I don't think that you know what "your point" is. Federer has plenty to be proud fighting against his own generational challengers (at the time Nadal was 31), that doesn't in any way affect the opinion of the badly failing "next gens".
![]()
lol ok
I don't think that you know what "your point" is. Federer has plenty to be proud fighting against his own generational challengers (at the time Nadal was 31), that doesn't in any way affect the opinion of the badly failing "next gens".
![]()
I thought you loved when people rated things out of ten?
So in all other sports players continue to improve, the Big 3 train with the same techniques as the rest and do very well, yet the rest of the tour sees its level drop? Why? How does that make sense?
isn’t it much more likely that all our debates are simply the result of the Big 3 anomaly? Take them out and we’d have other ATGs, other multislam winners. We would not know what we missed.
So in all other sports players continue to improve, the Big 3 train with the same techniques as the rest and do very well, yet the rest of the tour sees its level drop? Why? How does that make sense?
isn’t it much more likely that all our debates are simply the result of the Big 3 anomaly? Take them out and we’d have other ATGs, other multislam winners. We would not know what we missed.
Not like that.I thought you loved when people rated things out of ten?![]()
I was addressing OP directly, saying this was convenient timing from him (again). You shouldn't feel called out with every post that has a 1% hint of that at most.^^^
Yet another one who has no clue about what the opinions around here were. All these instances got plenty of attention even back then, as have those seasons ever since, as have the whole "lost ten", "next gen" and "next next gen" groups and their failures.
To write that it was just now found out that there is a huge problem is a massive ignorance.
![]()
And other than last Wimbledon final and previous year's Australian Open final, when did he play like he was there for the taking against any good playing opponent in that time frame?As for as Djokovic goes? There's a year and a half between WB '18 and AO '20, which is when I saw this hoarding was getting out of control.
I was addressing OP directly, saying this was convenient timing from him (again). You shouldn't feel called out with every post that has a 1% hint of that at most.
And other than last Wimbledon final and previous year's Australian Open final, when did he play like he was there for the taking against any good playing opponent in that time frame?
I was addressing OP directly, saying this was convenient timing from him (again). You shouldn't feel called out with every post that has a 1% hint of that.
He wasn't better than Medvedev at the US Open. And he wasn't better than Thiem at Australian Open.90gens don't just lose, they lose pathetically...
I would never not say Cilic didn't play a pathetic final @ '17 WB and didn't finish AO '18 with a pathetic choke (even then, his level in the middle three sets beats anything the nextgen mugs showed in their slam finals pfft). Well now he's gotten too pathetic to even be relevant, which is good. Only look at what came to replace him...
Does it annoy you when Federer fans use to eye test?He wasn't better than Medvedev at the US Open. And he wasn't better than Thiem at Australian Open.
You're not going to justify Federer's competition with your eye tests. You simply won't. The sooner you realize that, the better.
No. I just say that my eye test tells a different story, after which their smartass d0uche meter sky rockets very often as they can't accept views even slightly different from their own. It's just a sort of thing that they do. I pity them at this point.Does it annoy you when Federer fans use to eye test?
Some ATGs had shorter peaks, but all were incredibly good on their day.The thing is, we speak of ATGs starting with 5 or 6 Slams, so it’s all about numbers. But just look how much more 18-20 is. Those are astronomical differences. They are so much better that age cannot be a factor yet. But some day, when all of the Big 3 are over 40, they really will stop winning. And then someone has to win the Slams, so most likely out of today’s Next Gen players there will be some with 5 or 6 Slams, so they will become ATG by definition, and we can say that the Big 3 have beaten future ATGs, even though they count as “weak competition” now.
On the other hand, if we look at historical borderline ATGs like Becker, Edberg, Wilander etc., then many think about them as “great competition”. However, their gap to the Big 3 is also “astronomical”, and honestly the chance that they would have caused any trouble for Djokovic today is next to zero as well.
So to put it short: Maybe younger ATGs should beat older ATGs in their mid or late 30s, but with the Big 3 we are talking about a totally different category of players than just ATG.
Your point?Nadal looked amazing before AO '19 final, remember?
I thought Shapovalov was the new ATG.
Is why you avoid these kind of debates ( noticed you do not partake a lot?)No. I just say that my eye test tells a different story, after which their smartass d0uche meter sky rockets very often as they can't accept views even slightly different from their own. It's just a sort of thing that they do. I pity them at this point.
