Tsitsipas, Zverev, and Medvedev not as good as Nalbandian, Berdych, Soderling, and Tsonga

[Red Rick]

Yes but he was super duper inconsistent. That is the drawback. Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and Zverev probably don't have as high a peak level and aren't as dangerous, but they are definitely already more consistent. That is why I am not sure which to rank better.

Berdych is both lower peak level and less consistent, so he is the worst of all those you named.

I don't rate consistently not good enough higher than inconsistently good enough.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Thiem is not better than Cilic or DelPo.

Not sure about Soderling being better than Tsits, Zvedvedev, Berrettini, either.

Theim will probably wind up with a better career than Cilic and Del Potro. I do think he regains his form and wins a RG or two down the road, and maybe another major, and wins up around 3 majors. No way is he a "better" tennis player, atleast not based on anything I have seen, than Del Potro, or possibly even Cilic, I agree there though.

Basically the current generation has no excuse for whatever they don't achieve. In fact all are super lucky to be coming into their primes while Federer, Nadal, Djokovic are all ancient, the middle aged or lost generation are dunzo or irrelevant, and there are no even younger up and comers, and it is kind of pathetic they aren't achieving more thus far.

 

[RelentlessAttack]

One of the weirdest thing about nextgen, is why are they almost all mediocre athletes? Why aren’t great athletes playing tennis anymore

 

[martinezownsclay]

One of the weirdest thing about nextgen, is why are they almost all mediocre athletes? Why aren’t great athletes playing tennis anymore

Since tennis isn't one of the cool sports anymore. So many new X games sports, soccer having a revival, and racing sports becoming more prominent. Less potential great athletes even want to do tennis.

 

[Jonesy]

What difference does it make, none won a slam.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Maybe that is because the Big 2 aren't near who they used to be either.

Berdych sole Slam final involved beating 2 of the Big 3 and losing to the third.

Very questionable calling Djokovic as big 2 in Wimbledon. He was not the mental giant he became by 2011.

Tsitsipas has had 1 bad loss vs Nadal in AO 19. That loss can be attributed to his age. Since then he has no bad loss vs big 3. Berdych was their bunny.

 

[Third Serve]

Very questionable calling Djokovic as big 2 in Wimbledon. He was not the mental giant he became by 2011.

Tsitsipas has had 1 bad loss vs Nadal in AO 19. That loss can be attributed to his age. Since then he has no bad loss vs big 3. Berdych was their bunny.

Tsitsipas rarely made it to the Big 3 in the first place.

 

[Rosstour]

Theim will probably wind up with a better career than Cilic and Del Potro. I do think he regains his form and wins a RG or two down the road, and maybe another major, and wins up around 3 majors. No way is he a "better" tennis player, atleast not based on anything I have seen, than Del Potro, or possibly even Cilic, I agree there though.

Basically the current generation has no excuse for whatever they don't achieve. In fact all are super lucky to be coming into their primes while Federer, Nadal, Djokovic are all ancient, the middle aged or lost generation are dunzo or irrelevant, and there are no even younger up and comers, and it is kind of pathetic they aren't achieving more thus far.

I think Thiem is done and I was already saying that even before he fell off a cliff. He can't go through 2 of the Big 3 or Zvedvedev-Shapo/Tsits/FAA either. He doesn't have the variety or the movement that you need to guarantee a few Slams.

 

[Crazy Finn]

This thread will get bumped after one of these guys picks up several slams…

..... so never?

 

[martinezownsclay]

I think Thiem is done and I was already saying that even before he fell off a cliff. He can't go through 2 of the Big 3 or Zvedvedev-Shapo/Tsits/FAA either. He doesn't have the variety or the movement that you need to guarantee a few Slams.

You could be right. Time will tell.

 

[fox]

Berdych in his best years beats all of Tsitsi, Zverev and Med outside clay. Davydenko too. Nalbandian, Hewitt, Del Potro, Roddick as well.

