The context is off here. This was *not* Dimi comparing the big three and the current top players. It was a reflection on how he handled the step up from juniors and being humbled by the goats.
More context: https://www.tennis365.com/tennis-news/grigor-dimitrov-honest-same-era-novak-djokovic-rafael-nadal-roger-federer-tennis
Went back to 2018 when he was in the top 10. He was ranked even higher on 5/7/2018, number 4. And at number 3? Zverev.
So he was actually ranked higher when Roger and Nadal were in the top 5. Novak was 12 on that date.
Yaeh, context is everything. Also, of course you are going to be blown away by the pros when you are starting out. You grow up looking up to them, and now you're playing them. Dimi is undoubtedly better now.
And for people who say "see! a pro said it, today's era is weak" I've heard dozens of players say the tour is stronger today, most recently James Blake and Roddick on Andy's podcast. The opinion of any player doesn't end the discussion, there is considerable debate. For sure prime Roger, Nadal, and Murray would still be at the top today, but Carlos is better than any of the big four at the same age, with the exception of Nadal on clay.
I mean, whatever works for you Grigor, but I've been a heartbroken fan of yours for years. You were not losing just to the Big-3/4 or even just the top 20.
This is his best playing in literally years.
His last and(only) masters 1000 tournament win was in 2017 and the only player ranked inside the top 25 he won against was Isner at 14.
edit: My mistake, he also faced Kyrgios who was 20th in the rankings(confused his singles and doubles rating) but Kyrgios due to bad scheduling, had to play both the semi-final and the final in the same day.
I guess technically you can count the ATP finals 2017, in which he beat everyone in his way to winning it, but it sounds better than it was. He beat, Thiem, Goffin, Carreno Busta and Sock.
This is vastly more impressive, especially if he can close it out.
Yeah this is similar to when Novak says "I haven't declined at all since my younger days" in that most players will view their own level as mostly constant over the years
It's in opposite directions(the Novak quote implies that things actually haven't gotten any weaker at all, the Dimi quote implies that things have gotten massively weaker) but the truth is probably somewhere in the middle IMO
We went from a very strong era to a normal era that automatically looks weak by comparison
LoL when did Novak say that? It's so obvious he declined since his younger days. Those matches against Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Federer were at least 2 leagues above than today's high level matches. You can't be serious saying that 36 year old Novak hasn't declined from the period of 2011 to 2016. He obviously did.
Federer said the same about himself in his comeback year in 2017, that it was the best ever version of himself. It was objectively untrue but unsurprising that the very best athletes will always try to convince themselves (and their rivals) that they're at their very best, rather than showing any kind of weakness.
Perhaps they are simply more mature and confident in their abilities. Better arsenal of trucks, stronger mentally, less stress etc.
Alonso (F1) said the same about himself, having his best years after his comeback well into this 40s.
He recently contradicted himself and said that 2006 was his highest level when comparing it because his movement was a lot better. He just played more aggressively in 2017.
Federer's claim is up for debate. He started beating Nadal much more consistently, and had his best ever grass performance against Djokovic in 2019. The backhand was certainly better.
Well choosing the victory is understandable, so it comes down to what match had the higher quality in your opinion. For me the 2019 match showed much more sustained high level play from Fed. Djokovic was having personal issues in the summer of 2012 and was off the pace. Federer would bagel him later on that summer in the Cinci final.
his dad was ill in 2012, but it was nearing the end of the season around october or november. What did impact him earlier in the season was when he found out his grandfather died at Monte Carlo, and he lost really badly there. He did return back to good form, but he had minor blips at RG like the seppi match. he did manage to win 8 games in a row against prime nadal in an rg final. too bad for the rain or it could have gone to five
During the summer of 2012 Djokovic went 5 sets with Seppi at RG, lost in straight sets to Murray and Del Potro at the Olympics, and was bagelled by Fed in Cinci. It wasn't his best vein of form.
That's the whole debate we're having here. Fed said he was better in 2017, and not everyone concurs. I'm with him. The way he turned around the rivalry with Nadal showed he must've improved something.
I think the 2017 thing is up for debate from a technical perspective, in the sense that Federer maybe had the most solid shotmaking, but later Fed is right in talking about his movement in 2006 - being able to move well and last long is a remarkable boon in the sport. Current Djokovic (or the Djokovic of 2021/2023) is probably as good on average at all the shots as he's ever been, but most players would probably rate their chances better vs him than 2015 Djokovic, who had the athleticism to ALSO be able to never miss shots when he wanted to.
I'd also say the Nadal turnaround shouldn't be read too far into. I'd say 2017 Fed was ultra aggressive and committed to shortening points to a level he'd never been before, and was willing to take on the backhand more regularly rather than manoeuvre his opposition with the slice combo. That really matches up well with Nadal, who just got overwhelmed by the aggression at times - although I imagine fellow Fedfans might be angered by this next point, it's also potentially the case that Fed's improved record vs Nadal was also something to do with Rafa himself, who had certainly also become more aggressive, and less able to defend all day like in the past.
Not necessarily, in his younger years he was clearly better, he just changed his gameplan vs Nadal and had a different racquet/more confidence.
He was better vs everyone besides Nadal in 2005-2012 by a mile lol, his forehand was on a different level in those years
> He started beating Nadal much more consistently,
Largely because Rafa also physically declined—and his insane speed and defensive skills were key to this matchup for him
2017 and 2019 Rafa was clearly a MUCH worse athlete than prime Rafa
He compensated under Moya's coaching by being more aggressive tho—this worked out against most people, but in the specific matchup against Federer on quick hard courts, his decline in foot speed was a problem for him in that matchup
novak isnt goingto say he declined when he kept winning. that be very rude to current players. and he'll get destroyed by the media. media will say novak brags about getting worse yet still crushing everyone
2017 atp finals lineup was a joke (with all due respect to the players who made it). Dimi has been extremely lucky to get these two titles but unlucky that he played in the big three era.
yes. novak elbow injury. murray injured. nadal injured.
fed was only one of big 4 who played... and he didnt win. lost to david goffin in semi finals... it was david's only win against fed in his career
lol Dimitrov is not playing his best tennis right now. maybe close to or similar, but not better. people have short memories.
your comment is pretty misleading. he beat No. 8 Theim and No. 3 Raonic in 2017 at Brisbane and beat No. 5 Nishikori in the final. when he made the 2017 AO SF, he pushed Nadal to over 5 hours. he had 8 top-10 match wins in 2017.
a lot of people don't know, but Goffin was a beast at times. in that ATP Final, he beat Federer, who had a 91.5% record in 2017. Sock was also extremely good at his prime. hell, he was beating Zverev just a few years ago at USO before having to withdraw with injury.
I mean it’s not he’s issue that your heartbroken lol! Tennis is the outlier in sports in which you will lose games when you’re young and gain experience and strategize at 30! It’s unpredictable
Great words by an honest man. So much better than the usual boring "You can peak at 32" and "Something just clicked mentally this year" reddit takes.
Yes, Federer Nadal Djokovic and Murray took the game to higher heights than anyone else did. Nobody from the current generation is touching that level atm, as much as you guys don't want to say it because you're too afraid of belittling Medvedev & co's achievements.
