Thiem now 15-18 against the Big Three

[NoleFam]

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.

He obviously didn't blossom earlier if he can't make it to a QF of one Slam the entire year.

I just explained that. Do you honestly think he would be world #3 in 2011-2013? He's be lucky to be top 8.

 

[mike danny]

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.

Well, Med could have lost to Roddick himself instead, who pushed Hewitt to 5.

 

[mike danny]

He obviously didn't blossom earlier if he can't make it to a QF of one Slam the entire year.

I just explained that. Do you honestly think he would be world #3 in 2011-2013? He's be lucky to be top 8.

My point is he could have tried to contend since the period was very open. Z existed before 2020 and he peaked much earlier than the other Next Genners.

 

[mike danny]

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

But 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.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

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.

Exactly. I can't even hypothetically think of Thiem surviving the attack of peak @ForehandRF

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

And Wimbledon too unless he proves me wrong

He won't even reach nadal or fed or djok at Wimbledon to begin with

 

[mike danny]

So he was not as good. We agree.
If we compare Thiem’s performance against the field vs Big 3’a performance against field, I think we’d see that Thiem has improved more than Big 3 has declined.

I think at least Fed certainly became worse than even his 2015 and 2017 versions.

 

[mike danny]

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.

Well, Djokodal have won more than Thiem in the last seasons, so Thiem is rightfully 3rd behind them.

 

[mike danny]

Aside from Nadal at RG, I'd struggle to favour any of the big three in a match against Thiem.

Federer at Wimb?

 

[Cashman]

Federer at Wimb?

Probably anyone in the top 20 at Wimbledon, to be honest. He's as terrible on grass as Wawrinka.

 

[mike danny]

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.

I don't think Thiem will ever be the favorite over the Big 3 in any match. But he does have age on his side at least, as well as belief against them.

 

[BackhandDTL]

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.

Clueless. Nadal is godlike at RG even still.

 

[mike danny]

Probably anyone in the top 20 at Wimbledon, to be honest. He's as terrible on grass as Wawrinka.

Stan is a bit better with 2 QFs there.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I think at least Fed certainly became worse than even his 2015 and 2017 versions.

2019 Fed was closer to beating Nole than 2015 Fed. But I don’t disagree with you.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I don't think Thiem will ever be the favorite over the Big 3 in any match. But he does have age on his side at least, as well as belief against them.

Not favored against Fed on clay or against Rafa on HC?

 

[Sabratha]

He obviously didn't blossom earlier if he can't make it to a QF of one Slam the entire year.

I just explained that. Do you honestly think he would be world #3 in 2011-2013? He's be lucky to be top 8.

Nah he'd be No. 5. No way do guys like Ferrer and Berdych rank ahead of him. Also Medvedev isn't beating '01 Hewitt, the guy crushed Kafelnikov and Sampras back to back. How's he going to touch that?

 

[Sabratha]

Clueless. Nadal is godlike at RG even still.

Mostly due to his Godawful competition.

 

[abmk]

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.

med's retuning+passing/lobbing don't even come remotely close to that of Hewitt. Just stop.

 

[Sabratha]

Stan is a bit better with 2 QFs there.

Pushed him close in 2014, too. I think he's underrated on the surface if anything.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Not favored against Fed on clay or against Rafa on HC?

He was on the verge of losing in straight sets against fed on clay. (Matchpointerer again)

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Pushed him close in 2014, too. I think he's underrated on the surface if anything.

That's mainly because fed started baseline ballbashing in that match, that's where 2014 version of him was certainly not better than Wawrinka.

 

[Sabratha]

That's mainly because fed started baseline ballbashing in that match, that's where 2014 version of him was certainly not better than Wawrinka.

I think him making the quarters a couple of times and running into sizable competition in Fed and peaking Gasquet says a lot about his grass pedigree. Not on the level of his HC or clay conquests but he's hardly a mug there.

 

[abmk]

He was on the verge of losing in straight sets against fed on clay. (Matchpointerer again)

fed got 2 close ones vs Boric&La Monf, but blew it vs Thiem.
Fascinating clay season from him in 2019 though - at his age.
Would've been nice if he had taken one of the 2 sets vs Nadal in the semi - more so the 2nd set. had 3 BPs at 4 all, right?

 

[Deleted member 771911]

It's a misleading stat, though. Really, what does it mean, as a valid subject of a stat, Big 3? They are not one 3 headed monster!

 

[Sabratha]

It's a misleading stat, though. Really, what does it mean, as a valid subject of a stat, Big 3? They are not one 3 headed monster!

He's feasted on an older Federer for the most part. I'm positive that's where most of his wins have come from.

 

[Deleted member 771911]

He's feasted on an older Federer for the most part. I'm positive that's where most of his wins have come from.

Exactly. It's very misleading and means nothing.

 

[Sabratha]

Exactly. It's very misleading and means nothing.

And I very much doubt he'd have done the same to a same-age Federer for what it's worth.

 

[blablavla]

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.

except for the GS finals.
it's not so much vs Nadal at RG.

he was afraid to defeat Novak at AO 2020.

he was afraid to win the USO 2020.
unfortunately for both him and Sascha, one of them had to go home with the title, so it doesn't matter how much they tried to lose, only 1 could lose.
Thiem needs to acquire that killer instinct, that all great champs have
he needs to thrill under pressure and in the finals

 

[tennis_pro]

I don't why you're including Safin. That was nearly 16 years ago and he only had to beat Federer..lol. Stan gets credit because he beat two of them twice in Slams but look what it took to do it. Good luck replicating that and he even played his best, imo, at 2013 AO and lost in the 4th round.