 

[MadariKatu]

Yes but he was super duper inconsistent. That is the drawback. Medvedev, Tsitsipas, and Zverev probably don't have as high a peak level and aren't as dangerous, but they are definitely already more consistent. That is why I am not sure which to rank better.

Berdych is both lower peak level and less consistent, so he is the worst of all those you named.

Zverev is consistent? He can't even keep his level throughout one match, let alone a tournament. He plays great one day, and you don't know which Zverev will show the next one.

Very questionable calling Djokovic as big 2 in Wimbledon. He was not the mental giant he became by 2011.

Tsitsipas has had 1 bad loss vs Nadal in AO 19. That loss can be attributed to his age. Since then he has no bad loss vs big 3. Berdych was their bunny.

Berdych was playing peak big3, while Tsitsipas is still losing, even if in tight matches, to old and declining big3. Can't compare. As if Hurkacz was gonna bagel peak Fed at Wimbledon... what do I say peak Fed... he wasn't bageling ANY Fed before the knee surgeries.

Just take Verdasco, who isn't the best of the bunch. He made 3 quarters and a semi. In the quarters he lost to:
2013 W: eventual winner Murray
2010 USO: eventual winner Nadal
2009 USO: Djokovic, who lost in the next round to Federer.

Even without taking his impressive 2009 AO run, peak Verdasco would massacre the field today.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Zverev is consistent? He can't even keep his level throughout one match, let alone a tournament. He plays great one day, and you don't know which Zverev will show the next one.

Berdych was playing peak big3, while Tsitsipas is still losing, even if in tight matches, to old and declining big3. Can't compare. As if Hurkacz was gonna bagel peak Fed at Wimbledon... what do I say peak Fed... he wasn't bageling ANY Fed before the knee surgeries.

Just take Verdasco, who isn't the best of the bunch. He made 3 quarters and a semi. In the quarters he lost to:
2013 W: eventual winner Murray
2010 USO: eventual winner Nadal
2009 USO: Djokovic, who lost in the next round to Federer.

Even without taking his impressive 2009 AO run, peak Verdasco would massacre the field today.

Fiasco would not have massacred anyone. We have another such player today in Shapovalov albeit better. Nothing happens. Tsitsipas Medvedev have earned it.

 

[MadariKatu]

Fiasco would not have massacred anyone. We have another such player today in Shapovalov albeit better. Nothing happens. Tsitsipas Medvedev have earned it.

They have earned what? Be where they are? I never said the opposite. I don't think you'll find any post in which I called them (or any other player, for that matter) a mug.

Verdasco was a hell of a player with a hell of a lot of mental issues. But he had good runs in tournaments, where he was stopped by incredible players at their peaks. The youngsters today are stopped by the old and declined versions of those same players. 10 years later!
And the matches are more or less as tight.

Even if Verdasco might not be the best example, due to his massive mental issues, the point still is that any player from around 10 years ago, who was giving the big3 a fight when these where at their highest, would beat the players who are doing the same and still losing to a decade older big3.

 

[mike danny]

Once Djokovic and Murray truly arrived in 2008, its funny how the likes of david, nikolai, james, gonzales(one appearance in 08)hardly ever reached a SF at a slam let alone had a chance to fight for a title.
Coincidence or just a bunch of good players with flawed games preventing them to do better?

Del potro was certainly a level above them but unfortunately injuries did him in

Djokovic and Murray had nothing to do with the failures of those guys, but nice try.

 

[mike danny]

Very questionable calling Djokovic as big 2 in Wimbledon. He was not the mental giant he became by 2011.

Tsitsipas has had 1 bad loss vs Nadal in AO 19. That loss can be attributed to his age. Since then he has no bad loss vs big 3. Berdych was their bunny.

Berdych was up against a much better Big 3.

Tsitsipas would be owned left, right and center by those versions.

 

[mike danny]

Berdych in his best years beats all of Tsitsi, Zverev and Med outside clay. Davydenko too. Nalbandian, Hewitt, Del Potro, Roddick as well.