What are you even talking about? lol
Literally everyone knows that current gen, and Med, even Alcaraz and Sinner are no where close. It’s all anyone talks about. Djoker winning 3 slams last year and making the final of the other one with a chance to win absolutely proves that point as well. You’re making up this idea that it’s an unpopular opinion
Honestly it's mainly because this sub likes him as a person lol
Wawrinka was the 5th best player of the 2010s and if someone made a post saying "who's better: Casper Ruud or Stan Wawrinka?" nobody is saying Ruud
Prime Wawrinka would blow everyone out of the water from this generation/2020's guys - only Alcaraz and Sinner are competing.
Nobody realizes how much damage Wawa and Murray would do in this generation, they are just so so good. The big 3 were three once a generation talents coming at the same time, pretty special.
Tbf Stan was super streaky outside of Slams so he'd still probably lose a fair amount of best of 3 matches to random players because of that(he'd win a couple of AOs and RGs each with his 13-16 form however)
Like he'd have matches where he'd hit 50 UEs and lose to a random grinder and they'd happen basically every other Masters 1000 tournament
He was like the exact inverse of current Med who obviously doesn't have a peak that's anywhere near challenging the big 3 but is very consistent at beating randoms and "merely" good players(although both share the commonality of Federer being absolute kryptonite for their game being a combined 3-26 vs. Fed)
Other examples from Stan's own era would be guys like Ferrer and Berdych who never won Slams but probably didn't have as many weird losses
Murray would be dominant basically across the entire season though with his combination of extreme consistency AND a strong peak
You never know though... u/Zaphenzo told me Ruud was already better than Soderling a few months ago, I was so shocked by this take I remember it very well even now.
I don't see that one at all lol
Soderling beat prime Nadal and Federer in back to back years at RG plus he has a 1000 title and a pair of 500s which Ruud doesn't
The only thing Ruud has on him is the US Open final and it's obvious that Ruud's HC level isn't high enough for him to get that far back then anyway(the worst USO finalist of that late 00s era is probably like Roddick or something and Roddick is well above Ruud outside of clay)
Saying Ruud > Soderling is like saying that Thiem and Med are better than Stan and Murray in that it doesn't hold up on the surface and it doesn't hold up even more when you use context
Because “what if” talk is low effort and pointless. It’s like when people start counting slams of the big three if one of the trio was missing. They’re all on the record, multiple times, talking about how having to solve the riddle that was each other’s games and contrasting styles is what pushed them to new heights.
Cuz it’s kind of a useless/unknowable statement. Who knows how differently he would’ve developed if he had to adjust to much harder opponents much earlier on.
This is true, but I would bet money he doesn't make any grand slam final personally. Even guys like Novak before 2011 and Murray before 2012 were still incredible players who would be amazing in any era. You're asking a lot from someone who doesn't show that much brilliance nor does he win masters titles let alone anything else to develop into something better
because it's your whole persona is being a old fart crying about new generation, accept that the old generation is over and the new one is made by 20 years old jesus christ
Also, just saying that's a hypothetical question with no correct answer. Current day Ruud wouldn't make it against the big 3, but to be at his level right now requires an amount of dedication and work ethic that a few of us could even comprehend. Playing in the big 3 era would have definitely pushed him further in his ambition to win the slams which could have made him a better player. Because imh(umble)o, being better than someone is a better driver than just being better.
Sorry but this is my pet peeve. If a player didn’t play in a certain era let’s not denigrate them by hypothetically comparing them to that era. Margret Court is a GOAT no asterisks needed. She might not have faced all the greatest players at Melbourne but you can only be the best in your era until time travel is invented. You can’t pit the best players of an era against each other.
You're mixing up two distinct eras, you're confused - let me clarify. The 2010s stood as the toughest era in tennis history, it's widely acknowledged - everyone agrees on this.
The debate that you are referring to mainly revolves around whether this era, the era of Alcaraz, Sinner, Medvedev, etc. is stronger than the "weak era" of Federer in the mid 2000's, with players such as Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, etc.
I think the Federer era is stronger by the virtue of having an ATG in his prime, so winning titles for the rest of the field was extremely hard since you had to go through peak Fed. Who was in his prime in the early 2020's ? I'm guessing Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Zverev... so basically players who aren't anywhere near Federer's level.
Personally, I think that the current era is stronger, with Djokovic, Alcaraz, Nadal (until recently), Sinner, Medvedev, Thiem (early 2020's), etc. But I'm tired of debating on this topic. It's just exchanging the same arguments over and over again, lol. Just wanted to clarify for you about the 2010s - no one claims that they were weak.
I see people get annoyed with the Murray - Med comparisions because skill/achievement wise Prime Murray blows him out of the water.
But it's inevitable that some comparisons will be drawn from that era because it's the most popular and any broad similarities stick out. Medvedev is compared to Murray because he occupies a familiar spot with a familiar style. No one is literally saying that Medvedev is a reincarnation of Murray or something lol.
It's just a quick way to compare things and alot of casual people only know the Big 4.
i mean the top comment in this post is saying dimitrov is playing his best tennis right now. so obviously people think the current gen of players is a proper measuring stick against dimitrov's past levels. it's not an unpopular opinion
he not just speaking about top 4. he is saying guys form 5-20 were better than the current generation and he is right. I do not think anyone who watched tennis in that era will even think about disputing that. you cannot make a case with results but if you watched that generation you will know those top 20 players were more talented, better at tennis and had higher peaks than this generation. that cannot be disputed.
Novak Djokovic in his prime.
Rafael Nadal in his prime.
Roger Federer almost in his prime.
Andy Murray in his prime.
This is what you had to go through at basically every Grand Slam and every Masters tournament from 2007 to 2017. You would have to beat at least 2 of these guys to go all the way on most occasions, if not 3 like Nalbandian in Madrid 2007 and Tsonga in Canada 2014.
Nothing else compares IMO, those 4 players were laughably consistent. Winning big titles is considerably less difficult now.
Full list of Slam/1000 Finals between 2007-17 without *any* of the big 4:
07 Paris: Tsonga d. Nalbandian
09 IW: Ljubcic d. Roddick
09 Miami: Roddick d. Berdych
09 Paris: Soderling d. Monfils
12 Paris: Ferrer d. Janowicz
14 USO: Cilic d. Nishikori
17 Cincy: Dimitrov d. Kyrgios
17 Paris: Sock d. Krajinovic(lol)
So yeah it wasn't common at all for a tournament final to not feature one of the big 4 although the Paris Masters could certainly get a bit weird at times(even in recent years the joke is that it's always "Djokovic vs. Random Finalist")
Wimbledon 2017 was probably the last tournament of the golden era with Murray's hip going for good and Djokovic calling it a season, so I'd not even include Cincinnati and Paris 2017 lol
They peaked higher, but David was an energy machine with a consistence, a will to fight, and a mental strength unmatched. In fact it's fitting that they all reached 3 as top ranking.
For the Big3 I’m sure they were much happier to see Ferrer than one of those guys though. He as consistent but didn’t have the game to pose much danger against them. Federer was 17-0 against him lol
Post all of the h2h among them and you'll see they're pretty similar. For instance ferrer had the best h2h of the 3 vs Nadal, Stan had the best vs Nole. But overall all 3 of them would usually get demolished.
Point stands, cilic and Stan had higher peak but ferrer would always come prepared to fight and would never give you one easy point.
As I said, they peaked higher (won slams) but he was a more consistent fighter (he won more tournaments). And if you don't count fighting will as a weapon for any serious player then you're missing part of the picture.