He wasn't better than Medvedev at the US Open. And he wasn't better than Thiem at Australian Open.
You're not going to justify Federer's competition with your eye tests. You simply won't. The sooner you realize that, the better.
"At some point" many players have this. Thiem had big wins at Slams too. And none of those guys is done yet, they all theoretically can improve. But even more important: Who can say who was better if they have the same numbers in the end? And who says Becker or Edberg could ever beat Djokovic at a Slam? Especially Edberg’s serve would get mercilessly punished by Djokovic. They were lucky they never had to deal with returns AND movement like this.Some ATGs had shorter peaks, but all were incredibly good on their day.
These guys don't have it in them. Thiem peaked the hardest at AO 20 and that's nowhere near peak Becker/Edberg on grass or 88 Wilander. Nevermind the mid and upper tier ATGs, all having GOAT level performances at some point. Those guys are their on numbers alone.
Mostly because the difference between these guys and their own forms from year to year is too small for me to care. Just say it's close either way and I won't argue. At least not anymore. Maybe I used to be more pushy myself.Is why you avoid these kind of debates ( noticed you do not partake a lot?)
And Tim didn't get squashed outside the middle sets like Chilly man. I thought losing efforts mattered too, after all Roddick at Wimbledon is the pinnacle of losing like a Greek mythology warrior and all while Mury is bin man bum...I said middle three sets. Overall Med's USO '19 is above I guess. AO '20 no, Tim could do nothing except when Noel lost six straight games with a flurry of errors. At least Cilic took the end of the second set in attacking fashion.
Yeah you're just going to throw numbers and back in them while watching Federer's numbers get trashed at the same time even if you're so kind as not to take part in that personally. Do you watch tennis just to see Noel win?
No. I just say that my eye test tells a different story, after which their smartass d0uche meter sky rockets very often as they can't accept views even slightly different from their own. It's just a sort of thing that they do. I pity them at this point.
What's with all of the passive-aggressive **** talk, brother?Mostly because the difference between these guys and their own forms from year to year is too small for me to care. Just say it's close either way and I won't argue. At least not anymore. Maybe I used to be more pushy myself.
And Tim didn't get squashed outside the middle sets like Chilly man. I thought losing efforts mattered too, after all Roddick at Wimbledon is the pinnacle of losing like a Greek mythology warrior and all while Mury is bin man bum...
Federer has his army of minions protecting every single of his credentials without me having to jump in, Djokovic's is small in comparison. I think Federer's numbers reflect his qualities well, and same goes for Djokovic. I actually played some tennis before Noel became a top 10 player, imitating Rog's one handed backhand when the coach (who was forcing a two hander) wasn't looking, but couldn't afford to continue. So you are quite off the mark with questioning my motives.![]()
That is what TTW is. When the sport stays static, you don't get any new conversations.Bro this is like thread 10,000 bemoaning the same nonsense
No, those were all brutal too. Going on about 5 years of this. Just keeps going. The last straw was like 3 or 4 years ago. That is how bad it has got.And when Cilic cried. And when Anderson stumbled into the US Open final in a way he can't even explain himself. And when Thiem looked like an impostor in his first final appearance. All worse performances than Medvedev's today. Yet this one was the last straw.
Probably took you less than a year man lol...
Which one helps my Fed argument? Wait, i mean second option.I think it’s a question of probabilities, at least how I think of it. What‘s more likely, the appearance of 3 once-in-a-lifetime level of players (helped by technology and science) or the sudden and sustained drop in the level of tens or hundreds of them?
And Tim didn't get squashed outside the middle sets like Chilly man. I thought losing efforts mattered too, after all Roddick at Wimbledon is the pinnacle of losing like a Greek mythology warrior and all while Mury is bin man bum...
Federer has his army of minions protecting every single of his credentials without me having to jump in, Djokovic's is small in comparison. I think Federer's numbers reflect his qualities well, and same goes for Djokovic. I actually played some tennis before Noel became a top 10 player, imitating Rog's one handed backhand when the coach (who was forcing a two hander) wasn't looking, but couldn't afford to continue. So you are quite off the mark with questioning my motives.![]()
That's fair enough.lol nice reminder of Mandy's nickname, I forgot that one. Made me chuckle at least.
meh, Timmy's failure was just more hidden, that stretch from 3-3 4th set to 1-2* 5th. Didn't give up afterwards but it doesn't carry as much weight when he could do little on Djoe's serve. Okay, let's AO 18/20 as equal finals, not that the result changes if you switch opponents.