LMAO.

 

[zvelf]

Let's stop for a moment from cherrypicking people at their hypothetical peaks or using gut feelings and look at the numbers. Here are the major players since 2000 who faced each of the Big 3 at least 5 times each and how well they performed against them + Next Gen, who haven't necessarily played each of the Big 3 5 times. The green highlights when a player actually has a winning record over one of the Big 3. Thiem has easily won the most against the Big 3 percentage-wise while Murray has by far the most total wins against the Big 3. Among non-slam winners, Zverev, Nalbandian, Tsonga, and Tsitsipas head up the list. But let's say, you feel that Zverev has only been playing the Big 3 at 80% of their prime, well, multiple 37.5% by 80% and you get an "adjusted" 30% that would place him between Hewitt and Tsonga in terms of success against the Big 3. But basically, Next Gen has been a bit underrated in this thread. Also, poor Gasquet.

 

[zvelf]

Here are how these players rank on my list of best of the open era in terms of achievements:

17. Andy Murray
21. Lleyton Hewitt
24. Stan Wawrinka
27. Andy Roddick
36. Dominic Thiem
37. Juan Martin del Potro
42. Marin Cilic
48. David Ferrer
52. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
55. Tomas Berdych
57. Nikolay Davydenko
58. Alexander Zverev
59. David Nalbandian
69. Kei Nishikori
73. Stefanos Tsitsipas
77. Daniil Medvedev
78. Richard Gasquet
81. Robin Soderling
82. Milos Raonic
95. Tommy Haas
99. Matteo Berrettini

 

[fox]

Let's stop for a moment from cherrypicking people at their hypothetical peaks or using gut feelings and look at the numbers. Here are the major players since 2000 who faced each of the Big 3 at least 5 times each and how well they performed against them + Next Gen, who haven't necessarily played each of the Big 3 5 times. The green highlights when a player actually has a winning record over one of the Big 3. Thiem has easily won the most against the Big 3 percentage-wise while Murray has by far the most total wins against the Big 3. Among non-slam winners, Zverev, Nalbandian, Tsonga, and Tsitsipas head up the list. But let's say, you feel that Zverev has only been playing the Big 3 at 80% of their prime, well, multiple 37.5% by 80% and you get an "adjusted" 30% that would place him between Hewitt and Tsonga in terms of success against the Big 3. But basically, Next Gen has been a bit underrated in this thread. Also, poor Gasquet.

If I was to find the most stupid post in TT, here we are

What did u want to prove like this? You think Nadal 2008 = Nadal 2021 skipping tournaments and basically being not even healthy enough to play?

 

[martinezownsclay]

Let's stop for a moment from cherrypicking people at their hypothetical peaks or using gut feelings and look at the numbers. Here are the major players since 2000 who faced each of the Big 3 at least 5 times each and how well they performed against them + Next Gen, who haven't necessarily played each of the Big 3 5 times. The green highlights when a player actually has a winning record over one of the Big 3. Thiem has easily won the most against the Big 3 percentage-wise while Murray has by far the most total wins against the Big 3. Among non-slam winners, Zverev, Nalbandian, Tsonga, and Tsitsipas head up the list. But let's say, you feel that Zverev has only been playing the Big 3 at 80% of their prime, well, multiple 37.5% by 80% and you get an "adjusted" 30% that would place him between Hewitt and Tsonga in terms of success against the Big 3. But basically, Next Gen has been a bit underrated in this thread. Also, poor Gasquet.

Is that really a fair comparision though when these players are playing Big 3 when they are MUCH older, and pretty obviously weaker than when that prior generation of second tier contenders was playing them?

 

[mike danny]

Is that really a fair comparision though when these players are playing Big 3 when they are MUCH older, and pretty obviously weaker than when that prior generation of second tier contenders was playing them?

Facts.

 

[zvelf]

Is that really a fair comparision though when these players are playing Big 3 when they are MUCH older, and pretty obviously weaker than when that prior generation of second tier contenders was playing them?

