08/10/12 are considered peak as we know.
yeah, Nadal played excellent from 3rd/4th sets vs ferrer, the murray match and from like closing stages of 2nd set to end of RG 14 final.
 
He's 6 years younger than Djokovic, 7 years younger than Nadal, and 12 years younger than Federer.

He's also 3 years older than Med, 4 years older than Zverev, 5 years older than Stefanos and 6 years older than Shapo.

All of his main peers are members of the "lost gen."

At 27 years of age, no player on tour has a BIGGER age advantage than Thiem does right now (at least among those in the top 10). He's significantly younger than the big 3, but is much better than anyone in his age group, and for now, is more experienced/developed than the actual next gen. If he's not winning all the big events right now, he never will, so he better take advantage of the time he has now.
Who Cares? Nobody is saying that he is as good as peak big 3 but there have been dozens of guys having an age advantage over the big3 in the last 5 years and still very few of them won against them.
 

Xemi666

Professional
Doing not so bad (outside slams) against a bunch of old dudes, and getting the sh*t beat out of him in slams, how impressive. At least the likes of Hewitt and Safin beat old man Sampras when they met him in slams.
 
Stop hyping every opponent Nadal faces. Nadal was playing bad, but lucky to him Zverev and Thiem lost. They both own him for a while now, and I will not believe he can beat them until I actually see it happen. Nadal had every chance today, but he just kept losing ALL THE BIG POINTS. Thiem is mentally stronger than him right now.
Where were you in RG2019, USO 2018, RG2018, ROME2018, MC2018?? It was all happening right in front of my eyes
 

RS

Legend
yeah, Nadal played excellent from 3rd/4th sets vs ferrer, the murray match and from like closing stages of 2nd set to end of RG 14 final.
Ferrer and Djokovic really started off quite well for the first 2 sets of both matches. Rafa could have ended up 2 sets down easily if he had lost focus.....
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
That sounds like a long list of excuses to me :whistle:

Bottom line, Joker finished YE#1 2/3 years and managed to win only 3 schlems in that time period. People were starting to call him Lendl 2.0.
StrongRule is actually right though that the main reason for his record after 2014 is the total collapse of his comp while Djokovic maintained his health to a much better standard, and had the luxury of no one of even remotely comparable quality coming up after him.

Thiem is the best of the rest right now but that speaks volumes about the fields weakness since he has one slam and it was the Covid open in NY with freak Nole DQ
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
SR is actually right about the Zverev problem for Nadal as well. Due to height, solid 2HBH, strong return, and tendency to go off on runs with improbably high % first serves in on occasion, Z strengths match up perfectly with Nadal’s weaknesses. Z would be the ascendant future of tennis if he wasn’t also a clown mentally and personally
 

guitarra

Professional
Thiem is 12 year younger than Fed, 7 years younger than Rafa and 6 years younger than Djoker. All of those guys are in their mid to late 30's. Thiem should be beating them like a drum whenever he plays any of them, regardless of surface.

Edit: Oops! Now see Clout's basically identical post previously.
What do you mean should be beating them like a drum? They are not some punching bag mugs but arguably the 3 best players ever...
 

bobleenov1963

Professional
He beat Djoker in 2019 and Nadal in 2020 in slams. I dont think i would say that he is underachiving anymore.
That does not count. He has to beat either Djoker/Nadal, Djoker/Federer, Federer/Nadal, in the same grand slam tournament and wins the title. Beating one of the big-3 in the grand slam and than losing to another big-3 in the same event does not count.

Wawrinka beat Djoker/Nadal at the 2014 on his way to the AO trophy. In 2015, he beat Fed/Djoker on his way to the FO trophy.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
He Can't beat them if they don't reach him often.
Rafa played zverev Just 2 times after 2018, both in Zverev's most favourite and Rafa's worst conditions. And only twice against thiem since 2019. Again, in unfavorable conditions for nadal.
Stop making the conditions excuses. Nadal didn't lose because of bad conditions today. He lost because he was awful on big points. How would it be different on clay? H would suddenly be clutch on big points there because of difference in surface? Of course not.
 

RS

Legend
That does not count. He has to beat either Djoker/Nadal, Djoker/Federer, Federer/Nadal, in the same grand slam tournament and wins the title. Beating one of the big-3 in the grand slam and than losing to another big-3 in the same event does not count.

Wawrinka beat Djoker/Nadal at the 2014 on his way to the AO trophy. In 2015, he beat Fed/Djoker on his way to the FO trophy.
If you are talking that standard then fair enough.
 