Hmm, you're younger than me so that would've been when you were a wee kid. Nice tidbit.
That said, Medvedev played most stupidly, really no way to deny it. You could see his attacking capability, limited in the first place, was off. So what is left? He's tall and lanky, good mover for his height but obviously couldn't outmove/outdefend Djokovic, even less hope to do so than Zverev. If he can't attack and can't defend, what can he do? Couldn't even serve, 1 ace in the last two sets. (1 by Djokovic too. The conditions must have slowed down due to lower temp, which threw Medvedev's timing off I guess.) I mean, you do understand a huge part of big 3's continued success / weakeraness of this epoch is lack of a consistent attacker at the top level. Can't just RBA your way in rallies against focused Fedalovic until their movement drops so far as to fall below top player standard. This saves them a lot of wear and tear too. See the likes of Medvedev and Zverev just putting generic 2nd serves back safely midcourt, giving all the initiative to the server. Of course Djokovic controls the point easily. So does Nadal unless he's gassed (which happens worryingly early these days, see the Tsitsipas match or the YEC Medvedev match), so does Federer unless he's actually too old now, we'll see soon. Actually this is a very salient point as no top 10 player other than Big 3 (except Schwartzman but obviously feeble service game is too much of a limit) can consistently attack serves in whatever way. Zed&Med return consistently but safely. Tim&Ziz return too inconsistently, Rublev too, and the returns they make aren't generally bullets anyway. It's downright depressing by this point.
Hardly anyone gave a **** when the pretty backhand was taking advantage at 35-36 years of age.
Nobody would have given a **** if the pretty backhand converted the 40-15 at nearly 38 years of age.
But NOW you want to be concerned for the future. "Big 3 have won too much, enough already"? That old story again? LOL
Well, Federer hasn't been hoarding up the majors in the last decade like Djokodal have done so it's not really the same thing.Hardly anyone gave a **** when the pretty backhand was taking advantage at 35-36 years of age.
Nobody would have given a **** if the pretty backhand converted the 40-15 at nearly 38 years of age.
But NOW you want to be concerned for the future. "Big 3 have won too much, enough already"? That old story again? LOL
Stan, Murray, Safin and Delpo have won slams against prime Big 3, so aging Big 3 shouldn't be as much of an issue.So in all other sports players continue to improve, the Big 3 train with the same techniques as the rest and do very well, yet the rest of the tour sees its level drop? Why? How does that make sense?
isn’t it much more likely that all our debates are simply the result of the Big 3 anomaly? Take them out and we’d have other ATGs, other multislam winners. We would not know what we missed.
Well, if Meddy plays this pathetically against a mid 30's Djokovic, safe to say ATGhood has passed him by.The thing is, we speak of ATGs starting with 5 or 6 Slams, so it’s all about numbers. But just look how much more 18-20 is. Those are astronomical differences. They are so much better that age cannot be a factor yet. But some day, when all of the Big 3 are over 40, they really will stop winning. And then someone has to win the Slams, so most likely out of today’s Next Gen players there will be some with 5 or 6 Slams, so they will become ATG by definition, and we can say that the Big 3 have beaten future ATGs, even though they count as “weak competition” now.
On the other hand, if we look at historical borderline ATGs like Becker, Edberg, Wilander etc., then many think about them as “great competition”. However, their gap to the Big 3 is also “astronomical”, and honestly the chance that they would have caused any trouble for Djokovic today is next to zero as well.
So to put it short: Maybe younger ATGs should beat older ATGs in their mid or late 30s, but with the Big 3 we are talking about a totally different category of players than just ATG.
Well, if Meddy plays this pathetically against a mid 30's Djokovic, safe to say ATGhood has passed him by.
I mean, why can't it be a bit of both?I think it’s a question of probabilities, at least how I think of it. What‘s more likely, the appearance of 3 once-in-a-lifetime level of players (helped by technology and science) or the sudden and sustained drop in the level of tens or hundreds of them?
After the Sampras match he did go on to deliver a pathetic performance against Agassi at the USO that same year.Even before Federer was Federer he didn't flinch while meeting Sampras. He might not have been the whole package, but he had no fear.
Differences.
![]()
After the Sampras match he did go on to deliver a pathetic performance against Agassi at the USO that same year.