So basically every response so far missed the part I wrote about adjusting for whether Big 3 are in their primes, eh?

 

[martinezownsclay]

So basically every response so far missed the part I wrote about adjusting for whether Big 3 are in their primes, eh?

Well I don't see how that is even possible when Federer hasn't been in his prime since....something like 2011 now. And even that is a stretch.

 

[zvelf]

If I was to find the most stupid post in TT, here we are

What did u want to prove like this? You think Nadal 2008 = Nadal 2021 skipping tournaments and basically being not even healthy enough to play?

Even if you want to say Thiem and Zverev played the Big 3 at 50% effectiveness, they would still have performed better than half the people on the list.

 

[zvelf]

Well I don't see how that is even possible when Federer hasn't been in his prime since....something like 2011 now. And even that is a stretch.

2012 Federer played at least as well as 2011 Federer. But we've also got @MadariKatu repeatedly saying the Next Gen are losing to the older Big 3 in this thread and that's not accurate. They are losing to the older Big 2 but mostly winning against Federer.

 

[Third Serve]

Here are how these players rank on my list of best of the open era in terms of achievements:

17. Andy Murray
21. Lleyton Hewitt
24. Stan Wawrinka
27. Andy Roddick
36. Dominic Thiem
37. Juan Martin del Potro
42. Marin Cilic
48. David Ferrer
52. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga
55. Tomas Berdych
57. Nikolay Davydenko
58. Alexander Zverev
59. David Nalbandian
69. Kei Nishikori
73. Stefanos Tsitsipas
77. Daniil Medvedev
78. Richard Gasquet
81. Robin Soderling
82. Milos Raonic
95. Tommy Haas
99. Matteo Berrettini

Ferrer is overrated. His top level was never dangerous at all for a reasonably proficient top player, though he was very consistent which got him all those tournament wins (but only one was beyond 500 level). All of the players in bold are better than him imo. Possibly even Soderling too, but he’s a tricky one because he retired so early in his career.

I also think Delpo is better than Thiem. That’s about the only other real change I’d make.

 

[mike danny]

2012 Federer played at least as well as 2011 Federer. But we've also got @MadariKatu repeatedly saying the Next Gen are losing to the older Big 3 in this thread and that's not accurate. They are losing to the older Big 2 but mostly winning against Federer.

So basically winning against the irrelevant Big 3 member.

 

[zvelf]

Ferrer is overrated. His top level was never dangerous at all for a reasonably proficient top player, though he was very consistent which got him all those tournament wins (but only one was beyond 500 level). All of the players in bold are better than him imo. Possibly even Soderling too, but he’s a tricky one because he retired so early in his career.

I also think Delpo is better than Thiem. That’s about the only other real change I’d make.

I'd also agree that Delpo is a better player than Thiem, but Delpo's many injuries have kept him from achieving what he could have.

 

[NAS]

What did Tsonga ( I already said in other thread ,I loved Tsonga) , Berdych and soderling ( outside 2009 RG) acheived , please take your time to point me that .
Med already achieved more than these players, Med and Zverev already better than Nalbandian as they managed to play five set match in slam final while Nalbandian won 6 game lol.
Actually after Fed went into prime, only player that won Slam was Gaudio and delpo. So if Med is weak then every other player from 2004 is weak outside of Murray, Wawa

 

[NAS]

This thread is shameful thread like Berr being the weakest Wimbledon finalist and was claimed by fan base who are watching the tennis from 1970s( atleast what they say) and somehow none of them watched 2002 Wimbledon

 

[Phoenix1983]

Lol at Nalbandian
The guy after age of 24 never reached a QF at a slam, after age of 25 never reached a 4th round.
Pathetic indeed.

And yet he did more by 25 than most of the Next Gens shall ever do.

 

[MadariKatu]

So basically winning against the irrelevant Big 3 member.