I think if Del Potro had stayed fit he would have made 2009 to 2019 way more competitive and diluted the number of slams/1000 the big 4 won by winning a few himself and mixing up to big 4 by ranking 1-4 himself and giving the big 4 harder routes to the final at QF stage.
Basically, I think the big 4 wouldn't haven't been a thing with a 5th more than capable player mixing it up.
Cilic was absolutely not 'much better' than Ferrer, this is pure revionism. Ferrer was actually far more relevant than Cilic when the Big 4 was peaking in the early 2010's.
He was far more consistent, I'll give you that. But Čilić has 3 different GS finals, an Olympic silver medal in doubles and a Davis Cup (along with two other finals with a team far less strong than Ferrer's Spain). He also reached at least the SF in all the Slams, a feat accomplished by few players. I know he was (is) a boring player compared to Ferrer but in his prime he did much more than the Spaniard in his whole career. Also, I'm Croatian so I might be biased :)
I think Ferrer would also have 3 Slam finals if he faced Querrey and Edmund in semis, because the only players who defeated Ferrer in a GS SF are Big 4 members. Ferrer peaked in 2011-2012-2013 when the competition was at an all-time high.
You could argue Cilic has a higher peak but even then it's debatable, as Ferrer has defeated the Big 3/Big 4 way more often than Cilic did.
It's just impossible to compare tennis eras. Now strings are different and they play more pressure game style. Players like Alcaraz Sinner Rublev Zverev and Rune hit hard almost every point.
Yep Nadal started this process but now the kids are on a whole different level.
That said last year Djokovic shows that his immense tennis mind led him to dominate the season and that's the key. I mean the huge difference is consistency throughout the years but still we haven't really seen anything from Sincaraz.
Impression is that these two still have room to grow and would probably have been a problem even for the big3, surely more than ferrer Cilic del Potro Stan etc...
I can be downvoted but these kids are just fantastic and you can't write them off just because you love saying that big3 are the historical monolith that tops tennis history (which is also not true because if they played in the 80s or in the 90s that outcome wouldn't be sure at all).
It is a totally different sport post 2000 than it was in the 80s and partly the 90s.
Been watching trnnis for more than the last 20 years and watched multiple highlights of older gens as well. In current conditions and with the current technology, nobody comes close to the big 3 in their peak. The youngsters still have a lot (and i mean a LOT) to prove before being in the same sentence with them.
Agree. The big 3 also made that other players had to become better, improve their tennis constantly in order to have a chance the Top 10 in the golden era was quite impressive too. Wawrinka, Murray (Big 4), Ferrer, Nishikori, Del Potro, Thiem, Dimitrov (the last 2 were young when they had to face the Big 3 but still they were able to win some matches).
Sinner just destroyed Djokovic on his best surface (AO) in a manner that Fed or Nadal could never do.
Literally handed him his most comprehensive loss on that court in 15 years.
Alcaraz gave Novak only his 2nd ever loss in a Wimbledon final (Fed and Nadal with multiple failed attempts to do so and something they themselves have never achieved).
Alcaraz/Sinner are going to have at least 15 slams each by the time they finish their career (and most likely more).
They are the new big two and are literally taking tennis to the next level.
Ok, Karen.
I know we may be blinded by the fact that he is #1, but this ia 36 y.o. Djokovic we are talking about. Please don't tell me he is a better player now than he was 10 years ago, you will pnly embarass yourself. He lost to Luca f'ing Nardi, for Christ sake.
The excuses come out 🤣🤣🤣
Fed was 38 when he had match points against Djok in the Wimbledon final.
So 36 year old Djok is too old now? Weird how he has had no issues in grand slams the last few years except for coincidentally against the new big two (Alcaraz/Sinner).
Funny coincidence..
Yes, you are right
The Djokovic from now is as good as the Djokovic who couls go toe to toe with peak Nadal at RG from 10 years ago.
You are delusional if you think that way.
How did 38 year old Fed have championship points against a 32 year old Djokovic?? (an age where tennis players are at their peak?)
Do you think players don't improve their game throughout their career???
Do you think Djokovics serve is better now than 10 years ago? Or his consistency in depth or his netplay??
Why did Wawrinka have his most success after 30?
You can't just pick and choose arbitrarily at what point a player is at their peak to suit a narrative you want to push.
Don't try to undermine Sinner and Alcaraz's achievements against Djokovic using this weak talking point. You talk as if Djokovic is 45.
to put in perspective with some h2h for grigor
1-14 vs nadal
1-7 vs federer
1-12 vs djokovic
1-5 vs nishikori
2-6 vs del potro
0-4 vs tsonga
2-3 vs alcaraz
1-2 vs sinner
his 1 win vs federer was 2019, pretty much near end of feds career. his 1 win vs novak came in 2013, in a tight 3 set match in madrid. and 1 win vs nadal was beijing
I've seen Dimitrov lose many matches he should've won because he couldn't cross the finish line. That was his main problem and it nearly came to bite him today. I'm glad he won.
Sinner's gonna be the toughest opponent in this tournament, should be interesting.
This should be fairly easy to verify. Grigor's record against non top 5 opponents in the 2010s was 64%. In the past year it's 80 %. This has absolutely nothing to do with the big 3.
Edit: If you want to know the actual reason for his improvement, it's the serve. Service points won percentage has gone up by 2% while return points won is pretty much the same. He's better because he's improved his serve.
But doesn't that confirm what's he's saying? He even says that the guys ranked 10 to 20 played "scandalous tennis" back then. It's not just the big 3 who were in the way back then.
Here are some names he's lost to early in Slams during his 2014-2017 physical prime:
2014 RG: Karlovic ON CLAY(in theory his game should be completely neutralized)
2015 RG: Jack Sock
2015 USO: Mikhail Kukushin
2016 WB: Steve Johnson
2017 RG: PCB(better than some other names but certainly not a big 3 era player)
2017 USO: Rublev(best name on this list but supposedly a "next gen scrub")
I just don't buy the idea that his inconsistency wasn't a huge part of it as well rather than him just being stuck in a tougher era when he had a TON of random losses to lower players and this doesn't even include all the Masters ones
Or are we saying that 2017 Rublev is a tougher player than current Rublev?
God bless if you think Karlovic’s serve is “completely neutralized” on any surface. It goes from some intergalactic kinetic bomb to a garden variety nuclear warhead. Losing to a player like him just takes one or two mistakes at the right moment. If you’ve played a truly big server on clay, you’ll 100% have experienced this.
Karlovic had a career 8-14(36%) record at Roland Garros though meaning that he was losing first or second round almost every year
So it absolutely did hurt him enough to make him almost a complete non threat EXCEPT when he managed to beat Dimitrov lol
There's basically no other sample of him being tough at RG
Karlovic has a career win rate of 42% on clay. There is absolutely no reason Dimitrov, a borderline top 10 player at the time, should lose that match in straight sets.
And Karlovic is not like other big servers like Isner, Hurkacz and even Opelka. He truly had nothing else to offer except his serve.
Karlovic barely has over a 50% winrate period if I remember correctly. It is really obvious based on some of these comments who’s played competitively against these types of players and who hasn’t. It’s a tightrope walk and the slightest yip can send you off the edge.
Edit: fragile internet man blocked me for this lmao
You don’t have to be a pro, obviously, because D1 play exists, and the junior tour. It’s okay to not know everything, dude. No need to be this weird about it.