I don’t know. Don’t you think he can still win 5-6 Slams, even if he only starts 5 years from now? Also don’t forget how many pathetic matches all those borderline ATGs played in their careers. In the end it’s about wins and numbers, not about losses.Well, if Meddy plays this pathetically against a mid 30's Djokovic, safe to say ATGhood has passed him by.
That's fair enough.
Yeah I was. Not a teenager yet at that point.
It looks like a lot more defense oriented era now than a decade and a half ago to me. But I can't point the finger to what the problem is with these guys, lack of proper coaching/guidance, or simply lack of potential that all past greats and Big 3 have shown, or something as bizarre as bad attention span, as they have shown some pretty good tennis on occasions but still rather rarely when you look at the big picture.
By 25 all of those guys were established.I don’t know. Don’t you think he can still win 5-6 Slams, even if he only starts 5 years from now? Also don’t forget how many pathetic matches all those borderline ATGs played in their careers. In the end it’s about wins and numbers, not about losses.
Most people around here don't follow tennis. They follow their idols, and so these things are not interesting for them.
I predict that they will "see" it, when they have to find another idol, but not before that.
![]()
there was a popular term for this on the other tennis forum: glory hunter
I think where the 'Djokovic and Nadal have prevented NextGen from becoming ATGs' argument falls down is that even with no Big 3, Thiem at his very best might have 6 slams. I would say more likely 5. That would be with practically no real competition at all. No ATGs, no Murray/Wawrinka level players. No one even at Roddick/Hewitt level. Whereas Becker and Edberg won their 6 slams playing against each other, Lendl, Wilander and even Sampras and Agassi. It's not comparable. And Thiem is way ahead of the rest of the field. Medvedev would have 2-3 slams tops with no Big 3. Zverev would have 0.By 25 all of those guys were established.
Becker won back to back Wimbys as a teenager, that's ATG stuff on its own.
Wilander won RG at 17 against 4 top 10 opponents. Tsitsipas today at 22.5 has worse stamina than a teenage Wilander.
Mac comprehensively dominated 1984 in ways I don't see Med dominating a single season. He was also able to overcome prime/peak Borg, a GOAT candidate back then.
Lendl started winning late, but he did reach 5 slam finals until age 24 and he won his 5th slam final against the dominant 1984 McEnroe. And at just 21 he pushed prime/peak Borg to 5 in the RG final.
Surely you don't think that anything Meddy has done comes close to this. The guy is 25 and hasn't even made it close against a mid 30's Djokovic, who I don't think is really better than dominant 1984 McEnroe and prime/peak Borg at RG.
I don't think he'll get to 6 slams. His game does have holes and he hasn't displayed the modicum of high level that all those ATGs displayed.
But if he does, it will only be because the competition will be weak enough for him to manage it. There's also no guarantee he's gonna keep the next next gen at bay.
I knew most of those facts of course, but wasn’t the concept of ATG always about pure numbers? Because otherwise we are back in the Murray discussion very soon.By 25 all of those guys were established.
Becker won back to back Wimbys as a teenager, that's ATG stuff on its own.
Wilander won RG at 17 against 4 top 10 opponents. Tsitsipas today at 22.5 has worse stamina than a teenage Wilander.
Mac comprehensively dominated 1984 in ways I don't see Med dominating a single season. He was also able to overcome prime/peak Borg, a GOAT candidate back then.
Lendl started winning late, but he did reach 5 slam finals until age 24 and he won his 5th slam final against the dominant 1984 McEnroe. And at just 21 he pushed prime/peak Borg to 5 in the RG final.
Surely you don't think that anything Meddy has done comes close to this. The guy is 25 and hasn't even made it close against a mid 30's Djokovic, who I don't think is really better than dominant 1984 McEnroe and prime/peak Borg at RG.
I don't think he'll get to 6 slams. His game does have holes and he hasn't displayed the modicum of high level that all those ATGs displayed.
But if he does, it will only be because the competition will be weak enough for him to manage it. There's also no guarantee he's gonna keep the next next gen at bay.
The concept of ATG was about numbers because the average level of play throughout the years was more or less even.I knew most of those facts of course, but wasn’t the concept of ATG always about pure numbers? Because otherwise we are back in the Murray discussion very soon.
That said, the ATG concept always looked very artificial to me and has even less substance than the GOAT term.