Stop making the conditions excuses. Nadal didn't lose because of bad conditions today. He lost because he was awful on big points. How would it be different on clay? H would suddenly be clutch on big points there because of difference in surface? Of course not.
There are many differences clay would have made, but I'd State just the one.
He would bring a lot more balls back into play and suffocate thiem.
 

Mike Sams

G.O.A.T.
Of course it's not old when your best competition is Thiem, as good as he is.
Good point. The top guys have been fortunate with the lack of strong competition.
Djokovic and Nadal are no where near as energetic and as durable as they were some years ago. If Nadal today tried to play the insane schedule that he did in 2013, he would be ready for the grave before he even got a 1/3 of the way through. No doubt that the top guys are feeling it in their bones at their age. Their drive and will to win is carrying them through. It's really high time that the Fearsome Four make inroads in the Slams and Masters. It's been disappointing seeing the lack of resistance from the young gen.
 

Mike Sams

G.O.A.T.
Nadal should've won the first set. No doubt.
I wonder if he's going to start considering some S&V on big points.
Might be time to risk it.
Maybe a few underhand serves.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
There are many differences clay would have made, but I'd State just the one.
He would bring a lot more balls back into play and suffocate thiem.
He brought back enough balls today. He wasn't worse by the level of play, he was just worse MENTALLY. He can't win any big points. And on clay Thiem is an even better player than on hard, so Nadal would choke even harder against him.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
So you're saying Nadal played like an old fart in that final? Even by Jimmy McGill's standards it's ********.
No, I'm saying Djokovic played horrible, so I don't understand you using the FO final as a point of reference.

2008 Nadal was much better than 2020 Nadal, so no 2020 Nadal is not better than ever.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Yea they were failing against him because most of them weren't that great. You spend a lot of time tearing down these current players though and not the ones back then. Why is that?

You don't get it. If Thiem only had to beat Nadal at AO, he would be AO champ right now. If he only had to beat Djokovic at RG, he would have 2 RG titles. If Anderson only had to beat Federer at Wimbledon, he would have a title. Same for Berdych at Wimbledon in 2010, and on and on. Besides, be careful what you wish for because Federer is not going to be as much of a problem for them next year since he's nearly 40. Now, they only have to beat two and maybe only 1 if an upset happens early in the draw.
Well, I am less forgiving for today's current crop because they aren't dealing with the Big 3 at their best. Hewitt/Roddick and co at least were dealing with a GOAT at his peak.

Thiem in particular is in his physical prime against the Big 3 past theirs. No one in the past had this advantage.

Djokovic was there for the taking at the AO this year, so I'm not excusing Thiem here. He wasn't up against Djokovic at his best.

If you think having just 2005 Federer would give Thiem a higher chance of winning, you're in for a disappointment.
 
Last edited:

bobleenov1963

Professional
Well, I am less forgiving for today's current crop because they aren't dealing with the Big 3 at their best. Hewitt/Roddick and co at least were dealing with a GOAT at his peak.

Thiem in particular is in his physical prime against the Big 3 past theirs. No one in the past had this advantage.

Djokovic was there for the taking at the AO this year, so I'm not excusing Thiem here. He wasn't up against Djokovic at his best.

If you think having just 2005 Federer would give Thiem a higher chance of winning, you're in for a disappointment.
Thiem is not that good of a player. In order to be the best, you have to beat the best and Thiem is not doing any of that.

Both Wawrinka and DelPo took out 2 of the Big 3 on their way to the title, Wawrinka at 2014 AO and 2015 USO, DelPo at 2009 USO. Thiem's game has a very low margin of error. Beat Djoker and lost to Nadal at 2019 FO, beat Nadal and lost to Djoker at 2020 AO. Thiem was at his prime but couldn't even beat grandpa Djoker.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Thiem is not that good of a player. In order to be the best, you have to beat the best and Thiem is not doing any of that.

Both Wawrinka and DelPo took out 2 of the Big 3 on their way to the title, Wawrinka at 2014 AO and 2015 USO, DelPo at 2009 USO. Thiem's game has a very low margin of error. Beat Djoker and lost to Nadal at 2019 FO, beat Nadal and lost to Djoker at 2020 AO. Thiem was at his prime but couldn't even beat grandpa Djoker.
Thiem is a very good player. Best player after Djokodal currently. Multi slam champ in the making.

I'm just not buying into the "Big 3 better than ever" extravaganza.
 

bobleenov1963

Professional
Thiem is a very good player. Best player after Djokodal currently. Multi slam champ in the making.