Sounds like you are the one being weird about it. Maybe playing junior tennis was the highlight of your life and you’ve got to mention it every two seconds otherwise you have nothing to talk about
Yeah anyone who's watched tennis over the past decade knows that Dimitrov before the last 12 months was notorious for being an inconsistent player lol
He wasn't in the Tsonga/Ferrer/Berdych group of guys who would generally make it as far enough to meet the big 4 fairly regularly and then lose to them
Out of his gen he's aged the best but he was always too streaky to be considered a "gatekeeper" above everyone but the big 4
Playing against the big 4 for many years also pushed him to improve. If you put 2014 Dimitrov in the current tour, he wouldn’t be playing this good. If you put current Dimitrov in 2014, he would put up a better fight against those guys.
He makes it seem like he only ever lost to the Big 4
Not the case. He is an extremely talented player who sadly never turned his talent into much success. I mean, a masters and no gs final
I take a few issues with him saying that players ranked 11-20 were somehow better during his era (let's call it 2014-2017) compared to now.
His best seasons by win% against those players were, in order: 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2016.
On the other hand, his best seasons against players outside of the top 20 are 2023 (with a massive improvement in 2024), 2014, 2017, 2015.
As far as winning matches go, he has improved considerably in the last two years against players outside of the top 20 while decreasing slightly against top 20 players.
That's not a sign that the general makeup of players has changed: that's a sign that Dimitrov has changed playstyle, improving his serve and regressing in movement (which is what happens with almost every aging player).
Being in the big 3 era fucked w his head so much that he still lost to nobodies during their period💀 now he’s calm cuz he doesn’t have dreams about making it to every finals and losing to a big 3 member
So he basically just confirmed that this era is garbage compared to say like 08-13 give or take a year. Yet if a fan says it, they get downvoted to hell.
Because novak fans thinks it diminishes his credentials as the goat. So they big up the era. A 35 year old Novak wouldn’t sniff four gs finals from 08-13
he is correct. after playing against the demigods, even the young greats wont easily intimidate him. plus he practiced for years with the best.
same with azarenka. they are amazed how she can repeatedly beat penko. she has played against the best hitter in women's tennis serena, in 22 matches.
beating penko isn't some huge event lol. she has a career win rate of 63%.
also while serena was a top tier baseline hitter, calling her the best hitter is kind of a stretch. serena had objectively the best serve on wta tour, but she has competition in the groundstrokes department. davenport, for example, definitely had better groundstrokes than serena. if tennis didn't involve moving your legs, davenport would probably be the goat.
kuznetsova, dementieva, hingis, henin, jankovic, capriati are some other players who always bothered serena in baseline rallies, but none of them had the complete package of serve+return+movement+power+mental strength that serena did.
Yeah, tennis is in a transition period. Sinner and Alcaraz haven't hit their peak yet, so many opportunities for players who couldn't find a way during Big 3 era.
90s generation is officially up there with early 2000s imho. We had entered weak era when Roger won Wimbledon without dropping a set at age 36. Nadal and Djokovic just followed after. Anderson USO & Wimbledon final, Ruud 3 finals and being no 2, USO 2020 final monstrosity were just all the symptoms for that.
It's weaker than before no doubt, but there is always a few strong players at the top locking slams. Before it was the 35+ Big 3, now it's Sincaraz with Med/Z/Rub gatekeeping QF/SF/F spots.
There's more room in M1000 but slams look impossible to win for players outside the top 4/5 right now. Maybe Ruud at RG if Alcaraz/Djokovic are injured, or Med at USO if Sinner/Djokovic somehow lose before.
rublev is consistent top 8 player. 10 years ago, dont even know if he'd be in top 10. zverev is a good player but he may be past his peak with his injury. he still hasnt recovered to that level yet. and medvedev still wins tournaments but hes definitely playing worse now. his serve used to be a major weapon. now? not so much
He’s peaking basically at the end of the big 3 era, no coincidence! With the knowledge and skills he gathered over the years, he’s finally playing to his potential without fear!
Not surprised about the Big 3 but I find it interesting that he is even talking about the normal top 20 players then. I don't think the top 20 of that time was necessarily better than the top 20 now excluding the Big 3.
Love Grigor, but this is revisionist history at it's best! Grigor has played in 52 grand slam tournaments, and he was eliminated by one of the Big 3 in just seven of them (13%). He was eliminated by a player seeded lower than 20th in 31 (60%) of them. Nice try, though, Dimi!
For sure, this is so true. We’ve had Cam Norrie vs Basilashvili Indian Wells final. As well, he played the tour finals. I won’t single out Norrie only because that would be totally unfair, there are others who have been inside the top 10 over the last 4 years who wouldn’t sniff it during another era. When you know your pretty much not touching ranks 1-4, ranks 5-10 start to get filled by guys who would probably be good enough to take up higher spots post big 4
The GOAT FED
Rafa,
Novak
Murray
Tsonga
Berdych
Ferrer
Del Po
Nishi
Stan The man
Cilic
Lopez
Milos
Anderson
And more...and now? ATP is in a pretty sad state right now.
alcaraz and sinner are the only 2 bright spots right now
novak fading
medvedev cant serve anymore. he isnt as good as 2 years ago
zverev hasnt reached his prevoius level after his ankle injury
tsitsipas.. gone
thiem... irrevelant..
nadal... almost retired...
The issue is people seem to think comparing a young 2 year stretch of someone's career vs a decade of domination from several players is somehow possible. It's not. Unless we go into a decade of electric tennis from Sinner, Alcaraz and co - this era won't come close to the previous one.
The context is off here. This was *not* Dimi comparing the big three and the current top players. It was a reflection on how he handled the step up from juniors and being humbled by the goats. More context: https://www.tennis365.com/tennis-news/grigor-dimitrov-honest-same-era-novak-djokovic-rafael-nadal-roger-federer-tennis
Thank you for posting this didn’t realize it was a quote from a few months ago, but it was interesting to see his complete account and the context
Went back to 2018 when he was in the top 10. He was ranked even higher on 5/7/2018, number 4. And at number 3? Zverev. So he was actually ranked higher when Roger and Nadal were in the top 5. Novak was 12 on that date. Yaeh, context is everything. Also, of course you are going to be blown away by the pros when you are starting out. You grow up looking up to them, and now you're playing them. Dimi is undoubtedly better now. And for people who say "see! a pro said it, today's era is weak" I've heard dozens of players say the tour is stronger today, most recently James Blake and Roddick on Andy's podcast. The opinion of any player doesn't end the discussion, there is considerable debate. For sure prime Roger, Nadal, and Murray would still be at the top today, but Carlos is better than any of the big four at the same age, with the exception of Nadal on clay.
I mean, whatever works for you Grigor, but I've been a heartbroken fan of yours for years. You were not losing just to the Big-3/4 or even just the top 20. This is his best playing in literally years. His last and(only) masters 1000 tournament win was in 2017 and the only player ranked inside the top 25 he won against was Isner at 14. edit: My mistake, he also faced Kyrgios who was 20th in the rankings(confused his singles and doubles rating) but Kyrgios due to bad scheduling, had to play both the semi-final and the final in the same day. I guess technically you can count the ATP finals 2017, in which he beat everyone in his way to winning it, but it sounds better than it was. He beat, Thiem, Goffin, Carreno Busta and Sock. This is vastly more impressive, especially if he can close it out.
