Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Which top 4 guy worse on his worst surface?
Who’s worse: Thiem on grass or Med on clay?
- Thread starter Nadalgaenger
- Start date
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Med on clay easily. Thiem has a grass court title and has actually won matches at Wimb, even reaching a 4th round one time.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Med beat Nole on clay once. Thiem beat Fed on grass once! Surface GOATS!
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Roddick on clay was better than both. That's all that needs to be said.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
How was Roddick on clay vs Kuerten on grass?
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Kuerten made a Wimbledon QF but Roddick actually won tournaments on clay. You take the pick.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Roddick also beat PETE, the Rome champion.
stringertom
Bionic Poster
Muster on grass is WOAT. Never won a Wimby match. 8-10 career record and made a Queen’s Club SF as his career grass highlight.
stringertom
Bionic Poster
Becker never won a clay title.
Jokervich
Hall of Fame
Medvedev is an utter clown on clay. Barely knows how to play on the surface, which is amazing for someone ranked 3 in the world. You can tell he's ranked as high as he is because he just vultures hard court tournament wins at the end of the season when everyone else is tired.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
NonP
Legend
This is one of those Qs that deserve the Triumph treatment:
Having said that....
Given his crap return stats I never would've guessed Thiem once beat Fed on any kind of grass. But the fact that I didn't know about this till now is quite telling, isn't it?
Speaking of which:
Frankly all of A-Rod's CC titles were 3rd-rate at best. Not to mention the big disparity in # of tournaments between clay (including the green stuff) and grass.
As usual it's best to focus on the biggies. Boris might never have won a CC event but he was definitely better on terre battue than Andy. Reached 3 FO SFs and won a good 61.3% of his games at the '87 edition (vs. 58.3% in '89 and 56.5% in '91, if you care), led Muster 2 to 0 in the '95 MC final which he was a point away from winning in the 4th-set TB (he blew the CP with a DF, ugh), had other "heroic" (per @Gizo) losses on the surface, etc.
Having said that....
Given his crap return stats I never would've guessed Thiem once beat Fed on any kind of grass. But the fact that I didn't know about this till now is quite telling, isn't it?
Speaking of which:
Frankly all of A-Rod's CC titles were 3rd-rate at best. Not to mention the big disparity in # of tournaments between clay (including the green stuff) and grass.
As usual it's best to focus on the biggies. Boris might never have won a CC event but he was definitely better on terre battue than Andy. Reached 3 FO SFs and won a good 61.3% of his games at the '87 edition (vs. 58.3% in '89 and 56.5% in '91, if you care), led Muster 2 to 0 in the '95 MC final which he was a point away from winning in the 4th-set TB (he blew the CP with a DF, ugh), had other "heroic" (per @Gizo) losses on the surface, etc.
LoveTheGreatOne
Semi-Pro
Obviously medvedev on clay
Fiero425
Legend
I saw that tourney way back when! Sampras made Rome champ. @ the height of his powers going against Becker in the '94 Final! It was his best chance to win a clay Masters and the last! His draw was a magic carpet of upsets as Muster ret. in the 3rd Rd. and Courier knocked off by Gaudenzi! Sampras barely used a towel dropping 4 or 5 games in the final, straight-setting Becker when still BO5!
James P
G.O.A.T.
ROTFLMAOCOPTER
> "vultures"
> plays tournaments he's required to play by ATP top 30 contractual obligation
> pick one
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
He did hold two MP's against Muster in the 1995 Monte Carlo final.... but thankfully lost the match.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
A rather uncharitable take, this. Med's WTF win was actually pretty strong (relative to this poor era, it should be noted). Hardly a vulture win, though Nadal's performance in the SF was disgusting.
daggerman
Hall of Fame
If only fans would adopt this view re: the Big 3.
I Am Finnish
Bionic Poster
- Medvedev defeated peak Djokovic and Peak Tsitsipas
- Thiem defeated peak Federer
- Thiem defeated peak Federer
I Am Finnish
Bionic Poster
Thiem is a grass specialist
Bender
G.O.A.T.
I know some people argued that the conditions that year were like a hardcourt with "powdered sugar" of clay on top of it. And that was allegedly the reason for a final between two non-clay players.I saw that tourney way back when! Sampras made Rome champ. @ the height of his powers going against Becker in the '94 Final! It was his best chance to win a clay Masters and the last! His draw was a magic carpet of upsets as Muster ret. in the 3rd Rd. and Courier knocked off by Gaudenzi! Sampras barely used a towel dropping 4 or 5 games in the final, straight-setting Becker when still BO5!
However, it was just the best phase of Sampras’ career. In the first half of 1994 he dominated everywhere, like Federer and Djokovic at their best. And then he really missed out big time at RG against Courier. It was his chance to win all 4 Slams in a row. For me it was also the bigger chance to "just win RG" compared to 1996.