I'm just not buying into the "Big 3 better than ever" extravaganza.
Did you just pick that out of thin air? Here are the following FACTS:

Loss2018French OpenClay Rafael Nadal4–6, 3–6, 2–6
Loss2019French OpenClay Rafael Nadal3–6, 7–5, 1–6, 1–6
Loss2020Australian OpenHard Novak Djokovic4–6, 6–4, 6–2, 3–6, 4–6
Win2020US OpenHard Alexander Zverev2–6, 4–6, 6–4, 6–3, 7–6(8–6)

Beating the chump Zverev is laughable. Twice he got spanked by Nadal in FO finals, how embarrassing.
 

bobleenov1963

Professional
I would say better. Over the last two seasons he is 2-1 vs Nadal, 3-0 vs Federer and 2-2 vs Djokovic.

Aside from Nadal at RG, I'd struggle to favour any of the big three in a match against Thiem.
did he win any grand slam trophies against big 3? Beating the clown Zverev for the USO trophy does not count.
 

Cashman

Hall of Fame
did he win any grand slam trophies against big 3? Beating the clown Zverev for the USO trophy does not count.
The bottom line is that these days, Thiem beats all of the big 3 more often than not - and the matches he loses tend to be very tight. He has them figured out.

Unless it's Nadal at RG, I expect Thiem to be the bookies' favourite in his next match against the Big 3.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It's a trio not 1 guy like Sampras, which is the difference. Sampras always left clay on the table. Forget about that with Nadal around. Sampras left a little on the table at AO, and Agassi did as well since he skipped it for a while. Forget it with Djokovic and Federer around. With grass you have a point that they should be challenging more but it's not by chance that the USO is where guys like Stan, Murray, Del Potro, Cilic and Thiem had breakthroughs because the big 3 didn't block that one like they did the other 3. If they only had to beat 1 like in Sampras time, it would be much easier but it's not.
The Next Gen have had their open slams too, you know: USO 2017, AO 2018 and USO 2020. Where were they when it was time to take advantage?

I understand your point, but remember that even in the early 2000's Hewitt lost to Agassi and Sampras in USO semis, Safin lost to Sampras in a USO semi and Roddick lost to Fed in the 2003 Wimb SF.

I bet if the Next Gen had these losses, we would be saying poor Next Gen. But apparently it was an open period when it happened to Hewitt/Roddick/Safin.

I still don't think the Next Gen would take advantage of these openings anyway. Even beating early 2000's Sampras and early 2000's Agassi wasn't easy and they haven't shown they could have done it.

By the way, speaking solely about the Next Gen, not Thiem. I am giving him a bit more leeway.
 
Last edited:

bobleenov1963

Professional
The bottom line is that these days, Thiem beats all of the big 3 more often than not - and the matches he loses tend to be very tight. He has them figured out.

Unless it's Nadal at RG, I expect Thiem to be the bookies' favourite in his next match against the Big 3.
Well, as I already mentioned before, he has NEVER beat any of two of big 3 in the same grand slam tournament. Until he does that, he is just another player on tour. The statement "He has them figured out". He has "one of them figured out" in grand slam events, he does NOT have "all of them figured out". Does not matter if the matches are tight, Thiem still LOST.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
The Next Gen have had their open slams too, you know: USO 2017, AO 2018 and USO 2020. Where were they when it was time to take advantage?

I understand your point, but remember that even in the early 2000's Hewitt lost to Agassi and Sampras in USO semis, Safin lost to Sampras in a USO semi and Roddick lost to Fed in the 2003 Wimb SF.

I bet if the Next Gen had these losses, we would be saying poor Next Gen. But apparently it was an open period when it happened to Hewitt/Roddick/Safin.

I still don't think they would take advantage of these openings anyway.

By the way, speaking solely about the Next Gen, not Thiem. I am giving him a bit more leeway.
USO 2017? Come on. You know the field was not great and next gen was way too young there but Thiem fumbled badly against Del Potro. I will say that. He had no business losing that match. AO 2018...again the field was not great and I know you don't think next gen should be ready at 19~20 ish, and Thiem hadn't matured on hardcourt yet. At USO 2020 Medvedev just got thoroughly outplayed by Thiem who played a great match. Maybe you didn't see that one. The final was a terrible display of nerves from Zverev and Thiem so I will give you that.

Again yes, but they only had to really beat Sampras at the USO which is what Hewitt and Safin did to win their Slams. Roddick and Federer are the same generation so this is not on the same page.
 