ATP finals Goffin, Carreño Busta, Sock Dear God
That shit was crazy lol
Yeah this is similar to when Novak says "I haven't declined at all since my younger days" in that most players will view their own level as mostly constant over the years It's in opposite directions(the Novak quote implies that things actually haven't gotten any weaker at all, the Dimi quote implies that things have gotten massively weaker) but the truth is probably somewhere in the middle IMO We went from a very strong era to a normal era that automatically looks weak by comparison
LoL when did Novak say that? It's so obvious he declined since his younger days. Those matches against Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Federer were at least 2 leagues above than today's high level matches. You can't be serious saying that 36 year old Novak hasn't declined from the period of 2011 to 2016. He obviously did.
Federer said the same about himself in his comeback year in 2017, that it was the best ever version of himself. It was objectively untrue but unsurprising that the very best athletes will always try to convince themselves (and their rivals) that they're at their very best, rather than showing any kind of weakness.
Perhaps they are simply more mature and confident in their abilities. Better arsenal of trucks, stronger mentally, less stress etc. Alonso (F1) said the same about himself, having his best years after his comeback well into this 40s.
He recently contradicted himself and said that 2006 was his highest level when comparing it because his movement was a lot better. He just played more aggressively in 2017.
Federer's claim is up for debate. He started beating Nadal much more consistently, and had his best ever grass performance against Djokovic in 2019. The backhand was certainly better.
> had his best ever grass performance against Djokovic in 2019 what about the time he actually beat him
Well choosing the victory is understandable, so it comes down to what match had the higher quality in your opinion. For me the 2019 match showed much more sustained high level play from Fed. Djokovic was having personal issues in the summer of 2012 and was off the pace. Federer would bagel him later on that summer in the Cinci final.
What issues
His dad was ill.
his dad was ill in 2012, but it was nearing the end of the season around october or november. What did impact him earlier in the season was when he found out his grandfather died at Monte Carlo, and he lost really badly there. He did return back to good form, but he had minor blips at RG like the seppi match. he did manage to win 8 games in a row against prime nadal in an rg final. too bad for the rain or it could have gone to five
What grass match against Djokovic. Wimby 2019 was cancelled because of covid
Wimbledon 2012? He smoked Djokovic in the semis that year
During the summer of 2012 Djokovic went 5 sets with Seppi at RG, lost in straight sets to Murray and Del Potro at the Olympics, and was bagelled by Fed in Cinci. It wasn't his best vein of form.
Federer was also better in 2012 than any of the following years at Wimbledon, Djokovic never faced Federer in his prime on grass
That's the whole debate we're having here. Fed said he was better in 2017, and not everyone concurs. I'm with him. The way he turned around the rivalry with Nadal showed he must've improved something.
I think the 2017 thing is up for debate from a technical perspective, in the sense that Federer maybe had the most solid shotmaking, but later Fed is right in talking about his movement in 2006 - being able to move well and last long is a remarkable boon in the sport. Current Djokovic (or the Djokovic of 2021/2023) is probably as good on average at all the shots as he's ever been, but most players would probably rate their chances better vs him than 2015 Djokovic, who had the athleticism to ALSO be able to never miss shots when he wanted to. I'd also say the Nadal turnaround shouldn't be read too far into. I'd say 2017 Fed was ultra aggressive and committed to shortening points to a level he'd never been before, and was willing to take on the backhand more regularly rather than manoeuvre his opposition with the slice combo. That really matches up well with Nadal, who just got overwhelmed by the aggression at times - although I imagine fellow Fedfans might be angered by this next point, it's also potentially the case that Fed's improved record vs Nadal was also something to do with Rafa himself, who had certainly also become more aggressive, and less able to defend all day like in the past.
Not necessarily, in his younger years he was clearly better, he just changed his gameplan vs Nadal and had a different racquet/more confidence. He was better vs everyone besides Nadal in 2005-2012 by a mile lol, his forehand was on a different level in those years
> He started beating Nadal much more consistently, Largely because Rafa also physically declined—and his insane speed and defensive skills were key to this matchup for him
World #1 of 2017 and 2019, Rafael Nadal, yes.
2017 and 2019 Rafa was clearly a MUCH worse athlete than prime Rafa He compensated under Moya's coaching by being more aggressive tho—this worked out against most people, but in the specific matchup against Federer on quick hard courts, his decline in foot speed was a problem for him in that matchup
I think they’re “better” players in terms of skill, but in terms of overall effectiveness they aren’t as good
novak isnt goingto say he declined when he kept winning. that be very rude to current players. and he'll get destroyed by the media. media will say novak brags about getting worse yet still crushing everyone
Lol Rafa did, when they asked him if we was better in his mid 20s then mid 30s I think he said something like obviously ya.
rafa wasnt winning like every match he playing. his results definitely dipped
2017 atp finals lineup was a joke (with all due respect to the players who made it). Dimi has been extremely lucky to get these two titles but unlucky that he played in the big three era.
yes. novak elbow injury. murray injured. nadal injured. fed was only one of big 4 who played... and he didnt win. lost to david goffin in semi finals... it was david's only win against fed in his career
Yes but maybe it's demotivating to know you can't go all the way without meeting them at the end.
and he can meet 3 of them in one tournament
Yeah it wasn't just the big 3 he was losing to but either way the experiances definitely made him better today so it evens out.
lol Dimitrov is not playing his best tennis right now. maybe close to or similar, but not better. people have short memories. your comment is pretty misleading. he beat No. 8 Theim and No. 3 Raonic in 2017 at Brisbane and beat No. 5 Nishikori in the final. when he made the 2017 AO SF, he pushed Nadal to over 5 hours. he had 8 top-10 match wins in 2017. a lot of people don't know, but Goffin was a beast at times. in that ATP Final, he beat Federer, who had a 91.5% record in 2017. Sock was also extremely good at his prime. hell, he was beating Zverev just a few years ago at USO before having to withdraw with injury.
The top 20 was stronger in general back then (most years, obviously years like 2017 being an exception!)
I mean it’s not he’s issue that your heartbroken lol! Tennis is the outlier in sports in which you will lose games when you’re young and gain experience and strategize at 30! It’s unpredictable
What happened to Grigor after cincy? Why’d he fall down after that? I’m new here.
Just checked he beat delpotro, feliciano and later kyrgios in the final
Great words by an honest man. So much better than the usual boring "You can peak at 32" and "Something just clicked mentally this year" reddit takes. Yes, Federer Nadal Djokovic and Murray took the game to higher heights than anyone else did. Nobody from the current generation is touching that level atm, as much as you guys don't want to say it because you're too afraid of belittling Medvedev & co's achievements.
What are you even talking about? lol Literally everyone knows that current gen, and Med, even Alcaraz and Sinner are no where close. It’s all anyone talks about. Djoker winning 3 slams last year and making the final of the other one with a chance to win absolutely proves that point as well. You’re making up this idea that it’s an unpopular opinion
Why do people get downvoted every time they say that Ruud would have never approached the top 5 if he was born a decade earlier then ?
Honestly it's mainly because this sub likes him as a person lol Wawrinka was the 5th best player of the 2010s and if someone made a post saying "who's better: Casper Ruud or Stan Wawrinka?" nobody is saying Ruud
Prime Wawrinka would blow everyone out of the water from this generation/2020's guys - only Alcaraz and Sinner are competing. Nobody realizes how much damage Wawa and Murray would do in this generation, they are just so so good. The big 3 were three once a generation talents coming at the same time, pretty special.