Not even that. If it is not accurate, is due to lack of play. Played 1 tournament in 2020, in which he lost to Djokovic. In 2021 he has played 5, retiring in one before entering the match (RG) and losing to Bashilashvili (aged 29), Andújar (35), FAA (20) and Hurkacz (24).

So, @zvelf, true, he hasn't been stopping the youngsters in the last 2 years, but either the other way around. He has barely played, is coming back from double knee surgery, and it's not like he only loses when facing them. He beat Sonego (26) and Norrie (25) in his wimbledon run.
I see your point, but I'll give Fed more time after coming back from injury, before downgrading him. Especially since his losses have been as much due more to older players than the next gen. Overall, the sample size is still too small. Because, I take that his record in 2019 doesn't count as it's too far away in time.

 

[martinezownsclay]

2012 Federer played at least as well as 2011 Federer. But we've also got @MadariKatu repeatedly saying the Next Gen are losing to the older Big 3 in this thread and that's not accurate. They are losing to the older Big 2 but mostly winning against Federer.

Valid point, but there really isn't that much excuse to be constantly losing to 33/34 year old Djokovic and Nadal either. I think the implication is that previous group in their absolute prime could be doing better against a really old Nadal/Djokovic than the current ones are. Just because they aren't as generic as Federer yet, well Nadal with his aged body might almost be as much regardless of factual age, does not mean they shouldn't be ripe for the picking. Obviously this is speculative to some extent, but considering that group managed some big wins even over prime Djokodal, it isn't unreasonable to think they would be doing better against a super old Nadal/Djokovic.

 

[Jonas78]

Ferrer reached 10 QFs or better in a row in slams 2012-2014. He is not better than Tsits, Med and Zed who cant even be consistent in THIS field??
Lol. Ferrer of 2012 would beat those guys more often then he would lose on all surfaces.

 

[Jonas78]

...when comparing "prennial" top10ers who have not won slams

However Tsitsipas, Zverev, Berrettini and Medvedev ARE BETTER than Ferrer, Nishikori, Verdasco, and Gasquet though.

Maybe equal to Davydenko

For single slam winners, Thiem is better than Cilic, and Del Potro though. Slightly worse than Roddick. So yeah, this era is better in top 10 terms, but peak berdych, tsonga, soderling and nalbandian is higher than any of those others listed here (so far).

EDIT: also add Berrettini as part of the Zverev Tsitsipas Medvedev class

Thiem is only better than Cilic and DelPo on clay.

 

[Milanez82]

Let's stop for a moment from cherrypicking people at their hypothetical peaks or using gut feelings and look at the numbers. Here are the major players since 2000 who faced each of the Big 3 at least 5 times each and how well they performed against them + Next Gen, who haven't necessarily played each of the Big 3 5 times. The green highlights when a player actually has a winning record over one of the Big 3. Thiem has easily won the most against the Big 3 percentage-wise while Murray has by far the most total wins against the Big 3. Among non-slam winners, Zverev, Nalbandian, Tsonga, and Tsitsipas head up the list. But let's say, you feel that Zverev has only been playing the Big 3 at 80% of their prime, well, multiple 37.5% by 80% and you get an "adjusted" 30% that would place him between Hewitt and Tsonga in terms of success against the Big 3. But basically, Next Gen has been a bit underrated in this thread. Also, poor Gasquet.

Indeed people focus on hypothetical peaks that most of these players came up with rarely but were on average destroyed by Big 3 and weren't in reality competition to be feared
Case in point: Tsonga
Terrific player that when hot can beat anyone but as stats show loses 7 out of 10 matches, has an average return which in bunch of big matches made him waste crucial bp chances and he lost those matches for a reason

 

[egrorian]

Soderling was pretty impressive for a while, a sort of "best of the rest", before illness curtailed his career. I remember Borg - admittedly allowing patriotism to rule his head - opined that Soderling "would soon be the best player in the world". I don't think that was ever on the cards but I do think of him as at least equal to the current crop of pretenders.