Zvevev would have reached them in AO if the draw were different. He would have in NY too. Medvedev made the SF in NY too so not his fault the big 3 weren't there to face him.

Only had to beat Federer....lol, you mean peak Federer in a Slam on a HC? The only time out of 12 tournaments in 2004-2007 where Fed lost at a Slam outside of clay? That Federer?

You have no idea about how big that upset was back then and even more now when we put it in context. Peak Fed almost never lost a big match outside of clay.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

fed got 2 close ones vs Boric&La Monf, but blew it vs Thiem.
Fascinating clay season from him in 2019 though - at his age.
Would've been nice if he had taken one of the 2 sets vs Nadal in the semi - more so the 2nd set. had 3 BPs at 4 all, right?

He lead the 2nd set 2-0 and had game points on serve to go up 3-0.
He didn't have 3 break points at 4-4, rather he blew a 40-0 lead on serve. And before that in the 8th game at 4-3 on nadal serve, he had multiple deuces but couldn't manage a break point due to poor shot selection (not going to open court on 3 occassions iirc).
Imo without wind, roger could've managed a much much better fight, but the outcome was NID.

 

[BGod]

Will be #1 soon enough.

 

[mike danny]

2019 Fed was closer to beating Nole than 2015 Fed. But I don’t disagree with you.

Well then surely you don't think 2019 Nole was as good as 2015 Nole.

 

[mike danny]

Not favored against Fed on clay or against Rafa on HC?

On clay against Fed yes.

On HC against Rafa it's still 50/50. His match with Rafa yesterday could have gone either way.

 

[Third Serve]

I don't why you're including Safin. That was nearly 16 years ago and he only had to beat Federer..lol. Stan gets credit because he beat two of them twice in Slams but look what it took to do it. Good luck replicating that and he even played his best, imo, at 2013 AO and lost in the 4th round.

Zvevev would have reached them in AO if the draw were different. He would have in NY too. Medvedev made the SF in NY too so not his fault the big 3 weren't there to face him.

"only"

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

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.

No

 

[bobleenov1963]

Until Thiem can beat two of the big 3 in a grand slam event, BO5, he is just another average player. Thiem's fan should just STFU.....

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Only had to beat Federer....lol, you mean peak Federer in a Slam on a HC? The only time out of 12 tournaments in 2004-2007 where Fed lost at a Slam outside of clay? That Federer?

You have no idea about how big that upset was back then and even more now when we put it in context. Peak Fed almost never lost a big match outside of clay.

And it took MP saving and 9-7 in the fifth to do it. One loss and it was a Simpsons one.

 

[blablavla]

Until Thiem can beat two of the big 3 in a grand slam event, BO5, he is just another average player. Thiem's fan should just STFU.....

you mean an average 3.5?

as he is usually fluctuating between #3 and #4, I thought 3.5 would be fair for now.
which is well above the average player

 

[NoleFam]

"only"

Compared to 2 or more big 3. We all know peak Federer was a beast. That isn't up for debate...lol

 

[bobleenov1963]

you mean an average 3.5?

as he is usually fluctuating between #3 and #4, I thought 3.5 would be fair for now.
which is well above the average player

Thiem is still an average player and still is until he beat two of big 3 in grand slam on the way to the title and win it. Beating the chump Zverev does not count.

 

[abmk]

Compared to 2 or more big 3. We all know peak Federer was a beast. That isn't up for debate...lol

beating peak Fed at AO 2005 >> beating peak Djokovic at RG 2015
beating peak Hewitt at AO 2005 >> beating Old-erer at RG 2015

Safin beating only one of the big 3 at AO 2005 compared to Stan beating 2 of the big 3 at RG 2015.

Safin's was considerably tougher, no contest.

beating peak Fed at AO 2005 > beating prime Federer at USO 2009
beating peak Hewitt at AO 2005 > beating below par serve Nadal at USO 2009


Safin beating only one of the big 3 at AO 2005 compared to Delpo beating 2 of the big 3 at USO 2009

Safin's was clearly tougher

 

[blablavla]

Thiem is still an average player and still is until he beat two of big 3 in grand slam on the way to the title. Beating the chump Zverev does not count.

yeah, you're totally right.
every average player has M1000 titles

not even mentioning the weeks in top 10

 

[NoleFam]

Only had to beat Federer....lol, you mean peak Federer in a Slam on a HC? The only time out of 12 tournaments in 2004-2007 where Fed lost at a Slam outside of clay? That Federer?

You have no idea about how big that upset was back then and even more now when we put it in context. Peak Fed almost never lost a big match outside of clay.

I mean as in only having to beat ONE of them, not that Federer wasn't tough to beat. I have no idea how this was taken any other way.

 

[BackhandDTL]

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.

I agree if it’s not grass. I think Thiem might even be favored against Novak at the AO

 

[tennis_pro]

I mean as in only having to beat ONE of them, not that Federer wasn't tough to beat. I have no idea how this was taken any other way.

Federer alone was tougher than an army of berrettinis

 

[Third Serve]

Federer alone was tougher than an army of berrettinis

liked for the "army of berrettinis" quote

 

[blablavla]

Federer alone was tougher than an army of berrettinis

why not capital B?

 

[tennis_pro]

why not capital B?

to emphasize the difference of levels between him and Fed

 

[blablavla]

to emphasize the difference of levels between him and Fed

nah
you've promoted him enough on this board to spell his name with a capital B no matter what.

at the end of the day, there is a Berrettini Open, and there is no Fed Open

 

[NoleFam]

Federer alone was tougher than an army of berrettinis

I know you love Berr but we're not talking about him though. We're talking about going through Djokovic, Nadal or Federer (at least 2) in some order.