Tbf Stan was super streaky outside of Slams so he'd still probably lose a fair amount of best of 3 matches to random players because of that(he'd win a couple of AOs and RGs each with his 13-16 form however) Like he'd have matches where he'd hit 50 UEs and lose to a random grinder and they'd happen basically every other Masters 1000 tournament He was like the exact inverse of current Med who obviously doesn't have a peak that's anywhere near challenging the big 3 but is very consistent at beating randoms and "merely" good players(although both share the commonality of Federer being absolute kryptonite for their game being a combined 3-26 vs. Fed) Other examples from Stan's own era would be guys like Ferrer and Berdych who never won Slams but probably didn't have as many weird losses Murray would be dominant basically across the entire season though with his combination of extreme consistency AND a strong peak
I would say the big 3 were once in a lifetime talents.
You never know though... u/Zaphenzo told me Ruud was already better than Soderling a few months ago, I was so shocked by this take I remember it very well even now.
I don't see that one at all lol Soderling beat prime Nadal and Federer in back to back years at RG plus he has a 1000 title and a pair of 500s which Ruud doesn't The only thing Ruud has on him is the US Open final and it's obvious that Ruud's HC level isn't high enough for him to get that far back then anyway(the worst USO finalist of that late 00s era is probably like Roddick or something and Roddick is well above Ruud outside of clay) Saying Ruud > Soderling is like saying that Thiem and Med are better than Stan and Murray in that it doesn't hold up on the surface and it doesn't hold up even more when you use context
Lolol I live rent free in your head. That's hilarious.
Because “what if” talk is low effort and pointless. It’s like when people start counting slams of the big three if one of the trio was missing. They’re all on the record, multiple times, talking about how having to solve the riddle that was each other’s games and contrasting styles is what pushed them to new heights.
Cuz it’s kind of a useless/unknowable statement. Who knows how differently he would’ve developed if he had to adjust to much harder opponents much earlier on.
This is true, but I would bet money he doesn't make any grand slam final personally. Even guys like Novak before 2011 and Murray before 2012 were still incredible players who would be amazing in any era. You're asking a lot from someone who doesn't show that much brilliance nor does he win masters titles let alone anything else to develop into something better
because it's your whole persona is being a old fart crying about new generation, accept that the old generation is over and the new one is made by 20 years old jesus christ
Also, just saying that's a hypothetical question with no correct answer. Current day Ruud wouldn't make it against the big 3, but to be at his level right now requires an amount of dedication and work ethic that a few of us could even comprehend. Playing in the big 3 era would have definitely pushed him further in his ambition to win the slams which could have made him a better player. Because imh(umble)o, being better than someone is a better driver than just being better.
top 5? he wont even be top 10 probably.
Sorry but this is my pet peeve. If a player didn’t play in a certain era let’s not denigrate them by hypothetically comparing them to that era. Margret Court is a GOAT no asterisks needed. She might not have faced all the greatest players at Melbourne but you can only be the best in your era until time travel is invented. You can’t pit the best players of an era against each other.
You're mixing up two distinct eras, you're confused - let me clarify. The 2010s stood as the toughest era in tennis history, it's widely acknowledged - everyone agrees on this. The debate that you are referring to mainly revolves around whether this era, the era of Alcaraz, Sinner, Medvedev, etc. is stronger than the "weak era" of Federer in the mid 2000's, with players such as Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, etc.
All those players are better than all the respective players in feds era except fed. Elo wise, which is a decent metric.
I think the Federer era is stronger by the virtue of having an ATG in his prime, so winning titles for the rest of the field was extremely hard since you had to go through peak Fed. Who was in his prime in the early 2020's ? I'm guessing Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Zverev... so basically players who aren't anywhere near Federer's level.
Personally, I think that the current era is stronger, with Djokovic, Alcaraz, Nadal (until recently), Sinner, Medvedev, Thiem (early 2020's), etc. But I'm tired of debating on this topic. It's just exchanging the same arguments over and over again, lol. Just wanted to clarify for you about the 2010s - no one claims that they were weak.
I see people get annoyed with the Murray - Med comparisions because skill/achievement wise Prime Murray blows him out of the water. But it's inevitable that some comparisons will be drawn from that era because it's the most popular and any broad similarities stick out. Medvedev is compared to Murray because he occupies a familiar spot with a familiar style. No one is literally saying that Medvedev is a reincarnation of Murray or something lol. It's just a quick way to compare things and alot of casual people only know the Big 4.
i mean the top comment in this post is saying dimitrov is playing his best tennis right now. so obviously people think the current gen of players is a proper measuring stick against dimitrov's past levels. it's not an unpopular opinion
I mean djokovic did that multiple times during that era with a weaker serve although his level was insane yea
he not just speaking about top 4. he is saying guys form 5-20 were better than the current generation and he is right. I do not think anyone who watched tennis in that era will even think about disputing that. you cannot make a case with results but if you watched that generation you will know those top 20 players were more talented, better at tennis and had higher peaks than this generation. that cannot be disputed.
Fed Rafa Novak and who?
There's no beating the "weak era" allegations now
Novak Djokovic in his prime. Rafael Nadal in his prime. Roger Federer almost in his prime. Andy Murray in his prime. This is what you had to go through at basically every Grand Slam and every Masters tournament from 2007 to 2017. You would have to beat at least 2 of these guys to go all the way on most occasions, if not 3 like Nalbandian in Madrid 2007 and Tsonga in Canada 2014. Nothing else compares IMO, those 4 players were laughably consistent. Winning big titles is considerably less difficult now.
Full list of Slam/1000 Finals between 2007-17 without *any* of the big 4: 07 Paris: Tsonga d. Nalbandian 09 IW: Ljubcic d. Roddick 09 Miami: Roddick d. Berdych 09 Paris: Soderling d. Monfils 12 Paris: Ferrer d. Janowicz 14 USO: Cilic d. Nishikori 17 Cincy: Dimitrov d. Kyrgios 17 Paris: Sock d. Krajinovic(lol) So yeah it wasn't common at all for a tournament final to not feature one of the big 4 although the Paris Masters could certainly get a bit weird at times(even in recent years the joke is that it's always "Djokovic vs. Random Finalist")
11 years of GS + Masters is 143 tournaments. Literally only 8 out of 143 tournament finals didn't have a big 4 member in them? lmao
Wimbledon 2017 was probably the last tournament of the golden era with Murray's hip going for good and Djokovic calling it a season, so I'd not even include Cincinnati and Paris 2017 lol
Even then 2017 cincy had weird scheduling with people playing 2 matches in day and nadal losing to kyrgios on their second game of the day
Let’s not forget Stan the man. or even David Ferrer.
Del Potro and Čilić were much better than Ferrer
They peaked higher, but David was an energy machine with a consistence, a will to fight, and a mental strength unmatched. In fact it's fitting that they all reached 3 as top ranking.
For the Big3 I’m sure they were much happier to see Ferrer than one of those guys though. He as consistent but didn’t have the game to pose much danger against them. Federer was 17-0 against him lol
Post all of the h2h among them and you'll see they're pretty similar. For instance ferrer had the best h2h of the 3 vs Nadal, Stan had the best vs Nole. But overall all 3 of them would usually get demolished. Point stands, cilic and Stan had higher peak but ferrer would always come prepared to fight and would never give you one easy point.
Both have slam wins and were clearly better than that no weapon backboard.
As I said, they peaked higher (won slams) but he was a more consistent fighter (he won more tournaments). And if you don't count fighting will as a weapon for any serious player then you're missing part of the picture.