Cashman

Hall of Fame
Well, as I already mentioned before, he has NEVER beat any of two of big 3 in the same grand slam tournament.
That doesn't really change the fact that none of the three really have an effective plan to beat Thiem any more.

When the big three step out on the court with Thiem now, all three of them know he is now the better player. Whether Thiem really knows it yet, is probably the major factor in whether he wins or loses.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
But when it comes to slam titles (which is what really matters) he is 20-20-17-1 v the big 3. Even adjusted for age, Federer and Nadal had won 13 slams each by age 27 and Djoker had won 7.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
USO 2017? Come on. You know the field was not great and next gen was way too young there but Thiem fumbled badly against Del Potro. I will say that. He had no business losing that match. AO 2018...again the field was not great and I know you don't think next gen should be ready at 19~20 ish, and Thiem hadn't matured on hardcourt yet. At USO 2020 Medvedev just got thoroughly outplayed by Thiem who played a great match. Maybe you didn't see that one. The final was a terrible display of nerves from Zverev and Thiem so I will give you that.

Again yes, but they only had to really beat Sampras at the USO which is what Hewitt and Safin did to win their Slams. Roddick and Federer are the same generation so this is not on the same page.
Well, Hewitt and Safin were 20 when they won their slams so that's why I picked those first 2. Zverev at 20 was world no.3 and a double masters champion so he wasn't some scrub. Given his pedigree, he should have contended for those.

I don't think the Next Gen would even beat Sampras at the USO.

And yes, I know Fed and Roddick are from the same gen, but Fed in 2003 started his glorious grass run so it was the beginning of him being a grass ATG at least.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Well, Hewitt and Safin were 20 when they won their slams so that's why I picked those first 2. Zverev at 20 was world no.3 and a double masters champion so he wasn't some scrub. Given his pedigree, he should have contended for those.

I don't think the Next Gen would even beat Sampras at the USO.

And yes, I know Fed and Roddick are from the same gen, but Fed in 2003 started his glorious grass run so it was the beginning of him being a grass ATG at least.
Zverev was #3 with 3rd round, 1st round, 4th round and 2nd round results at the Slam level which says it all really about the level of the field. In tough years like 2011-2013 he would have won 0 Masters titles.

Medvedev definitely could and would be a nightmare for an aging Sampras so definitely disagree there.

But it has nothing to do with the topic. It's like comparing apples with oranges.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Zverev was #3 with 3rd round, 1st round, 4th round and 2nd round results at the Slam level which says it all really about the level of the field. In tough years like 2011-2013 he would have won 0 Masters titles.

Medvedev definitely could and would be a nightmare for an aging Sampras so definitely disagree there.

But it has nothing to do with the topic. It's like comparing apples with oranges.
Fair enough on the Fed-Roddick part. Which proves that he only really had one opening pre Federer and he took it.

Although if a 22 year old like young Fed showed up today, the Next Gen and Thiem would all lose to him so it would be a loss to an ATG. So still not sure why that gets discounted. ATGs don't have to be aging stars necessarily. A rising one can also be a pain in the nads.

Medvedev doesn't do well against variety. That's why I have my doubts whether he'd beat Sampras. On a faster court too.

Yes, Z was terrible in slams, but it's to Hewitt/Safin's credit that they blossomed early to take their opportunities. Z could have done so too. Mid 2017-early 2018 was a great time to do it.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Fair enough on the Fed-Roddick part. Which proves that he only really had one opening pre Federer abd he took i

Medvedev doesn't do well against variety. That's why I have my doubts whether he'd beat Sampras. On a faster court too.

Yes, Z was terrible in slams, but it's to Hewitt/Safin's credit that they blossomed early to take their opportunities. Z could have done so too. Mid 2017-early 2018 was a great time to do it.
Sampras was not a guy who used a lot of variety. He wasn't Federer for example plus he would give Medvedev a target who loves to defend and run down everything. He is a more aggressive and taller Hewitt which would be terrible for Sampras.

But every player is different. Federer wasn't winning Slams at that age either.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Sampras was not a guy who used a lot of variety. He wasn't Federer for example plus he would give Medvedev a target who loves to defend and run down everything. He is a more aggressive and taller Hewitt which would be terrible for Sampras.

But every player is different. Federer wasn't winning Slams at that age either.
Federer wasn't having Z's success at 20 so it was more understandable for him to struggle. Zverev blossomed earlier.

I mean when you are world no.3, slam contention should be expected from you.
 
Top