El_Yotamo
Hall of Fame
Was a set away from the quarters too, losing to the eventual semifinalist Berdych (who got a W/O in the QFs so we can assume Thiem would've gotten it as well)
Medvedev is better for me. I give him three impressive clay wins (Tsitsipas and Djokovic at Monte Carlo 2019, then Nishikori at Barcelona a week later), whereas Thiem's only top-level win on grass was against 2016 Federer, and even then he was match point down twice.
Plus points to Thiem for his one Wimbledon fourth round, but his overall performance there has been poor, with straight set defeats to Querrey, Baghdatis and Vesely in three of the four most recent editions. And Medvedev has his fair share of poor clay losses, but I don't think since becoming a top player he's ever had as bad a result on the surface as Thiem did on the grass in Antalya, losing 6-3 6-2 to Ramkumar Ramanathan, who has never played a slam main draw match nor reached the top 100.
Plus points to Thiem for his one Wimbledon fourth round, but his overall performance there has been poor, with straight set defeats to Querrey, Baghdatis and Vesely in three of the four most recent editions. And Medvedev has his fair share of poor clay losses, but I don't think since becoming a top player he's ever had as bad a result on the surface as Thiem did on the grass in Antalya, losing 6-3 6-2 to Ramkumar Ramanathan, who has never played a slam main draw match nor reached the top 100.
Last edited:
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
No strong feelings one way or the other.
JackSockIsTheBest
Professional
How the hell do people think that Thiem is worse on grass than med on clay, thiem actually won a title on that surface when med hasn't even won one match at the french. Like come on man
TearTheRoofOff
G.O.A.T.
A big 3 member producing an absolute shambles is a current prerequisite for anything of significance.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
This would work if Med defeated Nadal on clay instead of Djokovic.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well, HC is the most prominent surface, so Med's ranking would bolster if he did well on it, which he has.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Why thankfully?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Wow
Sport
G.O.A.T.
That's false. Thiem defeated Federer (Grass GOAT) on grass. Roddick defeated nobody of similar calibre on clay.
Thiem on grass >>>>>>> Roddick on clay.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Are we really using matches against injured dinosaurs as our metric here?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Thriller
Hall of Fame
If you are a dinosaur at 35, you only have yourself to blame for not taking care of your conditioning. That's no age.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Which is why I added the word "injured". It's something Ned fans would resonate with, no?
Thriller
Hall of Fame
Once you make the decision to take to the court, you make the decision that you are fit enough to compete and win. No excuses. Thiem won fair and square.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Eh, there's a difference.
Once you make the decision to take to the court, you make the decision that you think you are fit enough to compete and win. Fed is a notoriously stubborn player and it's been well-documented that he's played matches and entire tournaments while clearly hampered and injured. Like when he was on crutches mere weeks before the 2005 YEC and yet he decided to play. It worked okay for him because the draw was miserable but once he faced someone who could actually put up a decent fight, he lost. Same deal for matches like the 2013 Indian Wells match vs. Nadal (not retiring or withdrawing from that match was an idiotic move; he should have taken time off and maybe his 2013 season wouldn't have been that bad) or the 2017 Rogers Cup.
Use your eyes and not these sweeping generalizations that probably don't account for even 60% of these types of matches. Then again, I don't expect that much from your ilk anyway.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
You're really wasting your time.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, that's why I'm leaving it there.
Thriller
Hall of Fame
You would accept this excuse-laden drivel from a Nadal fan?
Many of Nadal's fans (not me) are quite rightly criticised for too quickly blaming injury for unexpected / disappointing defeats. It is nonsense. Tennis is and should be a strenuous physical challenge and maintaining fitness right to the very end of the tournament is a normal part of the game. If Federer was 'injured' in Stuttgart, and that is a really big if, it is his fault for not turning up conditioned and fit enough to compete for a whole week. Thiem did his job. Federer didn't. End of story.
And it's not as if Thiem's win was against the grain. Thiem is yet another top player who has totally dominated Federer in the H2H.
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
I give it to Thiem on grass by the slimmest of margins as I could see Meddy doing much better at RG than Timmy ever will at Wimbledon.
O
Oceans
Guest
Thiem and Med still have a lot of improvement and time on their side especially on grass. I expect them to reach a slam QF minimum in the future. Plus, Djokovic on clay >>> Sampras on clay. And FFS hyping up Roddick on clay with his Houston, Atlanta and St Polten titles , Med would vulture those and more.
, Med would vulture those and more.
T
TheNachoMan
Guest
Tim beat Fed on grass in 2016
NonP
Legend
Can't say I enjoyed that one nearly as much. Lacks the cross-referential bits, the jokes themselves are somewhat stale ("Nothing gets past you, especially carbohydrates") and of course there's no hapless (and willing) victim.
But my all-time fave Conan stunt has nothing to do with Triumph:
Of course this legendary episode ain't complete without the Fagerstrom Chronicles:
One of the greatest moments in TV history.
JackSockIsTheBest
Professional
I don't know about that med never won one match at RG & Thiem has reached the 4R before
TennisIcon
Rookie
Yeah vultures hard court tournaments at the end of the season like, Cincinnati and Montreal, and the US open. Yup no one cares about any of those.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
This would hold true if he won the USO...
Similar threads