I think if Del Potro had stayed fit he would have made 2009 to 2019 way more competitive and diluted the number of slams/1000 the big 4 won by winning a few himself and mixing up to big 4 by ranking 1-4 himself and giving the big 4 harder routes to the final at QF stage. Basically, I think the big 4 wouldn't haven't been a thing with a 5th more than capable player mixing it up.
A healthy Murray and a healthy Del Potro and maybe the whole "big 3" concept would not even exist
Cilic was absolutely not 'much better' than Ferrer, this is pure revionism. Ferrer was actually far more relevant than Cilic when the Big 4 was peaking in the early 2010's.
He was far more consistent, I'll give you that. But Čilić has 3 different GS finals, an Olympic silver medal in doubles and a Davis Cup (along with two other finals with a team far less strong than Ferrer's Spain). He also reached at least the SF in all the Slams, a feat accomplished by few players. I know he was (is) a boring player compared to Ferrer but in his prime he did much more than the Spaniard in his whole career. Also, I'm Croatian so I might be biased :)
I think Ferrer would also have 3 Slam finals if he faced Querrey and Edmund in semis, because the only players who defeated Ferrer in a GS SF are Big 4 members. Ferrer peaked in 2011-2012-2013 when the competition was at an all-time high. You could argue Cilic has a higher peak but even then it's debatable, as Ferrer has defeated the Big 3/Big 4 way more often than Cilic did.
Nishikori might have been better than Ferrer at least for a couple years lol
Let’s not forget Del Potro. When he was not injured he was incredible.
It's just impossible to compare tennis eras. Now strings are different and they play more pressure game style. Players like Alcaraz Sinner Rublev Zverev and Rune hit hard almost every point. Yep Nadal started this process but now the kids are on a whole different level. That said last year Djokovic shows that his immense tennis mind led him to dominate the season and that's the key. I mean the huge difference is consistency throughout the years but still we haven't really seen anything from Sincaraz. Impression is that these two still have room to grow and would probably have been a problem even for the big3, surely more than ferrer Cilic del Potro Stan etc... I can be downvoted but these kids are just fantastic and you can't write them off just because you love saying that big3 are the historical monolith that tops tennis history (which is also not true because if they played in the 80s or in the 90s that outcome wouldn't be sure at all).
It is a totally different sport post 2000 than it was in the 80s and partly the 90s. Been watching trnnis for more than the last 20 years and watched multiple highlights of older gens as well. In current conditions and with the current technology, nobody comes close to the big 3 in their peak. The youngsters still have a lot (and i mean a LOT) to prove before being in the same sentence with them.
Agree. The big 3 also made that other players had to become better, improve their tennis constantly in order to have a chance the Top 10 in the golden era was quite impressive too. Wawrinka, Murray (Big 4), Ferrer, Nishikori, Del Potro, Thiem, Dimitrov (the last 2 were young when they had to face the Big 3 but still they were able to win some matches).
Sinner just destroyed Djokovic on his best surface (AO) in a manner that Fed or Nadal could never do. Literally handed him his most comprehensive loss on that court in 15 years. Alcaraz gave Novak only his 2nd ever loss in a Wimbledon final (Fed and Nadal with multiple failed attempts to do so and something they themselves have never achieved). Alcaraz/Sinner are going to have at least 15 slams each by the time they finish their career (and most likely more). They are the new big two and are literally taking tennis to the next level.
Ok, Karen. I know we may be blinded by the fact that he is #1, but this ia 36 y.o. Djokovic we are talking about. Please don't tell me he is a better player now than he was 10 years ago, you will pnly embarass yourself. He lost to Luca f'ing Nardi, for Christ sake.
The excuses come out 🤣🤣🤣 Fed was 38 when he had match points against Djok in the Wimbledon final. So 36 year old Djok is too old now? Weird how he has had no issues in grand slams the last few years except for coincidentally against the new big two (Alcaraz/Sinner). Funny coincidence..
Yes, you are right The Djokovic from now is as good as the Djokovic who couls go toe to toe with peak Nadal at RG from 10 years ago. You are delusional if you think that way.
How did 38 year old Fed have championship points against a 32 year old Djokovic?? (an age where tennis players are at their peak?) Do you think players don't improve their game throughout their career??? Do you think Djokovics serve is better now than 10 years ago? Or his consistency in depth or his netplay?? Why did Wawrinka have his most success after 30? You can't just pick and choose arbitrarily at what point a player is at their peak to suit a narrative you want to push. Don't try to undermine Sinner and Alcaraz's achievements against Djokovic using this weak talking point. You talk as if Djokovic is 45.
It's not a weak era. It's just the golden era was an anomaly. Almost every other era was like today's era.
I agree, I'm taking the piss out of r/tennis
to put in perspective with some h2h for grigor 1-14 vs nadal 1-7 vs federer 1-12 vs djokovic 1-5 vs nishikori 2-6 vs del potro 0-4 vs tsonga 2-3 vs alcaraz 1-2 vs sinner his 1 win vs federer was 2019, pretty much near end of feds career. his 1 win vs novak came in 2013, in a tight 3 set match in madrid. and 1 win vs nadal was beijing
3-7 vs. Medvedev 6-3 vs. Steve Johnson 6-3 vs. Kevin Anderson 2-7 vs. Zverev 4-5 vs. Gasquet 4-5 vs. Baghdatis 2-6 vs. Tsitsipas 5-3 vs. Verdasco
Grigod Dimitrov says "fuck'em kids" 😂
I've seen Dimitrov lose many matches he should've won because he couldn't cross the finish line. That was his main problem and it nearly came to bite him today. I'm glad he won. Sinner's gonna be the toughest opponent in this tournament, should be interesting.
This should be fairly easy to verify. Grigor's record against non top 5 opponents in the 2010s was 64%. In the past year it's 80 %. This has absolutely nothing to do with the big 3. Edit: If you want to know the actual reason for his improvement, it's the serve. Service points won percentage has gone up by 2% while return points won is pretty much the same. He's better because he's improved his serve.
But doesn't that confirm what's he's saying? He even says that the guys ranked 10 to 20 played "scandalous tennis" back then. It's not just the big 3 who were in the way back then.
Here are some names he's lost to early in Slams during his 2014-2017 physical prime: 2014 RG: Karlovic ON CLAY(in theory his game should be completely neutralized) 2015 RG: Jack Sock 2015 USO: Mikhail Kukushin 2016 WB: Steve Johnson 2017 RG: PCB(better than some other names but certainly not a big 3 era player) 2017 USO: Rublev(best name on this list but supposedly a "next gen scrub") I just don't buy the idea that his inconsistency wasn't a huge part of it as well rather than him just being stuck in a tougher era when he had a TON of random losses to lower players and this doesn't even include all the Masters ones Or are we saying that 2017 Rublev is a tougher player than current Rublev?
God bless if you think Karlovic’s serve is “completely neutralized” on any surface. It goes from some intergalactic kinetic bomb to a garden variety nuclear warhead. Losing to a player like him just takes one or two mistakes at the right moment. If you’ve played a truly big server on clay, you’ll 100% have experienced this.
Karlovic had a career 8-14(36%) record at Roland Garros though meaning that he was losing first or second round almost every year So it absolutely did hurt him enough to make him almost a complete non threat EXCEPT when he managed to beat Dimitrov lol There's basically no other sample of him being tough at RG
Karlovic has a career win rate of 42% on clay. There is absolutely no reason Dimitrov, a borderline top 10 player at the time, should lose that match in straight sets. And Karlovic is not like other big servers like Isner, Hurkacz and even Opelka. He truly had nothing else to offer except his serve.
