ZERO ATG's present or in the making: Going on 13 years

Are there any ATG's currently in the making?


  • Total voters
    56

tudwell

G.O.A.T.
tenor.gif
I thought you loved when people rated things out of ten? :unsure:
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
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.

which sports roflmao?
soccerfootball is too complex and I don't follow it anyway, can't really tell. but hockey has declined, F1 has declined, biathlon has declined - the sports I do follow more or less. Declined in terms of skill and competitiveness, money be damned.
 
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.

Bolded: ever since he entered his so called "prime" Thiem (currently the most successful next gen) has posted as many R1/R2 exits as QFs or above, so WHY? HOW does that makes sense (for a top player)?

:cool:
 

TheAssassin

G.O.A.T.
^^^

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.

:cool:
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.
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.
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?
 

ChrisRF

Legend
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.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
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?

Nadal looked amazing before AO '19 final, remember?
 
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.

So, if such matters are pointed at immediately after such matches, it is an "inconvenient timing"?

Do tell, when is it convenient (for the Djoke fanbase) to criticise a lacklustre performance in a Major final, so that everyone can take note of your "convenience".

:cool:
 
Last edited:

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
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...
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.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
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.
Does it annoy you when Federer fans use to eye test?
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
Does it annoy you when Federer fans use to eye test?
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS
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.
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 aren't there on numbers alone.
 
Last edited:

RS

Bionic Poster
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.
Is why you avoid these kind of debates ( noticed you do not partake a lot?)
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
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.

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?
 

ChrisRF

Legend
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.
"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.
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
Is why you avoid these kind of debates ( noticed you do not partake a lot?)
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.
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?
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. :D
 
D

Deleted member 743561

Guest
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.
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. :D
What's with all of the passive-aggressive **** talk, brother?

Is this your preferred venue for such talk? :unsure:
 

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
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. :D

Probably took you less than a year man lol...
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.

Look enjoy the win, but don't dismiss what you are seeing. It does not take anything away from Djoker.
 

Lleytonstation

Talk Tennis Guru
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?
Which one helps my Fed argument? Wait, i mean second option.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
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. :D

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.
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
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.
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.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
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

That's because one guy playing to an absurd level aged 35 or so can be written off as a historical fluke.

All 3 guys doing it is a bit disturbing. Are we really going to have wait until Nole retires at 38 for the young guys to win anything? It's getting on for 20 years of dominance by 3 men now.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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.

When Djokodal go on a 4.5 year stretch with no slam wins, then maybe I might root for them ;)
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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.
Stan, Murray, Safin and Delpo have won slams against prime Big 3, so aging Big 3 shouldn't be as much of an issue.

Next.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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?
I mean, why can't it be a bit of both? :unsure:
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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.

:cool:
After the Sampras match he did go on to deliver a pathetic performance against Agassi at the USO that same year.
 

ChrisRF

Legend
Well, if Meddy plays this pathetically against a mid 30's Djokovic, safe to say ATGhood has passed him by.
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.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
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.

Defence is important and agile tallbots make a sensible development in tennis but their offensive weakness is indeed puzzling, given that their frame doesn't lend itself to this at all but quite the opposite, their height and long levers give them a great physical gift to thwack balls, yet their technique does not. On the forehand side, both Med and Zed are visibly lacking and it's astounding they weren't coached to a properly compact technique. No leading young gen'er can crush forehands reliably anyway, Tsitsipas is the best and even he struggles. Rublev, in contrast, is all about crushing forehands but the rest of his game is all lacking. Obviously net games are lacking too, for obvious reasons of less practice but this comes to bite them as well as Djokovic is much more effective at net, let alone Fedal. These slam finals... It's like the worst of 2004. Either a muggish five-setter in the ballpark of Gaudio-Coria (which wasn't THAT awful quality-wise outside two krap sets in fact, just the eventual choke was unbearable), or a straight-set bust like Federer-Hewitt (but at least there was the real final with Andre). Only 04 had pretty good depth and best matches often happened outside the finals, can't quite say that about now.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
The cramped technique on the FH of the tallbots prevents them from being able to dictate on that side, and their pansy racquets cannot produce the heavy ball that the big 3 have either on return or offensively. When Djokovic blocks the ball with his heavy SW he doesn't simply put the ball into play, he forces his opponent to handle a fast and heavy ball. Same for Nadal: when he pulls the trigger on his FH it is a devastating shot. Federer, despite of having a lower SW swings a tank, which achieves similar effect combined with his exquisite timing and variety. The tall bots are literally lightweight compared to the big three in the equipment they use and the way they incorporate it in their games. Among themselves it makes for an entertaining matches from time to time, on the highest level, not so much. It boils down to deficiencies in the way they were raised as tennis players: always looking for the easier path (relatively speaking).

:cool:
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
You can certainly never call yourself an ATG if you keep getting schooled by past ATGs 6-10 years past their peak, no matter how many titles you go on to win in the inflation era.

none of these guys are even as good as Delpo, Murray, Wawrinka, Safin, Roddick
 
there was a popular term for this on the other tennis forum: glory hunter

I think that "glory hunter" relates mostly to the people that look for success by association, so you are right in that those people are such, but my main point was that these people are not concentrating uniquely on tennis in that behaviour. That is why you can see so many of them making references to other popular sports, and especially typical for the country they live in: they probably follow those even more religiously than tennis. For them tennis is nothing more than one of the many sports where they look to extract that sort of "success" from. A kind of tells you everything you need to know about how much they are invested in tennis, when American football is what they watch, while coming down to watch maybe several matches per Major (if that). They literally "don't have time for that sheet".

:cool:
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
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 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.
 

ChrisRF

Legend
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. ;)

That said, the ATG concept always looked very artificial to me and has even less substance than the GOAT term.
 
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.
The concept of ATG was about numbers because the average level of play throughout the years was more or less even.

Meaning winning 6 Slams in the 80s had the same value as winning 6 Slams in the 90s or 00s or 10s.

Therefore, only numbers were needed, since you really didn't have to look too hard at level of play.

But right now, it isn't the case with these guys. Djoko/Nadal get the benefit of doubt for at least being dominant or just straight up better.

Thiem doesn't, cuz USO 20 final sucked and all of them flopped in big matches, except for the two offs (USO 19 and AO 20). And those 2 offs would still be bottom rated for a Slam winner levelwise.
 
Top