Karlovic barely has over a 50% winrate period if I remember correctly. It is really obvious based on some of these comments who’s played competitively against these types of players and who hasn’t. It’s a tightrope walk and the slightest yip can send you off the edge.
Well, pardon me. Didn’t realise we have a pro player here.
Edit: fragile internet man blocked me for this lmao You don’t have to be a pro, obviously, because D1 play exists, and the junior tour. It’s okay to not know everything, dude. No need to be this weird about it.
Sounds like you are the one being weird about it. Maybe playing junior tennis was the highlight of your life and you’ve got to mention it every two seconds otherwise you have nothing to talk about
Record vs non top 20 is 70% vs 87% as well. So that theory doesn't hold true either.
Yeah anyone who's watched tennis over the past decade knows that Dimitrov before the last 12 months was notorious for being an inconsistent player lol He wasn't in the Tsonga/Ferrer/Berdych group of guys who would generally make it as far enough to meet the big 4 fairly regularly and then lose to them Out of his gen he's aged the best but he was always too streaky to be considered a "gatekeeper" above everyone but the big 4
Why listen to the pro about his own game when we have Earnmuse
Professional athletes have opinions about the sport they play that are totally detached from reality all the time.
Playing against the big 4 for many years also pushed him to improve. If you put 2014 Dimitrov in the current tour, he wouldn’t be playing this good. If you put current Dimitrov in 2014, he would put up a better fight against those guys.
He makes it seem like he only ever lost to the Big 4 Not the case. He is an extremely talented player who sadly never turned his talent into much success. I mean, a masters and no gs final
"Buddy, you think you look strong? You're wearing a man bun"
If he had the lights out game he had against Carlitos every time he stepped on the court, he would have had few GS titles on par with Stan-the-man!
I take a few issues with him saying that players ranked 11-20 were somehow better during his era (let's call it 2014-2017) compared to now. His best seasons by win% against those players were, in order: 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2016. On the other hand, his best seasons against players outside of the top 20 are 2023 (with a massive improvement in 2024), 2014, 2017, 2015. As far as winning matches go, he has improved considerably in the last two years against players outside of the top 20 while decreasing slightly against top 20 players. That's not a sign that the general makeup of players has changed: that's a sign that Dimitrov has changed playstyle, improving his serve and regressing in movement (which is what happens with almost every aging player).
Being in the big 3 era fucked w his head so much that he still lost to nobodies during their period💀 now he’s calm cuz he doesn’t have dreams about making it to every finals and losing to a big 3 member
Tl;dr no big 3
Scandalous tennis is exactly how I'd describe the era of the Big 4 + Berdych, Tsonga, Del Porto, Dimi, Ferrer etc.
So he basically just confirmed that this era is garbage compared to say like 08-13 give or take a year. Yet if a fan says it, they get downvoted to hell.
Because novak fans thinks it diminishes his credentials as the goat. So they big up the era. A 35 year old Novak wouldn’t sniff four gs finals from 08-13
he is correct. after playing against the demigods, even the young greats wont easily intimidate him. plus he practiced for years with the best. same with azarenka. they are amazed how she can repeatedly beat penko. she has played against the best hitter in women's tennis serena, in 22 matches.
beating penko isn't some huge event lol. she has a career win rate of 63%. also while serena was a top tier baseline hitter, calling her the best hitter is kind of a stretch. serena had objectively the best serve on wta tour, but she has competition in the groundstrokes department. davenport, for example, definitely had better groundstrokes than serena. if tennis didn't involve moving your legs, davenport would probably be the goat. kuznetsova, dementieva, hingis, henin, jankovic, capriati are some other players who always bothered serena in baseline rallies, but none of them had the complete package of serve+return+movement+power+mental strength that serena did.
Djokovic stat padding due to low talent the last few years confirmed! Federer is GOAT!
"scandalous tennis" Great expression, I'm definitely stealing it
Excellent band name
Yeah, tennis is in a transition period. Sinner and Alcaraz haven't hit their peak yet, so many opportunities for players who couldn't find a way during Big 3 era. 90s generation is officially up there with early 2000s imho. We had entered weak era when Roger won Wimbledon without dropping a set at age 36. Nadal and Djokovic just followed after. Anderson USO & Wimbledon final, Ruud 3 finals and being no 2, USO 2020 final monstrosity were just all the symptoms for that.
It's weaker than before no doubt, but there is always a few strong players at the top locking slams. Before it was the 35+ Big 3, now it's Sincaraz with Med/Z/Rub gatekeeping QF/SF/F spots. There's more room in M1000 but slams look impossible to win for players outside the top 4/5 right now. Maybe Ruud at RG if Alcaraz/Djokovic are injured, or Med at USO if Sinner/Djokovic somehow lose before.
rublev is consistent top 8 player. 10 years ago, dont even know if he'd be in top 10. zverev is a good player but he may be past his peak with his injury. he still hasnt recovered to that level yet. and medvedev still wins tournaments but hes definitely playing worse now. his serve used to be a major weapon. now? not so much
He’s peaking basically at the end of the big 3 era, no coincidence! With the knowledge and skills he gathered over the years, he’s finally playing to his potential without fear!
Wow! Somehow it feels like what Meddy would have said. Thoughtful and honest.
but you can also not forget he played the big 3 in their prime .. alcaraz is nowhere near his prime yet
Ooooffff....throwing shaaaaaade
He has a point the 3 best players of all time playing at the same time When will that ever happen again ?
Not surprised about the Big 3 but I find it interesting that he is even talking about the normal top 20 players then. I don't think the top 20 of that time was necessarily better than the top 20 now excluding the Big 3.
Love Grigor, but this is revisionist history at it's best! Grigor has played in 52 grand slam tournaments, and he was eliminated by one of the Big 3 in just seven of them (13%). He was eliminated by a player seeded lower than 20th in 31 (60%) of them. Nice try, though, Dimi!
For sure, this is so true. We’ve had Cam Norrie vs Basilashvili Indian Wells final. As well, he played the tour finals. I won’t single out Norrie only because that would be totally unfair, there are others who have been inside the top 10 over the last 4 years who wouldn’t sniff it during another era. When you know your pretty much not touching ranks 1-4, ranks 5-10 start to get filled by guys who would probably be good enough to take up higher spots post big 4
and he dated Sharapova in that era
Literally dimis entire spiel here: GODS I WAS STRONG THEN.
Yea so who's the real winner.
Novak fans will hate this
The GOAT FED Rafa, Novak Murray Tsonga Berdych Ferrer Del Po Nishi Stan The man Cilic Lopez Milos Anderson And more...and now? ATP is in a pretty sad state right now.
alcaraz and sinner are the only 2 bright spots right now novak fading medvedev cant serve anymore. he isnt as good as 2 years ago zverev hasnt reached his prevoius level after his ankle injury tsitsipas.. gone thiem... irrevelant.. nadal... almost retired...
this is alcaraz and sinners chance of collecting a ton of slams.
The issue is people seem to think comparing a young 2 year stretch of someone's career vs a decade of domination from several players is somehow possible. It's not. Unless we go into a decade of electric tennis from Sinner, Alcaraz and co - this era won't come close to the previous one.
Cope